sorry if this has been asked before, but I cannot seem to decide which one to buy, to use next to my Canon 5dmk2, mainly for narratives

I've watched countless videos of both and here is what I think

the TM900 is considerably sharper, and noticeably so...it's not just a minor thing: the video is crispier and jumps out of the screen.
also, the TM900 has a full 50p mode which allows for great slow-mo. The TM900 has the option to record 3D. takes better stills (for whoever cares)

What the G10 has a slightly larger LCD screen, better low light performance, although I haven't seen a big evidence of that, but I am sure it's the case. the G10 supposedly also has more complete manual controls, ND filters (that the TM900 doesn't have) - still clips I've seen look somewhat soft, or at least softer than the panasonic.

the Canon is quite more expensive than the panny, almost 45% more here in the UK (£750 for the TM900 and around £1100 for the Canon)/

I used to own a Panasonic TM300 a few years ago and I hated it when light conditions were less than ideal but I think the 900 must be on a different league.

for some reason I am sure the Canon IS a better camcorder, but still when I look at clips the TM900 looks....nicer

it would be great if someone here who owns both commented

any help appreciated

Fed

I have a TM700 and can clear up a couple points assuming it's the same or better in the TM900. Here's the B&H page:
Panasonic HDC-TM900 High Definition Camcorder HDC-TM900K B&H

There is peaking. Panasonic calls it "manual focus assist".
There are zebras.
The ND filters are automatic and kick in as you change iris.

I found the TM700 a nice one handed POV camera (and still have basic manual control) for hanging out the side of a vehicle, shooting down low or whatever. The design of the zoom control and lens ring let you run the camera in auto focus and with one hand, hold the camera, operate the zoom and control the iris with the zebras and histogram giving you a warm feeling that you have the shot even tho you may have only a limited view of the screen (where peaking and zebras are useless). I don't have any experience with the G10. YMMV.

If your narrative is excellent nobody will care about your acquisition format except you. So go with your gut. Just my opinion.

thanks Les

If your narrative is excellent nobody will care about your acquisition format except you. So go with your gut. Just my opinion.

but the point here is to understand which is the best tool, not format

I initially thought I would go for the Canon, but low light is already covered with the 5D and the TM900 seems to do everything else better...

How are you capturing audio? Neither TM900 or 5DM2 have XLRs.

if it's for narrative I'd get 60D, I'm guessing you have more than one EF lens, if it's for narrative and everything else - XA/HF G10 is the best in it's class,

If your narrative is excellent nobody will care about your acquisition format except you. So go with your gut. Just my opinion.

How are you capturing audio? Neither TM900 or 5DM2 have XLRs.

if it's for narrative I'd get 60D, I'm guessing you have more than one EF lens, if it's for narrative and everything else - XA/HF G10 is the best in it's class,

hi Les. I will be using mainly the Zoom H4N

Buba have you by chance used the XA/G10 and/or the TM900?

Federico.
I own a TM900, and had the use of an XA10 a few weeks ago. The G10, as you know, is the same camera image wise. Not a lot between the 2 cams, apart from the price.The XA10 has a wide dynamic range, ie, it handles shadows and highlights very well. Colours hold up vey well in low light, and you can safely use a fair ammount of gain before the rubbish sets in. I liked the XA10, but it didnt offer me any great advantage over my TM900, which I use on a regular basis as B cam to my EX1. Mind you the percentage of TM900 footage in the final edit is increasing on every job. The above is of course very subjective. If you get a chance take a couple of cards to a dealer, and grab some footage from both cams, so you can scrutinise it at your leisure.

Federico.
I own a TM900, and had the use of an XA10 a few weeks ago. The G10, as you know, is the same camera image wise. Not a lot between the 2 cams, apart from the price.The XA10 has a wide dynamic range, ie, it handles shadows and highlights very well. Colours hold up vey well in low light, and you can safely use a fair ammount of gain before the rubbish sets in. I liked the XA10, but it didnt offer me any great advantage over my TM900, which I use on a regular basis as B cam to my EX1. Mind you the percentage of TM900 footage in the final edit is increasing on every job. The above is of course very subjective. If you get a chance take a couple of cards to a dealer, and grab some footage from both cams, so you can scrutinise it at your leisure.

thanks Colin that's very interesting. did you notice more sharpness in the TM900 footage than the canon? to me it's quite evident.
also I suppose you use the EX1 for low light?
what was your impression in terms of manual controls that one offered versus the other?

The sharpness of the TM900 needs dialling down quite a lot, as is the case on most HD cameras. I find the TM900 and the EX1 play nicely together in even the dingiest of churches. The EX1 trounces the Panny, and of course most other cams in the low light stakes. As for manual controls, I am obviously used to the TM900, and find everthing I need easily accessable. The XA10 seemed to be far more menu based, It only probably appeared to be so, because I was not familiar with the camera. Both are excellent bits of kit.

thanks Colin that's very interesting. did you notice more sharpness in the TM900 footage than the canon? to me it's quite evident.
also I suppose you use the EX1 for low light?
what was your impression in terms of manual controls that one offered versus the other?

The sharpness of the TM900 needs dialling down quite a lot, as is the case on most HD cameras. I find the TM900 and the EX1 play nicely together in even the dingiest of churches. The EX1 trounces the Panny, and of course most other cams in the low light stakes. As for manual controls, I am obviously used to the TM900, and find everthing I need easily accessable. The XA10 seemed to be far more menu based, It only probably appeared to be so, because I was not familiar with the camera. Both are excellent bits of kit.

thanks one final question: how did you place the TM900s 50p footage on a 25p timeline? I use a Canon 5dmkII and Vegas 10, and was wondering (if I buy the TM900) how to edit both cam's footage in the same timeline?

Hi

Vegas 9E (so I'm sure Vegas 10) handles 1080p50 files easily (on a fast i7 Windows 7 box anyway). You can set clip undersampling to 0.5 (i.e 25p if necessay, depending on what you want to do with the footage - normal speed or slow-motion etc.).

Here are a couple of test clips that might help - read the blurb below them on the YouTube pages for more info about what you see. Pausing the videos at certain points in 1080p shows some frame blending with some settings and (obviously) some settings are not suitable for slow motion whilst others are better. These were all done in a Vegas 1080p50 timeline by the way:

Panasonic TM900 (1080p50 Slow Motion Test) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqTaPtIG5g4)

Panasonic TM900 (1080p50 Slow Motion - 2nd Test) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDHc-NvpyEQ)

I'm sure either the Canon or Panny would work fine - both are excellent cams with different strengths. If you're torn why not just buy the cheapest (HS900 then TM900). Many will have agonised over these choices. However, I think you should also consider the excellent Canon 60D suggestion (as that will match so well with your Canon 5DMkII). It should also be available at a good price. 12 min (ish) limit on two cams is a pain for narrative work though!

I have Sony EX3, Canon 7D and Panny TM900 (and a few others). TM900 is much closer in "look" to EX3 but the 7D is a different kind of look completely (I'm talking video sharpness and colour here) so two Canon DSLRs would match up nicely for you.

Hi

Vegas 9E (so I'm sure Vegas 10) handles 1080p50 files easily (on a fast i7 Windows 7 box anyway). You can set clip undersampling to 0.5 (i.e 25p if necessay, depending on what you want to do with the footage - normal speed or slow-motion etc.).

Here are a couple of test clips that might help - read the blurb below them on the YouTube pages for more info about what you see. Pausing the videos at certain points in 1080p shows some frame blending with some settings and (obviously) some settings are not suitable for slow motion whilst others are better. These were all done in a Vegas 1080p50 timeline by the way:

Panasonic TM900 (1080p50 Slow Motion Test) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqTaPtIG5g4)

Panasonic TM900 (1080p50 Slow Motion - 2nd Test) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDHc-NvpyEQ)

I'm sure either the Canon or Panny would work fine - both are excellent cams with different strengths. If you're torn why not just buy the cheapest (HS900 then TM900). Many will have agonised over these choices. However, I think you should also consider the excellent Canon 60D suggestion (as that will match so well with your Canon 5DMkII). It should also be available at a good price. 12 min (ish) limit on two cams is a pain for narrative work though!

I have Sony EX3, Canon 7D and Panny TM900 (and a few others). TM900 is much closer in "look" to EX3 but the 7D is a different kind of look completely (I'm talking video sharpness and colour here) so two Canon DSLRs would match up nicely for you.

thanks .... I never really considered the 60D or 7D as I wanted a B-cam that allowed me essentially do what the 5D cannot do or doesn't have, like proper optical stabilization, 50p for slow-mo, no time limit and movable lcd (well the 60D has that indeed)

Hi. If you're torn why not just buy the cheapest (HS900 then TM900). Many will have agonised over these choices. .

I think I might end up doing that... Amazon offers I think 28 day return if I keep it immaculate, and it's quite a lot cheaper than the Canon

I guess I am hesitant as my experience with Panasonic (tm300) has been quite bad (totally unusable if not in full daylight imho) and at the time I swore I would never buy panasonic again, but then again it was quite a while back.

Bottom line for me, at least compared to the XA10, is the Panasonic has 3 1/4.1" sensor, the Canon has 1/3" sensor. Pretty close to full manual control, the full audio controls, it's menu based but seems so professional to me. I've not used the Panasonic, but in any lower light footage shot with it, that I've viewed, I have always pretty much been able to see notice the weakness of the 1/4" chips, they just cannot gather the same amount of light. My XA10 is comparable to my GH2 with a F/2.8 lens, and I think that is saying a lot. I know lots of guys like the Panny, but I personally will never buy another 1/4" sensor camera again, they never have worked out for me. 1/3" is the smallest I'll go.

Give me 3 chips over 1 any day of the week, if the light gets to low, bring out the LEDs

The TM300 is a totally different camera. I made that pledge 10 years ago. Things change.

# of chips is irrelevant especially in this case. Three 1/4" chips do not, and cannot gather as much light as a single larger chip, and as to color reproduction being better, one look at the GH2 or Canon Mark 5D should dispel the idea of a single chip being inferior.

Larger chips gather images with greater dynamic range, product shallower DOF, and are much more expensive to produce which is why the Canon costs more.

Panasonic is a great camera, but three time 1/4" inch do not equal .75" of light gathering ability, they equal 1/4". The Canon sensor is newer, and larger, and will produce less grain in low light.

Thanks Jeff, but after over 30 years behind cameras, I dont think I need a lesson on camera technology, but I appreciate your consideration. My post simply said "give me 3 chips over 1 any day of the week" and I stand by this. My post, as with virtually every post on any forum is, as I often state in my posts, very subjective, as is yours. We all know what we want from any camera, and in general terms we all want something different. You will probably have noticed my other posts on the XA10, where I state that I found it to be a very good all round camera, with very good dynamic range, and colours that held up very well in low light. I was actually very close to buying one, but it just didnt give me anything extra over the TM900. As B cam to my EX1, The TM900 performs superbly. If I thought the XA10 could give me more, I would have purchased it.
As for shooting in low light, if its that low, forget using high gain settings on any camera, just bring out the lights. I have never had an issue with low light in churches, and thats going back to the days of tube cameras when 30lux sensitivity was considered state of the art. Receptions are never a problem, I simply use lights whenever neccessary. A lot of folk seem to think that using lighting of any sort is a big no no, I have never been of this opinion, for good images we need good light. Again all subjective.
Cheers

3 chips was the deciding factor for me over the G10. There's actually more combined surface area with the (3) 1/4.1 chips than one chip behind the bayer filter in the Canon, but since the chip density is greater with the Panasonic, low light performance goes down.

The two negatives I have about the TM900 are dynamic range and AWB. If the G10 has better dynamic range, that should count for something when weighed against the better resolution of the TM900. You need to consider what's more important.

The two negatives I have about the TM900 are dynamic range and AWB.

Hi Tom why is that? What's wrong with the tm900 AWB?

Colin, my observations about the cameras are not subjective, as I went based on numbers and numerous reviews, not any kind of brand loyalty or preference. I have never been a fan of Canon prosumer cameras and low end pro models, and have generally thought the offerings from Canon sucked, as far back as the GL1 and XL1. The more recent XHA1, same thing, hated it, hated the images from it. I've always like Panasonic on several levels, and on a customer service level I think they are fantastic. Nothing but good to say about them.

I am happy you are happy with the Panny. Your many years in the business do not change the facts that a smaller sensor, even three of them cannot match the performance of newer larger one. The Pansonic, is a fine camera, but from the first video I saw, even outdoors in shade, it looked like 1/4" chips to me. Not yet knowing anything about the camera, when I watched that first video, I just knew I didn't like the grain and what appeared to be a low-resolution image.

The Canon we are comparing, on the other hand, has been impressive almost without fail in every low light test I've seen. I took mine out for kicks Saturday and at 18db I saw virtually no grain from the gain. I'm not defending my purchase, but when something in the price range of mine comes along that is better, I will likely sell the Canon and dump it for anything that is better. Sony taught me real well, so that I will never stand behind any brand or be a fanboy for anyone. The gear either works for me, or not, and when it's time for something new, I'll look at whatever is out there.

I have no technical expertise on any of this, and I'm sure smarter people than me may like the Panasonic better, but then smarter people than me loved the HMC150, which to this day I cannot understand, so go figure.

My feelings on low-light performance are pretty strong. I entered the business using the legendary PD150.

I am light crazy. I run three to four lights at my reception, and sometimes run a 2' x 2' 500 watt softbox in addition. And I have a F/2.8 zoom lens that STILL sucks in low light IMO, whereas other people would be happy with it. So when I select a camera, it damned well better be the best low light camera available at that price point. And at this time, the general consensus from everything I've read and from all comparison videos I've seen the Canon appears to be just that. To me it seemed common sense when I made my selection, nothing more.

Bottom line for me, at least compared to the XA10, is the Panasonic has 3 1/4.1" sensor, the Canon has 1/3" sensor. Pretty close to full manual control, the full audio controls, it's menu based but seems so professional to me. I've not used the Panasonic, but in any lower light footage shot with it, that I've viewed, I have always pretty much been able to see notice the weakness of the 1/4" chips, they just cannot gather the same amount of light. My XA10 is comparable to my GH2 with a F/2.8 lens, and I think that is saying a lot. I know lots of guys like the Panny, but I personally will never buy another 1/4" sensor camera again, they never have worked out for me. 1/3" is the smallest I'll go.

Colin, my observations about the cameras are not subjective, as I went based on numbers and numerous reviews, not any kind of brand loyalty or preference. I have never been a fan of Canon prosumer cameras and low end pro models, and have generally thought the offerings from Canon sucked, as far back as the GL1 and XL1. The more recent XHA1, same thing, hated it, hated the images from it. I've always like Panasonic on several levels, and on a customer service level I think they are fantastic. Nothing but good to say about them.

I am happy you are happy with the Panny. Your many years in the business do not change the facts that a smaller sensor, even three of them cannot match the performance of newer larger one. The Pansonic, is a fine camera, but from the first video I saw, even outdoors in shade, it looked like 1/4" chips to me. Not yet knowing anything about the camera, when I watched that first video, I just knew I didn't like the grain and what appeared to be a low-resolution image.

The Canon we are comparing, on the other hand, has been impressive almost without fail in every low light test I've seen. I took mine out for kicks Saturday and at 18db I saw virtually no grain from the gain. I'm not defending my purchase, but when something in the price range of mine comes along that is better, I will likely sell the Canon and dump it for anything that is better. Sony taught me real well, so that I will never stand behind any brand or be a fanboy for anyone. The gear either works for me, or not, and when it's time for something new, I'll look at whatever is out there.

I have no technical expertise on any of this, and I'm sure smarter people than me may like the Panasonic better, but then smarter people than me loved the HMC150, which to this day I cannot understand, so go figure.

My feelings on low-light performance are pretty strong. I entered the business using the legendary PD150.

I am light crazy. I run three to four lights at my reception, and sometimes run a 2' x 2' 500 watt softbox in addition. And I have a F/2.8 zoom lens that STILL sucks in low light IMO, whereas other people would be happy with it. So when I select a camera, it damned well better be the best low light camera available at that price point. And at this time, the general consensus from everything I've read and from all comparison videos I've seen the Canon appears to be just that. To me it seemed common sense when I made my selection, nothing more.

hi Jeff your many points are interesting, but you were at some point comparing the Panasonic with the XA10, which is not what the point of this thread (and costs close to 2.5 times as much as the 900) is as we all know the XA10 audio is on a different league, and mainly focusing on low light performance, whereas I 'd be interested in your views about usability (although I am not sure you own the tm900) and quality of footage (not only in low light), as I perceive the relative softness of the Canon as not necessarily a quality.

when you say the canon has full manual controls, that's where I wonder what's the difference with the tm900. I cannot find evidence of many shortfalls of the panasonic here, that also seems to have quite a complete array of manual controls, zebra, peaking etc etc... I even read reports that the menu structure and functions are more easily accessible on the 900 than the canon.
what about clip preview in shooting mode? I think the canon allows for that, but with no audio right? I don' think the panasonic has this function at all.
both instead seem to have the buffer record function

they are clearly both amazing camcorders, but I wonder why Canon insists in not having 50/60p and instead puts questionable gimmicks like infrared shooting (at least 3D for panasonic is optional if you want to throw some money in it).

low light is important for me too (that's why I own a 5d and previously an EX1r), that's why I am still unsure, but I disagree that footage online from the tm900 seems at times low resolution: I haven't experienced that at all and I must have watched tens of videos from each camcorder.

The AWB on the TM900 is good in strong light but misses the mark as late afternoon shadows approach. It's fine if you manually white balance.

The low resolution is nonsense, and the images are very clean. Preface that with I've only used 1080/60p mode. There doesn't seem to be a need for 60i since clean down converts for blu-ray are possible.

The TM900 manual controls are there but they are consumer grade and easy to use.

The main weakness as mentioned before, carry a white card or wear white tennis shoes you can WB on, and dynamic range. You just can't pan from the shadows to the bright without adjusting exposure. I'm not sure if 1/3 chips can either but I suspect the G10 is better at this this due to the low chip density.

Fredrico, the XA10 and HFG10 use the same chip, the same sensor as the pro models such as the XF 300 and 301, which is the reason it costs more. Larger sensors are more expensive to manufacture, which seems lost on people looking at the price, IMO. If I am mistaken on this point, then I am wrong. Is the price difference worth it? If you are a low light shooter, a wedding shooter, than, yes it should be. But if your standards for low-light performance are satisfied by the TM900, that's fine, but just because it work for you doesn't make it better. It works for you, and that is what counts.

Unless I'm mistaken, the images are virtually the same with the HFG10 and the XA10, though the XA10 may or may not have more controls. This is the same sensor that is in the $4500 XF301, but I might have the price wrong. The XF301 has three of the same sensors, and yet many reviewers, such as Phillip Bloom see little difference between the three chip version and the single chip version. This is disputed by many, of course, but the fact that some see sucha minimal difference is worth noting.


The TM900 is a fine camera, but after this thread started I went to read review after review of both, and then comparison reviews of both, and the consensus seems to be clear, IQ quality with the Canon is superior. The TM900 viewfinder has half the resolution of the Canon, about 460K to 900K 500K, which alone is worth a lot during manual focusing.

Anyway, for those that are happy with the Panny, great, I'm happy for you. Comparing these cameras is like comparing a Kia and a Hyndai entry level automobile, it's pretty inconsequential anyway. If I had the budget I would have instead bought a fuller sized pro model, not a consumer toy, but things are what they are.

Regarding resolution nonsense, the facts are that the sensor of the Canon is lower resolution that matches the aspect ratio of HD, resulting in larger pixels, producing better images. This is why the HF G10 produces poor photos, but superior video. The Panasonic will produce somewhat better photos, but grainier video. Excessive pixel count, and in a smaller sensor, cannot physically duplicate what the larger, 2.37MP sensor with can do for video, but it will produce higher resolution photos. It's physics, and has nothing to do with opinion.

Larger sensors produce better dymanic range as well. These concepts are much beyond my level of knowledge, but are repeatedly pointed out in in depth reviews and comparisons of the cameras by folks who know much more than I.

As to whatever camera anyone chooses, I'm sure they will be happy either way. But to dispute these numbers is silly, and makes no sense to me. I looked at both cameras, and many others with no preference for brand, and even disliking Canon video cameras, and I couldn't deny what seemed to me to be an obvious choice.

I personally will never buy another 1/4" sensor camera again, they never have worked out for me. 1/3" is the smallest I'll go.
words of wisdom

We should keep in mind the title of thread, it's one cam vs the other. It's not about whether you have one or the other and it just works, the title indicates to me we're talking about comparisons.

If you own the TM900 and do not see unacceptable levels of graininess, that's great, but it doesn't mean it's technically as good or better than anything else, it just means you are happy with it.

Same for the Canon. Same for any camera.

On the other hand one can see what one wants to see, and I've been guilty of that plenty. My very first camera was a Panasonic 3x 1/4" camera, forget the model, but I loved that camera. I bought it new for wedding work. The guy I worked for shot with nothing but PD150s, 170s, and VX2100s, the best lowlight cameras at the time in the price range.

The guy I worked for thought it was a great camera, but he looked up the specs after I showed it to him, and he was skeptical, but he let me use it on a job with him. Then he showed me the footage next to the VX2100 later. I was not able, or willing to see how much better the footage looked from his cameras. He'd been shooting since VHS, and is a very smart, patient guy. But after a few more weddings, it became clear he was right, and I finally saw what he was talking about. I promptly sold my camera at a huge loss, and bought a used Sony, and was happy ever after.

The point is not that anyone needs to sell their camera, or change, but that when you already own a camera, it is very difficult to admit anything else is as good. We always want to justify our purchase, and I'm sure there is a bit of that in my reasoning as well, which is why I was relieved to re-research the whole thing and come up with the same conclusion, even upon reading reviews I had not seen before. But whatever, we all have a camera, and are making a living, and that's all that counts.

Regarding resolution nonsense, the facts are that the sensor of the Canon is lower resolution that matches the aspect ratio of HD, resulting in larger pixels, producing better images.

If only it were that simple, the G10 and XF300 would be reproducing the same resolution as each other, but instead the XF300 and TM900 resolution numbers are closer to each other while the G10/XA10/XF100 are behind. The principal difference is 3 chip versus 1 chip or moreover, that the the 1 chip loses some resolution sitting behind a bayer filter.

Any time you start ceding away resolution benefits in search of low light or dynamic range you should be certain that it's a good trade to make. For wedding receptions, I would agree low light performance is king. The TM700/900 have been tested to spatial resolution of 1000 TVL horizontal and 900 vertical, and the 1080/60p mode is higher temporal resolution as well.

I'm careful not to say one is "better" than another because that depends on whether you make a priority of clarity in strong light, or not having a muted image in weak light.

Still haven't decided, but have a look at this frankly amazing video done with the tm900 and a wide angle

The Mount Hospital on Vimeo

Low light seems quite ok to me

Pretty good, would have been interesting to see it in full colour. The TM900 is pretty good in lowish light, stunning at 1080/50p in good light. The Canon betters it in low light conditions, and has a better dynamic range. Thats about it. I own a TM900, and have used an XA10/G10. is the Canon worth the extra money ? Thats for you to decide. Wonder what next years models will bring us????

Federico, you don't have to convince us. If you like it, buy it. I can show you a dozen "amazing" low light videos shot with any number of camera, but if they are not run side by side with another camera you cannot know which is better in low light. XA10 & HF G10 low light videos are rampant on the web as well. Sure the above video is nice, but we don't know how dark it was because we have nothing to compare it to.

I shot with the XA10 this evening for 4 hours side by side with 2 GH2s with fast lenses. The XA10 footage looked beautiful, very nice, and if you only looked at that footage, you would say "wow", it looks great in low light.

But then you look next at my GH2 footage, and you can see how it destroys the XA10 hands down. It was not nearly as dark in the room as the XA10 made it appear. Same would happen with the video you posted above. Put a better low light camera next to the TM900 in the above video, and you would think the TM900 was junk.

I've seen some horrible video shot with both the G10 and the TM900, but that doesn't mean they are bad cameras, it means the shooter doesn't know how to work it. I've also seen stunning videos shot with both cameras. Same camera, completely different results. If you are leaning towards the TM900 because it's in your price range buy it. Sure it's a nice camera, everyone knows that, but it does not quite have the low light performance of the G10. Is the difference worth it to you?

It's just like Colin says, it's up to you. Personally, as a wedding shooter I want every bit of low-light performance I can get, even if it costs more money for a relatively small improvement.

I wish I could try a G10 or XF100 for about a week. I think the weakness of my TM900 is not so much low light, but rather poor dynamic range. At times, I think the higher resolution of the TM900 may be working against it. When super high resolution gets combined with zero depth of field, you get a very flat looking two dimensional image that is not convincing of reality, processed looking. When I switch back and forth the images of the PMW350k which also has 1000 tv lines resolution, and the TM900, there is no comparison. One is a looking glass into reality the other an animation constructed of fine spray paints.

The G10 could more than offset what it loses in resolution if it truly has wide dynamic range and the ability to capture widely varying light with extra latitude, or chroma and luminance detail.

Pictures are an illusion, and the mind fills in the missing data if there is a well constructed 3d box that has not just temporal and spatial resolution, the length and width of the box, but depth of the box as well from from convincing chroma and luminance information.

Understand, it's not that I'm saying the G10 has all that. To get the best sharpness it has to be in 24p mode, 60i is inherently softer for all cameras due to vertical field blending, a problem avoided when shooting in non-segmented progressive modes. But what I have observed is this, while much sharper the TM900 fails for me to render a more convincing image than my much softer HV10, an HDV camera who's smoothly textured images look less processed.

To see what I'm talking about, take the TM900 away from the city and its multi colored objects, and into the countryside with predominant hues, green and sky, and see how it looks to you. I think it looks spray painted in ways, in some part sure to the edgy-ness, grainy-ness of extreme detail that is unmitigated by depth of field in a tiny chip camcorder.

I already have set the sharpness to -2, today I will try -3 to see if that helps.

This I will say, the TM900 is stellar for its OIS, unbelievable how well it smooths the bumps when pointing the cam out the window of a moving car.

ok so I bought both of them and here are my first impressions - a mixed bag for each of the two, although the G10 has won me more so far.

the Canon feels so much more like a pro tool, but it's also heavier and bulkier.
build quality seems ok.
The screen is AMAZING.
the menu visually speaking is very good but I absolutely HATE the touch screen, as it's not very sensitive, especially the way to scroll up and down is hideous
in terms of functions it's nothing short of amazing: you can control everything, including setting your own value for white balance.
special mention to manual focus which is outstandingly good, with zebra that's even more user friendly than the EX1r (in my opinion). works fine even in low light.
not quite sure I like the dynamic OIS - I seem to have noticed some wobble that was reported as an issue related to Dynamic OIS. I have now switched to standard OIS and see if that helps.

the Panasonic: it's smaller, quicker to start-up, and, although the menu structure is horrible, the touch screen is way better in terms of sensitivity.
White balance is criminally bad (most of the time way off), and there is no way to manually set your own K value. that's the part I dislike most.
the screen of the Panasonic is smaller, but very nice indeed. General build quality is OK albeit feels quite fragile. the footprint is way smaller than the Canon.
50p is THE selling point, and zoom feels smooth and nice. manual focus is fine enough for me.
Stabilisation looks better implemented here than in the Canon (I agree with what Tom wrote above), but it's difficult to say yet as it's just first impressions.


in terms of image quality: I've only tried them yesterday night so in conditions favourable to the Canon.
the Canon is on a different league here: I have to say it's so good, with the ability to have clear good pictures even with very little light. again, it reminded me the EX1r - it's that good.
in terms of frame rate, I was using the Panasonic at 50p (and the canon at 25p over 50i), and one of the advantages is the panning: panning of any kind with the Panasonic looks SO MUCH smoother than the Canon (and I think it's also helped by a better OIS) - I really saw that in the playback and the difference is in the eye of the beholder.
The Panasonic in low light does what it can: I think it's a great improvement over its predecessors, but obviously there is a limit there. if you push the gain over 9db grain appears and a very unpleasant one.
Still I think it's perfectly usable in average light conditions.
The test continues in the next few days.
So far I think I like the Canon better, but that touch screen is the worst thing ever - absolutely uttertly hate it!!

Fredrico, I too hated the touch screen on the XA10 at first, but after using it extensively I hate it less. You will in time become accustomed to it, and it will operate smoothly. I still get frustrated with it, and will never like it. It seems to me it was designed deliberately to be less sensitive, and the more I use it,

I find panning with the camera in 24p to cause stutter, or whatever it is called, but that is because true 24p is supposed to be that way, at least that is what I'm told. Panning in 24/24p, must be done very slowly, it is the nature of the beast. I don't know why the Panasonic would be smoother, but who knows.

The images are so good with the camera I am considering getting another. It blows away, from what I remember, the HMC150 in low light. I also find the gain is virtually grain free up to 13d, and at 18db it's close to grain free. I ran it at 20db last week and it's still useable.

Glad you bought both and confirmed things for yourself. I have never used the TM900, but it seemed clear to me based on what I had seen it couldn't quite hold up next to the Canon. Nice cam, etc, but not for me. It is truly a case of you get what you pay for.

Fredrico, I too hated the touch screen on the XA10 at first, but after using it extensively I hate it less. You will in time become accustomed to it, and it will operate smoothly. I still get frustrated with it, and will never like it. It seems to me it was designed deliberately to be less sensitive, and the more I use it,

I find panning with the camera in 24p to cause stutter, or whatever it is called, but that is because true 24p is supposed to be that way, at least that is what I'm told. Panning in 24/24p, must be done very slowly, it is the nature of the beast. I don't know why the Panasonic would be smoother, but who knows.

The images are so good with the camera I am considering getting another. It blows away, from what I remember, than the HMC150 in low light. I also find the gain is virtually grain free up to 13d, and at 18db it's useable, and I ran it at 20db last week and it's still useable.

Glad you bought both and confirmed things for yourself.

hi Jeff.... but why would they intentionally make the screen less sensitive? it's crazy! the tm900's screen is so much more responsive that when I go back using the Canon I have a moment where I think it's defective... hope it's something they could revise with a firmware update? maybe adding a sensitivity setting?
more of a shame as the screen itself is so good and the menu structure so clear! ah well....
panning looks way smoother on the tm900, but in every other way the canon wins hands down.
now I will make some tests in day light where the canon isn't supposed to have a clear advantage and will report.
God I hate that screen : )

I hate scrolling with the menu, easy to make mistakes and accidentally activate something. But I am much better with it. I'll tell you, overall, I really do like the camera very much, and it's so good even in auto I could use it as-is in a pinch.

I hate scrolling with the menu, easy to make mistakes and accidentally activate something. But I am much better with it. I'll tell you, overall, I really do like the camera very much, and it's so good even in auto I could use it as-is in a pinch.

is there another way to scroll rather than scrolling the finger on the right side?
I read somewhere that the problem seems that the screen is resistive and not capacitive like the the tm900 (and iphone etc etc)
did you experience any wobble (or jello or whatever is called) when using dynamic OIS? actually it's been reported more as a G10 specific issue

I don't use OIS, I run from a tripod, and when on a tripod it is not advisable to use OIS. I turn if off on all my cameras, it ensures the best images, IMO.

For me, it would come down to how the G10 would compare in 60i mode versus TM900 60p mode. My $0.02 is that 24p has to be shot with a tripod in which case I'd just use a bigger cam since having to deal with cam supports defeats the purpose. Now you're looking at an even bigger resolution deficit, so the question is does the G10 account for itself well with superior shadow detail when used in high contrast outdoor lighting? I'd really like to know that. Everybody can benefit from high performance in a small package. This is the advantage of many, that goes to the EX1, it's still a hand held with OIS and 1000 tv lines.

The fact that the G10 and the EX1 are even being compared says it all to me.

I'm not comparing the G10 to the EX1, I have not seen the type of native footage from it that could suggest that it could, but loosely they are both hand held and have OIS.

My thinking is as follows, the TM900 can in about 20% of situations match appearance and 1000 tvl resolution of the ex1. We know the GH1 at best manages 850, but if it could approach the dynamic range and shadow detail in 20% of situations, the tm900 and g10 would weigh in about equally for me.

the Canon is on a different league here: I have to say it's so good, with the ability to have clear good pictures even with very little light. again, it reminded me the EX1r - it's that good.

The Panasonic in low light does what it can: I think it's a great improvement over its predecessors, but obviously there is a limit there. if you push the gain over 9db grain appears and a very unpleasant one.
Still I think it's perfectly usable in average light conditions.


If the TM900 is good enough for someone, it doesn't matter. Then one doesn't have to spend the extra on the Canon. If you want the better IQ, the Canon is the better choice. I would rather deinterlace a better 60i image than to start with an inferior progressive image any day.

Fredrico finds unpleasant grain at 9db with the Panasonic. I find the Canon good at 18db.

As a wedding shooter, average lighting conditions are an exception, not the rule, so I need the larger sensor, but that's just me.

Tom, 20% of which situations?

If the TM900 is good enough for someone, it doesn't matter. Then one doesn't have to spend the extra on the Canon. If you want the better IQ, the Canon is the better choice. I would rather deinterlace a better 60i image than to start with an inferior progressive image any day.

Fredrico finds unpleasant grain at 9db with the Panasonic. I find the Canon good at 18db.

As a wedding shooter, average lighting conditions are an exception, not the rule, so I need the larger sensor, but that's just me.

Tom, 20% of which situations?

Jeff please.....my name is Federico : ) not Fredrico

What if I just call you Fred :)

Ok, thanks Frederico.

If you want the better IQ, the Canon is the better choice. I would rather deinterlace a better 60i image than to start with an inferior progressive image any day.

I want the better image quality, and I would rather start with a better 60i image and not deintelace it at all, but I'm also not yet convinced the G10 has a better image or that the TM900 60p progressive image is inferior any day. Have you owned a TM900 Jeff?

I'm very interested in Federico's observations, he owns both. In my analysis, the TM900's low light performance is a weakness, as is shadow detail in high contrast bright light situations. For sure, the G10 would be better with the former, but is it better with the latter? I'm not sure because it starts with a hefty disadvantage of much lower resolution. So moving aside the poor AWB of the TM900, how does it compare when manually white balanced?

Tom, the lower resolution of the Canon is not a problem it is an advantage, it is native 1080. The higher resolution of the Panasonic is a disadvantage for video. People mistake a higher resolution chip to be better, but for video a native 1920x1080 chip is preferable because the pixels are larger. This is not opinion, it is physics.

This is why, as we've discussed in this thread before, why the Panasonic takes better photos, but the Canon does better video. The Panasonic is not physically capable of the video the the Canon, again, it's not about opinion, it's a matter of physics.

I'm sure we'll get a further reports from Frederico, I'm interested to hear them.

Jeff, I'm not mistaking anything regarding the subject of resolution because I'm not referring it to the sensor but to the measured resolution that camcorderinfo reported in their tests from shooting zone plates. The G10 sensor is native 1920x1080 which is great, but because it is one chip design it sits behind a bayer filter, that and due to row summation for interlace is what drops the measured resolution to 600 tv lines vertical, about the same as good HDV. They measured the TM700/900 much higher. This is a subject I do know something about because I've made resolution measurements myself on various cams and posted the results right here at DVINFO. I use the Imatest imaging software shooting with an ISO12233 chart. I don't have an agenda here other than to get and provide objective, non-biased info. There is no disputing the fact the TM900 is the small cam resolution king of sharpness, but does that make it the best? Not by itself! That's why it's important to factor in the other measures less easily obtained, like dynamic range. You expect that a camcorder with good low light will also excel at dynamic range in bright contrast situations, but by how much? That's what I'm interested in knowing!