Canon HV10 camcorder is the real deal! - Page 2

Blasst, I actually only have the HC1 now. What happened was my Sony TRV900 died and I used that as a backup to my VX2000. For a backup camera I needed mike inputs which the HC3 didn't have (unless you went with Sony's proprietary mikes). So I sold my HC3 and bought the HC1 again....life is strange. So unfortunately I can't play the HV10 footage via HDMI. I could do it via my JVC D-Theater deck (firewire out of the HV10 in to the firewire input of the JVC and out via HDMI of the JVC). Unfortunately, although it adds additional sharpness inherent in the HDMI connection, it also somewhat disturbs the light/dark ratios from the camera. I don't know why it happens, but the JVC does something in the conversion of firewire to HDMI. I would think it shouldn't, but it does. The manifestation is that some brighter areas of the video tend to get very slightly blown out. You have to look for it, but once you see it, it becomes annoying. So I go component.

Comparing the HV10 to the HC1 and HC3, the HV10 simply has a lower noise floor. The video this thing produces more closely resembles professional, low-noise, cameras. It's really amazing how noise free the video is. The higher rez chip (full 1920X1080) also contributes to a greater resolution on tape even though the HDV format only goes out to 1440X1080. The Sonys use in-camera sharpening as Sony does on their digital still cameras. The Canons don't and this contributes to a quieter, more natural looking picture. Looking at the Sony on its own you might not see it, but when you compare the Canon to the Sony, you just say "ah, that's more natural looking without any artifacts".

I've also found the indoor quality is better than either the HC1 or HC3. This weekend I compared some HV10 footage I shot in my house at night to footage I shot with the FX1 (which I sold....too big). The HV10 actually had superior color to the FX1 with those shots! Hard to believe but true. Would the HV10 be superior to the FX1 under all conditions? Probably not, but I'd bet it would beat it or match it in many many scenes.

The autofocus on the HV10 is by far the best I've ever experienced on any camera. Absolutely no comparison. It seems to never miss! They promote this feature as 'instant autofocus' and it's one of those rare times where the hype matches the reality.

The other thing I really appreciate is the zoom. If you've noticed the HC1/HC3's slowest zoom speed isn't that slow. On larger cams I've been used to a nice slow zoom if so desired. The HV10 brings that feature back with a very slow, professional-like zoom. It's speed range is from very slow to very fast....very very nice.

There's only one thing I don't like about the camera, and that's the ergonomics. I've just never been a fan of upright designs and the Canon has the same drawbacks in that respect. But every time I see the video I know it's worth getting used to the ergonomics.

How much better? Tough to say and it really depends upon how much of a videophile you are. Some see slight to moderate improvements and others don't. When I sum up all the improvements I mentioned (resolution, low video noise, zoom speeds, autofocus and what I feel is better low-light) the net result IMO is about 25%-35%. Obviously Blasst this is highly subjective and YMMV. But one thing is for sure, Canon has created a hell of an HDV camera here....especially in their first effort!

Blasst, that's the best way to make the call yourself. I didn't have that luxury when I bought mine since they weren't yet in the stores. I downloaded a bunch of HV10 clips from a Japaneese site and then put it back on tape. My result was as if I had shot the clips myself and I was then able to play it on my plasma. I was sufficiently wowed to buy the unit knowing I could return it if it didn't pan out. Fortunately it did. When I viewed the clips with a friend, believe it or not our biggest concern was 'did the HV10 really take those clips'?

Godobe, yes it does do a better job than the HC1/HC3's electronic stabilization. But as with any tiny camera, it's still harder to hold steady than a larger camera. But with that said, I was surprised at how steady I was able to hold it at full telephoto. My last day in Vegas was windy and my telephoto shots became shaky, so ambient weather conditions definitely play a role.

Thanks for the kind words Luidoly. There have been people who have successfully burned HDV to DVDs and played them in the Toshiba HD DVD player. To be honest I tried a few times and failed. I was probably doing something wrong, but I never did figure it out. I'm sure you can output standard mini-DV quality and burn that to a DVD and play it on a normal DVD player. I believe the HV10, like the Sony, down-rezzes on the fly. However that won't give you the resolution of HDV, it will simply be mini-DV quality.

Contrary to what I read in a review, Canon does have an extra capacity battery that's now available. I believe it's the BP315 and comes close to doubling the recording/playback times of the standard battery. I'm not sure how much bigger it is and how it affects the width of the camera, but it might be a nice tradeoff. From what I gather it fits in the same recess the standard battery does, but it must protrude a bit more. Of course you can always get a couple of the standard batteries too.

Blasst, great advice! It's amazing how much more professional any video looks when it's tripod mounted. As you mentioned, a monopod is a great solution too and has the benefit of being much lighter and more portable. Although the optical image stabilization on the Canon is great, you still need steady hands when using the telephoto.

Ron, I haven't really taped yet on a very windy day, so I can't say yet. Thus far I've heard no real issue. I know that the HV10 has a built-in wind screen, but as I said, I'm sure how effective it is yet.

Mike, a recent review in a German AV magazine indicated that in good light the HV10 is as good as cameras like the FX1, the new FX7 and better/sharper than Sony's small cams, the HC1/HC3. They comment on the amazingly low noise floor in good light. My use thus far certainly shows that to be true. The lack of noise in the images continues to amaze me as does the overall professional look to the pictures.

One area I disagree with in that same review, is the performance of the HV10 in low-light. They felt the HC3 was better and I've found exactly the opposite as I mentioned in a post above. If the light is really really low, there's always the onboard video light. I've come to learn this is a very nice feature and sure beats carrying a video light with you. The reach is certainly not like that of a dedicated video light, but in a pinch it really can work wonders.

I continue to be delighted by this unit!

Brosnan, just for fun I downloaded your clip and put it in my Edius HD editing program. I then converted it back to tape so that it was as if you had loaned me your tape. I then played it on my plasma and it was really very very nice footage. So I've now seen footage from you, the guy in Japan (who posted a number of very nice clips) and of course the stuff I've shot.....this is just one sweet camera!

Godobe, I haven't shot anything with the still photo feature since I use a dedicated digital still camera for that. As far as low-light is concerned, I am truly confused by CCI's review of that aspect of the camera. Part of it I guess depends on your definition of low-light. To me, realistically low-light is the light you have in a typical home at night when shooting video. It's certainly far less bright than typical store lighting or an indoor mall, but brighter than a darkened room with no lights. Cityscape videos I took in Vegas at night with the HV10 were truly outstanding...not a hint of grain and razor sharp. So despite what it appears, it's apparent that a typical cityscape at night is brighter than we might think.

Here's my take on this. When the light is so low that the video becomes very grainy, all of these small cameras will produce relatively poor video. In that kind of situation you must have a light to produce quality footage. I've got a Sony VX2000 which blows all of these cams away in really dim lighting. However, in the scenario I described above (at home at night with typical lights on), I've found that the HV10 is every bit the match of the Sony FX1 and unquestionably better than either the HC1/HC3. I've compared that exact footage shot with these cams and frankly, I prefer the Canon rendition which I found both sharper and more color accurate.....yes, even compared to the FX1. Also keep in mind that the Canon has a tiny, but usable at close distances, video light. At first I thought this was more a gimmick than anything else, but I found otherwise in my hotel room in Vegas. Turning off all the lights, I switched on the video light and was able to take very sharp, well-illuminated videos in the dark of the hotel room. No, this is not a substitute for an outboard video light, but how many people will carry with them an outboard video light when on vacation or just knocking around? This is a very nice feature that could come in useful at some point.

There's a German website that reviewed these cameras and posted pictures in 30 lux lighting of cameras such as the FX7, HC3 and HV10. To my eyes the HC3 was less grainy, but it was so dim, so lacking in color and so very soft, I thought their pix from the HV10 was clearly better even at 30 lux. So perhaps some of this is subjective, but I showed these same videos and same pictures to a friend who currently has the HC1 and he agreed the HV10 did better. He too will be selling his HC1 to get the HV10.