|
|
Posted by Chip Gallo on 12/21/07 15:12
David Ruether wrote:
> Canon certainly "got their act together" on this one - the HV20 is one heck
> of a good tiny 1-chip 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 the
> tele end 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, and 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 that I will use most of the time, the
> picture quality is astonishing when viewed on a particularly sharp 42" LCD
> TV at 6.5', especially for the absurdly low price I paid for the HV20 ($750
> at B&H, with no shipping and a $75 certificate to help cover accessories).
> There are no evident oversharpening or MPEG2 compression effects, and it is
> surprising that even with the high picture compression used, no artifacts
> appear with motion (at least that I have seen so far). The HV20 uses Mini-DV
> tape (tape has advantages over the DVD and hard drive recording systems for
> image quality, editing, and storage - and I use the same Sony "Ex" tape that
> I used for my Mini-DV camcorders). To my surprise, the "peaking" and 2X
> magnification aids for helping with manual focus were quite usable (at least
> under "easy" conditions...), though the AF appears capable of excellent
> focus most of the time. The HV20 viewfinders show quite a bit less than the
> full recorded area, and the various available VF grids and lines I find too
> intrusive to use. 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. Also to my surprise, the 24P mode is not as ugly with motion as
> earlier versions (30P) that I have seen. The "film mode" did help with skin
> color under some lighting conditions that resulted in a too-red color, and
> it appeared to help with highlight blow-out (but I have not checked this
> carefully, and I generally prefer the look of the "standard" mode...). "Film
> mode" also appeared to smooth out motion with 24P, but at the price of
> softening the image considerably during motion. There are some modest-range
> picture-modifying controls, but I have not yet checked these out. There are
> outputs for FireWire, RGB, headphones, etc., and various inputs, including a
> stereo 1/8" microphone jack. Having a standard shoe on top is also nice. I
> thought I would miss a Lanc input, but Canon has provided not only a nice
> zoom control (unusual for a small camcorder), but one with an unusually slow
> lowest speed - very good! And, there is a menu selection for choosing a
> fixed zoom speed so that you can "mash" the zoom controller and still get a
> predictable zoom rate. The optical stabilizer is excellent, but since I now
> shake rather a lot, I use a large handle that extends up and forward on the
> left side of this light and small camera, and I may add a belt pod (I have a
> tank of a pro fluid-head video tripod, but I dislike using it).
>
> -- Conclusion: The HV20 produces excellent image quality, and for the
> money (or even much more), you cannot improve on its performance. The output
> is a huge improvement over even the best Mini-DV (or any other SD format),
> and while it is well short of the very best broadcast HD, it looks to me to
> be at least the equal of "average" HD broadcast image quality, not a small
> thing for such a cheap and simple camera. This camcorder is amazing!
>
> -- The Canon HV20 with WA converters:
> I went through many of my shelves full of WA lens converters trying them on
> the HV20, and was surprised how good four of them looked - but all but one
> were less than perfect. The VERY wide Sony ES-06 was very slightly soft in
> the corners at wide stops and had some slight CA, but it is very compact and
> light (but ***ANY*** dust on its front shows as big blobs in the image, so I
> will not use it...). One generic fisheye adapter of many I have 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. 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 from various
> 58mm WA converters on the VX2000 at
> www.donferrario.com/ruether/WA-converters.htm). Though rather large and
> 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 Canon
> $200 .7X made specifically for the HV20 camcorder, though.
>
> --This preliminary review also now appears at:
> http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm#hv20
>
> --
> David Ruether
> d_ruether@hotmail.com
> www.donferrario.com/ruether
>
>
Thanks, Dave! You are preaching to the choir for me anyway.
I have a video using the Canon WA adapter on a marching band, mixed with
some hand held shot with the (old) Sony 3-chipper TRV900. Woof. Makes
you want a second HV20 now now now.
http://www.vimeo.com/chipgallo
Chip
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|