Dvx100b vs. Hmc40

B

big ounce

New member
I'm torn between these two cameras. Some people are telling me HD is the way to go but from what I understand the hmc40 doesn't perform too good in low light which kind of scares me since I plan to be shooting music videos and in nightclubs. I've read on this forum that uprezing is an option if i get the dvx100.I love the quality of the hmc40 in daylight but is it worth the trade of in poor lighting situations. Most of my work will be posted online and distributed on DVD. Mostly music videos, interviews, and night club performance shots. What do you guys suggest. my budget is about 2500
 
Used / graymarket HMC150 or a used XH-A1.

No warranty in all cases. Questionable possibility for repair by Panasonic in case of graymarket, even for a charge.
 
I think you might want to get the DVX. It sounds like your work is going to be primarily standard-def (online and DVD) so high-def isn't going to do that much for you. And the DVX is way, way better in low light situations than the HMC40 is. If those are your concerns, the DVX might be the right match.

If you were delivering HD masters, that might be a different story, and I'd say you should get the HMC150 in that case -- it's close to the DVX in low light performance, but it's a high-def camera and is truly the successor to the DVX in all ways. But it's about $800 or so more than your stated budget.
 
I beg to differ. YouTube went HD, Vimeo has been HD for a long time. Even with online videos the difference between HD and non-HD is very noticeable. Also, despite that stupid iPods are 4:3 (aside of the Touch), YouTube has switched to widescreen preview frame, and shows all clips, even 4:3 ones, inside it.

Look up Rikki guy. He was shooting in night clubs with the consumer HV30 and was pretty happy with it. He switched to the HMC150 recently and is even more happy (duh).
 
I do also want to keep in mind that I won't be shooting movies, shorts or anything like that. Is the hmc40 dat bad in low light?
 
because of the lowlight issue, hmc40 will not be your choice. if budget is of concern, then without a doubt get the dvx100. but if you are not really desperate in shooting anything soon, then save up for the hmc150. HD is the future, man :)
 
big ounce said:
so the dvx100b is actually better in low light than the hmc40 even though the hmc40 is hd?
Click to expand...

Low-light performance has nothing to do with SD vs. HD. It has everything to do with the size of the chips and the number of pixels crammed onto that chip. Low-light performance requires a larger surface space for exposure, and that's both per chip and per pixel.

The 1/3" chips in the DVX are larger than the 1/4" chips in the HMC40, so more surface area to collect light. And the pixels on the 1/4" chips of the HMC40 are really crammed in there like a can of sardines in order to get 1080 resolution out of that small surface area... so they're tiny. The chips create an astoundingly sharp image, but low-light is sacrificed.

Check out Barry's hands-on review of the HMC40.
 
If you can swing it, you want an HMC150. If you can't afford it, and you want to do low-light stuff, I'd go with the DVX over the HMC40. I really like the HMC40, but low light is not where it shines (horrible pun)
 
Is video of people dancing with a small light on top of my camera still considered low light? or shooting outside at night under a street light. is that low light?
 
Last edited:
isn't the hmc40 2300 with the xlr ports (which i'm assuming you need). that doesn't leave much money for everything else..
 
once you go HD, you can never go back...... get the hmc150 here is why, 1) you got sd and hd, 2) capture from sd card so much faster and make life easier 4) hd work better with blue screen and you don't have to worry about buying a hd camera in next week.....

save money, get the gh1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top