HMC150 or HM40 + nanoFlash? at DVinfo.net

Trip Gould · August 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM

This may or may not be an odd question, but let's say I could afford either the HMC150 or the HMC40 + nanoFlash (I realize the latter is a little more expensive, but it is still less expensive than and HMC150 plus nanoFlash). For mostly doc work and nature/landscape videography, would I be better served with the 150 or the 40? Would 1/4" 3MOS chips going to a high bitrate Cineform intra-type codec beat out 1/3" CCD chips to standard AVCHD? I'm not too concerned about jello as we're mostly talking locked off static stuff here (interviews, vistas, etc.). Any thoughts? The 40 seems like a great choice due to its small form factor (I gotta backpack into remote areas with the kit, after all), but I could deal with the 150 if it were the better choice. As a side note, I'm also considering the JVC HM100 and the standard VDSLR culprits (GH1, 5DMKII, D300s, K7). Again, this is mostly for doc work and nature videography). Any advice would be welcome. Thanks.

Trip Gould · August 18th, 2009, 03:40 AM

p.s.
As a side note, I keep reading that the HMC40 is basically the TM300 in a bigger body with some better ergonomics. Is this correct? Is the TM300 HDMI out to nanoFlash the same image quality as HMC40 HDMI out to nanoFlash? If so, that's a considerable savings in cost and size of kit.

Tim Polster · August 18th, 2009, 09:27 AM

I would always go for better imagers/lenses than a better codec.

The codec can only save what it is given.

But I have seen the smaller camera you mention, so I don't know how it compares to the HMC-150.

Duane Steiner · August 18th, 2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trip Gould

p.s.
As a side note, I keep reading that the HMC40 is basically the TM300 in a bigger body with some better ergonomics. Is this correct?

I plan on buying a HMC40 so have been doing some reading. It might have the TM300 sensors, but the HMC40 does offer more. Optional XLR inputs, higher bit rate, more recording modes, more controls on the camera, and more manual features.

Jeff Kellam · August 19th, 2009, 08:24 AM

Trip:

I think you need to keep researching and reading all you can. Read some of the posts comparing the HMC-150 to other cameras.

Here are some general comments:

1. Forget the nanoflash for any recording scenario. It's not going to magically increase the basic image quality and resolution of the base camera.

2. Really think about your low light needs. Also, a static nature shot could be shot at 1/30 or maybe 1/15th shutter, dramatically improving low light performance and making the 1/4" cameras more viable.

3. Wide shots over large areas need the maximum possible resolution to show maximum detail. Cameras like the Sony EX-1 excel in this type of shot, but are at a high price point.

I think you need to broaden your camera research. I think some of the Sony HD cameras might be better in this application (static nature vistas especially).

August 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM	#1
Trip Gould Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 40	HMC150 or HM40 + nanoFlash? This may or may not be an odd question, but let's say I could afford either the HMC150 or the HMC40 + nanoFlash (I realize the latter is a little more expensive, but it is still less expensive than and HMC150 plus nanoFlash). For mostly doc work and nature/landscape videography, would I be better served with the 150 or the 40? Would 1/4" 3MOS chips going to a high bitrate Cineform intra-type codec beat out 1/3" CCD chips to standard AVCHD? I'm not too concerned about jello as we're mostly talking locked off static stuff here (interviews, vistas, etc.). Any thoughts? The 40 seems like a great choice due to its small form factor (I gotta backpack into remote areas with the kit, after all), but I could deal with the 150 if it were the better choice. As a side note, I'm also considering the JVC HM100 and the standard VDSLR culprits (GH1, 5DMKII, D300s, K7). Again, this is mostly for doc work and nature videography). Any advice would be welcome. Thanks.

August 19th, 2009, 08:24 AM	#5
Jeff Kellam Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 656	Trip: I think you need to keep researching and reading all you can. Read some of the posts comparing the HMC-150 to other cameras. Here are some general comments: 1. Forget the nanoflash for any recording scenario. It's not going to magically increase the basic image quality and resolution of the base camera. 2. Really think about your low light needs. Also, a static nature shot could be shot at 1/30 or maybe 1/15th shutter, dramatically improving low light performance and making the 1/4" cameras more viable. 3. Wide shots over large areas need the maximum possible resolution to show maximum detail. Cameras like the Sony EX-1 excel in this type of shot, but are at a high price point. I think you need to broaden your camera research. I think some of the Sony HD cameras might be better in this application (static nature vistas especially). __________________ Panasonic HMC150/Canon A1/JVC HD1/Sony Vegas 8.0c

August 18th, 2009, 03:40 AM	#2
Trip Gould Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Pasadena, CA Posts: 40	p.s. As a side note, I keep reading that the HMC40 is basically the TM300 in a bigger body with some better ergonomics. Is this correct? Is the TM300 HDMI out to nanoFlash the same image quality as HMC40 HDMI out to nanoFlash? If so, that's a considerable savings in cost and size of kit.

August 18th, 2009, 09:27 AM	#3
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	I would always go for better imagers/lenses than a better codec. The codec can only save what it is given. But I have seen the smaller camera you mention, so I don't know how it compares to the HMC-150.