HMC150 vs. The Cameras Getting Announced

J

jrod81

Veteran
So I am looking at one of the four cameras to purchase. This will be for some live events but mostly for online commercial ads for a law firm. I probably don't really need quite this nice of a camera but I really do want XLR inputs to help with post. So the four cameras I am currently comparing are:
1. Canon XF100: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/01/xf105-and-xf100-canons-smallest-professional-camcorders-yet/
2. Canon XA10: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/News/Canon-Unveils-New-Professional-Camcorder-the-XA10.htm
3. Sony NX70: http://nofilmschool.com/2011/03/sony-hxr-nx70-documentary/
4. Panny Hmc150
The firm is buying the camera but I will be keeping the camera at my own home and have permission to use it for any of my own projects.
The major things I want in a camera (besides the XLR inputs) is native FCP editing codec & internal memory to not have to keep up with cards. These are just nice things but certainly not mandatory.
So, what are other 150 owners thinking about these new cameras? Would anyone pick one over the other?
thanks
jared
 
I believe each of those cameras require a transcode to pro res; so none apparently would meet your "native FCP editing codec" requirement.
 
David Saraceno said:
I believe each of those cameras require a transcode to pro res; so none apparently would meet your "native FCP editing codec" requirement.
Click to expand...

Canon provide a plugin for FCP that can use MXF files natively within FCP. I've used it in conjunction with the XF300 and since the XF100 uses the same codec I have no reason to doubt it will work with the same plugin.

The HMC certainly does need transcoding and compared to many later camera releases the footage is significantly 'soft' because it doesn't use native 1920x1080 imagers.

The advantage of the HMC over all the other cameras is it's use of CCD sensors that don't have the jello or flash banding issues. However, if you are looking for 'sharp' then the HMC150 is probably at the back of the queue. In good light the HMC40 will be sharper.
 
From the list you specified -- I can't imagine not opting for the XF100.

Although, the truth is that I'd produce a law firm ad with a Canon HDSLR and external audio recorder.

Or, I'd stick that XF100 on a 35mm lens adapter, and as the low light of that XF100 appears to be impressive and clean, I suspect you'd get some serious results with a good adapter and quality glass, results that I suspect would trounce the best of anything you've seen done with a lens adapter and a 200/170/150.
 
Out of those 4, I think it really comes down to the HMC150 and the XF100. The HMC150 has more on body controls, true ND filters, 3 CCDs vs single CMOS, and a more versatile lens/lens controls. The XF100 has a great codec, better/higher res LCD, and has a sharper image.

The one thing that takes away from the XF100 IMO, is the silly ND filter implementation....meaning it's tied to the iris (like the HMC40) so you can't just open it up to say 1.8, then click on an ND. You have to start stopping down for it to engage and then it gets confusing after that...
 
wow that is annoying about the ND??? its more annoying that the sony doesn't even have it (correct me if i am wrong on that)
 
Yeah...nothing wrong with that. It's only weakness IMO is the low res LCD and maybe that it's softer than newer cams. But what you get for the price esp. now is incredible. I have a strong feeling the HMC150 will get an upgrade at NAB....but it will no doubt be more expensive. It's going to be interesting to see what comes out.
 
It's other two weaknesses are the low resolution LCD and viewfinder, and the AAC audio recording format.

Slap in 3 full resolution 1/2" CCDs and change to WAV audio, upgrade the LCD and viewfinder to 1280 x 720 LCoS and you'd have one hell of a camera.

Add a second card slot, either SXRD or CF, to handle AVC-I instead of AVCHD and you'd have the hands down champ for a hand-held HD camera. No one else would be able to touch it.

(Hint, hint...Jan.)
 
The Canon XF100 looks quite interesting, but I have a couple of issues that I would want to check out before buying one:

1- How good is the color from the single-chip sensor ? ( with some of the comparisons I've seen with the older Canon XH-A1, the XF-100 looks weak in terms of color quality )

2- How flare prone is the XF-100 lens ? ( some of the XF-100 sample videos appeared to have a lot of lens flare )
 
TheDingo said:
The Canon XF100 looks quite interesting, but I have a couple of issues that I would want to check out before buying one:

1- How good is the color from the single-chip sensor ? ( with some of the comparisons I've seen with the older Canon XH-A1, the XF-100 looks weak in terms of color quality )

2- How flare prone is the XF-100 lens ? ( some of the XF-100 sample videos appeared to have a lot of lens flare )
Click to expand...

One of our members posted his thoughts about the XF100 in the Canon section - If I remember correctly he said the color depth from the 4:2:2 recording was very good...his caveat though was that the lighting needed to be sufficient to retain the quality. Also, this thing can be adjusted infinitely like the A1/A1s so samples from different users will probably vary a lot. All I know about the XF100 lens is that it is not designated as L-series, like the A1/A1s and XF300/305.
 
Barry said....

Barry said....

Over in the 170/200 forum, Barry said...

Barry_Green said:
The most direct replacement for an HVX200 would be the HMC150, and whether you would see better image quality depends on whether you have an HVX200 or an HVX200A. If you have a 200A, the images will be extremely similar between those two. If you have an original HVX200, you will likely see a noticeable improvement in image quality due to the better chips, better color reproduction and lower noise that the HVX200A/HMC150 have.

.
Click to expand...

I've been researching a camera purchase in the $3K range, and this caught my attention. So the HMC150 has similar image quality to the 200A?? I have been using an HMC40 at work, and love the color, sharpness, etc., but the low light is just not adequate for my needs. The current price of the 150 has it high on my list, but I've been concerned about its sharpness and just in general being a three year old design. If the Canon XF100 was out yet I would have probably already gotten one. Pending more sample video, I've just been assuming that the XF100 would be in the ballpark with the 150 on low light, that the 4:2:2 color would make up for the single chip, and would have better sharpness. The compact size is also a plus for me.

After reading yesterday about the 200a being used to shoot "Pawn Stars" and Barry's statement that the 150 has similar quality, now I'm thinking my concerns about the 150 are groundless. I really need the better low light, and since my end product is web or DVD, I've been using the HMC40 in 720p mostly anyway. I've read that the 150's sharpness is best at 720p. So, I guess it comes down to: is a 2008 design like the 150 still a good long term purchase today?
 
ddixon said:
Over in the 170/200 forum, Barry said...



I've been researching a camera purchase in the $3K range, and this caught my attention. So the HMC150 has similar image quality to the 200A?? I have been using an HMC40 at work, and love the color, sharpness, etc., but the low light is just not adequate for my needs. The current price of the 150 has it high on my list, but I've been concerned about its sharpness and just in general being a three year old design. If the Canon XF100 was out yet I would have probably already gotten one. Pending more sample video, I've just been assuming that the XF100 would be in the ballpark with the 150 on low light, that the 4:2:2 color would make up for the single chip, and would have better sharpness. The compact size is also a plus for me.

After reading yesterday about the 200a being used to shoot "Pawn Stars" and Barry's statement that the 150 has similar quality, now I'm thinking my concerns about the 150 are groundless. I really need the better low light, and since my end product is web or DVD, I've been using the HMC40 in 720p mostly anyway. I've read that the 150's sharpness is best at 720p. So, I guess it comes down to: is a 2008 design like the 150 still a good long term purchase today?
Click to expand...

This is just my opinion....but absoulutely. Since 2006 people have been asking "Is the DVX 100B still a good buy in the age of HD?" and still...there are people getting great mileage out of that camera. So the HMC150, being a better, newer HD DVX, it still has lots of fuel in the tank. Consider that you can always sharpen in post if needed, and that a warm organic image might be better than a hyper sharp one in many cases.

But....and I only say this because NAB is basically RIGHT around the corner - IF you don't need something for a project for a little while, and your looking long term....Maybe just see if the HMC150 gets an A designation with some improvements.
 
Last edited:
David Saraceno said:
I believe each of those cameras require a transcode to pro res; so none apparently would meet your "native FCP editing codec" requirement.
Click to expand...
Entirely untrue. Footage from XF100 can be edited native. It is basically XDCAM 422 50Mbs. After downloading the plugin from Canon (or use the disk), just chose "native" in L&T window. I just received XF100, the footage looks amazing. Blows HMC 150 away in every aspect: quality of footage, controls, form factor. LCD is better then on EX1!
 
ddixon said:
After reading yesterday about the 200a being used to shoot "Pawn Stars" and Barry's statement that the 150 has similar quality, now I'm thinking my concerns about the 150 are groundless. I really need the better low light, and since my end product is web or DVD, I've been using the HMC40 in 720p mostly anyway. I've read that the 150's sharpness is best at 720p. So, I guess it comes down to: is a 2008 design like the 150 still a good long term purchase today?
Click to expand...

"Pawn Stars" isn't an ideal to which to aspire in production terms.

The 150 and 200A are identical in terms of "front end" imaging. The difference is the codec and a handful of functions, including variable frame rates at 720. The experienced HMC150 guys will tell you that variable frame rates at 720 is pointless when you can shoot everything in 720/60p on an HMC150 (this statement might confuse some Final Cut Pro users).

Relative to HDSLR cameras or the footage you're seeing from the new Sony F3 -- the low light of the HMC150 is below dirt. Relative to video cameras of three years ago -- the low light of the HMC150 is competitive at the five thousand dollar price range. If low light is your major issue -- then jump into the HDSLR arena.

No. The HMC150 is sharper at 1080. That whole 720 is the "sweet spot" of the HMC150 started with Barry Green -- who later changed his mind and decided that 1080 was just as sweet.

Relative to HD style sharpness, the HMC150 is a disaster (ideal for people who don't like HD style sharpness), and regardless of the conspiracy theories about encoders adding noise to AVCCAM -- it's a noisy camera. It's a step up from the HMC40 in terms of professional controls, and it has 3 CCD sensors that lack all the current issues of CMOS sensors.

Bottom line -- for an extra two hundred bucks (at B&H) -- I can't imagine not going for the newer Canon with the BBC approved 4:2:2 codec and other features, including the ultimate in low light -- infrared.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
But....and I only say this because NAB is basically RIGHT around the corner - IF you don't need something for a project for a little while, and your looking long term....Maybe just see if the HMC150 gets an A designation with some improvements.
Click to expand...

This is entirely correct. It's possible our production world will be changed at NAB2011. It's also possible little or nothing will be changed at NAB2011. The only thing that's certain is that you won't be able to buy a "Red Scarlet" in 2011.
 
peterarcson said:
Entirely untrue. Footage from XF100 can be edited native. It is basically XDCAM 422 50Mbs. After downloading the plugin from Canon (or use the disk), just chose "native" in L&T window. I just received XF100, the footage looks amazing. Blows HMC 150 away in every aspect: quality of footage, controls, form factor. LCD is better then on EX1!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Where did you get your XF100?
 
AGMedia said:
No. The HMC150 is sharper at 1080. That whole 720 is the "sweet spot" of the HMC150 started with Barry Green -- who later changed his mind and decided that 1080 was just as sweet.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am mistaken, but HMC150 doesn't even have 720 native resolution on the CCD block. It tops off at 960x540. What it also lacks is LCPM sound. LCD/VF resolution was also pretty bad. As the matter of fact I bought it, used it for a day and returned it. Actually DVX footage after the uprez with InstantHD almost looked better then HMC150.

AGMedia said:
Relative to HD style sharpness, the HMC150 is a disaster (ideal for people who don't like HD style sharpness), and regardless of the conspiracy theories about encoders adding noise to AVCCAM -- it's a noisy camera. It's a step up from the HMC40 in terms of professional controls, and it has 3 CCD sensors that lack all the current issues of CMOS sensors.

Bottom line -- for an extra two hundred bucks (at B&H) -- I can't imagine not going for the newer Canon with the BBC approved 4:2:2 codec and other features, including the ultimate in low light -- infrared.
Click to expand...

I can confirm this- I just received my XF100, fantastic codec, good features, quality built and footage looks better then EX1.
 
ddixon said:
Thanks for the info! Where did you get your XF100?
Click to expand...
Professional Video and Tape from Portland. Great store- contact Doug at x121. They worked with me like crazy, I had to wait for B&H to transfer the money back into my account- no problem- they put the camera aside for me and waited patiently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top