JVC's Everio GZ-HD620 crams 1080p sensor and 120GB storage into world's smallest HDD camcorder

It's been a continual process of evolution with JVC's Everio line, each iteration getting more pixels and smaller bodies, and the latest entry is the best combination yet. It's the GZ-HD620, a full 1080p-recording camcorder (courtesy of a 1920 x 1080 backside illuminated CMOS sensor) that also sports a 120GB HDD in a package that weighs just 270g. Footage is shot through a 30x optical zoom lens and can also be written to a microSDHC card, though that internal storage will be good for 11 hours of footage at the maximum bit rate (24Mbps), and a vacation-encompassing 50 hours at the minimum (5Mbps). The cam is said to be shipping tomorrow in Japan at a price somewhere north of ¥100,000, which should equate to a few hundred over the $1,000 mark whenever it hits the Territories.

[hajj3 Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:05AM]

its crap:

"using a 1/4.1″ 3.32 megapixel CMOS sensor."

Canon HF S100, S10, S11 all have 1/2.6" 8.03 megapixel CMOS sensor or similar so the quality of the video on this will be pretty poor.

[in5ane Posted Dec 8th 2009 10:13AM]

@(Unverified) If you're comparing raw numbers, 1080p is only 2 megapixel?

[jgpuff Posted Dec 8th 2009 10:19AM]

@(Unverified)

And what do those camcorders do with all the extra pixels, other than take higher resolution still photos?

[Bandigolo Posted Dec 8th 2009 1:21PM]

@(Unverified)

Yes, but Canon also offers cammys with 1/4" CMOS. You also forgot that this has rear-illumination technology. Canon's do not. Don't get me wrong, I think in the $1k price range, the S100 is the best buy. But don't be so dismissive.

[Dragngt Posted Dec 8th 2009 3:03PM]

@(Unverified) I had two of the last JVC HD camcorders and sold them both. There was a decent amount of digital noise and lack of features. My current Sony is wonderful and I would have gotten the Canon if it had the night shot feature.

[KingFaisal94 Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:10AM]

MUST HAVE.

[Hexydes Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:21AM]

It's very cool that these flash memory-based cameras have HDMI-output on them, but I'd really like to see more manufacturers putting out HDMI capture cards. These cameras actually have a good enough image quality at this point that you can use them as professional production cameras in a live studio environment. The only problem is, nobody makes HDMI capture cards. Blackmagic does (Intensity Pro), and I think there are one or two extremely expensive options as well, and that's it. None of them are very good (Blackmagic is the best). It'd be very cool to be able to use these as a camera on your computer, even in lieu of a webcam. And before you say "consumer hardware and Internet connections can't handle 1080p!", please keep in mind that chipsets for decoding 1080p are extremely available at this point, and even if you scale the 1080p down to something like 360p for streaming, it still looks fantastic because the image sensor in these cameras is 10,000 times better than your average webcam.

[mrfrankmrfrank Posted Dec 8th 2009 11:29AM]

@(Unverified) what you said makes no sense. you wouldn't use an hdmi capture card to transfer the footage from this camera to your computer. even if this camera wasn't a hard drive based camera, you would still use firewire to transfer the video to your pc or mac. The fact that this is a hard drive based camera means it's even simpler to transfer the footage to your computer. Literally.......copy and paste the files to your pc. HDMI capture card? really?

[mrfrankmrfrank Posted Dec 8th 2009 11:31AM]

@(Unverified) ok, i reread your comment. i see you meant to use this camera as a high definition web cam and did not mean as a way to transfer the files. my bad.

[Kamal Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:31AM]

Thanks Engagdget for using (only) grams for weight. The U.S. really needs to get on board with the metric system and the old imperial system should be thrown out altogether. None of the X grams (which is Y pounds for you Americans).

BTW, before the "patriots" start the flaming, I am an American, just not the backwards type.

[Arcaria Posted Dec 8th 2009 11:33AM]

@Kamal
I think I speak for the majority when I say STFU

[jgpuff Posted Dec 8th 2009 11:45AM]

@Arcaria

I think you probably only speak for your self.

[(Unverified) Posted Dec 8th 2009 12:11PM]

@Kamal
WAH WAH WAH "Kamal" whine like a little beotch.

[Smittie Posted Dec 8th 2009 1:34PM]

@Kamal What's a matter? Simple math too difficult for you?

[MJGAMER 1991 XBL Posted Dec 8th 2009 3:36PM]

@Kamal If you can't divide by 450 to figure out pounds then I doubt you'd ever be able to learn an entirely new system of measurement...

[grumbles Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:49AM]

270g? So what? It might weigh half as much as similar cameras, but similar cameras only weigh around 1lb.

[werty1432k Posted Dec 8th 2009 9:52AM]

I love technology! Can't wait to see where we are in 10 years!

[BenD Posted Dec 8th 2009 10:46AM]

Wonder how much it'll cost in the US.

[JoeRodricks Posted Dec 8th 2009 10:58AM]

probably a few hundred over the $1,000 mark

[Bandigolo Posted Dec 8th 2009 1:24PM]

Has anyone had any in-depth hands-on with a rear-illuminated CMOS cammy? Obviously the theoretical benefit is low-light improvement, but is it real or is it a gimmick.

As I noted above, I'm personally waiting for the Canon S100 to drop under $700 so I can get that big sensor. But it doesn't have the rear-illuminated CMOS, which might change my mind if it's a must-have technology.

[sik59rt Posted Dec 8th 2009 1:52PM]

$1000 the first week.
$700 the 2nd week.
$500 the 3rd week.
what a joke