Should I reconsider buying a 150 due to reputed image softness?

astigmatic said:
taken from raw1080 screengrabs, comparing the two cams.
Click to expand...

What's the point of comparing the images of two different cameras at different zoom levels? Also you need to compare progressive images against each other, the HMC does not have native interlaced chips.

Personally, I'm getting the Sony FX1000. Better low light than the HMC, better resolution than the XHA1.
Click to expand...
And rolling shutter issues, no XLR, no true progressive recording, less recording modes, weaker codec, tape drop-outs and so on ;)
 
astigmatic said:
I think it was me who made the "sd" comment. I didnt literally mean it looked like sd. I just wanted to stress that there was a substantial diff between the rez of an A1 in 1080 compared to HMC150 in 1080. I've been doing research on what camera to get and the HMC was at the top of my list. My conclusion is a result of all the raw fottage I was able to find on the net.

Here are 512dpi cropped samples taken from raw1080 screengrabs, comparing the two cams.

HMC:
hmc150.jpg


A1:

xha1.jpg


The xha1 is zoomed in closer, but I think you can still get a somewhat idea of the diff.. here are the full size grabs:

hmc: http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm49/astigmatic44/hmc150full.jpg

xha1 :http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm49/astigmatic44/xha1full.jpg


For me the diff is noticeble. From the positive general reception the HMC has garnered...It seems like it;s not a big enough diff for most people.

Personally, I'm getting the Sony FX1000. Better low light than the HMC, better resolution than the XHA1.
Click to expand...



Again, what clearly stands out to me is that your HMC150 is out of focus, and zoomed in, always looks better than wide. :beer:
 
astigmatic said:
Personally, I'm getting the Sony FX1000. Better low light than the HMC, better resolution than the XHA1.
Click to expand...

After going back and forth for over a month on buying the FX1000 or the HMC150, I was this close to grabbing the Sony. But then I looked at some more wedding clips on Vimeo, and I knew it just wasn't meant to be. The rolling shutter issue is huge. And with weddings being my bread and butter, I just couldn't do it.

Yes, you get better low light performance, but at a price.

However, if you're not doing events where you're standing next to a photographer all day, then I think the Sony will do just fine.
 
astigmatic said:
I think it was me who made the "sd" comment. I didnt literally mean it looked like sd. I just wanted to stress that there was a substantial diff between the rez of an A1 in 1080 compared to HMC150 in 1080. I've been doing research on what camera to get and the HMC was at the top of my list. My conclusion is a result of all the raw fottage I was able to find on the net.

Here are 512dpi cropped samples taken from raw1080 screengrabs, comparing the two cams.

HMC:
hmc150.jpg


A1:

xha1.jpg


The xha1 is zoomed in closer, but I think you can still get a somewhat idea of the diff.. here are the full size grabs:

hmc: http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm49/astigmatic44/hmc150full.jpg

xha1 :http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm49/astigmatic44/xha1full.jpg


For me the diff is noticeble. From the positive general reception the HMC has garnered...It seems like it;s not a big enough diff for most people.

Personally, I'm getting the Sony FX1000. Better low light than the HMC, better resolution than the XHA1.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing these clips a while back and the Canon was sharper to my eye but again have to say that the 150 had better color and looked more film like.

If you want the FX1000 then by all means go for it but as a Sony guy I think the FX1000 is a step back from the FX-1 the 150 and the Canon.
You get smaller than 1/3 chips [1/4] and 1/3 is the smallest I'd ever want to go on a Prosumer cam.

Then the whole CMOS - CCD and other things people have listed.
I just think you can do better than the FX1000 if pro work or indie is what you are doing.
But if it fits your needs and the price is right....
Do it.
 
From that Grab, looks like the HMC is also underexposed quite a bit. I also think that as stated before, there's more to just an image than the sharpness. I had to shoot with a Sony HDV yesterday and it was a nightmare. So many clunky menu controls to navigate through... poor ergonomics, really a horrible layout for audio inputs and control and not to mention a terrible pre-amp on the headphones output. I just have never understood how these cameras get so many bad consumer quality elements. The whole concept of how its laid out and setup is confusing and not a pro set-up at all. Just hated this camera for all of it's faults


Also.. one big thing is the start stop time with the heads. I missed a lot of the action cause I'm used to instantanous starting and stopping in the nonlinear shooting I've done for 4 years. Tape sucks and I now have another recent even to back me up on that fact.
 
I personally do like the Sony cams, but when it came to HMC150 vs FX1000 there's a BIG gap
XLR, tapeless, WFM, Good Audio Controls, Strong Codec, Wide Lens...
comparing my now gone FX1 and the HMC150, i had to put a .8x wide angle to get the same shoot, I also had a beachtek XLR audio adapter (it worked ok but it was a little anoying) I needed a special bracket to put a shootgun mic, i also would use a FS-4HD firestore to get reliable clips (without dropouts)...
At the end of the day the FX1 weight was twice as much... Soo when it came time to upgrade
i thought just a little better low light on the FX1000 (with more noise) is not worth it over all of the panny benefits
(now if canon only had a good tapeless camcorder, i might just go back to them... but they're allways last when it comes to upgrades)
 
I do totally agree with that, Canon makes some really badly timed decisions. They get into things late, charge way to much, and often just drag their heels. I used to be an XL1 guy and they kept that old ass cam around when everything went to 24p and then HD and those first couple of HD cams have come out, and nothing to update todate. What are they thinking? Tape based stuff is going bye bye and thank God for that. There's some archival advantages but shooting with tape is a PITA and digitizing it is another thing I never want to do. It's just not in the cards and unless they do something fast they will be loosing even more ground. I mean come on, how old is that A1 now? 3 years?
 
It's pretty easy:
There's the HMC150, after that the EX1 (with an SD adapter), then the HPX300/EX3/new Scarlet?!?!? and then you're out of this league.
These are the only cameras I would concider at this moment.

-Tapeless is a must, it will change your life, so all tape based cameras are out of the question (external recorder would just to be too darn heavy, expensive and you'll need more batteries).
-P2 is so expensive and you get from the HMC almost the same picture, so why bother?

So it all comes to how much you're willing to spend.
Of course the EX1 is a much better camera (larger sensor, sharper image, faster codec, more functions, better lowlight, less noise, PAL/NTSC all over the world, Standard-def, but much heavier and there's the CMOS thing...)
But it costs twice as much.
Besides these you can get sharper cameras than the HMC but none that offers as much in this price range.
And believe me the picture is amazing, a bit noisy and soft sometimes, but truly beautiful.

Oh and for all those sharp comparisons I have seen quite a lot in cinema that was shot with the old HVX (The HMC is much better than it), and none that was shot with any sony (besides their monster cinema cameras) or canon (Except for the XH-L1) so if it was good enough for the big screen I don't see why it's bad for any of you (unless you intend to do some HD for television).
 
In regards to those screen grabs, It's rather obvious to me that either the person doesn't know how to use the HMC150, or he's 'altered' the images to fit his argument.
 
D.R. Gates said:
In regards to those screen grabs, It's rather obvious to me that either the person doesn't know how to use the HMC150, or he's 'altered' the images to fit his argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thats the worst comparison screen grabs I have ever seen lol.
 
i love most of the great features of my hmc150, but coming from super sharp 1080i images on a lowly canon hg10, i'm still struggling to capture images that are decently sharp and crisp.

i hear all the comments about focussing, but no matter how perfectly in-focus i have a subject, the resulting video is soooo soft. for me, its unusable at 1080. its fine if i'm scaling down to 480 or 360 for web.

it is certainly an issue to consider.

i'm hoping that some custom scene file settings will result in at least an acceptably sharp image.....at least so that my shots don't look out of focus!

like others have stated, get clear on what kind of image you want to create, then test (if possible) a few cameras yourself and buy the one that does what you need. if you need sharp images at 1080 you probably will want to seriously consider another camera. but if you need all the other awesome features the hmc has to offer and can live with a softer look.... =)
 
D.R. Gates said:
In regards to those screen grabs, It's rather obvious to me that either the person doesn't know how to use the HMC150, or he's 'altered' the images to fit his argument.
Click to expand...

Have you seen screen cap comparisons where it showed the HMC to resolve higher resolution than the other 1/3 camcorders? Every screen shot comparison I've seen indicates the HMC resolves to noticeably lower resolution so I don't believe this reviewer was making the HMC look bad on purpose.
 
booggerg2 said:
Have you seen screen cap comparisons where it showed the HMC to resolve higher resolution than the other 1/3 camcorders? Every screen shot comparison I've seen indicates the HMC resolves to noticeably lower resolution so I don't believe this reviewer was making the HMC look bad on purpose.
Click to expand...

Yes the HMC150 has lower resolution.
IF that is all you are looking for, go with another camera.

I too wanted more resolution, but to get it, I would have to pay twice the money, and the other items
(batteries, memory cards, firestores etc) would be several thousand dollars over the entry price for me to shoot an 8 hour day.

That was the reason I chose the HMC150.


My costs are based on camera, batteries, media and charger systems for me to shoot an 8 hour day. That is how I price a camera, not just the entry price.
I don't want to shoot anything tape based, so that is out.

Once you factor those costs in, no other camera comes close.

The canon HFs100 cameras are cheaper, smaller, lighter, and have higher resolution, but I would never use it as an "A" camera.

For an "A" camera, you really have to spend twice the money, and won't get twice the image. At least that is how I see things.


If you want to speak of soft images, really the only time it is noticably soft is on wide shots of landscapes, anything else is fine.
How often do you shoot wide shots of landscapes?

If it cost $3,500 for this camera, and $2,600 plus $1000 for a Canon 5D II and lens, you can get both for less than a Sony EX1 after buying cards.

And the 5D isn't soft!
 
Hornet is speaking the gospel.. I personally woudn't wish the EX1 on my worst enemy. THat camera is so horrible to shoot handheld and it's layout is so consumer with layers to it that I just hated it as I do with most of the consumer level Sony cams. I think comfort in shooting is also something to consider after you will be shooting for 10 hours a day. The 150 is so light and ergonomically balanced that it's fun too shoot and it delivers some great images.


All this stuff about resolution is nice but if it were such a deal then the 150s wouldn't be selling so well as they are now. IT's good that we have choices and personally the only reason I would have gotten an EX1 was to use with adapters and now the Canon and others have made that choise seem stupid to me. Who wants that hassel when you can get something just about as good and have a nice still cam on top of it.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not everyone who buys the HMC need absolute high res.. I particularly need the superior low light / low noise gain it offers, which is a result of the relatively lower resolution sensor.
 
well not exactly.. I believe this is due to their redesign and from their testing on the HVX and such. A larger sensor will give you better low-light, like the EX1 and other cams. A 2/3 inch sensor would be even more ideal.. and that's why the DSLRs are really interesting as they should be great in low light as well.
 
Justyn said:
Hornet is speaking the gospel.. I personally woudn't wish the EX1 on my worst enemy. THat camera is so horrible to shoot handheld and it's layout is so consumer with layers to it that I just hated it as I do with most of the consumer level Sony cams. I think comfort in shooting is also something to consider after you will be shooting for 10 hours a day. The 150 is so light and ergonomically balanced that it's fun too shoot and it delivers some great images.
Click to expand...

Justyn, What do you use when you shoot handheld? Shoulder mount? Steadycam?
I need something for what I do, as freehanding is no good and I can't always use the tripod.

Thanks,
 
I have shot with the HMC150 with a redrock shoulder mount, and find it to be harder than just hand holding.

A better shoulder mount would be one with weight behind the user to balance the camera, and one that puts the preview screen lcd far enough away to view it.

Most shoulder mounts do NOT do this, so it gets heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top