Can I use the Jvc HM100 as an A cam? at DVinfo.net

Doug Tessler · June 26th, 2009, 09:51 AM

Is the camera good enough as an A cam or should I get the 700 if I can afford it ?

Doug

Matthias Krause · June 26th, 2009, 12:45 PM

Strange question. What are you shooting? What do you need that the HM100 doesn´t give you?

Doug Tessler · June 26th, 2009, 05:58 PM

In this economy I am just trying to save money so I could afford the JVC HM 700 , but if I could I would go with the JVC HM100 . I use to have the Canon Xh A1 and produced several shows for broadcast and it was good enough for my needs . I don't want tape anymore !
I guess the problem with the Hm100 is that it has limited audio controls and I need that on the field in case of multiple mics .So I guess I answered my own ?

Cheers
Doug

Jack Walker · June 26th, 2009, 09:20 PM

I think the HM100 has audio capabilities similar to the HM700.

However, the cameras themselves are quite different. The HM700 is more than twice the size of the XH-A1, and it is designed to be a good shoulder camera.

The HM100 is about half the size of the XH-A1. It would work well hand-held in discrete situations, but won't work on the shoulder.

The 1/4" chips of the HM100 vs. the 1/3" chips of the HM700 may or may not be a factor as both produce excellent pictures in the right situations.

The zoom on the HM100 is terrible for shooting live shows, and it would be a disappointment after using the excellent zoom ring on the XH-A1.

Also, the HM100 does not accommodate a remote lens controller.

Any of these three cameras make an excellent "A" camera in the right situation.

Kaushik Parmar · June 26th, 2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Tessler

Is the camera good enough as an A cam or should I get the 700 if I can afford it ?

Doug

Go for HM100, you can save money, and it is small too! Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

Shaun Walker · June 27th, 2009, 10:54 AM

For me, the answer is NO, not going to be my A camera ... But I was trying to use mine to shoot whitewater kayakers handheld from tricky rock outcrops, tiny birds across the slough, and baseball/softball action handheld with fast pans that make the OIS have to catch up a bit when zoomed.
I jumped the gun and should have compared more cameras in person first (that means a BIG road trip from small town Eureka, Calif.), though what I really should have realized was that I truly needed a 16-20X zoom for my particular telephoto needs VERY OFTEN. And such a high percentage of my more important shooting is handheld and sometimes moving, so better OIS would be nice sometimes beyond the widest 1/3 of the range.

So my sweet JVC HM100 is going on eBay on Monday or so, unless I decide to keep it as an absolutely awesome and ultra compact B++ camera, not likely as the $$$$ will take priority. What else can you get for the money that has XDCAM EX and its uncompressed audio, great color fidelity, and super convenient .mov SD card recording, great audio controls, etc. -- NOTHING else. And JVC's full Auto mode is pretty impressive, for image quality, anyhow, probably less so for audio, but that's a trickier realm and not as important ... it handles things SO well and white balances very accurately the vast majority of the time.
It's just not the right A cam for ME and my current needs -- and I'll soon be shooting whitewater action from a moving inflatable kayak (sometimes moving backward still IN a Class III rapid!), so run'n'gun shooting capability will be be far more important than image/audio quality.

PS: The 35Mbps codec at 1080i seems to handle handheld/panning whitewater boating action very well ... I haven't noticed anything blocky or blurred on my 42" 1080 from 8 feet away, though I'm going to take a closer look very soon.

Keith Moreau · June 30th, 2009, 07:12 PM

I don't see the HM100 as an A Cam, though the image and audio is probably on par with your Canon. Your Canon beats it on somethings like the lens, the exposure and shutter controls. There are just more buttons on it. I hear you about not wanting to use tape. Whenever I have to go back and use DV tape, then go through the capture process, rewinding, etc I realize that tape (for me) is dead. However you'll have to build your 'tapeless' workflow infrastructure that includes backup drives etc that can add a bit to the complexity beyond what tape used to be.

However, if you get the settings right you could certainly use the HM100 it as your primary cam. However if you can afford the 700 or an EX1 or EX3 as your A Cam, you'll have much more "A" camcorder to play with.

The Audio seems to be pretty good with the attached Audio Handle module. I have a short AT375 shotgun mic when I need it and the audio quality seems fine with a better mic.

The HM100 I see as the most portable "Pro" camcorder available now, with some drawbacks.

Good Luck and let us know what you decide.

Dennis Robinson · July 9th, 2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaushik Parmar

Go for HM100, you can save money, and it is small too! Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

That's funny. If I turned up for a shoot with a tiny camera the client would wonder why I charge him so much money. I can understand you like a small camera but no doubt you are not doing it for a living. The idea of shooting a TV commercial with a small cam is absurd. Why do so many people talk about saving money all the time? My experience has been to spend the money on gear you need to get the job done and the money comes as the result of that.

Shaun Roemich · July 9th, 2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaushik Parmar

Those days have gone of bulky cameras!

Meaning no offense but I've been hearing this for 10 years. Not everyone is interested in a postage stamp sized camera with poor ergonomics and user functions, although the quality of the images generated by "tiny cams" has increased GREATLY.

Dennis Robinson · July 9th, 2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

Meaning no offense but I've been hearing this for 10 years. Not everyone is interested in a postage stamp sized camera with poor ergonomics and user functions, although the quality of the images generated by "tiny cams" has increased GREATLY.

Absolutely. I had to use an EX1 recently and felt really embarrassed about charging the client five grand for his three minute video. He even offered to shoot a piece of footage himself to save me having to travel to a different location as he said he had a camera he could borrow much like the size of the one I was using.

Keith Moreau · July 9th, 2009, 07:08 PM

Yeah, I was on a 3 camera shoot the other day with the HM100 and somebody looked at my bigger camcorders and then the HM100 and said, jokingly, 'so who's camera is that?'

But I explained, even though it was small, for the subject matter and the delivery, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the HM100 and the bigger ones.

Big camcorders, mounted on rigs, and big tripods or dollies, with Softies, are quite impressive. It's funny, but just having the blimp-like furry thing over your mic seems to impress people.

Someday, as pro quality finds it's way to smaller cameras, the perception will change, and in the meantime, it's up to us to not be too embarrassed and be prepared to explain how technology has marched on. Or maybe we can develop a "Batman Suit" for our camcorders that will make our puny-looking but high-quality devices more impressive.

I believe that in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to defy current physics and the benefits of large glass and sensors and then there really will not be a reason to use larger camcorders.

My new iPhone 3G S with video is a much better A-Cam than the big Beta Deck and tethered video camera that I had to lug around before camcorders existed. If I lugged that around now I might have to explain why I was insane... :)

James Downie · July 10th, 2009, 08:44 AM

While it would be nice to have a nice new 700, if you can't afford it right now, go with the 100. It's still a nice little camera with very nice pictures. Unless you're working for a network or Spielberg (which if you're considering an HM100, I'll guess you're not), the client won't be able to tell the difference. If you know what you're doing, it won't matter. Personally I don't have either camera right now. I'm about to get the 100 and if things go according to plan, a 700 will be coming before the end of the year.

And what's with the line about being ashamed to charge for your work because you are using a smaller camera? There are a lot of independent videographers that use and make their livings with smaller cameras. If you can make a good living, deliver a good product and keep your customers happy without having to shell out a ransom for your gear, that sounds like a good business plan to me.

Kaushik Parmar · July 10th, 2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Robinson

That's funny. If I turned up for a shoot with a tiny camera the client would wonder why I charge him so much money. I can understand you like a small camera but no doubt you are not doing it for a living. The idea of shooting a TV commercial with a small cam is absurd. Why do so many people talk about saving money all the time? My experience has been to spend the money on gear you need to get the job done and the money comes as the result of that.

I am afraid but your clients should have trust on you, and it’s all about convenience, saving money is secondary, off course if you are saving it that’s good. 20 years back’s bulky and less featured Walkman we are not using these days, today we have small Portable Media Players like IPod and etc. And so much convenience! Let’s not be so routines! These are my thoughts!

Paulo Teixeira · July 11th, 2009, 12:00 AM

The HM700 has slightly better lowlight capabilities so if your shooting mostly in places with very little lighting, the HM700 will be better but as far as the HM100 is concerned, it’s obviously a lot more portable and that can be a good thing in many situations.

When it comes to clients, just tell them how good the HM100 is and show them a demo of some of your work using it.

Robert Rogoz · July 11th, 2009, 09:44 AM

I don't see why the size would matter. It's like saying the computers should still fill out entire rooms, because they did 25 years ago, so the laptops are crap and can't get the job done.
My biggest beef with HM100 is lack of a few things like: no wide angle, aperture/shutter control, and zoom. Also LCD is kind of crap as far as resolution.
One thing I noticed. I shot some interviews with GY-HD100 and we were shooting some more with HM100. This person was way less intimidated by this small camera, so I think for documentaries and commercials, where you work with people unused to being in front of the lens it is a great little cam. I would think the same would go for filming events (something I really don't do), where subjects normally would shy away from the lens.

June 26th, 2009, 09:51 AM	#1
Doug Tessler Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BOCa raton fl Posts: 342	Can I use the Jvc HM100 as an A cam? Is the camera good enough as an A cam or should I get the 700 if I can afford it ? Doug

June 26th, 2009, 05:58 PM	#3
Doug Tessler Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: BOCa raton fl Posts: 342	Strange ? In this economy I am just trying to save money so I could afford the JVC HM 700 , but if I could I would go with the JVC HM100 . I use to have the Canon Xh A1 and produced several shows for broadcast and it was good enough for my needs . I don't want tape anymore ! I guess the problem with the Hm100 is that it has limited audio controls and I need that on the field in case of multiple mics .So I guess I answered my own ? Cheers Doug

June 27th, 2009, 10:54 AM	#6
Shaun Walker Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Eureka, Calif. Posts: 98	B++ cam for me? For me, the answer is NO, not going to be my A camera ... But I was trying to use mine to shoot whitewater kayakers handheld from tricky rock outcrops, tiny birds across the slough, and baseball/softball action handheld with fast pans that make the OIS have to catch up a bit when zoomed. I jumped the gun and should have compared more cameras in person first (that means a BIG road trip from small town Eureka, Calif.), though what I really should have realized was that I truly needed a 16-20X zoom for my particular telephoto needs VERY OFTEN. And such a high percentage of my more important shooting is handheld and sometimes moving, so better OIS would be nice sometimes beyond the widest 1/3 of the range. So my sweet JVC HM100 is going on eBay on Monday or so, unless I decide to keep it as an absolutely awesome and ultra compact B++ camera, not likely as the $$$$ will take priority. What else can you get for the money that has XDCAM EX and its uncompressed audio, great color fidelity, and super convenient .mov SD card recording, great audio controls, etc. -- NOTHING else. And JVC's full Auto mode is pretty impressive, for image quality, anyhow, probably less so for audio, but that's a trickier realm and not as important ... it handles things SO well and white balances very accurately the vast majority of the time. It's just not the right A cam for ME and my current needs -- and I'll soon be shooting whitewater action from a moving inflatable kayak (sometimes moving backward still IN a Class III rapid!), so run'n'gun shooting capability will be be far more important than image/audio quality. PS: The 35Mbps codec at 1080i seems to handle handheld/panning whitewater boating action very well ... I haven't noticed anything blocky or blurred on my 42" 1080 from 8 feet away, though I'm going to take a closer look very soon.

July 11th, 2009, 12:00 AM	#14
Paulo Teixeira Trustee Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,773	The HM700 has slightly better lowlight capabilities so if your shooting mostly in places with very little lighting, the HM700 will be better but as far as the HM100 is concerned, it’s obviously a lot more portable and that can be a good thing in many situations. When it comes to clients, just tell them how good the HM100 is and show them a demo of some of your work using it. __________________ https://www.youtube.com/user/PhotoVi...esEtc/featured https://www.pond5.com/artist/paulot

June 26th, 2009, 12:45 PM	#2
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	Strange question. What are you shooting? What do you need that the HM100 doesn´t give you?

June 26th, 2009, 09:20 PM	#4
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	I think the HM100 has audio capabilities similar to the HM700. However, the cameras themselves are quite different. The HM700 is more than twice the size of the XH-A1, and it is designed to be a good shoulder camera. The HM100 is about half the size of the XH-A1. It would work well hand-held in discrete situations, but won't work on the shoulder. The 1/4" chips of the HM100 vs. the 1/3" chips of the HM700 may or may not be a factor as both produce excellent pictures in the right situations. The zoom on the HM100 is terrible for shooting live shows, and it would be a disappointment after using the excellent zoom ring on the XH-A1. Also, the HM100 does not accommodate a remote lens controller. Any of these three cameras make an excellent "A" camera in the right situation.

June 30th, 2009, 07:12 PM	#7
Keith Moreau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brisbane, California Posts: 530	I don't see the HM100 as an A Cam, though the image and audio is probably on par with your Canon. Your Canon beats it on somethings like the lens, the exposure and shutter controls. There are just more buttons on it. I hear you about not wanting to use tape. Whenever I have to go back and use DV tape, then go through the capture process, rewinding, etc I realize that tape (for me) is dead. However you'll have to build your 'tapeless' workflow infrastructure that includes backup drives etc that can add a bit to the complexity beyond what tape used to be. However, if you get the settings right you could certainly use the HM100 it as your primary cam. However if you can afford the 700 or an EX1 or EX3 as your A Cam, you'll have much more "A" camcorder to play with. The Audio seems to be pretty good with the attached Audio Handle module. I have a short AT375 shotgun mic when I need it and the audio quality seems fine with a better mic. The HM100 I see as the most portable "Pro" camcorder available now, with some drawbacks. Good Luck and let us know what you decide.

July 9th, 2009, 07:08 PM	#11
Keith Moreau Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brisbane, California Posts: 530	Yeah, I was on a 3 camera shoot the other day with the HM100 and somebody looked at my bigger camcorders and then the HM100 and said, jokingly, 'so who's camera is that?' But I explained, even though it was small, for the subject matter and the delivery, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the HM100 and the bigger ones. Big camcorders, mounted on rigs, and big tripods or dollies, with Softies, are quite impressive. It's funny, but just having the blimp-like furry thing over your mic seems to impress people. Someday, as pro quality finds it's way to smaller cameras, the perception will change, and in the meantime, it's up to us to not be too embarrassed and be prepared to explain how technology has marched on. Or maybe we can develop a "Batman Suit" for our camcorders that will make our puny-looking but high-quality devices more impressive. I believe that in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to defy current physics and the benefits of large glass and sensors and then there really will not be a reason to use larger camcorders. My new iPhone 3G S with video is a much better A-Cam than the big Beta Deck and tethered video camera that I had to lug around before camcorders existed. If I lugged that around now I might have to explain why I was insane... :)

July 10th, 2009, 08:44 AM	#12
James Downie Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Charlotte, NC USA Posts: 39	While it would be nice to have a nice new 700, if you can't afford it right now, go with the 100. It's still a nice little camera with very nice pictures. Unless you're working for a network or Spielberg (which if you're considering an HM100, I'll guess you're not), the client won't be able to tell the difference. If you know what you're doing, it won't matter. Personally I don't have either camera right now. I'm about to get the 100 and if things go according to plan, a 700 will be coming before the end of the year. And what's with the line about being ashamed to charge for your work because you are using a smaller camera? There are a lot of independent videographers that use and make their livings with smaller cameras. If you can make a good living, deliver a good product and keep your customers happy without having to shell out a ransom for your gear, that sounds like a good business plan to me.

July 11th, 2009, 09:44 AM	#15
Robert Rogoz Major Player Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 457	I don't see why the size would matter. It's like saying the computers should still fill out entire rooms, because they did 25 years ago, so the laptops are crap and can't get the job done. My biggest beef with HM100 is lack of a few things like: no wide angle, aperture/shutter control, and zoom. Also LCD is kind of crap as far as resolution. One thing I noticed. I shot some interviews with GY-HD100 and we were shooting some more with HM100. This person was way less intimidated by this small camera, so I think for documentaries and commercials, where you work with people unused to being in front of the lens it is a great little cam. I would think the same would go for filming events (something I really don't do), where subjects normally would shy away from the lens.