How does HMC150 compare to consumer HD cameras?

B

BigRedBarn

Member
I can't seem to find any reviews of the HMC150 that compare it to the new crop of consumer HD camcorders such as the Sony HDR-CX500 or Canon HF-S11. Both of these are very impressive camcorders in terms of color, low light quality, and optical image stabilization. They are very lacking when it comes to manual controls, however. They also suffer CMOS sensor issues. That said, I'm just curious, how does the HMC150 stack up to these "high end" consumer camocrders in terms of overall image quality?
 
The tiny cmos sensors in consumer cams, while they appear sharper due to full raster 1920x1080 sensors, only produce a great image in good light, come up lacking in anything but good light when compared to a HMC, which has a much larger sensor and larger pixels to gather light with. The HMC also includes Dynamic Range Stretch, built-in ND filters (though some consumer cams have automatic ones), and depending on the consumer cam the HMC's 24mpbs avchd trumps HDV or smaller bitrate AVC. Throw in night and day manual controls, professional audio, and you can see why the HMC is for the professional crowd.

That being said, if you can control the lighing, and know how your consumer cam reacts to different situations, nobody can tell that you shot it on something off the shelf. People absolutely love their HV-20/30 cams, and have some amazing footage from them, but it's much harder to do so in a constantly changing situation like weddings, sports, events, etc. or to match up with multiple cameras. I do most of my production on a panasonic pv-gs500 SD camcorder, which has a wonderful image sensor and semi-low light capabilites, and some people still assume it's HD. However, when I have a semi-serious project, I'll borrow or rent the HMC, which allows me to do a bit more and work more quickly depending on the situation.

Hope this helps!
 
KnoxHotch hit it on the head. In good light, I can match footage up nicely between the HMC150 and the HV30. But when things become dynamic and you are changing locations, lighting levels, and everything else, the HMC's manual controls set it far apart from the consumer camcorders. In addition, the cameras mentioned in the original post fair well against other consumer camcorders in low light, but fall far short of 1/3" 3 CCD prosumer cameras such as the HMC.
 
What gets me is how reviews of consumer cams always talk about how wonderful the low light is on a 1/5" CMOS cam (with 40db's of gain) and then reviews of pro cameras will accept nothing less than a 2/3" CCD for low light.
 
You simply don't find the ease and availability of the full manual controls on a consumer cam that the hmc provides.

Golden rule: You get what you pay for. (unless you're buying an exorbitantly overpriced Canon GL2)

:bath:
 
I can say, having recently come from using a Canon HF11 over to the HMC-150 it's night and day. And with this, I don't mean just the picture.

The ability to fine tune not only my footage but more importantly my sound is amazing. In hindsight the Canon just got me by, the HMC-150, takes it over the top. Frankly there is no substitute for professional grade equipment, I learned this first hand with my still photography, especially with the lighting. It was one thing to use a D2Xs, or even a D300, together with my Hensel Intergra lights it became extremely marketable.

With the HMC-150, not only did i see a difference in the overall quality, but the production value is through the roof. My weakest link was the sound, which is now clear, even in the very windy conditions which I work. I still carry the Canon in the bag, mainly for a downrange perspective, but it's strictly image now, nothing else. I've only scratched the surface of my abilities using the HMC-150, but you can immediately see everything is well above sea level from where i started.
 
Then there's the AVCHD HMC40 for half the price of the 150. It's got most of the 150's pro features, colorimetry, and capability to record with SD cards, but with 3MOS 1/4" sensors and optional XLR audio inputs. If you can live with the reduced sensitivity of the 1/4" chips, you could save a bundle.
 
KnoxHotch said:
What gets me is how reviews of consumer cams always talk about how wonderful the low light is on a 1/5" CMOS cam (with 40db's of gain) and then reviews of pro cameras will accept nothing less than a 2/3" CCD for low light.
Click to expand...

Yes, but understand the target audiences. I'm used to the 2/3' CCD cameras, so that is my frame of reference. If your frame of reference is some crappy $400 DV camera, one of the newer 1/5" CMOS cams are going to be spectacular.
 
Mike Harvey said:
Yes, but understand the target audiences. I'm used to the 2/3' CCD cameras, so that is my frame of reference. If your frame of reference is some crappy $400 DV camera, one of the newer 1/5" CMOS cams are going to be spectacular.
Click to expand...

So true.

I remember when the first HDV cams came out. I was shooting 2/3" SD and upressing and it looked better than most HDV footage of the time. People were always asking me what HD cam I was shooting on cause the picture was so clear. lol
 
correction folks, the hfs11 has a 1/2.6" cmos, bigger than the hmc150's 1/3".
but it's the higher pixel density that allows the canon to produce a sharper image and the panny to perform better in low light.

however, i used to love the canon line of consumer cams when it was the best i had available, but after shooting with the hmc150 and my old hv20/hg10 i'm blown away by how absolutely crummy the canon consumer cams look in comparison.

and yes, i know how to maximize quality, tweaking all manual settings and controlling the light, but the hmc150 just makes this gorgeous clean rich image that consumer cams can't hold a candle to.
 
averan said:
correction folks, the hfs11 has a 1/2.6" cmos, bigger than the hmc150's 1/3".
but it's the higher pixel density that allows the canon to produce a sharper image and the panny to perform better in low light.
Click to expand...

The cannon only has one sensor with a bayer pattern, the panasonic has one for each colour, that's a huge difference and the main reason why the panasonic is so much better. The lens is probably far superior as well.
 
i was only correcting the statement that the hmc150 had a bigger sensor than the canon hfs11. technically, the canon has the bigger sensor.
 
averan said:
i was only correcting the statement that the hmc150 had a bigger sensor than the canon hfs11. technically, the canon has the bigger sensor.
Click to expand...

My bad, I was generalizing about consumer cams. The canons (among other brands) can make some great footage, no doubt.
 
averan said:
i was only correcting the statement that the hmc150 had a bigger sensor than the canon hfs11. technically, the canon has the bigger sensor.
Click to expand...

Technically, not really. Using rough math*, the Canon has a sensor area of (1/2.6) * (1/2.6), or about 1/7 of a square inch. The HMC has a sensor area of 3 x (1/3) x (1/3) inches, or about 1/3 of a square inch.... more than twice as big. That is, the HMC has THREE slightly smaller sensors, for more than double the effective sensor size.

That combined with the lower pixel density means much better low-light performance.



*I say "rough math" because the sensors aren't really square, and the surface area of a typical sensor is smaller than the nominal size, etc... but the proportions here should roughly hold.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top