Why is it that after a few weeks of being released, the news about the HM100 is so mixed? I'm bummed. All I want is a lightweight (re: ergonomics) camera that shoots hi-def and has the pro controls I've grown used to for the past 20 years. Is having a normal f-stop ring asking too much? And a lens that actually focuses without spinning? Four things I ask--pretty pictures, normal lens, normal f-stop and lightweight.
I've been waiting for years now. I keep putting off projects because I don't have the right gear. Some subjects for interviews are actually dying because of the wait.
Isn't this like a relationship? You get sucked in because of the hype, the look, the buzz. Then reality sets in and you wake up in the AM to the inevitable disappointments.
So I'm pretty much giving up on the HM100 now and keeping my fingers crossed on the Panasonic HMC40 or the Red Scarlet (the latter may not meet the weight requirements but who knows?).
I'm tired, really tired of waiting.

Why wait?

I had the same problems with a documentary because the producer/director kept putting things off. The subject died and a great doc went with him. You can see the test footage on my web site as I incorporated it into a memorial piece. I have the same problem with another producer right now and another important elderly subject whose mind is steadily evaporating. The producer can't get the funds to shoot with the best HD camera available, I say let's record the poor person now and deal with "quality" issues later. The producer refuses.

Rent a camera, borrow a camera, buy a HM100, sell it later. Get your footage before it's too late. You can always schedule a second shoot if you get a better camera later (the questions and answers might improve as well).

I agree with William.

I pre-ordered and paid for an HM100, then canceled the order, because of the shortcomings... but I already have an XH-A1 and an HD100 that I am using... though the smaller camera and the 60p would be helpful, but are not absolutely necessary.

However, if I did not have a camera, I would buy an HM100 tonight, and work around the shortcomings. The pictures I have seen are outstanding, the auto mode for run-and-gun seems superior, and the fiddliness of the manual controls can be dealt with for setups on a tripod (such as for interviews and "B" roll).

On top of that, accessories are less expensive for the HM100 because of the smaller lens size, the camera weight is perfect for a Merlin (since I didn't get the HM100, I ended up getting a Pilot to use with the XH-A1), and the size makes the camera the best fly-and-shoot documentary companion around.

Good point.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that camera manufacturers can be so cavalier about their product. They know what we want. But they rarely ever deliver (perhaps for fear we won't buy their "next best thing"). And maybe they don't realize how high the stakes can be for being so coy about it. Life and death issues. Movies that don't get made because of frustrations, disappointments over the gear.
I know that's nothing new. But it just seems like we're on the precipice of having a piece of gear we can truly live with for awhile and be content with it. I envy the musicians who can buy a violin, say, and live with that investment for many years, making many people happy.

All I want is a lightweight (re: ergonomics) camera that shoots hi-def and has the pro controls I've grown used to for the past 20 years. Is having a normal f-stop ring asking too much? And a lens that actually focuses without spinning? Four things I ask--pretty pictures, normal lens, normal f-stop and lightweight.
Perhaps you should look at one of the new video shooting DSLRs.

(However, stops on the focus ring is only on some of the lenses I have.)

At the latest Cinegear in L.A., it seemed every booth had a Canon DSLR setup on a tripod with whatever accessories were being sold at that booth. The video-shooting DSLR is the hot item!

Lynne, you've obviously never hung around a guitarist... never too many guitars! There may be a "special" one, but most musicians are just as vulnerable to "gear envy". It's just human nature!

I think we all postpone things looking for "better", but the old saying about "perfection being the enemy of the good" applies - there will ALWAYS be a better tool, but the best project is the one that gets completed... the footage that never makes it "into the can" is just that, nothing...

Just get something and shoot. There are so many more options today than 3 years ago. If you work with it you'll find a way to make good images and tell a good story with it. 4 years ago you couldn't really get a HD level camcorder, even HDV for anything close to it. The first HDV camcorder I got was an Sony HC1 back when HD was a novelty. I shot great stuff on it and still use it as a "C" camcorder today

You could get a Panasonic Prosumer, or a Canon Prosumer, or even Sony and produce some amazing footage that wasn't even possible a few years ago and spend a lot less $$ and get images that rival a high end camcorder. I loved the Canon HFS100 but I can't stand the AVCHD workflow. But that may work for you and it's only $1K.

I purchased the HM100 though I have a very nice EX1 that is a better camcorder than the HM100. I'm not 'bummed' about the HM100. I use it all the time cause it's small and isn't so much worse than the EX1 that it can't intercut with it. It's kind of expensive for the number of buttons and the controls, but it is well made and can make good images with some care.

I complain about it here because I'm kind of putting JVC on notice that they really need to figure out what people need, and if it is something they can put into the 'software' and doesn't affect the price point, they should try to do it. For example think it was brain-damaged not to put a histogram in since the LCD picture and on screen and other controls are vague. Maybe they can come out with a firmware update to add this feature. But for now I get around it. I figure out what works by testing, taking notes, reviewing the footage, so next time I can predict what the image will look like based on the limited indications I have. Think about the old days when we shot film and you had no idea how something would come out until a few days later when it was processed. It is so much better now, it could be even better, but it's good.

Right now the HM100 is:

Small and light
Good Images
Good Low Light
CCD (no rolling shutter problems)
Real HD resolution
XDCam EX 35mbs codec
Versatile frame rates
HDMI Output

Nothing else has this combo. Others have small and light, but use AVCHD. You realize that the HM100 is one of the few remaining CCD camcorders out there? If you need to avoid rolling shutter CMOS issues you don't have any other choices (other than the large Canon and JVC HDVs)

Go for it!

(Or a least order one, if you hate it return it.)

Well said Keith.

I complain about it here because I'm kind of putting JVC on notice that they really need to figure out what people need, and if it is something they can put into the 'software' and doesn't affect the price point, they should try to do it.

I totally agree with Keith on this point. I purchased 2 HM100 cameras and have hit a wall with some of the restrictions. The zoom is a big problem for me because I use a crane and track dolly in my work. I have posted about this at length in other threads. I am advocating for JVC to offer a software upgrade to placate the complaints voiced on this and other forums. It is becoming clear that the GY-HM100 is a "bittersweet" camera and the existing user complaints are going to impact sales. I would like to see a software revision with the following items:

1. control of the max. zoom speed for the remote control and LCD control. This would allow for a controlled zoom rate when using these controls
2. open up the protocol for the IR Remote Control and let someone develop a decent remote control for use with a TOS link
3. a Histogram would be great
4. rejig the software to enable a quick "Auto MODE" to "Manual MODE" sequence that maintains the FSTOP and SHUTTER settings between the modes. This would be similar to the Exposure Lock feature that I have on the Canon XL2. Let the AUTO get it close, set to MANUAL mode and adjust for final effect.
5. Fix the response curve on the ZOOM ring (if it is adjustable in software)

I would like to hear other suggestions for software revisions.

Having said all this, let me add that it is a fantastic piece of kit and clients are impressed with the size and results. As a two camera documentary setup, it's great.

Dan

Guitarists and violinists are 2 different breeds! You're right, guitar players trade theirs in every chance they get. Violinists (I used to play in HS and my brother's a professional gammba player) stick with their instrument for decades, if it's a good one.

I'm reminded of a film instructor who started the course by telling us of all the so-called filmmakers whose films never got outside of their head. Perhaps I'm guilty of that too, but my excuse is that I've spent the last 30 years shooting videos generally with gear I wasn't all that keen on. (I'm paying the price now with 2 blown-out lower back discs!)

The DSLRs are intriguing, I admit. Which reminds me, I should have listed one more wish besides the four and that's decent audio. (I would think no file size limits would be a given but not in their world.)

I'm not trying to be cynical. Like I said, I'm just tired of waiting....

what about a used JVC HD110? I looked recently and did NOT find many for a B-Camera, so it might be difficult. But they were cheap before JVC dropped the line. I'm sure there are some good prices out there somewhere. If you are on FCP, then think about the newer JVC's or else get an HD100/110 with DTE drive... though Focus Enhancements is coming out with a better new cheaper solid state ones for HDV and DV anytime. I got most of the gear I need/want, but I'm STILL shooting other people's stuff for money. havne't done much of MY OWN yet... bad I know. I'm looking to get the MTF adapter and another couple Nikkor lenses and a better tripod... so y ou see.. you will ALWAYS find reasons to put off.

What you COULD do.. is hire someone who has a camera for pizza/beer/cash to start your project and get it going. It would be cheaper to hire that person for a week than it would be to buy the camera for your first few projects. I'm sure there more than a few people that might live close to you that wouldn't mind some extra cash.

Guitarists and violinists are 2 different breeds! You're right, guitar players trade theirs in every chance they get. Violinists (I used to play in HS and my brother's a professional gammba player) stick with their instrument for decades, if it's a good one.

I'm reminded of a film instructor who started the course by telling us of all the so-called filmmakers whose films never got outside of their head. Perhaps I'm guilty of that too, but my excuse is that I've spent the last 30 years shooting videos generally with gear I wasn't all that keen on. (I'm paying the price now with 2 blown-out lower back discs!)

The DSLRs are intriguing, I admit. Which reminds me, I should have listed one more wish besides the four and that's decent audio. (I would think no file size limits would be a given but not in their world.)

I'm not trying to be cynical. Like I said, I'm just tired of waiting....

Don't ever expect the palmcorders (I'm including any camera that can't sit on your shoulder) to ever fill your needs completely. The lack of two lens rings on the HM100 really tosses it out of my consideration (old school cameraperson). I've had enough time with my Sony HD1000 to know the limitations of a single lens ring. If it's a decent all around pro camera on the cheap you want, the HM700 is a good way to go. Good lens control, great image, good ergonomics and an excellent recording medium. If it's too large for your comfort (some days it would be for me) then I recommend researching shoulder braces for cameras like the HM100.

THe DSLR cameras can work, some can make really incredible images, but they are not very good for handheld (terrible at times) and sound is a real problem. You'll probably have to record to an audio recorder.

The manufacturers make decisions based on their reading of the professional climate out there and their ability to develop something that will make some money for them. Sometimes a company makes compromises. Apple recently did this with their MacBooks and managed to freak out a large section of audio people when the FireWire port disappeared. Did Apple know that so many audio people were using MacBooks instead of MacBook Pros? Hard to say. Now FireWire has returned along with a face-saving renaming of the MacBook as "Pro". JVC probably looked at the run and shoot B roll / event photographers and decided that the HM100 fit that market about 70%.

Spend $7,000 and up, you won't wait. Spend less and you'll have make some compromises.

Most of the reviews that have been fully flattering or "mixed" as you say have been posted by folks who have judged the camera solely on its specs or by folks who have judged the HM100 against much more capable and, thusly, more expensive models. I've even seen it judged against rumored Panasonic models. The reviews I've seen from users and buyers have been very nice.

Some have disparaged the small sensor yet the video picture I've seen look fantastic. Some decry the lack of limited depth of field look yet how many folks are getting the DOF imaging they want from 1/3" chips? Some denounce the lens focus and iris control but where are we seeing separate controls for a cam in this price range? Some complain the feature set is too limited and mention the HM700 in the same sentence. Well, that makes as much sense saying the wine selection at Olive Garden isn't up to that of Le Papillon where an appetizer is twice the price of an entire meal at Olive Garden.

When judged against the user base and price that the HM100 for which the camera is designed, it's highly compelling. For a one-man-production-band show, the camera is hugely appealing. The small size and weight, removable handle, SDHC storage and recording format that doesn't require transcoding makes this camera a winner for the applications that many of us practice.

I'm looking forward to adding at least one of these cameras into our stable. It will be a great second camera, B-roll camera as well as a primary camera for quick setup shoots. I would be very interested to see reviews from others who are using the camera (and I mean using it rather than just playing with it or second-hand stories) against other cameras in the same price range.

Dave Burckhard
San Jose

Perhaps you should look at one of the new video shooting DSLRs.

(However, stops on the focus ring is only on some of the lenses I have.)

At the latest Cinegear in L.A., it seemed every booth had a Canon DSLR setup on a tripod with whatever accessories were being sold at that booth. The video-shooting DSLR is the hot item!

Indeed, buy a Canon 5D Mk II, a set of fast lenses, XLR field recorder, microphone, rail and follow focus rig for about $9000 and you'll be good to go. If this makes you think, "Why, for that price, I can get a Sony EX-3," you'll understand why the dSLR solution isn't the "cheap" solution so many think it to be.

Dave Burckhard
San Jose

What triggered this dialogue was my seeing Steve Cotrell's post on getting his head around the f-stop exposure and its not posting a real-time read-out. My heart sank because I'd really been wanting to believe the HM100 was "the one."
It's interesting how these shortcomings take time to come to the surface. I read in Videography magazine today about the RED camera-- "It's heavy and there's a lot of heat and noise coming out of it--this is really quite striking when you have it up against your eye 10 to 12 hours a day." (Dod Mantle-cinematographer). He also says "The camera is slow. Officially they say it's (EI)320. Some say it's really 200. I'd say it's in between at 250."
Now, you never heard that said in the early days of RED's release. It took time for reality to set in.
Frankly, I think the technology's in place now to create a small, hand-held (even pocket) camera that has the professional features we've come to expect over the past 100 years of film or 30 years of video. But the manufacturer's worst fears would be "What if nobody wanted to buy another camera besides "the one"? So they'll keep stringing us along for another 100 years. We don't need more resolution (sing that to the tune of "The Wall"). We just need a real lens with 2 rings on it, and of course we need good audio, and (personal preference) it's got to be as light as a good loaf of bread. Light cameras will be used to capture reality. Heavy cameras will capture staged stuff.
That's all. Anybody manufacturer listening?

carry this a step further. IMO the Sony EX1 and EX3 are not very ergonomically friendly, I think most would agree. The JVC HD200/250 HM700 are great form factor, compact full size, so again, just MO but what IF Sony came out the the EX3 in the JVCHD200/250/HM700 form factor. 1/2" camera, great LCD and all the other great things about the EX3 but in a form factor that makes sense instead of a should leaner that everyone seems to be looking for a reliable shoulder mount type bracket. OR what if JVC came out with the HM700 as a 1/2 camera and had the MXF codec as a switchable instead of having to spend another $1000+ to get the attachment. Now perhaps it's all a pipedream but IMO either one of those would have been the ideal camera and whoever had it first be it Sony or JVC I think would have hit a Grand Slam homer.
Ah well, one can dream RIGHT!?!?!

I used to think a shoulder-mounted camera was best but not anymore. I say take all the features you mention and put them in a hand-held, palm-sized package. Stabilization circuitry being what it is, there should be no difference. I think we're at a point where bigger doesn't mean better. It's taken me 30 years to come around but I think I can now enter a room with a small camera and a fair amount of hard-won wisdom and not feel intimidated.

Hi Lynne,
I agree, small form factor cams are great, personally I prefer the shoulder cam BUT I hate the size and weight so I really like the compact full size but the point is, we can disagree about what we like and don't like and it doesn't matter cause the mfgrs. don't have it anyway ;-)
It goes to what I've been saying for years. No perfect camera. Ahh well, too bad. Some are close no matter the form factor but none are "the perfect cam". Maybe one day.

The "wrist" cam is great for running around and getting a shot here and there. And now that self-consciously shaky camera work is the norm, I guess people don't notice it as much anymore when arm fatigue sets in. However, a day with a camera that's pivoting on my wrist is too much no matter how light it is. That's why I got a cheap, lightweight Spiderbrace for my Sony PD170 years ago. Tripod based shooting is a different matter, a small camera is just fine and easier to carry around and set up. Actually the PD170 is one of the small pro cameras that managed to get designed just about right. Talk about an EX1 or 3 in a JVC chassis? How about an HM100 in a PD170 chassis? Now that I would buy!

William brings up a good point: I REFUSE to use "handicam" styled cameras as "wrist cams". I support the base of the camera in my left hand, cradled tight against my body and use my right hand on top to actuate zoom. My left thumb is usually in an ideal position to focus (and on the EX1 can adjust iris). This is on client cameras. I own two JVC HD200U's and bought them for much of the same reasons listed above.

Expecting to slide one's hand into the hand grip on a "wrist cam" and produce steady handheld work for extended periods of time is either mad OR you've got a LOT more stability than I do.

Thats why I do not leave home without my Mono pod.

Lynne - right on !!

My purchasing has been delayed for many of the reasons you have outlined - the technology IS available but the manufacturers have decided to not put together the package we desire.

My belief is that such a camera would substantially eat into their profits on the higher end cameras. As the prosumer offerings deliver images close to the professional offerings and do so at 1/2 the price - well - here we are.

Really, when you think about it, I bet the camcorder company executives are sweating bullets these days. There are probably insider papers showing that people are happy with hi-def as it currently exists. So what's a company to do? Convince us that we need 2160 p instead of 1080 p when our eyes can't tell the difference? No, they'll just have to string things out for decades. Look at all the variations on one theme Sony did this past year. That's probably a harbinger of things to come in our lifetime. Anything...anything but what we really need.

This is an interesting discussion, and it makes me question just what influence those people who get a pre-production sample of a new model, actually have.

Do the companies just give samples to those who will spread the positive word and create a buzz for them, or do they actually have an input into changing the no-so-good "features" of the new camera that could actually help the user.

Like the one's mentioned in this thread for the HM100, and were clearly evident at the release of the EX 1.

I think it clearly shows the companies are really only interested in the former.

Cheers,

Vaughan

The companies are interested in profits - adding the features we have been expecting will erode their profit from their "pro line" and they don't want to break ranks by delivering what they could now.

Do we really believe that the technology does not affordably exist to deliver a cmos sensor with adequate bandwidth to eliminate the rolling shutter artifacts? Low light performance, global shutter, power efficiency, and balanced resolution are all within our technology grasp - some manufacturer needs to step up to the plate and deliver the goods and reap the rewards.

Collusion at a minimum - a cartel and anti competitive conduct at worst.

BTW - they can't figure out how to cool 1/2" or 2/3" ccd sensors in a more affordable package - another solution at hand.

Lynne - thanks for surfacing this issue - it has been a developing view of mine as I have been reviewing all of the "compromised" product releases.

One of the companies really needs to pop the top off this trend and garner major market share - and it is NOT Red with their $$$$$$ products.

I couldn't have said it better!
Seriously, does anyone have a connection to a congressman/woman who might look into this? I mean, if they can hold hearings on the BCS football scheme (I am not kidding), couldn't they look into this? Only problem is, all these companies we're suspecting are overseas.

Out of curiosity, can one of you define the specifics of this mystery camera that everyone wants, but the manufacturers have conspired to keep from the market?

How many of the units would you expect to sell if this camera came out? Would this camera put every other camera off the market?

Finally, what are you using to make video now if you refuse to buy a camera now because nothing out there is good enough for you?

Just curious.

Jack - for starters:

1/2" or 2/3" ccd based cameras - good low light performance in small form / factor.

1/2" or 2/3" cmos based cameras WITH GLOBAL SHUTTER - the time has come!!!

dual control rings on the lens

dual axis CAC

HD - SDI out

SDHC or CF storage

Let me add to that interchangeable lenses on cameras w/o doubling the price - so many of the features we need can be incorporated into far more capable pro-sumer units.

It really is about the product managers carefully crafting the product price/performance profile for max profit.

Also - look at something like Canon's new 500D - 15.5 million detectors with 4753 x 3168 resolution - $750 or so - our highly touted 1920 x 1080 HD is not all that HD in many ways.

The ultimate camera would be a unit about a size of DVX100. It would have a interchangeable lens, and it would record to removable SSD unit in ProRes 422 HQ for about 6K. The whole unit would weigh about 5-6lbs or so. It should be able to record in 1080/60p and be powered by AB batteries.

BTW, anyone who thinks RED is charging $$$$$$ for their cameras is deluding themselves. The costs of developing a BRAND NEW camera system from scratch knowing full well that it will never sell millions have got to be astronomical. Yes, a RED system costs more than an EX1 BUT you get a task built, open architecture unit that you can buy and build just about any way you want.

Shaun - what is the delusion - are they not expensive??

From their site - body ONLY

Nope, I don't consider that expensive at all for a completely customizable Digital Cinema ready solution.

This isn't a mass produced piece of equipment and therefore cannot use economies of scale that cameras like Sony's Z1, Panasonic's DVX-series et al can.

RED produces higher end products for a higher end market and should be able to recoup costs (and profits) as such.

Shaun - you must be slurping the KOOLAID :-)

Lets get back to the tenet of the discussion - prosumer cameras that could / should have many of the compromises we are being served resolved.

The Red One and most of their offerings - especially when fully configured - cost big $$$ in the context of this discussion. Scarlet - tbd still.

So Red is $$$$$$ - only the purchaser can decide if it is worth it.

Allow me to put things in perspective from where I come/came from:

When I started in industry in 1998, the industry standard was BetacamSP. A CHEAP BetaSP camera like the UVW100 was in the neighbourhood of $20k and a lens (1/2") was about $10k. Plus "chocolate bar" batteries (NP1's) at about $200 each that gave you a run time of about 45 minutes BRAND NEW.

Pro BetaSP cameras like the BVW600 were $70k+, lenses were $25k+. Tripods were Sachtlers or Millers and cost more than $10k. VTRs were the BVW-75 at $50k+ or the UVW-1000 at about $15k. Remember, you couldn't play back in camera. You wanted to edit Non-Linear? AVIDs STARTED at $50k.

Then the Sony VX1000 came along. For $5k.

NONE of us at the time thought it was the same quality BUT we decided on a gig-by-gig basis whether to use the VX-1000 we ALL went out and bought OR rent the BVW600.

We have come a LONG way in just 10 years. My first year out of media college I spent $20k of my own money on gear and got a barely passable camera kit with sketchy tripod and BAD wireless audio and a second hand Apple G3 computer with 15" LCD and FCP 1.0.2. One second cross dissolves took 5 seconds to render and they NEEDED to render (this is DV... not SD uncompressed, remember).

So my position is: buy what you can afford and charge accordingly. Rent what you'd LIKE when you need to. Standard rental on items is in the 3 - 5% of gross cost range. SO: if you shoot 20 days a year and charging appropriately, you can pay off your purchase in one year. If you're shooting less than that, you shouldn't own a camera anyway. Rent.

Thus endeth the sermon.

Shaun - not received as a sermon - you simply shared that your views are what they are because of where you were when. Technology growth is exponential - not geometric - the time to get past all theses compromises is here - the technology & price points would allow for this - especially from Canon, Panasonic, SONY,...

It is - IMO - a product marketing conspiracy to maximize profits - a cartel to control the release of innovation. We still have camera manufacturers pixel shifting with complex diagonal algorithms to deliver 1920 x 1080.

Maybe I watched too many X-Files.

Maybe I watched too many X-Files.

The truth IS out there...

Shaun - you must be slurping the KOOLAID :-)Please don't make such a remark on this site. I don't care how many smilies you put behind it, this type of comment has no business being here. I normally delete such statements and I have shut down accounts over this sort of thing. I left it in place here this time because I wanted to point out just how far off base it is.

The RED One is the *single least expensive* Ultra-HD digital cinematography camera on the market today. Its $17,500 price tag is incredibly low and highly affordable relative to other camera systems in its class. And I'm never quite sure what the ages and experience levels of some of our members are, so I'm going to whip out my old fart hat and put it on now.

There was a time barely fifteen years ago when the going standard for entry-level broadcast quality was a Sony Beta SP camera package which would have cost you $40,000+ fully kitted out. And that's for standard definition analog video. Just eight years ago if you wanted to shoot High definition at 24P, your best bet was the Panasonic Varicam. A complete package with HD lens put you in the $90,000 ballpark. I know a husband and wife cinematographer team in Hollywood who put their house up for collateral in order to secure the SBA loan to buy one. Four years ago if you wanted to shoot 4K Ultra-HD, your choices were a handful of $100,000+ camera options. RED changed all of that by offering 4K Ultra-HD in a camera body that costs roughly the same as a mid-level HDCAM or DVCPRO HD camera. What they've done in terms of lowering the cost for entry into Ultra-HD is truly remarkable... to characterize it as "expensive" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the reality of the Ultra-HD acquisition landscape. It may be out of your budget, but it certainly isn't expensive.

Shaun hasn't been "drinking the Koolaid," he's simply experienced enough to know what's up. And let it be known that I'll close the account of any person here who makes that sort of remark about a fellow member... smilies or no. Okay, the old fart hat is off and now we can go back to our regular programming.

The gap between "prosumer" and "professional" will probably always remain since the category of "prosumer" came into existence. Look at it this way, if too many features of pro equipment make their way into prosumer models the market for professional cameras will drop below profitable. Many of the great improvements in prosumer equipment come from research made possible thru profits from the pro division. Eliminate those profits by making prosumer equipment "too good" and you'll see the great leaps forward we've seen in the past 20 years slow way down.

Owning something isn't always the best way to run a business or your life. I will never own a camera that costs more than $10,000 since I can always rent a better camera when the budget is there. I did 3 four camera shoots last year and none so far this year due to the economy, good thing I only own one of those cameras.

Own what you can write off in a reasonable amount of time, three to five years. If you can't do that and get the quality you want for a particular project, rent or put the project on the back-burner.

Chris, you sound a bit like my old boss, who used to work 100 hours a week and always looked at me crooked when I said I was off climbing for a weekend. Just because the gear used to cost a lot in the past doesn't mean it still has to. First of all if you compare HM100 to RED1 it's like comparing a formula one car to Toyota Tercel. Maybe there would be a comparison between say PDW700 and RED, or something along these lines, but in no way you can do that with HM100 or even 700.

Also notice, that unlike in other industries the payments for content or the wages for workers actually are down from the early to mid 90's. I used to work on movies as a grip way back when and the day rate was usually 500. Now you are lucky if you get 400, but mostly I saw 350 range.(of course I am talking non-union). Also in the past buyers like Discovery Channel would purchase 3 one hour episodes (I mean 44 minutes) for roughly 100K. Try to get it now- good luck, unless you have something on par with Deadliest Catch. The strength is in numbers, so people try to generate as much programming as they can, hence it's a big part of having so much garbage on TV. But also we have to keep a keen eye on equipment cost.

Back to the topic: is HM100 a good cam? It is OK, but not great. It could be much, much better. I strongly believe the technology is already there, but like a lot of users here think, it's just trickling down. Maybe corporations like JVC want to get as much $$$, but as a consumer I want to get in return as much value as I can. Things change, beta cams are gone, analog is no longer a broadcast standard. And it is no longer seller market, it's buyers market. I vote with my dollars, my right. Since I know JVC and other companies visit this site, this is my way telling them: I want more value for my $$$.

What triggered this dialogue was my seeing Steve Cotrell's post on getting his head around the f-stop exposure and its not posting a real-time read-out. My heart sank because I'd really been wanting to believe the HM100 was "the one."

I've been quoted in a post on DVInfo :-))) Is it okay to say that I had a glass of Kool Aid to celebrate? Well, it would have been back in the 1970s when I was growing up in Cupertino CA. That's a long time ago and now I'm back home in England where we don't say Kool Aid very much, but we do say fart quite a lot. I hope Chris doesn't cut me adrift for this!!

Regarding the HM-100 as 'the one'....noooooo. Keep the cigar in the box just yet. But it's pretty close as a B cam. To be honest, it's a real joy to use - so novel after having Sony ballast on my shoulder for years (BVW-600, DNW-xxx - forget the model - Beta SX, and now a DSR-450 with radio mic and Anton Bauer Hytron 140's - *that's* heavy!) and so much fun to use. You can get shots physically impossible with a larger camera and 1/2 inch or 2/3 inch lens. I keep the wide angle adapter on it all the time. I take off the handle and use it on a pole. I strap it to anything and everything. Okay, it won't do manual like a big camera, but that's not what it's good at. Manual can be fudged with it, so that's cool for me. The bonus is that it can do loads of things a big camera can't. So in that sense it's a perfect camera. I can even give it to a child who has never held a camera before, and get usable footage! I work alongside VJ's shooting Z-5's and they **love** the size of the HM-100.

It might not be 'the one' but it's certainly one of 'the few' :-)

*hic*

Cotty

Remember that "the one" should be lightweight--like under 3 pounds. The RED isn't and I doubt if Scarlet will be. I agree the prosumer/professional division has become artificial and the high end serves to funnel profits to the companies.

I had an MRI done last week and it revealed 2 herniated discs in my lower back and 3 buldging discs in the cervical (neck) area. I can place the blame squarely on the RCA TK-76 (30 pounds) I used to tote around. That is the reason why I need a lightweight camera if I'm to continue in the profession. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.

Come to think of it, is there ANY company out there that makes a great product at an affordable price and keeps putting it out year after year with few changes?

Come to think of it, is there ANY company out there that makes a great product at an affordable price and keeps putting it out year after year with few changes?

I've been hankering after one of these for years :-)

the high end serves to funnel profits to the companies

I suspect exactly the opposite is true: the consumer/prosumer markets probably foster the finances and the high end fosters the technological innovation that trickles down into the consumer/prosumer.

Just like Honda's racing involvement probably doesn't make them a ton of cash but the lessons they learn and the innovations they develop are probably what makes for a bulletproof Honda Accord that sells millions every year.

Again, I could EASILY be wrong but I don't buy into the suggestion that companies are raking in the cash from sales of a handful of high end tech devices that they will never sell more than a virtual "handful" of.

Very funny, Steve!!!

Shaun, I don't have any background in economics. You may be right.
I find myself prefacing most of my comments here with "I wish...I wish..."

1-Well, I wish someone from the manufacturer's side would comment on pricing and profits.
2-I wish someone from the government would look into planned obsolescence issues or the suggestion that electronic cartels conspire to dribble technological improvements like water torture over agonizingly long time interval.
3-I wish the video expos would hold a seminar on "the one" that meets the criteria aforementioned.

I suspect exactly the opposite is true: the consumer/prosumer markets probably foster the finances and the high end fosters the technological innovation that trickles down into the consumer/prosumer.

Just like Honda's racing involvement probably doesn't make them a ton of cash but the lessons they learn and the innovations they develop are probably what makes for a bulletproof Honda Accord that sells millions every year.

Again, I could EASILY be wrong but I don't buy into the suggestion that companies are raking in the cash from sales of a handful of high end tech devices that they will never sell more than a virtual "handful" of.

That might be true for some companies but for JVC it's the opposite, at least in recent memory. The professional division was the profitable one and the consumer division was losing money. R & D is part of both divisions but each division has different goals for their direct market.

Why is difficult to use AVCHD the format of choice now in the consumer market? It's great for clips but terrible for editing. That's because the consumer division feels that their market is not that interested in editing but really interested in uploading to YouTube or going straight to DVD. That's also the same executive reasoning in why you can hardly find a consumer camera with an external mike input. The manufacturers found that such a small percentage used it that you could easily save money by not including it and the result was, maybe, a few thousand inconvenienced people who either stepped up to a more expensive possibly prosumer model, switched to a competitor's model (if there is one) or just not buy anything. The money lost in sales is way less then the savings of removing the external mike input from the manufacturing process.

The RCA TK-76?!?!?!? That was a heavy camera! Used it twice, fortunately the place I worked at used an Ikegami HL79 for most shoots.