HMC 150 vs HMC 40 vs TM300

D

DTeubner

Member
I've had some time with the HMC 40 and was able to do a side-by-side test with the HMC 150 and TM 300. Currently I use the TM 300 as a B-Cam, but the HMC 40 could work well as a B-Cam. I still prefer my HMC 150 overall.

Here's my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_mR_uQymd8

I used automatic iris so sometimes the shots are dark.
 
Hello. I saw your video on you tube and I'm quite interested to say the least on two of the cameras you tested. I've owned the Panasonic HMC40 since Dec. of '09 and love the camera. I recently invested in the HMC150, partly on your advice that I saw on your you- tube presentation. I've been reading a lot on both of these cameras on the web and have found out some disturbing things. First of all, I'd like you to tell me why the 150 is better than the 40 apart from the fact that it has better manual control flexibility, a wider angle lense, and 3 1/3 CCD sensors as opposed to 3MOS 1/4 sensors on the 40? Is the image on the 150 better than the 40? From what I've read, it's been said that if I was after the 150 in order to get a sharper better resolution picture than the 40 then I should not buy the 150. Is this true? I've also read on camcorderinfo.com on a review of the HMC40 that the total actual resolution of the 40 tops out at only around 800 lines, and not only that, but on other posts on other forums, they claim that the 40 is better than the 150 by almost 200 lines! Please tell me this isn't true. The 150 is significantly higher in cost than the 40, but if I'm going to end up getting a softer picture after all the extra money I spent then I will be sadly dissappointed. BTW, I haven't as yet edited and burned to disc any footage from the 150 since I've only had it for little more than a week, but I'd like opinions from anyone about this matter before I judge for myself. Thank you DTeubner and anyone else for any replies.
 
In bright light the 40 is definitely substantially sharper than the 150, despite the price difference. The 150 has many features the 40 doesn't have, and its biggest thing is that it's three stops faster (meaning, it only needs about 1/8 as much light to make a picture of comparable brightness).

I don't know what test results you're seeing or that's giving you concerns about the 40's sharpness, but it's as sharp as an EX1, EX3, or HPX300/HPX370. It's very very very sharp, as long as the light is bright and you don't have to use gain. Gain can rob it from some sharpness.
 
Below is a quote from a review of the HMC40 on the web site: camcorderinfo.com.
This is where I read their specs and conclusions on this camera.

"Since the AG-HMC40 has the same sensors and lens as Panasonic's consumer camcorders (the HDC-TM300 and HDC-HS300), we expected it to have similar results to those models in our video sharpness test. The HMC40 managed a horizontal sharpness of 800 lw/ph and a vertical sharpness of 650 lw/ph. These are similar numbers to Panasonic's high-end consumer models, but they are also slightly better. This may have to do with the higher bitrate available on the HMC40 or it could be some internal processing. Either way, the results aren't much different between the HMC40 and its consumer-model cousins." (

Now, if they're saying that the HMC40 tops out at around 800 horizontal lines then that means that the 150 is less than that. That very much dissappoints me since I did shell out a ton of money for the 150. So the 150 has the advantage as far as low light, right? But the 40 wins out as far as daytime shooting, right? That's great. So I guess I'll have to bring both of these cams with me if I want to go shoot some video; I'll have to use the 40 for daytime shots and the 150 for indoors or nightime shots. If I would have known this to begin with about the 150, I wouldn't have bought it. Maybe someone can reply to this that has a 150 and tell me that I'm wrong to think this way and that it's a much better cam than the 40. I will keep the 150 because I think it is a very nice cam, but I was hoping that it would've got a much better image than a camera that I paid more than a thousand dollars less for.More on how we test video sharpness.)
 
I guess if all you care about is pixels and sharpness than you should shoot everything with the 40, IMO the 150's image all though not as "sharp" as the 40 technically I think esthetically it looks much better and more organic. I have yet to see any video online from the 40 that really looks like the 150. Maybe I'm not viewing the right videos but everything Ive seen from the 40 seems stale or something I cant explain it. The 40 does produce very nice images and I wouldnt mine owning one myself for the small size but in reality you get so much more cam in the 150 hence the higher price tag and not to mention my favorite part the CCD's :)
 
matt s. said:
I guess if all you care about is pixels and sharpness than you should shoot everything with the 40, IMO the 150's image all though not as "sharp" as the 40 technically I think esthetically it looks much better and more organic. I have yet to see any video online from the 40 that really looks like the 150. Maybe I'm not viewing the right videos but everything Ive seen from the 40 seems stale or something I cant explain it. The 40 does produce very nice images and I wouldnt mine owning one myself for the small size but in reality you get so much more cam in the 150 hence the higher price tag and not to mention my favorite part the CCD's :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I do care about pixels and sharpness, that is why I shelled out the thousands for these cameras. If I didn't care about sharpness I'd still be shooting with my old hi8 camcorder that I've owned since '97. If people didn't care about sharpness we wouldn't now have high definition tv, right? I think most people who decide to fork out many thousands of dollars for cameras like these is because they want that sharpness, they want the extra pixels and everything that goes with it. I can't tell you how much more I've enjoyed shooting video since high def was introduced. So yes, I do care about every single extra pixel I can get and if I'm forking out this kind of money, I want every single bit of quality that I can get for every dollar. I think for this kind of money people do nitpick about which cam is the best for their dollars. I've decided that I will use both the 40 and the 150 depending on what kind of shooting situation I will be in, that way I can use the best cam for that shoot.
 
1pany2u said:
Yes, I do care about pixels and sharpness, that is why I shelled out the thousands for these cameras. If I didn't care about sharpness I'd still be shooting with my old hi8 camcorder that I've owned since '97. If people didn't care about sharpness we wouldn't now have high definition tv, right? I think most people who decide to fork out many thousands of dollars for cameras like these is because they want that sharpness, they want the extra pixels and everything that goes with it. I can't tell you how much more I've enjoyed shooting video since high def was introduced. So yes, I do care about every single extra pixel I can get and if I'm forking out this kind of money, I want every single bit of quality that I can get for every dollar. I think for this kind of money people do nitpick about which cam is the best for their dollars. I've decided that I will use both the 40 and the 150 depending on what kind of shooting situation I will be in, that way I can use the best cam for that shoot.
Click to expand...

Honestly, your premise is a faulty one. As I said in your other thread Sharper ≠ Better.

There is a lot that goes into a quality image besides the number of pixels. Also, there is always going to be trade offs at this price point. The HMC40 has more pixels, but the trade off is that in order to cram that many pixels into the same size sensor, those pixels have to be smaller, which will affect light and color sensitivity. A sharper image doesn't impress me if it's looks like a noisey, uncolorful piece of crap. Plus, in lower light you loose effective sharpness, which defeats the purpose of the high res chips in the first place (at least in the 1/4 - 1/3 inch spectrum).

Another thing is are the people watching this going to care? Most people watching a TV smaller than around a 46 incher really aren't going to notice the difference between 1080p and 720p, let alone 19020x1080 vs the effective 1440x810 the HMC/HPX/HVX has. I'll notice it, but I've worked in TV my entire adult life. Most of the people I now wouldn't notice the difference. And if you're downconverting it properly to DVD, it really wouldn't make a difference.

Plus, there is this thing called the "Panny Mojo" that the HMC150/HPX170/HVX200a, which all share the same sensor block, have a reputation for. It's a more organic, film like look. Not as sharp as with a full raster 1920x1080 chip, but much more pleasing to the eye in a lot of people's opinion.

And here's something to think about... 1920x1080 in cameras is relatively new. HDCam records only 1440x1080 (about the same resolution as the HMC150 chips). Technically speaking, Star Wars II AotC... which was shot on HDCam... looked pretty darn good (plot aside) if you ask me. I'm pretty sure most people didn't complain about it not being high enough resolution. All HDV cameras are 1440x1080. And DVCPro is only 1280x1080 and 960x720, and for the last decade was more or less the standard. Pretty much every show you watched on cable that was shot in HD was shot in DVCProHD. Planet Earth was shot on DVCProHD for the ground shots, and I've never heard anyone say "that wasn't sharp enough". Until AVC-Intra, all of Panasonic's Varicam cameras were DVCProHD.

Even at 720p, the resolution difference vs 480i is so huge that not a lot of people are going to get too hung up on it. Only the people hung up on pixel count and getting absolute sharpness. Now, if the absolute sharpest image, other factors be damned, is what is important to you, more power to you. But most people aren't that way. None of the people who hire me complain, anyways.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top