Panasonic HMC150 vs Sony Z5 Side By Side Comparison Clip

[Ken Ross]

Mark, how about the sharpness & resolution of the Panasonic vs the Z5? The Z5 has been measured at 900 lines of horizontal resolution and on my 60" plasma, I've yet to see a more resolute picture.

I'm certainly not seeing the noise you're referring to on the Z5, but I take your word for it. Noise surely has not been a problem for me in low light shooting where the Z5 is extremely competitive with the 2100...a result far better than I could have ever hoped for.

[Mark Von Lanken]

Hi Ken,

I'm out of town until Monday, so I can't view the footage to give you an accessment on the resolution comparison. From shooting with Sony cameras for the last 13 years, I do know that Sony cameras always give the clean and crisp look.

[Jeff Harper]

In the case of these cameras I see the skill of the shooter as a larger factor in the final product rather than the minor low-light differences in the cameras.

The low-light capabilities of the Sony is clearly better, but with gain properly used on the Panasonic the differences become insigificant, IMO.

I noticed imediately when I viewed your clips, Mark, that the Panasonic performed well with increased gain and presented a nice clean image.

While off-topic I'd say for wedding work the Panasonic could easily be seen as a better value.

When you look at the price difference between the Z5 and the Panasonic, dollar for dollar the Panasonic gives more bang for the buck. XLR connections, CCDs, and a comparable image for $3200 is a heck of a buy.

On the other hand, I actually like the additional weight of the Sony and the placement of the LDC on that cam.

In my mind the primary differences between these two cams comes down to which features are most important to the shooter.

[Rob Morse]

If I was looking for a completely tapeless workflow, this would not be the camera I would buy. There are so many better cameras on the market.

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Rob Morse

If I was looking for a completely tapeless workflow, this would not be the camera I would buy. There are so many better cameras on the market.

Rob, Please name one taking into consideration value for money.

Stelios

[Jeff Harper]

There is always better, but as Stelios asks, for the price what is better than either of these cams?

[Rob Morse]

Define value. Is value the degree of importance? Is value the cost of an item? Is value something that enables you to do the kind of work you do with minimum problems? Is the camera making you money or is it strictly for entertainment? A completely tapeless camera, such as an EX1, is a great value. I think the Z5 with tape and solid state backup along with a 20x zoom and low light is a great value. The camera stepped right into everything I own, including the batteries. I’m just starting to get into the camera but it feels great in my hands (better than the PD-170) and for all I get with this camera, in my opinion, there is no better value. If the EX1 had tape, that’s the camera I would own. I’m still working the tapeless thing in gently and maybe I’ll have enough trust in it when I look at my next camera. I don’t particularly like the CMOS, and may be ragging about it down the road, but it’s not as bad as people have made it out to be. Again, it’s what works best for you and your ROI.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

The low-light capabilities of the Sony is clearly better, but with gain properly used on the Panasonic the differences become insigificant, IMO.

Couldn't agree less Jeff. The fact is that when you have two cameras with significant differences in low-light capabilities, it makes no difference whatsoever how 'skilled' you are. If the camera can't dig out the details cleanly in very low-light, the most skilled videographer can stand on his head and spit nickels, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

You can play with the gain, iris, shutter speed...you'll still get performance that won't be as good as the cam with better low-light. This can be a major issue at times, not a minor one....been there done that. Yes, you can add lights (as you should), but at times it's not always practical.

[Jeff Harper]

You don't have to agree Ken. The Panasonic forum is filled with camera operators who love the camera and are making money with it.

The Sony and the Panasonic are both fine cameras, and if you cannot do the job with one, you likely cannot do it with the other. That's what I'm saying.

[Ken Ross]

I have no doubt that most Panny owners love their cam. I've seen very few cameras in any price range where most owners didn't love them...after all, that's why they bought them after doing their research. My point was based only on low-light performance Jeff. In that area I'm saying the Sony is better and I can easily foresee situations where the Sony will do a much better job under poor lighting conditions.

Can the Panasonic get it done too in those situations? Yes, but with lesser results. Does that mean the results will be 'acceptible' to all viewers? That depends on how critical the viewer is. All cams are not created equal in all areas. I've dealt with many cameras in low light and the best by far was the VX2000/VX2100. Suffice is to say the Z5 is the equal of those. Some are bothered by rolling shutter and others are not. It's all in the viewer's eyes.

I would also bet that objective testing would show quite a bit more resolution with the Sony than the Panasonic. Would the Panny be perfectly acceptable in terms of detail? I'm sure it would, but if you're after the sharpest picture the Sony may well have the edge. To me HD is all about getting the most detail I can within a given price range. That's why I traded my consumer Sony SR12 for the Canon HG21. The Canon simply delivered a sharper, more detailed HD picture than the Sony. I find HD on a good 60" plasma can be very revealing of both the good and bad in any camera.

On the other hand I would gladly welcome the lighter weight of the Panasonic. The weight of the Z5 was always a concern and I would still prefer a camera of the Z5's quality, but on a diet.

We make sacrifices to get the performance we strive for. :)

[Jeff Harper]

Here's a great example of the lesser results, Ken. http://vonweddingfilms.com/preview/HMC150Highlight.wmv

I can see how the Sony might have been brighter, etc., but in the end, it wouldn't really matter. Running fully manual with great camera technique, footage looks great.

I see also that during the shot of the bride coming down the aisle how CMOS might have ruined the video clip, but since the cam has CCDs, no worries.

I maintain the low light differences are too slight to be meaningful.

My wedding Friday came out really great, shot with the FX1000. I love the footage, I'll try and post a clip soon.

[Ken Ross]

I can't view the clips now Jeff since I'm on a shoot now and staying in a hotel with lousy download speeds. But regardless, the Panasonic doesn't offer SD which is critical for me and I simply don't like editing AVCHD at this stage of the game.

For me the only advantage in the Panny is the lesser weight.

[Rob Morse]

Truthfully, I think Mark can probably make any camera look good, he does phenominal work. Looking at the footage though, it really doesn't look very dark. The church & reception are both very well lit. I wish I could shoot in conditions like that on a regular basis. To be fair, I don't see where this is a true test of low light conditions.

[Jeff Harper]

It's not a good demonstration of low light that is true.

[Martin Duffy]

For me the only advantage in the Panny is the lesser weight.[/QUOTE]



If I was filming weddings, which I no longer do, I would go with the Panny.

I will never forget how awesome the Sony TRV900 was for weddings. So light, so maneuverable, so discreet, hand held footage a breeze.

The VX series I found was just a little too front heavy and it seems the FX1000/Z5 even heavier.

We are talking 8-12 hour wedding days here. Not corporate shoots where much time is spent on the tripod.