ALL: AC130/160 vs HMC150 for low light

S

studio1972

Well-known member
I've been using my HMC151 since virtually the day it came out, and it's a great camera. But the 130/160 seems to be the natural upgrade. TBH, the HMC is great and I've had no problems with it after 632 hours of operation, so I'm really thinking do I need to upgrade?

I'm well aware of the features of the cameras, and the main advantage to me seems to be the LCD screen, the other things are not a big deal for me and I never use autofocus, so that doesn't bother me. However, one thing I don't know is how they compare in low light situations? Low light performance is very important and could make the upgrade worthwhile for me. Anybody with experience of both cameras who could make a comparison?
 
The AC130/60 does have a much better screen and red outline focus assist is a dream come true (of course, you lose 1:1 assist but I'm alright with that). The combo of better screen and red peaking make the upgrade worth it in many ways.

Another consideration if you have thought about going with the AC160 is that you get better audio and better outputs. If those are useful to you, then you have another reason.

As for low light, they're very similar but the AC130/60 is generally better. Honestly, the HMC150 is already so good in low light that you won't gain much by the upgrade, so if that's the big thing for you then you might as well save your money (or buy a camera light). The AC130/60 does handle gain slightly better (cleaner) but again, the HMC150 was already pretty clean with +12dB of gain.
 
I am coming to the 160 from an old Sony Z1 that was pretty bad in low light. It depends on your expectations, I was kind of expecting a much bigger difference. It does have much cleaner gain and the image in general is way sharper, but maybe I was expecting night and day difference in low light and it's not really the case. From all the 150 footage I've seen I'm confident the general image quality, especially sharpness is much improved, but I doubt you would see much difference in low light performance. Cleaner gain and improved sharpness will help the low light image look better than 150, but I can't see upgrading if that is your only factor.
 
Thanks for the feedback guys, very helpful. Think I'll keep my 151 until the next revamp then. I like to film in 50p for slo-mo etc., and as 720 is the only resolution that works at 50p at the moment the 151 is plenty sharp enough. I often use a 550d (T2i) with 30mm 1.4 lens in the evening and it blows the 151 out of the water, so it would be nice if a proper camcorder could have a stop or two of extra sensitivity, but I guess I'll have to wait a couple more years.
 
mickee13 said:
I am coming to the 160 from an old Sony Z1 that was pretty bad in low light. It depends on your expectations, I was kind of expecting a much bigger difference. It does have much cleaner gain and the image in general is way sharper, but maybe I was expecting night and day difference in low light and it's not really the case. From all the 150 footage I've seen I'm confident the general image quality, especially sharpness is much improved, but I doubt you would see much difference in low light performance. Cleaner gain and improved sharpness will help the low light image look better than 150, but I can't see upgrading if that is your only factor.
Click to expand...

I would disagree a bit on this. Having owned the Z1, HMC150 and now the AC160 I would say that the low light difference between the AC160 and HMC150 is not huge, but the Z1 was horrible in low light by comparison. Not to mention very poor when gaining up. Sorry maybe just my dislike for the Z1 coming out :)
 
I am going to shoot on the AC160 for the first time this weekend. I've shot on the HPX370 (same chip set) and really liked the image at night. Additionally I'll try that 1080 60p which I've used on the AF100 before but not on this cam. Additionally I updated my signature line so hope to see it pop up here. \..
 
Andy Turner said:
I would disagree a bit on this. Having owned the Z1, HMC150 and now the AC160 I would say that the low light difference between the AC160 and HMC150 is not huge, but the Z1 was horrible in low light by comparison. Not to mention very poor when gaining up. Sorry maybe just my dislike for the Z1 coming out :)
Click to expand...

Totally valid, like I say, I felt the Z1 was 'pretty bad' in low light....horrible, yeah probably. The 160 is better, like I say, much cleaner gain, it's just my expectation of the difference is that it would be night and day different, and really I find it isn't. Yeah, it's better, just not as much as I had hoped. Maybe shooting for the last year with a GH2 and the 20mm at 1.7 all the time has just knocked my judgement of low light into a different level and I'm just expecting too much of 1/3" inch chips?? Still need to shoot a bit more in dim light to get a better feeling for this 160.
Also, after reading Adam Wilt's review of the cam, I notice there is no real testing or evaluation of the 160 in low light? Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so. I remember when he reviewed the Z1, he mentioned he was disapointed at the low light, I should have paid more attention back then.
 
I'm shooting with the HPX171 for almost 2 years now. And the HMC150 is basically an HPX170 with AVCHD instead of DVCproHD. I must say that all this new cameras totally trump the HPX in low light. And this is not because they are way more sensitive but because they have way less noise and are way more sharper.

I know that what ever is shot below 20 IRE with my HPX171 is going to be noisy as hell when I try to bring it up in post. That is just not the case with this new cameras or at least not to this extent. So studio1972 I would say that you should see quite a substantial difference in overall image quality as in low light (just because you will be able to push the image upwards and because you'll have more rez). HMC150 and HPX171 both use quite outdated 960x540 noisy CCD chips. With this new cameras you'll be able to shot lower and then bring it up in a way you can't with the HMC150.

You should get an 160 and do some tests. Go to a reseller and bring your camera with you and do some tests. Make your own mind up, don't let us persuade you. But if you ask me - you should experience quite a difference in low light (in postproduction).
 
I don't know if it is my inexperience that is giving me mixed opinions about this cameras or what? Last week i did a small test with my GH2, HMC151 and the AC130, the GH2 was worst when it came to noise and the AC130 was very clean. Next i set up an interview scene, strangely enough, the HMC151 was cleaner than the AC130, the GH2 was still "dirty". For the first time since i went HD i succeded in making my first clean DVD (HD->SD) and to my surprise the GH2 shines over the HMC151. My initial test was just to try to match the three cameras, it ended up without success but with alot of learned information. My conclusion so far is that the end product carries with it alot of variables, that a conclusion before exhausting even 50% of each cameras capacity is just wrong, to me the cameras behave like fractal patterns.
 
So i ran the ac160 at the wedding with the following scene file. I used scene file one and changed it as follows:

Detail level -2
V detail level -2
Detail coring -1
Gamma hd norm
Matrix norm1

Other camera was a gh2 and wide shots were on a canon vixia hf21. I never got face detection to work on the ac160 for handheld walking through the crowd / dance floor shots. OIS worked okay. Seems the canon xa10 is stronger for both face detection AND image stabilization. I haven't gone through the footage a lot yet, but my style is documentary with cinemagraphic elements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top