Canon xh-a1 best price?

[tc25]

Hi, I am going to be purchasing a new Canon XH-A1 in the next two weeks. The best price I have hunted down is £2299.99 from televisionmall.co.uk. Just wondering if anyone has come across a better deal than this. Cheers.

[Steamage]

No - that's the best I've seen. Dabs were offering £2348 a week or so back, and I think Tecno on-line were £2353.

However, consider whether you want to buy such an expensive item from an on-line retailer? I know of no specific problems with any of them (though there were some horror stories about Dabs a couple of years ago), but what will you do if you need to take it back? It might be worth asking your local high-street retailer if they'll match an on-line price, or maybe throw in a few extras (lens filter, extra batery, tapes, case, etc). I know that Jessops will often match a mail-order price, and maybe H Prestons will?

BTW what made you choose the XH-A1? I'm currently trying to decide between it and the 3-chip Sonys: FX7 and V1E.

[tom hardwick]

Yes, I too would like to know what it was that swayed you towards the Canon. £2.3k is a lot more than you'd pay for an FX1, for instance.

[Gavin Gration]

I was seriously thinkg about buying a Canon A1 recently.

Dabs never have any in stock.

I tried to see the Canon at Calumet they didn't have any either - just as well at £3231 incl. VAT!

It looked interesting to me as it has XLRs and decent low-light capability.

Lucky I didn't buy one - just picked up a Z1 with 80hrs & 16mnth wty remaining for an amazing price.

[tc25]

Hi, thanks for your replies. Well I am still in the deciding process and I have to say it is a very tricky one. Cams I have considered are:

hvr-a1p.
Z1
fx-7.
Xh-a1.

I chose the canon over the a1p because of it's large advantage in raw image power (3 ccd's v one cmos) and spot-on colour reproduction is very important to me. Also the canon has far more creative freedom and the ability to tweek the look of the footage to just how it's needed. I love the size of the sony and to be honest this was the only reason I was considering the sony, the more compact the better suited to my needs. I will be shooting in sd and I felt the a1p would be a step backwards in quality from my xm2 which I sold because of it's terrible performance in 16/9 mode. Quite simply the a1p did not have the raw image power or manual ability/creative freedom of the canon. However it is not fair to compare the two as they are in different league's altogether.

This brings me to the z1. Quite simply the size immediately put me off the z1, if it weren't for the size and weight this would have been a serious contender as I know they are rated highly and have all the knobs and whistle's I require.

The fx-7 is a far more suitable size and I looked into it closely. Firstly it seems the fx-7 suffers in low-light, due to having clear-vid cmos sensors ,(and smaller in size to xha1) and low-light ability is important to me. It is a shame though as, to my knowledge, it seems it has excellent ample light ability on a par with the xha1. The fx-7 does not have the wide diversity of manual control and image manipulation that the canon has, but to be fair it is dubbed a high end consumer cam, which brings me to fact the canon can be had for only £400 more than the sony and the fact the canon not far from blows it out of the water for spec, raw video ability (when considering low-light) and creative diversity makes it almost a no-brainer. One last point would be that the sony (like most consumer orientated cams) hides all it's functions in the depths of it's menu's, I am quite sure I would find this frustrating. The canon has all the important features out in the open and at your fingertips, not to mention an apeture ring (Good). I quite simply cannot justify buying the sony over a xh-a1 when considering a £400 price gap. After panning the sony I just have to say "no hdmi" what were canon thinking.

One last feature that caught my attention when considering the canon was the fact it has native widescreen ccd's and I believe the sony's use a stretch method to achieve widescreen although I am not entirely sure.

The value of the xh-a1 is almost outstanding. They have taken a xl-h1 and managed to squeeze it into a compact shell with the loss of features which are no use to me any way (genlock timecode e.t.c) and others which I can live without (interchangable lenses).

The sony v1u does not get a look in because it seems to me it is little more than a more expensive Xh-a1 with an over-rated function which people seem to go mad over.24P.Although I do realise this is important for people wanting a film transfer.

Please feel free to prove me wrong on anything in this post as I may have not looked into things as close as I thought and I would appreciate it if any errors/advice/info is brought to my attention as I need to make a final decision soon.
Thanks.
Tom.

[tc25]

Have just found a cheaper price, 2279.99 it is from an ebay shop, which puts me off swiftly. However they do have 99.9% positive feedback, but this just makes me think " that 0.1 percent could be me". I guess the downside to buying from an online retailer is the fact that you would have to post the item back if it is faulty, and likely have to pay the postage. Another would be that people/ companies are more likely to pull a "fast one" if you not giving them an earful directly over the counter rather than over the phone or via email.

[Michael.Bradshaw]

why don't you go to the video forum? I imagine there will be plenty of cameras around to have a look at.

[tom hardwick]

I think Michael's idea is the best one Tom - get yourself down to the Video Forum and handle all the cameras on your shortlist. This is not a decision to be taken looking at websites. You'll get a good deal from a real person in a proper shop.

I'm surprised that you consider the Z1 too large when in the same breath you talk about the V1 and the XH-A1. OK, right out of the box the Z1 will be the biggest camera, but once kitted out for war the cameras themselves start to dissappear under Rycote softies, radio mic receivers, on-board lights etc.

You seem to view CMOS chips as being inferior to the 3 CCD arrangement used by most camcorders. Yet take a look at the D-SLR world, where a single CMOS chip has ruled supreme for years, and where anyone bringing s 3 CCD block to market would be laughed out of court. I really feel CMOS is the way forward, and the fact that CCDs need to be assembled in threes and expensively wrapped up in beam splitting prisms shows their inherrent failings.

Oh, and in this corner of the woods we're all using native 16:9 chips. None of this electronic anamorphic stretch over here, young man.

tom.

[rjpobrien]

Michael and Tom have suggested the best answer but I thought I'd add that if you do buy from the eBay shop I always fine that asking the seller if they accept cash on collection is a good way of finding out if they are genuine or not. Fraudsters make all kinds of excuses but genuine sellers never seem to have a problem with this and soem will even offer to meet you somewhere a bit more convenient.

But if you can get to VideoForum then this is a far better alternative and I believe many of the exhibitors offer good discounts if you buy there!

[tc25]

I'd like to wait for video forum but it is a month away which is too long. I need to make a decision in the next two weeks. Does anyone know of a decent shop in the berkshire area which is likely to stock some of these cams and where I can view in the flesh? All the jeesops around here seem to only have lower spec models (consumer).

I do not consider a three cmos chip arrangement to be inferior to 3 ccd. I was simply pointing out it is a shame they currently have weaker low-light capabilities, an area which is important to me. As I mentioned the ample light abilities of the fx-7 it seem's stack up well to the xh-a1.

[rjpobrien]

I don't know any where in Berkshire you could go but Proactive in Hemel Hempstead are very helpful and also have good demo facilities and reasonable prices. Its not a million miles away so I would highly recommend a trip to see them, can't recommend them enough really.

HTH,

[oddball]

Does anyone know of any good places on london. I'm rather old fashioned in that I like to speak to someone face to face before purchasing.

This is probably one that will go down on my most stupid question of the year so far.

But all the places that I am looking at are not based in london. And I cant really travel out of london currently - long story so I will not bore you.

Regards

Ever so slightly odd??

[StevenBagley]

Last time I walked down Tottenham Court Road, the shops seemed to have almost all the difference variants of camcorders in stock.

It is an expensive walk if you are not careful though (I ended up buying a Sony HC1 there).

Steven

[Alan Roberts]

Steven's right, TCR is a great place to start. Then Edgeware Road, places like HiWay. I managed to find bits that other shops had told me either don't exist or haven't been made for years. Mind you, I've also been told some hilariously funny versions of the science, and found it very hard to keep a straight face in the shop. In one, I ended up handing over my business card, then had the pleasure of seeing a slow change of expression happening as I explained to him what he was demonstrating. Doesn't happen often, but it's nice when it does.

[Steamage]

If you're not happy with the FX7 because of it's smaller range of image "tweaks", but the Z1 is a bit too big, then why not try the Sony V1? I believe delivery of the PAL version has been held up pending a firmware fix, but they ought to be available again soon.

Personally, I think the FX7 (priced around £2k on-line or £2199 on the high street) may be just what I need, but having used a Canon XM1 for 6 years, and prefered its picture to friends' VX1000 & VX2100s, I've been wondering if it might be worth the extra £300 - £500 for the XH-A1?
- I'm not fussed about 25F/P, but the extra audio facilities could be really useful (balanced and unbalanced inputs and a hybrid auto-with-manual level control).
- Then there's the greater range of image control options. I have often wished for a choice of presets for sunny days, gloomy days, well-lit railway stations at night, badly-lit stations, and so on. I can't imagine I'd fiddle with the settings much once I'd got a few good ones, though. Alan R: how well do you know either camera? Can you comment on how useful the extra image parameters might be to an enthusiastic amateur?
- I've always thought the Canon lenses were the pick of the bunch.
- The Sony chips are 1/4" vs 1/3" in the Canon, but I've lived with 1/4" chips in the XM1 without compaint. Maybe I'm weird, but I like lots of depth of field. I've seen comments that colour fringing is no better nor worse in the two cameras, despite the different chip size.

On the other hand:
- the Sony's CMOS chips are supposed to give greater exposure latitude (so more detail in the shadows) and certainly don't suffer from flare from headlights, etc. in the way that CCDs do.
- Also, the XH-A1 is unable to zoom and focus at the same time when in manual focus, which is not a problem on the Sony, AFAIK.

I don't think I'm prepared to pay £3K for the V1, though.

So... I need to get my hands on both to really make a decision. Better still, I need to borrow one of each and spend a day playing with them on the Watercress Line.

Unless anyone knows of an irresistable USP for one or the other?

[Alan Roberts]

I know the Z1, analysed it for the BBC, but not the Canon. BBC's policy is now that HDV is not admissible for HDTV production as the prime camera. It's fine for POV and specialist shots, but not for main footage. The policy is actually simpler than that; 1"/2 and smaller sensors are all classed together as "not broadcast". I had no part in that decision, and it seems a bit of a blanket ban, but I support it nevertheless.

Ever smaller sensor sizes result in ever smaller pixels, which lowers sensitivity and increases noise. And that's why low-light performance is poor.

[tc25]

It's not just the more "tweekable" image, it's just as much the higher overall spec of the canon and the not-so good low-light performance of the fx-7. The problem with the v1u for me is I cannot justify spending an additional £600 over an xh-a1 when there is not much to show for it, whereas I can easily justify spending an additional £400 going from a fx-7 to the canon. My ideal camera would be the xh-a1 in a body the size of the fx-7/xm2. To be honest I would never have sold my xm2 if it weren't for it's rubbish cropped widescreen mode. Just thought id mention I've found a cheaper price for the fx-7 at only £1808, although it's from an online retailer.

[Smithnc]

Is there any difference in the MPEG compression in these cameras. I have yet to see my HD output on an HDTV but when I review my Sony A1 HDV output on my PC occasionally there is some ugly compression artefact. Even my wife said what's that!
Do the more expensive cameras do it better, is there a difference between Canon and Sony?

[Alan Roberts]

MPEG2 specifies the data format, not the coder. It offers a set of tools for the designer, which gets better with every implementation, so some software coders might well be better than others. However, I don't expect there to be many different hardware coders available for camcorders, so I'd be a bit surprised if different cameras perform differently. But, MPEG compression depends crucially on having a clean input signal to work with, and the A1 generates some rather nasty spatial aliasing because of less-than-perfect decoding of the Bayert pattern and inadequate coder filtering; it's what you'd expect from a consumer camera, made down to a price.

So, the problems you see with an A1 are more to do with the camera than the MPEG compressor.

[Steamage]

So, the problems you see with an A1 are more to do with the camera than the MPEG compressor.
Just to be clear - you are refering to the Sony HVR-A1, not the Canon XH-A1, aren't you? This is becomming a source of confusion in serveral places... Thanks for your helpful comments, BTW.

On a related topic - I know a couple of people who have decided not to move from DV to HDV because they think moving objects (steam trains in this case) do not look good enough, especially if the camera is panning or zooming, because the MPEG2 compression struggles with the motion. It may be a case of an insufficient improvement over DV to warrant the increased cost, which is obviously a personal judgement. I just wondered if anyone else, with experience of using HDV cameras, shares this reservation?

[Alan Roberts]

Yes, Sony A1, I've not seen a Canon, and don't expect to. I did settings for the Sony only because I bought one, it wasn't part of my BBC work. And I endorse comments about MPEG, it should never be considered as a capture standard, and it's the main reason why XDCAM isn't popular in the BBC.

Last year I spent some days in France, following the Tour with my Sony A1. MPEG wasn't a problem for me, mostly because I kept the lens wide open and made the pans fast enough to blur backgrounds considerably. If you understand the limitations of your kit, you can often find ways around them, but it certainly concentrates the mind.

[dominicwitherow]

On a related topic - I know a couple of people who have decided not to move from DV to HDV because they think moving objects (steam trains in this case) do not look good enough, especially if the camera is panning or zooming, because the MPEG2 compression struggles with the motion. It may be a case of an insufficient improvement over DV to warrant the increased cost, which is obviously a personal judgement. I just wondered if anyone else, with experience of using HDV cameras, shares this reservation?

This is because HDV is made up of 12 frame GOP (the image from 1 frame is then tranfered into a sequence of 12 frames) intelligently made to look like a normal flow of frames. Thus, rapid or irregular movement can be easily misinterpreted by the computer in the camera and give a duff result. This is also why a dropped frame in HDV can be disasterous, as you end up losing a whole half second (thanks to other forum users for explaining this to me recently).

Dominic

[Alan Roberts]

It' a lot harder than that though :(

MPEG2 divides the frame sequence into Groups Of Pictures (GoP). In HDV 1080-line, the GoP length is 12 frames, but in 720p it's only 6 frames unless you've got a JVC200 series camcorder in which case it's back up to 12.

In each GoP, the first frame is coded on it's own, called an "I frame". Compression of this frame is effectively by MJPEG, where the two fields of an interlaced pair are treated independently. Then, throughout the remains of the GoP, frames are coded according to differences from the I frame in that GoP and the I frame at the start of the next GoP. There can be "P frames" where the content is predicted only from the history, and "B frames" where the content is predicted from both history and future. Only the I frame can stand alone, so a dropout that kills an I frame kills the entire GoP. In the cleverer coders, the predictions get better because they pass a crude coding into a decoder, and then compare the output of this decoder with the input, and adjust the coding to reduce the errors.

To make all this possible in the coder, 12 input frames are held in a store, and the output sequence is scrambled such that the frames arrive at the decoder in the order that they're needed. You get some idea of all this when you burn a dvd and look at the log file (or, at least I do when I use Ulead MovieFactory).

So, there are many different flavours of MPEG2, depending on how much time can be spent on the coding, and how much grunt is available.

[Steamage]

I'm going to Creative Video near Redditch tomorrow to make a nuisance of myself trying the XH-A1 and V1E (they have the FX7 in stock, but not a demonstrator). I'll take the old XM1 along as a benchmark, to give myself an idea of what their monitors are like, and so on. I'll start by shooting some stuff in the town on the XM1. There are no trains near at hand, but moving traffic should be good enough: a few zooms and pans at different speeds. I'll also try to find some shots with wide dynamic range, since that is something I have struggled with on the XM1. Then round to the shop, collect the salesman and cameras, see if we can repeat the shots, and finally back to the shop to review on an HD monitor to see how they look. I'm also interested in the look of down-converted material since it will be a few months before I can upgrade my computer for HDV editing...

[Unicorn]

I just wondered if anyone else, with experience of using HDV cameras, shares this reservation?

I've never seen a problem yet even when I've deliberately tried to create one. I have seen some bad still shots captured from HDV, but unless you're stepping through frame-by-frame even that probably wouldn't have looked too bad.

The one single major problem I have with HDV is color grading on large areas of similar colors (e.g. grey walls). Push the grading too much and all kinds of nasty artifacts jump out to bite you because the MPEG-2 compression threw away most of the detail. I've heard similar complaints from others who do post work on HDV.

[Alan Roberts]

Yep, that's right. You can't do much grading work on it.

[Steamage]

Just in case anyone was following this story and wondered how I got on at CVP, comparing the XH-A1 and Sony V1, let me finish the tale... At one point, I decided that the FX7 was the right choice, and since they didn't have any in stock, left the shop and went off to have lunch. However, I kept thinking of things I hadn't tried, so went back after lunch. I bought the Canon - but don't ask me why! I'm rather afraid the answer is "because they didn't have an FX7 in stock and I wanted to take something home with me". Driving home I kept trying to work it out. I don't regret my choice, but it wasn't completely rational. Just in case it will help someone else, but mostly as therapy for myself, let me try to sum up my opinions:

The Sony has a number of advantages:
- £500 cheaper (FX7 - not V1) - i.e XH-A1 is 23% more expensive.
- Bigger LCD;
- Wrap-around eye-cup;
- Smaller size and a little lighter (the Canon won't go in my old LowePro knapsack with the lens hood on);
- The display shows the shutter, aperture and gain even when you are in full- or part-auto, whereas the Canon only shows you the settings you have control over at the moment, so if you are in shutter priority (Tv), for example, you can't see what effect your shutter-speed choice has on the iris.
- No problems with cover flaps over headphone & LANC sockets (the Canon is not very well designed in this respect).

So why buy the Canon?
- Although it was quite hard to do straight A/B comparisons (only one HD monitor, had to keep swapping component cables), the Canon's picture looked better: clearer and with better colours, though I guess there's an awful lot you can do to make either one look "better" or "worse". I took the salesman's word for it that they were both using factory default settings

- Bigger chips have to be better (don't they?) not withstanding the claims for CMOS, e.g. better exposure latitude. Though I thought I could see this effect, I wasn't certain.

- Likewise, the Canon "L" lens is the pick of the bunch, isn't it?

- More functions were controlled by buttons on the side of the camera, and I found the Canon menu easier to navigate than the Sony. In particular, I think that the 3-position gain and white-balance switches (both customisable) could be very handy. At the moment, I have the gain switch set for -3, 0 and +6 db, though I've only used 0 so far. (The Sony does not offer -3 db, though you can set an upper limit for auto gain.)

- I don't have an XLR microphone at the moment, but I intend to get one. The Canon has both balanced and unbalanced audio inputs, allowing me to upgrade easily when I'm ready, without having to buy a Beechtek box or similar.

- I already have a couple of batteries that will fit (though my largest one, Keene Electronics' own-brand, got stuck in the battery compartment as predicted. I told the salesman not to push it all the way... Happily, he managed to get it out by shaking the cam. gently!)

- The slowest zoom speed is slower than the Sony, and I understood how to select speeds straight away, whereas I got a bit confused with the Sony.

- My Canon ZR-1000 LANC remote control worked with both cameras, but it worked better with the Canon, especially when selecting fixed zoom speeds.

- I'm replacing a Canon XM1 and somehow I feel more comfortable sticking with what I know.

- When I thought of it as an XL-H1 without the coax sockets and a fixed lens it started to look like excellent value. I'm also getting extra toys (25F, all those picture profile tweaks). I know, the V1 has them too, but that's even more expensive!

Anyway, the agonising choice is over, and having got the angst out of my system with this post, I'm going to concentrate on getting the best out of the camera. One thing that I could do with is some help with what the various "tweaks" can do for me. The manual tells me only how to change each one, in a very bald fashion. I need something like a FAQ that explains what all the parameters do and when they are important. I've seen some of them mentioned in passing (in relation to low light?) but nothing that puts it all in one place. I'm going to do some searching and reading, but can anybody recommend a good starting place, please? I gather that there are some useful "white papers" on the Canon XL-H1 site that are also applicable to the XH cameras.

By the way, I'm very grateful to the folks at Creative Video in Studley, Warwks., who let me play with the cameras for hours (literally). There are cheaper on-line sellers, but CVP have the best prices that I could find for a retailer where you can actually go there yourself.

[Christian Lett]

They're a very helpful lot at CVP. They let me play with various cams before I settled on the JVC, and matched other retailer prices quite happily. I will always buy from them in future (and have since bought our Sennheiser kit).

[tom hardwick]

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on whether Canon add an L to their lens markings or even if Sony re-christen their Sony lenses as Zeiss. The 'Sony' lens on my VX2000 was every last bit as good as the 'Zeiss' lens on the Z1 (though the T* coating on the Zeiss is better).

Both cameras are built down to a price and both cameras give you the most zoom with the widest maximum aperture with the least noticeable aberations. If they can get away with giving you less, they will.

So I'd say you did well. The clincher has to be the 1"/3 chips - the bare minimum for a proper camera. This has little to do with low light capabilities or with weight and bulk, but most to do with photographic control of dof.

On top of that there's the better position for the screen, and as you say - more actual knobs and buttons to quickly push. I never thought the XM2 was a patch on the VX2100 and the XL series never took off like Sony's PD line, but now that Canon have copied the FX1's silhouette they're onto a winner.

tom.

[kat]

Thanks for the info Steamage, I've just ordered one, and it was good to read your review. I got a great quote for one from Gearhouse in Watford, it's not the cheapest but I'd rather go to a proper place than get one from online. It's a little safer if anything goes wrong.

Creative Video were friendly on the phone, but never got back to me with their quote, I guess they just couldn't match Gearhouse. Either way I thought it was pretty rude.

I'm a member of the GTC so you do tend to get discounts if you mention them.

[robo]

Steamage (and others) might find this site of help:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/watchdog.php

There is also a link for the XL series if you look at:

http://www.dvinfo.net



robo

[kat]

I got mine today and it's looking good so far. I haven't recorded anything yet, but have played around with the settings and taken stills and it seems well designed and easy to use. I'll let you know what I find after using it for a few days. With some friends we might get together and compare it against the Z1.

Kat