|
|
Posted by David Ruether on 12/20/07 22:50
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
[Back to original message]
|