Newbie Advice on HMC-40 Versus HF S21

M

mcp6453

New member
While I'm an audio expert, I'm a video newbie. I'm presently looking for a camcorder to shoot speakers at lecterns. The footage will be edited to produce DVDs for sale and distribution. The application is about as simple as it gets.

B&H recommended the HMC 40. When I asked a buddy who is a video guy about the recommendation, he said that I would be better off with a Canon HF S21. In fact, here are his comments.

In my opinion, the Panasonic HMC40 is not a good choice. It is too bulky, does not have a good zoom range (will probably require a wide-angle adapter), has no audio advantages and I think it's overpriced for what it does. I use the Panasonic HVX-200 regularly (the HMC40's big brother), but prefer a smaller camera unless I'm working with a full crew.

My guess is you'll be doing the one-man-band thing, everything yourself. I do the same for a lot of projects just to keep the budget low. For that, I've used an older Canon HG10, and for you I'd suggest the new version of that camera, the Canon HF S21. Based on my experience, it's easier to use and with the 1080P 30 capability, it's great for internet videos. Also, I think the single 8MP sensor is at least as good as Panasonic's 3-chip design, which has fewer pixels per chip. The audio recording is also very clean. Even the built-in mics work nicely outdoors. Though it doesn't have manual audio level control, its automatic control is some of the best I've used and works great in most situations.
Click to expand...
Now, I understand that everyone has an opinion, and I really respect his opinion in audio (his is an audio genius), but I wonder about his opinion of this camera. Is he right? Please share any thoughts. The price is certainly right on the S21.
 
I think the answer depends in part on whether you want to primarily control the 'look' of your footage while recording (favoring the HMC40), or are happy enough to adjust it in post.

If the lecterns are at times poorly lit, both cameras will use considerable gain - iin that case you might want to test how acceptable either will be for your needs.

And if bulk is a consideration the Canon certainly is at a big advantage. The two cameras offer the same not-very-wideangle.
 
Graham hit it pretty well. If you have ample lighting the HMC40 will impress. I suspect the Canon would fall in that same category. If you are poorly lit, both will suck. However, the Panny will offer much more in the way of manual control which may open other opportunities. With regards to audio, the scenario you describe would favor recording direct to cam, which with the audio adapter, will be cake with the HMC. For a price difference, the HMC offers much more, if you think you might need it.

Grant
 
Graham and Grant, thanks for your input. Regarding the comment, "if you think you might need it," I'm at the learning stage to try to determine what I'm need. A primary objective is that I don't order something and then not be able to use it. For example, FCP does not import AVCHD natively. Does Vegas Pro? I'm going to buy one or the other. My buddy says NOT to edit in AVCHD, yet when an AVCHD file is converted to an editable file, it is 5x as large. (If this information is wrong, it's my fault, not my buddy's fault, because I would have misunderstood what he said.)

Please allow me to ask a really, really dumb question. If I had the S21 for my main lectern shots and a HMC40 for audience and perspective shots, how do I make sure that the two formats are compatible without have to convert the files?

Be gentle. I'm a virgin!
 
Trying to match two different cams is going to be problematic. I am doing that with the HMC40 and HPX170, but the Panny mojo is pretty similar. I wouldn't sweat the non-native editing much, especially if you are Mac based, FCP is pretty solid, though the file sizes do get large. I have personal heartburn with anything Adobe, but many PC users love it. I just can't imagine using anything but FCP on a Mac.

Here is how I would view your cam question in summary:
The HMC is a low end professional cam
The Canon is a high end consumer cam

The line is blurry, but having more manual control without fiddling with menus would do it for me, and I did look at the Canon products when I purchased the HMC recently. The IQ from the HMC40, if you feed it some light, is groundbreaking for the price range.

Grant
 
I would add:

You, like an audio expert know that the xlr inputs are a basic thing for professional audio and that the look of your camera could be a deal breaker for some clients (or could get you more/better clients).

ggrantly said:
The HMC is a low end professional cam
The Canon is a high end consumer cam

The line is blurry
Click to expand...

Yes, the line is blurry but even low end professional is still professional and high end consumer is still consumer, if the performance of both is similar (and the money's not a problem) why not go pro?

That's something that only you based on your specific situation and needs could answer..
 
Cyphermx, you said, "why not go pro", and that's the purpose of my asking these questions. My inclination is to go pro, but my buddy recommended against doing so for other than money reasons. The problem is that I don't understand those technical reasons. For example, he said, "Based on my experience, it's easier to use and with the 1080P 30 capability, it's great for internet videos." Does the HMC40 not have 1080p 30 capability?

Because my applications, at least initially, are very unsophisticated, I would like to keep the editing process as simple and fast as possible. At this point, I'm leaning towards Vegas Pro for editing software because the local PBS station uses it, and a couple of the guys there may be willing to help me out a little. At the same time, if I get into this routine and really like it, maybe I'll decide to invest in an Apple-based suite. Will either camera not like Final Cut Pro?

One key consideration for me is to minimize rendering and conversion time. Again, here are my confused understandings. FCP does not recognize AVCHD natively, so it has to be converted. The converted files are 5x the size. That takes time and hard drive space. Yet, even though Vegas Pro edits AVCHD natively, my buddy says that I will not want to do that.

Thanks to all for helping me work though these most basic questions. Hopefully this discussion will help others who are as lost as I am. I guess I'm having a commitment issue. :)
 
If you have the money, I think the HMC40 is a better investment and will give you room to grow - and perhaps provide more opportunities.
 
tom dickerson said:
If you have the money, I think the HMC40 is a better investment and will give you room to grow - and perhaps provide more opportunities.
Click to expand...

The money is not the problem. I am trying to understand why the HMC40 would be considered a better investment.

By the way, the camera is for my own projects.
 
mcp6453 said:
Cyphermx, you said, "why not go pro", and that's the purpose of my asking these questions. My inclination is to go pro, but my buddy recommended against doing so for other than money reasons. The problem is that I don't understand those technical reasons. For example, he said, "Based on my experience, it's easier to use and with the 1080P 30 capability, it's great for internet videos." Does the HMC40 not have 1080p 30 capability?
Click to expand...

The HMC40 can also record at 1080 30p. It can also record at 720 60p, which I believe the HF S21 cannot. Whether or not that is a benefit to you is another question.

Because my applications, at least initially, are very unsophisticated, I would like to keep the editing process as simple and fast as possible. At this point, I'm leaning towards Vegas Pro for editing software because the local PBS station uses it, and a couple of the guys there may be willing to help me out a little. At the same time, if I get into this routine and really like it, maybe I'll decide to invest in an Apple-based suite. Will either camera not like Final Cut Pro?


One key consideration for me is to minimize rendering and conversion time. Again, here are my confused understandings. FCP does not recognize AVCHD natively, so it has to be converted. The converted files are 5x the size. That takes time and hard drive space. Yet, even though Vegas Pro edits AVCHD natively, my buddy says that I will not want to do that.
Click to expand...

You most likely don't want to edit native AVCHD simply because it is so CPU intensive. If you have a beast of a machine with a core i7 processor this might not matter to. However as someone working on a dual core macbook pro, being able to work in Pro Res is very nice as it doesn't make my CPU weep. This is probably what your friend means by that statement. Also, as a Final Cut Pro user the camera works just fine with Log and Transfer; I cannot attest to Vegas. The interface is something I do not enjoy but that's a personal preference and not a knock against the software itself.

Thanks to all for helping me work though these most basic questions. Hopefully this discussion will help others who are as lost as I am. I guess I'm having a commitment issue. :)
Click to expand...

If you really can't see the benefit to having to XLR inputs, interval recording mode, 720 60p recording options etc. then absolutely the HMC40 is probably of no use to you. I personally was trudging along with the Canon HV30 for a long while and although it's a wonderful camcorder the lack of control finally pushed me to the HMC40. While it's obvious since I'm on this forum, I cannot recommend the camera enough.
 
I've read the HF S21 specs and they're very similar, the main differences would be the size/look and the real buttons, manual ring..

As I said, only you know what would 'feel' better working with, I wouldn't consider a consumer camera for a paid job, would make me look amateur but.. if the client knows and trusts you no matter what's your equipment then it could be smart to save some cash..


mcp6453 said:
Cyphermx, you said, "why not go pro", and that's the purpose of my asking these questions. My inclination is to go pro, but my buddy recommended against doing so for other than money reasons. The problem is that I don't understand those technical reasons. For example, he said, "Based on my experience, it's easier to use and with the 1080P 30 capability, it's great for internet videos." Does the HMC40 not have 1080p 30 capability?
Click to expand...

Yes, the HMC40 has 1080/60i, 1080/30p, 1080/24p, 720/60p, 720/30p and 720/24p


mpc6453 said:
Because my applications, at least initially, are very unsophisticated, I would like to keep the editing process as simple and fast as possible. At this point, I'm leaning towards Vegas Pro for editing software because the local PBS station uses it, and a couple of the guys there may be willing to help me out a little. At the same time, if I get into this routine and really like it, maybe I'll decide to invest in an Apple-based suite. Will either camera not like Final Cut Pro?

One key consideration for me is to minimize rendering and conversion time. Again, here are my confused understandings. FCP does not recognize AVCHD natively, so it has to be converted. The converted files are 5x the size. That takes time and hard drive space. Yet, even though Vegas Pro edits AVCHD natively, my buddy says that I will not want to do that.
Click to expand...

Both of them record to AVCHD, so you will have to deal editing the original footage or transcode it, and there's another path to just wrap it (ClipWrap), one way or another it will be time consuming and/or user consuming, that's just how are the things right now with AVCHD and there's nothing to do about it..

I transcode my footage manually to photo jpeg, there I can set the quality (bitrate) to my likes avoiding the hard drive space issue and edit with whatever software I want, there's also Avid's DNxHD codec, CineForm, etc..

You mention to minimize rendering and conversion time, well.. there's Edius Neo Booster or something like that software (Windows only) included with your purchase of the HMC40, realtime AVCHD editing and whatnot, it could be what you're looking for..

Have you considered the HMC40's 3 year warranty?

Just the last comment, your applications, at least initially, are very unsophisticated.. there could be your answer, the Canon would be the way to go..
 
One more reason in favor of the HMC40 is the very existence of the HMC book by Barry Green.

For around $100, you get an expertly written book by a guy who really knows his stuff, and does an excellent job of explaining every little thing your camera does, why it does it, and how you can put it to use.

I really wouldn't gloss over this fact, especially if you are a novice.

Oh, and the HMC40 isn't part of a product line that is updated every few months, and is subject to intense pricing wars among manufacturers. In other words, the Canon will drop in price dramatically in a couple of months, and will have weak resale. The HMC40 will hold its price much better (yes, it did go through an initial price drop, as it was priced too high on introduction).

But truly, you should handle both cameras. What your friend thinks is "bulky," you may find "just right." You've heard of Goldilocks, right?

;-)
 
Not sure if this matters to the OP either but if you plan on shooting 24p keep in mind that the Canon AVCHD cameras currently wrap that into a 60i video. This means two things. First if you want to edit true 24p you will have to use software to remove the 3:2 pulldown. Second 4:2:0 has two different styles of placing the chroma pixels. Interlaced 4:2:0 looks a lot different then progressive 4:2:0. The HMC40 records true progressive 4:2:0 for it's 24p modes which beats the pants off of interlaced 4:2:0.

If you plan on shooting 24p hands down the HMC40 is the better camera due to the ease of editing the 24p material.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Not sure if this matters to the OP either but if you plan on shooting 24p keep in mind that the Canon AVCHD cameras currently wrap that into a 60i video. This means two things. First if you want to edit true 24p you will have to use software to remove the 3:2 pulldown. Second 4:2:0 has two different styles of placing the chroma pixels. Interlaced 4:2:0 looks a lot different then progressive 4:2:0. The HMC40 records true progressive 4:2:0 for it's 24p modes which beats the pants off of interlaced 4:2:0.

If you plan on shooting 24p hands down the HMC40 is the better camera due to the ease of editing the 24p material.
Click to expand...
I totally don't understand a word you said, which is why I'm so darn frustrated. I'm going to have to find someone to sit down with and go over these things. (I have an engineering degree but no video experience.) At least I can take your post and get someone to explain it to me. It would probably take too many posts to explain it.

Do let me ask this question. Is there anything technical that the Canon would do BETTER than the HMC?
 
mcp6453 said:
I totally don't understand a word you said, which is why I'm so darn frustrated. I'm going to have to find someone to sit down with and go over these things. (I have an engineering degree but no video experience.) At least I can take your post and get someone to explain it to me. It would probably take too many posts to explain it.

Do let me ask this question. Is there anything technical that the Canon would do BETTER than the HMC?
Click to expand...
No. Being smaller and possibly less expensive would be the only things that may be important about the Canon. Being smaller is not an advantage in this case, unless you are concerned about packing it in a suitcase. The HMC isn't all that large anyway. Sure you might find a particular feature that is better and matters to you, but the HMC is a fine cam. What else would you expect to hear on a Pannyfan website.

With regard to frame rates:
There are two ways video gets recorded, here it is very simplified: Progressive has discreet frames, the entire image is recorded on one frame. Interlaced records two half frames and is then reassembled to make one. Both methods are compressed by the codec, in this case AVCHD. Since it has become available in small video cams, most folks record in progressive. Some cams which record progressive actually record in interlaced and the frames are converted to progressive. In the process, there are extra frames which are included but not needed. Removing pulldown is the process of removing the excess frames. This is a real simplification, but may help you get your mind wrapped around it.

What Thomas was saying is that the HMC records progressive natively; there are no extra frames, no pulldown conversion to be done, which is the cleanest way to do things in a progressive world. The Canon records in interlaced and converts to progressive. This IS a negative if you intend to shoot progressive and you probably will.

Grant
 
The Canon has stronger neutral density filtering built in. And it can be squeezed into a more cramped shooting location.

If you didn't follow Thomas' post, then I'd strongly suggest not using 24P mode. 30P will look just fine for your needs (and will avoid the chroma problems he mentioned ... plus various other quirks of 24P workflow).
 
Thomas Smet said:
Not sure if this matters to the OP either but if you plan on shooting 24p keep in mind that the Canon AVCHD cameras currently wrap that into a 60i video. This means two things. First if you want to edit true 24p you will have to use software to remove the 3:2 pulldown. Second 4:2:0 has two different styles of placing the chroma pixels. Interlaced 4:2:0 looks a lot different then progressive 4:2:0. The HMC40 records true progressive 4:2:0 for it's 24p modes which beats the pants off of interlaced 4:2:0.

If you plan on shooting 24p hands down the HMC40 is the better camera due to the ease of editing the 24p material.
Click to expand...

I know this thread is a little old - but not too terribly old ;) - but this isn't completely correct. The HFS20/21/200 all have a native 1080p24 mode now, not encased in a 60i wrapper - 30p is encased in 60i, and there is a p24 mode that is encased (why they offered this mode since they offered a native 24p mode makes NO sense - but hey, it's what Canon wanted I guess) Anything older then the HFS200 I can't comment on, but the HFS21 that was mentioned does have a native 1080p24 mode (see: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=177&modelid=19827#ModelTechSpecsAct under framerate).

That said, I still agree the HMC40 is a better camera, partially for its manual capabilities, partially because it offers 720p modes (not available on the Canon HF line - not for everyone tho), partially for XLR (yeah, you can get a juiced link for the Canon, but the HMC40 has a direct input for their XLR breakout box which is different then having a third party device that converts XLR into unbalanced stereo mini), for me partially for its size (I like a slightly bigger camera, but not an over the shoulder camera), and another big one for me is a 3 chip camera vs single chip. I like the sharpness and color capabilities of a 3 chip vs the bayer pattern filter / interpolation of a single chip camera (assuming sensors in the 3chip aren't terrible and the 3 chip camera has sensors that are native resolution or higher), etc.
 
Well, I was mulling over this same question about 5 months ago...

Zoom controllers- The Panasonic uses a sepcial system, not the LANC standard or Canon/Sony fame, so their zoom controllers tend to cost more.

However, the consumer grade canon doesn't actually have the LANC port on it, so you can't even use that. If shooting fom a tripod or other mount, these things are a wonderful little addition.


Canon has a larger single sensor, and thus shallower depth of field.
 
Now I have an HFS-10, and its a great cam if all you do is point-and-shoot type operations.

I would get the HMC 40 due to its longer running battery options, ability to use a remote controller, and that "Panny Mojo". its a good basic cam that you can grow with over time. I personally find the Canon's interface difficult to use as well. Its a bargain (HMC40, that is) at its current price levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top