|
|
Posted by Steve King on 12/21/07 13:35
"David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:476af1cb$0$11001$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
> Canon certainly got their act together on this one - the
>
> HV20 is one heck of a good tiny HD camcorder! The
>
> picture at the wide end is superb (very sharp to the
>
> corners, free of artifacts, and with excellent color and
>
> color neutrality). Zooming through the (marked) zoom
>
> range away from WA to about 1/2 way gradually
>
> introduces a tad of CA, but nothing bad and with
>
> nothing else to complain about. Zooming to about 3/4
>
> of the range toward tele introduces still more CA, but
>
> it is acceptable, and sharpness, while declining a bit,
>
> is still very good. Beyond that point, the image quality
>
> declines rapidly, the CA is excessive at the long end,
>
> and sharpness isn't all it could be (but I prefer WA, so
>
> this isn't a "deal breaker" for me). In the zoom range I
>
> will use it in most of the time, the picture quality is
>
> astonishing (viewed on a particularly sharp 42" LCD
>
> at 6.5'), especially for the absurdly low price of $750
>
> (and with a $75 gift card thrown in to cover some
>
> accessories, at B&H). I thought I would miss a Lanc
>
> input, but Canon has provided not only a nice zoom
>
> control for a small camcorder (with an unusually slow
>
> lowest speed - very nice!), but a menu selection for
>
> choosing a fixed zoom speed so you can "mash" the
>
> controller and still get a predictable zoom rate. To my
>
> surprise, the "peaking" and 2X magnification aids for
>
> helping with manual focus were quite usable. Also to
>
> my surprise, the 24P mode was not as ugly with
>
> motion as earlier versions (of 30P) that I tried were.
>
> The "film mode" did help with skin color under some
>
> conditions, and appeared to help with highlight
>
> blow-out (but I have not checked this carefully, and
>
> I generally prefer the look of "standard" mode...).
>
> There are some modest-range picture-modifying
>
> controls, but I have not yet checked out these. I
>
> went through many of my shelves full of WA lens
>
> converters, and was surprised how good four of
>
> them looked, but all but one was less than perfect.
>
> The VERY wide Sony ES-06 was *very* slightly
>
> soft in the corners and had some slight CA, but it is
>
> compact and very light (but ***ANY*** dust on
>
> its front shows as big blobs in the image, so I will not
>
> use it...). One generic fisheye adapter was quite sharp
>
> and extremely wide, but my camcorder CCD is
>
> decentered top to bottom, so the cropped circular
>
> image is not satisfactory without further cropping in
>
> post (this reminds me that the HV20 VFs show quite
>
> a bit less than the full recorded area - and that the
>
> various available VF grids and lines were too
>
> intrusive). The Raynox .66X was quite good, but it
>
> was not fully zoom-through, and at the wide end it
>
> was bettered a bit by the winner, a Canon WD-58.
>
> This .7X was designed for the Canon GL-1, but
>
> was excellent on the various Sony 58mm-threaded
>
> Mini-DV camcorders (see comparison frame grabs
>
> here from various 58mm WA converters --
>
> www.donferrario.com/ruether/WA-converters.htm).
>
> Though rather heavy, it appears to affect the image
>
> in no way I can see, throughout the zoom range. It
>
> may still be worth trying the far smaller and lighter
>
> $200 .7X made for the camcorder, though... I did
>
> find that the camcorder is not left-eye friendly, and
>
> I also found it useful to put small sticky-backed bits
>
> of soft material at the VF top corners to protect
>
> eyeglasses from the hard VF surround material.
>
> Since I shake, I use a large handle that extends up
>
> and forward on the left side, and I may add a belt
>
> pod (I have a tank of a pro fluid-head video tripod,
>
> but.......................................;-). Anyway, this
>
> camcorder is amazing! The output is a huge
>
> improvement over even the best Mini-DV, and while
>
> it is well short of the very best broadcast HD, it looks
>
> to me to be about up with "average" HD broadcast
>
> quality, not a small thing for such a cheap and simple
>
> camera.
>
> --
> David Ruether
> d_ruether@hotmail.com
> http://www.donferrario.com/ruether
Okay. I'll admit that I am not much of a techy, when it comes to
photography and lenses. So, I had to look up 'WA'. Google is my friend:
Cocaine Anonymous, or a virus solution, or the state of California, or
Chartered Accountant, or Certificate Authority, or Computer Associates, or
the chemical symbol for Calcium. I think I'll go with calcium. Grrrrrrrr!
Steve King
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|