Want to buy a HD Panny. 3500 to Spend.

[pulpfiction007]

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.

+1....The only thing I'd add is that the XF100 is not more sensitive than the HMC150 (3 chips, a 1.6 lens and a native ISO of 500 vs the XF100s single chip, 1.8 lens, and MAYBE a native 200 ISO). I was hoping it would be a great low light cam...but all reviews say otherwise - that it does well - for having a single 1/3" imager, but not in competition with 1/3"(x3) cams.

 

[AGMedia]

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.

Your comments have managed to degenerate this thread from a legitimate question into your HMC bashing commentary -- you being, according to your statement, a one day HMC150 owner. Please share your profound wisdom in the EX1 forum or perhaps with people who care.

There are ancient responses to your ancient criticisms of the HMC150 -- but it's pointless to discuss them because you are obviously more interested in touting your new camera than in actually discussing anything. I refer you to the dozens of threads discussing the sensor of the HVX200, the HVX200A, the HPX170, and the HMC150.

 

[AGMedia]

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.

As usual -- I agree with most all of this.

Regarding the current XF100 footage on Vimeo -- I would point out that we're still in the learning curve phase of a low priced camera -- meaning we'll be seeing a ton of total newbies posting "test" stuff -- and so the trick is to attempt to judge the footage from a pro standpoint. For example, I suspect people are complaining about "noise" because they've got the in-camera edge contrast enhancement jammed up, I suspect the skies are all blown out because these folks have never heard of a circular polarizer -- etc., etc..

If you remember the early days of the HMC150 -- there was a ton of junk posted on Vimeo after it was released. Frankly, there's a ton of junk from the AF100 up there now.

 

[AGMedia]

+1....The only thing I'd add is that the XF100 is not more sensitive than the HMC150 (3 chips, a 1.6 lens and a native ISO of 500 vs the XF100s single chip, 1.8 lens, and MAYBE a native 200 ISO). I was hoping it would be a great low light cam...but all reviews say otherwise - that it does well - for having a single 1/3" imager, but not in competition with 1/3"(x3) cams.

I'm not here to defend the XF100 or anything -- but you make an interesting statement that is going to be very relevant in the next two or more years -- and I hope Mr. Barry Green or some other known expert can offer a perspective on the difference between a single chip and three chips.

I was under the impression that three chips help with better colors -- but not with low light.

 

[Mike Harvey]

As usual -- I agree with most all of this.

Regarding the current XF100 footage on Vimeo -- I would point out that we're still in the learning curve phase of a low priced camera -- meaning we'll be seeing a ton of total newbies posting "test" stuff -- and so the trick is to attempt to judge the footage from a pro standpoint. For example, I suspect people are complaining about "noise" because they've got the in-camera edge contrast enhancement jammed up, I suspect the skies are all blown out because these folks have never heard of a circular polarizer -- etc., etc..

If you remember the early days of the HMC150 -- there was a ton of junk posted on Vimeo after it was released. Frankly, there's a ton of junk from the AF100 up there now.

Agreed, which is why I pointed out that in the hands of a good operator it's probably capable of a lot. Plus, it's Vimeo... not the same a judging the raw footage. BUT, the junk from the XF100 doesn't look any more impressive than the (substantial amount of) junk from the HMC150. Even the well shot stuff didn't look like anything that trounced the HMC150. And all things being equal, I have a hard time seeing how it's capable of rivaling this footage:

That's not a knock on the XF100... it's a third of the price of the HPX370 and uses an inferior codec, so that shouldn't be expected. But the idea that it can rival the HPX370, let alone cameras twice as expensive as the HPX370, is a bit of a stretch.

 

[pulpfiction007]

I'm not here to defend the XF100 or anything -- but you make an interesting statement that is going to be very relevant in the next two or more years -- and I hope Mr. Barry Green or some other known expert can offer a perspective on the difference between a single chip and three chips.

I was under the impression that three chips help with better colors -- but not with low light.

"A typical Bayer filter single chip image sensor absorbs at least 2/3 of the visible light with it's filters, while in a 3ccd sensor the filters absorb only stray light and invisible light, possibly a little more for color tuning, so that the 3 chip sensor has better low light capabilities" - wikipedia

"Professional camera manufacturers and customers voted long ago: 3 chips are better than one. Every professional video camera uses three chips. Better color accuracy, bigger pixels, better sensitivity, everythings better with 3 chips." - Mr. Barry Green in March, 2008

Barry did go on to predict the changing of the tide with LARGE single imagers and better technology, etc. but his quote applies to our discussion.

 

[David Saraceno]

A reminder: this thread is about the OP's original question and not what the BBC requires or other noise.

Answer that question, stay away from the personal attacks, and language and word choice that does nothing to further the discussion on the OP's question.

Keep the front side of the forum a friendly and collaborative place.

The language and interaction has degenerated and I am requesting that it become civil, professional, and non personal.

Best,

 

[pulpfiction007]

Back to the OP's question then....
Every camera has it's pros and cons- you just have to decide which features you value the most. I honestly don't think you can't go wrong with either the XF100 or the HMC150. Either camera will produce a great picture, give you good audio support, allow for in camera "painting" of the image, allow for 720 or 1080 shooting, etc.

So here's a list of simple differences...
The XF will do overcranking/undercranking - The HMC does not
The XF has better resolution.
The XF has a higher res LCD/VF screen.
The XF has a 4:2:2 codec onboard - The HMC does not.

The HMC has fully manual ND filters - The XF 100 does not
The HMC has a faster aperture lens 1.6 vs 1.8 and a longer zoom 13x vs 10x
The HMC uses 3 ccds, so no CMOS skew (The XF has shown to be quite good in this area though)
The HMC has more physical controls/switches/lens rings - Less menu driven.

These are the main differences I can think of that don't go into subjective areas...and as I said before IMO....both will treat you well in the IQ department.
Good luck with your choice and future projects.

Just as a note: NAB annoucements are just days away- Keep that in mind as well, IF you have the time to wait a bit. (products will not be available right away)