care to compare the hmc150 to canon's xf100/xf105?

[Rob Katz]

care to compare the hmc150 to canon's xf100/xf105?

anyone with real world knowledge of how the image quality of the hmc150 (4:2:0) compares to the canon xf100/105 (4:2:2)?

each camera has its virtues.

3 ccd vs 1 cmos

the audio controls are different.

the lens systems is different.

i was wondering if anyone with a hmc150 has also worked with a xf100/105?

and if so, care to share your thoughts on image quality?

thanks in advance

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

[Josh Bass]

Id be interested in this specific comparison as well. Thinking about getting a new camera and looking at these two because of price point.

[Federico Perale]

also doesn't the hmc 150 use AVCHD?

[Josh Bass]

yes.

From research here's what I've learned (or misread if I'm wrong)

Canon
-Better codec, color space (50 mbps, 4:2:2)
-two card slots
-cf cards
-easier to work with recording format in post

-maybe not so good in low light?
-weird ND filter/tied to iris issue?
-only one ring on lens, have to toggle between iris/focus/zoom?
-10x zoom vs 13x on pana

Pana
better in low light?
13x zoom
normal iris/nd/etc. controls
"panasonic look"


-AVCD codec/more compressed color space
-one card slot
-no peaking feature

I realize there are many more differences/pros and cons, these are the things that have so far stood out to ME.

[David Chilson]

I own the Canon and used the Panny for about a month on 4 shoots. For me, the Image quality difference between these two cameras is subjective and more of a personal preference. I have very content clients from using the footage from both cameras so I don't believe you would be unhappy with either.

Yes, the 4.2.2 color space gives a latitude advantage to the Canon, provided this is a feature you need or would actually take advantage of.

When you say "easier for post production" if you are implying for color grading I would concur. For capture and overall ability to play nice with different NLE's, I would rate the Canon as being a little more "problematic". Once a workflow is established it's pretty straight forward.

For me, dual slot recording to CF cards is important, if it's a combined shoot (photo/video) having the same media that works in both cameras makes things easier. Of the features not mentioned so far that the Canon has that helped me make the decision, interval (time lapse) recording, slow & fast motions mode, Pre-recording mode and Infrared mode. Also should I ever get the hankering to jump into the 3D fray, the optical axis shift feature may come in handy. I like the LCD screen on the Canon better.

I would give the Panny the nod in low light based solely on the three chip design, but that is not from any real world experience, just an assumed technical one. As far as a direct low light comparison I have no idea. I'm lazy and dealing with wafer thin depth of field and worrying about excessive grain puts too much strain on my already overtaxed brain. For paying clients I try and shoot with sufficient ambient light or supply my own.

Let the guys with a new slider, a candle and one or two furry animals lifted from their favorite pet decide the low light king. I tend to look at shallow depth of field and the obsession with low light akin to bell bottomed pants. Every 20 years or so they come back.

[Don Bloom]

Keep in mind that Panny is coming out with the HMC130 and the HMC160 soon. Of course "soon" is also subjective but there are quite a number of differences between the 130/160 and the current 150. Lens will be an 18X, dual card slots which will support either single or dual recording, supposedly peaking (I think on the 160 not sure about the 130) along with a better (again supposedly) LCD. I saw something perhaps posted here that led me to a video about the 2 cameras but can't remember exactly where.
Also keep in mind th etroubles in Japan a few months ago has thrown a wrench in the works of all the mfgrs.
Just throwing it out there.

[Josh Bass]

Ha! Thanks.

I get what you mean about the fads. I have the girlfriend's 5D for shallow DOF. . .which is actually really not too useful for a lot of the work I would be doing (running around getting broll somewhere, corporate lecture, etc.), and the low light thing is a real world concern because of the same (I seem to end up shooting in a lot of dark environments--on cam lights are nice but only useful in certain situations)

Did not know about the upcoming panas.


What is the infrared good for? I think of infrared I think of the weird colors based on heat not light. . .is it something else then?

In the real world, how is the fucntionality/what kind of problems do you have with the ND filter setup, and the single lens ring on the canon?

[David Chilson]

The infrared is good for fun!

I’m from the old school of “find your camera’s sweet spot and try and work there”.

When I read “I shoot in a lot of dimly lit areas” I always think well there’s a person that needs a good light kit. Actually, they usually want to get by with none.

It’s a $3000 single chip camera that could do a bang up job with a modest light kit. If it’s a paying gig the customer expects it to be properly lit so make sure it’s not laziness or shortage of kit driving your camera selection process.

I thought I would hate the ND filter set up but in real world use it worked well. I was shooting on a fishing boat and switching between the bright deck and a shaded cockpit and it handled them both fine. Truth be told probably more quickly than I could have done it. Heck I really never knew how long the ND icon on the LCD on my old camera had been blinking before I would manually change it. I never felt the camera made any “bad” ND filter choices.

As far as the single lens ring I guess you need to decide if the camera fits your style of shooting. I shoot interviews with the camera off a tripod and mount it on a Fig Rig when shooting handheld.

Mounted on a tripod it’s fairly easy to access controls and adjust to your hearts content.

On the fig rig it wears the wide angle set to wide with everything else set to auto. The zoom controller does very little zooming, it’s used mostly as a record/pause button. If I want a close up I move the camera

Coming from the XHA1s the size is a treat, especially on the Fig Rig. This comes at a price, not so much in the amount of control but in how easily and smoothly they can be accessed.

The camera handles everything I have been asking of it very well.

[Josh Bass]

What I mean about shooting in dim areas is that sometimes you simply can't have a lighting kit available in every shoot.

For instance, and I don't do weddings much, but those reception halls are usually insanely dark. With m XL2, and an on cam LED light, I still had to be at 12 db gain to get much of anything.

Used to have a client that did a big event every two years that would have us videographers getting broll in hotel ballrooms each night. Same deal. . .insanely dark, light kit not feasible. This is what I'm thinking of when I wonder about the low light capability. I don't expect a camera to be magic and handle those situations like it's outdoors during the day, but some are definitely better at it than others.

[Philip Lipetz]

Low light is NOT the XF100's strength. Not horrible but less than EX1, not sure about HMC150. Slash cam.com comparison shows the XF100 as better but I do not get the same low light results. it could be that they shoot in 50i and I use 24p.

[Josh Bass]

That slashcam site is kinda neat except for the fact they had almost nothing about the HMC150 (unless I don't understand how that site works).

[Philip Lipetz]

They have results for the european version, the HMC151

[Josh Bass]

Ah, didn't see that. Are the European and American versions of the cam similar enough for the comparison to be valid?

[Philip Lipetz]

Identical except for framerate.

[Terry Wall]

Hi, Gang! Been off the grid for a while, so apologies in advance if I pose a question that's been answered (Chris H, keep me honest on this one!): With all the talk about the new Canons...XF100, XA10 and others, there seems to NOT be as much talk (as there used to be) regarding single chip cams versus three chippers. Notwithstanding the new four-thirds chips, which are significantly larger, is this truly becoming less and less of an issue? I notice that even in the video mags there seems to be less conversation about one vs three chips. Am I missing something? Have I been off the grid too long????

An inquiring mind wants to know...

Cheers!
~TW