or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › 2011 Panasonic cams announced.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2011 Panasonic cams announced. - Page 5

post #121 of 150
So I'm about to pull the trigger and order the tm900 since it is in stock. I e been debating whether or not I should buy it or the tm700 or the canon hf g10. Anyone have suggestions before I make it final? I wish I could combine the tm900 and g10 into one camera.
post #122 of 150
The Canon will have the best low light and the Panasonic has 1080p. The only thing that gets me nervous about the Pannys these days is the bondi-blue issue with skies. I've seen a number of clips from a variety of owners that show this issue. We haven't seen enough from the 900 to make any judgment yet.

You can also look at the Canon M41 which is considerably cheaper than the G10 and has fewer manual controls and a lens that doesn't provide as wide an angle as the G10
post #123 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

The Canon will have the best low light and the Panasonic has 1080p. The only thing that gets me nervous about the Pannys these days is the bondi-blue issue with skies.

That's what has stuck in my mind too. It's a difficult decision. The low light of the canon is very appealing but it also costs a lot more. It's a difficult decision.
post #124 of 150
Well the Canon M41 is actually less than the Panny 900. It's MSRP is $799 and it will be just as good as the G10 in low light. Same CMOS Pro chip.
post #125 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Well the M41 is actually less than the Panny 900. It's MSRP is $799 and it will be just as good as the G10 in low light. Same CMOS Pro chip.

Yea I had been looking at that one too. My main concern was the fact it has a different lens and no native 24p. I know the panny doesn't have 24p but to me makes up for it with 60p. I guess I could use inverse telecine to extract 24p from the 60i container, which is what I would have to do with the panny, but it's just an extra step. If I went with the canon I could see myself using the 24p, but if I went with the panny I'd pretty much only use 60p.
post #126 of 150
I'm sure you can't go wrong with any of them. I can't remember a time when there were so many good choices. Don't forget about the Sony 700, another contender with 1080p.
post #127 of 150
I try and tell myself I'll love whichever I go with. They've gotta be better than the panasonic omnimovie VHS-C my dad shot on. Ha. Which was actually a pretty sweet camcorder for the late 80's. I'm in the process of digitizing all our old home videos with a Canopus advc. Talk about time consuming. I'll probably end up with the tm900. It's just hard to part with $1100.
post #128 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinIce View Post

yes B&H...I received a notice it was in stock.....so maybe it is.

I sure hope they have it in stock. I ordered the TM900 this morning from B&H - and it should be in my hands tomorrow according to the shipment notification I received earlier. After a good bit of research here and elsewhere, combined with an urgent need, I just went for it. With any luck I will have time tomorrow to find some worthy subject matter and test drive it (and upload the video to somewhere so everyone can check it out).
post #129 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry426 View Post

I sure hope they have it in stock. I ordered the TM900 this morning from B&H - and it should be in my hands tomorrow according to the shipment notification I received earlier. After a good bit of research here and elsewhere, combined with an urgent need, I just went for it. With any luck I will have time tomorrow to find some worthy subject matter and test drive it (and upload the video to somewhere so everyone can check it out).


Upload it to Vimeo and make sure we can download the original source file, otherwise it's a waste of time because the file is converted which is useless.
post #130 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry426 View Post


I sure hope they have it in stock. I ordered the TM900 this morning from B&H - and it should be in my hands tomorrow according to the shipment notification I received earlier. After a good bit of research here and elsewhere, combined with an urgent need, I just went for it. With any luck I will have time tomorrow to find some worthy subject matter and test drive it (and upload the video to somewhere so everyone can check it out).

If you ordered it today before 3:30 and overnighted it you will get it tomorrow. I also took the plunge this morning. I called and ordered mine and they definitely have it in stock. I will be getting mine tomorrow too. I wonder how many units b&h have. I looked on amazon and there is a seller that had 10 in stock when I looked. He didn't offer overnight shipping though. I was going to order an extra battery for it but panny hasn't released them yet!!!
post #131 of 150
I will have the Camera in on Friday. I'll take it for a spin at night to see how well it does in low light settings. First Camcorder I've owned so I'll be shooting automatic unless one of you requests a specific setting. I'll be uploading all my videos to my server so you all can download them.
post #132 of 150
Why not use Vimeo? Your files will stay fully native for people to download for a week.
post #133 of 150
My new TM900 did in fact arrive yesterday via next day shipping. I shot several quickie test videos, one of which I tried to upload to my new Vimeo account (as the MTS file straight from the camera). However, Vimeo failed to convert the file and directed me to a guidelines page. I will dig more into the Vimeo upload/conversion problem as time permits in the next few days.

However, I am very happy with the video quality - but even more pleased and surprised by the audio recording quality using the built in microphone(s).

More to follow as extremely busy schedule permits....
post #134 of 150
This been happening to me and I'm not sure what causing the issue. Some native clips will work while others wont.
post #135 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry426 View Post

My new TM900 did in fact arrive yesterday via next day shipping. I shot several quickie test videos, one of which I tried to upload to my new Vimeo account (as the MTS file straight from the camera). However, Vimeo failed to convert the file and directed me to a guidelines page. I will dig more into the Vimeo upload/conversion problem as time permits in the next few days.

However, I am very happy with the video quality - but even more pleased and surprised by the audio recording quality using the built in microphone(s).

More to follow as extremely busy schedule permits....

Glad to hear you like the sound,

I had a TM700, and the sound was terrible. Very tinny souning, and in some cases would echo.

Would really like to know how the low light looks, under normal natural evening inside lighting (not, "crank up every light" lighting.

My TM700 (in standard settings) was grainy (??noisy??) so I returned it.
post #136 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Glad to hear you like the sound,

I had a TM700, and the sound was terrible. Very tinny souning, and in some cases would echo.

Would really like to know how the low light looks, under normal natural evening inside lighting (not, "crank up every light" lighting.

My TM700 (in standard settings) was grainy (??noisy??) so I returned it.

Arent you the fellow that based the decision on a video with one light on of your child from across the room?

I mean, it would be great if it could nail those conditions and do it well, but color and sharpness would have to be sacrificed regardless of the consumer cam. Thus, wouldnt it make sense to just turn on at least a couple more lights, regardless of improvements made on the 900 or G10?
post #137 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Glad to hear you like the sound,

I had a TM700, and the sound was terrible. Very tinny souning, and in some cases would echo.

Would really like to know how the low light looks, under normal natural evening inside lighting (not, "crank up every light" lighting.

My TM700 (in standard settings) was grainy (??noisy??) so I returned it.

---------------------------------
I frankly agree with workinghard , those cams can already make a nice job with low light compared to previous génération cams but dont expect a miracle. Some extra light , not by much but well situated can save your shots.
Concerning both sound and light conditions , the neerer you are the better you get (so you dont have to zoom in and lose more light and you can get nice sound (in 2 channel mode since 5.1 makes echo perception)
On Pana700 Did you activate low light function if yes , did you push shutter speed down to 1/30 our 1/25
post #138 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Glad to hear you like the sound,

I had a TM700, and the sound was terrible. Very tinny souning, and in some cases would echo.

That's weird. I always thought the sound of my 700 was quite good when playing back through my home theater.
post #139 of 150
Expect to receive my TM-900 Monday, exactly 2 months since I preordered from Amazon.
BTW, I found they've posted the Users Manual (which I'm reading!) and it may be found at
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/HDCSD900.PDF

Edit: Oops, found out thats the UK edition (even though from the "US" site). Guess I will wait for hard copy!
post #140 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by workinghard View Post

Arent you the fellow that based the decision on a video with one light on of your child from across the room?

I mean, it would be great if it could nail those conditions and do it well, but color and sharpness would have to be sacrificed regardless of the consumer cam. Thus, wouldnt it make sense to just turn on at least a couple more lights, regardless of improvements made on the 900 or G10?


Ya, that's me.

I probably expected more from it. In the day, the cam was amazing! But I was hoping for much better low light. My iPhone 4 in the same light looks about the same.

When I get my new one (not sure which one, but 900 is top of the list) will play around with it, the settings, and this time will put on extra lights to see if I can get the quality.
post #141 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by toni1 View Post

---------------------------------
I frankly agree with workinghard , those cams can already make a nice job with low light compared to previous génération cams but dont expect a miracle. Some extra light , not by much but well situated can save your shots.
Concerning both sound and light conditions , the neerer you are the better you get (so you dont have to zoom in and lose more light and you can get nice sound (in 2 channel mode since 5.1 makes echo perception)
On Pana700 Did you activate low light function if yes , did you push shutter speed down to 1/30 our 1/25

I'm a newbie, last camcorder was a Sony 8MM (the small video tape) and had few things you could change.

So with the new one, I just used it, and read the manual to see what other things I could/should do. Didn't play around very much, and only had 14 days to return it without a problem. So I didn't change the sound, or the low light or speed. I did see a you tube with the low light, or night light, looked more like night vision, not something that helps. Is there a low light function that looks normal as well?

With the sound, I didn't hear it on the camcorder, I heard it on TV a few days later. And it was in the kitchen about 5 feet away from my son, and the sound would echo.

I think with my new one (pending which one) I should download the manual and get to understand it, so when I get it, I can start to use the features.
post #142 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post


I think with my new one (pending which one) I should download the manual and get to understand it, so when I get it, I can start to use the features.

I'm leaning heavily toward the G10 and I'll be sure to let you know of my thoughts if you haven't bought a cam by then and I actually have the Canon.
post #143 of 150
[quote=CarguyHere;20104564]I'm a newbie, last camcorder was a Sony 8MM (the small video tape) and had few things you could change.

----------------
What is hapenning when you in Ia automatic mode is simple
In low light conditions under a certain level of light the cam will prefer to push up video artificial gain (value in dB from 0-18 ) than continue to slow shuter speed. It does so in order to prevent mouvement artifact.
Above 9-12 db of gain video will become « noisy ».
The extra light is meant to prevent the cam to push up gain too much. Then some extra light will help.
In manual mode you can adjust the 3 values.If you want automatic some extra light is a good compromise.
Sure you ll be happy with your new cam
post #144 of 150
Full Review:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-Review.htm

This is disappointing, and they said it would 45% better!

"

Low Light Sensitivity (8.00)
The HDC-TM900 didn't surprise us in our low light sensitivity test. The camcorder managed to reach 50 IRE with 11 lux of light, and that's exactly the same amount of light the HDC-TM700 needed in this test (that's what we meant by no surprise). Of course, if you shoot 3D video with the TM900, you can expect to need a whole lot more light to capture a usable image. The conversion lens limits the amount of light that hits the sensor, and that doesn't bode well for low light situations.
Here's another thing to remember: the HDC-TM900, like many of today's modern camcorders, has a very wide angle lens. So, when we zoomed in for our sensitivity test, the camcorder had to close up its aperture a bit. This also lets more light hit enter the camcorder and negatively impacts low light sensitivity. We tested the TM900 without any zoom and it needed just 6 lux of light to hit 50 IRE. That is a difference of 5 lux, and that is significant. It isn't as huge as some of the discrepancies we've seenjust take a look at the Sony HDR-CX550V's different results with and without zoom to see what we're talking about."
post #145 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Full Review:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-Review.htm

This is disappointing, and they said it would 45% better!

Well actually, Panasonic didn't claim that the low light sensitivity for the 900 series would be 45% better. What they said (on the Panasonic Global Site) was:

"Compared to previous Panasonic models, noise has been reduced by approximately 45%.*

* Compared with the HDC-SD700, HDC-TM700, and HDC-HS700

So the sensitivity is the same, but the noise is about 45% less.

Cheers,
Ian
post #146 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianperegian View Post

Well actually, Panasonic didn't claim that the low light sensitivity for the 900 series would be 45% better. What they said (on the Panasonic Global Site) was:

"Compared to previous Panasonic models, noise has been reduced by approximately 45%.*

* Compared with the HDC-SD700, HDC-TM700, and HDC-HS700

So the sensitivity is the same, but the noise is about 45% less.

Cheers,
Ian

Thanks Ian,

What is noise?? I thought that is what they call the graininess of a picuture under low light.
post #147 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Thanks Ian,

What is noise?? I thought that is what they call the graininess of a picuture under low light.

Bassically all panasonic was saying is that they sacrified color and sharpness in low light to make the image smoother. Some would suggest that technology may have improved so as to allow them to make a smoother image without such sacrifices, but in truth the very nature of noise demands that to remove it such elements must be sacrificed. The only real way to address it is to attack the issue at its heart, and take steps to allow more light to either reach the sensor or be used more effectively. Once the noise is there, anything else is just makeup for what is already lacking. Thus Canons current approach in the Pro sensors. Now, whether pany even went that actual step to change its ratio of smoothing vs noise is currently questionable, but it is hard to really judge exact percentages of such qualities.
post #148 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarguyHere View Post

Thanks Ian,

What is noise?? I thought that is what they call the graininess of a picuture under low light.

Yes, that is correct, and the sensitivity is the amount of light required.

I did some tests in low light with an SD700 and my new SD800 (the low priced version of the 900 series) in still image mode and it seemed to confirm that the noise had been reduced in the 900 series. I think there is also more sharpening being applied in the SD800 so I also tried with sharpening at set at -3 to see the effect. That is at the far right in the image.

The image shows them all side-by-side. I've also added these tests and images to my webpage: http://www.ianperegian.com/My_FZ35_3...r_Testing.html

Cheers,
Ian
LL
post #149 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianperegian View Post

Yes, that is correct, and the sensitivity is the amount of light required.

I did some tests in low light with an SD700 and my new SD800 (the low priced version of the 900 series) in still image mode and it seemed to confirm that the noise had been reduced in the 900 series. I think there is also more sharpening being applied in the SD800 so I also tried with sharpening at set at -3 to see the effect. That is at the far right in the image.

The image shows them all side-by-side.

Cheers,
Ian

That is very well done. I say knock the sharpness down for low light then. It looks like they have reduced it, but maybe the introduction of artificial sharpening is making it look like more noise? Either way, who expects to see a lot of intricate detail in very low light? But, noise obviously does not belong. Nice captures.
post #150 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by workinghard View Post

That is very well done. I say knock the sharpness down for low light then. It looks like they have reduced it, but maybe the introduction of artificial sharpening is making it look like more noise? Either way, who expects to see a lot of intricate detail in very low light? But, noise obviously does not belong. Nice captures.

Thanks. So far, from what I've seen, the oversharpening seems to be more obvious in still shots than in movie clips. I think it's true to say that in general more sharpening will make the noise look worse, but at the same time not enough sharpening gives an image that is too soft.

I should say also that those tests were done in fairly low light but not in very low light. In very low light with the gain above about 12dB then the noise becomes really bad.

Cheers,
Ian
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › 2011 Panasonic cams announced.