A little disappointed with low-light
 

Now, to preface my disappointment, I've been using a PD170 for the last 3 years, so that's what I'm used to. In playing with an HMC150 tonight, I thought from all the amazing low-light talk that it would be closer to the PD170.

In fact, in the tests I ran, my PD170 was about 1.5 stops brighter in the same scenario with the same settings, and slightly more saturated. Granted, very unscientific, but in as fair a test possible, side by side the PD170 was much brighter. Now, compared to a Z1 or XH-A1, maybe the 150 is much better. But, since I have never used either of those cameras, I can't compare. That's likely what everyone here is talking about when referring to great low-light.

Sometimes I shoot in low-light without a light that challenges the PD170 a little, and that would concern me if using the 150. The footage also seemed a bit "flat", but that's with scene file 1 and no adjustments shooting indoors at mostly 6-9db gain. Is the footage like that out of the box... flat until you adjust the settings?

What scene file settings does everyone recommend after unboxing? I'll have to search for some here. I'll get to play with that camera a little more tomorrow, and would like to adjust some of those settings to see if I can get sharper and more saturated indoor footage.

Now, on the plus side, which far outweighs my concerns, I LOVE using the sd cards, the light weight of the camera, the info on the lcd screen (although the viewing angles really suck), the stock wide angle coverage, the manual controls, and many many other things. I have an 8-core mac pro, and transcode times are about 50% the clip length, which is better than tape, but slower than working directly with avchd. I could easily live with that though. I gotta get me one of these!!

Dan

Welcome to the world of HD. HD cameras require more light than SD cameras. The Sony 170 was the king of low light in the SD world. The ruling camera in low light right now is the Sony EX1 or EX3. The 150 is more in line with the Z1/Z5 cameras.

I have not used the 150 yet, but from what I have read it does pretty good considering the small chips.

Daniel Weber

I once had a 170 as well. That sucker is like having night vision. Everything else you use will only disappoint because they can't come close.

The 150 is more like the Z1. The Z5/EX1/EX3 are Really Really close to the PD170.

Everyone keeps comparing the HMC150 to the Z1(4 year old camera)... I want to see some real comparisons vs the Z5.

Daniel, yes, I knew HD chips required more light, but I was thinking the hmc150 was closer to the pd170 than it is. But, although a little disappointed, it's still perfectly useable I think, with the low amount of noise at even 9-12gb gain.

Blake, night vision is a near perfect description! I am going to miss that "night vision" tremendously, but really look forward to diving into HD.

Steve, I agree. I see a lot of comparisons to the Z1, which is quite old now (in camcorder years). I'd like to see more comparisons to the z5 and z7.

I'll third that.

I'm sorry you were disappointed, but try some different settings as well for a comparison. With most cameras, if you turn up the gain to 9db, you start to see the footage deteriorate with grain very rapidly. You can run the gain at 9db in a low light environment on the HMC and still get a very good looking image. You can increase the gain farther with less visible grain than most cameras, and the footage is more usable in post. I've not used the PD170, maybe it can as well, but try a few other tests first.

In low light, the HMC is still the best of the 1/3" sensor HD Cameras, and overall its image is significantly better than that of the PD170. Its a big step up in video quality.

Regarding comparisons to the Z5 and Z7, in Mark Von Lanken's article on the HMC in EventDV he mentions a third party source that said that the HMC is similar to the Z7 in low light, but that he was able to get more out of the HMC footage in post.

I love the HMC in low light, but then again I wasn't coming from a PD170.

I know Mark mentioned it in his article. I would still like to see side by side comparison in an actual review. It seems no one has really done extensive tests which is odd because the Z7 and HMC have been out for a little while now. Usually reviews pop up almost as soon as the cameras do. But not in this case I guess. Weird.

I agree, and especially because the Z7 and hmc150 are both solid state. Well, I know the Z7 can do tape too, but really, unless for backup, who's gonna use tapes with that camera.

Tom, yes, I will definitely try some different settings, playing with the scene files and such. I can see not coming from a pd170 not realizing how incredible it was in low light compared to the 150. I've also seen footage from a Z1, and I think this 150 is hands down the winner there. But I haven't used any other HD camera at all, so this is my first experience with HD and low-light. I'll get used to it, and learn to love and appreciate it. I already love the medium/good light images more than you can imagine!

Hi Steve,

We tried to get a Z5 for the HMC150 review, but Sony did not come through. I live in Tulsa, OK and I don't know anyone in my market that uses a Z7, so I had to do the testing against my Z1. I do agree with you, a Z5 or Z7 would have been better.

I recently had a chance to spend a few hours with the Z5 and HMC150. I'll post some footage later this weekend.

Wonderful! I would love to hear your thoughts on both. Well I already know what you think about the HMC150 =)

Take care,

Steve

That's quite a statement to make with Z7 owners listening in Tom. The lens on the Panasonic ramps from f/1.6 to f/3, whereas the Z7's goes from f/1.6 to f/2 - well over a stop faster.

So out there in the real world (where you might just want to use the zoom a bit) the Z7 is a real low-light camera.

tom.

You know, I noticed that same thing. Stopping down to f3 at full zoom really darkens the image a lot. That extra stop could be really useful. And I tend to shoot a lot of "fly on the wall" style and zoom in. Can't do that too much in the reception halls anymore.

Lol...yes it is, and maybe a bit premature. I don't own a Z7, I read that in two reviews of the HMC150 in publications. But the reasoning is sound. Pixel size is the main determiner of low light sensitivity (the reason why 1/3" HD cameras generally have less low light sensitivity than 1/3" SD cameras). Both use 1/3" sensors, but the 960x540 sensors on the HMC give it a much larger pixel surface area than the 960x1080 sensors on the Z7.

But as always, I could be wrong.....

Dan, except for the EX1, HD cameras have been notoriously bad in low-light. So when an HD cameras gets kudos for doing well, it's a comparison to other HD cams that people are referring to.

I shoot with the VX series of Sony cams, so I know what you're talking about. But I realize the Panny won't mimic those, so I'm prepared for it.

Yeah, I realize comparing an HD camera, even one good with low-light, to the king of SD cameras, pd170, the hmc150 will not compare. But I'm seeing that compared to other HD cameras, the hmc150 is great. My problem is that I have never used another HD camera. I do work with a guy sometimes that shows me his Z1 lcd screen, and just when I think it looks as good as my pd170, he says he's at 18db gain and I'm at 6db (+/- 3db).

Although, in Mark's latest comparison to the Z5 (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic...ison-clip.html), the Panny doesn't seem lightyears ahead at all. Now, take the rolling shutter into account, and the Panny is the clear winner.

I know the Panny is the camera for me, and I know I'll get used to it not being a pd170. I like Joel's idea of using a couple of external lights to light up the dance floor for the main events. I wonder how many brides would care about that.

I have the VX2100 (same low light capability as the PD170) and I have a Sony Z7 and I would rate the Z7 at least equal to the VX2100 in low light capability. And there is a direct comparison on this forum between the FX1000 and the HMC-150 and the FX1000 is clearly superior in low light. That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.

I've logged quite a few hours behind a VX2100 as well.

Do you have a link to the comparison between the FX1000 and the HMC? I've searched every keyword and phrase that I can think of and can't seem to find it.

I haven't had any problems with flashes with the HMC. Other than the momentary over-exposure (depending on the conditions) that will happen with any camera, it cruises through it.

See if this works.

Tips & Tricks

I've seen this one involving the Z5, it's a good comparison. I was searching for the comparison that you mentioned between the FX1000 and the HMC.

Yeah. That was just a typo on my part FX1000 and Z5 have the same low light capabilities. I just remembered as being FX1000 vs. HMC150.

Yes, flashes don't look good at any time, but the Sony looked more annoying and unnatural.

Greg, I think you should clarify your comment about the flashes, that is there should be no difference in the way flashes are recorded on the HMC vs all the CCD SD prosumer cams we've been used to.. you just don't like flashes in video, that's all. :)

CMOS sensors + flashes is where things get weird, the partially flashed frame is definitely not what we've been used to seeing in video given that CMOS sensors are relatively new to the industry..

Who knows, maybe in 10 years majority of all cameras will have CMOS sensor and would be accustomed to the way flashes look from a CMOS chip..

I saw a paparazzi video the other day that was obviously shot with a CMOS camera. And as I watched it, I realized that the flashes only ruined part of the frame and you could actually still see the starlet's face when all of these flashes were going off. It occured to me that a flash on a CCD camera basically ruins the whole frame. While it only ruins a part of the frame with a CMOS camera. So while CMOS banding is different than what we have been used to seeing maybe it really isn't worse. I am not trying to start an arguement. I am just saying that for some reason, the other night, I just looked at it with a different point of view.

I would certainly hope that within 2 or 3 years electronic flash won't cause CMOS to behave in this way. Pioneers always have to face a colder wind.

Greg, I agree 100%. I actually find some shots less annoying with CMOS than losing the entire frame with the CCD.

You'd think it's easy enough for them to add a flash suppression functionality in the image processor chip where they can take the immediate frame before and after the flash to compute the delta in luma change to effectively dial out or tune down the additional exposure from the flash... of course, it wouldn't for that well for paparazzi style shooting but for event coverage it could be useful...

Actually Im very surprised that a plug-in manufacturer for Sony Vegas or one of the other NLE companies hasn't come out with something that corrects this in post.

I wonder if they think its no big deal?

In reality it's no big deal till you come to slo-mo a sequence that has a lot of electronic flashes going off. THEN it becomes much more of a big deal.

The weddings I have done don't have paparazzi super burst flashes. Its typically 1 photographer and then a few guest cameras. The examples I have seen look like they were all shot on the Red Carpet for the Oscar's or something.

Yeah, slomo can look weird, but I don't see myself how the cmos flash frames can look better. I mean, yeah, you lose the entire frame with ccd, but it looks more natural to me to see the entire frame flash white than those half-frame flashes from cmos.

Plus, I played with a demo of a plugin for fcp that removed the flashes and did a pretty good job. Don't remember the name because it was expensive and didn't need it.