View Full Version : HV20 with more equipment or XH-A1 with less equipment
2007 December 16th, 00:38
I have on a 5 grand budget. I am currently planning to get the HV20 in a few days. My question is, should I get the HV20 and use the extra 4 grand for equipments or get the XH-A1 and have less equipment? Is the picture quality of the HV20 inferior to the XH-A1? Can an HV20 carry an entire feature length film with enough equipment? Thanks.:hv20-smilie03:
2007 December 16th, 03:43
Even with XH-A1, you still need to get something like UV filter, wide angle lens adapter, tripod, extra batteries, portable charger, external mic. The same goes with HV20. I like the overall output from the Xh-a1 but HV20 isn't bad either. I think it also depends on how "pro" you want to be.
2007 December 16th, 07:18
Even the A1 needs a wide angle adapter? I was under the impression that it had a wider zoom out than the Hv20.
2007 December 16th, 07:25
The picture quality of the HV20 is not much inferior. With an adapter it blows the XH-A1 away. I'd rather get some good lights with the money. If you don't have to show off in front of clients, I would say, go this route.
2007 December 16th, 12:10
The A1 is wider than HV20 but I still need the WA lens adapter as I always shoot in tight area / small room. It is a must for me. The Canon WA lens is expensive... almost $500.
2007 December 17th, 00:15
I did a price comparo before I bought. If I remember correctly, it will cost you about 4k-4.5k to get a full setup (light kit included) with the hv20. The same will be about 5.5k-6k for the a1. The costs equalize because with the hv20 your budget starts to skyrocket once you add the 35mm lens adapter+lenses. Also, with the hv20, you have to upgrade your sound system and power system.. compared to the a1.
In the end I when with the hv20 because I did not want to break the 5k barrier, plus I kinda liked the idea of using 35mm lenses. I learned so much about camera/lens fundamentals by doing so. However, I do sometimes regret not getting the a1, especially now that I'm starting to blow a lot of money on 35mm lenses.
2007 December 17th, 03:42
Well, you still need a 35mm-adapter for a XH A1 if you like to get the same shallow depth of field. It's not a question of either HV20 and 35mm-adapter or XH A1. A full XH A1 package will cost 8k but I guess more. I went the HV20 way also and with an editing station (okay macbook pro) I will spend 6.5k without lights and only with two nikkor lenses.
2007 December 17th, 17:35
I guess my logic was that the A1 will allow for better control of in camera DOF because of the built in aperture and exposure options. Add a couple of ND filters to the budget and you will be able to get nice DOF. Also, a 35mm adapter with the a1 will render useless that awesome zoom and features like rack focus. So yeah, if I got the a1 I woulnd't get a 35 lens adapter..
2007 December 18th, 03:31
That's not really the case (it's sensors are even smaller from what I know). And as with a 35mm-adapter the only manual controls are more or less the on/off-button and shoot-button, because the HV20 acts as a capture engine.
I would get the letus extreme and the HV20, and some good old nikkors (look at red.com, there's a thread for lens tests). If you have something over: Lights all the way!
2007 December 18th, 11:20
Here is footage using the HV20 with their Brevis adapter.
To find out more about that setup you can just go to cinevate.com and click into their forum.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.