ALL: Choosing a replacement for HMC40

Frizzle Fry

Frizzle Fry

Well-known member
I really don't want to clutter up the forums with yet another "which cam should I buy" thread, but I'm utterly confused. I've read hundreds of posts, many of them multiple times, and still don't have a clear answer. We are adding another cam and re-tasking the HMC40, which I mostly like but its shortcomings (low light performance, buttons, menus, etc) have become annoyances. I need to pick a camera that will last a few years. I also use my personal GH2 (14-140, 20mm pancake) and the boss really loves the shallow DOF look (who doesn't ;). But it just sucks to use for anything important.

The main use will be event coverage: trade shows, conferences, interviews, motion graphics-bound projects. Since I am welcome to occasionally use the camera for personal projects, I'm also looking for flexibility. Side uses may include recitals, docs, short form narratives, green screen work, other creative fun stuff.

With a budget of $5K, I am looking at the AC160/130/90, AF100A, HMC150 (?), or possibly the HPX250 (pipe dream, going over budget if they let me).

I'm really confounded by my choices, and there are no camera shops nearby so I can try them out. I can say that I'd really appreciate the longer zoom of the AC160/130. And I know the "hidden" costs of AF100 (lenses) and HPX250 (P2). It just seems like none of these are going to fit every bill, which is understandable. Which will get me the closest?

Barry_Green, if you could chime in at some point, I would appreciate it. What's your main camera these days btw?

Thanks all!
 
For that type of work, the HPX250 would be pretty much ideal.

The AC90 is similar in a lot of ways to the HMC40. Small chips, similar controls, similar sensitivity, touchscreen, etc, but it's in a bigger body, more the size of the HMC150. Great camera, and very inexpensive, but not as many manual controls as you may be wanting, if you're feeling limited by the HMC40. I mean, it does have more control, such as having three lens rings instead of one ring for focus & zoom, but it still uses the combined button for white balance or focus, same as the HMC40. But for $5k you could almost get three of them, and while the sensitivity by itself isn't any better than the HMC40, the gain is much cleaner so you can easily go to 20db of gain without worrying about noise.

The AC130/AC160 are bigger, heavier, some more controls, lots more zoom, and would both represent a significant step up from the HMC40. They're also much larger, so you'd have to be ready for that. Either of them could easily handle every task you described, with the only restriction being that you're not going to get the shallow-DOF look if that's important for your narrative stuff. But movies were made on DVX100s, and the AC cameras can get shallower DOF than a DVX, so -- if it fits your needs, they definitely deserve a look.

HPX250 does almost everything the AC160 does, but adds P2, AVC-Intra, 10-bit, and 4:2:2. All very nice upgrades; you do give up the ability to have 1080/60p though as compared to the AC160. In general I think the HPX250 is the better camera for most purposes; I would go with the AC160 over the HPX250 if you need to save some money, or if you need to record very long-form projects onto cheap SD cards. Other than that, the HPX250 has a lot of advantages and it's just a killer camera in its market segment. Its price may be out of your budget though, but -- they do have some rebates right now, so maybe it'd work out, I don't know.

The AF100 has a lot to recommend it too, if you get the right lenses. With the 12-35 and 35-100, it's serviceable as an ENG platform, and would excel at interviews and narrative work. You'd need an external recorder to get 4:2:2, but if you get the new AF100A there's a 10-bit dithered output which would give you, maybe, 9-bits of solid data in a real 4:2:2, that's not too shabby at its price point!

What's my main camera? AF100, and HPX250. I find the HPX250 very versatile and prefer it for uncontrolled scenarios, and I just really like the AF100's combination of features, connectivity, usability, price, size, and performance. I wouldn't shoot a dramatic narrative on the HPX250 seeing as I have the AF100 here, and I wouldn't shoot sports or a convention on the AF100 when I could reach for the HPX250 instead. But I've done all that work professionally before, and I can tell you what I'd use, and if the budget allows, I'd probably say AF100 with 12-35 and 35-100 UNLESS shallow-DOF is never going to be a consideration; if you're never going to need shallow DOF, then get the HPX250 (or AC160 if budget doesn't permit the HPX250).

Good luck!
 
I would say if you want a camera that will work for all you mentioned than the 250 will fit your bill. I also needed a camera to make the jump and the 250 was a bit more in price, however it has exceeded my expectations. Low light is stealler, I do many interviews and live low light stage performances and work great. I love being able to go anywhere and shot, low light no issues, bright sun no issues. 4 channels of audio uncompressed P2 cards are the best. I went to my local dealer and tried the 130/160 100 and 250. After hours of using each one onsite I got the 250. I was orginally going for the AF100 and am GLAD I did not for 98% of my work it would have been a nightmare. I got used batteries from ebay and 3 used P2 cards also, so now I shot and swap P2 cards on the fly if need be. You shoud really try it out first, where I got mine they will deduct the rental price if you buy the camera model you rented.
 
You may be wanting to go strictly Panasonic, but just a thought. I had access to an HMC-40 but had to buy a personal camera before the 130/160/250 came out. I got the Canon XF100 and love it. If you would consider Canon, they've just marked down the XF300 to $4995 at B&H. Beautiful long lens, 4:2:2 50Mps codec, manual controls galore - then keep a t2i or something around to add shallow DOF shots. Just a counterpoint...
 
I'm somewhat like DDixon - AC130 (not 160) and a T2i and Nikon D7000. The 130's a dynamite camera - if you rely on AF, you need to get your hands on one and see if it works for you though.

For just about any shoot, especially interview or testimonial stuff, I setup the 130 and have someone operate - and I use a T2i or D7000 for different angles, gesturing hands, etc (it's really nice to have cutaways to get rid of all the "ummms" or for building clearer words from scraps). I use the 130 audio and synch the DSLRs. Footage is intercutting well, though I really need some downtime to get closer matches in camera vs. post, which takes some testing and experimenting - it's really in the blacks and saturation.

One thing I've found with AVCAM of the HMC 150 and AC130/60 variety at least (can't speak for the AF100) - it likes a lot of light. Try to shoot at F4 vs. wide open, and give it all ya got - if it looks a little washed out on a monitor, but the waveform isn't blown out, that's a keeper. Bring up the lows in post if needed - that always looks sharper and richer to me.
 
Thanks everyone for your input. Barry, I really appreciate your thoughtful and detailed summaries of the cameras I'm considering.

It sounds like it's pretty common to have an AC160/HPX250 along with a DSLR or AF100 for shallow DOF shots. I'd rather just lug around one camera, to be honest, which is why I'm leaning toward the AF100/A. Seems like it would be the best all-around option for me. Then again, I don't know exactly how shallow of DOF the 160/250 can achieve, although I've seen shots that I assume required being at the long end of the lens. The 22X lens would be nice for sure, as I also shoot speakers at podiums from the back of the room. I don't think any of the Lumix lenses would be long enough for that.

The boss has extended the budget to $5800, so I've got a little more room to play, especially if I buy off eBay. He also said this camera will be "the one" for the next 5 years. Which of these, in your collective opinion, will have the most longevity? That doesn't seem to be an easy answer, as each have something unique going for it. The HPX250 with its 4:2:2 and 10-bit, the AC160 with VFR up to 1080/60p, the AF100 with nearly infinite lens choices.

Although I really don't foresee using anything besides the Lumix lenses I have or would buy: 14-140, 20 pancake, 12-35, 35-100. That's a pretty good stable of lenses IMO. Plus the AF100 will output 4:2:2 so I have that option and that could be an affordable "upgrade" down the line. Then again, will I actually ever shoot 4:2:2 if it's not baked in? Doubtful.

I'm a tad concerned that if I go with the 250 I'll miss having 1080/60p at some point. Plus the archival storage requirements will get expensive.

Does the original AF100 output 4:2:2/10-bit (with upgrade), or is it just the "A" version? The reason I ask is if I buy on eBay, I can probably afford both a new 12-35 and 35-100. Otherwise if the original isn't upgradeable and I buy a new AF100A, which of those would you choose to complement my existing 14-140 and pancake?

Low light ability is important, especially poorly lit ballrooms at conferences.

Can anyone tell me the focal ranges of all these lenses in common terms? MFT has 35mm equivalents but I don't know the formula.

I know, it sounds like I need two cameras. Sometimes I think I should just grab an AC90 and be happy with my previous workflow of using the GH2 for closeups, HMC40 (AC90) for everything else. I suppose I could do that ... get an AC90 and also the 12-35/35-100 combo. But then I feel like I'd be tempted to only use the GH2 because it looks so nice.

OR - just stick with the status quo and wait a year or so for the next best thing.

To recap, my main concerns:
HPX250: Expensive P2 and storage costs. No 1080/60p. Difficult to obtain shallow DOF if it's needed/desired.
AC160: Difficult to obtain shallow DOF if it's needed/desired.
AF100: Lenses might not be long enough for some of the shooting I do. Longer lenses are slow for the low light situations in which I would need them.
AC90: Not enough buttons. Not much of an upgrade, all things considered.
ALL except HPX250: Less flexibility in post due to codec.

Thanks again everyone, I feel like once I do make a decision, it will be a very well informed one. I know I'm rambling, wishy washy and probably overthinking this, but it's a 5-year decision and I don't want to have any regrets. Part of me wants someone to just tell me, "Get the AG-XXX, just do it. Do it." Hah!
 
If you have not used any of these cameras yet, you best try them out first. I would not spend that kinda money on just other persons reviews, get them in your hands first and use them just a word of warning.
 
Yeah I know, I know. Wish there was somewhere close though. I see you're also in WI, where did you go for yours? Maybe I'll make a day trip and check them out.
 
Just checking in to report my final decision. I went with the HPX250. From the get-go, I knew that's what I really wanted and basically tried to talk myself out of it because of the cost factor. Buying used was the answer to that problem, so I was able to stay within budget. Got 2 64GB F-series P2 cards, a used USB2.0 P2 card reader, and a PortaBrace bag from B&H; and a few batteries and dual charger off Amazon.

It just arrived yesterday and I've only had a chance to update the firmware and oooh and ahhhh over it. It's bigger and heavier than I expected, but I don't plan on doing a ton of handheld with it. I do believe it was the right decision. 10bit 4:2:2 recording was ultimately the selling point for me. The HPX250 feels like it will last 5 years comfortably and handle pretty much anything we'll need it for, even without 1080/60p and shallow DOF. For slowmo I can always use another camera. Besides, I'd rather have 120fps for killer slowmo. A Hero 3 would fit that bill quite well. For the type of work it will be used on, undercranking will see more action anyway.

HPX250 videos that I watched felt closest to that DVX100 mojo. The AF100 has it too, but getting the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 lenses would have been necessary. And that still would have left me a bit short when shooting from the back of the room. I can always use my hacked GH2 for shallow DOF if/when I need it.

So there we go, as Barry said, this camera will be pretty much ideal for the wide range of uses it will see over the next 5 years. Can't wait to shoot with it, and just as important, not to cringe while editing.

@ddixon I seriously considered the XF300. Looks like a great camera. Thanks for the suggestion.


Mods: Perhaps this now belongs in the HPX250 forum?
 
Congrats on getting what you knew deep down you wanted anyway, now you'll always be happy with it and never have that nagging feeling that you should have gone with something else. The HPX250 is a great, great camera, it should serve you well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top