What to buy? Panasonic HMC40, Sony FX7, etc.

T

tylerrad

Active member
I know there have been similar topics on this forum, which I've read, but I thought it valuable to mention my specific situation and get advice in light of that. (The below is c/p-ed from the cinematography.com forum where I posted the question a few days ago but have yet to get a reply, so I'm trying my luck here!)

I'm looking to buy my first HD camera. Currently I'm considering the Pansonic HMC40 and the Sony FX7 most strongly -- based in large part on these videos: http://vimeo.com/7333327 (FX7), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc3WHh7hmGQ (FX7), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0NPk23VZD4 (HMC40), and http://vimeo.com/8244743 (HMC40).

Budget is not high (definitely sub $2000 -- preferably around $1500) and I'm perfectly fine (more or less planning on) buying used.

I prefer CCD to CMOS -- rolling shutter, noise pattern, etc., -- so all things being equal, I'd prefer a CCD to CMOS censor (I haven't found a CCD in my price range that I like). I want a camera that can handle detail well (woods, densely packed, deep focus compositions). Shallow DOF is not important to me. I will be shooting in low light often, but my low light requirements are different that most, probably: I like noise/texture, so ultra-clean low light performance isn't really important. Based on the videos above, I like the low-light performance of the FX7 and HMC40. Light sensitivity is important though, and the way the noise is rendered is important. I like fine noise rather than smeary, chunky noise. I'll be using hand-held and steadicam shots most often -- probably another reason why CCD would be preferable. 24p would be nice, but isn't necessarily a dealbreaker. Some slow motion capability is a plus. I'd like for the camera to be able to engage gain even if the aperture isn't wide open and/or the shutter speed at its lowest. I don't think the HMC40 can do this; I'm not sure about the FX7.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on the two cameras I've mentioned, plus any others I may have overlooked.

(Also, I have looked at some of the HD capable DSLRs out there [GH1, etc], but I'm not really interested. I don't want 35mm DOF, which seems to be their main claim to fame. I'm not sure I can be sold on one of these.)
 
Used FX1s, in decent condition, can easily be found for well under $2k now. That's the only prosumer HD cam I know of, with an imaging block built around CCDs, that is currently selling for under $2k (unless you find a steal on an XH-A1)*. An FX1 isn't worth a darn for shooting 24p footage (Cineframe 24 is basically a joke) and won't give you the stunningly razor sharp images an HMC40 can deliver in good light, but they aren't exactly shabby cams either!

*The HMC70 uses CCDs and is marketed as a "pro" camcorder, but that's just marketing department fertilizer (to keep it G-rated). Functionally, it's just a pretty run of the mill consumer cam, in a big shell with XLR audio input built in.
 
As someone who just sold his FX7 on EBay and used the $$$ to buy an HMC40, I would suggest that the key difference to consider between these cameras is workflow: do you want tape-based HDV, or SD card-based AVCHD? HDV will much less demanding on your current computer hardware, but real-time logging over firewire is increasingly going to feel like dated technology, IMO.

The second big consideration is whether you want true progressive footage capability. Since you mention slow-motion, the 720p60 on the HMC40 could be particularly valuable.
 
Btw, I strongly suggest that you do not try to judge a camera's low light performance (particularly in regard to noise) by viewing typical YouTube (or similar) video on the web. It's just way, way too compressed to give you an accurate idea of what kind of noise/grain to really expect from any particular cam when shooting in low light situations.
 
real-time logging over firewire is increasingly going to feel like dated technology
Click to expand...
I agree. Though DV tape is what I'm used to. It makes little difference to me though compared to image quality, with respect to the stipulations and conditions I spelled out in the OP.

I appreciate all your advice and information. The FX1 I've looked into a little and it seems that I could get it for about the same price as FX7 -- which definitely go for well below $2000. One just sold on eBay tonight for exactly $1500.

The XHA1 seems like a good cam, but I'd ruled it out because of price. Can I really get it for below $2000? If so, I should begin considering it. I've seen some HD footage of it (albeit, only on Vimeo and YouTube) and can't see much of a difference in quality between the others. It's only 1080i, same as FX7 (though with 24 frame capability) and without progressive options that the HMC40 has, and I could likely get the HMC40 new cheaper than I could get the XH A1 used. The FX1 is something I need to explore more, though -- I didn't realize it was CCD based. Does anyone have anything to add about its general image quality, low light performance, etc as compared to HMC40 and FX7?

Keep any and all comments coming. The more information the better. Anyone have a compelling argument why the XH A1 is worth it, when I could get the HMC40 or the FX7 for probably $400 or $500 cheaper (used)?
 
Last edited:
Also, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of a forum or website where I could download uncompressed, original footage from these (and perhaps other) cameras. Seeing such video would be, ultimately, the most helpful thing. I feel like DVinfo used to have a lot of video examples, but I can't seem to find any now
 
www.pana3ccduser.com had some access to uncompressed HMC40 footage, and it might still be there.

I also offloaded my FX7 to get the HMC40. The new camera seems to be a bit slower than the fx7, but I think the gain is better (subjective).

At the $1500 point, you are almost at a new HMC40, with three year warranty and no worries about tape heads. Note the FX7 has no tattletale on it, so a saleman saying "A little old lady bought it and only used it to film the church Christmas play" is an issue. You won't KNOW how many hours are on the camera.

The FX1 might be a good option if you need CCD. 1/3" will be a bit faster than the 1/4" CMOS. The HMC40 captures GREAT detail, but it depends on how low light you are talking.
 
Cranky said:
Could you compare them?
Click to expand...

Too soon to comment on the image itself. Here are some thoughts on the two cameras physically....

The HMC40 is lighter and noticeably shorter than the FX7 - in fact is shorter even with the Pany 0.7X adapter attached. Both are comfortable to hold but my impression is that the HMC is a little squeakier and creakier i.e. more susceptible to handling noise.

The FX7's handle is built in, and is closer to the camera body - mounting an external microphone on the HMC's handle will raise it an inch or so higher than on the FX7. The FX7's handle raises up it's internal mic above the camera body and directs it forward, whereas the HMC40's mic is on the lens barrel and points up. The FX7's handle provided zoom and record controls - the HMC40 handle is 'dumb' (but removeable and so more packable).

The HMC40 has a dedicated port, and mounting holes on the handle, for its optional XLR module. The 3rd-party XLR Beachtek's designed for the FX7 mount underneath the camera via the tripod thread.

The FX7's 3.5mm external mic port is on the handle, covered by a small flap - the HMC's port is on the camera body and is covered by a large rubberised cap that also covers the USB and HDMI ports - what the @*# were Panasonic thinking with that design decision?? The mic cover flaps around when a mic cable is attached, and is tricky to push back on - sigh.

The FX7 has a really nice built in lens cover mechanism - the HMC has a simple removeable cap. Both cameras use a bayonet mount for the lens shade, however the HMC locks by friction which is faster than the FX7, which requires a thumbscrew to be loosened/tightend. The HMC's eyepiece is not rotatable for left-eye viewers - I think the same is true for the FX7, but don't quote me on that.

The FX7 had an (expensive) bayonet-mount 0.8X adapter lens, and an (expensive) lens hood available for that. The Panasonic 0.7X adapater for the HMC40 is screw-on, and has no filter thread for fittting a hood.

The FX7 has 3.5cm LCD and 20X zoom (vs. 2.7cm and 12X for the HMC). Both cameras have a dedicated manual/auto focus button. The FX7 has a physical button for shutter - the HMC places shutter on the onscreen menu.

The big differences in these cameras are of course the HMC's tapeless workflow, full 1920x1080 sensors and progressive modes - so although I do miss aspects of the FX7 I anticipate these new features of the HMC40 will win out overall.
 
Last edited:
I sort of take what I read about low-light performance with a grain of salt.

When I read about the HMC40, I read things like it being 3 stops slower (8x less sensitive) than an XH-A1 and thought, geez this cam is going to just out-and-out suck without a lot of light. Well, it's not a low-light champ for sure, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. The gain is a lot cleaner than the XH-A1, and that's quite significant as far as real-world performance. I haven't sat the two cams next to each other and carefully compared side-by-side shooting the same thing, but I've got to think the cleaner gain with the HMC40 effectively brings it a stop closer in real-world shooting (perhaps 2 stops difference when it comes to real-world usage?). The 40 certainly isn't limited to just shooting outside with no shade, on cloudless days, at high noon.
 
Robert,
I think you are dead on with that. I have done several indoor shots using ambient lighting and have had very clean results where there was good general lighting.
 
I shot some test video in a physician friend's office that came out pretty decent (as far as being quite sharp with good color and surprisingly clean). The lighting in that office isn't super dim or anything, but it's not particularly great either. I may wind up shooting some video to go on a website for his practice. If I do, I'll use the 40 and bring some lights, but the lights will simply be for effect, not because the practical lighting is too dim for the cam to get reasonably clean footage.
 
tylerrad said:
Also, I'd really appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of a forum or website where I could download uncompressed, original footage from these (and perhaps other) cameras. Seeing such video would be, ultimately, the most helpful thing. I feel like DVinfo used to have a lot of video examples, but I can't seem to find any now
Click to expand...

I've uploaded the source files to my HMC40 on my VIMEO account. I believe you have to register to access (download) the files, but that's free.

Here's my testing the different gain/shutter speeds at night.
http://vimeo.com/8732993

This is a test of overexposure and underexposure.
http://vimeo.com/8752442

This is an indoor shot, I think I used about +15dB of gain, but I can't be sure.
http://vimeo.com/9084341


Bob Diaz
 
Thanks for those, Bob. I joined Vimeo a few days ago just so I'd be able to download such stuff. It gives a good sense of its performance in a few basic situations. The colors do seem less vibrant than on the FX7 (I'm referring to the exposure test of the Jetta in the street); maybe that's an illusion.

So far, though, I haven't seen any video more impressive in terms of image quality than this video (http://vimeo.com/7333327), shot on the FX7 especially at 18 seconds in, the shot of the Westinister Mall sign. That's very impressive. At the same time, though, I've seen FX7 footage that's just abysmal. I guess a lot of it has to do with the operator.

I like the "idea" of the FX1, mainly because of the CCD sensors, but its image quality doesn't seem to be any better than the FX7 or the HMC40. The only exception to this, really, is this video: http://vimeo.com/groups/21873/videos/2668630. However, it was shot with a 35mm adapter and Nikon lenses, leading me to believe the quality of the images is owed more to the Nikon glass than to the FX1. I somehow doubt the camera could shoot like that out of the box. Would it be able to achieve anything close to that?

I'm having a very hard time coming to a decision, or even narrowing it down. Keep the info coming guys
 
tylerrad said:
So far, though, I haven't seen any video more impressive in terms of image quality than this video (http://vimeo.com/7333327), shot on the FX7
Click to expand...
At 0:14 (flags, pedestrian) shutter speed is no faster than 1/15. If you want to turn slow shutter speed into artistic effect, this will work, I saw examples of this in No Reservations. But if you want to shoot a moving object as it looks in real life, this is just way too slow.
 
All these cams (mentioned in this thread) have strong points and weak points.

On the whole, personally, I like the Panny HMC40 the best by far (although I've never handled an FX7). It can record the most detailed image of any of the cams mentioned, and can shoot every common HD format, including 720p60 (none of the others mentioned can) - which is absolutely fantastic for capturing silky smooth, life-like, motion. In my opinion, Panasonic delivers downright exceptional value with the HMC40.

The FX1 is definitely a cam to consider if you want a camera with CCD imaging chips for less than $2k, and those are 1/3" CCDs in the FX1, so you will get better low-light performance than with the HMC40 or FX7, but the imaging block in the FX1 will not resolve as much detail as the HMC40 (shooting with ample lighting).

Personally, I think CMOS rolling shutter issues are generally just way less serious than some folks make them out to be. I've shot plenty of footage with considerable motion using CMOS camcorders, and never was any of it spoiled by a jello effect. I shot this with an HV20 (CMOS) and even stepping through it frame by frame, wasn't able to find anything akin to a serious rolling shutter issue (even where there's considerable motion):

http://www.vimeo.com/8273770
 
any trip through additional glass will degrade the signal, regardless of who made it. The image is made with light, and some light will be absorbed by the 35mm lens and adaptor. It may arragange better composition (depth of focus) for what you are shooting, but the detail arriving at the sensor is not as good as the one going straight to a camcorder lens.

Also, as that is a trailer, you don't know what all else went into it after shooting. Color correction is a given. And, a couple of those night shots look like 'day for night' grading to me (27 second mark, for example), so could have had plenty of light before the NLE hit. Why shoot with inadequate light if you can simulate it in post and reduce the risk of tripping over something?

As for abysmal footage -- well any camera can shoot garbage in the hands of the wrong user. In fact, I think there might be a movie on SyFy right now to prove it.
 
Thanks for that analysis of the trailer, v3rlon. Good points. I do like to see cleaned up footage from these cameras, though. It gives a sense of what the camera's potential is. So, the Nikon lens(es), aside from allowing for shallower depth of field, did nothing to "improve" image quality?

And yeah, I know a lot of that FX7 video was shot at very slow shutter speeds and thus lower gain, but even still... it's a good looking video (of course shooting at 1/15 in most situations just isn't going to be practical).

I do appreciate that the HMC40 is going to get a more detailed image in daylight. As far as low light performance goes, it seems the HMC40 has pretty low noise levels even at reasonably high gain. The FX1 has bigger sensors and so more sensitivity, but is its noise as well-managed? Like you mentioned before, Robert, the XH A1 looks radioactive once the gain is cranked up; is this the same, or similar for the FX1 (as compared to the HMC40, at least)?

One question no one's yet answered, and maybe no one knows, is whether the FX7 or FX1 can shoot with gain engaged even if the aperture isn't wide open. I read somewhere that the HMC40 cannot, but that could've been inaccurate.

Another pressing issue -- will the Sony cameras appear too hyper-real and video-y considering their lack of progressive / 24 frame options? The trailer I mentioned before looks pretty cinematic, though still distinctly digital (which I like); I do dislike the video "cadence" though. Will the 24p option on the HMC40 make a big difference in terms of having a cinematic cadence, as compared to the Sony cameras' 60i?

One more question, and as this is the Panasonic board maybe no one knows, are the FX1 and FX7 thought to be similar in terms of image quality in general (color reproduction, detail, etc) or is one often said to have the upper hand? The FX1 is a pretty old camera, which does worry me, just to put that out there. I mean, 2004 is a long time ago.

Thanks again to everyone for being so attentive to this thread -- I'm getting a lot of great feedback
 
Gain is a separate control on the FX7, and I would imagine so on the FX1, and can be engaged without having the apeture fully open (though outside of shooting for BSG, why would you? :) ).

I cannot get gain on the HMC until the apeture is fully open. Maybe there is a trick I don't know yet, but they seem to be linked. You can set the upper limit though.

I can't answer about the hyper-real bit. This is subjective by person, and it bothers some more than others. If you want 24p shooting, then the HMC40 is the only choice of these
3. If you can/will settle for pulldown, then 60i will do.

In adequate light, the FX7 is BETTER than the FX1 from what I could tell. I originally looked at both of them when getting my FX7. The sensors on the FX7 are angled (they have some trademarked term for this I forget), so instead of a bunch of rectangles, it is a bunch of diamonds. This really clamps down on the verticle flares, and somehow helps render fine details better than the FX1 (or XHA1). Again, this is with good lighting. I remember reading a review and seeing some good pictures of a brick building in the distance, and the FX7 cleaned house for getting the details that the other cameras failed to capture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top