AG_HMC80? I just my got HMC40 and now this?

E

extrabyte

New member


Panasonic has announced the versatile AG-HMC80 professional AVCCAM HD shoulder-mount camcorder, the first in the company’s series of low-cost AVCHD camcorders to feature solid state DV as well as HD recording capabilities.
The HMC80 will be available in September at a suggested list price of $2,895.

Maybe I can trade in my 40.

Oh well.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Given that the guts and IQ are probably equal, each cam has merits that are entirely different. The HMC40 gives you probably the most features ever in a guerilla cam, which is pretty handy. The HMC80 gives you the shoulder mount form factor, but nothing else assuming you have the HMC audio adapter. If you are mounted on stix it doesn't matter. Why not just get a a varizoom (or similar) shoulder mount kit and call it good. The function will be nearly as good as the shoulder mounted HMC80 for handheld. You still get the guerilla cam when you need it.

Question for anyone: Is the VF on the HMC80 better than the 40. That could be a motivator.

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
...
Question for anyone: Is the VF on the HMC80 better than the 40. That could be a motivator.

Grant
Click to expand...

I didn't measure it, but to my eye, the viewfinder was about the same size as the HMC40. Now if one really wanted a better look at the HMC40 viewfinder while in the field, here's a product I saw from Hoodman.

DSCF0059.jpg



Bob Diaz
 
Bob,

If you used that on a HMC 40, how are you supposed to use the touch screen? I just ordered a hoodman hoody knowing I'll probably have to cut on it or return it.

The only real complaint I have about the 40 is the fair to ok LCD and the mostly dismal viewfinder. I am not saying unusable, but they aren't very good. I knew that going in, and I got what I expected.

In my earlier post, I was curious if Panny might have improved the LCD or the VF? The VF looks pretty different on the HMC80. Does the 80 even have a touch screen on the LCD?

Grant
 
Good point on the HMC40 and the Hoodman, I didn't consider that.

As for a touch screen on the HMC-80, while I have no official word, there appear to be menu buttons on the side, so that a touch screen isn't needed. (That's my best guess...)

DSCF0032.jpg


DSCF0031.jpg


HMC80-1.png


HMC80-2.png


HMC80-3.png


HMC80-4.png



Bob Diaz
 
It follows after and replaces the HMC70, yes -- but it looks to me to be in a whole different league than the HMC70. The HMC70 was a very, very limited camera, with no manual focus or zoom ring, it only shot 1080/60i, it only shot it at 13 megabits, etc. The HMC80 looks more like a mini version of the HPX300. A vast improvement.
 
Barry_Green said:
It follows after and replaces the HMC70, yes -- but it looks to me to be in a whole different league than the HMC70. The HMC70 was a very, very limited camera, with no manual focus or zoom ring, it only shot 1080/60i, it only shot it at 13 megabits, etc. The HMC80 looks more like a mini version of the HPX300. A vast improvement.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know if the low light sensitivity has been improved over the HMC40?
 
No I don't think anybody knows but if I had to make a guess I would say no. If it has it isn't going to be by very much. The imaging block is the same so the low light and the quality should be more or less exactly the same as the HMC40. Then again didn't Panasonic recently make the 1/3" CMOS in the new HPX300 series cameras almost perform like a 1/2" CMOS? If that is the case then perhaps Panasonic will help the 1/4" CMOS in the HMC80 perform a bit like a 1/3" CMOS. I don't think it would be a huge help but every little bit helps.

Speaking of the HPX300 has anyone ever compared the HMC40 and the HPX300? Since they both use full raster CMOS it would be interesting to see 1/4" vs 1/3". Maybe the HMC80 isn't as far behind the HPX300 in terms of sensitivity as some of us might think.
 
John_in_NY said:
Does anyone know if the low light sensitivity has been improved over the HMC40?
Click to expand...

According to the engineer from Japan who worked on the design of the HMC40 and the HMC80, the HMC80 uses the same image chips and lens as the HMC40.

CAM_0247.jpg


I wish I could have had a bit more time with her asking questions...

However, I did push for two features:

(1) Menu option for VF peaking always on, thus no need to use up a button.

(2) Menu option for auto-zoom in viewfinder when adjusting focus.

It should be interesting to see if either of these features shows up or not in the HMC80.


Bob Diaz
 
Thomas Smet said:
Speaking of the HPX300 has anyone ever compared the HMC40 and the HPX300? Since they both use full raster CMOS it would be interesting to see 1/4" vs 1/3". Maybe the HMC80 isn't as far behind the HPX300 in terms of sensitivity as some of us might think.
Click to expand...
HPX300 is 320 to 500 ISO, the HMC40 is 50 to 64 ISO. Huge difference. Two and a half stops to three stops.
 
Barry_Green said:
HPX300 is 320 to 500 ISO, the HMC40 is 50 to 64 ISO. Huge difference. Two and a half stops to three stops.
Click to expand...

Wow that is a pretty big boost considering 1/3" isn't all that much bigger then 1/4". Isn't that the amount the HMC150 is compared to the HMC40? The HPX300 is pretty impressive if they can squeeze the same sensitivity out of 1/3" at full raster compared to 1/3" from the HMC150. That also seems to go against what I understand from a post Bob Diaz once had about how going from 1/3" to 1/2" equaled about 6 DB of gain. I would assume going from 1/4" to 1/3" would have been about equal. The HPX300 must be doing something special. I would have thought the HPX300 would have only been 1 stop better.
 
Yes, the filter size is still 43mm.


Now, regarding changes in chip size... You have to be careful because changes in chip resolution and using different technology will have a major impact on the results. When I speak about the jump from 1/3" to 1/2" as being like a +6dB gain, we have to assume that the number of pixels does not change and the technology used does not change.

Pity that one of the specifications for a camera isn't the size of the pixels. A larger area for a pixel results in more light gathering power. If you go out in the rain with a tea cup and a large bucket, the large bucket gathers more rain drops, because of the larger area.

In reality, it's a bit more complex, because the type of technology used in the camera's chip will have a major impact on the results.


Bob Diaz
 
BobDiaz said:
Yes, the filter size is still 43mm.


Now, regarding changes in chip size... You have to be careful because changes in chip resolution and using different technology will have a major impact on the results. When I speak about the jump from 1/3" to 1/2" as being like a +6dB gain, we have to assume that the number of pixels does not change and the technology used does not change.

Pity that one of the specifications for a camera isn't the size of the pixels. A larger area for a pixel results in more light gathering power. If you go out in the rain with a tea cup and a large bucket, the large bucket gathers more rain drops, because of the larger area.

In reality, it's a bit more complex, because the type of technology used in the camera's chip will have a major impact on the results.


Bob Diaz
Click to expand...

And with the HPX300 this seems to be the case. Pixel count is equal and we know the chip size of both cameras. It is the technology that makes the HPX a lot more sensitive from what I understand. But couldn't these same techniques also apply to a 1/4" chip? If the better light gathering technology works for a 1/3" 3mos design then the same should work for a 1/4" 3mos design if Panasonic chooses to apply it to a cheaper camera such as the HMC80. I guess my point is that if 1/3" can be made to be 2 stops more sensitive due to technology advances then so could a 1/4". Panasonic and now Canon with their new camera seem to have pushed 1/3" into 1/2" territory and I'm sure it is only a matter of time before 1/4" can be pushed as well. Although I see no reason as to why 1/2" couldn't be pushed equally as well to perform as a 2/3" system.
 
I'm sorry, but I never asked for the name of the Hoodman device. I was considering it for my HMC40, and I was going to bring my HMC40 into the show to see how well it fit, but in the end, I decided against it.



Bob Diaz
 
The main reason I would be interested in the HMC80 is the fact that the Shutter speed buttons are now on the body and you don't have the control the shutter through the touchscreen LCD anymore!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top