HCM150 vs HVX vs T2i

M

mr_goodbomb

Active member
I have a DVX, and I'm starting to get a bunch of clients asking for HD.

Because I want to use the camera to shoot shorts and probably my next feature, I was going for the T2i for the shallow depth of field and ability to switch lenses. However, I'm not a photo guy, and I feel like trying to figure out lenses and everything else for DSLR just to shoot, primarily, video (I may take a few stills occasionally) may drive me nuts.

If I got an HVX, I'd have to sell my DVX afterwards to afford it, but it would, of course, replace it. It wouldn't have the same shallow depth of field, but it'd be less work to go out and shoot with, and I wouldn't need all the extra stuff (external sound recorder, added lenses, added rig, etc). But... that shallow depth of field would be nice.

I know NOTHING about the HCM150, and was looking for comparisons between it and the HVX, which I have used (and is very similar to the DVX, which I own), but found nothing. I just saw it recommended on a forum, and it's a bit cheaper. Any downsides to it compared to the HVX? Any other thoughts? Thanks!
 
Read around here and you'll find a bunch of threads comparing the HMC150, HPX170 and HVX200: as far as I recall, they all share a lens and sensor combination, it's just the recording back-end that differs. For my business, P2 cards made no financial sense and I went with the HMC150 with no regrets - SDHC cards are dramatically cheaper, and hard drives present broadly similar costs to DV tape for archive purposes. I've only briefly used a DVX, but the HMC is clearly from the same family - many of the controls are in similar places. Barry's book is extremely useful for wrapping your head around all the picture profile settings, which you'll need to do to get the best out of the camera.

I don't do much chromakey, so the colour sampling of DVCPROHD offered few benefits; also, I'm in PAL land, and the HMC151 offers 24p/25p/30p/50p/60p/50i/60i; more options seemed superfluous. Is there anything else the HVX does that the HMC doesn't?

Initial AVCHD/AVCCAM workflow troubles have largely been solved with updates to editing software - I believe Premier Pro CS5, Edius and Vegas Pro all now handle AVCHD natively if you have the right hardware. I'm a Final Cut guy, and FCP 6 had its quirks with AVCHD. FCP 7 has been a marked improvement for me: ProRes LT feels a good match for HMC footage, and transcoding on a Mac Pro is almost as quick as copying the data off the card - really not an impediment. Sure, there are times when I'd love to edit the footage straight off the camera, but those circumstances are rare for me.

For any HD camera you'll need to reassure yourself that your edit system and hard drives can keep up. Also, when you do trigger renders, expect to spend a long time watching progress bars compared to working with DV footage. Each frame holds five times as many pixels (comparing PAL to 1080p).

My only question is: why buy an HMC150 now? It's a two year-old camera and while it's still as good as it ever was, the world is starting to move on. As of right now you could pick up an AF100 for around the same price as an HVX, albeit without lenses. Or you could buy a GH2 and enjoy a better compromise for video than the Canon T2i would give you, for not much more money (and certainly less than an HMC, let alone an HVX).

If you're really looking to save money, your DVX would make an excellent external audio recorder for a DSLR solution. OK, it's a little bulky compared to a Zoom H4n, but it works. :-)
 
I appreciate the response. I considered a GH1 or GH2, but for the added price, I'd have to sell my DVX to afford it. I could do that if I were just switching to a HVX, but not so much a DSLR. I couldn't use a DSLR for ALL my shooting, I end up doing a lot of fairly straightforward "go in, shoot, leave, throw a quick edit together" jobs (IE all the extremely underpaid stuff on Craigslist), and that just wouldn't be worth it using something that has as many work-arounds as a DSLR.
 
If you have a DVX, you'll really like the HMC150. It's the HD version of the DVX with more options. I have both and a 7D

When I need to shoot video, my HMC is my first choice.

The 7D will only be good for staged shots on a tripod. For hand hold work, the HMC will be better.
 
Couple thoughts-

I'm in the "really need both" camp - a DSLR and a more video-centric camera that has XLRs and Phantom power. I do feel your financial pain though. But buying a used 150 could be a good move - there's no transport, the #1 maintenance issue to worry about. As for obsolescence: newer gear does not affect the abilities of older gear - the 150 will shoot exactly the same footage ten years from now when we're all shooting 2K raw or whatever. The price has just dropped $200 on the 150, pointing out the big bonus for aging gear - price and used availability.

If you really have to sell the DVX, I'd say get something like the 150 - how often do you really really need the DOF? (For more artsy work - shorts, features, cool commercials - see if you can hook up with a DSLR user - a partnership with a DSLR guy for a few months could allow you both to fill the holes in your styles). Especially if you're a little younger/less established and running on excitement/obsession more than cash - if that's you, there's a lot more guys like you out there - try to hook up and kick some butt.

As for DSLRs - I often advise newbies to find a used 28-70 or 35-70 2.8 zoom, like a Sigma or Tamron (try KEH.com) - you get a pretty wide range of lengths and the 2.8 aperture. Not always the sharpest stuff out there (thought the Nikon 35-70 AF is stellar, under $400 used), but with the video compression it's not as big a deal, and the wide-open softness often looks kinda right for a cinematic look - it's not like it's smack outta focus. DSLRs can be difficult handheld, though I had great luck starting out with a knockoff fig rig. Unless you get a 5D, a 28mm lens will give you a "normal" field of view (like a 55mm), so getting wide can be pricey - but kit lenses usually go very wide and I think they hold up very well in many pro situations - until you can drop $1400 on stellar glass anyway.

As for GH vs. Canon - search the heck outta these forums, opinions vary a great deal, the gist seeming to be the GH stuff is sharper, the Canon more "cinematic" or whatever. The learning curve with these cameras is really not lenses though, it's more about settings and grading, noise, etc... and focus. Focus is a big deal with no AF and limited DOF. You really need to read up and do a lot of testing for yourself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top