JVC GY-HM100U VS. T2i at DVinfo.net

Jesus Garcia · July 21st, 2010, 07:21 PM

Hey everyone.

I'm stuck between these two cameras for HD shooting. The t2i has me convinced by the great test videos on youtube but its not a primary/dedicated video camera like the HM100u. I haven't found any good test videos that would convince me to spend a bit more for the HM100u. I shoot short films that are action, sci-fi horror, drama maybe, and romance. Also, music videos. I like the warmth colors the t2i gives but its still not a complete video camera although i know its not intended to be. So my question would be, which one of these two cameras will give me what I mentioned above with minimal problems that affect workflow or future addons like lenses, audio gear, attaching lcd monitors or anything else that might be a pain. Also, what type of DOF adapters (or what ever they are called) would the HM100u need in order to use different type of lenses like EF, sony and nikon? Which camera offers the most manual controls? Which will give the best image quality?

Thank You in advanced.

Ben Lynn · July 22nd, 2010, 05:52 PM

Jesus,

I've worked quite a bit with the HM100 and for what you want to do I think that the t2i would be the better option. I think that the t2i would produce the better low-light image and allow you more of the lens options you might want later.

The hm100 is a great b camera and would compliment an hm700 well but I wouldn't like to use it as a main camera. My biggest reason being that it doesn't have very good low-light ability. To achieve a proper exposure in typical room lighting it always seems to require the use of gain or a slow shutter. And yes, the iris is full open in case anyone asks that question. The best advantage with this camera would be your post production work flow. Whether you're on a mac or pc, the files should just drag and drop into your timeline. The t2i may require a conversion.

Looking at the cost I couldn't justify the higher cost of the hm100 over the t2i. The money you save with the slr would go a long way towards things like a proper audio recorder and all the gadgets an slr shooting video typically needs.

I also can't see adding a matte box or lens adapter to the hm100. It's a really tiny camera, which is great at times, but not very good for building up as a film type rig. I think it functions best when it's small and compact and used within that setting.

Jesus Garcia · July 22nd, 2010, 08:28 PM

Thanks Ben for the reply.

I was wondering, What can I do about rolling shutter on the T2i? I rarely do static shots and I feel that having that issue can give me a very big headache. If there is any recommendations anyone has to reduce or eliminate completely rolling shutter please post or point me to the right articles, threads etc. to get more information.

Thank You in advanced.

Matthias Krause · July 24th, 2010, 09:01 AM

I have both cameras and I think the work very well together. The HM100 is much more suited for run-and-gun style shooting. I use the Canon exclusively for sit-down interviews and low light situations. It works well but it has a lot of limitations (audio, rolling shutter, sharpness, handling, recording time, file format). With a lot of light outdoors the Canon really sucks. I am especially surprised how blurry an images the sensor produces when it has to work with a lot of light (I am useing high quality Nikon primes...). The files definitely require a lot of post production and the file format totally sucks. I think, as a combo both cameras work well, if I had to choose only one, I would go with the HM100.

William Hohauser · July 24th, 2010, 09:38 AM

I don't know of a DSLR camera that really handles action well or has a zoom lens that you can use while shooting. Perhaps someone here knows of DSLRs that can deal with these needs but there's a reason that cameras like the HM100 or the HM700 still exist. I would recommend the HM700 over the HM100 for action specifically because of the lens but that's even more money.

Laurence Janus · July 27th, 2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus Garcia

I shoot short films that are action, sci-fi horror... Also, music videos.

JVC GY-HM100U, it won't get in the way of telling your stories.

Steve Cottrell · July 31st, 2010, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus Garcia

Hey everyone.

... my question would be, which one of these two cameras will give me what I mentioned above with minimal problems that affect workflow or future addons like lenses, audio gear, attaching lcd monitors or anything else that might be a pain. Also, what type of DOF adapters (or what ever they are called) would the HM100u need in order to use different type of lenses like EF, sony and nikon? Which camera offers the most manual controls? Which will give the best image quality?

Thank You in advanced.

You've had plenty of good answers here, and for myself I would say that for what you want to do, go with the T2i. The HM100 does not lend itself to easy manual operation, although it can be done with care. You're obviously on a budget, so no point in talking about other options - your choice is limited at this price level.

Have a look at Phil Bloom's pages re DSLR shooting, it may give you some ideas.

DSLR Articles | Philip Bloom

I have the HM100 and it suits me well as a small camera for using in places I can't use a big camera, and as a B camera. For what it is, it is superb - even with low light - 18dB of gain and no problem at all - the pics are smooth. Love it.

July 21st, 2010, 07:21 PM	#1
Jesus Garcia New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: United States Posts: 5	JVC GY-HM100U VS. T2i Hey everyone. I'm stuck between these two cameras for HD shooting. The t2i has me convinced by the great test videos on youtube but its not a primary/dedicated video camera like the HM100u. I haven't found any good test videos that would convince me to spend a bit more for the HM100u. I shoot short films that are action, sci-fi horror, drama maybe, and romance. Also, music videos. I like the warmth colors the t2i gives but its still not a complete video camera although i know its not intended to be. So my question would be, which one of these two cameras will give me what I mentioned above with minimal problems that affect workflow or future addons like lenses, audio gear, attaching lcd monitors or anything else that might be a pain. Also, what type of DOF adapters (or what ever they are called) would the HM100u need in order to use different type of lenses like EF, sony and nikon? Which camera offers the most manual controls? Which will give the best image quality? Thank You in advanced.

July 24th, 2010, 09:38 AM	#5
William Hohauser Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New York City Posts: 2,650	I don't know of a DSLR camera that really handles action well or has a zoom lens that you can use while shooting. Perhaps someone here knows of DSLRs that can deal with these needs but there's a reason that cameras like the HM100 or the HM700 still exist. I would recommend the HM700 over the HM100 for action specifically because of the lens but that's even more money. __________________ William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation

July 22nd, 2010, 05:52 PM	#2
Ben Lynn Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 636	Jesus, I've worked quite a bit with the HM100 and for what you want to do I think that the t2i would be the better option. I think that the t2i would produce the better low-light image and allow you more of the lens options you might want later. The hm100 is a great b camera and would compliment an hm700 well but I wouldn't like to use it as a main camera. My biggest reason being that it doesn't have very good low-light ability. To achieve a proper exposure in typical room lighting it always seems to require the use of gain or a slow shutter. And yes, the iris is full open in case anyone asks that question. The best advantage with this camera would be your post production work flow. Whether you're on a mac or pc, the files should just drag and drop into your timeline. The t2i may require a conversion. Looking at the cost I couldn't justify the higher cost of the hm100 over the t2i. The money you save with the slr would go a long way towards things like a proper audio recorder and all the gadgets an slr shooting video typically needs. I also can't see adding a matte box or lens adapter to the hm100. It's a really tiny camera, which is great at times, but not very good for building up as a film type rig. I think it functions best when it's small and compact and used within that setting.

July 22nd, 2010, 08:28 PM	#3
Jesus Garcia New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: United States Posts: 5	Thanks Ben for the reply. I was wondering, What can I do about rolling shutter on the T2i? I rarely do static shots and I feel that having that issue can give me a very big headache. If there is any recommendations anyone has to reduce or eliminate completely rolling shutter please post or point me to the right articles, threads etc. to get more information. Thank You in advanced.

July 24th, 2010, 09:01 AM	#4
Matthias Krause Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 203	I have both cameras and I think the work very well together. The HM100 is much more suited for run-and-gun style shooting. I use the Canon exclusively for sit-down interviews and low light situations. It works well but it has a lot of limitations (audio, rolling shutter, sharpness, handling, recording time, file format). With a lot of light outdoors the Canon really sucks. I am especially surprised how blurry an images the sensor produces when it has to work with a lot of light (I am useing high quality Nikon primes...). The files definitely require a lot of post production and the file format totally sucks. I think, as a combo both cameras work well, if I had to choose only one, I would go with the HM100.