panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10

[Federico Perale]

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

[Colin Rowe]

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????

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Tom Roper]

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.

[Federico Perale]

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!!

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Federico Perale]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

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 : )

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Federico Perale]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

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

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Tom Roper]

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.

[Jeff Harper]

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

[Tom Roper]

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.

[Tom Roper]

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.

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Federico Perale

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?