I'm looking forward to this thread. DVInfo.net has both good and bad things to say about the XL-H1, of course. But so far there hasn't been anything to convince me that the XL-H1 results in significantly better HDV output (barring the HD-SDI output, that is).

Genlock is good, SDI is good. It won't benefit 90% of the HDV users, but that's OK, because it's still a damn good camera. The glass is good, but like you're reading, it's also got chromatic aberration, tho not remotely like what the JVC has. (We've got all three here, and are doing a shootout at CES in two weeks with them)

Canon's glass is likely the best of the three. Removeable/interchangeable glass, IMO, is a semi-waste of feature, because very few folks actually use this feature. However, Canon is using the XL1 body, so it makes sense to continue it.
One thing you'll never see with the Sony is CA. This is because of proprietary technology in which the glass was specifically mated to the sensor block. No one else has done this.
The Canon is more money, but the encoder isn't any better, IMO. Shooting a chipchart spinning on a lazy susan doesn't show any more or lesser quality than the Z1 shows shooting the same thing.
The Canon has a slightly better reach, and due to the lens length gives a slightly better DOF at the end of the lens than does the Sony.
Both are excellent cameras, IMO. Only the JVC is left wanting. Think about it...if the JVC is a 5k cam and so is the Canon without the glass and so is the Z1....what's the value of the JVC lens? sub $1000.00! I've not tested this yet, but am told by many folks (outside the HDV biz) that the JVC lens is really just SD glass that has been reconfigured. That would make a lot of sense.
Hoping Sharp will soon enter the game, because in 2 weeks, we'll see more HDV offerings. Maybe they'll show at CES.
Anyway, other than the additional cost for slightly better glass and SDI, plus genlock...I can't see any reason to not look at the Canon as a serious alternative to the industry standard Z1.

Matt, there is both good and bad that can said about everything, not just cameras. But the question was about the cameras--the instruments themselves. There is no comparison between the two instruments. The Canon, with it's faults, has greater flexibility and offers more features than the Sony.

It's like comparing two cars--the former costs twice as much as the latter, has more options, and can do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Be that as it may, they both get you to your destination in the same amount of time, when driving the speed limit.

This comparison between a Sony F900, Canon XL H1, and a Sony Z1 was interesting. Shot in HDCAM on the F900, HDV on the other two.

Again, comparing apples to oranges. The Canon costs $9,000. A CineAlta cost something like $165,000. There is a tad difference there. The lens alone costs more than the Canon!

Interchangeable lenses are only needed in two cases:

1. Shooting wideangle outdoors or in airplane cockpits (where external adapters create too much flare on top of the reduced sharpness). I rented the Canon 3X ("24-72mm" equiv.) several times when there was no alternative, it was incredible even for DV.

2. Nature photography/surveillance where you just have to have a really long telephoto lens.

What is "CA"?

I think the most expensive zoom lens for the F900 is $165,000.

Just the F900 body alone I think is just over a measly $90,000.

:O)

CA=Chromatic Aberration.

Chromatic aberation.

JJK

Actually, Sony's site shows the MSRP as $102,360.00. So the "kit" I saw must have had a lens that was running around $60,000.00 and around $4,000.00 for the viewfinder! Not cheap!

The Canon's a shoulder mount, while the Z1u's a handheld. That alone will move the Canon ahead in many people's estimation.

The one thing that steers me toward the XL H1 is the fact that the Mini35 (and hopefully soon the Micro35) connect directly to the camera - instead of having to go through an additional lens.

Jessariah, is that an additional "lens?" I thought it was just an extention tube to allow for focus. Or, are you suggesting that you remove all glass on the XL-H1 and mount the M2 straight to the body? THAT would be awesome!

So the "kit" I saw must have had a lens that was running around $60,000.00 and around $4,000.00 for the viewfinder! Not cheap!

$60K for a high quality HD zoom is not unreasonable, and the most expensive viewfinder is $17,000 (but it is also to die for..., it is a pixel-for-pixel HD viewfinder that even allows you to focus on a flat white plaster wall).

I'm a bit baffled by the claim that Sony Z1's optical assembly would be free of Chromatic Aberration.

I would be surprised enough if the main lens was truly apochromatic.

Could the "CA" talked about here instead have something to do with the pixelshifting being tweaked to avoid color fringing?

I would be surprised enough if the main lens was truly apochromatic.

didn't say it was. Boy, wouldn't that be something in a 5000.00 cam? :-)
It's a teamwork combination of lens and sensor block, and the way the two work together. The sensor block isn't shifting pixels, it's intelligent in how it functions with the lens, which according to both Canon and Sony engineers I've chatted with, is simply impossible with a removeable lens. If the "intelligent design" didn't exist in the way the sensor block knows where the lens is in terms of focal point/depth, then I'm confident you'd see some sort of issue. But as resolution charts bear out, it's not pixel shifting.

There's MANY things that make the Canon a vastly superior camera to the Z1 and I've never been a fan of anything Canon. In the past we had such bad experiences with Canon products that we vowed never to touch anything Canon again but all has been forgiven with this camera.
No point in me going over what's already posted at DVInfo other than to suggest you read what others are saying, this camera will cut very nicely into F900 footage, 24F footage even recorded as HDV would seem to be free of compression artifacts that plague the Z1. Team this camera up with the new recorder from Grass Valley and you've got one awesome rig for about half the price of anything Sony has to offer in their XDCAM lineup (ignoring glass!).

Just the genlock capability makes this camera worthwhile. I'd never thought genlock to be of any value outside of broadcast and OB work until I started cutting multicamera shoots where the cameras weren't genlocked. That was quite an eye opener. Without genlock you simply cannot truly sync two cameras, you can match to the nearest frame but you can and do get a 1/2 frame offset, for some things that mightn't be an issue but for things like dance performances it's a BIG issue. A dissolve between two angles of the same performer yields an obvious problem, she's in different positions, a dancers leg moves a long way in 20 mSecs!

One other feature on the Canon that deosn't get anywhere near enough attnetion is being able to save setups to a removable device. The lack of this on the Z1 is a major headache for us and our clients, probably not such a big deal if you own your own cameras and don't loan them to anyone but for those hiring cameras it's a very big issue. Also of course if shooting with multiple cameras then it can be a big time saver.

None of this is to denegrate the Z1 in anyway, no matter what any other manufacture produces the Z1 is still a very viable camera and it is at least half the price of the Canon. I'd simply suggest that Canon have probably built a camera that's pretty much at the limits of 1/3" CCDs for HiDef work. That Sony, Canon, Panasonic and even JVC have been able to pull such amazing images off such tiny sensors is a tribute to modern engineering. Of course if you want quality HiDef then the only way to fly is 2/3" (or more) CCDs. I'd go so far as to say much the same for even SD, one recent project was intercutting footage from a PDX10 and a DSR 570, all shot under stage lighting, lets just say I kept the cuts to the 'B' camera very short!
Bob.

It could be dependent on having no air gap between the rearmost element of the lens and the prism/sensor block.

Either with connected elements, or even using a fluid (like in some high magnification microscopes).

Both great cams , I for one love the interchangeable lens feature of all the xl cams, used all the time with me . IMHO both cams worth every dollar. If considering buying one, may be worth while to rent each and check em out,, (if you can find a canon)

We'll have at least one for rent as soon as we can get one :)

I was probably being a little intemperate in my previous post, I shouldn't in all honesty have said 'vastly superior' , 'significantly superior' would have been more apt. Also it really depends on what you're shooting. Even the original HDV camera from JVC could be coaxed into producing very good video.
My main business these days is video shot under uncontrolled situations, stage productions and corporate events. Time is of the essence and you don't get to choose how it's lit. This is very different to someone making an indie movie.
In my other life I also work for a hire company and here we have to offer the most goof proof kit for a reasonable price and in that role the Z1 has been very successful apart from the ability to save camera setups to an external device, that's a major PIA. Resetting the camera does not reset the PPs so we have to go through each one and reset it.
Bob.

Matt,

The mini35 can connect directly to the XL H1 (and XL2/1) and bypass the camera's glass - yes.

K

Hm,
according to Sony the Z1U DOES pixel shift:
" Yes, the camcorder adopts the horizontal pixel shift technology to realize HD video with more than 2M pixels by using 1,070K pixels. Also, by using this technology, the amount of light received in each pixel is approximately doubled, which makes the camcorder very sensitive."
See http://esupport.sony.com/perl/model-faq.pl?mdl=HDRFX1 and type "pixel shift" in the question box.

Shots of test charts show the horizontal resolution of the Z1U to be about 700 lines per picture height. On a 16 to 9 format that computes to about 1200 lines per picture width. This could never be achieved using 960 pixel wide CCDs without pixel shifting.