HMC40 v HMC150

B

bryan777123

Member
Hi Guys

HMC40 (HMC41) v. HMC150 (HMC151)

I am about to re-enter Wedding Videography (20 year absence!) and require a suitable camcorder. One of the most important issues is low-light performance (+ image quality). I have decided I can only consider AVCHD. This I have narrowed down to HMC40 v HMC150 (UK versions of).

The HMC40 seems to be the HS300/TM300 upgrade, using the same sensors. SLASHCAM says the lowlight performance is only average.

A fantastic personal review incl video footage of actual wedding ceremony has been made by experienced Mark von Lanken. He compares the HMC150 with Sony Z1. The HMC150 excels in low light. (http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Read...rticleID=52607).
He also goes on to say the Z5 has the slight edge.

I feel that I have to go with the HMC150 rather than HMC40 on low light performance (Sony is tape based). I do like the idea of Face Detection on the HMC40, esp wedding video, but can the HMC150 offer more advantages overall. I seem to understand that the HMC40 would be ok in good light, but be poor in low-light. The HMC40 is much cheaper, but surely lowlight is my important factor here.

Is the HMC150 likely to have an imminent upgrade to include Face Detection that I feel would be an advantage at weddings. Would HMC150 AutoFocus do the same job. I read that many wedding videographers prefer manual focus. Comments appreciated.
 
I think you've probably just convinced yourself. If you have the means to get the 150 then get it. It has a bigger sensor and low-light will be better. Face detection will eventually betray you. Could be usefull in a rush but if you are going back to weddings \ paid work, then its very wise to learn you camera inside-out manually.
 
Hi Burners

Thanks for the advice on face detection. Now I have to convince the Misses that I need one. Advice sought from all.
 
I wouldn't expect any upgrade to the 150 any time soon, it probably is what it is. Autofocus on the 150 doesn't have a face-detection system, it's pretty much center-weighted (i.e., what's in the central, say, 25-50% of the screen is what gets analyzed for focus).
 
From my own experience, face detection may be useful in a controlled scene, say a presenter off-center walks towards you. But it totally does not work for what it is advertised, that is, for focusing on the face of your child. Absolutely useless. The face detection system is too slow for an average child. I would not even consider this as a feature.

Also, when the system loses a face it immediately focuses on the background, then it finds a face and focuses back... it looks horrible.
 
Hi Cranky

You outlined the Face Detection function really well. Obviously a gimmick feature. I just cannot see any real downside to the HMC150 (HMC151 UK), so it is at the top of my list.
Can anyone suggest a reasonable priced directional mic to go with the 150. The 150 is a quantum leap upgrade from my HV20 + Sennheiser 300. I know nothing about XLR Audio.
 
Rode NTG2 - Im using the Rode Videomic with my HMC150 which I used before on my HV20 tho.
 
If I were going to get into wedding videography, I would look for a camera that has the largest possible sensors. The reason why has to do with simple physics - a larger sensor is capable of gathering more light than a smaller one.

Most weddings are conducted in relatively poor light. Trying to shoot one using a camera that has so-so low light capabilities is like trying to shoot quality video with one hand tied behind your back.

Given a choice between the HMC150 and the HMC40 for a wedding shoot, I'd go with the HMC150. An even better choice would be something like a Sony EX3 (1/2" sensors!) or a Panasonic HPX500. Although margins in the business are are such that an EX3 or HPX500 is out of reach for most wedding videographers unless they have another videography sideline that pays better.
 
ZuluTime said:
If I were going to get into wedding videography, I would look for a camera that has the largest possible sensors. The reason why has to do with simple physics - a larger sensor is capable of gathering more light than a smaller one.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. An HMC150 is profoundly better in low light than an HV20; the HV20 has a bigger chip.

It's the size of the pixels that matter, not the size of the sensor.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not necessarily. An HMC150 is profoundly better in low light than an HV20; the HV20 has a bigger chip.

It's the size of the pixels that matter, not the size of the sensor.
Click to expand...

Also, the lens has a major part to play. As does the ability of the overall system to prevent noise, if there is less noise you can safely add more gain.

Also, my understanding is that using a 3 chip system should be better than single chip as almost all of the green light lands on the green sensor, blue on blue etc. On a single chip system most of the light is filtered out by the bayer pattern filter.
 
I was referencing the statement by ZuluTime which specified that the larger sensor caused more light collection -- not looking at the entire system from lens to end of the DSP. A larger sensor by itself does not dictate greater light collection; it's the size of the individual pixels (as well as the microlenses and all the other things that go into it) that determines the chip's ability to gather light.

3 chips is always better than one chip, when all other things are equal, which is why every broadcast camera out there is 3-chip. But that assumes that we're talking about three chips vs. one equal-sized chip; once you throw in disparate chip sizes then it becomes a guessing game. And, of course, "better" is always a relative term, because it has to be followed by "for a given purpose" -- I mean, you could get higher resolution and better color accuracy out of a Red One if it used three chips, but -- you'd lose the ability to use PL-mount film lenses! And that certainly *isn't* better for the purpose for which the Red One was designed, so -- even though the Bayer pattern makes some compromises, the nature of a three-chip system would have made the project unfeasible. Therefore, it wouldn't have been better overall...

The light sensitivity between the Bayer pattern and the prism isn't all that much of a big deal, they net out about the same. You get higher resolution and higher color accuracy with a three-chip system, but not necessarily more sensitivity in and of itself.

What also changes is that the proper mixture of red/green/blue is easier to obtain from a three-chip system. Typically video is made from about 59% green, 30% red, 11% blue (or thereabouts). And you can mix them in those proportions when you're dealing with a three-chip system. But with a single Bayer-pattern sensor, you get 50% green, 25% red, 25% blue. That's a fixed proportion caused by the way the pattern lays over the individual pixels.
 
Barry_Green said:
The light sensitivity between the Bayer pattern and the prism isn't all that much of a big deal, they net out about the same. You get higher resolution and higher color accuracy with a three-chip system, but not necessarily more sensitivity in and of itself.
Click to expand...

That's true if the 3 chips have the same pixel count as the single chip alternative. I was assuming that with 3 chips that one would reduce the pixel count per chip and gain a low light advantage, with similar resolution. I didn't make that clear though.

I think that is effectively what Panasonic does with the HMC150 as using 3 chips (and pixel shifting) allows them to get a reasonably high def image from low pixel count chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top