Totaly newbie warning...

I recently rented a Sony HVR - A1E and some off-camera sound equipment to do a few interviews as part of my work. Everything went well and the camera performed as expected.

I have since done some research and am considering purchasing a camcorder myself. I want to have a good piece of kit that can perform as above but also something more practical for travelling.

I really like the look of the SR11 HardDisc recording HD camera from Sony as it seems to have everything I would want.

My only question is how does it compare to the one I rented. When new the HVR - A1E was a $3000 camera as opposed the SR11 which is a $1100 camera.

However, technology moves to quickly maybe though cheaper the newer one surpasses the other.

I would appreciate some guidance.

One thing I have noticed is that the SR11 appears to have only a single CCD where the A1E has 3.

[senu]

The A1 is a Semi Pro HDV camcorder. It has been used as a Second mobile camcorder for Professional projects and is marketed by Sonys "Professional and broadcast Division as the smallest and the "Baby" of the family : It is the Professional version of the HC1

The SR11 is newer high end consumer camcorder, using a Format designed for consumers
AVCHD is said to be as good now as HDV ( I take that with a pinch of salt for Pro projects but certainly I have played clips Ive taken from Canons HG 10 on 50" 1080p 100Hz 24p Samsung display ; Very impressive . but there were some "tearing" effects on challenging panned scenes which were infrequent but there all the same)

The A1 doesnt have 3 CCDs it has a single Cmos which is larger than the SR11s but the SR 11 has newer sensor technology derived from the more "pro" R and D but it may not nessesarily be implemented as such
The A1 is still a current model

The question is : are you willing to use a high end consumer camcorder for Pro type work?
Does AVCHD quality ( clarity. low light. handling of motion) match and now at par with HDV from the likes of the A1?
Editing Support, Archiving issues ( HDD vs tapes)

If you feel that they are The SR11 is worth looking at but even in their glowing reviews camcorderinfo dont feel AVCHD technology is quite there for serious enthusiasts and Budding Semi-Pros ...yet

I would suggest you think about some of these things whilst being aware of the advantages HDD , easy transfer and the fact of impressive AVCHD quality
It may be all you need but after using the A1 you may not be comparing like for like

Some great info; many thanks for your time.

Ironically everything I have shot on the A1 has been in SD as my clients have not had the equipment.

I am really drawn to the size, ease and comprehensive range of features the SR11 has... I am just terrified of suddenly noticing the difference between pro and consumer in respect of these devices.

Thanks again...

[senu]

The A1 is also a great SD camcorder
If you have Semi Pro aspirations I would perhaps wait till AVCHD technology is well and truly in Prosumer levels
If you did buy it to try, you could sell it if it didnt live up to your expectations ..but what is to stop you from hiring one for a personal hands on trial?

I believe that for absolute video quality in ideal shooting conditions, you will not notice any great differences
It may be that in challenging shooting situations that the consumer based camcorders shortcoming may show. This is not specific to the SR11
I would imagine that even compared to the (older HDV: ) HC1 Prosumer , the A1 ( Semi PRO/PRO) would do a better job even though they share many things including form factor/Sensor , lens , in common

[chrishull3]

although not in a position to use a sr 11 or 12 i can tell you the sony a1 may be the pro version of the hc-1 but as far as picture performance goes it is no better,it is certain[from user reports] although i have not seen sr 11 pictures on large screens only pc screens the sr 11 has an advantage in picture clarity,it depends on what you want if you can live without tape[i wish i could]go for the sr 11.

[senu]

Chris you really really love the SR11..
As it happens I played with one yesterday..

Picture Clarity alone is not the only criteria for using a camcorder for Pro uses
I expect you know this as you do have HDV
Until Sony makes an AVCHD camcorder targeted for serious enthusiasts I will continue to have reservations of their use for serious work
The current crop are firmly consumer kit and in the context of this thread it is really not about tape vs HDD . Some of Sonys higher end Pro DVCAM XDCAM kit have portable HDD ( to replace tape) as recording media

I feel the need to finally make tape seem outdated is one reason why you get such positive reports of the SR11s picture,
I see no reason why HDV kit have to be made to feel like antiques in order that the newer AVCHD one be seen as the latest and best..

Judging from the use I had of Canons HG 10 ( lovely kit) I find that well sorted AVCHD can look very impressive but so can footage from the HC1 or FX1.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Chris you really really love the SR11..
As it happens I played with one yesterday..

Picture Clarity alone is not the only criteria for using a camcorder for Pro uses
I expect you know this as you do have HDV
Until Sony makes an AVCHD camcorder targeted for serious enthusiasts I will continue to have reservations of their use for serious work
The current crop are firmly consumer kit and in the context of this thread it is really not about tape vs HDD . Some of Sonys higher end Pro DVCAM XDCAM kit have portable HDD ( to replace tape) as recording media

I feel the need to finally make tape seem outdated is one reason why you get such positive reports of the SR11s picture,
I see no reason why HDV kit have to be made to feel like antiques in order that the newer AVCHD one be seen as the latest and best..

Judging from the use I had of Canons HG 10 ( lovely kit) I find that well sorted AVCHD can look very impressive but so can footage from the HC1 or FX1.

mantishead[think thats right]question was regarding the peformance of the sr11 compared to the a1 he tested,the a1 pro hc1 was always vastly overpriced for the gains it gives over the hc1[my opinion i know]no way would i change my fx-7 for one.my point regarding the sr11 is that reading all reports from users many very experienced ones the cam has very good pictures as good as any prosumer tape cam and fairly good surround sound.
auto focus is not brilliant but my hc 1s is not either so the a1s can be no better,having to buy a new pc or revamp my existing[would not fancy using the vaio plus the archiving of material[i like bd disc and tape backup]BUTyes i do like the sr11 12 its performance, stills ,size etc and for someone starting out with hd it may well be the way to go.
or save for one of these http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Phil...XDCAM_EX3.html

[felix2]

Hi, just to throw in my ha'penny's worth too

As senu and chrishull3 have said, the A1 (entry level "pro") and HC1 (top end consumer / "prosumer") are the same camera - just that A1 has extra "pro" features added / enabled (mainly balanced audio, but also quite a few more advanced settings like gamma curves, colour matrix etc I think, and the option of DVCAM in standard definition). I can believe that their performance is identical (but can't verify that myself!), and agree with Chris I can't see the value of the extra cost of the A1 (for most people).

Since the HC1, Sony brought out the HC7 last year (now replaced with the near-identical HC9). The HC7 is by most accounts probably slightly better than the HC1 in terms of picture quality, but seems to be aimed at more of a "consumer" market (as is the SR11 etc), than "pro-sumer" (the HC1 was probably the last of those...), when it comes to a small handful of features etc (e.g. the much missed focus ring, now replaced with a fiddly little dial).

So it's certainly possible that the picture from the HC7/9 is fractionally better than the older pro A1 which is more than twice the price (but which does have those extra pro features and balanced audio).

Then comparing the HC7/9 with the top "consumer" AVCHD cams is more like-for-like. I don't know the specs of the SR11 (or any of the AVCHD cams) e.g. lens, sensor size, etc, and I've only seen a few example clips off the net, but Chris isn't the only one to say that cams like the SR11/12 are now up to the quality of HDV. However, I would just suggest it might depend on what you're using it for. As Senu said, AVCHD takes more computer power to edit, and you still need to decide how you store/archive your footage. Personally I can't see the format being taken up in the "pro" market in the near future or being considered "broadcast" as a source format when it's been through the production / compression cycle etc, whereas even the cheaper HDVs are (just about!). But if you're playing straight off the computer or even burning to disc, you may very well not see any noticeable difference between the two...

By the way, on my HC7 I always film in HDV (except twice for specific jobs) and downconvert to standard def DV in-camera during capture (until I get some more HD equipment one day!).

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by felix2

Hi, just to throw in my ha'penny's worth too

As senu and chrishull3 have said, the A1 (entry level "pro") and HC1 (top end consumer / "prosumer") are the same camera - just that A1 has extra "pro" features added / enabled (mainly balanced audio, but also quite a few more advanced settings like gamma curves, colour matrix etc I think, and the option of DVCAM in standard definition). I can believe that their performance is identical (but can't verify that myself!), and agree with Chris I can't see the value of the extra cost of the A1 (for most people).

Since the HC1, Sony brought out the HC7 last year (now replaced with the near-identical HC9). The HC7 is by most accounts probably slightly better than the HC1 in terms of picture quality, but seems to be aimed at more of a "consumer" market (as is the SR11 etc), than "pro-sumer" (the HC1 was probably the last of those...), when it comes to a small handful of features etc (e.g. the much missed focus ring, now replaced with a fiddly little dial).

So it's certainly possible that the picture from the HC7/9 is fractionally better than the older pro A1 which is more than twice the price (but which does have those extra pro features and balanced audio).

Then comparing the HC7/9 with the top "consumer" AVCHD cams is more like-for-like. I don't know the specs of the SR11 (or any of the AVCHD cams) e.g. lens, sensor size, etc, and I've only seen a few example clips off the net, but Chris isn't the only one to say that cams like the SR11/12 are now up to the quality of HDV. However, I would just suggest it might depend on what you're using it for. As Senu said, AVCHD takes more computer power to edit, and you still need to decide how you store/archive your footage. Personally I can't see the format being taken up in the "pro" market in the near future or being considered "broadcast" as a source format when it's been through the production / compression cycle etc, whereas even the cheaper HDVs are (just about!). But if you're playing straight off the computer or even burning to disc, you may very well not see any noticeable difference between the two...

By the way, on my HC7 I always film in HDV (except twice for specific jobs) and downconvert to standard def DV in-camera during capture (until I get some more HD equipment one day!).

felix i am with you on most things but non tape is being taken up in the pro market as i showed http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Phil...XDCAM_EX3.html
how do you find your hc7 is it your first hd cam,the fx-7 i have is quite large compared to my hc-1 but the on cam controls are very good all the best.

[senu]

Thanks felix

I wasnt advocating anyone get the A1 ( which we all agree costs too much for DVCAM, balanced audio ( The HC1 Audio) is OK IMHO or even the HC1

Also having used the Canon HG10 fairly extensively I have a lot of very impressive , and some so so ( user related? ) footage
As such Im able to compare HC1, FX1 and HG10 footage directly as used to take an identical scene
I only played with the SR 11 and Im well impressed with a few mins of footage but I compare it to the HG 10
Certainly there are very visually amazing AVC footage clips Ive watched on 50" HD displays via a PS3 and wonder just how they were derived; Meaning I have no doubt that AVCHD is capable of trouncing HDV if well implemented
But
Are we at that stage yet?.. with the current consumer camcorders.. I dont know .
My answers have been open ended as I kind of feel the way most cautious folk did in the early days of LCD displays..they were no match for Plasma despite Marketing. Now they are fabulous IMHO and only the high end Pioneers can make you look twice

So although I bemoan the loss of Prosumer camcorders ( for those who want more than family video "snaps") . Im not holding on to tape for dear life. I loved the Canon HG 10 while I had it... truly very well made, and have no doubt the Sony equivalents would be equally impressive

As I stated, there are alternative media used in the industry for the Semi Pro /Pro models other than tape.

If however I didnt have my current camcorders and had "serious" aspirations I would give it a lot of thought before investing in consumer AVCHD models.. for now

Originally Posted by chrishull3

felix i am with you on most things but non tape is being taken up in the pro market as i showed http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Phil...XDCAM_EX3.html
.

As I stated above.
I saw them at the Sony stand in the Video Forums.. There are Solid state , and Portable HDD but they are Pro type camcorders ( controls ect) and dont use AVCHD.
Those that dont use HD ( not HDV) use ACV-I ( non consumer type)

[felix2]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

felix i am with you on most things but non tape is being taken up in the pro market as i showed http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Phil...XDCAM_EX3.html
how do you find your hc7 is it your first hd cam,the fx-7 i have is quite large compared to my hc-1 but the on cam controls are very good all the best.

Don't get me wrong, tapeless is the way forward. (I think that every time I record a programme off the telly on my HDD/DVD recorder and then go back to my pile of 20 unlabelled tapes I've filmed over the last couple of months!!! ) But as Senu's beaten me to saying the EX cams offer formats compatible with XDCAM at 35 Mbps or similar to HDV at 25 Mbps, both more robust and higher bitrate than AVCHD as it is currently implemented. The Z7 is also HDV. I'm sure things will keeping changing, but at the moment I don't think the manufacturers try to make any apology for the gap between "pro" "editable" formats and cameras (of which HDV just about sneaks in at the bottom end!), and "consumer" "un-editable" formats and cameras. Of course, AVCHD can be edited now, and JVC have put HDV (effectively) onto non-tape media.

At the moment, if I had a better computer and HD telly, then I could be very happy with AVCHD. But for doing any of the work I do, I need to be able to edit and am happier producing something's that's started with HDV. If I were doing a lot of serious pro work and could justify the £, I would love to use an EX cam (or Z7) and never see a tape again!

Yes, the HC7's my first HD cam and I love it. It's a pleasure to use, and the picture from something that size (and around £650 when I got it) is amazing - especially via HDMI to a big plasma telly, but also downconverted & edited as DV and output to DVD - but I'd guess still a step or 2 down from the FX7 (and from footage I've seen online probably a tiny smidgeon down from the HV20 too, but that had its own "cons"). I'll be filming with a new V1 on a canal boat holiday in France the week after next for broadcast, so I'll let you know how I get on with that. There are times when the HC7 can start to struggle, either because of its CMOS sensor or the HDV format (or simply its size). I had a little bit of video broadcast recently that looked a bit flaky. It looked fine on the cam, but it was difficult conditions, i.e. very windy, shaky, zoomed all the way in, with a bit of heat haze. Somehow along the path of being re-rendered a couple of times and ingested and compressed for transmission, its weaknesses did show up. (Maybe most people wouldn't have noticed!) But other footage has made it through fine, and as I say for a cam that size and price, it's excellent, reliable, predictable and pretty versatile.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Thanks felix

I wasnt advocating anyone get the A1 ( which we all agree costs too much for DVCAM, balanced audio ( The HC1 Audio) is OK IMHO or even the HC1

Also having used the Canon HG10 fairly extensively I have a lot of very impressive , and some so so ( user related? ) footage
As such Im able to compare HC1, FX1 and HG10 footage directly as used to take an identical scene
I only played with the SR 11 and Im well impressed with a few mins of footage but I compare it to the HG 10
Certainly there are very visually amazing AVC footage clips Ive watched on 50" HD displays via a PS3 and wonder just how they were derived; Meaning I have no doubt that AVCHD is capable of trouncing HDV if well implemented
But
Are we at that stage yet?.. with the current consumer camcorders.. I dont know .
My answers have been open ended as I kind of feel the way most cautious folk did in the early days of LCD displays..they were no match for Plasma despite Marketing. Now they are fabulous IMHO and only the high end Pioneers can make you look twice

So although I bemoan the loss of Prosumer camcorders ( for those who want more than family video "snaps") . Im not holding on to tape for dear life. I loved the Canon HG 10 while I had it... truly very well made, and have no doubt the Sony equivalents would be equally impressive

As I stated, there are alternative media used in the industry for the Semi Pro /Pro models other than tape.

If however I didnt have my current camcorders and had "serious" aspirations I would give it a lot of thought before investing in consumer AVCHD models.. for now


As I stated above.
I saw them at the Sony stand in the Video Forums.. There are Solid state , and Portable HDD but they are Pro type camcorders ( controls ect) and dont use AVCHD.
Those that dont use HD ( not HDV) use ACV-I ( non consumer type)

my point was simply pros do now use non tape be it solid state ,hdd.

[felix2]

Originally Posted by senu

... I have no doubt that AVCHD is capable of trouncing HDV if well implemented
But
Are we at that stage yet?.. with the current consumer camcorders.. I dont know .
My answers have been open ended as I kind of feel the way most cautious folk did in the early days of LCD displays..they were no match for Plasma despite Marketing. Now they are fabulous IMHO and only the high end Pioneers can make you look twice

So although I bemoan the loss of Prosumer camcorders ( for those who want more than family video "snaps") . Im not holding on to tape for dear life. I loved the Canon HG 10 while I had it... truly very well made, and have no doubt the Sony equivalents would be equally impressive

As I stated, there are alternative media used in the industry for the Semi Pro /Pro models other than tape.

If however I didnt have my current camcorders and had "serious" aspirations I would give it a lot of thought before investing in consumer AVCHD models.. for now

Yes, I'm with you on all that. As I've just put above, I think it comes down again to horses for courses. Depending on what the final output / goal of the video is, I'd either be very happy to recommend the best Sony, Canon or Panasonic AVCHD cams... or be really rather cautious and suggest HDV could be the better option for now.

edit: Sorry Mantishead, bit of light reading for you!!

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

my point was simply pros do now use non tape be it solid state ,hdd.

Originally Posted by senu

....Until Sony makes an AVCHD camcorder targeted for serious enthusiasts I will continue to have reservations of their use for serious work
The current crop are firmly consumer kit and in the context of this thread it is really not about tape vs HDD . Some of Sonys higher end Pro DVCAM XDCAM kit have portable HDD ( to replace tape) as recording media....

Chris, if you reread my posts you will find that it is not about tape or non tape ( which you seem to think it is)
It is about how ready the consumer AVCHD camcorders are now for Serious video work, regardless of what media they use
It is about,
Is the implementation of AVCHD in the current crop of camcorders ready to be embraced by the Pros?
If so .. Fine .. If not why not?
I know that the Pros use non-tape and stated a few post before this But in using nontape , are they using it to record AVCHD ( as currently implemented in consumer camcorders)? or some other Pro HD format ( not even HDV)?

For anyone wanting a very good quality Hi def Camorder , I would be very willing to recommend even the Canon HG 10 (HDD) which Im told is not quite as good as the likes of the SR11 ( I think they are close though) if the idea of tape and an HV20 or HC9 did not seem appealing
But if you needed to cover a corporate event or wedding professionally at this time.. would you be willing to use an SR 11?
I dont know the answer..
But it is an interesting debate, try not to see it as needing to advocate for the non-tape camcorders
You know THE RED ONE dont you... CF card.. ect

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Chris, if you reread my posts you will find that it is not about tape or non tape ( which you seem to think it is)
It is about how ready the consumer AVCHD camcorders are now for Serious video work, regardless of what media they use
It is about,
Is the implementation of AVCHD in the current crop of camcorders ready to be embraced by the Pros?
If so .. Fine .. If not why not?
I know that the Pros use non-tape and stated a few post before this But in using nontape , are they using it to record AVCHD ( as currently implemented in consumer camcorders)? or some other Pro HD format ( not even HDV)?

For anyone wanting a very good quality Hi def Camorder , I would be very willing to recommend even the Canon HG 10 (HDD) which Im told is not quite as good as the likes of the SR11 ( I think they are close though) if the idea of tape and an HV20 or HC9 did not seem appealing
But if you needed to cover a corporate event or wedding professionally at this time.. would you be willing to use an SR 11?
I dont know the answer..
But it is an interesting debate, try not to see it as needing to advocate for the non-tape camcorders
You know THE RED ONE dont you... CF card.. ect

if i were in a position to purchase a sr12 or the like it would be as a fun cam i certainly would not use it for corporate work[ie weddings]for such work a semi pro my fx-7 at least is needed exept for family weddings.what i was saying is that soon the majority of pros will be using cams like on my link.
as far as consumers go non tape is only going to get more dominent so we have to think of the future.

[senu]

Which is why I said I would be most happy when the Big companies make HDD/ SD card AVCHD camcorders with more than the simple a point and shoot folk in mind
It is in fact the case that now even decent tape models are getting scarce.
My fear is that they will vanish before being replaced by non-tape models aimed at Serious enthusiasts /Semi-pros


The non tape Pro models are still a niche

Did you look at the Red link?.
I did actually have a play with the XDCAM with HDD and Solid state you linked ( in January at the Broadcast and Video Forum) and although they are getting a warm welcome due to the ease in work flow, they are still costly even for Pros
I have no problem with tape going away. I do have an issue with the companies widening the gap between fun shooting and Seriuos aspirations ..and not doing enough to improve AVCHD to the point where you would be very enthusiastic about using it for a wedding
Thankfully this trend is not being played out in the Digital Still sector

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Which is why I said I would be most happy when the Big companies make HDD/ SD card AVCHD camcorders with more than the simple a point and shoot folk in mind
It is in fact the case that now even decent tape models are getting scarce.
My fear is that they will vanish before being replaced by non-tape models aimed at Serious enthusiasts /Semi-pros


The non tape Pro models are still a niche

Did you look at the Red link?.
I did actually have a play with the XDCAM with HDD and Solid state you linked ( in January at the Broadcast and Video Forum) and although they are getting a warm welcome due to the ease in work flow, they are still costly even for Pros
I have no problem with tape going away. I do have an issue with the companies widening the gap between fun shooting and Seriuos aspirations ..and not doing enough to improve AVCHD to the point where you would be very enthusiastic about using it for a wedding
Thankfully this trend is not being played out in the Digital Still sector

yes sen the red one cool,you are right manufactuars are not as yet making non tape sized cams fx-1+7 but i think they will come i think stocks of the two models are being sold off.in a way moving from tape is no problem for me exept for storage.so for now it has to be tape unless the bonds come up and then i would get a sr 12 as a toy.i still think the hc-1 was the best of the hc range.
but the amount of drop outs fx-7 worse is realy starting to tip me off them the cam has had a cleaner used once i try not use them as little as pos the cam has not had a great mileage but all three hdv cams 1hc1 and two fx7s have had them but they are getting WORSE.

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

...i still think the hc-1 was the best of the hc range.

I totally agree. I hope they will make an HDD equivalent ( not just quality) but "Prosumer" features as well
But if they consider it to be a narrow market.. they might just not bother

Thanks everyone for the lively debate around this subject.

I have spent the weekend using the A1 in test conditions; conducting some interviews in pretty optimum conditions, along with some other tests - all of which are tripod mounted tests.

As mentioned this project is in SD so not been testing with HD. Having played with many of the cameras features I have to say that the footage I see in FinalCut is not impressing me a great deal.

I have seen some of the HD and that was good; but I am at a loss to see how the SD quality is an order of magnitude better than my 5 year old DV cam.

Clearly the camera has many features and will shoot in a wider variety of circumstances and live up to a more professional workload - but in terms of raw quality in optimum conditions... I am far from impressed..

Maybe I just expect too much...

[redsox_mark]

Originally Posted by Mantishead

I have seen some of the HD and that was good; but I am at a loss to see how the SD quality is an order of magnitude better than my 5 year old DV cam.

It depends on what your old DV cam is... but even if it is a very low end model, I would not expect the SD from the A1E to be an order of magnitude better. The HD is very good, though even with that, for quality the newer HC7/HC9 or the Canon HV20/HV30 are better.

All the HDV models do good SD, but no better than from a decent SD cam.

[senu]

This is true ,However the A1 was not marketed as a "state of the art " SD camcorder.
It was marketed as affordable HDV ( whichit was) but with DV CAM Balanced audio and other Prosumer features
The " less Pro" FX1 does SD and HDV better and the likes of the Sony VX2100 too ( this is from personaluse) but in its HC1 form the A1 was a very affordable Prosumer HDV
The current Sony HC7/9 Canon HV 20/30 are a few generations ahead ( esp for HDV) although they lose videographer friendly manual features
Back to the Op original issues Dont expect the likes of HC7/9 or SR11 to be exceptional SD performers too

As a result of this poor SD quality would I get better quality shooting in HD and then rendering to SD in post production..

Or would I end up with similar results..

I opted away from doing this because of FinalCut Express' need to render HD footage which slows things down somewhat.

[redsox_mark]

Probably very similar results. It depends on the sofrware of course. I've seen tests done comparing in-camera downconversion vs. using Vegas (which I use), and the software ones are slightly better, but very little in it.

[senu]

Originally Posted by Mantishead

As a result of this poor SD quality would I get better quality shooting in HD and then rendering to SD in post production..
Or would I end up with similar results..

To be honest, with all due respect to your use, I would not describe its SD quality as "poor"
Although. HDV to SD ( software dependent) or HDV to SD.. down converted in camera or even native SD recording ar 3 different ways to end up with SD footage, Only by experimenting can you find which method turns out the best quality
One of the things about the HC1 ( and A1) was the need to go into various menu items to optimise them for Video quality
As I stated , IMHO, the FX1 and VX2100 are better at SD but not quite by a factor of their difference in cost. They have 3 bigger CCDs and much faster lenses for starters
In which areas do you find its video underwhelming? Colour contrast , low light, whit balance, Lens sharpness? AF? White balance...
I actually like it, perfect though it isnt
Im with you in feeling a costly kit( like the A1) should impress a bit more but I sense ( with you) the need to optimise settings or perhaps .. Near broadcast quality expectations..

[felix2]

Originally Posted by Mantishead

As mentioned this project is in SD so not been testing with HD. Having played with many of the cameras features I have to say that the footage I see in FinalCut is not impressing me a great deal.

I have seen some of the HD and that was good; but I am at a loss to see how the SD quality is an order of magnitude better than my 5 year old DV cam.

Clearly the camera has many features and will shoot in a wider variety of circumstances and live up to a more professional workload - but in terms of raw quality in optimum conditions... I am far from impressed..

Maybe I just expect too much...

It depends what sort of filming you're doing, what the final output is, and what your expectations are / what your 5-year-old DV cam was...

The Sony TRV900 & 950 were reckoned to be amongst the best top-end consumer (prosumer) compact mini DV cams made (although they had their own weaknesses too). I'd mostly rate footage from the HC7 above that from the 950 (outdoors in good light viewed as HD, a lot better;... in SD, generally comparable but probably a bit better, although there are conditions when I can imagine the 950 would be the better bet).

Comparing with the VX2100 (semi-pro and one up from the 950), again HC7 footage in sunshine seen in HD is better, but in SD, the VX2100 is the better camera, especially in lower light / indoors / artificial light (but is also twice the cost).

The performance of the HC7/9 (and I would presume the HC1 and A1) indoors, in low light or even quite reasonable artificial light isn't IMHO overwhelming. But I also don't actually find it particularly underwhelming, and certainly not "poor" (although it depends what you're comparing to).

Unless there is any strong reason why you need your source footage in DV &/or 4:3, I think most people reckon you get slightly better footage from recording in HDV and then either downconverting in camera or in post. And as Senu said, you may want to tweak some of the settings on the A1/HC1/7/9. I've put colour at +1 (on a scale -3 to +3) and think I might go up to +2. Some people turn down the sharpness slightly. Most other stuff is on or around auto for me most of the time.

Have you thought about looking at the VX2100, or at the FX7 or FX1, or is that then going over budget? They still won't necessarily be "two or three times as good" for "two or three times the price" though.

[chrishull3]

i find my hc-1 best with color set at centre 4 i tried 5 and it was too saturated.resolution bar though i have at 5 with no problems.low light is the week point of this model but out doors down converted hd to dv is every bit as good as a 2100 i uses to have.my fx-7 does outperform the hc1 but it cost 800£ more and for build quality the hc1 wins.

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

i find my hc-1 best with color set at centre 4 i tried 5 and it was too saturated.resolution bar though i have at 5 with no problems.low light is the week point of this model ....

Yep, it can struggle a bit in low light.. most camcorders do. MF and max manual exposure are the best youcan do if you hav e no control over the lighting
It seems too that it is easier for SD camcorders of equivalent spec to get things spot on because they do have less compression to do. HDV is a lot more compressed but still has to look better
Regarding settings.. sharpness is also one to be a little careful with.. I have to say that all camcorders Ive used ( from the Humble D8 to the Costlier "Pro types" like the lovely Canon XL H1 about 4 weeks ago) have their foibles and learning them help get the very best off them
I was more impressed with it than the Z1 but infact
Suprisingly the high end consumer kit well set up in good lighting conditions have very impressive VQ ( although they struggle when conditions are not quite as "ideal")
What is true is that you get more , the more you spend but the extra quality may be disproportionate to the extra spent and only for "investment" or revenue bearing purposes can the costlier kit be justified.
In fact I know a lot of budget conscious "Pros" who regularly hire for projects and build the cost to the client offering lower costs for more pocket friendly kit

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Yep, it can struggle a bit in low light.. most camcorders do. MF and max manual exposure are the best youcan do if you hav e no control over the lighting
It seems too that it is easier for SD camcorders of equivalent spec to get things spot on because they do have less compression to do. HDV is a lot more compressed but still has to look better
Regarding settings.. sharpness is also one to be a little careful with.. I have to say that all camcorders Ive used ( from the Humble D8 to the Costlier "Pro types" like the lovely Canon XL H1 about 4 weeks ago) have their foibles and learning them help get the very best off them
I was more impressed with it than the Z1 but infact
Suprisingly the high end consumer kit well set up in good lighting conditions have very impressive VQ ( although they struggle when conditions are not quite as "ideal")
What is true is that you get more , the more you spend but the extra quality may be disproportionate to the extra spent and only for "investment" or revenue bearing purposes can the costlier kit be justified.
In fact I know a lot of budget conscious "Pros" who regularly hire for projects and build the cost to the client offering lower costs for more pocket friendly kit

many hire thats a fact,regarding the h1 z1 the zx7 and ex3 are now sony equivalents of the canon the z1 lasted longer than consumer cams that are lucky to survive a year.