HMC40 or Canon 7D?

[bluekayak]

I'm newly-involved in a low-budget documentary project and am thinking of buying a camera to shoot mostly interviews and b-roll

The reviews on both of these cameras have me intrigued and I'm wondering what opinions are here

Will also post this in the DSLR section on the assumption that different folks will read it there


Thanks

[hazydave]

I'm newly-involved in a low-budget documentary project and am thinking of buying a camera to shoot mostly interviews and b-roll

The reviews on both of these cameras have me intrigued and I'm wondering what opinions are here

Will also post this in the DSLR section on the assumption that different folks will read it there


You kind of want both. The conventional camcorder is far easier to shoot with, and with this era of tapeles and full HD, there's much to love about it.

The DSLRs are a bit clumsy, need adaptors for external mics unless you're using off-camera audio (which I do, but it's always nice to have the redundancy), often lose features like auto-focus when in video mode, and probably record only 10-12 minute segments. On the plus side, the gigantic sensors and narrow depth-of-field will convince people you shot on film.

I think before long, every DSLR will have a good if not excellent video mode. I also rather expect that digital video cameras will move toward the DSLR technology... at least opting for a larger single sensor (well, other than the Red camera and other super high-end models, which already do).

If I just get one, I'll stick with conventional video camera for now. But I'm kind of drooling over replacing my old EOS Rebel Xt with an maybe a 7D or even a T2i. Special purpose, sure, but sweet.

There was an article in one of the rags, maybe EventDV this month, about a guy who just switched entirely to DSLR from conventional camcorder. Maybe be worth a read if you're looking into it. And if you're leaning Canon, I'd wait to see final reviews on the T2i... that could be a crazy great video option for cheap... at least if, like me, you already have lenses.

[bluekayak]

You kind of want both.

You hit the nail on the head, unfortunately I'd have to sell a kidney to do both

The footage I've seen from the DSLRs causes me to drool, but the Panasonic looks like the most straightforward option and performance is nothing to sneeze at

As somebody who's starting from scratch one of the things that worries me is learning curve for workflow etc

I got the impression from some other stuff I've read that the AVCHD complicates things a bit, but I'll just have to work that out

Thanks much for the info

[dcloud]

7d would be hell in monitoring the audio but youll get awesome lowlight

hmc40 would be a problem in lowlight.

if you have no problem with lighting setups, hmc40 is a very good option.

[ATL Media Group]

The HMC40 and a GH1

[hazydave]

You hit the nail on the head, unfortunately I'd have to sell a kidney to do both


I had the same problem... I could have kept my current set of camcorders and buy the DSLR, but I felt I was in need of a camcorder upgrade, too. I opted for the HMC40 now, the Canon later.



The footage I've seen from the DSLRs causes me to drool, but the Panasonic looks like the most straightforward option and performance is nothing to sneeze at

I think it's far more work, working with the DSLR, and adapting to their limitations, Yes, the output is great, but the limits to me make these an optional camera, not my main camcorder. And if you don't already have a set of lenses, the price is considerably more than something like the HMC40, even if the basic bodies can be had relatively cheap (Canon EOS T2i at around $800, body-only, for the lowest code model with 24/30p full HD video).




As somebody who's starting from scratch one of the things that worries me is learning curve for workflow etc

I got the impression from some other stuff I've read that the AVCHD complicates things a bit, but I'll just have to work that out


Somewhat, but it's a trade-off, not "this is always harder". I think it's a general win in the field -- very fast media changing, 3-hour cards, etc. You do need backup media, but right now, DVD-R and BD-R are much cheaper than any HDV tape you'd like. The tapeless is also now of higher quality than HDV, which is why Panasonic, Sony, JVC (I guess everyone but Canon) are pushing it into the pro market.

The downside is AVC editing, as I'm sure you've heard here. But the work-arounds are well understood, and even if you don't, it's easy to get help -- this isn't something we're all pioneering anymore, it's established.

[ATL Media Group]

The downside is AVC editing, as I'm sure you've heard here. But the work-arounds are well understood, and even if you don't, it's easy to get help -- this isn't something we're all pioneering anymore, it's established.

That really depends on the platform/NLE you use. It's established that the only truly real-time native editor of the files iis Edius Neo 2.5. All the others either need work arounds or need to be transcoded, or preview at a lower quality. Not the case with Neo 2.5.

[hazydave]

That really depends on the platform/NLE you use. It's established that the only truly real-time native editor of the files iis Edius Neo 2.5. All the others either need work arounds or need to be transcoded, or preview at a lower quality. Not the case with Neo 2.5.

Well, gee... wish I knew that before spending the last two-and-a-half years with realtime editing of AVCHD in Sony Vegas. On my modest-by-today's-standards PC (Q9550, nVidia 8800GT, 8GB DDR2) I get realtime play just dandy, full screen, full quality, from AVC files. But that's also the trivial case... once you start doing things, it slows down. They all do.

Truth of the matter is, you're realtime until you're not, and that's true in any NLE. If I have a single track of AVCHD without any color corrections, it's pretty easy to edit directly... editing can be a little slow, playback is fine. For that matter, I can play back a handful of AVCHD files fullscreen using a media player on my PC... it's only about 6-7% to play back full screen 1080/60i in AVC format.

Once you start with the edits, though, it's going to slow down. I do have the Edius Neo that came with my HMC40... seems kind of clumsy to use, so I haven't played with it much. I'm sure it's snappy, maybe better than Vegas, with a single layer. But that's the trivial case. What happens with a three-camera shoot? What happens when I have 40 layers with greenscreen, various compositing modes, animations, etc (and yeah, I sometimes do this kind of stuff).

My point about pioneering -- the NLEs pretty much all do AVCHD these days. Maybe not terribly well, but they do allow native editing. That was far from the case when I got my first AVCHD camera. And even when they got support, it was touch-and-go... some NLE/camera combinations didn't worl. Much of this has now been settled.

Ok, it's also true that in 2007, AVCHD wasn't necessarily worth editing, but it's evolved well. There is now a good reaosn to use AVCHD (or other MP4 variations)... it actually looks better than HDV. Another reason the pioneer days are over.

Also true that some NLEs have iffy support of 1080/60p right now (works in Vegas, but obviously, slower still)... not an HMC40 issue, but with the new TM700 out now, there are at least three camcorders under $1000 that support 1080/60p. It's bound to work its way up before too long.

You may also recall that, even well after HDV was mature, PCs did a poor job of editing MPEG-2 for some years yet. They eventually got to point where, at least on a decent PC with a decent NLE, it's now effortless... at least until you get to those 40 layer projects

I did one last summer, a 3-minute video, split into two separate 20-or-so layer projects, that took about three hours to render. The real future needs to let you employ GPU-based rendering to speed all this stuff up. Not an AVCHD issue, but also, a good way for the NLE companies to sell you that inevitable upgrade this year.

[thabo]

I have both cameras so her is my 2c. If you're going to be doing just documentaries; setting her up on a tripod, subject is not moving etc then I'd be more inclined to get the 7D. You'll get the beloved DOF / Philip Bloom look and it's a real sturdy camera too. The whole interchangeable lens thing is a dream, something that use to cost $10k + more can now be yours but don't forget, decent lenses are an additional $600. I just bought the cheapy 18-50mm that comes with a t2i kit for $90 online and it's a great lens but you'll pay much more for better glass so bear that in mind.

Having said that my tool of choice lately (run and gun stuff, igloo building and in May, a tornado chasing project) seems to be the little HMC40, no dicking around with the focus, hell she wont even auto focus once you hit the record button. Sound is easier with the XLR adaptor and the stabilization is better too. I was in your position too, I went the HMC40 route first but now I have use of a 7d too. Both cameras are at the top of their game for the price, I just find the 7D too hard to focus and there's the whole 12 minute thing too if you're going to be shooting an event: that may be a downside.

In summary, regular old talking head documentary work, get the 7D - hell, if you don't like it you can probably sell it for a few hundred less than you paid of it and get the HMC40!!

[thabo]

Regarding editing, you're better off transcoding to an intermediate codec like ProRes422 (apple) or neoscene. I do it with both cameras. Why bother trying to edit AVCHD, a codec that was never designed to be natively edited. With a dual core machine, transcoding is almost realtime. Why wait hours for your one minute clip to render when you could of spent an extra minute transcoding it in the first place ??? Yes it is a pain, extra step, takes much more storage space but we signed up for the AVCHD program right and I personally would prefer to be shooing P2 and editing native DVCPro HD if I had the lolly :)

Having said that AVC Intra can't be edited natively so back to the transcoding dance ..... come on Windoze and MaC !! get your GPU mojo sorted out. Windows 7 has flash / H.264 GPU playback built in, I just set up a crappy little Lenovo / $700 laptop and its youtube 1080p playback blows away my fancy macbookpro (15% cpu usage VS 60% on my poor mac) so it can be done.

[end of rant ...]

[ATL Media Group]

Well, gee... wish I knew that before spending the last two-and-a-half years with realtime editing of AVCHD in Sony Vegas. On my modest-by-today's-standards PC (Q9550, nVidia 8800GT, 8GB DDR2) I get realtime play just dandy, full screen, full quality, from AVC files. But that's also the trivial case... once you start doing things, it slows down. They all do. .

That's strange.. On my i7 920 vegas will play one AVCHD file in RT at full rez... THAT's the extent of it... Add a filter or edit it at all and you lose the capability of having full frame playback. it starts to look like crap pretty quick. Now, same edit in Neo 2.5 look PERFECT at full frame full rez with filters and effects.. In fact, I can do at least THREE layers of AVCHD and Canon 7D QT files in RT...

So, I guess you were wrong about them all slowing down.