Contemplating Which Camera to get.

[andythefilmer]

I am currently the owner of a DVX100b and a 7D. Of course, they both have their plusses and minuses, and I have decided that I need a new camera that isn't a DSLR, that does HD and has a file-based workflow. I have narrowed down my choices to either a HVX, HMC150 or saving up for an AF100. I am currently in production of a documentary, and I also shoot long events, commercials, and music videos.

New HVX's sell for around $3800, but I am sure I could find a better deal with some P2's thrown in. If not, I would need at least 32GB worth of P2's... This would all end up to be in the mid-$4000's. I like the codecs, but they are more data-intensive, and the P2's cost more.

The HMC150 is a fairly decent camera from what I've heard. The thing that makes me skeptical is the codec. I have heard some complaints on the codec, but overall, I think it would be fine. The camera is cheaper, and the recording media is far cheaper. One downside, though, it that you can't hot-swap. That is a feature I love about the HVX, because if I had two cards, and I needed to record something long, then I could continue to record while I dump the other one.

Finally, there is the critically acclaimed AF100. Though it won't be available at my doorstep for another month or so, it may be worth the extra cost and wait. It has an almost 35mm sensor, removable lens mount, with support for nearly any lens, and it also has some other cool stuff thrown in. It too has the AVCHD codec, but it has two SD card slots. The thing that would draw me away is the fact that I would need to spend over $300 to mount my Canon EF lenses and be able to control iris, remotely control focus, etc. Also, you are pretty much forced to have shallower DOF, unless stopped way down. This would almost always be an upside, but sometimes, for certain shots, it is undesirable.

In the end, the shallow DOF wouldn't be enough to sell me on the AF100, especially since I can get a good camera for cheaper. I have used the HVX and HMC150 before. I can't judge the HMC too much, but I had an HVX for several days, and it was phenomenal! I am posting this in the threads for all 3 cameras, and I want to know which one would be the best suitor.

My budget is currently around $3000-4000, which is why I would rather not get the AF100 (yet). Any other camera options? I would prefer to stick to Panny, but there are other cameras by other manufacturers.

 

[Justyn]

The info and debates on the codec are BS. I had an HVX and also a 150 at the same time and I sold the HVX and haven't missed it a day. The codec is robust and goes along way in post... and the SD cards are a dream compared to P2. Don't believe the hype and Barry was helpful in declaring that there's very little difference to the 170. I love the 150 and right now you can pick up a used one for around 2300 or a new one for 2800. You might want to look into the HMC40.. or even now the GH2. I just picked one of those up... I plan on using the 150, Gh2 and the AF100 all together on some shoots.. I think they'll each be able to fill a role.


cheers

 

[Phil1076]

Hot swapping shouldn't be an issue. A single 32GB SDHC card will give you 3 hours of recording time on the 150 at the highest setting so......no real need to hot swap.

As far as I know, you can't do any run and gun with the AF100 because the lenses do not auto focus. In fact, the manual states that the camera should be used with a tripod exclusively.

 

[Phil1076]

Just to chime in a little further on this topic. I remember when mp3 first came out. All the wannabe audiophiles were screaming that "it's not CD quality!!!" yadayada......the fact is that you can get a near CD quality song which takes up 4 megs of space, versus an actual CD rip which takes up 35 megs of space..and most people can't tell the difference.

AVCHD is similar. The codec itself is amazing as far as quality vs. file size is concerned. It's a pain in the ass to edit natively but this is the fault of the NLE's and it transcodes easily. As of this writing, B&H has the HMC150 for $2825 brand new and this is, simply put, the BEST DEAL YOU CAN CURRENTLY FIND. I wish I lived in the US but us Canadians seem to get the shaft.

In all honesty.....unless you are shooting footage for broadcast (where the stations have specific requirements (but also pay you for meeting those requirements)) or filming a Hollywood movie, the HMC150 is simply the best value on the market today.

I'm not just saying that because I own one; rather, I own one because this statement is true.

 

[DBP]

I own one too, and love it.

Believe me when I say that the extra recording time that AVCHD gives you will be much appreciated.

 

[Jim Simon]

you can get a near CD quality song which takes up 4 megs of space, versus an actual CD rip which takes up 35 megs of space..and most people can't tell the difference.

That is more because most people don't have the equipment to properly resolve those differences. But they do very much exist, and heard on the right equipment, many more people will be able to tell.

AVCHD is similar. While the human eye may not be able to see a major difference, a lot of grading and compositing programs can tell the difference between a 4:2:0 codec and a 4:2:2 codec. And those differences can eventually trickle down into something the human eye can see.

Andy's question here is quite valid.

 

[hendosan]

I had the same debate not too long ago, and last week I ended up purchasing an HMC150 from a user here. Personally I don't have any need for DVCPROHD and if a client really demanded a better codec I could always just get a Kona or similar capture card.

I haven't worked with the AF100, but the HVX and HMC are very similar cameras in terms of image and features. Aside from the increased frame rates at 720p, I'd find it very hard to actually see any differences in the picture quality using my eyeballs.

I shot this on Sunday; you can be the judge of image quality (compression aside, anyways): http://vimeo.com/18023172 (graded in Color)