panasonic hmc150 or sony ax2000 or sony nx5u?

Mike Butir · January 3rd, 2011, 10:13 PM

thanks for your reply Paula!

the question that it comes down to for me is, is it really worth me spending $1200 more for the NX5 when i am pretty much getting the same features in the HMC150 and same quality and what not. there are some features on my FX1 that i will loose though such as; shot transition, expanded focus ect. but i feel like those extra features are not worth the $1200 more and i wont even see myself using the HXR-FMU128 flash unit that can be attached to the NX5. what more is there that is in the NX5 that makes it so much more the the HMC150? newer?

Thanks,
Mike

Aaron Holmes · January 3rd, 2011, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adriano Moroni

Does anyone use a Wide Angle Lens for Sony AX2000/NX5?
How much will it be useful?
Thanks

I owned it (the Sony wide angle) and used it with my former Z5, but not enough to justify keeping it for the NX5. Of course, it depends on the kind of shooting you do. There were a couple of times where I wanted to get a little wider and couldn't do it any other way (e.g., stuffed in a corner at a kid's birthday party trying to get a shot of the whole table and no way to back up), however the Sony wide angle is immensely heavy and, IMO, makes it extremely difficult to hand-hold the camera. This severely limited its usefulness for me. And in general, I find that the stock lens is wide enough for most of what I do.

Best,
Aaron

Mike Butir · January 3rd, 2011, 11:04 PM

ignore this post

Adriano Moroni · January 4th, 2011, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Holmes

This severely limited its usefulness for me. And in general, I find that the stock lens is wide enough for most of what I do.

Aaron, could you tell me if it possbile to use easily Sony NX5 walking without using Wide Angle Lens?
Thanks

David Heath · January 4th, 2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Butir

the question that it comes down to for me is, is it really worth me spending $1200 more for the NX5 when i am pretty much getting the same features in the HMC150 and same quality and what not.

The NX5 may cost more but you are getting extra for the money. The lens has already been mentioned - not just the zoom range, but also the far better manual operation. But a big difference between their specs is that the NX5 uses higher resolution chips than the 150 - 1 megapixel rather than the 0.5 megapixel of the 150.

Jay West · January 4th, 2011, 08:59 PM

While I agree with everything David just said, and could add more of my own "for instances," I think we might be slipping towards semantic quagmire here. It's the same kind of semantic bog that appears whenever somebody asks "what is the best camera." It's always a question of best for who to do what for whom on what budget.

I think Mike has used some loose and unintentionally provocative language when he says "i am pretty much getting the same features in the HMC150 and same quality and what not." In context, I think what he means is that the more budget-friendly HMC is good enough for what he wants to do so the higher quality and functions of the NX5 are not a consideration.

On that basis, he can't go wrong with an HMC.

If he really means to put that otherwise provocative comment out for discussion, he really needs to spend some hands-on time with an NX5, as I've suggested above.

I'll point out one point of comparison that maybe illustrates this. The NX5 has (as do the AX, Z5, Z7 and FX1000) a high resolution viewscreen that is larger and much clearer than the one on the HMC (and the FX1, for that matter.) The one on the HMC that I saw reminded me of the one on my beloved old VX2000 with an extra band of data on one side. Not bad but harder to use for manual focus. With the NX5 screen's high resolution and the expanded focus button, I find it far easier to get good manual focus. You can't do that with an HMC. One cannot say that the HMC is equal to the NX5 in this area unless one doesn't particularly care about a manual focus aid. But, if one doesn't care about manual focus aids, then the greater capabilities don't matter.

Mike Butir · January 12th, 2011, 10:03 PM

thanks for the reply's everyone!

it seems that the nx5u is the camera to go with, but that would be pushing my budget. i still really want to stick with sony so i may still consider the ax2000 but if its not true 24p, 30p then i dont know if i wan to go with that. however i feel for what the price of the hmc is going for its almost a no brainer to go with that. although i will need to buy all new battery's and unit charger for it. but i was wondering, does the hmc have over cranking and under cranking? for slow motion shots

Thanks,
Mike

Tom Hardwick · January 13th, 2011, 02:35 AM

Mike - well said, the HMC is a no-brainer to the finance department of your head. I'd pretty much defy anyone to tell - looking at a wedding film - if the HMC or the NX had been used. I've looked at HMC 720p footage (when the camera's performing at its best, btw) right up close on a 50" plasma, and I've been astounded by the image quality. It may only have a 13x zoom, but boy, what a lens.

OK, you could tell the two cameras apart once the NX's slo-mo appeared in the twirl (no slo-mo on the HMC Mike), but look at the money you're saving - enough for a wonderful tripod + lanc zoom controller, kit bag and extra batteries!

I chose the NX because I could afford it, simple as that - but I still hate what CMOS does to the flash-riddled cake-cutting. But for those who can't justify the extra expense the HMC will give startlingly good results with one or two operational compromises as have been mentioned here.

Remember this good people: films have far more to do with the filmmaker's and editor's skills than ever they are to do with the hardware used. Intelligence, imagination, planning ahead, double checking, being brave - all people skills - and the finest camera out there has not one of these attributes.

tom.

D.J. Ammons · January 13th, 2011, 04:49 PM

With it now selling for $2795 from legitimate retailers the HMC 150 is an incredible deal. I would guess that pretty soon Panny will come out with a successor addressing some of the HMC150's shortcomings like having two SD card slots and a higher resolution LCD. But then I am sure the price of the new model will reflect those improvements and put it back on par with the Sony competition.

I own two Sony V1U's. I bought them about six months before the HMC150 came out or I would have bought two of those. I love my Sony's but it sure is tempting to borrow $5590 and grab two HMC 150's to take dvantage of the SD format and CCD's vs CMOS.

Mike Butir · January 13th, 2011, 10:32 PM

i have decided that the NX5U is going to be too much for me. i will probably buy a good tripod and nice mic instead of spending the extra cash on that cam. however i still would really like to stick with sony. the question i have at this point is that if i end up going with the ax2000 is that going to be pretty similar to my FX1 as far as the the features are? and if i go with the HMC150 is that going to be a heck of a lot better as far as features and professionalism? i know that that the sony is going to be a little better in low light but i already have a video light so im not too concerned about that now. and i can deal with out having the extra sd card slot. anything else that is going to be a big factor besides all of the small differences such as LCD resolution, expanded focus ect.?

Tom Hardwick · January 14th, 2011, 02:43 AM

The AX2k is a serious contender as it has proper (at last) XLR balanced inputs for mic and line. It lacks some of the menu tweaks of the NX but it has exactly the same military-grade build spec and will give you the peace of mind of twin cards for those long wedding speeches, a much longer zoom, ace slo-mo and OIS and a really hi-res top screen.

The HMC makes great pictures but the side-screen is creaky/wobbly on its hinge alongside the Sony and as DJA says, it can't be long before the 18x zoom, twin card slot, CMOS chipped HMC 190 will be here.

Coming from an FX1 you'll be right at home with the AX2k in an afternoon. Its default settings will give you beautiful footage but there's no firewire, everything's file based of course. I'm not convinced the HMC is any better regarding 'features and professionalism' as you put it.

Remember that the hardware is never professional, only people are.

tom.

Mike Butir · January 14th, 2011, 10:25 AM

also doesn’t the ax2000 have more resolution image sensors then the HMC does? Although i also heard that the 24p and 30p on the ax2000 is not true progressive, is that true?

Jay West · January 14th, 2011, 12:32 PM

I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I'll have a try at answering what I think you might be asking.

If I recall correctly from when I looked at the HMC150, I believe its three sensors had a raw native resolution of something like 960x520. As I recall, there is some offset (the green sensor?) which results in 1440x810. When used to record for AVCHD/H.264, I recall reading that there was some upscaling to yield a 1920x1080 image. This is not without advantages. The pixels are larger which means you may get less noise in lower light images. The AX/NX cams claim to be full raster for 1980x1020 with a 1.2 megapixel sensors. The AX/NX cams will record at up to 24Mbps AVCHD. The HMC150 tops out at 21Mbps AVCCAM.

That said, in terms of image clarity under reasonable lighting with the video converted to DVD, you would often have trouble distinguishing footage from the AX and HMC150. This is illustrated by one of the links in one of the postings above. (Can't find it right now, but the shooter had done a side-by-side comparison of NX and HMC footage of a wedding shot from the back loft of a cathedral. His conclusion was that he liked the HMC150 footage better.) On the other hand, you may notice some differences on larger screen tvs when displaying HD video.

As for progressive formats, my recollection is that the AX2000 records 24p in a 60i wrapper. (Okay, for nitpickers about the newer official nomenclature, I should have said 24p in a 30i wrapper. You know what I mean by "60i.") I believe that the HMC150 will record in native 24p. As best I recall, neither the AX nor the HMC150 will record a native 30p or native 29.97p.

January 3rd, 2011, 10:13 PM	#16
Mike Butir Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Chicago Illinois Posts: 102	thanks for your reply Paula! the question that it comes down to for me is, is it really worth me spending $1200 more for the NX5 when i am pretty much getting the same features in the HMC150 and same quality and what not. there are some features on my FX1 that i will loose though such as; shot transition, expanded focus ect. but i feel like those extra features are not worth the $1200 more and i wont even see myself using the HXR-FMU128 flash unit that can be attached to the NX5. what more is there that is in the NX5 that makes it so much more the the HMC150? newer? Thanks, Mike

January 3rd, 2011, 11:04 PM	#18
Mike Butir Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Chicago Illinois Posts: 102	ignore this post

January 4th, 2011, 08:59 PM	#21
Jay West Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Red Lodge, Montana Posts: 889	While I agree with everything David just said, and could add more of my own "for instances," I think we might be slipping towards semantic quagmire here. It's the same kind of semantic bog that appears whenever somebody asks "what is the best camera." It's always a question of best for who to do what for whom on what budget. I think Mike has used some loose and unintentionally provocative language when he says "i am pretty much getting the same features in the HMC150 and same quality and what not." In context, I think what he means is that the more budget-friendly HMC is good enough for what he wants to do so the higher quality and functions of the NX5 are not a consideration. On that basis, he can't go wrong with an HMC. If he really means to put that otherwise provocative comment out for discussion, he really needs to spend some hands-on time with an NX5, as I've suggested above. I'll point out one point of comparison that maybe illustrates this. The NX5 has (as do the AX, Z5, Z7 and FX1000) a high resolution viewscreen that is larger and much clearer than the one on the HMC (and the FX1, for that matter.) The one on the HMC that I saw reminded me of the one on my beloved old VX2000 with an extra band of data on one side. Not bad but harder to use for manual focus. With the NX5 screen's high resolution and the expanded focus button, I find it far easier to get good manual focus. You can't do that with an HMC. One cannot say that the HMC is equal to the NX5 in this area unless one doesn't particularly care about a manual focus aid. But, if one doesn't care about manual focus aids, then the greater capabilities don't matter.

January 12th, 2011, 10:03 PM	#22
Mike Butir Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Chicago Illinois Posts: 102	thanks for the reply's everyone! it seems that the nx5u is the camera to go with, but that would be pushing my budget. i still really want to stick with sony so i may still consider the ax2000 but if its not true 24p, 30p then i dont know if i wan to go with that. however i feel for what the price of the hmc is going for its almost a no brainer to go with that. although i will need to buy all new battery's and unit charger for it. but i was wondering, does the hmc have over cranking and under cranking? for slow motion shots Thanks, Mike

January 13th, 2011, 02:35 AM	#23
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Mike - well said, the HMC is a no-brainer to the finance department of your head. I'd pretty much defy anyone to tell - looking at a wedding film - if the HMC or the NX had been used. I've looked at HMC 720p footage (when the camera's performing at its best, btw) right up close on a 50" plasma, and I've been astounded by the image quality. It may only have a 13x zoom, but boy, what a lens. OK, you could tell the two cameras apart once the NX's slo-mo appeared in the twirl (no slo-mo on the HMC Mike), but look at the money you're saving - enough for a wonderful tripod + lanc zoom controller, kit bag and extra batteries! I chose the NX because I could afford it, simple as that - but I still hate what CMOS does to the flash-riddled cake-cutting. But for those who can't justify the extra expense the HMC will give startlingly good results with one or two operational compromises as have been mentioned here. Remember this good people: films have far more to do with the filmmaker's and editor's skills than ever they are to do with the hardware used. Intelligence, imagination, planning ahead, double checking, being brave - all people skills - and the finest camera out there has not one of these attributes. tom.

January 13th, 2011, 04:49 PM	#24
D.J. Ammons Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 506	With it now selling for $2795 from legitimate retailers the HMC 150 is an incredible deal. I would guess that pretty soon Panny will come out with a successor addressing some of the HMC150's shortcomings like having two SD card slots and a higher resolution LCD. But then I am sure the price of the new model will reflect those improvements and put it back on par with the Sony competition. I own two Sony V1U's. I bought them about six months before the HMC150 came out or I would have bought two of those. I love my Sony's but it sure is tempting to borrow $5590 and grab two HMC 150's to take dvantage of the SD format and CCD's vs CMOS.

January 13th, 2011, 10:32 PM	#25
Mike Butir Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Chicago Illinois Posts: 102	i have decided that the NX5U is going to be too much for me. i will probably buy a good tripod and nice mic instead of spending the extra cash on that cam. however i still would really like to stick with sony. the question i have at this point is that if i end up going with the ax2000 is that going to be pretty similar to my FX1 as far as the the features are? and if i go with the HMC150 is that going to be a heck of a lot better as far as features and professionalism? i know that that the sony is going to be a little better in low light but i already have a video light so im not too concerned about that now. and i can deal with out having the extra sd card slot. anything else that is going to be a big factor besides all of the small differences such as LCD resolution, expanded focus ect.?

January 14th, 2011, 02:43 AM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The AX2k is a serious contender as it has proper (at last) XLR balanced inputs for mic and line. It lacks some of the menu tweaks of the NX but it has exactly the same military-grade build spec and will give you the peace of mind of twin cards for those long wedding speeches, a much longer zoom, ace slo-mo and OIS and a really hi-res top screen. The HMC makes great pictures but the side-screen is creaky/wobbly on its hinge alongside the Sony and as DJA says, it can't be long before the 18x zoom, twin card slot, CMOS chipped HMC 190 will be here. Coming from an FX1 you'll be right at home with the AX2k in an afternoon. Its default settings will give you beautiful footage but there's no firewire, everything's file based of course. I'm not convinced the HMC is any better regarding 'features and professionalism' as you put it. Remember that the hardware is never professional, only people are. tom.

January 14th, 2011, 10:25 AM	#27
Mike Butir Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Chicago Illinois Posts: 102	also doesn’t the ax2000 have more resolution image sensors then the HMC does? Although i also heard that the 24p and 30p on the ax2000 is not true progressive, is that true?

January 14th, 2011, 12:32 PM	#28
Jay West Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Red Lodge, Montana Posts: 889	I'm not sure what you are asking here, but I'll have a try at answering what I think you might be asking. If I recall correctly from when I looked at the HMC150, I believe its three sensors had a raw native resolution of something like 960x520. As I recall, there is some offset (the green sensor?) which results in 1440x810. When used to record for AVCHD/H.264, I recall reading that there was some upscaling to yield a 1920x1080 image. This is not without advantages. The pixels are larger which means you may get less noise in lower light images. The AX/NX cams claim to be full raster for 1980x1020 with a 1.2 megapixel sensors. The AX/NX cams will record at up to 24Mbps AVCHD. The HMC150 tops out at 21Mbps AVCCAM. That said, in terms of image clarity under reasonable lighting with the video converted to DVD, you would often have trouble distinguishing footage from the AX and HMC150. This is illustrated by one of the links in one of the postings above. (Can't find it right now, but the shooter had done a side-by-side comparison of NX and HMC footage of a wedding shot from the back loft of a cathedral. His conclusion was that he liked the HMC150 footage better.) On the other hand, you may notice some differences on larger screen tvs when displaying HD video. As for progressive formats, my recollection is that the AX2000 records 24p in a 60i wrapper. (Okay, for nitpickers about the newer official nomenclature, I should have said 24p in a 30i wrapper. You know what I mean by "60i.") I believe that the HMC150 will record in native 24p. As best I recall, neither the AX nor the HMC150 will record a native 30p or native 29.97p.