I am leaning towards buying the Canon HV20, but I want to know how it compares to the JVC GZ-HD7 that was just released.

If you have access to both the Canon and JVC, then let everyone know how they compare.

My main areas of interest are:

1. On the JVC unit - How do you monitor the audio? It has a "mic input" miniplug jack, but I don't see a "headphone" jack. Are you able to plug headphone miniplug into the units AV jack to listen to audio from internal/external mic?

2. Compare the resolution and color reproduction of the 2 camcorders.
- Sharpness vs Noise
(since the JVC doesn't have 24P, please record in highest quality HD/HDV at 30f/60i and indicate if you are using auto or manual settings and what size monitor you watched on)
- Which unit captures cleanest natural image?

3. Compare the OIS. I have read forum articles critical of both.
I use a tripod most of the time so I turn OIS off, but it is still nice to have OIS as an option.

4. The word is that the Canon has much better Lowlight. Compare the JVC using manual setting with say 1/60 shutter speed, wideopen iris and adjusted gain.

5. With regard to manual focusing - how do you like the JVC's focus ring vs Canon's dial?

6. any other pros and cons?

Thanks for your help.

Okay. Do you want us to hop on one leg while we does this too?? I mean seriously, go get both and return which ever one you don't like. It's your eyes that will give you the best objective view. I wrote my opinion. 24p is sharper then 60i because it captures the whole frame instead of 2 separate fields. 24p is more then enough reason for me to keep the Canon. The compression techinique that JVC is employing does indeed produce artifacts that aren't there on the tape based HDV MPEG-2 encoding on the HV20.

fineasfineas, the information is here...please do just a little research and you'll find it. Persiannight did a great job answering most of your questions in a prior thread. You might also find a nicer way to make your 'demands'.

persiannight, What local retailers will allow you to buy both cameras without returning one with a restocking fee? Best Buy? Circuit City? By the way, thanks for your comparisons of the JVC and Canon- very helpful. I haven't really found anything else on the web yet that actually compares these 2 cameras like you have. Congratulations!

I may not even bother buying both at this point. Sounds like the JVC comes up short on the pic quality. Seems like every piece of footage form the HD7 I've found online where bright sunlight is involved shows overexposure and blown out whites and reflective areas of subjects. Disappointing. I really wanted to go to a tapeless camera, but I value picture quality more.

I picked up my HV20 lastnight, and my inital tests looked very good.

I am leaning towards buying the Canon HV20, but I want to know how it compares to the JVC GZ-HD7 that was just released.


I've listed quite a few comparisons on another thread as well. For ME, the HV20 is better than the GD7. I can't guarantee that for you but judging by the questions you're asking, I think the same would apply to you.

Something that I didn't mention is that the HV20 has better battery life from my testing. For me, that's a *very* important criterion.

Like many video gadget junkies, I have been waiting for first inexpensive camcorder to record Full HD video. The JVC looks great on paper, but I wanted to hear from others, so I checked out various AV forums.

It is nice that PersianNight went out and bought both the HV20 and GZ-HD7 to share his comparison tests with forum lurkers like me. I take from all his posts to the many AV forums that he wanted to let everyone know that the HV20 is a better camcorder.

I thank PersianNight and appreciate that he spent his own money to do the tests.

Since it will be a while before I can hop over to an electronics store to see for myself, I wanted to post some other requests for comparisons by others who my have additional opinions to add to which camcorder is better.

Thank you

I've had a look at the HD7 sample (which Nero can both play and edit) and it's pretty bloody good considering the rather dark shooting circumstances. I'm not yet convinced that it's a lower quality than the HV20. I'd like to see further samples before people write this thing off.

I still find the reports from people who have both the HV20 & HD7 to be the most credible. Artifacting as well as other issues seem to be common with the non-tape based consumer units released thus far.

Blackbill, can you provide a link for us to the clips that you were impressed with and thought might be on par with the HV20?

I think you've seen it already... that one of the couch in the living room that persiannight provided. When I first played it through nero, I was not that impressed. But I then updated nero, played it again and it ran smooth and clean. The close up of the fabric in the pillow was pretty impressive considering the low light condition. I saw no artifacting that was mentioned.... and it WILL edit with Nero. (But let's not be mistaken here... at this point I never said it is "ON PAR" with the HV20.... those are YOUR words... all I said at this point is that I am not yet convinced.)

So the conclusion that I have come to anyway, is that one lowlight sample does not mean a whole lot by itself. This certainly doesn't mean I'm going to rush right out and but one. They just showed up here in Canada and the price tag compared to the HC7 and HV20 is pretty high.... I would need further justification to spend the extra bucks.

So the conclusion that I have come to anyway, is that one lowlight sample does not mean a whole lot by itself. This certainly doesn't mean I'm going to rush right out and but one. They just showed up here in Canada and the price tag compared to the HC7 and HV20 is pretty high.... I would need further justification to spend the extra bucks.

blackbill, agree that there isn't enough out there to fully compare these cams yet. I know that the price difference was huge for me right now. I figure that the hundreds of dollars saved now can be applied toward the eventual HDD camcorder that Canon will come out with :)

I figure that the hundreds of dollars saved now can be applied toward the eventual HDD camcorder that Canon will come out with :)

LOL.

I wouldn't get too carried away with brand loyalty though. Canon has struck a big hit with the HV10/20.... but next year is a whole different ballgame. We're at just the beginning of this new consumer HD craze and the new cams are flowing out onto the shelves like water these days.

JVC in the past has never really been able to to stand in the same ballpark as Sony and Canon.... it looks like that's slowly changing though

And here's why people are having a tough time editing and playing from the HD7. There is supplied software WITH the cam that converts the file to mpg. Thiis from the Avid liquid board:

I just picked up this cam 2 days ago and my main concern as is/was many here. Since I've only spent one day with it so far I'll share what I know to this point.

It was stated that the cam saves its files to a .mod format which is true. .mod is an MPEG 2 type but working iwth it in Liquid is actually a breeze and my *main concern* with this cam has been alleviated thankfully.

Here's how you do it.

After you do your shooting simply plug the camera into your computer via the supplied USB cable. It is imperative that you previously install the Everio/Power Cinema software on your computer. After you either backup or copy the video files from the cams hard drive to your computers hard drive, you click on "edit" to move forward with editing the files within Power Cinema. When you do this Power Cinema automatically converts the .mod files to .mpg files creating a dupe of the mod file. I simply exit out of Power Cinema, open Liquid and import the media. So far I've only shot in the highest resolution of 1920 x 1080i and Liquid had no problem with it whatsoever. I was also able to bring the file easily into Studio 10.7 as well.

I was on the cusp of buying the Sony SR1 but the lack of AVCHD support in both Liquid and Studio concerned me (although they'll probably be supported in the upcoming patches) but I wanted a smooth transition going to a hdd hi def camera and so far I really like it. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer.

Frankly I haven't seen footage from the Canon HV20 so I can't tell you how the picture quality compares to the HV20 but what another poster stated here regarding the colors being vibrant from this JVC ... oh yes they are! :)

I also thought the colors from the JVC were too saturated.

I was on the cusp of buying the Sony SR1 but the lack of AVCHD support in both Liquid and Studio concerned me (although they'll probably be supported in the upcoming patches) but I wanted a smooth transition going to a hdd hi def camera and so far I really like it. If you have any questions I'll do my best to answer.:

I want to thank you and the others who have been sharing your experiences with the new JVC and HV20.

I like to use external mics, so I wanted to know how the recording/monitoring and playback sounds.

1.
If you and/or others have the ability, please test the unit and report on the amount of mechanical noise from the JVC and/or Canon when using onboard mic and external mic.

2.
On the JVC unit - How do you monitor the audio? It has a "mic input" miniplug jack, but I don't see a "headphone" jack. Are you able to plug headphone miniplug into the units AV jack to listen to audio from internal/external mic?



Thank you

I can answer part of #1.

I'm using the Canon DM-50 with great success. No mechanical noise and I can monitor the level with headphones.

Using the HV20.

Kyser

I think you've seen it already... that one of the couch in the living room that persiannight provided.

If that's the clip you're talking about, no, I wasn't impressed. Narrow exposure latittude can be seen whether the clip plays smoothly or not. The JVC has this problem as have other JVCs. I think persiannight's comparison appears pretty accurate.

As a proud owner of the HV20 I decided to download any GZ-HD7 user clips and the review clip from the Japanese site for comparison. I must say that I was somewhat shocked by how much worse the HD7 video looked compared to my own HV20 footage and the user posted stuff. The HD7 seems to lose way too much detail in the image, saw autofocus hunting quite a bit and the dreaded purple fringing was very evident in some of the footage. Maybe somebody will post some impressive HD7 video, but I sure haven't seen it yet. For $600 more than the HV20 I don't care if NASA designed its better feeling body, the picture quality just doesn't come close from what I have seen.

It is not at all a fair comparison with the samples from the jap site. They are NOT a good likeness for ANY of the cams they review. The samples are WAY too compressed, edited, and converted. In other words, it is not raw footage that you are looking at. There is only one authentic sample that I have seen so far that persiannight provided. It was a little dark but pretty good.

The jap sample for the HV20 was even out of focus in the shot with the candles and swinging balls. If you want to look at the Jap samples, then you must take them with a BIG grain of salt.

This is not to say that the HD7 doesn't have problems, or it is better than the HV20.... just to say that the jap site does a pretty bad job with its samples.

Blackbill, even with compression, certain problems in the camera can show up. Blown highlights, even when the footage is compressed, can be seen. As I said, those that own the camera and better still, those that own both the JVC and the HV20, are in a better position that any of us to see this.

What reinforces my feeling is that what I see in the clips are precisely the issues the owners are talking about. So compressed or not, what I see is apparently what the owners themselves are seeing.

BTW, the term 'jap' is quite derogatory in this day and age. ;)

I'm not debating the quality of the cam here Ken... all I'm saying is that the JAPANESE site does not give good representation of ANY cam in their samples.

I use the term JAP merely because I am too lazy to type the whole thing out... I use ENG for english and BRIT for the British.

I'm not debating the quality of the cam here Ken... all I'm saying is that the JAPANESE site does not give good representation of ANY cam in their samples.

I use the term JAP merely because I am too lazy to type the whole thing out... I use ENG for english and BRIT for the British.

That's okay, hopefully you don't have a syndicated tv/radio show... :p

I use the term JAP merely because I am too lazy to type the whole thing out... I use ENG for english and BRIT for the British.

I know what you're saying. ;)

That's okay, hopefully you don't have a syndicated tv/radio show... :p


Yeah, otherwise Jessie & Al will be knocking at the door! :D

I use the term JAP merely because I am too lazy to type the whole thing out... I use ENG for english and BRIT for the British.

Yes, but ENG and even BRIT were never used in a derogatory manner. Please do not use the short form for Japanese again, it has a very negative history behind it.

Thanks,

Kyser

I'm not debating the quality of the cam here Ken... all I'm saying is that the JAPANESE site does not give good representation of ANY cam in their samples.

blackbill, I don't disagree about the overall quality or methods of the Japanese reviews. However, I most certainly wasn't basing this opinion just on that. I have downloaded and viewed "out of the box/point and shoot" HD7 videos from new users that appear to be as close to raw as user HV20 samples I have seen, and I am just not at all impressed. Yes all of these camcorders can be "tweaked" to provide a better picture, but average joe initial footage seems like a fair comparison of quality. Here are links to some videos from another forum, judge for yourself.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GR8RKP1Z

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=46CLZDH0

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LATJOD4Z

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IIAXY2T0

No doubt the HDD aspect and look and feel can hold a certain coolness factor, but I prefer to have my family memories captured so that the videos themselves have that WOW factor ;)

No doubt the HDD aspect and look and feel can hold a certain coolness factor, but I prefer to have my family memories captured so that the videos themselves have that WOW factor ;)
From my own experience I can't tell you how many times people had come to ask me if the HD cam I was using was the new kind that recorded to hard drives. There is no doubt that HDD cams will impress your friends and family a lot more than tape based HD cams.

From my own experience I can't tell you how many times people had come to ask me if the HD cam I was using was the new kind that recorded to hard drives. There is no doubt that HDD cams will impress your friends and family a lot more than tape based HD cams.
The image won't. ;)

The image won't. ;)

Aint that the truth!

I'm not debating the quality of the cam here Ken... all I'm saying is that the JAPANESE site does not give good representation of ANY cam in their samples.

I use the term JAP merely because I am too lazy to type the whole thing out... I use ENG for english and BRIT for the British.

Not to stray too off topic here but JPN is a perfectly good alternative for J-P, which is a deragatory term. And JPN has the same number of keystrokes even! :p It's worth mentioning only because all the major consumer camcorder manufacturers are Japanese and this is a term that might pop up from time to time.

From my own experience I can't tell you how many times people had come to ask me if the HD cam I was using was the new kind that recorded to hard drives. There is no doubt that HDD cams will impress your friends and family a lot more than tape based HD cams.

Such is the way of things.

I think people expect that all technology will follow the path that portable audio devices took. Many people started out with tape, moved to optical disc, and are now at hard disk or flash memory. Arguably, the technology advanced progressively.

As we all know, however, the same path doesn't necessarily hold true for camcorders. :p

blackbill, I don't disagree about the overall quality or methods of the Japanese reviews. However, I most certainly wasn't basing this opinion just on that. I have downloaded and viewed "out of the box/point and shoot" HD7 videos from new users that appear to be as close to raw as user HV20 samples I have seen, and I am just not at all impressed. Yes all of these camcorders can be "tweaked" to provide a better picture, but average joe initial footage seems like a fair comparison of quality. Here are links to some videos from another forum, judge for yourself.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GR8RKP1Z

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=46CLZDH0

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LATJOD4Z

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IIAXY2T0

No doubt the HDD aspect and look and feel can hold a certain coolness factor, but I prefer to have my family memories captured so that the videos themselves have that WOW factor ;)

I was only able to download the first...I think there's something wrong with the site. But based on the first, it's hard to believe the OIS can be that bad. It's either that or the guy that shot it has epilepsy. I got nauseous watching it. :rolleyes:

Persiannight could you (or blackbill) please post the link to your samples comparing hv20 to hd7? I searched, but could not locate them ... :confused: ...appreciate your help.

I never posted samples. I don't know where that rumor started but I never posted samples. LOL.

Interesting... :rolleyes:

Persiannight, could you kindly post them? I have a HD7 (unopened, still in box) from Circuit City bought for $1350. I want to see side-by-side comparision with HV20 to see if I should return and switch to Canon. You have done this comparision (A BIG THANK YOU), but I wish to see the videos...esp. the fish tank one you mentioned.

I can answer part of #1. {How much mechanical noise when recording?}

I'm using the Canon DM-50 with great success. No mechanical noise and I can monitor the level with headphones.

Using the HV20.

Kyser

Kyser- thanks for the comments regarding HV20 sound recording. I have read reports on various forums that the Canon produced some mech noise. They quoted various -dB levels, then the same tester said that his 2nd round of audio tests produced less noise, sort it may have had more to do with test environment. I am curious how the JVC sounds with the HD running?

Going by all the forum reports, users are saying that they like the HV20 picture better. I was looking forward to Full HD camcorder, but it appears that JVC's compression for 1920x1080 at only 30mbs introduces too much noise/artifacts.

I will want to know how JVC's HDV recordings compare and if having the latest/proper video codecs make a difference when playing back video image.

I look forward to seeing other controlled comparison tests, like camcorderinfo.com usually does.

So I am still leaning toward the HV20.

Interesting... :rolleyes:

Persiannight, could you kindly post them? I have a HD7 (unopened, still in box) from Circuit City bought for $1350. I want to see side-by-side comparision with HV20 to see if I should return and switch to Canon. You have done this comparision (A BIG THANK YOU), but I wish to see the videos...esp. the fish tank one you mentioned.

He mentioned above that he never posted these clips.

Kyser- thanks for the comments regarding HV20 sound recording. I have read reports on various forums that the Canon produced some mech noise. They quoted various -dB levels, then the same tester said that his 2nd round of audio tests produced less noise, sort it may have had more to do with test environment. I am curious how the JVC sounds with the HD running?

Going by all the forum reports, users are saying that they like the HV20 picture better. I was looking forward to Full HD camcorder, but it appears that JVC's compression for 1920x1080 at only 30mbs introduces too much noise/artifacts.

I will want to know how JVC's HDV recordings compare and if having the latest/proper video codecs make a difference when playing back video image.

I look forward to seeing other controlled comparison tests, like camcorderinfo.com usually does.

So I am still leaning toward the HV20.

That small a difference in resolution will not make a visible difference IMHO. Especially since you're still getting 1080 vertical resolution. And the 30mbs is a variable bit rate I believe wheres HDV is a constant bit rate at 27mbs

http://www.listvideo.com/details.php?image_id=125

Here is a link to a great comparison video. You be the judge. You may have to pay $2.99 to download it though.

I had a GZ-HD7 for 2 days before I returned it due to what I can only assume is a serious design flaw. Here are my impressions of the HD7 compared to my HV20:

The colours are more accurate with the HD7 in good indoor light (in my limited testing)-perhaps due to the 3 CCD's instead on 1 CMOS. As the light level decreases, the HV20 retains accuracy of colours better than the HD7. The visible noise is more noticeable in the HV20 as light decreases but it retains sharpness better. To make an analogy, to me the lower noise in the HD7 in lower light looks like an image from a digital still camera that has had noise reduction applied-lower noise, but a less sharp image. The HV20 in low light looks like an untouched digital still image-more noise but definitely sharper.

I like I like the look of flesh tones a little better with the HD7 in good light only. The HV20 still look sharper, and looks very nice in Cinema mode in good light.

I love the feel of the HD7. It is solidly built and just looks and feels way more professional. It is bigger and somewhat heavier than the HV20-fine by me. Having random access to all of the footage on the camcorder is great. Visually searching through the footage is available at 1X, 3X, 5X, 15X and 60X, in forward and reverse, and is very smooth. The large manual focus ring on the lens is very nice. Being able to easily and independently adjust shutter speed, aperture (iris), and exposure (gain?) is great.

The auto focus is much faster with the HV20 at all light levels.

Transferring the footage to the computer is easy enough, but as other early reviewers have stated, editing is more problematic. The included PC software, Cyberlink PowerDirector, is slow and clunky. Another reviewer has mentioned that the Mac Quicktime plug-in for Final Cut doesn't work very well. So, editing is still iffy.

If everything else where equal between the 2 cameras, I might have actually kept the HD7 instead of the HV20.

However, there is one HUGE problem with the HD7: The optical image stabilization is terrible. No matter how steady I hold it in my hands there is constant visible shake. I am not talking about shakiness while walking around with the camera. I have a Steadicam JR to smooth that out. I am talking about standing still with the camera, with my elbows braced against my body-unacceptable shake is visible at all time, even at wider lens settings, At telephoto settings it is very bad. I noticed no difference turning OIS on or off. How can a $2000 (Canadian) camera have such a poorly designed system? Just to make sure that I didn't get a lemon I tried a second HD7 in the store I bought it from. It had exactly the same problem with shakiness with the OIS on.

The HV20 on the other hand is amazingly stable in the same circumstances, even at extreme telephoto (10 X optical).

I have posted a back-to-back comparison video of both cameras with their optical image stabilization on. The difference is astounding. The video can be found at:

http://www.listvideo.com/details.php?image_id=124

As persiannight has mentioned you may have to pay a small monthly fee to download videos. They have recently changed the rules about downloading videos.

The video that persiannight has provided the link to (at listvideo.com) a few posts above was taken in decreasing levels of light at the same time with both camcorders mounted on tripods. Both were set in shutter priority at 1/30 second, auto white balance, autofocus.

I returned the HD7 because of the poor image stabilization as I use the camcorder handheld (or on my Steadicam JR) most of the time. If you would be using it on a tripod most of the time then it wouldn't be as much of an issue for you. Although I feel the image quality is overall better with the HV20, the image quality with the HD7 is good enough FOR ME that I may have kept it had the image stabilization worked well. I loved just about everything else about the camcorder. Being able to drag and drop video files from the camcorder directly to the computer was great. I would hope that the editing limitations would be resolved as more NLE's support the new format, if indeed they do down the road.

However, I do love the HV20, and am amazed at the image quality one can get out of this little camcorder, especially for the price.

http://www.listvideo.com/details.php?image_id=125

Here is a link to a great comparison video. You be the judge. You may have to pay $2.99 to download it though.

Persiannight, I think all you have to do is look at the opening frame that's shown on the link....that pretty much tells you where the video is going. The JVC looks muddy by comparison. ;)

The optical image stabilization is terrible. No matter how steady I hold it in my hands there is constant visible shake. I am not talking about shakiness while walking around with the camera. I have a Steadicam JR to smooth that out. I am talking about standing still with the camera, with my elbows braced against my body-unacceptable shake is visible at all time, even at wider lens settings, At telephoto settings it is very bad. I noticed no difference turning OIS on or off. How can a $2000 (Canadian) camera have such a poorly designed system? Just to make sure that I didn't get a lemon I tried a second HD7 in the store I bought it from. It had exactly the same problem with shakiness with the OIS on.

The HV20 on the other hand is amazingly stable in the same circumstances, even at extreme telephoto (10 X optical).



Wow. I looked at one of the other clips that was linked above and couldn't believe how shaky the footage was. Frankly I thought it was the user and not the camera....afterall, how could an OIS be that bad. I guess it is. Amazing. :rolleyes:

Wow. I looked at one of the other clips that was linked above and couldn't believe how shaky the footage was. Frankly I thought it was the user and not the camera....afterall, how could an OIS be that bad. I guess it is. Amazing. :rolleyes:

Here's yet another contradiction:

A quote from Smithe at http://www.smilson.com


Well I bit the bullit and picked up the HD7. I picked up at Circut city for $1399.00. If I had pre-ordered at Video Only I could have gotten it for $1299.00. First impressions is its a nice cam! I captured at a wedding we did Sat. and am impressed with the footage quality. I have 2 citydisc recorders that cost $900 each I use with my cameras and the JVC came with a 60 gig hard disk recorder built in. I like that feature as there are times your thinking where do I make my tape change? No worries about when to make that tape change now!

I was able to download the 2 hours of footage to computer and it took about 40 minutes from the JVC to the computer then another 15 minutes to convert to mpg, I used the software that came with the camera to do this, next time I am going to simply drag and drop to my hard drive to see if there is any difference. Once the conversion takes place it imports into Liquid as a native format as 1080/59.49i, 1920x 1080- 16.9 (square) MPEG-2MP@HL (M2V).

The quality is nicer than my sony 2000s (I have always loved the image from these cams) for the most part. Low light is always the bugger but at most receptions we always use camera lights. I am loading the footage today from the citydisc captures and I will let you know some comparisons when I am finished.

I will also post some footage for you to see as well...........Edd


This is why I'm have such a hard time with this cam.... there's so much contradicting info!

Well yes, the HD7 by no means has BAD image quality. It's just the Canon is better.

:p

Here's yet another contradiction:

A quote from Smithe at http://www.smilson.com





This is why I'm have such a hard time with this cam.... there's so much contradicting info!

Not sure why you think this quote is a contradiction blackbill. First off he's doing a wedding which should mean he's using a tripod. If so, that says nothing about OIS. There are simply too many people commenting about the poor implementation of OIS in this cam not to beleive it. Where there's smoke.....

Second, he's comparing it to his VX2000!!!! That's a STANDARD definition camera that I've used for years...it does not do HD. If the JVC can't beat that, it's time for it to fold up its tent and go home!!! The HV20 makes my Sony VX2000 or VX2100 look like a toy camera.

Third, as any wedding videographer would do, he's using lights! So once again, that says absolutely nothing about the low-light capability of the JVC.

So in the end I find nothing contradictory about this report. ;)

I've had the JVC for about a week now and I see two things that are a little off with all the converstations about it. First, the OIS is not that bad. Its not as good as the Canon(which I've also used), but its not bad. Second, for everyone who has the JVC, hook it up to your TV using the HDMI cable. The video is night and day better then on the computer and I would say better then the Canon. I think the problem is the players used on the computer don't quite have the correct codec for the video from the JVC. Give it a try and let me know what you think.

I've had the JVC for about a week now and I see two things that are a little off with all the converstations about it. First, the OIS is not that bad. Its not as good as the Canon(which I've also used), but its not bad. Second, for everyone who has the JVC, hook it up to your TV using the HDMI cable. The video is night and day better then on the computer and I would say better then the Canon. I think the problem is the players used on the computer don't quite have the correct codec for the video from the JVC. Give it a try and let me know what you think.

.
Hmm... I had both hooked up to my TV via HDMI and the JVC had artifacts in the picture that were not exhibited on the Canon. And yes, the clips were taken outside in good lighting

phat78boy,

The 2 copies of the HD7 that I used both had pretty bad OIS (and yes it was turned on in both). Perhaps there is unit to unit variability...quality control issue? Before a prospective buyer purchases one they should check the OIS for themselves, if they can.

So in the end I find nothing contradictory about this report. ;)

Anybody wanna add more contradictions? ;)

I've just got my HD7 today and started playing around with it. OIS and low light capabilities are my first two concerns, based on discussions here. Tried a short clip inside a room with only one 40w light bulb diffused by a tinted glass. However, it looked quite good, at least to my eyes, when displaying to a 37" Pana plasma thru HDMI ...

Blackbill, why don't you just get the JVC and be done with it? At least give it a try if you really believe in it. I sure would if I thought the way you apparently do. You seem to be looking for someone, anyone to say it's as good or better than the Canon. Find out yourself. ;)

Anybody wanna add more contradictions? ;)

BTW, you first have to show me where the 'first' contradictions are in the piece you posted before you use the term 'more' contradictions. ;)

I pointed out that there were none.

Blackbill, why don't you just get the JVC and be done with it? At least give it a try if you really believe in it. I sure would if I thought the way you apparently do. You seem to be looking for someone, anyone to say it's as good or better than the Canon. Find out yourself. ;)

I don't think I have said a WORD about canon today??? where do you get this from???

All I'm saying...... AGAIN... is that there seems to be a lot of conflicting info.

BTW, you first have to show me where the 'first' contradictions are in the piece you posted before you use the term 'more' contradictions. ;)

I pointed out that there were none.

I have to spell it out...you can't read?

Smithe is saying that it is relatively easy to capture, convert, and edit.... the opposite was posted before.

I don't think I have said a WORD about canon today??? where do you get this from???

True, 'today'. :D



All I'm saying...... AGAIN... is that there seems to be a lot of conflicting info.

I think it's a 100% accurate statement that the concensus from the JVC owner's posts thus far have not been very good. Pretty hard to argue with that don't you think?

I have to spell it out...you can't read?

Smithe is saying that it is relatively easy to capture, convert, and edit.... the opposite was posted before.

Oh I can read fine blackbill. If you read my post which you yourself QUOTED in your 'contradiction' post, you would have seen how I was talking about the poor implementation of OIS in the JVC. So it's logical to assume you were trying to show that this guy contradicted the OIS issue. Otherwise why would you have used my quote?????????????????????????

Ultimately we are still talking about the picture quality of the unit. Most potential buyers could care less about the ease of editing if the quality is not there in the first place. But I suppose there may be some buyers who don't really care much about that.

This is such a passionate subject!! The JVC vs. The Canon. I must say, I am bias towards Canon. I love their digital SLR's and camcorders. The JVC displays much more CA then the Canon. You cannot fix for that unfortunately. It IS depressing that something with such a nice build doesn't put out the picture to match it. I was reaalllyyy on the fence before returning the JVC HD7 today. I wanted to be better then the Canon because I loved the build.... but ultimately it fails.

Oh I can read fine blackbill. If you read my post which you yourself QUOTED in your 'contradiction' post, you would have seen how I was talking about the poor implementation of OIS in the JVC.

Ultimately we are still talking about the picture quality of the unit.

So which is it Ken?

First you say you're talking about OIS then you finish by saying you're talking about PQ???

Persiannight, the clip I downloaded that was very shaky did show the CA you spoke of. What I found strange was that there was CA even in the center of the frame. You generally see evidence of CA in a lens toward the edges of the frame. The Canon A1 is an example. You never see it in the middle of the frame, but only at the edges.

I suppose that guy could have had a partiuclarly bad lens, but did you see evidence of this in areas other than the edges of the video?

So which is it Ken?

First you say you're talking about OIS then you finish by saying you're talking about PQ???

Um, the reference to OIS was simply to prove you wrong. You posted my quote about OIS and then went on to post a report that indicated a supposed 'contradiction'. It obviously didn't.

I then went on to discuss that in the end, the ease of editing is irrelevant if the picture quality isn't there. I think that would be true for the vast majority of buyers of any camera. I think it was all pretty clear and not a case of 'which is it'.

............. was simply to prove you wrong............

Yes... you certainly spend a lot of your time TRYING to do this........... can't help but wonder why.

At any rate we're starting to step off the topic at hand. As I originally stated, there seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this cam... if you want to dismiss the cam so fast then that is certainly within your right. Me... I'm not yet convinced that this cam SHOULD be altogether dismissed as flippedly as you seem to believe.

Yes... you certainly spend a lot of your time TRYING to do this........... can't help but wonder why.

Simply because misinformation does nobody any good. There's already far too much of that on AVS.


At any rate we're starting to step off the topic at hand. As I originally stated, there seems to be a lot of conflicting info on this cam... if you want to dismiss the cam so fast then that is certainly within your right. Me... I'm not yet convinced that this cam SHOULD be altogether dismissed as flippedly as you seem to believe.

"Flippedly"??? No blackbill, I've stated many times that the process for editing or watching footage is too tedious for my likes. I like to simply hook up the camcorder to the HDTV and be done. If I'm doing something for work that's one thing, downloading, editing and uploading are necessary evils. For my fun stuff I simply don't want to bother.

As to the picture quality of this unit, I think there have certainly been enough posts from objective people to cause grave concerns. The footage from these cams that have been posted have also created grave concerns.

But as I said before, if I were as intigued as you with the cam I'd just buy the damn thing and try it. If you don't like it you can return it. But that's me.

Simply because misinformation does nobody any good. There's already far too much of that on AVS.






Mmmm... right back at ya ;)

As for purchasing the cam... maybe I will... then maybe i won't... that's my business not yours, and i can't remember ever asking your opinion in this direction.

AGAIN Ken.... if you read the posts you will find a lot of conflicting info.. some saying OIS is terrible, some saying not bad..... some saying color is "vibrant" some saying it is "saturated".... etc, etc. If you can't see this conflicting info then I suggest you take the blinders off because it's there in black and white.

It may be very well a QA issue with the OIS. Both myself and a friend bought one a week ago and neither has had that much problems with it. That being said, it is not the best, but it is definitely not the worst either. As far as the quality of video, it might be an auto vs. manual item? Although we have shot the same footage on both cameras, one on manual and one on auto and neither had the artifacts others are seeing. I will say that on the computer, the video looks pitiful. It seems to me the Nero player does the best job thus far.

Mmmm... right back at ya ;)

As for purchasing the cam... maybe I will... then maybe i won't... that's my business not yours, and i can't remember ever asking your opinion in this direction.

AGAIN Ken.... if you read the posts you will find a lot of conflicting info.. some saying OIS is terrible, some saying not bad..... some saying color is "vibrant" some saying it is "saturated".... etc, etc. If you can't see this conflicting info then I suggest you take the blinders off because it's there in black and white.

The bottom line is that nobody raves about its picture quality. Nobody raves about its OIS. If the best we can find on OIS is 'not bad', I would not call that a 'ringing endorsement'. If anything there are far more complaints in these areas than praise. An objective evaluation of this information would lead you to the conclusion there are better choices in cameras if picture quality is your number 1 buying criteria. If it's not then so be it. As for color, two people using the terms 'saturated' and 'vibrant' are certainly not necessarily 'conflicting'. Different people might use those very two words to describe the same picture. I myself might tend to use these terms in an interchangable manner. But you accuse me of putting blinders on and the way I see you is someone that's extremely anxious to find something positive about the cam....anything positive. It's point of view blackbill, it's point of view.

If we had half of the owners saying the picture is fantastic and half saying it's mediocre, THAT would be 'conflicting'. If we had half the owners saying the OIS is fantastic and half saying it's the worst they'd ever seen (as the clips I've seen show), THAT would be 'conflicting'. But one guy describing the color as 'vibrant' and another as 'saturated' is by no means 'conflicting'. They are very close in describing the same picture attribute.

As far as you purchasing or not, the reason I said that is that you seem pretty determined to find someone that will praise the unit. Generally that indicates someone that has a predisposition toward buying it. You've already stated that you like the idea of a non-tape based camera, so it would make sense for you to try it from some place that has a return policy. I bet you'll love the camera, but that's just a guess. One thing is for sure, based on what's out there now in terms of owner's comments, it surely does not look like the best cam for picture quality.

It may be very well a QA issue with the OIS. Both myself and a friend bought one a week ago and neither has had that much problems with it. That being said, it is not the best, but it is definitely not the worst either. As far as the quality of video, it might be an auto vs. manual item? Although we have shot the same footage on both cameras, one on manual and one on auto and neither had the artifacts others are seeing. I will say that on the computer, the video looks pitiful. It seems to me the Nero player does the best job thus far.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to do an A/B on the same scenes with another HDV cam. Some scenes may induce artifacts in some cams and others may not. Scenes wtih fine detail in movement can induce artifacts in some cams and not others. But could some issues with the JVC be QC in nature....hell yeah! I've had enough JVC VCRs to know how horrible their QC is. The threads on JVC's D-Theater D-VHS decks were almost comical to read as people exchanged unit after unit after unit to get a properly functioning one. I was one of them. Once you got a good one, many were literally afraid to use it for fear it too would go south.

So it could indeed be that some issues might be QC in nature. But it would be fun to get a known good one and do an A/B with a known quality HDV cam.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to do an A/B on the same scenes with another HDV cam. Some scenes may induce artifacts in some cams and others may not. Scenes wtih fine detail in movement can induce artifacts in some cams and not others. But could some issues with the JVC be QC in nature....hell yeah! I've had enough JVC VCRs to know how horrible their QC is. The threads on JVC's D-Theater D-VHS decks were almost comical to read as people exchanged unit after unit after unit to get a properly functioning one. I was one of them. Once you got a good one, many were literally afraid to use it for fear it too would go south.

So it could indeed be that some issues might be QC in nature. But it would be fun to get a known good one and do an A/B with a known quality HDV cam.

What are you talking about??? A person has said they do not see the artifacts that were discussed.... I said the same thing above. Now you're saying "MAY", "can", "some cams" and then we go off on a tangent ditching JVC vcr's!? You talk to me about misinformation!?

Blackbill, you are so lacking in objectivity, it borders on being humorous. It is a FACT that some scenes WILL induce artifacts in certain camcorders and those SAME camcorders will shoot other scenes that will not show it. So we need to know what scenes were recorded and how demanding they were. Shooting a person's face and shooting a closeup of a tree in a gusty wind with branches moving back and forth are two totally different scenes. I've seen clips from the JVC that DID show artifacts.

You apparently don't have much experience with HD or you would have known this. It is true in professional broadcasting and true with consumer camcorders. I'm deeply sorry if this upsets you. A given scene can be either very demanding on the encoder or not demanding at all.

My response to the poster regarding his theory that it could have been "QC" issues falls very nicely in to my experience WITH JVC products. They are prone to QC issues and it was totally logical for me to inject that as being indicative that the same QC issues could have be responsible for what some are seeing with the JVC camcorder. Afterall Blackbill, it IS the same company.

No "misinformation" sir, only facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own Opinion, but not their own set of Facts - some politico said such.

I have been following all the comments regarding the latest consumer HD camcorders. It appears that most are saying that the HV20 is best, then comes the GZ-HD7 followed by Sony's HC7 and that's my opinion of the comments.

We shouldn't have to rely only on opinions for much longer. Camcorderinfo.com is having a Camcorder Shoot-Out between the 3 contenders.

Soon we will have an independent review of what these cameras can and can not do.

Blackbill, you are so lacking in objectivity, it borders on being humorous. It is a FACT that some scenes WILL induce artifacts in certain camcorders and those SAME camcorders will shoot other scenes that will not show it. So we need to know what scenes were recorded and how demanding they were. Shooting a person's face and shooting a closeup of a tree in a gusty wind with branches moving back and forth are two totally different scenes. I've seen clips from the JVC that DID show artifacts.


No "misinformation" sir, only facts.

Well, I certainly am not going to get into a debate as to my HD experience... it's a bit off the topic at hand, and you have very little idea as to my experience in the first place.

But the "FACT" that you listed here is big enough to drive a battleship through! "Some scenes", "certain camcorders"...etc. You have a strange way of listing a fact!

Here's one of your "facts" here discussing the HD7:
Thrang, this is the kind of thing I was talking about in several of my posts relative to non-tape based camcorders. It's just going to be more difficult to edit from these in many cases.

It turns out NOT to be a fact... or at least MORE conflicting info... A quote from the Avid board:

Hi all,

This is the way how to import TOD file with Liquid 7.2.

1. Connect HD7 to PC with USB cable.
2. Copy TOD file to HDD
3. Change file extension TOD to m2t.
(I think threa are some freeware to change file extension on web)
4. Import m2t files to Liuqid.

Changing the extension worked and I was able to import into liquid at the 1080/59.94i 1920x 1080 - 16x9 (square) MPEG-2 mp@hl (M2V) and was able to view and edit the files. Only tried a few but it seemed to work fine. Liquid 7.1 Thanks jony.........Edd

(and yes... I CAN provide the link if you want)

As to my objectivity... I believe it seems to be better than yours here. We all WELL know which direction you will go when it comes to choosing camcorders... you've made that pretty clear


All I continue to say is that there is conflicting info here and it needs to be better looked at... I would say that's pretty objective.

Everyone needs to take a chill pill.... jeeezzz. They BOTH produce nice HD images. However, in MY opinion the Canon produces a cleaner image.

Everyone needs to take a chill pill.... jeeezzz. They BOTH produce nice HD images. However, in MY opinion the Canon produces a cleaner image.

You're probably right... I have yet to see anything beat the canon (for PQ anyway). But IMO... this cam is getting a bit of an unfair shake (and that's NOT your fault... you gave us what you could in the short time you had the cam). But we keep hearing how this cam is hard to edit from, and mysterious artifacts that people can't see...etc

Don't get me wrong... I don't love... or hate this cam, I'm rather indifferent to it.... but let's all try to understand it before we decide it's not worth the money.

Fineasfineas, keep in mind that many have little respect for CCI reviews. If you go to DVI info you'll find many people who find their reviews inconsistent and at times lacking. Even though they gave the HV20 a great review, I do find their reviews very strange at times.

Their reviews can be 180 from other AV magazine reviews on the same product. As I recall, CNET thought the low light of the HC7 was better than the HV20 and CCI thought the reverse. You would think that this 'should' be something that everyone is in agreement on. But like so many other areas in assessing quality, it can be very subjective. I, like many, actually prefer user/owner reviews. Each source has its merits I guess.

Everyone needs to take a chill pill.... jeeezzz. They BOTH produce nice HD images. However, in MY opinion the Canon produces a cleaner image.

Agree also, except you would almost think that we are talking about two camcorders that are the SAME price or something. For this much debate I would surely think that the $500+ saved by purchasing the HV20 could be used for PC hardware, editing software, accessories or put in a kitty for the next camcorder that has everything you want :)

Well, I certainly am not going to get into a debate as to my HD experience... it's a bit off the topic at hand, and you have very little idea as to my experience in the first place.

Your familiarity with HD is NOT 'off topic' at all since you would know about encoding issues and scenes that can be demanding and scenes that are not demanding at all for these encoders. If you actually knew that, that would have been one of the first things you would have thought about when someone mentioned what you felt was another of your infamous 'contradictions'. Your first thought should have been 'well was that the same kind of scene that other owners have reported problems with'. Some scenes can be a challenge for an encoder and others may not.


But the "FACT" that you listed here is big enough to drive a battleship through! "Some scenes", "certain camcorders"...etc. You have a strange way of listing a fact!

Blackbill, your argumentative style is very childish. You try to play the 'wordsmith' game and it just falls flat. Would you like me to be more precise. OK. I'm talking about the encoder in the JVC. I'm talking about the JVC HD7. I already gave an example of what is a demanding scene and what is not. What more do you want Mr. Wordsmith? :rolleyes:


Here's one of your "facts" here discussing the HD7:


It turns out NOT to be a fact... or at least MORE conflicting info... A quote from the Avid board:


It remains a fact that as I've always said, these non-tape based camcorders demand that you offload, dump to computer and then upload to the camcorder once again for playback. Compare that to simply dropping a tape in your camcorder and playing it back. It is a fact that you need HUGE amounts of storage space as time goes on. That means additional hard drives. HD consumes a huge amount of space. These are undeniable issues with the current state of affairs with non-tape based units. When the time comes that we have $5 interchangeable media that can record 1 hour, then I'll be excited. At that point I won't have to keep dumping to the hard drive since I'll handle the media just as I would tape.


As to my objectivity... I believe it seems to be better than yours here. We all WELL know which direction you will go when it comes to choosing camcorders... you've made that pretty clear

Not by a longshot Blackbill, not by a longshot. Yes I have expressed my feelings on the Canons. But my enthusiasm for the Canon will not EVER make me blind to superior products when they will eventually come around. Since I've had the HC1, HC3, FX1, FX7, HV10 and now the HV20, I'm ALWAYS looking for a superior product. So the fact that I think the Canon is the best consumer HD camcorder on the market does not in any way, shape or form make me lack objectivity. I relish the next better cam, but I will not 'force fit' one to take that position simply because you say so. You and I have FAR different criteria for what is best, that's become very clear.

All I continue to say is that there is conflicting info here and it needs to be better looked at... I would say that's pretty objective.

Knock yourself out, no harm in that.

This thread is getting off topic.

Bottom line, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement with the picture quality of the HV20. The HD7 seems to be debatable at this early stage.

If the HD7 has other features that make you want to spend the extra money for it... go for it. I'm sure it will still put out a pretty good image, but the jury is still out.

Kyser