Canon HG10 or Sony SR10/SR11?

[][Uzzy][]

I'm looking to purchase my first HD camcorder and I've narrowed it down to these three.

I've seen good reviews for the Canon and it seems to be the popular choice on this board, however I'm not sure whether its full 1920x1080p or 1440x1080 as I've seen conflicting specs. The two Sony models are both 1080i, would this mean I would be getting a superior picture with the Sony models when connected to a 1080p set or is there not much difference? I know when you connect a 1080p source to a 1080p set you get a full pixel match for a sharp picture. I wouldn't want to miss out on that.

Feature wise I know the Canon falls a little short on that front compared to the Sony as its newer. Does this really make a difference? Is there any features that stand out that would make the Sony a better choice?

In short which is the recommended view here?

[senu]

Buy the Sony and dont worry about 1080i or 1080p
Im not sure the quality difference is as chalk and cheese though but the Sony does have a few more things ( eg can record SD) , and feature Sonys latest consumer CMOS and sensor
IF you like your kit in black, the Sony has that too and it has a bigger HDD
Of the Sonys the SR 11/12 are a bit ahead of SR 10 but if money is tight the 10 would be fine
My Canon footage ( i had the HG 10 for 2 months and was impressed with it TBH) is output as 1440 x1080, Although it has a 25(f)p mode .. which I used very sparingly
I think too much is made of the HD ready Full HD of 1080i or 1080p you may not see the difference despite your not wanting to miss it
A decent 1080p set will deinterlace 1080i well enough to make it unnecessary to buy a camcorder solely on the basis of 1080p
Also editing software compatibility for 1080p is, at best, scanty ATM

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by ][Uzzy][

I'm looking to purchase my first HD camcorder and I've narrowed it down to these three.

I've seen good reviews for the Canon and it seems to be the popular choice on this board, however I'm not sure whether its full 1920x1080p or 1440x1080 as I've seen conflicting specs. The two Sony models are both 1080i, would this mean I would be getting a superior picture with the Sony models when connected to a 1080p set or is there not much difference? I know when you connect a 1080p source to a 1080p set you get a full pixel match for a sharp picture. I wouldn't want to miss out on that.

Feature wise I know the Canon falls a little short on that front compared to the Sony as its newer. Does this really make a difference? Is there any features that stand out that would make the Sony a better choice?

In short which is the recommended view here?

I hope you have a oophy pc.

[redsox_mark]

The Canon captures and outputs 1920x1080, but it records it as 1440x1080 to disc. This makes little to no difference to the visable quality.

However, I would go for the SR11 over the HG10 (if price is no issue), not because of the recorded resolution, but the digital processing on the SR11 and the AVCHD compression is that bit better.

The SR10 is good for the money; though I'd probably take the HG10 over the SR10. The SR10 has a much smaller sensor which impacts low light performance.

[senu]

Originally Posted by redsox_mark

The Canon captures and outputs 1920x1080, but it records it as 1440x1080 to disc. This makes little to no difference to the visable quality.

Im not sure quite how to interpret this: It certainly captures as 1920x 1080 but the file you get is a 1440 x 1080
How does it output to 1920 x 1080 before then recording to disc as 1440 x1080?

The SR10 is good for the money; though I'd probably take the HG10 over the SR10. The SR10 has a much smaller sensor which impacts low light performance.

I would agree but is it just the sensor size or Canons total implementation of the HG 10?
As much as I found the Canon impressive I think the low light performance of all these kit should be interpreted n the right context: I find them universally poor .. at best with grain one can perhaps " forgive"
Poor low light footage ( equally annoying) from DV is more easily correctable in software without exposing the compression artifacts

[][Uzzy][]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

I hope you have a oophy pc.

Dont worry, I've got that front covered

So the view here is the HG10 over the SR10 and the SR11 over the HG10.

To be honest, I prefer the price points of the SR10 and HG10 but seeing as the SR11 is slightly better is it justifiable to pay £100 more for it?

[redsox_mark]

Originally Posted by senu

Im not sure quite how to interpret this: It certainly captures as 1920x 1080 but the file you get is a 1440 x 1080
How does it output to 1920 x 1080 before then recording to disc as 1440 x1080?

In "normal" use, it will capture 1920, and convert it to 1440 and record to HDD. When you play it, it upconverts back to 1920. In practice this doesn't have much if any visable effect (same with HDV, which does the same).

You can capture 1920 live, by capturing from the HDMI output; i.e. when shooting it passes the 1920 through the HDMI as well as converting to 1440. But that wasn't the point I was making.

[redsox_mark]

Originally Posted by ][Uzzy][

To be honest, I prefer the price points of the SR10 and HG10 but seeing as the SR11 is slightly better is it justifiable to pay £100 more for it?

Hard to say. In terms of video quality, they are all good, and the differences are small. In terms of features; the SR11 and HG10 have an external mic and headphone jack, the SR10 does not. The SR10/SR11 can shoot in SD or HD, the HG10 only in HD. The HG10 has a progressive mode (though it's debatable how good this is). the SR10/SR11 only interlaced.

[chrishull3]

Just to clear up the low light issue i have done a low light test between my SR12 and FX7 the SR 12 had less noise and was able to go down to a lower light level for watchable viewing.Rather annoying at present

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

Just to clear up the low light issue i have done a low light test between my SR12 and FX7 the SR 12 had less noise and was able to go down to a lower light level for watchable viewing.Rather annoying at present

Where did you do the low light test If you dont mind me asking?
How did you view the footage?, off HDTV?

Unless the FX-7 is aging or the SR 12 is exceptional, (Bionz, Exmor ect) I find it hard to see how a camcorder with a smaller sensor with a lens not as fast would perform better
And the FX-7 is meant to be better than the FX1..
I will continue to keep an open mind but watching footage from both a Z1 and Canon XM2 shot last night ( partly by myself ) in an indoor hall ( with additional video lights) Im struggling ( very hard) to see how any of the current crop of Consumer kit could match them
Certainly not the HG 10 , and it isnt meant to be poor with Low light. It is said to be better than the Sr 10 in that

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Where did you do the low light test If you dont mind me asking?
How did you view the footage?, off HDTV?

Unless the FX-7 is aging or the SR 12 is exceptional, (Bionz, Exmor ect) I find it hard to see how a camcorder with a smaller sensor with a lens not as fast would perform better
And the FX-7 is meant to be better than the FX1..
I will continue to keep an open mind but watching footage from both a Z1 and Canon XM2 shot last night ( partly by myself ) in an indoor hall ( with additional video lights) Im struggling ( very hard) to see how any of the current crop of Consumer kit could match them
Certainly not the HG 10 , and it isnt meant to be poor with Low light. It is said to be better than the Sr 10 in that

Me fibbing?the fx1 z1 and xm2 use chips and all reports i have read give the FX1 the edge in low light so i doubt the SR12 could beat them.Firstly seen through the lcds the SRs advantage looked too much it has a better lcd] but when connected to the 19" hd tv in my editing room the difference was
less noticable, It was only when the room was to all and tendency dark that the SR 12 could just see what the FX7 could not.this meens little as i for one will never film under such cercumstances.Filming in an indoor hall with lights the footage from the two cams would probobly be the same as in my room with a light on half power they look similar in noise etc.Focus for the test was manualy locked for both cams

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

Me fibbing?..

Never .. would i dare suggest it??
I just wanted to feel better informed and not stay comfortable in my ignorance


I guess owning an FX1 (not to mention the VX2100) and recently using the XM2 and Z1 have exposed me to really good low light performers and Im half hoping the smaller kit have advanced although I know that there is only so much you can ask for given the faster lenses and bigger CCDs ( albeit 3) of those examples
For all its great qualities I find that HG10 is probably at par with the HC1 for low light .However this may be due to AVCHD as the HV20/30 are better than the HC1

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by senu

Never .. would i dare suggest it??
I just wanted to feel better informed and not stay comfortable in my ignorance


I guess owning an FX1 (not to mention the VX2100) and recently using the XM2 and Z1 have exposed me to really good low light performers and Im half hoping the smaller kit have advanced although I know that there is only so much you can ask for given the faster lenses and bigger CCDs ( albeit 3) of those examples
For all its great qualities I find that HG10 is probably at par with the HC1 for low light .However this may be due to AVCHD as the HV20/30 are better than the HC1

When i first had the FX 7 i did a light test against my 2100 i had at the time i was surprised as it was only when the the room got realy dark that the 2100 showed it was boss.there was less noise of course.
When you say the hg1 10 is no better than the HC1 surprises me as both the FX7 and SR12 are miles better

[senu]

Originally Posted by chrishull3

When you say the hg1 10 is no better than the HC1 surprises me as both the FX7 and SR12 are miles better

Maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration but what I probably mean is that I (personally) find the low light "noise" from the HC1 watchable .
I tried the Canon HG 10 in deliberately very poor indoors lighting with various settings .. Maybe I gave up too soon but what i did not do is a like for like comparison so my comments may be subjective in this regard

[Speechless_UK]

I am looking to buy the SR10E too... but I thought it was 1080p? not 1080i...can anyone clarify this?

Thanks