Sony intros 'entry-level' HVR-HD1000U HDV camcorder

Sony's no stranger to the HDV camcorder realm, so it's no real shock to see the firm introduce a brand new model for "entry-level professionals." Rockin' a shoulder-mount design and aimed at "wedding videographers, freelancers, and educational video creators," this unit supports both HDV and standard-definition DV formats, sports a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonner T 10x optical zoom lens, and features Super SteadyShot technology to keep things stabilized. Additionally, the HVR-HD1000U uses Sony's 1/2.9-inch ClearVid CMOS sensor system and enables users to capture stills up to 6.1-megapixels (or 4.6-megapixels whilst recording in HD). 'Course, all this HD goodness won't come sans a premium, and although this bad boy is tagged entry-level, you'll still be forking out $1,900 for it come December.

[Grandalf @ Aug 23rd 2007 7:50AM]

That's dirt cheap

[Electromodo @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:57AM]

Indeed, and it's probably the cheapest off all Sony prosumer cameras. Let me do some prediction on what will suck in this camera to make the price so low:

1. One 1/3" CMOS sensor instead of three.
2. No more than 720p
3. Frame rate in progressive mode will be no more than 15 fps (as on VX2100).
4. Light sensitivity will be bad for sure, the reason is the announced infrared projector, therefore non-projector sensitivity will be no less than 4 lux, and most probably - 6-7 lux.
5. One multifunction electronic manual ring - that's already announced on Sony's website.
6. No XLR inputs (Sony never had them on cheaper models anyway).
7. One ND filter (or probably none).
8. Less buttons for manual settings, or probably a touch-screen (which is even worse).
9. Tons of useless digital effects, like the site already mentions slow-motion recording with decreased resolution.
10. Let's see what else they will ditch...

Don't take me wrong, I am glad this camera arrives and will be so cheap. It will also probably knock out Panasonic's cheap DVC line which is SD. I'd say such a low price does not come for nothing. Let's see if my speculation is correct ;)

[Jimmy @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:48PM]

@Electromodo

I do not know if you are wrong or right about anything else but the image clearly shows 1080i written on the side of the camera.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/zoom.php?img=2007/8/sony-hvr-hd1000u_large.jpg

[Totalfixation @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:06AM]

I was thinking the same thing too.

[jegHegy @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:11AM]

No need for quotes, it's a budget model.

[andrew @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:22AM]

$1900 is a REALLY good price for any sort of professional camera. Does that price not include a lens or something?

[Rynth @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:35AM]

RTFA

"sports a Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonner T 10x optical zoom lens,"

Helpful?

[MichaelM @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:48AM]

A "Premium"? If this camera lives up to it's description, cameras that these users would have previously been looking at would be the Sony HDR-FX1 ($3,000) and the HVR-V1U ($3,900) And it looks like this camera will work better as a shoulder camera than those models.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out how this fits in with the current models....one thing I couldn't figure out; does the camera have one chip or three? If it's only a one-chipper, that could be one way they are cutting the price (and would differentiate with their existing cameras.

Even if it is only one chip, it looks like a very cool camera.

[Joseph Moore @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:58AM]

CMOS = 1 chip.

My questions is, can it shoot 24P?

[MichaelM @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:31AM]

>>CMOS = 1 chip

The HDR-FX7 (which replaced the HDR-FX1 and also costs about $3k) has 3 CMOS sensors. The press release says "Sony’s 1/2.9-inch ClearVid™ CMOS sensor system" which could mean anything

[Karl Viklund @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:58AM]

Don't buy Sony.

[Deluxe @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:31AM]

Don't feed the trolls.

[tchiseen @ Aug 23rd 2007 8:59AM]

for under 2g's, that's a pretty decent looking camera. i wonder what kind of framerate it will sport. i'll take 2, please.

[mattweiler @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:08AM]

CMOS light sensors are not quite a good as CMOS light sensors when it comes to quality, but for $1,900, what do you expect.

The good news is that the fact that this camera uses a CMOS sensor, as opposed to a CCD sensor, it will get longer battery life, and that is one of the places that Sony's saving money.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm

[Rich @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:32PM]

This camera looks like a Sony DSR-250. When I first heard about this HD version of it I was told that it would use the full size DVCAM tapes and not just mini. Mini tapes are an annoyance on event shoots. I can fit 3 hours of footage on one full size DVCAM tape, changing tapes multiple times during a wedding can be problematic.
If they made a camera like this that used the full size tape, had a real lens and real iris (not a electronic one) I would be right on it. I have been shooting and editing for 22 years and I find these new little HD camcorders that they tell us are pro to be substandard compared to cameras like the Sony DSR-300 or the Panasonic AG-DVC200...Just because it is HD does not make it better.The optics are very important and the abilty to adjust for proper exposure on the fly and these cameras are not good for that especially in dark indoor situations.

[mattweiler @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:10AM]

Sorry, I meant that Sony is saving money by using CCD sensors since they are much cheaper to manufacture.

Kinda still asleep :)

[Nelson @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:16AM]

Well, no. I won't be forking over $1,900 for it come December (or any other month, for that matter). That's a lotta green for 'entry level' gadget...
Pax,
N.

[Nelson @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:19AM]

OK, so I missed 'professionals'. I'm sorry. I still can't afford it.
Pax,
N.

[fmahalem @ Aug 23rd 2007 9:24AM]

well, its not a gadget, its a tool for film makin students or freelancer, its a good price.

But i think is not a good camera if you're looking forward to make some green/blue screen keying or for some special effects, specialy because of the one chio capture device, that messes up the color channels, but it's a great quality camera for shooting film, compared to a DV, that was the option before this with like $500 or $600 cameras.

[Jeff Foster @ Aug 23rd 2007 10:51AM]

If it even comes close to how it is described, it is in fact dirt cheap.

I do wonder if it can shoot 24p, or what frame-rates it gets, how it does low light, etc... It might very well be a "budget" camera, but it would still be a steal.

[Guy Barwood @ Aug 23rd 2007 11:21AM]

Consider this a sholder mount version of the HC7 camcorder and probably nothing much more. I'll be it will be 1080i only.

This is not a camera I can see getting much market penetration. Too big (pysically) for pro-sumers and of little use to semi-pro who want a lot more in a sholder mount design.

[Joseph Moore @ Aug 23rd 2007 12:37PM]

>> The HDR-FX7 (which replaced the HDR-FX1 and also costs about $3k) has 3 CMOS sensors. The press release says "Sony’s 1/2.9-inch ClearVid™ CMOS sensor system" which could mean anything

At $1,900 it almost certainly means 1 chip. But 1 chip CMOS performance can be VERY good, just look at the little Canon HV20. I would (and did) take it over more expensive 3 CCD solutions.

[Phil @ Aug 23rd 2007 1:47PM]

"A Premium"??????

This is the problem with tech-happy consumers getting their noses in pro gear without knowing anything about it. When they finally do get the money to buy it because "OMG this will get great video", they end up using it in auto mode and doing their editing with iMovie - all the while complaining about how heavy it is. Same story with DSLRs.

I'm not trying to be snobby here; I just can't stand ignorance.

/rant

[Electromodo @ Aug 23rd 2007 2:07PM]

@Jimmy

Thank you, I haven't seen that zoomed picture... This is good the camera does 1080 interlaced, but I still doubt it goes above 720 progressive. And I doubt progressive will be above 15 fps.

I hope I am wrong... ;) And if this camera does 24p and has good light sensitivity, I would seriously think of buying it. But the price is too low for that to be true... :)

[Wrecks @ Sep 1st 2007 2:14PM]

The light sensitivity is what I want to know about. The rest looks useful but if it sucks in low light then it's NOT good for wedding videographers (which is the target market, no?).

[Hank Castello @ Sep 4th 2007 5:44PM]

The low-light comments are pretty much right-on, but then there really is no hi-def camera that comes close to wedding video cameras like pd170 and vx2100. The closest is the 3-Lux Z1 & FX1. Boils down to the fact that those who want a hi-def wedding video (and is ANYONE getting requests for those?) may have to put up with turning on more lights at the church and putting up with on-camera lights at the reception.

- Hank Castello
www.WeddingVideoDoneRight.com