Info Desired on The New JVC GZ-HD7 Cam

[pscamm]

Hi All,
Is anyone aware of any hands on reviews of this new JVC cam, all i can find is reviews where comments about quoted spec's have been made cos they hav'nt been able to get their hands on one yet. Im curious about JVC's ' In House ' MPEG codec used in this cam and the visual quality it produces because ive read here and there that mpeg encoding to hard drive doesnt produce as good quality video as DV encoding to miniDV tape ????
Looks like a great piece of kit ! Anyone know any more ??

Cheers all

Paul

[felix2]

Have you looked at the camcorderinfo.com review here, or their HD shoot-out comparing it with the Canon HV20, Sony HDR-HC7 and Panasonic HDC-SD1?

[redsox_mark]

ive read here and there that mpeg encoding to hard drive doesnt produce as good quality video as DV encoding to miniDV tape ????

With SD models that's generally true (comparing similar priced models). But with HD (High Def), all the models use higher compression than DV - either MPEG2 or AVCHD MPEG4.

The articles which felix2 linked to is a good place to look.

[JonStatt]

I am a little disappointed with the site linked to above. Some of their conclusions are definitely valid but some of the reviewing methodologies I believe are flawed.

1) When the camcorders are individually tested, they are clinically lab tested for resolution, noise, exposure range etc. However, some of the interpolation techniques will not show up in clinical resolution tests, but show-up in real world , real use tests. Individual camcorder tests do not include real world testing and samples!

2) Then they do an HD shoot out. THis time with real world tests...horaay! But, at the same time, its now very unscientific with lighting, position and other aspects changed from shot to shot. I also disagree with some of their conclusions in these tests too. Is it just me, or does the Canon show clear signs of sharpening? In the close-up of the face, the Sony looks the most realistic ot me whereas the Canon shows over sharpening of the hairs on the face. The JVC does look a little soft, but the detail is there. I think this may be due to a bit of over saturation. Look at the close-up of the tree leaves. In this case the JVC looks to have the most real detail with no adverse effects.

Bottom line is, I am having a hard time finding these reviews credible. If you want to see real world comparisons between the Canon and the JVC go to http://www.fxsupport.de/22.html. He filmed both shots at the same time on the same tripod. The results seem much closer, although the colour interpretation of the cameras is somewhat different.

Finally, the big selling point of the JVC is the lens with its 1.8-1.9 over the entire zoom range. That is really an achievement. Posters have commented on some chromatic aberration..more than the Canon. THis is true when you are using the lens wide open and without spending literally thousands on the lens alone, is to be expected.

I am not happy with the JVC because of the OIS performance and am considering sending it back..but still deciding. However, I think it brings some real credible assets to the market in terms of its handling, manual controls and lens.