Is the camera good enough as an A cam or should I get the 700 if I can afford it ?


Doug

Strange question. What are you shooting? What do you need that the HM100 doesn´t give you?

In this economy I am just trying to save money so I could afford the JVC HM 700 , but if I could I would go with the JVC HM100 . I use to have the Canon Xh A1 and produced several shows for broadcast and it was good enough for my needs . I don't want tape anymore !
I guess the problem with the Hm100 is that it has limited audio controls and I need that on the field in case of multiple mics .So I guess I answered my own ?


Cheers
Doug

I think the HM100 has audio capabilities similar to the HM700.

However, the cameras themselves are quite different. The HM700 is more than twice the size of the XH-A1, and it is designed to be a good shoulder camera.

The HM100 is about half the size of the XH-A1. It would work well hand-held in discrete situations, but won't work on the shoulder.

The 1/4" chips of the HM100 vs. the 1/3" chips of the HM700 may or may not be a factor as both produce excellent pictures in the right situations.

The zoom on the HM100 is terrible for shooting live shows, and it would be a disappointment after using the excellent zoom ring on the XH-A1.

Also, the HM100 does not accommodate a remote lens controller.

Any of these three cameras make an excellent "A" camera in the right situation.

Is the camera good enough as an A cam or should I get the 700 if I can afford it ?


Doug

Go for HM100, you can save money, and it is small too! Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

For me, the answer is NO, not going to be my A camera ... But I was trying to use mine to shoot whitewater kayakers handheld from tricky rock outcrops, tiny birds across the slough, and baseball/softball action handheld with fast pans that make the OIS have to catch up a bit when zoomed.
I jumped the gun and should have compared more cameras in person first (that means a BIG road trip from small town Eureka, Calif.), though what I really should have realized was that I truly needed a 16-20X zoom for my particular telephoto needs VERY OFTEN. And such a high percentage of my more important shooting is handheld and sometimes moving, so better OIS would be nice sometimes beyond the widest 1/3 of the range.

So my sweet JVC HM100 is going on eBay on Monday or so, unless I decide to keep it as an absolutely awesome and ultra compact B++ camera, not likely as the $$$$ will take priority. What else can you get for the money that has XDCAM EX and its uncompressed audio, great color fidelity, and super convenient .mov SD card recording, great audio controls, etc. -- NOTHING else. And JVC's full Auto mode is pretty impressive, for image quality, anyhow, probably less so for audio, but that's a trickier realm and not as important ... it handles things SO well and white balances very accurately the vast majority of the time.
It's just not the right A cam for ME and my current needs -- and I'll soon be shooting whitewater action from a moving inflatable kayak (sometimes moving backward still IN a Class III rapid!), so run'n'gun shooting capability will be be far more important than image/audio quality.

PS: The 35Mbps codec at 1080i seems to handle handheld/panning whitewater boating action very well ... I haven't noticed anything blocky or blurred on my 42" 1080 from 8 feet away, though I'm going to take a closer look very soon.

I don't see the HM100 as an A Cam, though the image and audio is probably on par with your Canon. Your Canon beats it on somethings like the lens, the exposure and shutter controls. There are just more buttons on it. I hear you about not wanting to use tape. Whenever I have to go back and use DV tape, then go through the capture process, rewinding, etc I realize that tape (for me) is dead. However you'll have to build your 'tapeless' workflow infrastructure that includes backup drives etc that can add a bit to the complexity beyond what tape used to be.

However, if you get the settings right you could certainly use the HM100 it as your primary cam. However if you can afford the 700 or an EX1 or EX3 as your A Cam, you'll have much more "A" camcorder to play with.

The Audio seems to be pretty good with the attached Audio Handle module. I have a short AT375 shotgun mic when I need it and the audio quality seems fine with a better mic.

The HM100 I see as the most portable "Pro" camcorder available now, with some drawbacks.

Good Luck and let us know what you decide.

Go for HM100, you can save money, and it is small too! Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

That's funny. If I turned up for a shoot with a tiny camera the client would wonder why I charge him so much money. I can understand you like a small camera but no doubt you are not doing it for a living. The idea of shooting a TV commercial with a small cam is absurd. Why do so many people talk about saving money all the time? My experience has been to spend the money on gear you need to get the job done and the money comes as the result of that.

Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

Meaning no offense but I've been hearing this for 10 years. Not everyone is interested in a postage stamp sized camera with poor ergonomics and user functions, although the quality of the images generated by "tiny cams" has increased GREATLY.

Meaning no offense but I've been hearing this for 10 years. Not everyone is interested in a postage stamp sized camera with poor ergonomics and user functions, although the quality of the images generated by "tiny cams" has increased GREATLY.

Absolutely. I had to use an EX1 recently and felt really embarrassed about charging the client five grand for his three minute video. He even offered to shoot a piece of footage himself to save me having to travel to a different location as he said he had a camera he could borrow much like the size of the one I was using.

Yeah, I was on a 3 camera shoot the other day with the HM100 and somebody looked at my bigger camcorders and then the HM100 and said, jokingly, 'so who's camera is that?'

But I explained, even though it was small, for the subject matter and the delivery, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the HM100 and the bigger ones.

Big camcorders, mounted on rigs, and big tripods or dollies, with Softies, are quite impressive. It's funny, but just having the blimp-like furry thing over your mic seems to impress people.

Someday, as pro quality finds it's way to smaller cameras, the perception will change, and in the meantime, it's up to us to not be too embarrassed and be prepared to explain how technology has marched on. Or maybe we can develop a "Batman Suit" for our camcorders that will make our puny-looking but high-quality devices more impressive.

I believe that in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to defy current physics and the benefits of large glass and sensors and then there really will not be a reason to use larger camcorders.

My new iPhone 3G S with video is a much better A-Cam than the big Beta Deck and tethered video camera that I had to lug around before camcorders existed. If I lugged that around now I might have to explain why I was insane... :)

While it would be nice to have a nice new 700, if you can't afford it right now, go with the 100. It's still a nice little camera with very nice pictures. Unless you're working for a network or Spielberg (which if you're considering an HM100, I'll guess you're not), the client won't be able to tell the difference. If you know what you're doing, it won't matter. Personally I don't have either camera right now. I'm about to get the 100 and if things go according to plan, a 700 will be coming before the end of the year.

And what's with the line about being ashamed to charge for your work because you are using a smaller camera? There are a lot of independent videographers that use and make their livings with smaller cameras. If you can make a good living, deliver a good product and keep your customers happy without having to shell out a ransom for your gear, that sounds like a good business plan to me.

That's funny. If I turned up for a shoot with a tiny camera the client would wonder why I charge him so much money. I can understand you like a small camera but no doubt you are not doing it for a living. The idea of shooting a TV commercial with a small cam is absurd. Why do so many people talk about saving money all the time? My experience has been to spend the money on gear you need to get the job done and the money comes as the result of that.

I am afraid but your clients should have trust on you, and it’s all about convenience, saving money is secondary, off course if you are saving it that’s good. 20 years back’s bulky and less featured Walkman we are not using these days, today we have small Portable Media Players like IPod and etc. And so much convenience! Let’s not be so routines! These are my thoughts!

The HM700 has slightly better lowlight capabilities so if your shooting mostly in places with very little lighting, the HM700 will be better but as far as the HM100 is concerned, it’s obviously a lot more portable and that can be a good thing in many situations.

When it comes to clients, just tell them how good the HM100 is and show them a demo of some of your work using it.

I don't see why the size would matter. It's like saying the computers should still fill out entire rooms, because they did 25 years ago, so the laptops are crap and can't get the job done.
My biggest beef with HM100 is lack of a few things like: no wide angle, aperture/shutter control, and zoom. Also LCD is kind of crap as far as resolution.
One thing I noticed. I shot some interviews with GY-HD100 and we were shooting some more with HM100. This person was way less intimidated by this small camera, so I think for documentaries and commercials, where you work with people unused to being in front of the lens it is a great little cam. I would think the same would go for filming events (something I really don't do), where subjects normally would shy away from the lens.

I am not sure others have already seen this but I have seen first time and liked it:
JVC Professional - Camcorder MDL101845 (http://pro.jvc.com/pro/hm100/index.jsp)

Kaushik

Regarding size and quality and client perceptions:
I think that one of the things that CAN come up is if gear is somehow misrepresented OR an unfairly large amount is requested for the "rental".

From personal experience:
A number of years ago, I had a gig for broadcast and had requested a second camera operator (a friend of a friend). I had rented a Sony D35 dockable head with DVCam back and had set aside a second similar kit, with Sachtler tripods. "Buddy" says, oh man, don't worry about it. I'll bring MY camera kit. How much are you paying for the Sony rentals?"

Rental was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 a day each kit. He says, oh no problem. I can do that for you on my kit.

The day of the shoot, "Buddy" shows up with a Canon XL-1 and a Velbon tripod and ONE stock battery that he says isn't QUITE fully charged so we'll need to use "my" camera more. I ask "so how much are you charging me for the rental?"

"$500. That's what you were going to pay for the other camera and tripod and this is just as good because it's digital too".

I shot the entire thing myself with one camera. I'm sure you can still see the boot mark on his arse.

The moral of this story: there are expectations that need to be met based on budget and end usage. If you are charging appropriately for your gear AND it is fit for the purpose, you should be fine. But IF you misrepresent your gear, it's suitability for purpose OR your abilities, be prepared to get called on it.

Thus endeth the sermon.

PS. I have shot TV commercials and international documentaries on a Sony PD150 so this is NOT to say that "big" cameras are always needed. Sometimes the smaller the better. But I never charged as much for the PD150 as I did for $50k rental cameras.

Are you guys charging fees to rent gear.. or what it would cost to rent gear, but own your own gear already? I am curious how that works. It sounds like you're renting gear for every shoot.. but I figured you'd have your own gear as well?

PS. I have shot TV commercials and international documentaries on a Sony PD150 so this is NOT to say that "big" cameras are always needed. Sometimes the smaller the better. But I never charged as much for the PD150 as I did for $50k rental cameras.
What does size or cost of camera have to do with how much do you charge? What you charge for is your knowledge and skill. This will enable you to choose the right tool (camera, lights, sound equipment) to achieve a desired and result. Every project should have a budget, so the cost of equipment rental is just a part of the cost of the project. Hence it will be less to rent PD150 then to rent PDW-700, so your cost of a piece shot with PD-150 will be less then with PDW-700. However your hourly/daily rate should be calculated at the same rate, as your skill does not change. It would be like asking a programmer to charge less if he/she works on laptop instead on desktop.

What does size or cost of camera have to do with how much do you charge? What you charge for is your knowledge and skill.

BZZZT wrong. I charge a day rate for labour and a rental rate for gear. This is INCREDIBLY common in industry.

It sounds like you're renting gear for every shoot.. but I figured you'd have your own gear as well?

I rent virtually nothing. I have invested a quarter of a million dollars in the past 11 years (which if I had to offload tomorrow, I might get $35k for...) which allows for cameras, edit bay, VTRs (plural), 2 light kits, mics, wireless, mixers and field mixers, live switch gear and more cables and adaptors than I care to count.

Also, software and royalty free audio and GFX.

What I DON'T have is a teleprompter, HMI lighting, a second wireless, jibs and dolly track, camera stabilizers and the like.

I charge out gear separate from labour and take what I THINK I'll need into consideration when quoting a gig OR presenting rates to fellow producers. My investment in my gear is VERY different than the investment (both financially and time wise) I've made in myself and my professional development.

BZZZT wrong. I charge a day rate for labour and a rental rate for gear. This is INCREDIBLY common in industry.
Bzzzzt, wrong. If you submit a budget or a bid, your rate is above the line item, equipment rental is below the line cost. Grip, camera man, even editor are below the cost. Director, DP, writer are above the line. If you submit a proposal and you want to get funding this is the only way it will be looked at.
But this has nothing to do with HM100 being an A camera.

Robert: in corporate, training & education and freelance work, there IS no above the line and below the line, there is only a line itemized (if you so choose) budget. And who said anything about looking for funding. Obviously we do very different work. If I supply my gear, I get paid for it. Period.

And the whole discussion is in support of MY opinion that if one is open and honest about what camera one is using, the less one will have to explain later. It's all about managing client expectations.

Actually, above-the-line does not include the DP or any crew. Above-the-line costs are writer, director, producers, cast and stunts... and cast that are not lead actors are not included.

Above-the-line is the creative aspects of the project, and the development costs. These are the pieces that make the project what it is, and pulling any one of them out on the way to the first production day will cause a major hiccup and may even doom the whole thing. It's also possible to go over budget here, even when nobody is doing much except sitting around, drinking coffee (or other) and talking.

Some DPs make the crossover to directing, and certainly many DPs contribute a lot to the final look and feel of the project, but they are not the creative force behind the spine of the project, and they are below-the-line costs.

Now, the lone genius with a video camera who writes, directs and shoots all on her own, is more accurately called an auteur, dated as the word may be... and the most arrogant ones are sometimes given other colorful names.

I represent that ! lol I am not arrogant !!

Doug


"the lone genius with a video camera who writes, directs and shoots all on her own, is more accurately called an auteur, dated as the word may be... and the most arrogant ones are sometimes given other colorful names"

Jack, I think stuntmen are also below the line. You are right on DP (if DP is not creative position I don't know what is), same with editors.
And yes, one person can be a writer, a producer, director, dp, grip editor and a driver- that's my whole point- the hourly rate should remain the same regardless of the equipment used.
Can HM100 be an A cam? Yes for some, no for others. Like any tool it will have it's limitations.

Well taking a break from some mind numbing editing... zzzzz I shoot a JVC HD110, with IDX and Focus enhancement drive hanging off the back end plus a big mic and a softie off the front. Instantly my mid pay clients are happy that they signed me instead of someone else. My low paying clients (too many, I live in the country) are just happy I showed up. And my high paying clients (not enough, I live in the country) complain about something somewhere so they can try to get a break later.....(bastards). . .. nothing beats something big with lots of stuff hanging off the back. If I showed up with a better HM700 (with less stuff hanging off the back but instead incorporated into the unit and newer and better and more reliable camera) they would be less impressed. (clients.. can't they just say what they want, pay you, and then shut up and get out of the way?????) Need to go back to feature films I think....

Now what matters at that point and after is what you do with it. I've seen lots of great work done with $3,000 cameras and terrible work done by $35,000 cameras.. I personally like (learned) on the shoulder mount, removable real manual lens (tethered to a VTR since camcorders where not invented yet....) and I'm happiest and hence best with shoulder cameras. The handy cams annoy me, but I would like to get a HM100 or even a Canon A1 as a 2nd/3rd camera for the tight places or hand off to a inexperienced volunteer who can maybe get some good shots that will cut together well with my footage.

so I guess the bigger question about is the HM100 an A camera.. what do YOU like to shoot with? If you like one type of camera for shooting better than another, you will be better at it.

For me, no handy cam will ever be an A camera. I hate them. But I wouldn't mind one as a B or C camera since they are soo small, light, and have some decent manual controls and auto controls for newbies.... That and for fun stuff.. I groan at the idea of pulling my beast out of the closet to go outside and tape a small event for friends.. wish I had a little HM100 or even a Canon 3 chip HDV to tape the fun stuff.