Originally Posted by flintyplus
ken first i agree with you about pc color correction i too dont want the hassle cams nowadays should be good enough without the need unless you are making a cinema film perhaps.
you obviously used the canon ok with the lcd as it has no viewfinder i could not use either of my hdv cams outdoors without using the viewfinder[in sunny weather no way is the canon lcd better than ones on usual hdv cams.
regarding the canon color i take it you were on auto wb i have found some cams to be better using manual setting outdoors others with auto setting could the canons auto wb be the inferior point regarding best color.
i take it the sr 12 wins on build quality and overall sound.the canon has the p record mode i know.
Well now is as good a time as any to give my final assessments...far earlier than I thought I would. I shot a bunch of clips this morning under clear blue skies with just occasional scattered clouds. I shot first with one cam and then immediately the same scene with the other. I prefer doing an A/B side by side at the same instant in time, but I couldn't for a couple of reasons. First it was very windy in N.Y. and second, because of the need to extend the LCD, it was just too awkward to frame both cams accurately.
To answer Flinty's question first, I had no problem with the Canon LCD except for one shot, shooting in to the sun. I wanted this shot because I wanted to see how the lens on both cams handled sun glare. I have a theory about the rez charts that CCI uses. These charts are shot under indoor, controlled lighting conditions...it says nothing about how a lens handles glare, bright sunlight, high contrast, low contrast etc (the somewhat blurry zoom shot I got yesterday with the Canon when shooting across a drizzly field, was a low contrast condition that the Canon didn't respond favorably too...there was no such problem this morning under bright, contrasty light). These are all factors in lens design and won't necessarily show up in any rez charts. Just another reason why it's dangerous to 'buy by the numbers'.
But at any rate the only issue I had with the Canon LCD was that one scene, shooting in to the sun. It was very difficult to see the LCD. It wasn't impossible, but it wasn't easy.
What I found with the sunny clips of today was a consistently better color rendition of the Sony. My friend and I both agreed it was closer to reality. At times the Canon was just too cool whereas the Sony was neutral. This is pretty much what I've felt all along with the Sony on its own, but it was even more evident in contrast to the Canon. This didn't occur all the time, but happened often enough. Again, the Canon displays the magenta sky issue and can be annoying at times. They just can't seem to get rid of this.
Interestingly, and somewhat surprisingly, I saw almost no evidence of the purple fringing on the Canon lens. It happened perhaps once or twice, but only to a minor degree and only in areas of very bright to dark transitions. I'm convinced this is not a lens issue, since there is no consistency to it and when it does occur, it does not occur along the edges where you typically see CA in a lens. If I wasn't looking for it, I doubt I would have seen it at all. In my mind this is not an issue with the HF10.
My friend and I both thought the Sony did an overall better job with exposure. This, coupled with the amazingly low noise of the Sony, simply produced to what our eyes always felt was the more professional looking image. This is something I felt from day one with the Sony. It just hits you right away. We both agreed we've never owned a cam that produces this professional looking a picture. The color is just the best of any cam I've ever owned and coupled with the overall excellent exposure and low noise, I haven't seen anything better. I saw no repeat of the 'haze' issue I saw on two clips a week or so ago.
One thing we also agreed on was that the HV20 produces a better picture than the HF10. My friend first mentioned this when he said we had a much tougher time determining which cam produced a better picture between the HV20 and the SR12. We simply didn't have that difficult a time on this go-around. I honestly expected to be doing A/Bs for days if not weeks.
I asked my friend what his final assessment was in terms of how much better he thought the Sony picture was. He felt that overall it was about 20% better on average, but some scenes were more like 30% better. Although it's hard to quantify, I don't think I'd disagree with him.
The ironic thing was that we both agreed beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the closest picture parameter was sharpness and detail. On my 60" 1080p Pioneer Kuro, it was almost impossible to pick a winner in the overwhelming majority of clips.
I know full well that some will say "oh, you're biased", but those people simply don't know me. The only reason I go through camcorders like water, is I'm ALWAYS after what I feel is the best picture. My last two HD cams were Canons prior to this for that reason. But this round goes to Sony...at least IMO and my anal video buddy's opinion too.
This is no way says the Canon is a slouch, it isn't and I'd be happy with it if the Sony wasn't around. But I don't think I"d make the switch from the HV20 to the HF10 based purely on picture quality. I'd be tempted to keep both, the HV20 for when I want to shoot the best quality and the HF10 for the convenience of AVCHD acquisition.
By the way, for the 'point & shooters' there is little difference between either cam in terms of their ease of use. Of course the viewfinder or lack thereof may be an issue. If you wear glasses, it will be an issue.
Also, I did not try the 24p or 30p mode since I didn't plan on using it. I might give it a whirl for fun.