Panasonic HMC150 vs Sony Z5 Side By Side Comparison Clip
 

I posted this on the Panasonic AVCCAM Camcorders forum, but I thought I would post it here as well since over half of the footage is from the Sony Z5.

I recently had the opportunity to spend a few hours with the Sony Z5. We did a low light comparison at various gain settings.

We also compared how the two cameras handle a camera flash. There has been a lot of talk about rolling shutter, but this was the first time I experienced it first hand. This internet clip will give you a glimpse at what it looks like, but it does not paint the true picture until you watch rolling shutter footage on a 40+ HD monitor.

The final test is a whip pan. Many videographers will not pan this quickly, but if a really quick pan is part of your shooting style, you need to know how the rolling shutter of CMOS will affect your footage.
Tips & Tricks

Hi Mark,

DV Info has a strict policy of no cross posting. Basically, we want the information on a single topic to all be in one place for later reference.

Thanks,

Greg Boston

Well, that was a fine comparison Mark, thank you very much.

In past comparisons the low light performance of the Panasonic seemed closer to the Z5 but your demo shows more disparity than I expected.

The truth be told, in a shooting situation, using the gain properly with the Panny the difference could be made up, so the low light superiority of the Z5 could be offset and made inconsequential in most situations.

The rolling shutter however is not negotioable, of course and can look absolutely dreadful as I have experienced it and as you have demonstrated.

All in all, that little bit of low light superiority is comforting to me as a FX1000 owner however.

Greg, thanks for leaving the thread this time. This will no doubt garner much interest in this forum.

Greg - I too might have missed this thread so I was glad to see it here. I've never seen such a clear and convincing demo of the CMOS rolling shutter effects.

I could live with the leaning verticals in a pan because presumably for most shots the eye would be following the subject as it remained somewhat central in the frame, but the sliced up electronic flash frames just look dire. The 50% (presumably this means slo-mo) are a real no-no for the paparazzi blast wedding couples get as they come down the aisle.

tom.

Yes I suppose you have to put a %value of importance of any feature/fault when you buy a camcorder then you make your decision. For me the rolling shutter was 5% only and other features (quality of built,brand name,low light, zoom,ability to record on tape and flash card,e.t.c..) have much higher values.

Stelios

What were the iris values in the test as this would be important for depth of field? The zoom position would also change this iris value for the Z5 if this was in close.

Ron Evans

Thanks so much for that Mark. Im sure you have enlightened alot of people with this information. Exactly what I was looking for.

Well now Im just waiting for the HMC to arrive so I can see how they match up on my next wedding.

Hi Greg,

I'm sorry. I wasn't even thinking about the no cross posting policy. I initially posted it on the AVCCAM forum because a few people were wondering how the HMC150 compared to the Z5 in low light. After making the post I realized there were probably many who were considering the Z5, but had not seen the side affects of rolling shutter.

Please remove the post from the AVCCAM forum, especially since there seems to be more responses on the Z5/FX1000 forum.

Hi Ron,

The first test was with both cameras wide open on the iris and wide open on the zoom. On the close up test, the HMC150 was near max zoom and the iris closed down a bit. I then tried a similar framing with the Z5, and again the Z5 iris closed down.

I originally zoomed in all of the way on the Z5, which did get a tighter shot, but it was also much darker because the iris closes down so much at 20x zoom. I thought to be fair, I would frame both cameras as close as possible and then make sure the iris on both cameras was wide open. If I remember correctly, they were in the 2.8-3.4 range.

I'm not sure how DoF would affect this test. We did a manual focus on the subject and the wall was only about an inch further away than the subject.

The Z5 has a 20x zoom ramping from f/1.6 to f/3.4. The Panasonic has a 13x zoom going from f/1.6 to f/3.0, to there's a lot more zoom on the Z5 and it only loses another 1/3rd of a stop. I'm surprised to hear that you thought it went 'much darker' as a third stop is only just noticeable.

As both cameras have the same size chips the field of view is exactly the same for both at any given focal length, so dof is the same too.

tom.

I think the whip pan should be put into a little better perspective. I was nervous when I heard that you can get a skew with the whip pans. It's been well documented that panning across a fence or bars, as Mark did in the video, would yield those results. I used the camera and did some whip pans at a party and I got nothing like that. Luckily for me I'll be shooting people at parties and not shooting fences or prison documentaries.

You never know, Mark. I had an entertainment company and we did several gigs at a womens maximum security prison, so you never know who might call you; but that is a whole other story!

The whip pan is of absolutely of no issue to me either. I see issues with panning in much more expensive cameras than mine, and I think it is of no consequence for my purposes. Admittedly, I would prefer it to be perfect, but I just don't care about it that much.

It is still fantastic to see this comparison and to know more of what is what with these two cameras.

vertical pan a non issue in some instances
 

Well here is a positive re vertical pan.

I have looked back at recent Aussie Rules footage filmed with a FX1000 and there is alot of quick panning in the general footage.

I didn't see any vertical pan issues at all.

Perhaps vertical pan becomes an issue on subjects that are close to the camera.

The general footage I took was generally action zoomed into a subject that was 20-70 metres away.

My mind is at ease and I don't see it as an issue for me.

That footage Mark filmed though of the fence was rather scary and if one was filming commercials it could well be a big issue in some instances.

Thanks MArk for doing this for us.

On what I think is a huge + for the Z5/FX1000 is the digi 30X zoom. I have now used it 3 times and are blown away by the little if no loss in quality.

For those doing sport it is just awesome being able to press a button and "BANG" you are in there so much closer.

I just can't see any digital distortion although I haven't tried it yet on a big LCD/Plasma TV or in HDV as I am shooting in standard DEF.

But based on what I see so far it really is a big plus and well done Sony on this one.

Seems I am Sony happy again after some initital disappointments with the camera. I am loving the 1/3 inch images this 30X extender is a huge bonus for me.

The whip pan is of zero consequence to me, but the low light surely isn't. The Z5 seems significantly better and I can well imagine settings where no matter what you do with the Panny, you'll get a noisier image in an attempt to get a usable image.

Not mentioned, but I also notice some areas where the Z5 appeared sharper too. Of course this was on a relatively small window on the frame, so I'd bet there was a bigger disparity than what I saw on the site when viewed on a large screen monitor.

I also agree with Martin on the big advantage of the 20X zoom...and the very nice wide angle to boot.

Hi Ken,

On an HD monitor the Z5 seemed only slightly brighter, but here is the really big difference. The dark areas of the shot were significantly noisier on the Z5 at 12dB gain, while the HMC150 was cleaner in the dark areas of the shot at 12 dB gain.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Panny a winner for weddings
 

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.

I love the feel of the Z5. Slightly heavier than the PD-170, with the MRC-1 attached, but more balanced. Great LCD placement as well but I guess this has been covered in other posts.

Hey !!! love my z5 and getting in love with my new(second camera)fx1000
great duo.
Last weekend my second camera man use the FX1000 for the first time,and at the
end of the wedding he just say ! HEY BOSS NEVER AGAIN 4X3,coming from pd 170
the QUALITY IS NOTORIUS!!!

Be my guest!!!............Franklin

As I said before, I shot with mine Friday and footage is really nice, particularly the outdoor stuff. There is nothing like true 16:9

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the kind words.

The ceremony location was not too bad, but where the couple stood was very dark. You can see the congregation was nice and bright, but the couples faces were in the dark. The camera actually made the scene look brighter than it actually was.

I do agree with you on the reception footage. There was nice accent lighting and then I provided on camera and off camera lighting as well.

I observed that where the couple stood it seemed quite dark, and thought the cam did quite well, but I couldn't say for sure as I wasn't there.

That is why I was so impressed by the footage...very nice Mark.

4:3 - yuk!!!!!!!!!!!
 

4:3 dead and buried

Mark, the couple looked somewhat dark but it looked as though there was enough ambient light to compensate but as Jeff said, without being there it's hard to tell.

Go tell that to Corporate America! Far from dead and buried, trust me on that. :)

16:9
 

I can't understand that.

Here in Oz its all 16:9 across the board. Never heard of "Please film for us in 4:3".

That must drive u nuts Ken

To be honest Martin, I'm so used to it, it just doesn't phase me anymore. Hell, I still get a very occasional request for a finished video to be dumped to VHS!