Canon XF100 vs JVC GY-HM150U?
Which one would you get and why? The Canon is about $500 more. I only shoot concerts. Take a look at my YT page for an idea of what I do. I would also be using my 2 HV30's with it if that would make a difference. I know one is CMOS and one is CCD? I don't understand what's better. As good/better low light performance as the HV's preferred. Thanks for any thoughts. Or of you all think there is another option in the 2.5-3k area. Cheers.
EDIT: have a PC
Canon: Better codec, better image, better ergonomics, bigger sensor.
JVC: Smaller, cards are cheaper
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Thanks for the input. Ya I was leaning to that one actually. The 4:2:2 thing? Still unsure how the codec works? My hv30 captures .m2t files via Vegas which my PC loves and has no issues mixing 3-4 cams. Would the XF100 be similar?
I mix footage from XF100 and HV30 without any issue in FCP X. When shot in good light, I can match HV to XF footage automatically (works in about 90% of all cases).
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
I used to own 2 JVC cameras:GY-HM100 and GY-HD100 (later the predecessor of HM-150), both were crap. HD-100 was horrible in low light, problems with controls (like no ability to achieve smooth iris control). You could not even use polarizer filter without a pair of tweezers! (due to recessed lens design). XF100 is 10 times better and the extra costs is totally worth it. My advice is: don't buy JVC- their equipment brakes down and support sucks! Go with Canon.
Yup, I second that regarding JVC camcorders. The consumer crap is indeed CRAP. Their pro gear is apparently much better.
One of my earliest filming experiences was with an SD JVC hard drive camcorder... back then it was great, but I was a young buck and it was the only camera I had access to. The latest HD JVC cameras I've had experience with were just horrid. They can't deal with colour AT ALL... not one single bit of footage I shot with it was really salvagable.
Definitely go Canon, at least with that you'll get somewhat better flattering images. It's not DSLR... but you're shooting concerts, you don't need them.
GY-HD100 was considered professional line. It's a shoulder mount- lens itself was $2500 alone. The whole setup with AB battery was about 7k when new. That cam was so riddled with problems it was in the shop every other month. Finally one of the CCD's was unglued, so basically I could not even sell it anymore. Called JVC and after on hold for an hour some rude guy told me it will cost me 4K for a new CCD block.Originally Posted by Daniel Rutter
Also regarding DSLR vs Xf100. XF100 contains twice the color info, which gives you twice the latitude of the dslr, which is critical particularly with green screen. I think large sensor look is way overrated, personally I am sick of it. Shallow DOF has it's space, however 99% of youtube and vimeo is full of landscape shots that start with out of focus crap. No- sorry, it's a cutaway, not some great piece of work.
A Codec is like a bar-be-que recipes: everybody says theirs it best, and every body has a secret ingredient.
In any event, the 4:2:2 simple means more video information is attained. It really doesn't matter much until you start to work with your video. Say for example in color correction, or green screening where the weak parts will quickly start to show.
Of course, thats only theoretical since I haven't had any direct experience with that camera. But have been entertaining acquiring one as my next new upgrade. I want to learn everything about it.It won't. An they're just different neither is better as they both have advantages and disadvantages. The type of camera work you do will determine which one is best suited to your needs.
Last edited by Krane; 2012 June 17th at 21:01.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote