|
|
Posted by mv on 10/05/67 11:45
In message <4445f2b0$0$23200$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Specs
<No.Spam@Thanks.com> writes
>
><>
>> 3 x Sony Z1
>> 1 x Sony A1
>> 1 x JVC HD101
>>
>> We also hire in HDCAM
>>
>> That's all, the rest are obsolete.
>>
>> Would I prefer a PD170 (not PD150) to any other small chip DV including
>> the XL2, the DV100 and the JVC DV500? Without a doubt!
>>
>John,
>
>How do the three cameras above compare. I am familiar with the image
>quality of the Z1 but am interested to hear about the A1 and the JVC. There
>has been a lot written about these cameras mostly by what I consider
>unreliable sources. I'd be interested in your real world non bullshit
>opinion if you'd care to give it.
>
>Cheers
>
>
It's a case of what you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings.
All three have their pros and cons. The JVC is actually a personal
plaything of one of my associates. I would not have bought it but it's
actually quite a nice bit of kit.
I like all three for their superior high definition picture and ability
to provide top notch 16x9 images in standard definition too.
JVC HD101
I like;
The full bodied metal chassis, the potential of the lens system,
pleasing high definition picture. Shoulder mounted ergonomics, Clear
Scan or Variable Scan as JVC calls it. 720p/24 and NTSC compatible
720p/30
I don't like;
The limitations of 720p, (1080i can be converted losslessly to any
interlaced or de-interlaced format, whereas 720p doesn't do so well
converting up to 1080i) The camera is well suited for acquisition for
film transfer but not so great for television.
Whilst the lens system offers potential, with adapters, the standard
16x5.5 lens is definitely more useful than the fixed types but no better
in optical quality. To really exploit the system the cost is such as to
question the whole premise. Similarly the standard battery set up is
very thirsty requiring the PAG option for practicality and improved
balance for that matter, but again it all costs a lot extra,
particularly with Sony's HDV version of the DSR450 offering all the
progressive and interlaced modes with Super HAD 2/3rd inch CCD's due
soon.
No Y/C interface.
Z1
I like;
The compactness for low profile shooting and logistical handiness,
proven durability in rugged locations, 1080i picture quality, HDV,
DVCAM as well as DV. Cost effectiveness. Compatibility with UK
broadcasters. Very long battery life using standard batteries. LCD
picture quality and location, clean sound quality in both PCM and MPEG 2
(only when using an offset suspension mic holder as the silly mic holder
provided picks up motor hum).
1080i/60 NTSC compatibility.
I don't like:
Rather plasticy construction compared with the JVC and other Sony
cameras, though seems rugged enough in the field.
In certain settings there's an occasional tendency to 'breath' or make
unasked for half a stop exposure adjustments despite all functions being
set to manual.
A1
I like;
Excellent metal build quality is redolent of the PD170. Picture quality
that compares well in all but very low light with the Z1, with the
implication that like the Z1 it's capable of cutting seamlessly with
HDCAM, astonishing for the price and size. Compact design is
aesthetically pleasing. Unit construction allows break down of the fully
featured professional audio module for ultra low profile filming while
still retaining useful audio recording via the in built stereo mic.
Relatively accurate auto functions (just as well seeing as how the
manual controls are tiny and lack the ergonomic latitude of other
professional cameras). DVCAM option.
I really like to have the A1 in my tool bag even though it only gets
used for perhaps less than 5% of footage on a typical Z1 shoot.
I don't like:
No manual over ride of the auto gain (though mitigated by the fact that
at 0db the single CMOS device is only good for lux 7. The gain is
effective though and relatively noise free to 12db, even at 18db the
noise levels are not totally beyond the pale.
No 1080i/60 mode
Small lens limits creative camera work though considering the give away
price and microscopic specifications it would seem churlish to
criticise.
Too many controls only selectable in the touch screen menu. Again
though, what does one expect from such a small body? In mitigation of
which is the fact that it provides most of the control set ups expected
on a professional camera.
Whilst I'm certain that many good looking documentaries and even
features will get shot on these, it's really more useful as a second
unit on location or for any high definition work where only such a tiny
camera can get the shots.
--
John Lubran
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|