Please compare other cameras to the HMC40 here, Thanks.

Canon has the HF-S series, it can easily make a prosumer version of it, sending the GL2 to junk yard. Sony, releasing a new series of consumer camcorders with 1/2.88-inch EXMOR-R chip also shown what it could do. The new Sonys are noticeably cleaner and less noisy than the Canons (HF-S) and the Panasonics (TM300). Two families of Sony cameras: the HVR-A1 and the FX7/V1 are outdated, and I can see how Sony can replace these cameras with tapeless ones, and with such a great sensor. A replacement to the HVR-A1 - with an optional top handle, of course - would be a direct competitor to the HMC40.

Seriously, what Canon and Sony are thinking, giving the $2K segment away to Panasonic?
 
I'd like to know where sales statistics for camcorders can be found. I'd really like to know how well the HMC40 is actually selling.
 
I agree that an AVCHD update to the A1 would be nice. I still have a Sony HC1 (prosumer version of the A1) .... it's midway in size and weight between the HMC40 and the current crop of palmcorders, making it portable but a bit more stable and a lot less 'fiddly' to adjust than the smaller cams. I like Sonys and I considered the new AX2000 before buying the HMC40, but it's substantially bigger and heavier, which for me was heading in the wrong direction.
 
I did have the HC1 too. Awesome size, weight, feel and controls. Too bad it could not record progressive, so I sold it. The HMC40 is even lighter than the HC1, is it?
 
According to Sony the HC1 weighs in at 680 grams, and according to Panasonic the HMC40 tips the scales at 980 grams (both without battery, and the Sony without tape either). The HMC40 might weigh a little more, but it's not heavy. I actually think it's weight is almost ideal - just enough to help you hold it steady, but not so much as to make it tiring to hold either.
 
I chucked my HMC40 and HC1 on the kitchen scales, with batteries and lens hoods attached. The HMC40 was 2lb 6oz and the HC1 was 1lb 12oz. The Sony is small relative to its weight and feels "denser" than the Pany. But the Sony is lighter overall.

hmc_hc1.jpg



There also a comparison shot of the HMC40 versus the Canon HF10 here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1894469&postcount=3
 
Last edited:
how is the sensitivity between the HC1 and the HMC40? I actually have a HC1 that we have for vacations and I have been thinking of replacing one of our older pro cameras with the HMC40 to sort of function as a vacation camera and second work camera. We do shoot in bad lighting sometimes but I almost always use an on camera light. I have found the HC1 to not be all that bad with a decent camera light but hooking one up can be a pain since it doesn't use a standard hot shoe.
 
(2+6/16)*453 = 1076
(1+12/16)*453 = 793

Phew, damn the imperial measuring system. So the HC1 is almost 300 grams lighter. Strange, when I handled the HMC40 at the last year's NAB it did not feel heavier than the HC1. Probably because it was larger and I did expect it to weigh more? I guess it is exactly as you said: the HC1 feels "denser", it feels like a good handgun, or a knife, an object that you want to hold in your hand. I miss my HC1. The HMC40 felt like a soulless plastic tool compared to the HC1, but maybe it was just me. I need to play with it again, I am planning on going to Las Vegas this year too.

Comparison of sensitivity between the two would be interesting indeed. I shot one wedding with the HC1, and while it was pretty bad indoors for the evening scenes, the final result, when downconverted to DVD, did not look that bad.
 
Cranky said:
(2+6/16)*453 = 1076
(1+12/16)*453 = 793

..... comparison of sensitivity between the two would be interesting ....
Click to expand...

Heh - I'm a metric Kiwi, so I thought I was doing you Californians a favor using those strange oz things.

Anyway, my HC1 is about to go up on eBay, so your email prompted me that this would be a last opportunity to compare these cameras in low light. The following photos represents three slices taken from pixel-for-pixel framegrabs from an HMC40 (top), Canon HF10 (middle) and Sony HC1 (bottom) that were recording simultaneously, with lighting adjusted so that the Pany was using 18dB gain. All three were set to auto-everything except for 1/60sec shutter and 5600K white balance. All three were shooting 1080i (so 1920x1080 for the Pany and Canon, 1440x1080 for the Sony), with the raw footage converted to Cineform avi using HDLink, then frame-grabbed using Virtualdub.

The image below is a jpeg - if you want to pixel-peep there's a 9MB uncompressed BMP here: http://wildlifehealth.tennessee.edu/video/hmc40_hf10_hc1.bmp

The blank monitor is a good place to get a sense of the noise levels. The Canon seems to be using a bit more smoothing; I think the Sony holds up quite well, for an elderly 1st-gen HDV camera (at least on this static shot)!

hmc40_hf10_hc1.jpg
 
What was the gain on the Canon and Sony?

On the Sony, expose with auto, then switch to manual exposure and calculate the position of the slider. 24 positions, the rightmost is 18db, each step is 3dB or half-stop.

On the Canon, expose with auto, then swich to manual exposure, half-press Photo button, notice the aperture value, at full wide it should be F1.8. Then decrease exposure, moving the slider to the left, until the aperture value changes to a larger F-number. Count number of the steps you made, minus one, and multiply by 1.5dB. This will give you gain value.

Thanks for doing this. From my own tests, the HC1 is about one stop slower than the HDC-SD1.
 
Thanks. The Canon and the Sony were not at full auto, right? They had shutter speed set to 1/60, and only aperture/gain were auto? Just checking. If they were at FULL auto, then the above method would be incorrect. I am sorry I was not precise.

Anyway, seems that judging just by gain value, the HMC40 is not the fastest camera. Of course, real image matters. Would be fun to see similar shots, but with the HC1 at about 15-18dB of gain. I guess it is too much hassle now, when you have decided that the HC1 has to go. Why you are selling it? Tape? Inferior codec? Interlace only? I sold mine because it was interlaced only and because I've read some scary stories about tape mechanism clogging.
 
I'm selling the HC1 to move away from a tape-based workflow.

Here the same scene as before, except with the light intensity reduced until the Sony was at maximum gain (18dB, bottom photo). Under those conditions the HMC40 cranked up to 30dB gain (top photo ... oops, I forgot to color-balance the two cams).

hmc-hc1-lowlight.jpg
 
The way the exposure wheel works on the HC1 is that there are 24 positions. The last 6 are 18db, 15db, 12db, 9db, 6db 3db. After that all the settings are 0db gain while adjusting how open the iris is.

I know this may be asking a lot but it would be awesome to see how each camera looks at 0db. I would never in a million years use a camera at the max gain level. I also almost always use a light unless I have strict instruction not to do so.

It took me a long time to figure out how to deal with the gain on the HC1. Once I did it was pretty easy to learn what little notch of the manual exposure setting would give me a specific gain level. I'm also sad to sell mine since it is one heck of a consumer camera but I'm sure the HMC40 will be even better for our vacations. (assuming I can ever afford to go on a vacation ever again)
 
Thomas Smet said:
it would be awesome to see how each camera looks at 0db.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the minimum intensity that each camera can record using 0 gain - i.e. different for each camera? Or a standard intensity that they all can record at 0 gain (which will be determined by the HMC40 since it's the least sensitive)?
 
I guess what each camera looks like at 0db gain. I have read however that the HMC40 does look much better at gain levels then typical cameras do. Sort of like 0db is really -3db or something like that.

If the HMC40 isn't as sensitive as the HC1 at 0db then I may have a problem. The HC1 is already right on the edge of not really usable due to it's sensitivity. I had hoped the HMC40 was as good or a tiny bit better but it sounds like it may be less sensitive.

What gain level on the HMC40 would match the sensitivity of the HC1 at 0db?

Thank you again for your help. This will really determine if the HMC40 can replace my HC1.

How well do you think the HMC40 would perform with a decent LED camera light? I have an older Bescor 50 watt light but I am thinking of picking up a Cormer 900.
 
When the HC1 is at 0dB I would expect the HMC to be at 9dB. I'll try and post a comparison of the two at those settings in the next day or so.
 
Thomas Smet said:
The way the exposure wheel works on the HC1 is that there are 24 positions. The last 6 are 18db, 15db, 12db, 9db, 6db 3db. After that all the settings are 0db gain while adjusting how open the iris is.
Click to expand...
Worth noting, that this is true only if aperture is set to a specific value.

Graham, thanks a lot for your tests, I expected the HMC40 to be at least as sensitive as the HC1, but it seems that CMOS technology has not developed as fast in the last five years to cover jump in resolution (8MPix on the HMC40) and drop in sensor size (1/4-inch on the HMC40 vs. 1/3-inch on the HC1). On the other hand, NR on the HMC40 seems to work quite well, the image does not seem to have less detail than on the HC1. So, for real life conditions, the HMC40 seems as usable as the HC1, or even better.
 
As you say, the HC1 is a 1/3" single-chipper. Whereas the Sony FX7 (which I also owned for a while) was a 3 x 1/4" chip camera and so more closely equivalent to the HMC40. The HMC40 is definitelty more capable than the FX7 in low light.
 
You know I totally forgot the HC1 was using a 1/3" Cmos compared to the HMC40 that has a 1/4" Cmos. This does explain the difference I guess. At the end of the day however I think the cameras are pretty comparable in terms of low light quality. The HMC40 in the above examples had to go up to 40db of gain but in terms of image degradation and noise it seemed comparable to the HC1 if not perhaps slightly more natural looking. There is also the fact that AVCHD can handle this extreme level of noise much better then mpeg2 could ever so. At 18db of gain the HC1 kind of looks like garbage but the HMC40 could be considered somewhat usable in extreme situations. I think adding a decent LED light would solve most of the short comings of the camera although not so much for vacation use.

I would have liked a bit more sensitivity but I'm not sure if I want to go with a HMC150 to replace our secondary camera/vacation camera. I used to take our Canon XL1 with us on vacations and I just don't want to take a big honking camera around anymore. I know the HMC150 is much smaller then a Canon XL1 but it is still large compared to a HMC40 or HC1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top