A little disappointed with low-light

[Dan Shallenberger]

Yeah, I realize comparing an HD camera, even one good with low-light, to the king of SD cameras, pd170, the hmc150 will not compare. But I'm seeing that compared to other HD cameras, the hmc150 is great. My problem is that I have never used another HD camera. I do work with a guy sometimes that shows me his Z1 lcd screen, and just when I think it looks as good as my pd170, he says he's at 18db gain and I'm at 6db (+/- 3db).

Although, in Mark's latest comparison to the Z5 (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic...ison-clip.html), the Panny doesn't seem lightyears ahead at all. Now, take the rolling shutter into account, and the Panny is the clear winner.

I know the Panny is the camera for me, and I know I'll get used to it not being a pd170. I like Joel's idea of using a couple of external lights to light up the dance floor for the main events. I wonder how many brides would care about that.

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Dan Shallenberger

Yeah, I realize comparing an HD camera, even one good with low-light, to the king of SD cameras, pd170, the hmc150 will not compare.

I have the VX2100 (same low light capability as the PD170) and I have a Sony Z7 and I would rate the Z7 at least equal to the VX2100 in low light capability. And there is a direct comparison on this forum between the FX1000 and the HMC-150 and the FX1000 is clearly superior in low light. That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.

[Tom Alexander]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

I have the VX2100 (same low light capability as the PD170) and I have a Sony Z7 and I would rate the Z7 at least equal to the VX2100 in low light capability. And there is a direct comparison on this forum between the FX1000 and the HMC-150 and the FX1000 is clearly superior in low light. That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.

I've logged quite a few hours behind a VX2100 as well.

Do you have a link to the comparison between the FX1000 and the HMC? I've searched every keyword and phrase that I can think of and can't seem to find it.

I haven't had any problems with flashes with the HMC. Other than the momentary over-exposure (depending on the conditions) that will happen with any camera, it cruises through it.

[Greg Laves]

See if this works.

Tips & Tricks

[Tom Alexander]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

See if this works.

Tips & Tricks

I've seen this one involving the Z5, it's a good comparison. I was searching for the comparison that you mentioned between the FX1000 and the HMC.

[Greg Laves]

Yeah. That was just a typo on my part FX1000 and Z5 have the same low light capabilities. I just remembered as being FX1000 vs. HMC150.

[D.R. Gates]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.

Yes, flashes don't look good at any time, but the Sony looked more annoying and unnatural.

[Yang Wen]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.

Greg, I think you should clarify your comment about the flashes, that is there should be no difference in the way flashes are recorded on the HMC vs all the CCD SD prosumer cams we've been used to.. you just don't like flashes in video, that's all. :)

CMOS sensors + flashes is where things get weird, the partially flashed frame is definitely not what we've been used to seeing in video given that CMOS sensors are relatively new to the industry..

Who knows, maybe in 10 years majority of all cameras will have CMOS sensor and would be accustomed to the way flashes look from a CMOS chip..

[Greg Laves]

I saw a paparazzi video the other day that was obviously shot with a CMOS camera. And as I watched it, I realized that the flashes only ruined part of the frame and you could actually still see the starlet's face when all of these flashes were going off. It occured to me that a flash on a CCD camera basically ruins the whole frame. While it only ruins a part of the frame with a CMOS camera. So while CMOS banding is different than what we have been used to seeing maybe it really isn't worse. I am not trying to start an arguement. I am just saying that for some reason, the other night, I just looked at it with a different point of view.

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

Who knows, maybe in 10 years majority of all cameras will have CMOS sensor and would be accustomed to the way flashes look from a CMOS chip..

I would certainly hope that within 2 or 3 years electronic flash won't cause CMOS to behave in this way. Pioneers always have to face a colder wind.

[Rob Morse]

Greg, I agree 100%. I actually find some shots less annoying with CMOS than losing the entire frame with the CCD.

[Yang Wen]

You'd think it's easy enough for them to add a flash suppression functionality in the image processor chip where they can take the immediate frame before and after the flash to compute the delta in luma change to effectively dial out or tune down the additional exposure from the flash... of course, it wouldn't for that well for paparazzi style shooting but for event coverage it could be useful...

[Steve Montoto]

Actually Im very surprised that a plug-in manufacturer for Sony Vegas or one of the other NLE companies hasn't come out with something that corrects this in post.

I wonder if they think its no big deal?

[Tom Hardwick]

In reality it's no big deal till you come to slo-mo a sequence that has a lot of electronic flashes going off. THEN it becomes much more of a big deal.

[Steve Montoto]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

In reality it's no big deal till you come to slo-mo a sequence that has a lot of electronic flashes going off. THEN it becomes much more of a big deal.

The weddings I have done don't have paparazzi super burst flashes. Its typically 1 photographer and then a few guest cameras. The examples I have seen look like they were all shot on the Red Carpet for the Oscar's or something.