The 151 can do 50/60 Hz, the 150 is 60 Hz only. Lens has about the same angle of view. If I remember correctly, ~28mm vs. ~29mm the XF has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panasonic_camcorders#AG-HMC150
New Canon Pro HD Camcorders Announced: XF300 & XF305
- Thread starter cowpunk52
- Start date
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Panasonic_camcorders#AG-HMC150
Mainly?
A Full Raster CMOS chips recording on to a full raster codec, meaning the Canon should be significantly sharper.
Not to mention I can name dozens of smaller features such as a better, higher resolution LCD and viewfinder, and variable under and over cranking in 720 mode.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Rough list of features that the XF300 has over the hmc150 with Nanoflash:
• over and undercranking
• 18x lens (vs 13x on hmc150)
• f/1.6 - f/2.8 on a much longer lens (vs f/3.0 on the hmc150's shorter lens)
• 3 modes of OIS
• 3 second pre-record mode
• 4 inch 1.23 megapixel LCD (that swivels to both sides)
• Instant autofocus
• facial recognition autofocus
• 1.55 megapixel EVF
• much more picture customization options
• Full raster 1920x1080 3 C-MOS chipset (likely more light sensitive with less noise and more resolution)
I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of off-hand. Oh, and the 28mm equivalent lens on the HMC150 really isn't that much wider than the XF300's 29mm equivalent lens.
For my line of work, and for the same amount of money, I want/need/can use many of those features. The hmc150 is a great camera, and the nanoflash really brings it up a level. But again, why not spend the same amount of money on more features? I guess if you absolutely have to have 220/mbps video, but every broadcaster I work for accepts 50, so I'd rather have the better camera features & functions.
Last edited:
Nektonic
Veteran
I was about to pull the trigger on a Canon T2i plus some minor accessories, mostly for messing around with video-DSLR stuff for filmmaking fun stuff, then maybe for a few shots at some of the weddings/events I will shoot this year. Now I'm wondering if I should just wait a while longer in case these new Canons have ridiculously arse-kicking image quality. I think the A1's image still holds up really nicely against all the other cameras out there, and that's a 4 year old HDV camera. A Canon with 50mbps 4:2:2 mpeg-2 might be mind blowingly great. Plus if the low light quality spanks the competition, I'm gonna have a hard time not picking up an XF300.
I guess besides interchangeable lens options and the shallow depth of field capabilities of a DSLR, these new Canons spank pretty much any DSLR out there. In many cases, I'm beginning to wonder if these will be fine for filmmaking, and in many ways better than a DSLR. Maybe use a DSLR for nighttime extreme low light stuff and shots where extreme shallow DoF is necessary (specialty shots/macros/actor mediums and close ups), then for the rest use the XF300?
Then again, I really like what the Sony NX5U has to offer, and at a much cheaper price point. I highly doubt most of my clients would notice enough of a difference to care whether I shoot in 50mbps mpeg-2 or 24mbps mpeg-4 AVC-HD.
Jeez, picking out a new camera in this day and age is like the scene at the end of The Last Crusade where Indy has to find the real Grail chalice out of all the hundreds of different chalices in that old knight's tomb. Too many choices!!!!!
I guess besides interchangeable lens options and the shallow depth of field capabilities of a DSLR, these new Canons spank pretty much any DSLR out there. In many cases, I'm beginning to wonder if these will be fine for filmmaking, and in many ways better than a DSLR. Maybe use a DSLR for nighttime extreme low light stuff and shots where extreme shallow DoF is necessary (specialty shots/macros/actor mediums and close ups), then for the rest use the XF300?
Then again, I really like what the Sony NX5U has to offer, and at a much cheaper price point. I highly doubt most of my clients would notice enough of a difference to care whether I shoot in 50mbps mpeg-2 or 24mbps mpeg-4 AVC-HD.
Jeez, picking out a new camera in this day and age is like the scene at the end of The Last Crusade where Indy has to find the real Grail chalice out of all the hundreds of different chalices in that old knight's tomb. Too many choices!!!!!
Last edited:
studio1972
Well-known member
It looks like a nice camera. I already have a 151 and 5d and cannot see myself selling the 151 for one of these, as the advantages don't really seem to be that significant. It does seem quite expensive as well. But if you're buying new it's worth having a look at. The main questions are:
1. do you need such a long zoom?
2. how important is resolution to you?
3. would flash banding be a problem for you?
4. Ergonomics (I much prefer my 151 to my previous canon xm2)
I doubt the codec is significantly better than PH mode on the 151, which I've had no problems with, so that wouldn't worry me tbh.
Nektonic
Veteran
If the codec on these Canons were 50mbps 4:2:0 mpeg-2, then I wouldn't worry as much either, but the codec is 4:2:2, not 4:2:0. We'll have to wait and see some actual footage, but this might give the Canons a good edge over cameras like the EX1 and the HMC150.
So I'm intrigued by this camera as well.
I have the Canon XL H1S and love it! It provides a fantastic image, great versatility and modularity. It works very well for all my film/broadcast/event shooting.
I've also shot a lot using the HD-SDI port directly to an IO HD and the image captured to 220mbps ProRes HQ is in another league.
Now I've been seriously looking at getting a Nanoflash for my XL so I can shoot using the HD-SDI all the time.
What would you guys do in this situation? I can either upgrade to this new XF cam or buy a Nano for my current XL cam.
WOuld love to hear your opinions.
I have the Canon XL H1S and love it! It provides a fantastic image, great versatility and modularity. It works very well for all my film/broadcast/event shooting.
I've also shot a lot using the HD-SDI port directly to an IO HD and the image captured to 220mbps ProRes HQ is in another league.
Now I've been seriously looking at getting a Nanoflash for my XL so I can shoot using the HD-SDI all the time.
What would you guys do in this situation? I can either upgrade to this new XF cam or buy a Nano for my current XL cam.
WOuld love to hear your opinions.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, again, it all depends on what you're looking for. A Nano with your existing XL will be a lot less expensive than buying a new cam (although you will have the ability to sell your old equipment off, which would minimize the upgrade cost).
If interchangeable lenses are important to you, that aims towards keeping the XL.
If CMOS skew or flash banding are an issue for you, that aims towards keeping the XL.
But if the chipset is the same (or comparable to) the HPX370, then you'd be looking at a noticeably sharper image (especially in 1080p mode) and a lot lower noise and better sensitivity.
If interchangeable lenses are important to you, that aims towards keeping the XL.
If CMOS skew or flash banding are an issue for you, that aims towards keeping the XL.
But if the chipset is the same (or comparable to) the HPX370, then you'd be looking at a noticeably sharper image (especially in 1080p mode) and a lot lower noise and better sensitivity.
I was disappointed to see how expensive the new XF305/300 cameras are. While I realize that these are MSRP's, I can't help but think they're asking a bit too much for what seems to be a souped-up version of the XHA1S and the XHG1S. Not to say that these are not well-crafted, well-conceived cameras.
It looks like Canon may lose some sales to Sony's EX-1R, if they don't lower the pricea bit. Then again, this may simply be their opening bid - i.e. 'run-it-up the-flagpole-and-see-what-kind-of-response-we-get.'
It looks like Canon may lose some sales to Sony's EX-1R, if they don't lower the pricea bit. Then again, this may simply be their opening bid - i.e. 'run-it-up the-flagpole-and-see-what-kind-of-response-we-get.'
cowpunk52
Veteran
I'm not so sure about that. These cameras seem like much more than souped up A1's. Maybe if they had just added AVCHD and not refined the body & sensors as much I would agree. But I was in the market for an EX1r when I heard about Canon's new codec and saw the teaser photos... so I waited. And I'm certainly glad I did - if the chipset can compete with Sony's, I would gladly take an XF300 over the EX1r.
If it's a better performing camera than the ex1 at close to the same price (and on paper it looks like it will be), I don't think Canon will have a problem moving them out the door over the EX1r. It certainly wins in the feature set.
Nektonic
Veteran
I don't think the XF300 is overpriced for what it offers. It is just a bit out of the range of what I was hoping to spend. My dilemma is that for the type of professional work I would mostly use it for, the clients won't know enough to care about the picture quality differences between an XF300 and something like an XH-A1, HMC150, or NX5U.
I think for those of us not ready to drop 6 grand in June, we can wait and save, then if something better for the same price or less comes out in the interim, then great.
except for undercranking/overcranking & cmos sensor, i dont see why it would be worth to spend $2000+ more than the hmc150 with just those extra features
HMC150 has these
• Instant autofocus
• 3 second pre-record mode
I had a HMC150- last year- for about a week and returned it.
IMO- The LCD monitor is horrendous and the low light performance was hideous.
Even in daylight I noticed compression issues. It was no where near the quality of my EX1.
I think the Canon stands a much better chance.
IMO- The LCD monitor is horrendous and the low light performance was hideous.
Even in daylight I noticed compression issues. It was no where near the quality of my EX1.
I think the Canon stands a much better chance.
cowpunk52
Veteran
You wouldn't. You'd spend $2000 more to get a native 50/mbps 4:2:2 codec and 16 bit linear PCM sound along with all those other features. Those were features that the XF300 has over an HMC150 with Nanoflash, which would be approx the same price as an XF300. Without a nanoflash, the hmc150 isn't anywhere close to the same class.
Yeah, well I would sell my current cam if I upgraded. But:
I do like the XL form factor much more. And I do use interchangeable lenses fairly often.
And CMOS skew and flash banding are an issue for me, but I was hoping the newest gen sensors with these Canon's and the Panasonic 370 would minimize these issues. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Sharpness has never been an issue with the XL, its a sharp camera. Actually, the Nano would allow to record even more resolution from the chipset cause of the spatial offest (which isn't recorded on the HDV tape, but can be recorded from the HD-SDI).
But better sensitivity is something I would be interested in.
I'm mainly interested in the new LCD and viewfinder of the new cam too. Oy, decisions...
Since when is a whole new full raster chipset not a big deal? XF300 also has those features.
The camera isn't positioned to compete against the HMC, it's a competitor to the EX1R, which considering that it's cheaper I think it'll do very well.
To bokes: weird thats totally the opposite of my experience... of course, youre comparing apples to oranges. :|
cowpunk: good point. i should have cleared that I wont shell out $5500 just for 4:2:2
my only problem is the price. thats it. I love everything about the cam.
its weird some people clamor for 4:2:2 while other people clamor for dslrs which only has 4:2:0
Huy Vu: yeah full raster is a good plus.. not a dealbreaker tough (id prefer the hpx170's $4000 not full raster chip with dvcprohd)
cowpunk: good point. i should have cleared that I wont shell out $5500 just for 4:2:2
my only problem is the price. thats it. I love everything about the cam.
its weird some people clamor for 4:2:2 while other people clamor for dslrs which only has 4:2:0
Huy Vu: yeah full raster is a good plus.. not a dealbreaker tough (id prefer the hpx170's $4000 not full raster chip with dvcprohd)
Nektonic
Veteran
Anybody care to weigh in on the possibility of Panasonic making new models in the HPX170 and HVX200a price range, something that will have full raster CMOS chips (kinda like the HPX300), and with AVC Intra?
That'd give Canon and Sony some series competition.