New Sony HDR-HC1E HDV Camcorder

[Richard Payne]

Just got one of these to test and....................

On the downside it's a bottom feeder.
Lots of menu based controls
7 Lux (but a nightshot mode for All Saints video making)

One the upside its about £1250inc VAT
The picture looks stunning
It is tiny. You could loose it in a big pocket !

Put it side by side on against an FX1 and it was impressive but obviously not as good.

I would buy one - a fantastic holiday/baby camera but if you turned up to a professional shoot with it they would think you were an Umpa Lumpa.

[Gyr]

"Put it side by side on against an FX1 and it was impressive but obviously not as good"

I assume that is in terms of picture quality, not (male jewellery) looks. Is the picture:-
1. Worse if you look carefully.
2. Worse on even a casual look.

I'm interested because there are times when having a second, much smaller camera would be useful.

Thanks

[Gavin Gration]

Thanks for the info - I was just about to buy a used TRV950 off a bloke in the classified section ;)

[Unicorn]

There's an interesting review on another site (hopefully it's OK to link to it here :)):

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-HCR-HC1-Review.htm

From that review it looks like it might be the TRV950 of the HDV generation: for that price I don't see much reason for any even semi-serious videographer to continue shooting DV rather than HDV.

[Richard Payne]

"Put it side by side on against an FX1 and it was impressive but obviously not as good"

I assume that is in terms of picture quality, not (male jewellery) looks. Is the picture:-
1. Worse if you look carefully.
2. Worse on even a casual look.

I'm interested because there are times when having a second, much smaller camera would be useful.

Thanks

Somewhere between the two - sorry to be vague but quality is so subjective.
Both David Clarke and I looked on a 32inch LCD TV and thought the FX1 had more clarity and 'depth' but the little guy would fool someone who doesn't stare at this stuff all day like us. Will take it out of the office.

Very interesting review Unicorn.

Incidently the HDR-HC1E feels about 1/3 smaller than the TRV950 and half the weight !

As for you Gavin - TRV950s are fabulous !!!! ;-)

[JMCP]

Richard, where have you seen this camcorder for £1250 ? I had a look on HPrestons website and they are quoting £1699.



Cheers John

[johnpr98]

Google Search 1
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?prod_code=PON05E000029&Prod_name=Sony%20HDR-HC1E%20Hi-DEF

£1,299.99 incl VAT

Google Search 2
http://www.empiredirect.co.uk/content/products/details/html/SON-HDRHC1E.htm

£1,219.46 incl VAT

[JMCP]

Thanks John.



Cheers John

[bcrabtree]

Strongly recommend a browse of this forum dedicated to the HC1:
http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24

Among the good stuff there are sample videos and stills to download and a hugely informative 18-page thread by Kerr Cook covering his time with an HC1.

Bob C

[womblingfree]

I only saw one of these today in my local electronics store and I'll now be getting one asap. It really is a lovely camera to hold, like a toy but with a stunning image.

I certainly wouldn't be embarrased turning up to an shoot with one. I'd just feel knowingly smug that I was about to have stuff put on the TV shot with a camera the same price as the Producers shoes.

It's not broadcast quality obviously but more than up for the job of 2nd unit makeover/gardening shows. Probably better than what they currently use.

I'd been saving for the FX1 but this little thing looks more than up to my needs once I've stuck my sennheiser mic on the top and XLR adaptor on the bottom.

I live in Japan and am able to get things tax free so the HDR could be had for around £800, a few hundred more for the PAL version.

PAL?

[infocus]

It's not broadcast quality obviously but more than up for the job of 2nd unit makeover/gardening shows. Probably better than what they currently use.

I'd been saving for the FX1 but this little thing looks more than up to my needs ........
I'll probably agree with you about the suitability for 2nd camera use, but there is one important qualification and that's the light level it's being used in. In good daylight it may stand up reasonably well with a Digibeta etc but as the light goes down the difference will become glaringly obvious and it won't be even *close* to "broadcast quality" - all while the Digibeta still looks great.

I just happened to catch the end of a daytime BBC show, obviously shot with a PD150/170. There were a couple of daytime shots (not too bad), and an interior sequence, which was frankly appalling for quality.

Fom what I've heard, I feel a lot happier about this camera than the FX1 though. I'd happily buy it for general personal use where a small camera is most important. The FX1 is too big and heavy for that, but not really pro enough for other work (at least compared to such as even the HD100).

[Alan Roberts]

Yep, I'll go along with all that. The HC1 is aimed squarely at the consumer and is the right camera for it. The FX1/Z1 falls neatly into the hole between consumer and pro, not cheap enough to consumer, not flexible enough to be pro. In my unchanging opinion, that is.

[infocus]

I don't know about falling neatly - I'd say it fell uncomfortably between the stools of the HC1 and the JVC HD100....... ;) But I think we're both saying fundamentally the same thing.

[Richard Payne]

Yep I'm parting with my hard earned to get one of these. Another reason its good for me is that the High Capacity battery and Wide Angle adaptor from my TRV950 fits it. Its a weird looking fish with both of these attached but great for holidays/birthdays and baby pics. Also the 3MP stills will be very useful.

[womblingfree]

I'll probably agree with you about the suitability for 2nd camera use, but there is one important qualification and that's the light level it's being used in. In good daylight it may stand up reasonably well with a Digibeta etc but as the light goes down the difference will become glaringly obvious and it won't be even *close* to "broadcast quality" - all while the Digibeta still looks great.


I wasn't comparing it to a Digibeta! Although the fact that you think I was without ridiculing me to the moon and back shows how far these cameras have come.

I worked on several high(ish) profile shows and while Digibeta was always used for the main stuff the 2nd unit stuff was filmed usually on a VX1000 or XL1, although sometimes just a very bog standard handycam. It's surprising (or perhaps not) how much stuff on cheap TV actually is shot with consumer cams.

I'll save blushes and not mention any names. Anyhow this Oompa Loompa Cam is better than most we used given the right conditions.

[infocus]

I wasn't comparing it to a Digibeta! Although the fact that you think I was ........
No, I didn't think you were, but being a "2nd unit cam" implies it is likely to get intercut with such as Digibeta. Ignoring "usability" and accessory issues, what I'm saying is that with a fair wind (or at least a lot of light) it won't look too bad when intercut, but in such as an average tungsten lit interior it won't be difficult to tell the difference...... (Small, single high res chip versus 3x 2/3" chips just isn't a contest!)

[womblingfree]

How does the image on the HDR compare to the VX2100 that is still selling at considerably more?

[Richard Payne]

How does the image on the HDR compare to the VX2100 that is still selling at considerably more?

In all good lighting conditions very well - and proper 16:9 performance for DV. In HDV mode it is obviously better - again as long as the light level is reasonable. It is certainly no worse in low light than by TRV950.