You'll find the XR to be a nice camera - very good for the "shoot anything/anytime" approach - it adds enough range in low light to make for more shooting opportunities that other cameras would miss or get so-so results. It's not for a "serious" film-maker, I think we've beat that horse dead, but as a "get the shot" camera, that you'll have with you because it's compact and easy to carry about, I think it's hard to beat.

Ultimately all the controls in the world won't matter if the camera botches the shot while trying to auto adjust or the operator is twiddling knobs. I think I'm actually resigned to sacrificing some of the "manual control" to the AI circuitry if it means getting more usable footage... Doesn't mean a slightly larger manual model with the auto features as well wouldn't get me excited, but that doesn't seem to fit the Sony marketing plan...

You probably couldn't make a "wrong" choice between the Canon and the Sony, just enjoy shooting with whatever you've chosen!

<Just so I understand correctly, is the Canon in this comparison an HF100, i.e. not an HF-S100?>

Yes, HF100 not HF-S100.....

I think an important point to consider, is that even though the Canon gives you more control over the image, it could never be considered a serious film-maker's camera nor does it mean that additional controls will produce a better picture. I think we confuse that issue at times and think that although the Sony is better at 'running & gunning', the Canon is for the 'pros'. It aint so.

I found that regardless of the controls the HS-10 offered me, I could not get an overall image, in both bright & dim conditions, that matched in quality the overall image the XR500 produced.

Most anyone serious about 'film-making' is not going to use any of these small consumer cams as their sole camera. I for one would never ever go to a paying client with either the small Canon or the Sony. This despite the fact that many of these small cams can actually give a sharper, more detailed picture than their big brothers. However when you compare their image to their big brothers, you see that the big boys still have better color and a better dynamic range to capture both highlights and lowlights.

just wondering do Sony AVCHD cam like the Sony HDR-XR520 or HDR-CX100

has the 2 gig file size limit problem? can the sony cams join the files seamlessly?

Most if not all the AVCHD cameras format the storage in FAT 32 which has the file size limit. Sony supplies Sony Motion Browser software ( I think it is just PC) that joins these files together seamlessly on transfer to the PC. They show of course in the camera and in the Motion Browser software as one big file defined by the start and stop of the camera recording and once transfered to the PC are one big file certainly in my NTFS formatted hard drives on my PC. I use my SR11 and XR500 to record theatre shows and regularly record for over 1 hour and 40 mins. This file shows as one in the camera and one file when transfered to the PC with the Sony Software. This can be brought into Vegas as one native file for editing or I usually convert to Canopus HQ and edit in Edius.

Ron Evans

i looked at Wolfgangs's Sony and Canon clips with VLC player, and i think i see Sony produces a visibly better DR, i mean look at the clip with a woman picking flowers at the street florist's. The white flowers in the foreground are almost completely washed out in Canon, but in Sony's clip there's definite texture and more than a hint of yellow. And even more obvious Sony has better shadow detail. But then again that may be configurable in Canon, maybe one can dial something down/up and get a better DR with Canon's as well.

Actually i think HV40 beats then both, XR500 and HF100, but that's just how my eyes see it.

Great.. I know Wolfgang is a Sony fan boy.. I don't mean that negatively ( i know it sounds it). You purchase equipment and you like to stand behind it I understand. I'm just glad I met Chris H before I stumbled onto this post.. I don't think it's very objective or accurate.. Which is too bad, because that was one of the things I enjoyed about this site 4-5 years ago..Anyway I'll stick to asking my network of professionals.. I guess that's the pro/con about the internet in general.. Lot's of info you just need to know how to sift through the garbage..
Cheers. and no offense.

Yup, and it's pretty obvious we have our share of Canon 'fan boys' too. ;)

But objectively, there was definitely more shadow detail in the Sony image. You may prefer the Canon, but more detail in shadow is more detail in shadow. The low light pictures were truly a blow away in favor of the Sony. That would be hard for anyone to refute. Each cam has its pluses and minuses.

I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that what is being said about these cameras is not "very objective or accurate".

If you like your Canon, good for you, but I've seen enough footage from both cameras to be quite confident in the image quality of the Sony under the sort of shooting conditions I want the camera for. The other commentary here comes from other guys who also contemplate similar uses - and I GUARANTEE you we'd all jump brands in a heartbeat if there was a compelling reason... but for the moment the XR meets or exceeds our expectations.
I also will stand by the commentary on low light performance, OIS, the nice addition of having a VF, and the bigger LCD. Please point to any inaccurate or less than objective aspect of any of those...

We are comparing two cams in a general price class (or generally the "top of the consumer line"), both have plusses and minuses for various uses. I'm not going to criticize someone's choice to go with the HF-S (or maybe even the TM300... though that one isn't living up to it's "specs" IMO). I am thinking of trying out the HF-S for specific uses once the price inevitably drops (Canon resale prices make them attractive in the used market... and their retail/new price always seems to reallly plummet once they become readily available). But I also see things in the images from the cam that I didn't like, and this thread has confirmed them, so I'd make an educated decision if I try it.

Once one learns to work with the Sony XR, it's a darn fine camera under a lot of conditions where I feel quite certain the Canon WON'T hold up. It also beats earlier SONY cameras under those same conditions. If it didn't work for you, enjoy the Canon, but don't toss flame bait around. Given the mixed value of the "review" sites out there, I think the discussions here represent a good "professional" real world evaluation of the relative merits of the cameras.

Given the mixed value of the "review" sites out there, I think the discussions here represent a good "professional" real world evaluation of the relative merits of the cameras.

I couldn't agree more.
I find the manufacturer's sites and review articles useful for obtaining specs and a general notion about a particular camera, but the extensive dialog available on this forum, the wealth of personal experiences & observations, really gives me a feel for what to expect from a particular product.
I usually have a specific set of personal objectives I am looking to fulfill when I purchase a camera, as opposed to finding the "best" camera- if there even is such a thing. All of these detailed posts allow me to gain some scrutiny of the particular issues that are most important to me, and really help me make an informed decision.
I have seldom been disappointed or caught by surprise when I finally get the item in my hands.

Wolfgang, can you tell me please, if Sony XR500 (or 520) has 50Hz frame rate or hasn't? I can't found this at the camcorder specification.

I just wanted to jump in here and give a total novice opinion. I owned the XR for 3 days before returning it for the Canon. I'll use layman terms because its all I know! This has all been said already but its one more opinion, either way.

1. With proper lighting the Canon beats the Sony easily. I filmed outdoors with both cameras in some great Southern California weather. Basically flowers, plants, insects and whatnot. I had both cameras set to auto with max resolution then burned Blu Ray disks and viewed on a 52" 1080 plasma. The Canon made me say "Wow" literally, the colors and clarity were just awesome and I really dont think you could get better quality from a camera that cost even 10 times more. It looked perfect.

Mind you my technical experience is nil, but I have a good eye and have watched alot of HD programming and Blu Ray movies :)

2. In low light the Canon pretty much sucks. The picture gets grainy too soon. The Sony beats it hands down. But I asked myself if I wanted superior quality in proper or poor lighting. You decide which way you want to go there.

3. The Sony OIS again blows the Canon away. It had a weird feel to me on the Sony like the camera was kind of "behind" what I was doing in terms of speed though. I dont know, I just didnt like it much even though it worked better. The Canon takes a conscious effort to keep smooth which I adapted to pretty quickly and doesnt feel like an effort so much anymore. I found with both cameras I used both hands to film, even the Sony wasnt good enough for my one-handed efforts. I learned to not hold the Camera with my hand so much and let it float in my palm while using my arm for stability and my left hand on the LCD. If you wrap your fingers around the camera, its gonna shake more.

4. I've never been a fan of touch screen LCD's so the Canons navigation stick gets my vote. My hands arent huge either but I still dont like stabbing at those LCD menus trying to get what I want. I really like the way the manual functions are accessed on the Canon too. It took me awhile to learn all the different menu settings, theres alot and they are easy to get to.

5. The still images from the Canon looked better to me, in camera only mode. If you use the function to shoot while filming the images are 6mp compared to 8mp in camera only mode.

6. The software that came with both cameras is garbage IMO. I only use it for the easy import function before going into Premiere.

In conclusion they are both great cameras, the Sony has more range for shooting conditions and is easier to use. I would say for the majority of the consumer population to go with the Sony. For me though, the "Wow factor" of the blu ray disk, and not planning to shoot in low lighting, made the Canon the best choice for me.

I just wanted to jump in here and give a total novice opinion. I owned the XR for 3 days before returning it for the Canon. I'll use layman terms because its all I know! This has all been said already but its one more opinion, either way.

1. With proper lighting the Canon beats the Sony easily. I filmed outdoors with both cameras in some great Southern California weather. Basically flowers, plants, insects and whatnot. I had both cameras set to auto with max resolution then burned Blu Ray disks and viewed on a 52" 1080 plasma. The Canon made me say "Wow" literally, the colors and clarity were just awesome and I really dont think you could get better quality from a camera that cost even 10 times more. It looked perfect.


I have the HF - S100 and while I haven't tested footage from it on my 52" rear-projection TV, I do find its image quality (subjectively speaking) mirrors your experience.


Mind you my technical experience is nil, but I have a good eye and have watched alot of HD programming and Blu Ray movies :)


I don't have any technical experience either, but I know you don't have to have an engineer's eye to recognize good picture quality.


2. In low light the Canon pretty much sucks. The picture gets grainy too soon. The Sony beats it hands down. But I asked myself if I wanted superior quality in proper or poor lighting. You decide which way you want to go there.


Agreed, then again, I didn't buy my 'S100 for its low-light performance. I would have expected the Sony to have a bit of lead in image quality, because of their long experience in manufacturing CCD imaging chips for their line of broadcast cameras.


3. The Sony OIS again blows the Canon away. It had a weird feel to me on the Sony like the camera was kind of "behind" what I was doing in terms of speed though. I dont know, I just didnt like it much even though it worked better. The Canon takes a conscious effort to keep smooth which I adapted to pretty quickly and doesnt feel like an effort so much anymore. I found with both cameras I used both hands to film, even the Sony wasnt good enough for my one-handed efforts. I learned to not hold the Camera with my hand so much and let it float in my palm while using my arm for stability and my left hand on the LCD. If you wrap your fingers around the camera, its gonna shake more.


I'm fairly shaky and find the Canon really needs a tripod to produce the best images. In other words, I think Canon could have done a bit better job with the OIS.


4. I've never been a fan of touch screen LCD's so the Canons navigation stick gets my vote. My hands arent huge either but I still dont like stabbing at those LCD menus trying to get what I want. I really like the way the manual functions are accessed on the Canon too. It took me awhile to learn all the different menu settings, theres alot and they are easy to get to.


I prefer the Canon's stick-type control too. I actually found the menu structure fairly easy to understand and make use of. Then again, I used to own a Canon HV30 and the basic logic underpinning the menu system on that camera is quite similar to the 'S100.


5. The still images from the Canon looked better to me, in camera only mode. If you use the function to shoot while filming the images are 6mp compared to 8mp in camera only mode.


I've not really used my 'S100 to capture still images, but the few I have taken with it are OK, but not especially good for an 8MP sensor. I have a Canon Rebel XT digital SLR which has an 8MP sensor and it does somewhat better on the image-quality front.


6. The software that came with both cameras is garbage IMO. I only use it for the easy import function before going into Premiere.


I don't use Premiere, so I don't need to go through the same pre-rendering process. In Vegas, it's a simple case of importing from the memory card and then dragging and dropping clips onto the timeline.



In conclusion they are both great cameras, the Sony has more range for shooting conditions and is easier to use. I would say for the majority of the consumer population to go with the Sony. For me though, the "Wow factor" of the blu ray disk, and not planning to shoot in low lighting, made the Canon the best choice for me.

The Sony is ideal for people who want to do nothing more than point and shoot. For people like me, who want more control over shutter speed, aperture and frame rates, the Canon is the way to go.

Hi guys,

Thanks very much for your informative discussions of these cameras! I'm coming from a somewhat larger camera (Sony FX1) which I'm comfortable with, but it was just too bulky to take on my last family trip. (Not to mention the video from the latest consumer cams seems to be embarrassingly good :-)

I had a brief play with the XR520V in a local store and what worried me most was the autofocus. It seemed to be much slower than what I'm used to even in the well-lit store. Has that also been the impression of you folks that are using this camera for typical camcorder subjects (eg. fast-moving kids)?

John -
It's a pretty typical Sony AF - and if you test against the instant AF of the Canon, it's going to feel slow. I find that while it can hunt a bit at first, once it locks on, it's as good or better than any other Sony I've owned. One of the few things that impressed me about the HV20 I owned briefly was the IAF... it's actually very effective from my experience, and I presume it's retained and improved in the HF-S.

You have to remember that the Sony AF works based on analyzing the image, meaning hard lines and strong contrast = faster focus lock, soft surfaces or low contrast = slower time to lock in. Obviously the XR500, because of the improved low light performance, will focus better than earlier Sonys in poor lighting. But you still can't expect it to "beat" an active system that is sending a "ping" out constantly and listening to the reply to calculate distance (Canon IAF).

Of course IAF won't work if you put an add on lens on the camera (blocks the emitter/receiver), though the Canon also uses image analysis for focus too. I regularly have a WA attached, to get a more usable field of view, so the IAF "advantage" to me wasn't that big a deal, even if the fast focus lock was impressive.


Focus is one place where I LIKE having the Sony touchscreen interface - spot focus/exposure functions are mighty handy when you have a complex image and a shallow DoF or an image where you want to nail the focus on one specific focal plane... or exposure on a otherwise dark part of the image.

Spot focus/exposure allows you to bypass the normal "center weighted" camera defaults, so you get the best of both your "choices", and the cameras "auto" adjust functions - IMO that works rather well, once you learn to use it along with the button/wheel adjustment capability. I can adjust things much faster than with a "joystick" interface, but that comes from using Sony cams for a while - I'm sure a joystick user could become quite fast too!

For family use, it's hard to beat the Sony, just because the low light performance and OIS are highly optimized, as are the auto image adjustments. But, as has been oft repeated, be aware that manual control is limited (but you CAN manage some once you learn the cam).

Spot focus/exposure allows you to bypass the normal "center weighted" camera defaults, so you get the best of both your "choices", and the cameras "auto" adjust functions - IMO that works rather well, once you learn to use it along with the button/wheel adjustment capability.
IMO the spot focus/exposure feature is brilliant. It's very fast to access & I use it much more often than the manual controls when I'm shooting on the run.

One thing that I like about it is the face detection focus. Instant focus is great if your subjects are always in the center. But if you have faces properly composed, the XR500 will detect the face and slowly but surely focus on the face and then follow it! Very useful for every day family shooting with a little cam.

Very useful for ANY shooting with a small cam - Sony seems set upon making the camera smarter than the operator as much as possible. While I still would like to see manual control, or even an override so it was possible to set individual settings for gain/shutter/iris, I have come to appreciate that the camera can probably adjust faster than I ever could... meaning more usable footage with minimal effort.

Wow this is a popular thread - I've been wrestling with this because I want a second cam and these two seem to be at the top of a bunch of people's lists. The issues I'm wrestling with are:

Canon HF-S100
Likes
Flash: SDHC, can get 32 GB cards NOW for less than the price of 16 GB MS Pro Duo

Lowlight performance excellent judging from footage on Vimeo.
Hint: Use 30p, 24p modes.

AGC / Manual Audio Gain Control

Less expensive

Dislikes:
10x Zoom

No Viewfinder - Need to get Viewfinder cover

Can’t change SDHC card while on tripod mount

Sony HDR-XR500V

Likes:
Lowlight performance excellent good judging from footage on Vimeo

12x Zoom

Bigger LCD - Wonderful

Viewfinder

Access to everything while on tripod mount

Compatible with Wide, Tele Adapters I already have

Compatible with SportPak I already have

Footage will likely blend better with footage from the Sony HDR-HC9 I already have

Dislikes
Flash: MS Pro Duo, can get 16 GB cards NOW, 32 GB not available.

AGC Only Sound

No ability to set shutter, aperture.

No progressive modes

More expensive.

Bill -
Unless you're going to be recording to the MS Duo, the XR series Hard disk will give you far more capacity than a "flash" camcorder. 8GB cards (good for 1 hour) are fairly reasonable, I saw the 16G ones at Frys for around $70, and you CAN switch the camera to record to the MS Duo instead of the HDD...

Sony recently released the CX500V and CX520V, which ARE flash based, but you lose the VF and get a smaller LCD, so I fail to see how the slightly smaller size is that big an advantage.

If you've already got accessories for the HC9, they should all cross to the XR, and you'll find the image quality significantly better.

As for the rest of your list, those are things you'll just have to decide for yourself. Personally the bigger LCD, viewfinder, superb low light performance and excellent OIS do the trick for me. And I've picked up XR500V's fairly reasonable secondhand, whereas the Canons don't seem to come up that often...

Dave,

I'll probably end up going with the XR500V, but who among us doesn't like keeping our options open?

I did notice today at Fry's Electronics that a Patriot Brand 16 GB SDHC Class 6 card was $33.00
I don't think Sony is going to hit that kind of pricing anytime soon.
But I'd be real happy to be wrong...Oh please, please, please...

I appreciate the larger capacity of the XR500V hard drive over flash memory.
But a 32 GB card in the Canon HF-S100 would handily cover the events I do, so I'm
good either way as far as capacity is concerned.

From a reliability point of view, I appreciate the no moving parts of a Flash card.
And I'm not the sort to allow footage to endlessly accumulate on the hard drive.

What probably bugs me the most is the XR500V having fewer options in the menu than the HC9. So with the HC9 I have control over shutter speed and can do either AGC Audio OR Manual Linear Gain Audio...but can't with the XR500V bugs the heck out of me. So the XR500V is a more advanced camera (sensor, codec), higher price, with fewer user controls - what's up with that Sony? And why are you expecting your advanced amateur users to be happy with that?

Dave,


And I'm not the sort to allow footage to endlessly accumulate on the hard drive.

What probably bugs me the most is the XR500V having fewer options in the menu than the HC9. So with the HC9 I have control over shutter speed and can do either AGC Audio OR Manual Linear Gain Audio...but can't with the XR500V bugs the heck out of me. So the XR500V is a more advanced camera (sensor, codec), higher price, with fewer user controls - what's up with that Sony? And why are you expecting your advanced amateur users to be happy with that?

One advantage for the real amateur is the ability to store on the hard drive. The XR520 for instance may have enough storage for the life of the camera!!!!
I agree about the gap that Sony now has in the camera line-up. With the Panasonic HMC40, Sony really do not have a competitive product in their line-up. I for one wish they did and am waiting to see what they do before upgrading from my FX1 as I would really like a more capable XR500 rather than the FX1000. A three chip AVCHD would be great!!!

Ron Evans

One advantage for the real amateur is the ability to store on the hard drive. The XR520 for instance may have enough storage for the life of the camera!!!!


The disadvantage is all those people who are going to lose everything they ever shot because they never offloaded/backed up their footage and the hard drive just died. Or the camera got stolen. Or <whatever>.


... and am waiting to see what they do before upgrading from my FX1 as I would really like a more capable XR500 rather than the FX1000. A three chip AVCHD would be great!!!


Do you really think a three chip sensor block has a prayer of showing up in a consumer level form factor/product?

I'd be thrilled if Sony enlarged the sensor to 1/2 inch and upped the bitrate to 25 Mbps. And put my missing menu options back.

Well I didn't mean that they just stored video on the camera. My daughter backs up everything to the PC, often makes DVD but still has all the video on the camera so that she can show people anytime. That is the way I would expect most people that I have talked to would use the camera. This is the advantage of AVCHD on hard drive and the ease of selecting clips for view.
As far as a three chip. Sony used to make prosumer three chips, it would be nice if they did again though I would be happy with a big single chip with all the manual controls. In good light the XR500 gives a better picture than the FX1 and I hope for an AVCHD camera with the same capabilities as the FX1000 in a slightly smaller package.
The Panasonic HMC40 comes close and I was hoping that Sony would view this as competition and provide a nice competitive product.
Ron

I think that comment applies to all these camcorders from Sony , Canon and Panasonic. If you want a camera for professional film making these are not your choice. Get a Sony Z5, Canon XL or Panasonic HMC150 or better. The cameras we are talking about here are for consumer use and maybe as a backup( unattended "B" camera) to the more professional models.
Ron Evans
I agree with your sentiments (and others here) regarding purpose governing the purchasing decision. Most of the "live-event" projects I've done, I've been able to shoot A, B & C footage over different performances to cut together differing angles etc. (I only have the 1 Z5, so don't currently have multi-cam option - well, until now) and they have been mostly dim/stage/night type lighting - hence my going for the Z5 for it's low-light capabilities (It's brilliant by the way!). Anyway, cutting to the chase, I am about to film a one-off event on a non-existant budget (a 4 hour rock concert for talented kids), so don't have the advantage of filming several performances for 'B' roll etc.

I therefore finally decided I needed a second/back-up cam (on a limited budget) so I started looking at these cams for a 'B' cam I could set up and leave unattended for the duration. Whilst it would be nice to get another Z5+MCRK1, my budget would no way stretch to that so I started thinking a top-end consumer cam could be the way to go - with the added advantage that it would be way more practical for holiday/family type stuff too! The audio side was less of an issue, as on-camera audio is crap for this type of work. It's seperately miked up to an Edirol R-44.

After a lot of reading/research I also narrowed it down to the Sony v. Canon and, whilst I knew I wouldn't get the same results from either camera (as my Z5) I was already leaning towards the Sony on the basis of better colour matching (G lens and Exmoor) and the better low-light capability. So armed, I took a trip down to the local outlet for a hands-on comparison.


I couldn't agree more.
I find the manufacturer's sites and review articles useful for obtaining specs and a general notion about a particular camera, but the extensive dialog available on this forum, the wealth of personal experiences & observations, really gives me a feel for what to expect from a particular product.
I usually have a specific set of personal objectives I am looking to fulfill when I purchase a camera, as opposed to finding the "best" camera- if there even is such a thing. All of these detailed posts allow me to gain some scrutiny of the particular issues that are most important to me, and really help me make an informed decision.
I have seldom been disappointed or caught by surprise when I finally get the item in my hands.

Likewise, I used a combination of this forum and reviews/specs to initially narrow down the options but specifically wanted to check the low-light noise/depth and how well the colour balance would match the Z5 without loads of cc. in post. So, down at the local outlet, wandering around the shop shooting under differing lighting/subject-detail/distances etc. I was very impressed with the colours/sharpness/noise. The real test (for my proposed usage) would be how it fared under crap lighting conditions. A trip down the dingy, covered, dark alleyway down the side of the shop showed up exactly what I expected - the Canon couldn't cope but, whilst it could no way compare with the Z5, the HDR-XR520 produced a very low-noise (standard setting) image, with good shadow detail and slightly more shadow detail but much noisier image on 'low-light' setting. My inclination would be to use the 'normal' setting (keeping the noise down) and adjust gamma in post where necessary.

Conclusion:
For my proposed use, the XR520 won hands-down over the Canon. Quite honestly, even if my budget could have stretched to an FX1000, I would have probably still gone for the XR520, for the simple reason I need to be able to film continuously for several hours and to do that with the FX1000 (or another Z5), I would have needed to factor in another MRCK1 as well (adding another £800 or so) - and it's a lot easier to carry around on holiday etc.!

The proof will be in the pudding though, so it will be interesting to see the results from the up-coming concert (shame I couldn't go a third cam too!). I'll let you know how it turns out. The concert is on 15th December so, hopefully, I'll be able to get something up on vimeo soon after that.

All my projects(theatre) are multicam and a lot are by myself. I use FX1, XR500 and SR11. I have found a good setup for me is to set the XR500 up on full stage view AE shift at -4, spot focus on the centre stage. Set the SR11 to one side or the other closer in shot, spot focus and on manual exposure set for main lighting( the reason is it definitely shows grain if left in AE shift). I then track action with FX1 on full manual. All cameras are on tripods with LANC controllers.
I look forward to the new NXCAM so that I can go total tapeless and not worry about tape changing for long events.
IF I can get an audio feed I connect through Studio One box to the XR500, use a Rode mic on the FX1 and use SR11 audio as needed.

Ron Evans

What are the stage light conditions like? I'm not sure I understand why you're using that much automatic exposure shift and would like to know in case I can do the same sometime... Thanks / Tom

I use -4 for most bright stage lights( I would actually like it to go more but -4 is the limit on the XR500 and SR11), if the play is dark all the time I use -3. It is easy to brighten just a little if too dark and by making the camera stay darker it avoids too much auto gain. For the XR500 with the stage going to black it shows less grain than the FX1 in full manual at 9db!!!! Sony tend to have scene too bright anyway so even for normal use I think AE-1 or -2 is more natural. For any stage lighting I prefer it a little darker to focus on where the lighting person wants the action to be . The XR500 still retains all the shadow detail so can be brightened easily in Edius YUV filter to taste. You need to experiment to find the look that you need for the camera you use and fits the editing style.

Ron Evans

Got it, thanks. The stage lighting is very uneven then as the lights are focused on different targets. Dave Blackhurst had recommended a -1 AE shift in bright light outdoors as well. The Exmor-R seems to be doing its job of letting in more light than the Exmor chip and maybe the Sony AE algorithms need a bit of adjusting as a result.

The type of performance is important. Even lighting can use a AE of-2 or-3, dark sets with spotlight areas will need AE -3 or -4 to counter the auto exposure from opening up too much due to the dark average reading. Its in editing I then lighten a little for the few times there is even lighting in such an event.

Ron Evans

I've got the Sony -520, and I like it alot.
Looked at the Canon, and reserved the last one the store had, and when I got there, only then did I realize there was no viewfinder! = No sale!
I shoot mostly airshows, which means a lot of zoom (optical only), and manual focus to infinity. And a viewfinder is an absolute necessity. I also like to use a wide angle adaptor lens at airshows, so I got the small, clip-on one that Sony makes. Well, it did not focus AT ALL at anywhere near max zoom, so it went back, and I got the larger screw-in one, again from Sony. This one also has the same problem. At max optical zoom with the wide angle lens on, I have to manually focus to what the camera says is 25 meters to get sharp focus on things such as a ridgeline 20 MILES away! And this is with the camera set for the wide angle lens. (There is such a setting on it) Bummer!
The stability system is pretty good, but you try videoing a 15 minute aerobatic display, looking up, straining your neck muscles, while trying to be as steady as possible, and then do it again and again throughout the day, and you'll see the need for buffed-out deltoid muscles! The XRs stability is light-years ahead of the HDR-SR1 sony that I previously used.
My next camera will definitely be flash drive--BUT ONLY IF IT HAS A VIEWFINDER!!! (are you listening, sony and canon?)
The capacity of the -520 is amazing, it will hold 29 hours of high-def video at the highest quality setting
I'm a hobbyist with video, and I'm happy with the Sony.

Airshow filming: might be worth trying the "landscape" scene at some point to see if that helps with the distance focusing. Not sure it would help, but maybe....

A couple quick comments -

Using AE shift helps prevent blowouts in the highlights, which can SOMETIMES be a problem - Sony's algorithms tend to overexpose a bit, probably because it's preferable to losiong stuff in the shadows. The Exmor R seems to have better overall range from shadows to highlights (you get "more" of both), so it's significantly superior to earlier consumer level cameras, but (and this is where we stil hunt the Zebra) there is a danger of blowing the highs.

SO, the trick is to shift things down a bit as needed (easy with the button/wheel on these cams), instead of riding the exposure (also easy and sometimes more appropriate). AE shift from -2 to -4 seems to be a reliable "standard" for long time Sony users. You can still ride the exposure too if needed, but in multicam shoots, better to have any spare angles auto adjust to the "best" setting, then adjust further in post. Also a reason to set to ONE WB setting so the camera sticks to one preset, and less adjusting later.

Shawn - which Sony WA lenses are you using??? I've got the VCL-HG series (multiple flavors) and ALL are zoom through, the camera focuses fairly well with them. It sounds to me like you got some single element non-zoom through (the "clip on" for sure) inexpensive lenses?

You're shooting HD - cheap glass is DEATH to HD image quality, and that sounds like what you've got... Let's see what you've used (model #'s) and find a recommendation - I haven't tried he new HGA07 that they added this year, but I've got all the earlier HG offerings, plus some cheap stuff that "works" if you understand and accept the flaws... I'm a little unsure why you're mounting a WA and shooting full zoom... sort of counterintuitive? I don't usually use the WA when I have the option of moving back to frame.

Definitely share the opinion on having a VF, particularly for outdoor action shooting! And I use a belt pod to ease the pain of these type shoots!

This is the third time I will have tried to reply to this. Here goes...
Tom; thanks for the idea, I'll try it on "landscape" and see if that helps.
Dave; I've got the VCL-HGA-07, and that's the one that won't focus at infinity while at full (optical) zoom. (The viewfinder will show the infinity symbol, but the image is way out of focus, and sharpness is only achieved by focusing down to what the viewfinder says is 25-28 meters.)
Using a wide angle adaptor lens at max zoom at an airshow is not as goofy as it sounds.
I'm a novice at videoing, and us beginners tend to fill the frame with the plane as much as possible, which produces a lot of jiggle, and makes tracking difficult. the wide amgle lens reduces the zoom by a factor of .7, and that helps, but it also is neeed for the "bombburst" maneuvers by such teams as the 'Blues, the 'Birds, and the Collaborators, when they spread out. Also, the WA is needed for the "static" (parked aircraft) displays so you don't have to back up and wait for the crowd to clear out to get the whole plane.
What does a belt pod look like--can you tell where to see one on the 'net?
I made a monopod out of a piece of bamboo about 20 inches long, it is VERY light, lighter than aluminum, and it helps a bit with fatigue, but it can introduce a bit of jiggle if I'm not careful. It's a mixed blessing. Perhaps it should be attached around my waist somehow?
Thanks for your replies,
Shawn

Hi Shawn -
HMMMM, I don't have the HGA07, but it's SUPPOSED to be a zoom through lens, similar to it's predecessors in the HG series. Only thing I can think of is that perhaps the autofocus hunts, yet it sounds like you'reusing manual with strange results... ya got me on this one!

Right now it's getting ready to snow, but I'll try some things with the WA lenses I have and see if I can replicate once the sun shines again!

I understand where the WA can be handy - I always have one (usually the HG0737C, direct predecessor to the one you've got, the 0737Y is WAY too big and heavy!) in my bag, but try to avoid it wherever I can - it does come in handy though. I too like airshows, so I know the sorts of things you're trying to catch!

A belt pod is a variation of the monopod (just shorten it up!), you can either get dedicated belt pockets, use an existing pocket (those little watch posckets on some jeans are good), or I have a plastic molded thing called a BiGGLuGG 2 thats actually a tool holder from Home Depot, but it works really well as a socket for most of the monopods I've got - hooks over your pants or belt, makes a nice rest for the foot of the monopod. The advantage of a belt pod is you can turn and track a bit easier - going all the way to the ground with a monopod, I tend to get too much sway. If you're really into it, you could even cobble up a shoulder rig with handle(s), but you start to lose the advantages of a small camera!

Even with the excellent OIS of the XR/CX's, it's tough to track fast moving objects and get a usable image!

Seems I have trouble getting my replies to stick.
Dave, thanks for your interest and replies.
Anyway, here's the "small print"-- "When using the conversion lens at a telephoto position, the image may be out of focus. If this occurs, adjust the zoom towards the wide-angle position until the image is in focus" Why the hell would I do that?--I WANT THE ZOOM LEVEL I HAVE CHOSEN APPROPRIATE TO THE MOMENT,I DON'T WISH TO ZOOM TO THE LIMITATION OF THE LENS!!!--
What part of disclosing product limitations and capabilities does sony not understand?
Serious limitations in capability of a product should be disclosed in a manner that permits a potential buyer to make an informed decision!!
I chose this lens because of the statement made by a sony rep on the phone who said this lens would properly focus throughout the entire zoom range!! (the phone call was made in response to my puchase and subsequent return of a different sony WA adaptor that had an even more severe manifestation of the same nature)
Oh, well, time to go to the sony website and write another review for this lens, as I did for the first one. A negative review, of course.
Does anyone know if the Canon camera and WA adaptor have the same limitation?
Maybe I bought the wrong camera....

OK guys, the gig's in the can and I've started post. I can say I'm very impressed with the XR520's results in low level stage/disco lighting and it matches up quite well with the footage from the Z5 (with a very little tweaking for contrast). The Panasonic HS100 that I borrowed as 3rd cam pretty much sucked at those low-light levels to the point that I doubt I'll end up using any of the footage (do we still talk about "footage" when we're using digital media?) from that one.

I've uploaded one clip of my 12 year old nephew Oliver playing Red House (with the impromptu help of a few friends). This was his first ever live gig in front of an audience and it didn't phase him in the slightest! You can see it on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COViKT6mUwU)

I'm going to upload the other tracks as I go (I'm compiling them one at a time before stringing them together for the final complete video). I must say also, that Pluraleyes is brilliant for syncing up the video tracks with the 4 channel audio from the Edirol R-44 - what a time saver! Definitely going to have to get the final released version once my trial runs out!

I got the XR500 because I shoot a lot of underwater footage and the water is not the cleanest here. Light levels are very poor even at 3m. So the low light performace of the XR realy sold me. I'm just waiting for the new housing to arrive (stuck in cutoms, go figger) and when it arrives ans I test it out I'll let you know how well it works.

OK guys, the gig's in the can and I've started post. I can say I'm very impressed with the XR520's results in low level stage/disco lighting ...

I upgraded to a CX500V on the promise of low noise low light performance plus improved stabilization and a larger sensor than the CX12. It has exceeded my expectations and I now film in low light happily where I just didn't bother before. I've determined that I will gladly trade off some brightness to get low noise and better colors as the lighting levels drop.

I posted some YouTube room lighting clips a while back comparing full auto to low lux modes and a couple of twilight clips as well. Last night and tonight I posted two outdoor clips taken at night. One was during a snowstorm with quite a bit of light reflected off the falling snow and the sky. The next was full night after the storm with just some house lights and a streetlamp or two nearby. I started with full auto mode and the cam making all the exposure decisions, and then kicked in the Low Lux mode for comparison purposes.

I did two uploads because the first one included some dancing pale green lights that I thought were reflections off a clear filter I was using. The second night proved this to be correct. So I just uploaded a second clip without the dancing light. I don't like using the cam without the protective filter in place, but there have been a few times where it has caused an issue, like this time.

Here's the URL to the one just uploaded. The other one has the green light issue, but includes the snowstorm, which is kind of interesting to see.

YouTube - Snow on Two Nights 2 - CX500V Low Light Example - No filter so no dancing green light! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZPPhz7_Ync)

Well, the first few clips are now up on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/Porpoise1954)

Shot using the Z5 and XR520 and Edirol R-44 for the audio.

Just did a winter hike to lower Grand Canyon with the CX500. The footage looks like I was using a tri pod, best OIS I've ever used on a small camera.

I'm coming late to this thread, but I have to say I'm suprised at the enthusiasm for the Sony given (as I understand it) its lack of manual control of shutter speed. Am I missing something here, or is fixing the shutter speed relative to the frame rate not a big deal for other folk?

Re manual controls on the Sony: I am a point and shoot person generally, so my comments come from that direction. I am basically interested in results and not how they're achieved, so I have no drive to understand aperture, f-stops, shutter speeds, etc. as they relate to taking digital video. It boils down to getting the right exposure and in special cases, the right frame rate.

Sony may actually be making a bold move into the future by not providing direct manual controls for aperture and shutter speed called those names. For people coming from the photography world, these terms are vital to taking good pictures and you want to control them. But wanting them in the digital video world assumes that (a) they physically still exist in that world at the same level of importance as they did with film and (b) they are the best way to get the results camcorder users want to achieve. I suspect both of these things are no longer true.

Sony's CX and XR cams give you direct manual control over exposure, focus, white balance, and three apparently fixed shutter speeds: normal to produce 60i frames, slow motion, and low lux (1/30th second). They also provide spot exposure and spot focus and combined spot focus/exposure via touchscreen. So if aperture contributes to exposure in digital video (and much less to depth of field than in stills) as does shutter speed, shouldn't I really want a manual exposure control? Which I have?

In practice, though, the actual way in which exposure and light and focus work in these modern digital cams is much more subtle than human-set aperture, focus, and shutter speed settings. In fact, other than shifting white balance and exposure generally (which Sonys let you do), I trust the auto settings much more than my own eye, generally - particularly when changing light and motion is involved. I'll lock the cam settings down in very special cases, but I'd argue that it generally does a much better job of manipulating all the factors than I would. These are now very sophisticated optics and computing systems so while I understand peoples' desire for manual control, I'm not sure I believe that's what the average person requires by any means.

Steve Mullen produced the "Sony SR12/CX12 Handbook" in 2008 and it discusses the insides of the cam to a high degree. Part of my point here is that some of these manual controls that seem essential are effectively vestiges of the past in some way. They don't necessarily reflect how the cams actually work today. So they're a convenience for people who already know them, but somewhat misleading for people who don't. If you can control exposure without having to set three things, and can control focus and white balance and have a few specialty shutter speeds (slow motion, low lux), what more does an average point and shoot person need? (Film frame rates are a limited market, I'm pretty sure...)

Here's a paragraph from p. 35 of Steve's handbook that emphasizes what I'm discussing a bit. The following page contains a table showing how each of Sony's exposure stops represents an intersection of the more standard shutter speed, iris, gain, and neutral density filter settings. That is, you can set the exposure and it's the same as if you manually set the other four items on a more complicated cam. Note in the quote that Steve emphasizes that "shutter speed" (actually CMOS integration period) now takes precedence in exposure over iris manipulation because the electronics are both faster and more precise than the physical iris mechanism.

"Understanding the Exposure System
The Sony SR/CX camcorders control exposure primarily by adjusting shutterspeed—
not by adjusting the iris. Specifically, exposure is controlled by
altering CMOS integration period. (See Appendix A to learn more about
CMOS integration period.) The period can be altered smoothly and very
accurately from 1/50th or 1/60th second to 1/800th second
Of course, the iris, at times, is also used. But, because it is mechanical and
thus slower and inherently less accurate, it becomes the secondary way
exposure is controlled.
In Appendix A, you can read about both “diffraction interference” and
“longitudinal chromatic aberration.” The former motivates not using Fstops
smaller than f/5.6 while the latter motivates not using F-stops larger
than f/2.8. Thus, for a 1/3-inch CMOS camera the best F-stop is f/4. As you
will see in the following Chart, the Sony camcorder quite cleverly achieves
this goal.
To accomplish this, the SR/CX camcorders will switch a Neutral Density filter
into and out of the light path when necessary. This ND filter cuts light by one
F-stop.
Once the iris has opened fully, the only option for obtaining proper exposure
as light levels fall is to add video gain. Gain is added smoothly up to +18dB."

Just as digital photographers have to relearn some of what they knew from using film cameras, digital videographers have to relearn some things as well. I don't miss setting shutter speed and aperture in the slightest for video, and I'd bet the cam is generally making much better decisions re exposure than I could, and responding to changing conditions far more effectively when they occur.

That said, I know some people miss the sense of being in control when they had specific settings they could manipulate and they'd get known results. I just wonder if the cams that provide those controls are just translating to the real physics and the bottom line is exposure control 99% of the time.

No doubt Sony users would like to see more manual controls... but with cameras this small, there's little or no real estate to put them on. Sony seems to have gone highly "artificial intelligent" with pretty respectable results, IOW, the camera can probably beat you to the settings most of the time.

Personally I "miss" manual control, but with Sony, you've got a set frame rate, no 30P and 24P, just 60i, which I believe results in 1/60 shutter speed take it or leave it, or for low light I believe it slows to the equivalent of 1/30. Then as noted there is a "special effect" to record 3 seconds at a fast frame rate and play it back in 12 seconds...

Aperature again would be handy, as there are times when one would "like" to control the "F-stop" to control DoF, at least in theory - again with the small size of these cameras, you're not going to get a lot of DoF anyway...

Sony chose to put SOME control into these cameras, and if you learn how those controls work, you can get very acceptable results with them. Learning how the AI works helps some too, so you can override where needed. That said, the AI algorithms are pretty frighteningly effective. Put the "brains" and OIS and R sensor into a bigger camera, and you'd have a winner - still waiting to see if and when Sony makes this step, the NXCAM seems to be in this direction, but higher end - there's a HUGE gap between these pocket rockets and the "pro" line... logically there should be some cameras in there to compete with the HMC150 and kin...

Upsize the EXMOR R to 1/2" or 2/3" from the 1/3" sensor these use, make it a bit bigger, toss basic manual controls on it, plus the AI and OIS... and toss in those other frame rates for those that want them...



To completely change gears... got hands on a CX500, and it's an interesting step from the XR500, loses some things, but seems like it gains in others. Will make some observations once I get more time playing with it, but does seem to be a tad better in both low light (at the expense of more noise, so it may just be more agressive gain) and OIS performance (could just be easier to hold a lighter camera?).

If one keeps in mind these are image acquisition devices, designed for "no-brainer" capture of crisp, clean high definition video in all sorts of conditions (including especially difficult ones), you'll "get" these cameras, if you want knobs and buttons and adjustments to tweak, you'll be scratching your head... a lot...

I have no doubt Sony "could" put buttons and wheels to access the traditional "manual" functions - the AI does it, obviously, but for whatever reason they just don't feel that capability meets their market, would be nice to see them reconsider!

As it stands, these little cameras keep up nicely with their "big" pro line cams, even on full auto, that is pretty impressive even if you can't tweak things as much as you might like...

> IOW, the camera can probably beat you to the settings most of the time.

Thanks for the thoughful replies guys. I agree with much of what you've said, and indeed with the quote above EXCEPT when it comes to shutter speed - to me the change in motion signature if shutter speed rises above 1/60 in bright light is really not acceptable.

Now it seems from your replies that maybe these new Sonys don't allow that shutter speed increase to happen (or at least the cameras stick to 1/60th for as long as possible and perhaps beyond that could be managed by adding external ND filter). So I need to learn more about this ... since Sony's own product information in mostly silent on this kind of detail.

I claim amateur status, first - so the technical details need to be verified exactly as you suggest <g>.

Based on Steve's quote, two thoughts:

1. There is no shutter in the old sense - there is manipulation of the CMOS integration period which affects how long light is allowed to hit the sensor before it gets measured and processed. This is all electronic, at least in the Sony cams.

2. Since it's electronic, it's computer-controlled, which means the cam is constantly adjusting this as its major way of creating the proper exposure. The physical iris still exists but is much slower so it is essentially a gross adjustment now where the CMOS integration period (called "shutter speed" for convenience) is the major player.

Overall, I'm suggesting that the real question is whether you're provided enough manual controls to make the cam dance for you, easily producing the effects you want to produce. I vote "yes" in this case for my purposes. In fact, I'd argue the controls are simple and provide what I need and make more sense to me inherently than saying I should adjust aperture and shutter control properly to get the right exposure. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't need to learn some things, but this is maybe a bit like arguing about stickshifts vs automatics in cars. At this point, with modern antiskid, antilock, and other chip-controlled safety features in cars, some set of features is now available that you don't want to override.

Quick example: Steve discusses how electronically-controlled signal gain is used to adjust for certain issues in the digital cams. It's automatic and manually controlled to some degree by fixing the exposure setting you control. Do the cams with aperture and shutter speed manual controls also include a gain control? If not, why not? It's part of the equation. But it's not part of the old manual video equation, so it's left out because it wouldn't make sense to people using aperture and shutter control. So those controls (missing part of the equation) are a simulation of the older approach in any case, they're not real in some ways.

Anyway, Steve's guide is an interesting read because it clearly points out how much these cams differ from their ancestors. It's probably still for sale over the Internet - maybe he'd offer a discount now since it's for last year's models!

As an aside, he also includes a section on how to post-process 1080i video to emulate all of the various cinematic-like outputs. And he discusses the Exmor chips extensively, though the new R series puts the chip superstructure behind the sensor instead of in front of it where it used to block some of the incoming light.

Basically, there's a lot to be learned about the inner workings of these all-digital cams. Much of it is beyond my basic knowledge so I can't discuss it cleanly. Some of the old terminology is still being used but no longer lines up with the mechanics of the actual cam itself. So the question isn't really "how can you function without manual controls with these specific names?" but "does the cam give you the manual controls you need to produce the results you want?". For me, the answer is clearly "yes". For an experienced videographer, I don't know, but I suspect so. There just might be a learning curve for that person.

..........Sony chose to put SOME control into these cameras, and if you learn how those controls work, you can get very acceptable results with them. Learning how the AI works helps some too, so you can override where needed. That said, the AI algorithms are pretty frighteningly effective.........


That's a great way to put what I was hinting at - frighteningly effective. The cam as a well-programmed computer is to be respected. When I have been waiting to shoot something and had time to play with the manual controls, I used the LCD to see how my changes worked out. In almost every case, I decided to put the cam back on full auto before I started filming. Maybe if I were an experienced videographer I could have squeezed more performance out on manual. But maybe not...

...To completely change gears... got hands on a CX500, and it's an interesting step from the XR500, loses some things, but seems like it gains in others. Will make some observations once I get more time playing with it, but does seem to be a tad better in both low light (at the expense of more noise, so it may just be more agressive gain) and OIS performance (could just be easier to hold a lighter camera?).


Sony added "3-Way Shake Canceling" to the CXs in the four months between the release of the two otherwise-much-alike cams. I missed this change at first until someone pointed out that the CX marketing specs mention it and the XRs don't. I asked Sony's support people if the two cams differed in this way, and they pointed me to some internal group to get a definitive answer. The regular group discusses only published features for a specific cam. I didn't bother following up - I'll take their advertising and marketing specs at face value when the missing feature is this valuable.

Anyway, this appears to be a sophisticated Electronic Image Stabilization that uses the extra pixels around the frame to damp down twisting motions in the "3rd dimension". I have been amazed at the CX image stabilization. That and the low light improvements over other cams have been worth the price of admission to me.

We all have to remember these are consumer cameras meant for the point and shoot market. Most of the time my SR11 and XR500 outperform my FX1 !!! I too am looking forward to the NXCAM models. Things I would like to see on the XR500 that would make manual control more effective but still use all the smarts of the camera are limits on controls ( ie F stops up and down, effective shutter speed, gain limits etc) I have started to use the AE shift a lot and would like a greater range. I shoot stage productions and use the XR500 unattended full stage view, spot focus and AE shift at -4 most of the time. I would like the metering in AE shift to be assigned to upper or lower limit etc( meter for brightest area, sort of auto spot meter, range limit !!! etc). This would make the camera really great and worth paying more for a model with these attributes. The cameras computer is really good I would just like to bias it a little to the form I would like it to create.
I believe the auto system has the capability of manipulating segments of the sensor rather than going to full manual control which would effect the whole sensor. There is the possibility that the auto system can always produce better images than the camera in full manual because of this ability to manipulate the exposure across the sensor. This is I believe how the dynamic range expansion and highlight capabilities are achieved. Details in the shadows as well as the highlights in the same scene. Selective dynamic range expansion.
As a family camera in full auto its great.

Ron Evans

I think the question should be asked... if a consumer uses a "professional" camera, does that make it a consumer camera... or conversely if a "pro" uses a consumer camera, does that make it professional...

I know that sounds silly at first, but the question becomes one of whether an imaging device can capture a high quality image for a specific task. EVERY camera has limitations and useful applications, and ultimately it's the creativity and skill of the user (and of course the quality of the "content and talent") that really determine the ultimate usefulness of a given tool.

Sony has made some very effective "tools", and they come in handy (big) pocket size, perfect for capturing things you might otherwise miss because the "big gun" is too bulky to drag everywhere. SO, you catch more memories and hopefully great footage. These cameras do an amazing job of making that much easier, whether you're a consumer or a pro...


Ron, I think you're on the right track with the idea of "manual override" vs. full manual, although there are probably times when you'd in theory want full control... maybe.