HMC 150 or HMC 80 or HPX 170?

[kenackr]

I'm in the process of joining the 21st century and considering the purchase of an HD camcorder. Not sure yet if I want to sell my DVX100B or keep it, but that can be decided later. As usual, it boils down to budget and what value can I get for that amount of money.

I think I've narrowed the field down to 3 units: HMC150, HMC 80, or HPX 170 and now I'm getting stuck. I realize that the HMC 150 & HPX 170 are earlier models and coincidentally both use 3 x 1/3" CCDs. Both HMC's are AVCHD codec output, and the HPX is a DVCPRO HD codec. All of the units provide 4:2:2 sampling as I understand it, so better color depth & tone is expected from all.

Having read Barry's review of the AVC codec, I'm convinced that there will be no loss of quality with AVC, but the DVCPRO HD CODEC is probably comparable.

The HPX 170 seems to have the most features including a vector scope in addition to waveform monitor, HD SDI output for direct transfer to a computer, a 75mm lens for better wide angle work, and 3 focus assist modes. A down side is that it uses P2 cards that are very expensive and you need to buy a stock of them which could easily add $1k to the over all price. :shocked:

The price on the HMC 150 has dropped to close to the street price of the HMC 80. Both of the HMC's use SDCH cards which are way cheaper than the P2's so that is a positive. Conversely, while we all would like smaller file sizes that such as AVC brings to the party the facts are that if you use Final Cut (as I do), the files get quite big when you transpose them to Pro Res in FC. That alone drives me in the direction of the HPX 170, because I'd like NOT to have to learn and pay for Premier since I don't want to trans-code AVC in order to use Final Cut!

OK, what do I shoot? Doc's, interviews, nature scenes, community scenes, short pieces, and working up the courage to do a feature. Some of the short pieces will end up on websites, pod casts, and possibly U-tube, etc. Some of the community scenes may end up on local news broadcasts.

THe HMC 80 really appeals to me with it's feature set and current street price, and the fact that it has shoulder mount form but can also be used on a tripod, jib, etc.

Which one you pick if you were me and why?

Ken

 

[Lindquist]

hpx170,

more reliable codec
more features
and a used one isnt that bad $3000-3600

i got mine for $3300 with 16gb p2 , 300 hours

 

[ggrantly]

kenackr, you have a few specs mixed. The color sample of avchd is 4:2:0. All three models have WFM. For reference, I own a 170 and a HMC40 which has the same imager as the HMC80 in a different box.

If the HMC80 IQ is the same as the HMC40 (should be) it will have the sharpest IQ of the three cams, but it will suffer in low light due to the 1/4 chips. But this series of Pannacams is terrific for the price, but the light limiting issue will ruin it for some people. If you are shooting in daylight or controlled situations with lighting, this will be a non-issue.

I cant tell you as much about the HMC150, except that is better in low light than the HMC40 (80) won't have any CMOS issues, and is probably the closest Pannycam to your DVX. Yes memory cost is less, though probably less reliable.

Both these cams are AVCHD and in my opinion holds up pretty well to DVCPro. The more editing you do, the better DVCPro will serve. I don't understand your reluctance to transcode, yes the files grow, but it just isn't a big deal. AIC or prores are your friends. Drive space is cheap.

The 170 has the most pro features, the most bullet proof codec, the most reliable and expensive memory. For what it is, (a compact 1/3" cam) it is a really great cam, and a pleasure to use. If money were no object, I would go 170, it just has more to offer and is a great all purpose cam which does just about everything fairly well.

If I was budget constrained, the features I needed would dictate. Shoulder mt form factor could be compelling and if I could live with the light issue = HMC80.

Compact form factor, low light ability, and CCD imager, the HMC150 would be a no brainer. Did you say weddings?

The HMC40 is the ultimate great IQ guerilla cam, and if I was really budget constrained, or as a B-Cam, it deserves consideration.

Grant

 

[Exact]

I had the same sort of concerns you did, and ended up buying 4xHMC151. The 171/170 would have been my preferred option (because of 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0) but the cost of cards really made me draw breath (we have about 160GB and that would have cost a fortune in P2). In reality the 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 has't been a problem for me but that doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

In terms of SD cards being reliable vs P2 cards, all I can say is that we have > 800 hours of footage from the SD cards via AVCHD and I have had no problems yet that weren't 'user errors', i.e. not the fault of the card (pulling a card out while writing is never a good idea!). Even then, the footage was all recoverable.

Yes, you have to transcode AVCHD to FCP, but it's worth it. You don't need to invest in the Adobe tax system, FCP will do just fine. My 8 core Mac Pro transcodes as faster than real time.

If I had my time again I would give a great deal of consideration to the Canon XF-305. Don't get me wrong, the HMC is a great camera, but the XF-305 is better!

 

[maranfilms]

I agree the xf305 is better. It's a newr camera with the newest canon codec 50mbps. Buttttttttttttt. It's wayyyy more expensive. You could buy two used hpx's and a hmc 40, for the cost of a xf305. I would wait a few weeks and test the new Canon xf100. Its 50 mbps and great in low light. Image is comparable to an ex1, but with out all the features. amd it should be under 4k

 

[Exact]

I agree the xf305 is better. It's a newr camera with the newest canon codec 50mbps. Buttttttttttttt. It's wayyyy more expensive. You could buy two used hpx's and a hmc 40, for the cost of a xf305.

Yes, unfortunately I know this too well I looked at what it would take to swap HMCs for XFs ! But, it's an awesome camera and if I had my time again ....... it really would be a tough call.

 

[Allen Ellis]

The HPX 170 seems to have the most features including a vector scope in addition to waveform monitor, HD SDI output for direct transfer to a computer, a 75mm lens for better wide angle work, and 3 focus assist modes.

The HMC150 also has a vectorscope + waveform monitor, they both have the same wide angle lens (28mm, not sure where the 75mm reference is from), and the HMC150 has an HDMI port which, with adapters, can also be fed right into a computer at higher quality than the SD cards record (4:2:2, I believe).

Conversely, while we all would like smaller file sizes that such as AVC brings to the party the facts are that if you use Final Cut (as I do), the files get quite big when you transpose them to Pro Res in FC.

This would be the same issue with the HPX170, too. I'm fairly certain you'd also need to transcode DVCProHD footage into ProRes, which would be the same file size (but it would transcode several times faster). Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Barry_Green]

This would be the same issue with the HPX170, too. I'm fairly certain you'd also need to transcode DVCProHD footage into ProRes, which would be the same file size (but it would transcode several times faster). Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

No transcode necessary from the HPX170. Apple supports its codec natively, so if you want to go through log & transfer, the files come out the same size. If you use Calibrated's MXF Importer or Raylight, you don't even have to go through log & transfer, you can edit the MXF files directly (even from the P2 card if you want to).

 

[kenackr]

Everyone,

Thanks for all the help from those experienced with these units. It provides a clearer path to which unit to select.

@ Grant - No, I didn't say weddings. I've had 2 and that's enough for me. (until the next time of course). Sorry about the spec mix up, I've ingested a lot of information and I confess that my brain likes to play tricks on me in public. :embarasse

@ Exact - Sorry but the Cannon is beyond my financial grasp. I'm really more a hobbyist than someone trying to make some money with it. Maybe if I win the lotto?

@ tiger - The HMC150 brochure shows filter size of 72mm and I might have mixed that up. Sorry.

@ Barry thanks for the redirect on no transcode on the 170.

I'd love to have the HPX170 but the deal breaker for me is the P2 card cost combined with the very short shooting time (roughly 1 GB/Min). I don't think I could handle having only 16 or 30 minutes of shooting time and I'm not prepared or willing to lay out $860 or so bucks for a 64 gig card.

It now seems to me that my next best option would be the HMC 150 with the 1/3" CCD's, same weight & similar features as the DVX100B, and I'm sure I could learn to live with the lower sampling 4.2.0, after all, I'm using it now, aren't I?

Gentlemen, thank all of you for helping me select the correct course to sail for my next camcorder.

Ken

 

[Exact]

I'd love to have the HPX170 but the deal breaker for me is the P2 card cost combined with the very short shooting time (roughly 1 GB/Min). I don't think I could handle having only 16 or 30 minutes of shooting time and I'm not prepared or willing to lay out $860 or so bucks for a 64 gig card.

It now seems to me that my next best option would be the HMC 150 with the 1/3" CCD's, same weight & similar features as the DVX100B, and I'm sure I could learn to live with the lower sampling 4.2.0, after all, I'm using it now, aren't I?

Pretty much the exact route I took to the HMC 151 too....

 

[Allen Ellis]

Thanks for the clarification Barry. Kenackr, you may still want to consider the HMC40 and 80. Would a larger or smaller form factor make a difference for you? The 40 is sharper is good light, but the 150 is better in low-light.

I'm not sure what the other differences between the 40, 80 & 150 are (I just own the 150) but they all record to SDHC cards and the 150 is still the most expensive, I think. So just keep that in mind, especially if cost is a big consideration. Could you benefit from spending the cash on mics & lights and get a slightly less powerful camera instead? Just something to think about.

 

[KnoxHotch]

The 150 is the same camera as the HPX170, minus the P2 recording part. The lens, buttons, ergonomics, and the low light abilities are exactly the same. The benefits of the 170 are in the P2 workflow and ability to do in-cam over/undercranking (which you can do easily in post with the 150). You also mentioned short recording times with the 170, but a single 16GB card can record 40mins of 720/24pN, and a 64GB card 160mins; not to mention the use of multiple cards.

AVCHD, when transcoded in log/transfer is roughly the same size as DVCPRO HD, however, you can choose to delete the large transcoded files and achive the smaller AVCHD raw footage when you're done with the project; saving you storage space and money. 4:2:0, also, isn't quite so bad. The crew who shot "A Verse Before Dying" chose to use the AF100's AVCHD for online editing instead of an external high bitrate recorder, and the XDCam EX cameras record in a codec that is inferior to AVCCAM.

So really, as a hobbyist doing your own productions, I would get the 150 since it is very close to the 170 but still leaves you budget for lighting, sound, media, etc. OR If you're planning on getting jobs with crews that require a P2 camera, then go ahead and invest the extra cash for the 170. Both of them are designed exactly like your DVX, and you'll have no problem finding the buttons in the same locations on the high def versions. The 40 and the 80, I don't have as much experience with, but they still lack the low light, timecode sync, and wide lens of the 150, though will produce a sharper image in good light when put side by side.

 

[kenackr]

@ Tiger - Yes, the 150 is still the most expensive of the 3 HMC's, but considering that I have a lot of supporting gear already (used to own a recording studio), the only extras I will be adding relates to trying my hand at Green/Blue screen shots regardless of which unit I choose. But thanks for mentioning it.

@ Knox - I still have a lot to learn about the HD process since I've been ostrich like regarding it and I'm going to look foolish now. :embarasse I can't manage to understand why one would bother to shoot 720 when the cam has the ability to do 1080. Is it incorrect to think that a 1080 piece down rez'd to 720 wouldn't do the job just as well? I'm sure there is something I'm not seeing, but I always thought that if you start with the highest quality it's always no problem to transform it downward.

According to the specs in the 150's brochure, it can record both 1080 at 24p and 720/24p natively but 1080 at anything higher than 24p is based on the 1080/60i recoding format and for 720 anything higher than 24p is progressive and not interlaced. Is it that the conversion of the interlaced 1080 to progressive looses quality compared to 720 which does not get recorded in interlaced format ?

So much to learn !

 

[Allen Ellis]

Well for my documentary (see sig) I shot in 720/24p, because I was nervous that my computer wouldn't be able to handle 1080/24p, disk space was tight, and since the final destination was only ever going to be the web, the extra resolution didn't matter. Besides, the HMC150 creates a slightly softer image than its contemporaries (EX1, XH-A1) so the difference between 1080 and 720 can be difficult to see. In the early days there was some confusion over whether 1080 provided much extra detail at all, though the consensus now is that 1080 is marginally better, particularly for green-screen work.

The only other advantage 720 still has is that it can shoot in 60p. This is great for lots of reasons, the ability to play it in slow-mo in 24p being perhaps the most notable. The AF100 is finally rolling out 1080/60p and that's exciting, because we shouldn't really ever need to shoot 720 again.

According to the specs in the 150's brochure, it can record both 1080 at 24p and 720/24p natively but 1080 at anything higher than 24p is based on the 1080/60i recoding format and for 720 anything higher than 24p is progressive and not interlaced.

The only interlaced format in HD is 1080/60i. Everything else is progressive thankfully (720: 24p/30p/60p, 1080: 24p,30p,60i).

Is it that the conversion of the interlaced 1080 to progressive looses quality compared to 720 which does not get recorded in interlaced format ?

Basically, yes. With interlaced, you loose every other line. When played back in motion it's difficult to tell, but if you want to grab any still frames, slow down the footage, rotoscope or do basically any significant modifications to the video, it's a big hassle. It's sort of like having 1920x540 footage - your vertical resolution is cut in half. So with that in mind, 1280x720 does give you "more resolution", at least vertically.

There are a lot of tradeoffs and unfortunately it's all gotten quite complicated with the move to HD. I for one was hoping we'd all do away with interlacing, non-square pixels and rounded-off framerates (24p is actually 23.976p - get it wrong and you'll get audio sync issues in long films). But processor and bandwidth issues from various decks and decoders, plus supporting last-generation standards has created this array of specifications that can be daunting to memorize. Take it a step at a time and you'll be fine, though. I think all of us mix up some details every now and then and have to look them up. It sounds to me like you have a good grasp on all of this information.