Want to buy a HD Panny. 3500 to Spend.

A

ADC14

New member
Hi,

This is my first post, so please have mercy on me. I'm looking to buy a HD camera. 3500 is the budget. I want a camera that is versatile and able to film in a wide range of settings. Events and indie movies are in the mix. I trained on a DVX 100. Though I know everything in electronics becomes obsolete once you buy it, I still would like a camera that will remain useful for the next 3-5 years. Also, any vendor recs?
 
agreed. the cam will probably cost you around 2500 or so new, but you will certainly want extras for it. anything else would maybe fit into your budget but leave you little left over for batteries and memory and a decent case (and a million other cool accessories you will be reading about on here). that is, if 3500 is JUST for the camera end of things. if you need audio and a tripod also you will be stretching. Since you already know the dvx100 you will be ahead of the game with a 150 because the layout is very similar. when i got my 150 my son was able to help me out with it a LOT cuz he has a dvx100. in the future, when the 150 is considered 'old school' it will still produce highly usable images, just as the dvx does now.
 
+1 more vote for the HMC150. There's simply nothing better on the market at that price point. I think it's $2600 brand new from B&H.

$3500 gets you extra batteries, mic, light, tripod, etc etc...
 
Yeah, sounds like the HMC150 is perfect for you, especially if you're coming from the DVX100. As far as being usable 3-5 years from now... there would have to be a truly remarkable revolution in cameras in this pricepoint in that timeframe for it not to be useful.

As for vendor recs, I got mine from Full Compass (some of their reps poke around on this board and are quite helpful), but B&H, Spec-Comm, and a few others have folks on this forum and are all highly recommended (and generally fairly helpful).
 
ADC14 said:
I still would like a camera that will remain useful for the next 3-5 years. Also, any vendor recs?
Click to expand...

If you're investing for the next few years -- you should wait for the NAB 2011 camera announcements -- that will very likely include the successor to the HMC150. I believe NAB is in the second week of April.

It's possible the successor will be a let down -- in which case the 150 will be money well spent. It's possible the successor will not be a let down -- in which case, since you're investing for the next few years, holding off until the next model would be smart.

Either way, if you don't need something now, it's smart to wait until the new camera announcements.

As a side note -- you may also want to look carefully at the Sony HXR-NX70 and the Canon XF100 -- both within your budget and both much newer.
 
AGMedia said:
If you're investing for the next few years -- you should wait for the NAB 2011 camera announcements -- that will very likely include the successor to the HMC150. I believe NAB is in the second week of April.

It's possible the successor will be a let down -- in which case the 150 will be money well spent. It's possible the successor will not be a let down -- in which case, since you're investing for the next few years, holding off until the next model would be smart.

Either way, if you don't need something now, it's smart to wait until the new camera announcements.

As a side note -- you may also want to look carefully at the Sony HXR-NX70 and the Canon XF100 -- both within your budget and both much newer.
Click to expand...

As Barry Green said in another thread, if anything new hasnt been pre-annoiunced yet it wont be available AT NAB or anytime soon. Probably not til the Fall.
 
As far as usability for years down the road.....If the DVX100 is still kicking after all these years, HMC150 users need not worry. Thats one of the great things about the digital/sotware/computer age....new life can be infused into older cameras with the right program and some creativity.
 
zaarc said:
As Barry Green said in another thread, if anything new hasnt been pre-annoiunced yet it wont be available AT NAB or anytime soon. Probably not til the Fall.
Click to expand...


I refer you back to what I wrote -- that mentioned nothing about buying new stuff at NAB 2011.

If this fellow is investing for years to come, as he specified, it makes all the sense in the world to wait a few weeks to find out if he's going to spend the next three years wishing he had waited six months.

Going back to the OP -- I went through some of the Canon XF100 footage on Vimeo earlier today -- and I'd take that camera very, very seriously -- as it's in his budget and does quite a bit the 150 doesn't do -- for about two hundred dollars more.

The main thing the 150 has going for it, and will probably still have going for it two years from now, is its 3 CCD sensors with global shutter, ideal for true "run and gun." Beyond that, the XF100 may be a very, very competitive option.
 
In my view, the HMC150 was a bit ahead of its time when it was introduced. It is undeniably a great cam, and that greatness will, I believe, endure for a while. I currently shoot with two HMC150's.

I still consider one a good investment at this time. Its price is so compelling, and its capabilities and flexibility are so good, it's hard to top even with all the new cam announcements.

Its one of the last 3 CCD cams available at this price point anyways, nothing else in its price class can top it in low light performance, etc.

Canon's XF300 may have some advantages, but apparently low light is not one and its codec is still based on MPEG 2 which at least in theory does not handle motion as well as MPEG 4, etc.

The AF100 is a logical step up, and still very reasonably priced. However, it's a lot of cam, and you may not need a lot of the abilities it offers.

The HMC150 is still a very relevant cam for event work. I have no plans for replacing mine, at least at this point. It just does so many things very well. I may add an AF100 later on this year, but even then I keep the 150's.
 
Last edited:
sewolla said:
In my view, the HMC150 was a bit ahead of its time when it was introduced. It is undeniably a great cam, and that greatness will, I believe, endure for a while. I currently shoot with two HMC150's.

I still consider one a good investment at this time. Its price is so compelling, and its capabilities and flexibility are so good, it's hard to top even with all the new cam announcements.

Its one of the last 3 CCD cams available at this price point anyways, nothing else in its price class can top it in low light performance, etc.

Canon's XF300 may have some advantages, but apparently low light is not one and its codec is still based on MPEG 2 which at least in theory does not handle motion as well as MPEG 4, etc.

The AF100 is a logical step up, and still very reasonably priced. However, it's a lot of cam, and you may not need a lot of the abilities it offers.

The HMC150 is still a very relevant cam for event work. I have no plans for replacing mine, at least at this point. It just does so many things very well. I may add an AF100 later on this year, but even then I keep the 150's.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 110 percent. I love mine and will not be replacing it anytime soon. I too am going to add an AF100 to the mix, but even so, I will be keeping my HMC150...and may even buy another. It is such a great camera...and at the current price (for new even), I just don't think you can beat it. It's truly a workhorse for me.

Regards,

G.
 
Phil1076 said:
+1 more vote for the HMC150. There's simply nothing better on the market at that price point. I think it's $2600 brand new from B&H.

$3500 gets you extra batteries, mic, light, tripod, etc etc...
Click to expand...
Bought HMC150, returned it the next day. LCD is crap and picture is as soft as my purring kitten (I have an Maine Coon- so I know what soft is :). Yeah, nice controls can't make up for a lack of real HD. Bought XF100 3 days ago- razor sharp 1080 native, great 422 codec. Much better camera in the same price range.
 
sewolla said:
Canon's XF300 may have some advantages, but apparently low light is not one and its codec is still based on MPEG 2 which at least in theory does not handle motion as well as MPEG 4, etc.
Click to expand...
Oh really? News to me. That is why BBC or Discovery (Gold) requires mpeg2 50Mbs, not mpeg4? (so their programs can look like crap?) or maybe this is why they also will not allow AF100 native footage for HD programming?Let's get the story straight- XF300 is accredited and HMC150 is not. AF100 has conditional approval, so no go unless you spend additional 3-4K on approved recorder.
 
And the BBC still recommends an old, analog induced Pixel Aspect Ratio for SD widescreen content, using the outmoded 702 x 480 Clean Aperture for calculation instead of the full 720 Production Aperture available in the digital realm.

In short, the BBC doesn't always get things right.

I think Barry proved well enough that AVCHD at 24 Mbps outperforms MPEG2 at 35 Mbps. The extra 15 Mbps of the Canon cameras in question will only make them equal to the Panny AVCCAM lineup, but likely not superior.

Regarding the 4:2:2 subsampling, I can see where that may prove beneficial for green screen work, but it has to be asked whether or not the end viewer would be able to tell any difference in a blind comparison, especially since the 4:2:2 of the Canon originated material will end up being delivered to the viewer as 4:2:0 anyway.
 
peterarcson said:
Oh really? News to me. That is why BBC or Discovery (Gold) requires mpeg2 50Mbs, not mpeg4? (so their programs can look like crap?) or maybe this is why they also will not allow AF100 native footage for HD programming?Let's get the story straight- XF300 is accredited and HMC150 is not. AF100 has conditional approval, so no go unless you spend additional 3-4K on approved recorder.
Click to expand...

No need for anyone to get heated.

And unless you are delivering to the BBC, their guidelines (while informative) are not gospel.
 
William_Robinette said:
No need for anyone to get heated.

And unless you are delivering to the BBC, their guidelines (while informative) are not gospel.
Click to expand...
No they are not gospel, however these guys run objective and the most comprehensive tests for years, their opinion I trust as the most unbiased. I think repeating this nonsense mpeg2 can't handle motion is just plain untrue. While Mr Green can have his opinion, it is rather isolated and not shared by people with broadcast engineering degree. There was about 2 years ago comparison of codecs done by (I think) Steve Mullen.
I also wanted to add as far as MPEG2 Long GOP all frames are not created equal. There are pages of discussion on dvinfo.net about Nanoflash "noise". http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converg...noise-comparison-35-4-2-0-vs-180-4-2-2-a.html. So it is important to realize you have to use as Dan Keaton from CD stated"The (...) Long-GOP consists of I Frames, B-Frames, and P-Frames. They are not all created equal in terms of quality. Now if you get a B or even worst P-Frame out of the timeline it will create uneven contest. Here is the link to Steve Mullen article: http://broadcastengineering.com/hdt...stengineering.com/hdtv/long-gop-editing-0709/. Anyway this "MPEG4 handles motion better then MPEG2" nonsense is just a nonsense, that hovers around this bb for a long time, however is not really backed up by any independent testing. As the matter of fact coder on the newest AF100 was rejected by independent BBC test flat out.
 
Last edited:
Jim Simon said:
I think Barry proved well enough that AVCHD at 24 Mbps outperforms MPEG2 at 35 Mbps. The extra 15 Mbps of the Canon cameras in question will only make them equal to the Panny AVCCAM lineup, but likely not superior.
Regarding the 4:2:2 subsampling, I can see where that may prove beneficial for green screen work, but it has to be asked whether or not the end viewer would be able to tell any difference in a blind comparison, especially since the 4:2:2 of the Canon originated material will end up being delivered to the viewer as 4:2:0 anyway.
Click to expand...
Do you actually own any of these cameras, or are you repeating nonsense published by other anonymous posters on bb like this? Because what you are saying is simply untrue. I own both EX1 and now XF100 and I can tell you that XF100 is so good I am selling EX1 and buying XF300. XF100 produces image that can rival 20K cameras. It simply outperforms HMC150 in every aspect, even in low light sensitivity.
 
I just started poking around the footage on Vimeo of the XF100. Nothing jumped out at as "Wow, this is such a better camera than the HMC150". Frankly, I wasn't that impressed. I'm not saying it's a bad camera by any stretch. In the hands of a good operator who knows what he's doing, I'm sure the XF100 will put out fantastic images... but that can be said about the HMC150 and the Sony NX5U. Is it noticeable sharper than the HMC? Yes, I'll give you that much. But to me, that's also a fault to a certain degree. Absolute number of pixels isn't the end all to be all of what's "superior" and "inferior". The images from the HMC may not be as pin sharp, but they're plenty sharp enough and far more pleasing to my eye than anything I'm seeing from the XF100, and the almost unnatural (at least to my eye) sharpness of the XF100 has something to do with it. That the codec has BBC approval is irrelevant to me, as I'm in Washington State... not the UK... and not really planning on having anything shown on the BBC (or Discovery for that matter).

And I don't see anything to indicate it rivals a $20k class camera like the Sony F3 or anything in the HPX line in terms of picture quality.

And therein lies the ultimate issue with your argument. You're standing here raving about the XF100 and saying how superior it is to the HMC... but you base that on your own *subjective* criteria. And that's fine, if it's superior for your needs and wants, that awesome. If it's making you money, terrific. But your needs and wants are not the same as a lot of other people's. You're basically arguing why Pepsi is superior to Coke, and assuming your set of criteria for "superior" is the only criteria that matters. Maybe for you, but for others it's worthless, because we're not you.

At the end of the day, it's just a tool. Buy the tool that best fits your needs to get the job done and make you money. But please don't assume that the tool that's best for you is the one that's best for everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top