Sony unveils new high-end pro HDV camcorders

Those looking to drop as much coin as they can on HDV gear have always turned to Sony, and the company is back for more with two new high-end 1080p HDV cameras, the $10,500 HVR-S270U (pictured) and the $6,850 HVR-Z7U. Both models feature interchangeable Carl Zeiss lenses, Sony's 1/3-inch ClearVid CMOS sensor that offers 1.5 lux sensitivity, 24p and 30p modes, and support for recording directly to CompactFlash or an optional hard-disk recording attachment. The miniDV-only HVR-Z7U features HDMI output, while the HVR-270U bumps up to HD- or SD-SDI output and can also take full-size DVCAM tapes. Sony also released $5,540 HVR-M35U HDV deck that accepts both miniDV and full-size tapes, and features a 2.7-inch preview LCD. All this gear is expected to hit in February -- just in time for that IMAX happy slapping documentary you've been planning. Pictures of the HVR-Z7U and the HVR-M35U after the break.

[mushrooshi @ Nov 14th 2007 8:15PM]

I like the Red ONE better.

Why do these look so fragile?

[Rodrigo @ Nov 14th 2007 8:46PM]

Yeah!, go Jim go!

[billy bob thorton @ Nov 15th 2007 11:27AM]

This seems to be really overkill for a 1/3" sensor. There's a reason pro cameras are 2/3". Same goes for 16mm vs 35mm and full frame vs. aps sized sensors. the biggest thing for me depth of field control. it's just simply not the same and people notice

[Rec @ Nov 14th 2007 8:20PM]

I better start saving my money right now...

Rec.

http://community.sitv.com/user/recworm

[Quix @ Nov 14th 2007 8:25PM]

It wasn't to many years ago I was taking a video class at a college and had to carefully tiptoe around my instructor's *$100,000* HD camera.

Recently I picked up an HD camera of my own, a Canon HV20. Cost: $800.

The progress of technology is truly amazing.

[Jesse S @ Nov 14th 2007 9:04PM]

Accept the HD picture quality of that Canon sucks.

It isn't all resolution, I wish people would realize that. In fact, resolution is one of the least-important aspects of a camera (video or photo). 10mp or 1080p means nothing if it looks terrible.

HD is a buzzword in consumer products.

[joey @ Nov 14th 2007 9:14PM]

@Jesse S

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACVZp-UMD0Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZvoavRKjJA

Come again?

[TF @ Nov 14th 2007 10:55PM]

*ahem*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm5UC2DvI3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W26u0yk79Q8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5mFkmhZLgg

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 14th 2007 11:45PM]

Using Youtube to show off the capabilities of an HD cam? Am I missing something here?

[Quix @ Nov 15th 2007 12:45AM]

"Using Youtube to show off the capabilities of an HD cam? Am I missing something here?"

Even at Youtube resolution, you should be able to recognize this as phenomenal video quality. Especially for a $900 camera.

[John @ Nov 14th 2007 8:50PM]

lol Sony. Nobody buys Sony anymore. Probably uses Memory Sticks.

[zerosozha @ Nov 14th 2007 8:56PM]

Reread the article. Uses CompactFlash or HDD add-on.

[jpcoop @ Nov 14th 2007 9:05PM]

I think he was being sarcastic. Every other Sony product on the Earth DOES use Memory Stick.

[MacAngus @ Nov 15th 2007 9:40AM]

They probably do use memory sticks for scene file storage, like most Sony cameras, including many broadcast ones, and also for dumping still frames to.

[David Lawrence @ Nov 14th 2007 9:07PM]

HDV, meh. Give me a real format like DVCPro50HD.

[Jake @ Nov 14th 2007 9:24PM]

It is a funny argument about HDV vs. DVC ProHD. Sure, there is a lot of compression in HDV, and sure you are only getting a 4:2:0 compared to 4:2:2. However, in that compression algorithm, you are getting a gorgeous picture. a picture that is easy to capture, and looks great on an iPod, a big screen, or your home computer.

If you are looking for more resolution, sure, use DVCPROHD, if not, and you want to save some money, Sony and Canon might be some good options...

[David Lawrence @ Nov 14th 2007 9:41PM]

Jake - I agree. I'm working on a project right now that was shot in HDV with Canon HV20 cameras. The footage looks excellent, especially considering we spent $900 for the cameras and they were being used by high school students.

But if I'm shopping for a camera with $10+k price tag, I want a better record format than HDV. For that kind of money, I'd rather go with an HVX200 or just save my pennies for a Red.

[Shahryar @ Nov 14th 2007 9:59PM]

What kind of a pricetag does the HVX200 have? I'm passively thinking of getting something else to replace my Sony HC1. I'm still pretty happy with it though.

Also, does anyone know how easy it would be to marriage footage between a HC1 and a HV20?

[Jake @ Nov 15th 2007 12:54AM]

Making them look the same might be tough. They both follow the same protocols, so theoretically they would both work. If it was me, I would just make sure to use the same camera that you used to shoot the footage to capture it.

[Shahryar @ Nov 16th 2007 1:45PM]

Thanks for the response Jake. Let's see what happens. My friend's getting an HV20 (already on its way from B&H Photo), but I really don't want to stop using my HC1 unless I have to.

[Adam @ Nov 14th 2007 9:19PM]

Seriously, WHY would you spend that much on an HDV camera? Tape is on its way out.

[Jake @ Nov 14th 2007 9:26PM]

@adam... Compact flash and HDD. What does that mean to you?

[Andir3.0 @ Nov 14th 2007 11:49PM]

CompactFltapesh and Heavy Damn Dtape? I don't know what he's thinking, except mindless bashing. ;)

[Jake @ Nov 15th 2007 12:49AM]

How about 32 gb compact flash and gigantic hard drive disks?

[Adam @ Nov 15th 2007 12:58AM]

My mistake... I didn't read closely enough to see that these are the tapeless cameras I read about a while ago. Still, they can do better than HDV if they're free of the bandwidth constraints imposed by DV tape.

[Mark @ Nov 14th 2007 9:35PM]

Last I heard, none of the broadcast or cable networks were accepting anything shot on HDV. By their standards it isn't a broadcast quality format. If that's still true, I have to wonder what market Sony thinks exist for these cameras.

[Serengeti @ Nov 14th 2007 10:10PM]

I think thats only true because most HDV cameras, currently, have shit lenses and recording equipment.

Thats like saying, ten years ago, that SD TV stations wouldn't accept anything shot on Hi 8, or even Digital 8. Not because of the format (D8 equivalent to MiniDV, essentially, and thats on all sorts of TV stations), but because of the camera bodies themselves.

I've read a few submission requirements.. most say that they must approve HDV footage, not that its out right disqualified.

[endless @ Nov 15th 2007 1:06AM]

I was an extra in MTV Highschool stories a year or two ago. I had nothing to do with the story, but I figured it would be semi educational and really interesting to see how MTV does a shoot. (i was right, it was very interesting)
anyway, back to subject, they shot on 2 panasonic DVX100As. If they are willing to use normal DV, its i think HDV definitely can get broadcast. (I also agree with the HV20 comments, its a sweet little camera considering how affordable it is!)

[MacAngus @ Nov 15th 2007 9:38AM]

I work at MTV, and I can confirm that MTV utilizes footage shot on DV and HDV. They've used my Sony HVR-V1U for a number of segments, and they own a number of HDV cameras which are used daily.

[CraigWB @ Nov 14th 2007 11:53PM]

Their interesting cameras but I'm more into the Pdw-FX1 I think it's called XDCAM EX, and the F23.

[videonevin @ Nov 15th 2007 1:46AM]

Tape is not yet on it's way out, HDV tape still beats all consumer level hdd or flash stored hd video, it's at a data rate of 25mbps while I think the highest avchd camcorder is at about 17mbps, and the avchd spec only goes to 24mbps, which has yet to be reached on a camcorder.
Tape is still good in pro level too as it is a means of automatically archiving your footage, it can still provide data rates equal or better than most flash/disk drive addons. And if full quality uncompressed is needed most pro hd cameras tape/disk/flash have a hd-sdi out to get uncompressed straight from the chip footage to capture into a computer with the proper capture card(and raid array).
That being said I still like the workflow of flash/disk/hdd. Not having to capture footage is so nice, where I work we recently got an xdcam hd camera(pdw350) and capturing is as easy as loading up the xdcam software, setting a bin and selecting the clips to transfer(usually select all).

[xmanflash @ Nov 15th 2007 3:29AM]

I have to replace a lost camera and looked into the HDD HD cameras and decided to stick with tape for 3 reasons.

1. As the poster before states, the quality of HDV on tape is still superior due to it being long GOP mpeg2 instead of Mpeg4. The quality difference is noticable in everything except bright sunlight.

2. I cannot afford to archive 100GB hard drives constantly. Tapes are cheap and just as robust if you don't play with magnets.

3. Editing Mpeg 4 files is hideously unpractical, I can edit Mpeg2 HDV from my FX1 in realtime with 4 layers with effects using Canopus Edius and a quad core E6600 home built (cheap) machine. I would be lucky to do 1 stream of mpeg4 and so would need to transcode the footage to another format to edit quickly, which is not true of the Mpeg2 transport stream.

I just ordered the HV20 based on user recommendations and many reports - its an amazing camera for the money. I have always used sony but this one made me chage. AAfriend of mine has the Sony FX1 and a Canon HV20 and prefers the picture from the canon. which is a third of the price. Mising features on the canon? - ND filters and nice big Focus ring.

For consumer, the HDD cameras a re great, but if you do any editing or need to archive stuff, tape is still the go for now. Archiving on Bluray may be a possibility in the future, but until the quality of the mpeg4 goes up, I'll wait.

[Guy @ Nov 15th 2007 6:04AM]

1: Broadcasters accept mobile phone footage when they want the footage, certainly DV and HDV are widely used in broadcast all over the world.

2: CraigWB, You are thinking of the EX1 (the FX1 is a prosumer HDV cam). The EX1 is great but with NO SD capture capability and very expensive costs for media (and very heavy to hold), it isn't a camera for everyone.

3: Sony use Express Card flash memory in their new EX1 and compact flash in this new ENG cam. Memory Stick hasn't got a mention. In these level cams you will only see Memory Stick used for something like scene files and camera settings (like the JVC series uses SD cards).

4: As much as I hate tape it is far from dead. Tape is still cheap and easy to capture with. Flash is the long term future for sure, but don't kid yourself Tape is dead. It is also much better for archival than any other current media.

[Mike Greenberg @ Nov 15th 2007 1:02PM]

I bought a Sony-Z1U like a year and a half ago. Wonderful Wonderful camera, fully outfitted and I can get stunning picture quality. Run it through a Miranda board and lay it off to HDCam.
*Yet*
I often shoot on a HVX when the budget calls allows. HDV is not a good format, yes it works fine but it is lacking, not to mention a biatch to render/compress.
If your looking to get in the game save your money and go HVX or my dream ~red one~

[Marsram @ Nov 15th 2007 7:44PM]

Can anyone tell me what makes the red one better tech-wise as compared with all the rest at that price, though I hear they are a bit more expensive than the other brands used by us amapros????

[navstar @ Nov 15th 2007 10:54PM]

HDV is poo quality. The same crummy 4:1:1 color sampling as DV25. Not real HD resolution. If you are thinking of doing any effects work or chroma keying, go with XDCam or P2. Or find an HDV cam that has HDMI out and capture non-compressed video with an Intensity card.

[John Bosco @ Nov 17th 2007 6:23AM]

Well, I have news for you. Broadcast stations have spent a mint on High definition equipment and are now looking at these cheap HDV camcorders for their high definition acquisition. I know that the ABC affliate in my neck of the woods has chosen the JVC 250s for their news gathering. If you think about it, it makes good business sense for these broadcast stations. Why spend all that money getting an expensive HD camera when your broadcast is compressed using a similar codec at the same bit rate?

If JVC can charge a mint for their HDV camcorders, why can't Sony? The Sony shoulder cam will actually be cheaper than the JVC 250 and will add the availability of 4 channels of audio, recording to a full size tape, and an included hybrid system with the CF module (will record to compact flash and tape simutaneously). I don't know about you, but that sounds exciting to me.

[John Bosco @ Nov 17th 2007 6:54AM]

Incorrect. HDV is 4:2:0, the same as XDCam. The only difference is that XDCam has an available higher bit rate of 35 mb/s variable. HDV is starting to become more acceptable as a viable option for broadcast ENG and EFP applications.

Panasonic, one of the biggies that did not get on board with HDV, has its popular dvcprohd codec. The HVX 200 and other cameras on its dvcprohd line have 4:2:2 color sampling. However, most cameras are capable of getting 4:2:2 out by capturing live from HDMI, HD-SDI, or component.

Panasonic's other option, AVC-Intra, is based on the advanced video codec and is supposed to be more efficient than the popular Mpeg2, long GOP codec being used in HDV and XDCam. AVC-Intra is the professional version of AVCHD which Panasonic also carries. The problem with AVC is you need a really powerful computer and compatible editing program. Also, the quality has yet to be as good as the other codecs.