panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10

[Federico Perale]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

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

[Jeff Harper]

What if I just call you Fred :)

Ok, thanks Frederico.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Jeff harper

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?

[Jeff Harper]

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.

[Tom Roper]

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!

[Jeff Harper]

Tom, larger sensors normally typically have inherently better dynamic range. That is why the Canon stands out from some of it's competition, it is native 1920x1080 and it is larger. It's not the be-all and end-all of camcorders, but as of right now there just isn't anything in it's price range that can beat it's IQ.

I've seen video sample of both, over and over, and there just isn't any comparison, IMO. I knew about the Panasonic long before the Canon, and if I had a preference for brand before this Canon came out, it was for Panasonic.

I wasn't interested in the Panasonic TM900 from day one, outdoors it does a poor job of resolving detail in green spaces, which is another hallmark of a 1/4" sensor. The first video I saw shot with the TM900 was outdoor wedding footage and it just couldn't cut it. The guy who shot the video thought it looked fine, and I just scratched my head. It looked pasty and weird to me.

And despite what some of it's owners say, it is relatively grainy in low light using a relatively modest amount of gain, and no I don't have to own it to know that, and Frederico just confirmed it for me.

I ran the XA10 today for a coroporate shoot, and it blew away my GH2 with a $1000 lens on it. Now granted, the lens was the weak link, but it was still a high grade Olympus lens. I went with the Canon and my images were much better. Equipped with a fast prime, my GH2 would blow away the Canon, of course, but that is besides the point. The sensor on the GH2 is like .75" or something crazy like that, so it's not even a fair comparison.

But I've run the Canon for two weddings at 18db or higher and the images are excellent. No noise that I can see at 18db. That is freaking phenomenal. There may be noise I'll pick up in editing later, but the raw footage was perfect as far as I could see.

So we can debate this endlessly, but to me it's a commons sense thing, matter of fact, no emotion, no real love for either brand. It is what it is. And I've been scared to use the Canon each time I take it out, because I normally shoot with the GH2, but every time I use the camera it performs beyond my expectations.

[Jeff Harper]

This debate is not dissimilar to one we had years ago re: the FX7. It had 1/4" chips also and the users of that camera would argue to the death about the greatness of that camera, and I never understood it. I got ganged up and beat up pretty badly in the FX7 forum over that. And there are still users of that camera that love it.

I had the FX7 for a month and sold it at a loss, and was glad to be rid of it. I had been warned by more experienced shooters that that it wouldn't hold up in low light, but I was on a budget and thought I could make it work. Even outdoors it looked like crap to me, it didn't look right, it wasn't grainy, it was instead pasty or something. On the other hand, I admit I did see some paintball footage shot by someone with it, and I had to admit it looked very nice.

Same with the TM900, in the right hands, it can certainly shoot some very nice footage, and some videos I've seen are really nice. However, for run and gun , I personally don't have the time to squeeze every ounce out of a camera like that. I need a camera that is excellent out of the box, and can produce great images in pretty much any situation I'll encounter.

I'll be the first to admit, I'm really not a particularly good shooter. I am not creative, and my footage is pretty run of the mill, so I need the best images I can afford to offset my weaknesses. That is why I am such a stickler on the low light ability of a camera, I need every advantage I can get.

[Federico Perale]

Update: after using both camcorders like crazy I am more convinced that the Canon has a much superior quality to it.
it's not sharpness, it's the actual "depth", the perception the image is not flat.
still I've only managed to test in low light - this morning I shot some comparison shots with full auto mode in both cams in daylight and will report.

I have to say, though, that the OIS of the Canon seems definitely less ideal than the Panasonic.
I haven't really experienced wobble, but I sometimes see some stutter (barely noticeable but definitely there).
now... I am not sure if this is an inherent issue with CMOS sensors, but for some reason I don't see that at all with the Panasonic.
It's difficult to explain, it's as if the OIS in the Canon wasn't...smooth enough at times and you can see that in the playback. has anyone experienced this with the G10/XA10?

finally the Canon seems to be less efficient in terms of battery life: Panasonic has already outperformed as it's still running from my first charge whereas the Canon (with same amount of shots done) is almost gone.

ps. Jeff: once again my name is Federico, not Frederico (nearly there mate)

[Don Palomaki]

With respect to the final product the bigger issue with most decent camcorders is the skill of the shooter, and the editor for most video. Camcorder selected can make a difference when used at the edges of operating envelope by a skilled shooter.

In the days of tape, battery life mattered mainly if you had to change battery before you had to change tape. With flash memory with several hour capacity, that rule of thumb no longer applies. Given taht it takes only a 10 seconds or so to change battery, as long as extra batteries are available, and will give you run times longer than the longest continuous shot before a 30 second or so break, I do not see it as a major issue.

I've read that the TM900 is a minor update to the TM700, and that was a very nice camcorder for its price point. I am impresed with the XA10 (upgrade version of the G10), and from the limited time I've used it, prefer its video over the TM700,

In the end, buy what makes you feel good.

[Jeff Harper]

What battery are you using? I'm using the largest ones, and two get me through a whole day pretty well, but I don't use the camera for pre-ceremony only the ceremony and entire reception. The stock battery is pretty pathetic for the Canon, maybe gives an hour.

[Federico Perale]

I've just discovered that for some stupid reason canon has the quality setting almost at the lowest setting by default (9bps) so all these comparisons were done with 9bps versus the (I think) almost 40bps of the Panasonic 50p!!

[Jeff Harper]

40bps, wow, large files. I had no idea. What codec does the Panny use, AVCHD or MPEG 2?

[Federico Perale]

I will try to post an example, but the footage of the Canon looks at times jerky at times when panning - has anyone experienced anything similar? the tm900 seems MUCH better in that respect

I've seen several report of Jello issue for the Hf G10? I wonder if it's simply a matter of a not-so-great-OIS....

[Jeff Harper]

What mode are you shooting in? 24p is normally jerky, and yes it is on mine in 24p also. Same with the GH2, 24p is jerky, it is normal. 24p requires slow pans.

The Panasonic is known for producing extremely smooth footage, so your findings are typical, and this was true of the 700 as well. You will not be able to smooth out the Canon other than by slowing down your pans.

[Federico Perale]

25p (in 50i)
Unfortunately the European version doesn't have native 25p