HV40 Camcorder review up on Camcorderinfo.com

Bill Strehl · 2009 October 7th, 15:07

For those still thinking about an HV40 or other Canon camera, checkout the HV40 review at:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...view-37194.htm

While there are many good points in the review, I can't help but wonder if the proverbial, "The HV ship has already sailed" may have come to pass, especilly if you throw in DSLRs into the mix.

Frank · 2009 October 7th, 17:55

I read the first comment on the review...ouch!

C.W.M. · 2009 October 7th, 19:25

They speak highly of the HF S100 in that review. That mimics comments I've seen here and elsewhere comparing it with the HV series and why I bought the HF S100. But, yes, dSLR appears to be the future for budget-minded independent filmmakers. Things are definitely going to get interesting in the next year.

2Bdecided · 2009 October 8th, 06:54

Check out the comments under that review though - this is a really sloppy review from CamcorderInfo, with plenty of very basic mistakes.

I don't know if the overall conclusion is correct or not, since (unlike previous HV series camcorders), this one seems to have been reviewed by someone who is slightly clueless about video.

For now, for whatever reason, HVx0 camcorders here in the UK remain very expensive, both new and used, so someone is still finding some value in them!

Cheers,
David.

dsclark · 2009 October 8th, 13:43

Maybe I didn't read the review too closely (I hate the different sections you click), but I didn't see anywhere a test of the OIS. In the past, they used a machine to induce shake and they would score stabilization with it. Also, are all the numbers (like resolution) same as for the HV20 they tested?
I thought it unusual that it took so long to review this cam as they usually do reviews sooner.

C.W.M. · 2009 October 8th, 13:57

The guy who wrote those comments either misunderstood or doesn't know what he's talking about. The review clearly state that the HV40 records DV (not HDV) at 853 x 480. That is 720x480 with square pixels, same as usual.

Ian-T · 2009 October 8th, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsclark

I thought it unusual that it took so long to review this cam as they usually do reviews sooner.

I agree....which is why i was surprised to see the title of this thread.

2Bdecided · 2009 October 9th, 06:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.W.M.

The guy who wrote those comments either misunderstood or doesn't know what he's talking about. The review clearly state that the HV40 records DV (not HDV) at 853 x 480. That is 720x480 with square pixels, same as usual.

But DV is 720x480. That's what DV is. It's not square pixel, it's not 853x480, and it's not 640x480.

If it actually recorded 853x480 (or 1024x576 for the PAL model) square pixels, that would be something worth noting. But of course it does not.

Cheers,
David.

jet · 2009 October 12th, 12:43

They cant test elastic bands, i dont know if the 40 has different performance to the 30 i have but my cams colour and resolution is great, better than previous sony SR 12 and as good as a FX7 with less video noise.

Halsu · 2009 October 12th, 13:57

Somehow i find the whole procedure they use a bit silly and pseudoscientific... like, they measure resolution from moving images - by panning and tilting the camera and watching the result from a monitor. That is more or less the stupidest thing ever - the speed they move the camera affects the resolution score, and so does the motion blur / shutter speed... as if there weren't enough variables already, like the camera's sharpness and contrast settings, which affect the perceived results too.

And what's that motion test? They shoot 60i and show the motion results as field-blended 30p video? No mention of the shutter speed they used, which is about the most important factor for motion characteristics besides frame rate? What the heck are they thinking?

ejolson · 2009 October 12th, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsu

Somehow i find the whole procedure they use a bit silly and pseudoscientific...

I would give more weight to the subjective information from the comparison sections than the test scores. It would be nice to see the results of shootout between the Canon HV40, Canon HFS100, Panasonic TM300, JVC GZ-HM400 and the Sony HDR-XR520V that includes clips of original camera source and the best results after post along with a complete description of settings and work flow.

Gombix · 2009 October 30th, 18:19

today I'm getting my HV40 and I cant wait to write a review lol
I tested a lot of different camcorders (big fan of Sony) but for the price range we are talking about here you cant get anything better then HV30/40!!!
btw hello to everybody!!! You guys are cool and really know your shi!!!! thanks a lot for all that knowledge!!!

mgalvan · 2009 October 30th, 22:14

Interestingly enough, I recently bought a Canon HF S10 to replace my HV40, but I returned it cause I thought it wasn't really any better than the HV40. In fact, after looking at the footage, I think the HV40's footage is nicer.

The main thing I noticed is the white balance on the HV40 is more on the warmer side than the HF S10, which I like.

2009 October 7th, 15:07	#1
Bill Strehl Valued Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Fulton, MD (just south of Columbia) Posts: 68	HV40 Camcorder review up on Camcorderinfo.com For those still thinking about an HV40 or other Canon camera, checkout the HV40 review at: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...view-37194.htm While there are many good points in the review, I can't help but wonder if the proverbial, "The HV ship has already sailed" may have come to pass, especilly if you throw in DSLRs into the mix.

2009 October 12th, 13:57	#10
Halsu . . . geeking out over Scarlet Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 1,945	Somehow i find the whole procedure they use a bit silly and pseudoscientific... like, they measure resolution from moving images - by panning and tilting the camera and watching the result from a monitor. That is more or less the stupidest thing ever - the speed they move the camera affects the resolution score, and so does the motion blur / shutter speed... as if there weren't enough variables already, like the camera's sharpness and contrast settings, which affect the perceived results too. And what's that motion test? They shoot 60i and show the motion results as field-blended 30p video? No mention of the shutter speed they used, which is about the most important factor for motion characteristics besides frame rate? What the heck are they thinking? __________________ Balanced audio hack Variable ND filters HV20 vs. Film "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
	1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

2009 October 30th, 22:14	#13
mgalvan Junior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: New York City Posts: 15	Interestingly enough, I recently bought a Canon HF S10 to replace my HV40, but I returned it cause I thought it wasn't really any better than the HV40. In fact, after looking at the footage, I think the HV40's footage is nicer. The main thing I noticed is the white balance on the HV40 is more on the warmer side than the HF S10, which I like. __________________ www.galvanHD.com www.cinemascopefilms.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009 October 7th, 17:55	#2
Frank HV20 Addict Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 573	I read the first comment on the review...ouch!

2009 October 7th, 19:25	#3
C.W.M. Valued Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 60	They speak highly of the HF S100 in that review. That mimics comments I've seen here and elsewhere comparing it with the HV series and why I bought the HF S100. But, yes, dSLR appears to be the future for budget-minded independent filmmakers. Things are definitely going to get interesting in the next year.

2009 October 8th, 06:54	#4
2Bdecided Legend Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Bedfordshire, UK Posts: 1,255	Check out the comments under that review though - this is a really sloppy review from CamcorderInfo, with plenty of very basic mistakes. I don't know if the overall conclusion is correct or not, since (unlike previous HV series camcorders), this one seems to have been reviewed by someone who is slightly clueless about video. For now, for whatever reason, HVx0 camcorders here in the UK remain very expensive, both new and used, so someone is still finding some value in them! Cheers, David.

2009 October 8th, 13:43	#5
dsclark Valued Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 35	Maybe I didn't read the review too closely (I hate the different sections you click), but I didn't see anywhere a test of the OIS. In the past, they used a machine to induce shake and they would score stabilization with it. Also, are all the numbers (like resolution) same as for the HV20 they tested? I thought it unusual that it took so long to review this cam as they usually do reviews sooner.

2009 October 8th, 13:57	#6
C.W.M. Valued Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 60	The guy who wrote those comments either misunderstood or doesn't know what he's talking about. The review clearly state that the HV40 records DV (not HDV) at 853 x 480. That is 720x480 with square pixels, same as usual.

2009 October 12th, 12:43	#9
jet Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 309	They cant test elastic bands, i dont know if the 40 has different performance to the 30 i have but my cams colour and resolution is great, better than previous sony SR 12 and as good as a FX7 with less video noise.

2009 October 30th, 18:19	#12
Gombix Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: San Diego Posts: 21	today I'm getting my HV40 and I cant wait to write a review lol I tested a lot of different camcorders (big fan of Sony) but for the price range we are talking about here you cant get anything better then HV30/40!!! btw hello to everybody!!! You guys are cool and really know your shi!!!! thanks a lot for all that knowledge!!!

Sponsored Links