HMC150 vs Z5, FX1000, XHA1

Peter Wayne

Peter Wayne

Member
hi guys!

is it true that current HDV cams such as XHA1, Z5/Z7, FX1000 have better quality that HMC150? HMCs native CCD resolution is lot less than the Z5/FX1000, which has full 1920x1080 CMOS.

So what can be the difference in HDMI output of both cams if i want to capture it uncompressed.

this is hmc forum so i know everyone will take hmc's side but i want answer from someone who used all these cams with hmc150.
 
There are lots of threads already comparing these cameras, so do read the others. However, to add a few words here:

I recently completed a shoot with two XHA1 and my HMC151: a lecture/performance in rather poor light. The HMC image certainly holds up better in low light conditions, and it looks much smoother than the A1 footage in the rushes - more detail in the shadows too. The A1 might have the edge in resolution, but in these circumstances that just shows me the noise/grain with more clarity. I could have done with a longer zoom on the HMC - the long end of the focal range is a bit short for close-ups - but it's a fair compromise to get the wider wide-angle.

The Canon XHA1 is an excellent camera, solid, excellent handling, and a great lens. In good light it's capable of delivering very lovely pictures with plenty of detail, but I'm happy to have chosen the HMC over it.

The Z5 is a different beast, really. In the UK it's 30% more expensive than the HMC151, and if you want the card reader add-on it's pushing very close to a Z7 in price. I'm willing to believe that it offers the HMC's low light performance and the XHA1's resolution, but for the price, so it should.

My understanding is that the HMC's internal processing and HDMI output is all done at 1920x1080, upsampled from the sensor. I'm willing to believe that, in principle, the XHA1 and Z5 can offer more detail within that frame, but whether you acquire a more pleasing image from them in practice depends on what you're shooting, how you use the cameras, and what sort of image you like.
 
Peter Wayne said:
hi guys!

is it true that current HDV cams such as XHA1, Z5/Z7, FX1000 have better quality that HMC150?
Click to expand...

No, just a different image. The Sonys and the Canon do have higher resolution sensors, but IMO produce a more video like appearance compared to the HMC150. The HMC has plenty of resolution and detail and many (myself included) find the HMC's image to be more pleasing and "film like".

As was mentioned, you also must compare cameras of similar price range, etc. to be fair. As was mentioned, the Z5 and Z7 are significantly more expensive. There are many other factors besides resolution that must be compared between cameras, but in terms of pure image quality, this is the best comparison that I've seen yet between these cameras:

http://www.trainingvideographers.com/tipsandtricks.html

The FX1000, Z5/Z7 all use the same optical block and therefore should be similar in low light performance. The Sonys appear to have a bit better low light sensitivity without gain, the HMC150 appears to be able to handle increases in gain a bit better. I have run the gain on the HMC up to 12 without a significant increase in noticeable grain in the image.

Then there's the rolling shutter, the trade off in going with the CMOS sensors. It is very relevent to overall image quality. Depending on what you are using it for, this could be insignificant or it could be a fatal flaw. For event videography, I feel it is borderline unacceptable. For indie filmmaking with no fast panning or flash photography, it is insignificant.

In the end, it depends on what is meant by "better quality". In terms of pure resolution, the Sonys and the Canon may be better. In terms of color reproduction, low light, rolling shutter, and other factors that affect the image, the HMC compares favorably or beats the other cameras.
 
just becuase its the hmc forum does not mean we will all take the hmc's side. I myself am very aware of this cam's limitiations- but it's imager is not one of them (when you compare it to those other cameras in its price/class).

When is comes to CCD resolution / pixel numbers, I am a firm believer in quality over quantity. As said earlier, although there are less of them- the HMC's pixels are larger which translates into less noise and better color.
 
Edweirdo said:
just becuase its the hmc forum does not mean we will all take the hmc's side. I myself am very aware of this cam's limitiations
Click to expand...

I agree Edweirdo and I probably should have said this in my post. While a fine camera, the HMC150 does have limitations, as do all cameras in this price range.

As a fan of Canon (I still am), I wanted to go with the XH-A1. But the tapeless workflow and the feature set of the HMC150 (not better than the A1's in all aspects, just certain ones that appealed to me) caught my eye and I compared them and Sony's offerings almost nightly for months before deciding on the HMC. So I have been through the concerns over resolution, as they were brought up in numerous forums that I perused virtually every time the HMC was mentioned and I held some of those concerns myself. However, this was always raised by those who had not used the camera, and most all judgements were made based on the footage of the original HVX200, the closest thing to the HMC before it came out. While the original HVX was a great camera (most concerns about its resolution were unfounded), the sensors in it and the HMC have been greatly improved. This is nothing you guys don't already know, but that was why I came to the conclusion that the negative opinions of the HMC I was reading (before the camera even came out) were based on outdated and often incomplete information.

So I bought the HMC in January and have not regretted it for a moment. The image is beautiful, and when its not it is because of my error, not the camera's. I use it with my HV30 and the image is always as good or better (sometimes significantly) when placed on the timeline together. I know the HV30 is a consumer camcorder, but it has true 1080 sensors and its image compares favorably to that of the XH-A1 in good light.

If given a choice between the current sensors or higher resolution sensors in the HMC, I would take the current sensors with the larger pixel surface area for the reasons that Edweirdo pointed out.
 
I also do not regret the decision to go with the HMC. Its not perfect, because there are no perfect cameras. To me it's damn close though :)

However if the OP is concerned with the pixel count of the imager, than they should by a Sony or Canon 3CMOS HD cam- indeed they are higher (to a fault IMO)
 
the intention of my question was actually for independent filmmaking only.
which camera does good for film-like images with consideration of film-out?

and resolution matters when we capture uncompressed through HDMI.
if so, which is the best for this?
 
I have been shooting with an XHA1 and HMC150 a lot lately, and been mixing footage from them on a regular basis, with very good results. I can in all honesty say that there ain't no visible diff in resolution between the Canon and the HMC when both are shot in 1080i, at least. My experience has been that the Canon will consistently have a slightly warmer, somewhat softer image. Not better or worse, just different.

The one area where the Canon is better by a small margin is in audio quality, when using external XLR mics. Oddly enough the Canon seems to sound a little less boomy in the bass.

But in terms of image quality, the HMC does not suffer at all compared to the Canon XHA1. I know that does not seem possible, given the cam's specs, but in real life, the Panny PQ is slightly better, the Canon audio is slightly better. Oh, the Canon will shoot in 4:3 SD mode if you need it, (although ts a bit soft in this mode) the HMC will not.

As far as I am concerned, I have decided on picking up a second HMC150 as soon as I can. I prefer its PQ over the Canon's. But that's just me. The Canon is still an outstanding cam with much to recommend it. But better PQ? No.
 
Peter, More than likely you won't be capturing uncompressed.. especially on the HDV cameras if you record to tape. The only way to bypass the codec limitations is to record the HDMI or any output live from the camera and not from the recorded medium. So if you were to do that on a set then I think that the 150 would be on par with the other cams.. plus give a more pleasing image.


Considering a film out is a lofty goal for sure and if that's your end result then why wouldn't you be considering shooting on a superior camera like the Red or other options? If I were looking to do a film out, I'd be considering more options unless cost is a factor, and if that's the case, then a film out wouldn't be in the stars either.


You might want to consider even one of the new DSLRs as an option as well.
 
The HMC certainly looks quite nice in comparison, not giving up much at all if anything in image quality to any of the others.
 
sewolla said:
The HMC certainly looks quite nice in comparison, not giving up much at all if anything in image quality to any of the others.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
The Sony cam listed above it KILLED the HMC150 in the REDs department.
Really killed it. Of course that's only one person's test.
AND that Sony is SIX GRAND!

Time to buy more lottery tickets....

P.S. So what's the deal with this whole CMOS thing?
Better image quality if you can stand the negative artifacts? (I Can't)
Am I missing something?
 
It would be more interesting what settings were used. the hmc could do better than that... (except for detail sharpness)
 
Yep ...

Yep ...

DPStewart said:
I disagree.
The Sony cam listed above it KILLED the HMC150 in the REDs department.
Really killed it. Of course that's only one person's test.
AND that Sony is SIX GRAND!

Time to buy more lottery tickets....

P.S. So what's the deal with this whole CMOS thing?
Better image quality if you can stand the negative artifacts? (I Can't)
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
You are right about the EX1 ... the red is better. But ... for the money you are getting a very close looking finished piece on the HMC 150. I've got a DVX 100 that has served me well since the camera came out. I'm thinking of getting the HMC 150 and to use the a convergent design nano/flash recorder via HDMI rather than the AVC HD codec. That will record Mpeg at a high bit rate and/or I-frame at 220 (?). At present, I am using an EX3 as my top dog HD camera and have no regrets ... but is pretty involved to use at times where you just want more freedom of movement.
 
John Trent said:
Peter, here's an Asian site with screen grabs (I know some will say don't judge by grabs) that I found show the different characteristics of the cams in how they handle colour, sharpness, and contrast. Click to enlarge each picture and compare them for yourself, side by side. The HMC 155 is just the foreign model of the HMC150. Good luck.
http://www.genkosha.com/vs/report/test_report/entry/12z5j.html
Click to expand...

The white balance was off on the HMC. It was not even producing red, yet all the other cameras were.

How did they get those perfect frame captures? They were actually too perfect. And there is no pixelation. Something fishy about them all.
 
It's fair to say that the HMC150 was erroneously labeled as a great low light camcorder when it first came out. It's not. The picture it gives in dimly lit scenes is clean, but by no means bright.

Great low-light capability is the advantage that higher end CMOS cams will always have over CCD's. I'd ditch the Panny in a heartbeat if they could figure out how to manage the rolling shutter issue.
 
D.R. Gates said:
It's fair to say that the HMC150 was erroneously labeled as a great low light camcorder when it first came out. It's not. The picture it gives in dimly lit scenes is clean, but by no means bright.

Great low-light capability is the advantage that higher end CMOS cams will always have over CCD's. I'd ditch the Panny in a heartbeat if they could figure out how to manage the rolling shutter issue.
Click to expand...

Which 1/3" camera is better than the 150?
 
sewolla said:
The HMC certainly looks quite nice in comparison, not giving up much at all if anything in image quality to any of the others.
Click to expand...

Are you for real? the HMC is the worse of the bunch, worse details of all the camera, and no red, just look at the letters and the texture of everything, it has almost none, even the XHA1 2 years old technology is so much sharper and has better color, on the HMC also look at the green stem of the flower againts the window, it has so much detail enhancer that you see so much ringing (halo) on the edge, when you gain tapeless and the price is so low, you have to give up something and that is picture quality.
 
Last edited:
id have to disagree. You coud get a better footage if you fix the settings. that hmc shot obviously is not in cine gamma nor the colors were set properly

color and dynamic range, the hmc could do better there

fine details however, thats the only limitation of hmc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top