Videographers: Panasonic AG-HVX200P or JVC GY-HD110U?

In My Humble Opinion
1

A friend wants a new camera, and he’s asked my advice. He’s looking at the Panasonic AG-HVX200P or the JVC GY-HD110U.

Ask me about an Aaton vs. an Arri vs. Eclair or a Bolex vs. a Krasnagorsk, and I can offer decent opinions. But with DV cameras, I sometimes get the impression that it’s more about brand-loyalty than which camera is better for the purpose. (This exists to a degree in film cameras. Aaton loyalist say their cameras are better because improvements are incorporated as they’re available, while Arriflex cameras seem to ‘save up’ improvements and incorporate them all at once. Arri loyalists say their cameras are better because accessories are more easily obtained, and thus they have a complete ‘camera system’.)

For DV I used a friend’s Sony VX1000 on his Night For Nixie project, and a Canon XL-1 on somebody else’s project. I’ve used JVC GY-500Us for weddings and instructional videos, and I have a Panasonic AG-DVX100A for the same purposes as well as a feature project that was not finished. Of those cameras, I like my Panasonic best. But those old-school JVCs were good too.

My friend mentions the SG Pro SGPRO R3 35mm Film Adapter or Redrock M2 35mm Adapter Kit so that 16mm or 35mm lenses can be used. The ability to change lenses is all well and good. But have you checked prices? I’d love some different lenses for my 16mm gear, but I can’t afford one to four times the cost of the camera for one lens. I could adapt Nikon 35mm lenses to a couple of my cameras (adapters are readily available), but there’s the magnification factor. A 50mm SLR lens becomes about a 100mm on a 16mm camera. I’d rather go the other way, as a 10mm lens on a 16mm camera would be more useful on many occasions. That would be an expensive 5mm SLR lens. I don’t know how SLR lens focal lengths relate to 1/3" digital video cameras. And the lenses on ‘prosumer’ cameras are pretty good. My Panasonic has one by Leica. Does my friend really ‘need’ a camera that will accept the 35mm adapter and lenses?

My friend (and I) will primarily be using the camera for weddings and industrial videos, although artistic projects (‘indie film’) will also be undertaken. The JVC seems like overkill for the former, but would be very useful for the latter. (Incidentally, brides seem to like the ‘more professional’ look of bigger cameras. Good selling point.)

I saw a demonstration of the JVC and Redrock kit about three years ago. I have to say I was impressed. I love my Panasonic, but the JVC really appeared to be more capable. Of course my Panasonic isn’t HiDef. On the other hand, I heard a couple of years ago, a few complaints by users that the JVC isn’t ‘all that’. But I had no issues with the old 500Us.

The JVC with an IDX battery kit, Chrosziel 4x4 matte box, Chrosziel follow-focus, 6" LCD monitor, and a wide-angle adaptor can be had used for about five and a half kilobucks. Considering the battery and charger kit retails for $1,000, a Chrosziel matte box sells for about $1,200, and maybe a grand for the follow-focus, that doesn’t seem egregious for the full kit.

I’m tempted to recommend the JVC to my friend based on the availability of full kits (similar to the Arri crowd’s argument that they have a complete ‘camera system’ – and FWIW my super-16 camera is an Aaton, though I do have an Arri 16.S as well) and the demonstration of the JVC we both saw three years ago.

But if any of you have recommendations regarding these two specific cameras I’ll definitely consider them and pass them along.

Thanks in advance.

2

I found a couple of reviews online. There is one dissatisfied customer at Amazon who complains of a display problem with the JVC on two cameras, plus he mentions a friend had the same problem. A reviewer at dv.com complains about image quality (aliasing) on the Panasonic.

3

Have you considered the Canon XH-A1 or the more upscale XL-H1A? I have an XH-A1 and am constantly impressed with it. I don’t have replaceable lenses, but as I don’t have any other lenses to put on it, it doesn’t matter. If I were going to do really arty stuff with a shallow depth of field, I’d pick up the new Canon EOS 5D Mark II then call in every favor from photographer friends and borrow a load of lenses. The results can be astounding. It would be useless for industrials and weddings though.

4

He’s not considering a Canon. ISTR him saying that his first camera was a Canon (XL-1?), but I don’t remember his impression of it. I do know that when he started doing stuff for money he opted for the JVC GY-500U.

5

That’s why I mentioned it. Some of the kit for a XL-1 will work with a XL-H1A. He didn’t say that he is down on Canon, and I’m curious why it’s not in the running.

6

I’ll mention it to him and ask him. Thanks for the suggestion.

7

Re: the Canon. He said, ‘I played with them and it was really not all that good.’

YMMV of course, but that’s his impression.

8

OK. I could never consider a P2 based camera like the Panasonic, especially if I might be shooting long-form stuff like weddings or industrial. The cost of the media is just prohibitive, although an external hard drive makes that less of a problem. The 720P nature of the JVC removed it from the running for me as well.

9

Just got another email. He said that he thought the footage from my (non-HD) Panasonic looked better than the Canon footage.

Not to start an argument of course, when I’m asking opinions! :wink: I’m appreciate the input. As I said, I like the images from my Panasonic. IMO the raw footage, when viewed on a 20" Apple monitor, looks a bit like 16mm film. I think my AG-DVX100A footage is better than the footage we got from the 500Us (which were also non-HD). So personally I don’t have anything against the Panasonic.

On further reading about the display problem with the JVC, it appears that this is because of the way they split the pixels. The review I read on dv.com seems to indicate this was more of a problem on early-production cameras and has largely been fixed.

What is your objection to 720p? AFAIK (and again, I’m more of a film guy) 720p is smoother than 1080i, while 1080i gives a sharper image. I think that the sharper image offered by 1080i might be more impressive for things like documentaries, while 720p might be better for dramatic productions. Given that most people don’t have HDTVs, I wonder how important crisp vs. smooth is to the average viewer?

10

Of the two in your OP, I’d avoid the Panasonic, because the P2 technology was a stupid idea that never worked properly, and I expect will be abandoned. So the JVC is what I’d pick.

I’d go with Sony, anyway.

(I’d personally choose the Sony DSR-450. It doesn’t do HD, but IMHO HD doesn’t matter half as much as most people think. It’s a bastard to edit)

11

What editing software do you use, and why is it difficult to edit?

12

When I was editing I was using Premiere, but then we shifted to HD and had to find software that could cope, which premiere couldn’t at that time. And maybe still can’t.

So we moved to Avid. Which was okay in handling the epic resolution, but not so great in realtime playback, as you need a hugely powerful computer to deal with it.

I am no expert, and I have long since left that job, so I don’t know what the result was after all the arseing about getting it to work. Perhaps it’s all plain sailing now. All I know is it was a thousand percent more hassle than working in Standard Def.

13

I like 720P for sports broadcasts, and if I were shooting sports it would be a choice. But for normal motion, the greater temporal resolution doesn’t matter. 1080i is the desired format for most HD broadcasters. I personally wouldn’t consider any non-HD camera these days. I use Edius (formerly Canopus, now Thomson/Grass Valley) and can edit 1080i on a laptop. I’m mostly doing straight cuts, and performance is not an issue.

14

Another email.

I think I’ve been trying to be too practical. (Or economical, maybe.) He wants to get ‘the right camera for movie making’. I know his ultimate goal is to make ‘films’ (in quotes because I still differentiate between film and video), but IMO it’s extremely unlikely there’s much money in it; so I think more along the lines of a camera that’s adequate for ‘movie making’ but that will earn its living shooting the mundane.

An actuality, I already have a camera that is perfectly suited to ‘movie-making’. It’s so suited to movie-making that it’s particularly unsuitable for such things as weddings and industrial videos. Of course I’m talking about the Aaton. The advantages are that it’s super-16, so you get A a modest widescreen effect. I love Fuji film for the colour saturation, and Kodak Pan-X for B&W. Film and processing are expensive, and you’re never sure of what you have until it’s processed – which can be the next day, or a week later. Blow it, and you’re SOL. Not as good as 35mm; but tons of films have been shot on 16mm or super-16 and have been successfully blown up, or else released straight to video.

I’d still like to limit the discussion to the two models specified in the OP since those are the ones he’s looking at, but since the latest email is asking for ‘the best video camera for movie-making’ there may be other suggestions that are better.

15

My friend called and we talked so long I’m surprised by phone’s battery lasted. I get the impression that he’s leaning toward the Panasonic. He likes my 100A. But he also likes the accessories with the JVC he’s looking at, the cost of which exceeds the street price of the camera. And he likes JVC too.

At this stage it looks like he’s going to buy a GY-DVX100B for the grunt work. After I passed along the information provided by you guys, he is still considering which HD camera to buy.

16

Now he’s looking at the Sony HVR-V1U. Videomaker gave it a good review.

17

That’s an HDV Camera. That’s not technically HD, and it uses MPEG compression which has some caveats when editing.

18

Thanks, GuanoLad. I’ve sent him the link.

(Me, I’ve been playing with the Arri. :smiley: )