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

Justyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it's not the sensor size but rather the pixel pitch. The HMC has the same size sensor as other 1/3 cams but due to lower number of pixels, the pitch is naturally larger and hence more light gathering capability. It's a balancing act between cramming as much resolution as possible into a finite amount of space and light gathering power. I much prefer light gathering ability than having the highest resolution possible for my wedding work. However it is fact that the HMC has lower resolution anyone arguing against that balatant fact is just being a fanboi.

Green Hornet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah no kiddin' I have no idea why those shoulder rigs are marketed as the holy-grail of run n' gun shooting. I use a MultiRigPro which has a flexpod that offers a 3rd point of support connected to a waist belt. I can remove the flexpod from my waist and I'm effectively shooting with it balanced on my shoulder and arms. The difference is dramatic and it was infinitely more difficult to shoot than just simple handheld with the bare camera. I believe a lot of people buy into those expensive shoulder rigs for the "cool factor"
 
Last edited:
Baatfam said:
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,
Click to expand...

we're getting into a another topic here....:)

i love shooting handheld, but don't have a steadicam.

i've found that a fig-rig type setup works amazingly well. i built my own from pvc which is much lighter and cheaper. most of the perceived motion comes from left-to-right wobble. stick two handles far out to the sides and most of your problem is solved.

the downside is that if i'm holding the rig, i can't adjust zoom/focus/iris. maybe some day i'll get a controller to attach to my grip. so in the meantime i just use it to capture shots where i don't need to reframe or focus.

i've always wondered about shoulder mounted rigs....seems inherently unstable resting on your shoulder especially without some serious weight to dampen any movement.
 
Green Hornet said:
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!
Click to expand...

This is the route that I'll probably be going. I'm tired of waiting for a second HMC150.
 
I plan to buy Canon 5D II when time is appropriate, mainly use it as a backup when I need better resolution. Does anyone know what is the sampling rate of movie by this digital camera?
Looking forward to that day!
 
We are getting into the techy area that I know nothing about so I'll give you that. I just know that a larger sensor has the ability to resolve better in low light. Who was also arguing that it's sharper? I know I never have said that and as far as being a fan boi, I buy whatever I like and have little to no allegiance regarding cams, except that I really don't like the layout of the sony cams. I wouldn't stoop to citing things as if I or others were fanbois for appreciating the other aspects of the camera... just as I wouldn't denegrate a persons ability to make money doing weddings as so many people do, but I know for myself that would be a fate worse than death itself in having to do weddings.. but that's aside I'd rather not discuss. People do whatever they have to make a living in this business and I know I do sometimes as well. To each there own and God speed with that.



booggerg2 said:
No it's not the sensor size but rather the pixel pitch. The HMC has the same size sensor as other 1/3 cams but due to lower number of pixels, the pitch is naturally larger and hence more light gathering capability. It's a balancing act between cramming as much resolution as possible into a finite amount of space and light gathering power. I much prefer light gathering ability than having the highest resolution possible for my wedding work. However it is fact that the HMC has lower resolution anyone arguing against that balatant fact is just being a fanboi.
Click to expand...
 
Baatfam said:
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,
Click to expand...


Bob, I tend to usually just go freehand and I get pretty good results. I think its because of having to shoot a lot of film back in the day, then shooting with some big heavy ugly broadcast cameras, and then the really badly designed XL1 for years and years. I also believe, and this sounds a bit crazy, but I think its also do to the tai chi and kungfu that I do. Really has given me a solid base and I know how to hold my hands and arms and get my center of gravity in the right spot and all of that.


I did buy the spiderbrace a while back cause it was cheap, but I didn't like it cause it wasn't very flexible. I have used a few other rigs and I've always found them rather uncomfortable and unweildly and just not laid out right. If I were to be shooting with a big adapter rig and other stuff then I might consider something it, but I've just gotten used to shooting a paticular way and that's it.


If I were you I'd go out and try to get to demo some of the units. I wouldn't just buy one without finding out what you like. I know that Phillip Bloom wrote up a good cheap one that they sell on Ebay of all places. I think that would be a good start.

See what's out there and report back your findings. I'm probably going to get something when I pick up a DSLR. Redrock make something that might be nice. I want to get something for that as the whole small form factor might get annoying. It took me a while to get the hang of the smaller DV/HD cams from my days in the past lugging shoulder killers....

cheers.
 
D.R. Gates said:
This is the route that I'll probably be going. I'm tired of waiting for a second HMC150.
Click to expand...

I'm using an HMC150 + 5D2 for my wedding work... 5D2 is great for low light but the image you get from a 5D2 in low light is impossible to match with the HMC... It's a night n' day difference. Some obviously has to do with the DOF, but mostly has to do with the exposure level. The 5D2 is simply much much more sensitive than the HMC.
 
Justyn said:
Bob, I tend to usually just go freehand and I get pretty good results. I think its because of having to shoot a lot of film back in the day, then shooting with some big heavy ugly broadcast cameras, and then the really badly designed XL1 for years and years. I also believe, and this sounds a bit crazy, but I think its also do to the tai chi and kungfu that I do. Really has given me a solid base and I know how to hold my hands and arms and get my center of gravity in the right spot and all of that.


I did buy the spiderbrace a while back cause it was cheap, but I didn't like it cause it wasn't very flexible. I have used a few other rigs and I've always found them rather uncomfortable and unweildly and just not laid out right. If I were to be shooting with a big adapter rig and other stuff then I might consider something it, but I've just gotten used to shooting a paticular way and that's it.


If I were you I'd go out and try to get to demo some of the units. I wouldn't just buy one without finding out what you like. I know that Phillip Bloom wrote up a good cheap one that they sell on Ebay of all places. I think that would be a good start.

See what's out there and report back your findings. I'm probably going to get something when I pick up a DSLR. Redrock make something that might be nice. I want to get something for that as the whole small form factor might get annoying. It took me a while to get the hang of the smaller DV/HD cams from my days in the past lugging shoulder killers....

cheers.
Click to expand...

Many thanks Justyn...sounds like I just need more practice.

And sorry everyone for the highjack....
 
booggerg2 said:
No it's not the sensor size but rather the pixel pitch. The HMC has the same size sensor as other 1/3 cams but due to lower number of pixels, the pitch is naturally larger and hence more light gathering capability. It's a balancing act between cramming as much resolution as possible into a finite amount of space and light gathering power.
Click to expand...


OK the Sony FX1000 has reportedly better lowlight then HMC 150 and is sharper than the XHA1 .
Now hows that possible with what you just explained ? Cmos perhaps.
 
The FX1000 is tape? Are you serious?

...Sometimes it is better to just let people buy what they want..if they can even suggest an Fx1000, then it's not even worth discussing, as they are either biased to the point of not being able to convince them otherwise, or have not done any home work.

CMOS tends to be more sensitive, than a CCD, all else equal, but you get rolling shutter, and a less "organic" look...cold, lifeless (obviously that is subjective- the look)
 
jeff9329 said:
I don't think the FX1000 has better lowlight.

But here is a Z5 and HMC-150 comparison which has the same sensor block as the FX1000


http://www.trainingvideographers.com/tipsandtricks.html
Click to expand...

At 1080i, the Z5 looked slightly better in low light, so it wouldn't surprise me if the FX1000 was as well if they share the same sensor block. But only slightly, and this was at 1080i. I'd like to see what it looks like at 1080p. I believe it was Barry who pointed out a while ago that in progressive mode, even the EX1 was similar to the HMC150 in lowlight. If the bulk of what you shoot is in progressive, interlaced lowlight probably shouldn't be a factor. Apples and oranges.

Also, as readily pointed out by the video, what application you're using this for needs to be considered. If you're doing weddings/events, that CMOS sensor did not stand up well to camera flashes. And while I would never see a reason for me to need to pan that fast (and even if I did, it would get covered up in editing anyways)... if you're shooting skate or snowboarding videos or something like that, I would think the "jello vision" would be pretty unacceptable.

I love my HMC, "softness" of the pixel-shifted CCD's be damned. I just turned the sharpness up in the menu a little, and it looks great. But pick what works for your situation. There is no perfect camera. What works for me and my needs probably isn't going to work for you and yours. But unless you're in a unique situation where sharpness absolutely trumps everything else, then you shouldn't let it.
 
Green Hornet said:
The FX1000 is tape? Are you serious?

...Sometimes it is better to just let people buy what they want..if they can even suggest an Fx1000, then it's not even worth discussing, as they are either biased to the point of not being able to convince them otherwise, or have not done any home work.

CMOS tends to be more sensitive, than a CCD, all else equal, but you get rolling shutter, and a less "organic" look...cold, lifeless (obviously that is subjective- the look)
Click to expand...

Green Horneyt :)
Please read my post again I wasn't suggesting the FX1000....
 
Everts said:
Green Horneyt :)
Please read my post again I wasn't suggesting the FX1000....
Click to expand...

Oh, ok...
In that case,

It is possible because CMOS is more sensitive than CCD for the same sized chip.

A camera can be sharper than Panasonic because it MAY have more resolution (individual image capture devices)

Think of it as a battery.

Panasonic has lower resolution because it has less CCD's in it's 1/3 battery.


A battery is a combination of cells, the more cells you have in a fixed sized casing, the smaller they will be. If each cell were the shape of a honeycomb, made to fit in the entire area of the case, and you had more cells, you would also have more non-imaged area as well (the space between the cells).

From the image provided, if the cells were larger, then the total surface area of the wall around the cell, would be less, and the capture area would be more (more capture area than non-capture area). With the larger capture area, you get more color detail, and low light, with less size and more cells, you get less low light, and more resolution, but also less color detail.

Apis_florea_nest_closeup2.jpg


Again, cmos technology has improved to be more sensitive than ccd, so low light tends to be better at the same given size.


Another way to think of the resolution thing is:

Imagine you have an 8 inch by 10 inch photograph.
If you made it using an image capture device that had one inch pixels, you would effectively have an 8 rows of ccd's in one direction, and 10 in the other.

Now if you had another device that printed the same photograph,
but used half inch ccd's, you would have a row of 16 ccd's in one direction, and 20 in the other.

Both capture devices take up the same space.

The print made with more ccd's would have "higher resolution" even though they both take up an 8 inch by 10 inch area.
Apply this same thought to 1/3" ccd's.


So what we are really speaking of is not "softness", it is less resolution.
The panasonic cameras have less resolution (less pixels, but larger ones), this gives the camera great low light (for a ccd based camera).
And really good color (could even be better if it had a codec with higher color space).

Back when the Panasonic ccd was developed, it was difficult to harness the bandwidth that a full raster 1080p chip could dish out.
Making the chip lower resolution reduced this problem (less data to process).
Also for a full 1080P ccd chipset, you really need something larger than 1/3 ccd size (physics vs current technology)

Now with CMOS, you can do full raster 1080p in a smaller space, and have better low light characteristics, but you lose the "LOOK"
that large chips give over small ones.

If your interest piques you on this topic more, just google some old CCD stuff from digital slr's
They speak at length on this.
The end result, larger individual cells, produce better "LOOK" than smaller ones.
More cells produce more "resolution", but per given chip size there is a law of diminishing returns.
For a full frame 35mm size it seems to be around 15 megapixels.

Anyway...I am going in too many directions....
 
Last edited:
Sweet , Honey...

I find it odd that I never read about this elsewhere before.
Thanks G man.
Barry your fired :)
 
Everts said:
Sweet , Honey...

I find it odd that I never read about this elsewhere before.
Thanks G man.
Barry your fired :)
Click to expand...

Barry is still the man, he researches things to a level I never have time to.
My wife already thinks I don't have enough time for her.

For testing and taking cameras to expore their full functionality,
I just wait for Barry to do it, and then do my own testing with the foundation he lay.
That saves me days of doing my own work, to find the same results.
Barry is somone whos advice I can trust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top