Hey you, with the new Canon HF G10 .. Read this ..

[Kiriakos-GR]

Dave posted on Tweeter before 2 hours ...

" Exciting - going to pick up my new video camera! A Canon HF G10 "

Dave can I have the old one for parts ?  LOL     ( Free)

[EEVblog]

Sorry, I need a backup!
Besides the new Canon can't do even basic stuff the old Sanyo can do, bloody annoying.
But neither can other new cameras on the market, so I didn't really have a choice.
I feel a rant video coming - "what sucks about the Canon HF G10"

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Hmm, seems I was a bit overly harsh on one feature...
When recording in lower bit rates (the bottom 3 out of 5), it drops from full 1920x1280 HD (16:9) to 1440x1080 (what I thought was 4:3).
Now, I thought that was completely stupid, i.e. why record in 4:3 format on a widescreen camera and not call it 4:3 mode?
Well, I just tried it and it does indeed record at 1440x1080 pixels, but it actually displays in 16:9 format, and also displays 16:9 when uploaded to Youtube.
I guess AVCHD format has the ability to change the pixel ratio format (anamorphic something?)?

Cool, this means I can shoot the blogs in 1440x1080 and enjoy lower bit rates, but not lose widescreen.

Doesn't change the fact that the "SD" downcoded version in the camera is actually 4:3 720x576 which is just retarded.

Dave.

[Mechatrommer]

you should've checked the "datasheet" and "review" earlier.

[EEVblog]

you should've checked the "datasheet" and "review" earlier.

I did. Manuals tell you nothing, and reviews are bloody useless for the finer details like that.

Stuff like how easy is it to play back video clip using the remote control. Not even Canon Australia could tell me that!

Dave.

[Kiriakos-GR]

Some one on Amazon reported issues when he used an external microphone.
Every time that he was touching the display screen when he was recording,
he got sounds like hum spikes.
Check this too.


My own Olympus digital camera C2100 uses an Canon lens barrel with  gyroscopic IS and 10X zoom.
Does your uses the same gyroscopic IS system?
If it does, the results must be great in comparison with the old one.   

[mikeselectricstuff]

Looking forward to the teardown video of the new camera... 

[amigo]

Dave,

So why did you go for a camcorder rather than a DSLR camera for video?

[EEVblog]

So why did you go for a camcorder rather than a DSLR camera for video?

I can't believe the number of people who asked me this, or told me to get a DSLR.
DSLR's are next to useless for proper general purpose video production.
Many don't have external mic inputs for starters, many don't focus properly while zooming, many won't let you do basic stuff like zoom with the remote control, and the list goes on.
Any $200 camcorder will beat the shit out of a canon 5D Mk2 in terms of actual usefulness as video camera.
Yes, they can be great optical quality, but when you try and use them, they suck for the kind of video work I do.

As always, horses for courses. It's best to get the right tool for the job.

Dave.

[Kiriakos-GR]

I did watch some pictures of the Canon HF G10.

Key features by my opinion,  the Image stabilization and the viewfinder at the bottom of it.
The image stabilization will help the max at 10X or low light in door shooting. 
The viewfinder it will save you for outdoor under bright sun.
I can not feel jealous about the double SD ports, or the internal memory.
Or the price of the extra battery.

Did you got it full price 1.500$ ?

[EEVblog]

They are slightly more expensive here in Oz unfortunately.
The dual SD cards + internal memory combo is really nice.
The 3.5" screen is awesome.
Image quality and focusing system is superb as you'd expect.
As is the 30mm wide angle, way too much for the regular position in my lab! But will be very handy for lots of stuff.
And the bigger battery life is just awesome, need to get a couple of those.

Dave.

[Psi]

A fixed mounted DSLR with macro zoom lens might make a good video cam for recording pcbs and stuff that's being worked on. Since it can be positioned a reasonable distance away and still show minute detail in a small area. Not cheap though.

[amigo]

Eh Dave, you turned into a fall guy here for asking... 

The fact is, great many number of people use DSLRs for production because they are better than camcorders in many respects. The notion that camcorders are specific for some job had faded away long time ago and there's no fine line now.

But to each their own, if a camcorder does it for you, then by all means...

[EEVblog]

The fact is, great many number of people use DSLRs for production because they are better than camcorders in many respects. The notion that camcorders are specific for some job had faded away long time ago and there's no fine line now.

Ok, please show me an affordable DSLR that has:
-external mic input with adjustable input level
-headphone socket
-on screen audio level meters
-seamless autofocus through the entire zoom range
-can record several hours of continuous footage at a minimum
-does not have a noisy zoom that couples into the audio
-operates fully all video functions (including zoom) easily via the remote control
-an articulated screen so I can see in front of the camera.
-support for various bit rate HD
-AVCHD H.264 file support

and probably a host of other stuff I can't pull of the top of my head.

I had a quick look at current crop models and could not even find one that came close to the operating abilities of a proper purpose designed video camera. And not close to your claim of " faded away long time ago".
Every forum and review I read says the same thing yet "they just aren't there yet with video functionality"

Seriously, if you can find one that does then I'll sell my new cannon and switch.

Dave.

[amigo]

Ok, please show me an affordable DSLR that has:
-external mic input with adjustable input level
-headphone socket
-on screen audio level meters
-seamless autofocus through the entire zoom range
-can record several hours of continuous footage at a minimum
-does not have a noisy zoom that couples into the audio
-operates fully all video functions (including zoom) easily via the remote control
-an articulated screen so I can see in front of the camera.
-support for various bit rate HD
-AVCHD H.264 file support

and probably a host of other stuff I can't pull of the top of my head.

I had a quick look at current crop models and could not even find one that came close to the operating abilities of a proper purpose designed video camera. And not close to your claim of " faded away long time ago".
Every forum and review I read says the same thing yet "they just aren't there yet with video functionality"

Seriously, if you can find one that does then I'll sell my new cannon and switch.

Dave.

Personally, I was looking at a Canon T3i (600D) which with some tweaks does inch closer to what you listed above, though not all the way. But, I also wanted a photo camera as well, beside being able to take video. I just think affordable and full featured never come in the same sentence.

General idea is that because the imager is much larger than on standard camcorders, you get better image quality and sensitivity range with DSLRs. Sadly, continuous AF is missing on most (Nikon D5100 has somewhat resolved that) and that's probably done on purpose rather it being a technological issue. When marketing and sales get involved into design, then a specific product is crippled on purpose so it does not affect other product lines. But you probably already know that.

I know most people complain how DSLRs can't shoot continuously like camcorders do, but they do use AVCHD. Issue is that 12 min limitation (2 GB file size) in 1080 HD resolution which is purely a File System and not a device hurdle. Any AVCHD capable unit records only 12 min chunks - they just appear seamless on camcorders when you are importing the footage because of the metadata binds and software configuration.

Most recent DSLRs support the variety of HD resolutions and frame rates. I am not sure why you need bit rate adjustment on your device when that would lower the quality of the footage. You get a larger memory card for the device instead if you need longer recording times.

Newer Canon and Nikon DSLRs both have articulated LCD screens and external MIC inputs, albeit Nikon does not have fine control with input levels and Canon has AGC that needs to be disabled.

Really, the greatest benefit to using DSLRs for video, beside the larger imager, is the glass. You have a huge selection of lenses available for all kinds of situations and applications that you would not generally get with a camcorder. This is the reason why many indy and semi-pro videographers opt for DSLRs. Surely you must have read about instances where they would hook up a Canon 5D Mk II to a rented $250,000 Panavision lens and do away with a single or two man camera crew, creating stunning film quality shots at a fraction of the cost.

I'm guessing you must have done some research before making this purchase and noticed that in the consumer market the only camcorder that offers replaceable lens was Sony NEX-VG10 (Sony is touting it as the "creative breakthrough"). On a side note, I did try it and it's too front heavy. The lens is much heavier than the body and you constantly have to struggle keeping it up. Sony could've done a better job, although all they've done is repackaged their photo camera in a handycam body and crippled the functionality so it does not threaten their prosumer camcorders. Pathetic.

Also, you must have seen that prosumer market is actually getting the wind of the interchangeable lens craze as well with the recent introductions of Panasonic AG-AF100 and Sony NEX FS100. Being able to change lenses on a camcorder is really a big deal. Though, those two are $5,000 body-only units and you still need to invest into a $1,000+ lens. Not really meant for home productions.

Ok, I'm going too general now. In reality, whatever fulfills your requirements should be the first choice. And with the least amount of hassle and frustrations. The fact stays though, that there's a great many number of people who have switched to using DSLRs for their videos, as evident on YouTube, Vimeo, etc, because of the benefits DSLRs provide...

[Kiriakos-GR]

The Sanyo HD1010,  the King at 2009 in image quality, it does have a thread at the lens barrel,
so to add wide angle / zoom / macro, converters .

The point is that Sanyo did not offered those options as lens, speaking about the easy to find parameter.
Not to speak about their own external mic, that is almost hidden as product, with out even a product code !! 
Not to say that the Sanyo it was not build to handle pre-amplified Mic's, and there is a problem with those,
at the low level sounds, the sound comes with some choppiness like a saw waves.
The HD1010 is happy only with the addition, of non powered Condenser mics ( 2 wires per cap ) x2 = Stereo.
This is why the Sony ECM-DS70P ( original or not)  sounds great on the Sanyo Xacti.

I accidentally found, that all the high quality converters of Olympus, that was made to stuck up front to a 10X lens system,
they will work beautifully on the Sanyo xacti HD1010, with a minimum of distortion.

Now lets imagine that the camera costs about 400$ ( or was ) , and one high quality Olympus Wide 0.8 converter,
it costs another   160$  as new ( or 100$ or less as used).

Speaking about cost and performance,  I got exited by the current quality of  Dave videos,
and this is why I got the same camera at the beginning of 2011.
( Lucky me, I got it even at much less , and from a Greek hand, almost unused ).

Just the number of 1.500$ ,  makes me imagine, that I would get three times more advantages,
than what I got from the 400$ (street price) one.
If I don't get them ?  I will conclude that it was not an worthy choice.

About the 5.000$ equipment, I would justify the price for an video camera, that has additional cooling systems,
so to keep happy the hot CCD and battery, so to assist for a trouble free long lasting footage.
I just hope or wish that Canon did run those calculations, and the larger battery capacity of the HF G10,
it does translates too, in longer footage times with out getting hot to the point to trigger the temperature alarm function.

I am a hobbyist Photographer, for about ten years,
and I prefer separate gear for Video, and separate for still images.
And my opinion is that they must stay as separate.     




 

 

[amigo]

I am a hobbyist Photographer, for about ten years,
and I prefer separate gear for Video, and separate for still images.
And my opinion is that they must stay as separate.     

Video guys where I work think the same way. To them having a full size imager on a camcorder, or replaceable lenses is something unholy. But, times are changing and they will have to come to the terms one day. Granted, there will always be a pro-video market where dedicated camcorders will be selling, although they will eventually all end up with full size imagers and interchangeable lenses - just the nature of the beast.

Out with the old (paradigm) and in with the new, I say.

[Lightages]

Dave is right. DSLRs are next to useless for his work. DSLRs can produce beautiful results but with lots of effort. They need a dedicated camera person behind the camera at all times and need all kinds of add on equipment to get decent audio out of them. Personally I do not even use the audio in my Canon 7D when using it for video. I have external audio recorders for that. Synching the sound after in post is another headache for Dave that is just a waste of time.

FYI. I have shot and produced video for The History Channel, Discovery Channel, OASIS HD, and a other clients. My equipment consists of a Sony EX3 and lenses, two Canon HF100s, Canon 7D and many lenses, lighting, tripods and video heads, mics of many types, and quite a bit of audio support equipment. Each of my pieces of equipment has a reason and a place. As Dave says, "horses for courses". While I would not pick up one of my Canon HF100s for full production HD, it has a purpose for some shots.

If I were to start doing what Dave is doing, video blogging, the last thing I would reach for is my Canon 7D. Way too much work for the intended final product and way overkill for the image size and quality needed. I would probably use my EX3 or more likely my Canon HF100.

[EEVblog]

Just the number of 1.500$ ,  makes me imagine, that I would get three times more advantages,
than what I got from the 400$ (street price) one.
If I don't get them ?  I will conclude that it was not an worthy choice.

The HD-1010 has many problems for me.
- There are bugs, the video pixelates and has compression problems often.
- The autofocus system is pretty retarded.
- It has exposure problems all over the place.
- It overheats in summer (and shuts down)
- The battery is way too small, and cannot be replaced unless I remove the tripod mount.
- The image is noisy

$1500 is not much to spend for a top quality pro video camera.
Sure, I could have got one almost as good optically for maybe $800-$900, but it doesn't have the nice stuff like the sound level meters and options, zebra striping, peaking display, 3.5" high res screen, dual SD card slots etc.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

If I were to start doing what Dave is doing, video blogging, the last thing I would reach for is my Canon 7D. Way too much work for the intended final product and way overkill for the image size and quality needed. I would probably use my EX3 or more likely my Canon HF100.

That's good reassurance coming from a pro, thanks.
That's why I got the current top of the range Canon camcorder.
Lots of pro level features, sensor and lens, in an easy to use camcorder package that allows me to just shoot and edit, and not dick around with all sorts of other stuff you would have to on a DSLR rig.

Unless you've been there in front of the video camera day in day out, and editing up to hundreds of clips for some blogs, you don't realise the little usability things camcorders have that you come to appreciate.

Dave.

[Kiriakos-GR]

I will say only two words about the HD1010, and I will do that,
because I had take the time to read lots of forum messages about it.
Like advises coming from experts.

The HD1010 it can do it best only if it gets adjusted manually.
The manual settings can fight back exposure issues, and auto-focus speed.
 
The experience of using manual settings, comes to you,
if you spent lots of time by experimenting with an digital photo camera.

Many cameras become famous, due the fact that they did all the work with a minimal effort from the side of the user.
The HD1010 is not one of them. 
If you set manually ISO/ F number / Exposure time, the Auto-focus becomes lightning fast,
and the footage is very stable with out surprises when you do the editing.

The battery life its not that limiting, but what you should had do, was to have and a second HD1010,
one on the tripod, and another one for moving it around on the bench .
By this way you would not had the need, to change all the setup, so many times, in other words less trouble.
Now with the Canon HF G10, you can do the same ... 
The Canon HF G10 as main,  the HD1010 just for close up and around the bench footage.

I did test the HD1010 for still pictures, yes they come out a bit noisy on the monitor screen, but acceptable for printing.

I do not challenge your expertness about using the HD1010,
I am just sharing what I have learn so far.

I wish you to enjoy the Canon HF G10,
after all you did pay the price for it, and I hope too to be money well spent.