Which Camera? Panny HVX 2OO Or JVC GY-HD251E
Posted 04 May 2007 - 05:10 PM
Posted 04 May 2007 - 08:16 PM
Regarding image, the JVC has an edge with resolution. The Panasonic uses a 540x960 chipset that's uprezzed, and it kind-of shows. That said, the HVX image is very pretty and can look a heck of a lot like Super16mm film. Neither camera will look like 35mm. There are other inherent differences to the image quality, some of which Walter pointed out here (comparing the earlier HD100 model).
Natively, the JVC records to tape using the HDV codec. The Panasonic records to P2 cards using the DVCPRO HD codec. There are some major differences in what these codecs will mean to you in post, depending on what you want to do with them. There are different external recording options for both cameras, that can open up some possibilities.
Form factor is a huge difference between these two cameras. The JVC is set up like a professional ENG camera, with great operator ergonomics and switches in "all the old familiar places." The HVX is kind of like a heavy football, with relatively crappy viewing options in the field. The JVC will accept different lenses, including higher-end professional HD glass with the right adapters. But the stock HVX lens is pretty decent as-is.
I have to admit that I'm much more partial to the HVX image, but enjoy shooting with the JVC more. Ultimately you'll have to try them both out.
Posted 05 May 2007 - 03:39 AM
That said, the HVX image is very pretty and can look a heck of a lot like Super16mm film
Just observations and trying to cut through the advertising I may be off track here and I dont want to get bogged down by "it depends what you want it for". I want the best camera to make films with! My guess is one of the Cameras is vastly superior
I have heard a few professionals say they wouldn't use anything less than the panasonic because of its 4:2:2 Surely this is a major advantage in terms of film making. I.E Chroma keying, Film transfer, Grading etc. Also the panny seems to give a very realistic film look.
The JVC offers different lenses with the stock one being pretty useless? This is a good idea but to obtain a shallow DOF you have to buy the adapter which here is over £3000 but then you could always use the red rock with the panny.
So here in the UK the panny would cost about £3500 + red rock £1500 = £5000
The JVC would cost £5600 + Adapter £3000 = £8600
All things being equal after this I.E How many stops. 1/3 CCD, XLR inputs.
It seems the Panasonic offers the better picture quality. Especially in post also to meet the criteria of many TV stations WHO might accept the JVC if it was transcoded to 4:2:2 but it wont improve what was never recorded. Better value for money?
Just had a look at Walter Graffs comparison test, WOW! Really thorough. After seeing this I realised the panny was most certainly the most film like OF THOSE TWO. But I reckon it was the difference in lenses and their coatings.
I would love to see how the JVC 251 loaded with zeiss primes and its adapter would do on this same test. Especially in walters color space representations.
They both seem such a leap from my canon GL2.
For me, at this point I would say the panny has it but only because of the 4:2:2 and what I have seen so far. I reckon though that this needs further TESTING with the newer models and abilities.
Edited by Mark Williams, 05 May 2007 - 03:43 AM.