OK, with both in hand, I've got some observations!

CX isn't "that" much smaller, yet feels lots smaller, and a bit lighter - perhaps enough to make it more comfortable for a long day of shooting (like amusement parks/tourist traps/museums).

Improved LCD size over earlier CX models is appreciated, almost as big as the XR LCD. CX AiShoe cover is back to a better design than the slightly sloppy feel of the XR's slide up & over, and rattle around cover - CX shoe retracts INTO the camera body, not out over the top.

CX of course loses I/O options of headphone and mic (mic input still available through AiShoe with proprietary mics...), and viewfinder - LCD is quite good even in very bright sunlight though. LANC still available through A/V jack, which is now in an awkward position mid body right under the handstrap... no using THAT jack while handheld!

Sony completely redid the menus... still not too sure about it, but it's workable. The display options are unusual, with two auto modes (one with W/T/Rec buttons displayed on touchscreen, one without, both with details that "disappear" after a few seonds), and one "on" mode. Not sure about the disappearing display details with the auto modes... but touch the screen they return! I think I preferred the "disp" button (SR/XR) that cleared the screen if you wanted. The return of a "personal menu" with the functions you want to access the most is very nice, last saw something similar with the HC9, nice to have 6 "quick access" buttons!

CX appears about two "stops" (if the Sony adjustments can equate to stops) brighter than the XR, and there seems to be more gain noise at the brightest end. AE definitely needs to be set negative, -4 is about right. Colors also seem to be pumped up a bit over the XR, need to take some side by side footage to see what's really going on there, but this is reminiscent of earlier CX models, which had similar characteristics vs. their other Sony models.

Need to put the OIS through some tests, but sure SEEMS to improve over the XR, which was already impressive.

New control knob/button at the rear of the cam (button inside the LCD cavity) replaces the front mounted one from the SR, XR and CX12 - no room on the front anymore because of the reduced profile, but I'd say the front positioning was better, so far.


Overall I'd say the XR is a more "balanced" package with more handy features, where the CX is a nice cam in a small package...

Quotes from Dave Blackhurst (why doesn't the system offer Quote instead of just reply?):

"Improved LCD size over earlier CX models is appreciated, almost as big as the XR LCD. "
They made it larger by removing the physical buttons for W, T, and Rec down the left side, turning that strip into LCD touchscreen instead. Note that the XR LCD resolution is much higher than the CX, though I'm fine with the CX resolution.

"Sony completely redid the menus... still not too sure about it, but it's workable. The display options are unusual, with two auto modes (one with W/T/Rec buttons displayed on touchscreen, one without, both with details that "disappear" after a few seonds), and one "on" mode. Not sure about the disappearing display details with the auto modes... but touch the screen they return! I think I preferred the "disp" button (SR/XR) that cleared the screen if you wanted. The return of a "personal menu" with the functions you want to access the most is very nice, last saw something similar with the HC9, nice to have 6 "quick access" buttons!"

Back to the future - I think your mention of the HC9 is exactly correct. I had an HC7 which had a much flatter menu structure. I remember it as very similar to what's in the CX. I am delighted to have the My Menus back (it's actually 18 choices total - 6 each for video, photo, and playback modes, though you can use most menu items in any of the three modes). I also much prefer the flatter structure to that of the XRs and the CX12, which I owned. Note that the addition of scroll bars, fast scrolling through menu choices, etc. is new and wasn't in the HC7. Overall, I'm pleased they revamped the menus. Re the disappearing display, I thought that was pretty cool the first day - the screen clears after about 3 seconds so you can see everything for filming or playback. But I quickly discovered I needed the symbols on the screen almost all the time, so I disabled the disappearing symbols by day 2.

Your remaining thoughts:

1. Not sure about the AE shift. I've tried it in various settings and I must just prefer the brighter images. With bright daylight, I have used the AE shift. On cloudy days or indoors, I haven't liked the effect in the LCD. I haven't tried experimenting with it for throwaway comparisons. I should do that. Most film I was taking was transient - get it now or miss it altogether.

2. On some clips, I think the OIS is phenomenal. I had three HD models in a row so I have clips I can use for comparison. My tripod hasn't been out of the house for a month and a half now. I know I should still use it sometimes but I don't feel compelled to do so now.

3. The rear-side manual control knob is hard to turn compared to the front one. I think the front position was better and easier to manipulate as well.

My next experiment will be to use slow-motion recording to catch our pet sugar gliders jumping between family members in mid-air. At regular speeds, they're just a blur once they push off. I see some people who have taken great stills of the motion. Either they're using some kind of sports mode with a camera (burst mode) or they're using slow motion. The Sony buffers while in standby mode, so you can set slow motion mode to capture the three seconds before you press the Record button, or the three seconds after you press the Record button. I'll have to use the former for the gliders...

.......
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...


Here's a fun memory to catch. We have two marsupial sugar gliders as pets and they are true gliders. Ours are babies and can jump and glide about 15 feet, though we don't encourage that. They're bonded well now, so they primarily jump between their humans. I tried to take regular video of them jumping in hopes of getting good stills similar to those I've seen online. No luck - they're so fast over short distances that they were just a blur in every frame.

So this morning I set the cam to slow-motion mode using the "before" option. That is, I have the cam on standby monitoring what I want to film, and when I see it, I immediately press Record and get the three seconds prior to that moment at 120 frames per second instead of 30. So a 3 second realtime clip plays back in 12 seconds. This turned out to work beautifully except the lighting was somewhat dim and the video is underexposed. The resolution is less than usual and the colors a little subdued - a documented way that this mode works.

Anyway, here's a sample clip with some blurring and cropping on the left to protect the innocent... I have not otherwise post-processed the clip.

YouTube - Sugar glider jumping (four repeats) Sony CX500V slow motion mode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPAhZEk-8CY)

Here's another - my favorite because the glider wiggles his wings up and down for in-flight adjustment. Not sure if this will come across OK with the cropping but hopefully so.

YouTube - Sugar glider jumping (eight repeats) Sony CX500V slow motion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJSnDpwZOFQ)

"LANC still available through A/V jack, which is now in an awkward position mid body right under the handstrap... no using THAT jack while handheld!"

Dave, Sony have a pistol grip that can be used with these new camcorders with LANC. Turns into a little table top tripod too.

High Definition Camcorders - DVD Camcorder - AVCHD Camcorder - Camcorder Accessories - Tripods - GPAVT1 - Sony Style Canada (http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=1006630&navigationPath=32080n47120n47127)

Ron Evans

I'd have the cam on tripod or a shoulder mount or some other system if I were using the LANC anyway... it's just one heckuva odd placement choice!

Here's another - my favorite because the glider wiggles his wings up and down for in-flight adjustment. Not sure if this will come across OK with the cropping but hopefully so.

YouTube - Sugar glider jumping (eight repeats) Sony CX500V slow motion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJSnDpwZOFQ)

And here's the last in the series - 14 fresh jumps from this morning.

YouTube - Sugar glider Spartacus jumps and jumps and jumps in slow motion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSgbZ5s5HFc)

After a little more time with the CX, I've got some more observations...

OIS - this definitely has an upgraded OIS from the XR500, I tried "wiggling" the cameras, up and down, side to side, and also around the lens axis (typical of the sort of handheld bouncing you'll get)... up and down and side to side, the two were fairly similar, not enough difference to my eye to quibble over, BUT when wiggling the camera slightly around the lens axis, the CX was distinctly & effectively adjusting for the motion! The XR500 OIS was already quite impressive, the CX is astounding - you wouldn't want to video an earthquake with it, you probably wouldn't even see anything going on...

Low light - Doing a bit of testing in a fairly dark room with little ambient light and dark walls... worst case scenario, I can't see much with my bare eyes, although it's not entirely dark and I can make out objects. They definitely "hopped up" the gain on this pup... maybe good, maybe not so much. On full auto, low lux, it produced a quite bright image, significantly brighter than what I could "see". At these highest gain settings, there's a LOT of noise, reminiscent of the old "blue snowstorm" of the HC1 in low light. Not exactly my idea of "good", BUT perhaps if light is so low as to be impossible to get footage any other way, it could come in handy. I tried using -4 on the AE shift, and it still was a bit noisier and "brighter" than it really needed to be... using exposure and going 3 "steps" was better, and most of the noise was gone or not objectionable (and very close to the XR picture). Perhaps a combination of the two adjustments would be best in "live" conditions.



Looks to me like Sony is still in a learning curve with these new "R" sensors, now with 4 cameras with them (and a couple with the "old" CMOS tech), there's quite a range of results... the XR500V seems to yield the most balanced results, very low noise signature, and not overly bright image. The CX500X "pushes" the image a bit much IMO, but if you want a bright, punchy (color wise) image, it's got that, even more than the XR, which now appears just a tad "flat" color wise.

In comparing to three Sony still cameras (that also can shoot either 720 or 1080 video), both the XR and CX make a better go of it in low light. The HX1 (non-R CMOS) couldn't see much of anything - just a few indicator/display lights, the rest was pretty much black mush. Same for the TX1 (R CMOS), wich was hobbled by it's small lens and size (although it takes some decent video considering, now if I can just get Vegas to properly recognize the mp4 files...). WX1 (R CMOS)was slightly better (I'm guessing it's got about 2-3 stops on the TX from a larger lens, even though I think they use the same sensor), I've found the WX tends to "overexpose" in general use, similar to what the CX seems to be doing, so there's a common thread there.

I think it's safe to say the "R" CMOS represents an overall improvement in performance, but there's a range of implementation that comes as a bit of a surprise - and sometimes with noise that isn't a welcome addition.

After a little more time with the CX, I've got some more observations...
...
Low light - Doing a bit of testing in a fairly dark room with little ambient light and dark walls... worst case scenario, I can't see much with my bare eyes, although it's not entirely dark and I can make out objects. They definitely "hopped up" the gain on this pup... maybe good, maybe not so much. On full auto, low lux, it produced a quite bright image, significantly brighter than what I could "see". At these highest gain settings, there's a LOT of noise, reminiscent of the old "blue snowstorm" of the HC1 in low light. Not exactly my idea of "good", BUT perhaps if light is so low as to be impossible to get footage any other way, it could come in handy.
..........


This touches on something I was suggesting before - that the Low Lux mode is definitely noisier than having it turned off in low light, enough so that I prefer the regular auto exposure indoors and at night instead of turning Low Lux on. My YouTube videos of snow at night and the gliders indoors show the difference clearly.

I'm not sure Low Lux mode is much different from what the CX12 produced in low light regularly - I never used the 12 much indoors because of the noise. But the CX500V on full auto without Low Lux mode on seems far superior to the CX12. Did you try variants of filming in low light (but not "almost missing" light) without invoking Low Lux mode? If you do, does that seem noisier and brighter than the XR as well?

What it looks like to me is that Sony added about three to four steps of gain (with the added noise!) over the XR.

So it's sort of a tradeoff - with the low lux mode on, you have to pull back about 3 steps on the exposure manually (or use AE shift + exposure), unless you're willing to put up with the noise. Subjectively the XR "looks" cleaner in it's low lux mode, but it's also not as bright. FWIW, the noise seems worst against dark backgrounds... not as visible with a light background for some reason.

Not sure which is "better" - instinct says it's handy to have the extra plunge into the depths of darkness when wanted, yet I'd rather have a clean but still usable image - that's what the XR manages, even in low lux mode...

When I had a CX12 and SR11 vs. the XR500V, there was no contest, the XR was significantly cleaner and sharper in low light, period - that's why I upgraded rather quickly.

The CX500 is a bit of a throw, simply because the "auto" choices seem to add a lot of noisy gain, yet if you back that off, you get a pretty nice (and bright, colorful) image... going to have to do some general shooting with it to see what the final verdict is... I like the size and OIS, and if I can tame the low light (and there isn't a general overexposure bias I can't adjust around), I can see using the CX500 for some things. Otherwise, I may just go back to the XR's. I'm a little concerned by the color differences, but those can be tweaked in post fairly easily, and aren't much different from the CX12/SR11, which exhibited the same minor differences.

Unless you really need (or want) the small size or flash memory/no HDD, the XR500V is still probably the better all around camera. The CX500 has it's nifty features though too...

What it looks like to me is that Sony added about three to four steps of gain (with the added noise!) over the XR.


I want to totally ignore the Low Lux mode for a second because I prefer not to use it unless there's no other choice. Given that we're ignoring it, how does the full auto low light performance of the CX500 compare to the XR500? We're in an indoors room with regular lighting, say. Is the CX500 still set brighter than the XR500? Do you still perceive noticeable noise in the CX500 video in absolute terms? Or relative to the XR? I think it's very clean compared to all prior cams I've owned but I don't have an XR to use for comparison.

Hi Tom -

I'd have to sit down and turn off the low lux modes on both side by side - don't have both handy right at the moment, but the best way to describe is is there's a slight overlap, with the CX having 2-4 "steps" more brightness. When the XR is on max luw lux it's about the same as the CX backed off 3 clicks on the exposure - those last steps look like "pure gain", with attendant noise to me, where the XR remains clean. I suspect the CX might be a hair brighter with low lux off, and should produce a very clean image.

I prefer to leave the low lus set to on, and back it off manually...

Dave, doesn't using the slower "shutter speed" to get Low Lux mode affect the effective frame rate negatively in some way? I know the actual output frame rate is fixed, but doesn't low lux essentially take fewer measurements per second than regular filming? Most of my indoor filming is of the sugar gliders who are moving very fast a lot of the time. Do you get more motion blur in Low Lux mode for fast-moving subjects?

By the way, I've given your recent comparisons a plug over on the AVS Forum as they address some of the questions bouncing around there from people looking at these Sony cams.

I have to speculate a little bit on how low lux currently operates...

In the HC7/9 they had a mode that automatically went from 1/60 to 1/30 shutter when needed to get that extra low light performance. Given the noise, I have to wonder if (at least with the CX500) they went a different direction, i.e. electronic gain instead of shutter adjustments.

I know you were using the high speed mode for the sugar gliders - I presume the Low Lux is disabled in that mode?

I'm still just starting with the CX500, so have to do more shooting with it - got some footage I want to check out, but it looked good on the LCD...

I have to speculate a little bit on how low lux currently operates...

In the HC7/9 they had a mode that automatically went from 1/60 to 1/30 shutter when needed to get that extra low light performance. Given the noise, I have to wonder if (at least with the CX500) they went a different direction, i.e. electronic gain instead of shutter adjustments.

I know you were using the high speed mode for the sugar gliders - I presume the Low Lux is disabled in that mode?

I'm still just starting with the CX500, so have to do more shooting with it - got some footage I want to check out, but it looked good on the LCD...

Per Steve Mullen, "Shutter speed" is a euphemism for "cmos integration period" in these chips. There is a physical iris but no shutter - it's a question of what portions of the chip accept light inputs and how long they do that before they shut down the inputs. So we're talking electronics either way, whether it be boosting gain or adjusting the apparent shutter speed. Don't know if that helps with your wondering... <g>

Don't know about the slow motion / Low Lux assumption. I'll have to check that out. I don't like Low Lux mode much if there's halfway decent light, so I never thought to try to combining it with the slow motion mode.

Low Lux mode is documented in the manuals as being what you describe for the HCs, I think - leaving the "shutter" open twice as long as usual. Though from everything Steve documented, I really have to think the "shutter speed" is never fixed that completely as you manipulate exposure. That is, I think it's convenient for them to say it that way but I suspect the reality of the CMOS integration period is more subtle.

i`v got 500v and i find on first sighting it is mediocre camera in many respect.

- auto focus is awful,
it is irritating, i put my hand over 95% of the screen and he focus on 5%, how did she figure that out i don`t know. i have played with all AF options. it is just one example. it is incomparable with canon AF

- the color rendering was calibrated by some color blind folks in sony, the camera has no color at all. all is washed away like t shirt after a 20 years. the `axrvtrtmrt` color space is just for the camera user guide - to say it exists, the use of it i did not find.

- contrast is non existing, the worst picture i have ever seen. i don`t see any white in the picture, just whitish gray to cal it...

- the menus is more capable on my nokia camera in the telephone

- wb has out door and indoor, how conviniant - and custom WB. oh thank you sony, how noble of you.

- the OIS seems the only good thing on this camera.

canon hv30 wins this camera in all respect out of OIS. and to say my canon sx200is video is straight out of hollywod for this 1000$ sony cam.

i hope i am just disappointed since it is a new camera, and i have not get to know her, but i don`t see anything in menus of the camera to play with, and get other thoughts.

here is a screen capture of sony and my sx200is video. the color on the 200is is miles away from sony. left is sony...

i see the sony is not on 100%, so i put another grab. but still no difference

Milutin -

You can't expect the AF to match the IAF active system Canon uses - it can't and won't, as the principles are different. OTOH spot focus is fairly effective, something Canon doesn't have.

After playing with the CX500V, I'd have to agree the XR looks a bit flat for some reason, by comparison... although I've found you can punch it up in post if need be. Frankly, looking at your color samples I see the overly "hot" Canon reds, which I personally dislike immensely, as they will tend to bleed - sure it looks vibrant, but I'd rather not have color bleed. X.V.Color, to which I presume you referred, is subtle at best, and if I understand the function correctly may not even show up under a lot of conditions - I just turn it on and leave it on, no harm from it so far.

You didn't get into low light, but in tough lighting, I'd take the XR anytime... it will be cleaner, have better color and give a more usable image hands down...

Contrast is again another area which bugs me when I look at Canon footage - it looks more contrasty because the blacks are crushed, but you'll have lots less detail in shadowy areas to work with in post - yes blacks may "look" blacker in the Canon under some conditions (except at night or in low light where the noise will make the Canon footage much less acceptable while the XR500 will outperform), but after adjusting the XR500, you can get a good picture - try using AE shift set -2 to -4, and tweaking exposure after that if/as needed - Sony tends to lean towards overexposure, and it's always been something you should be prepared to compensate for - the CX500 is even more agressive, IMO, but looks more punchy than the XR500 when dialed back appropriately.

Menus take a bit to learn, along with how the camera functions... I can't say I'm a huge fan of the Sony menus, but learn the interface and you'll find it capable of more than you expect.

Who needs more than 3 WB settings (and of course "auto")?? I know Canon likes to give you a pile of options, but again, you don't NEED them if you are tweaking in post. I prefer simple over "let's throw lots of options at them"... For that matter, there is "WB shift", which will give you virtually infinite WB control!

If you learn the menus, they are effective and offer surprisingly adquate control. When I tested the HV20, I saw LOTS of options/settings, making it appear like you had control, yet VERY limited control was ACTUALLY available IMO when you wanted to tweak their presets - it felt very constricting to me, but perhaps with more time... I couldn't get over the cheap plastic-y construction, so wasn't interested in taking a lot of time to fiddle after that - the audio was so noisy as to be unusable with all the chassis noise, something I've NEVER had with a Sony...

Yes, the OIS is superior on the XR500, and has been further improved on the CX500V. The "image stabilization" on the HV's was horrid, not even in the same league, let alone ballpark.

Having tried the HV20 (basically the same cam as the HV30), it's a toy by comparison, sorry. Noisy, cheap build, lack of low light performance, and to my eye the crushed blacks, and hot colors that may look good at first glance but will bug you once you catch on to them... The XR500 should give you more usable footage to work with in post once you know how to use it.

Sony and Canon have very different approaches to how the image is processed and will appear. Different strokes as the saying goes. I tried the HV20 when it was the "hottest camera ever", and just didn't see it...

In the end, you may well prefer the Canon philosophy, which is of course perfectly fine! The XR500V kept pressure on Canon and the HF-S11 and upcoming HF-S21 have numerous upgrades intended to "keep up with the Sonys". In turn, Canon keeps pressure on Sony to improve, so I LOVE Canon too! I wouldn't mind trying the HF-S21, but I suspect it will have the same things image wise that have always tilted me towards the Sonys, but that's what keeps the gear side of this interesting.

Try spending some time with the XR500 menus - I hated the "new" menus at first, and found the "even newer" redesigned menus in the CX500 frustrating too, but after a little time, you should "get" what they can do. It is a shift, but it's just like driving a different car, you just have to find everything!

Dave, thank for your answer and comforting words and advices. i still have not played with sony enough and hope it will surprise me opposite.
the thing that i really like is picture motion browser, really cool think for download and sorting of the files, as preview also, with cool options.

maybe you can share a advice on AF, i have not manage to bridle it. simple panning makes you lose the focus in anything than wide angle. focus is definitely slow, when you move the camera he just loses it and starts to goes from another end to other. canon af is really good.
i have also tried color correction on premiere cs4, and no easy solution i have found to boost the contrast and color correct it...? any post production tip?

i will post my thoughts when i have some more experience with it. on first sighting i was very disappointed with it`s performance.

Oh, and no shoulder strap!? i know sony is thinking that once you have it cam in the hand you don`t want to leave the beauty, but some times i would like my hands free and table is not the option :)

I haven't found the focus to be that big a problem, but if you're used to Canon's active system, I'm sure it would seem slow. If I'm shooting something where I am trying to focus on a certain object, I switch spot focus on - it still may "hunt", but is usually better when it's not trying to figure out what to lock on to.

Focus is always tough, as if there are multiple objects/targets, it may take a while to sort out which to focus on. Canon using an active system is great, as it's at least somewhat likely that the "target" will be the closest object in focal range...

Whereas Sony is using algorithms to analyze the image and decide what the target is - there have been some complaints in Sony's high end cameras deciding a wall behind the subject is the "target"... it happens, thus spot or manual/assisted auto focus is a highly desirable feature for eliminating the misunderstandings between camera and operator!

I've actually been fairly happy with the footage in post, but I definitely see the CX500 having more bold colors... enough to make the XR500 look a tad flat - I'd suggest booting saturation a bit, actually want to take a closer look at that as I'll be trying to match the XR and CX, and I like colors to be a bit more bold. It's not that the XR is "bad", but I suspect it was tuned more towards a flatter look. When I've looked at unprocessed footage from movies, I've always noticed it looks terribly flat if it's from early enough in the process... perhaps that was an influence...

Easy solution for the shoulder strap - these are light enough that a lanyard clipped to the "D" ring in the handstrap is perfect! I made a couple custom ones that I can change the length, but you can find lanyards for keys, etc., and if the length is good for you, you're all set! Get one with a metal clip, I've seen some plastic ones, and wouldn't trust the camera to those.

the thing that is missing is definitely the WB stuff. however canon colors may be, it has at least 8 common presets, that are accurate or less accurate. but sony WB breads all the time, it is vary bad for the consistency. in general under the sun/outdoor it is OK. the only shure thing. the rest is a bit of gamble. so it is a vaste, that it has not a locked set of presets. it would make her a more powerful camera.
the focus is not as good, in many respects. first is a constant lack of avernes and not focusing on the front subject. some times front is 80% of the footage, and he lockes on the rear!? in low light especially. very annoying.

Raynox RAHD5050PRO HD-5050PRO, 37mm, 0.5x, Super Wide Angle Conversion Lens
is a bad peace of glass or plastic for that matter, at least on this sensor under all the aperture settings it is bad so f8 doesn help, the corner vignetting is very `loud`
before i had some no name glass, but less wide - it was marvels.
raynox is destroying the picture in a manner, where it only use is where widdens is needed for the sake of the quality.
but it is very wide. somewhat like 24mm on 35mm lenses (the marvless one was 35mm). that is really great and i am sorry for the less wide angle lens that i will have to carry on this sony camera most of the time

the pavement is nice example of raynox lens. corners are in heavy spherical aberrations - more tele and the things gets worse, even in strong light, makinging sure that Fstop is high.
you can also see how cops are unsharp. etc..

two pictures of the sony original lens, the difference is huge. /flag, shopwindow/ (all the pictures are in the zip, in original size.. they are sorted in the folders))

Download sonyxr500.zip from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way (http://www.sendspace.com/file/202zfx)

the last one is captured photo/video in trolleybus, and you can see how sony xr500 video did not do the mat for the WB, since it is yellowish, but the sony xr500 picture that i took in the same moment is pretty good.
but much sharper one is from the video grab :)

that is the problem with the sony WB lack of options. since it is pretty bad in the artificial lighting

I have actually found auto WB to work fairly accurately - particularly where there are faces it can recognize and adjust to. Of course, this can be a problem if you want a fixed WB to work with in post.

I usually try the indoor and outdoor settings to see if either is close enough to provide a workable starting point in post, and if not, find a "white" object and take a couple seconds to do a one push WB, which will retain that setting, AFAIK indefinitely... certainly long enough to shoot a specific clip with a static WB setting.

Any AF, AWB, A-anything, will sometimes make mistakes because it mis-identifies some part of the image as the intended "target" and uses that as a reference. Thus why some people use warm cards to "fool" the algorithms. Thus why if you start you camera up and it "sees" a part of the image that it "thinks" is supposed to be white, you can end up with some really weird WB...


That WA lens looks horrible, I've got "cheap" Sony glass that looks better... and HG lenses that are MUCH better, but not going to be as wide (.7x). Frankly that lens isn't helping you or the camera get good results. Bad lenses are going to degrade everything, period.

Have you tried the spot focus function when you're finding the camera hunting? You have to remember that a non-"radar-range" AF is looking for patterns and hard lines in an image and will lock to those FIRST in many cases, which means a discernable background with a strong pattern will be the "default" choice over a "soft" foreground object (although face detection will fairly reliably lock to the face it's detecting). By spot focusing, you "tell" the camera which specific part of the image you want it to analyze, and it will try to resolve a pattern or hard lines in that area rather than the whole image.

When you put the WA lens on the XR500, did you go into the menu to change the selection to tell it which lens you had mounted? Not too sure what the settings do, but the pin switch in the lens threads tell the camera that there is an aux lens on the camera. You can go into the menu system to tell it which lens.

As far as low light hunting,the only time I have found my Sony camera's hunting in low light, is when the WA lens is on there, and for some reason it decided to pickup on an un-noticed piece of lint on the camera lens. Once the light came up a little and it was able to see more background contrast, of course it kicked in and did its proper job.

Also with a WA lens you will notice more vignetting the more the camera is zoomed in.

i have tried everything, with WA option, without it...etc.
i have bought new one WA lens which is perfect, but still the sony is stubborn. i am positive that the only thing that sony hunts is the most easy contrast to lock on in the frame, so if it is in the back, you will loose focus even if the subject head is the 95% of the shoot.
very bad, and it is not for any kind of documentary reporting or journalism camera. sony AF is not adequate and smart enough for the job.
i see that problem on TV documentaries and news/interviews, and now you can easily recognize when it is made by sony. i think sony should put finger on the head, and give us some firmware update (which of course they will not)
so, the front may be 95%, if you have better contrast in the back...sony will hunt it.
now since with out WA it come to as nearly as 45mm in 35 mm cameras, without WA it quite unusable camera. i had the same lens on canon HV30, and frankly while using canon i did not know that focus can be problem of any sort at all.

@dave - i have tried the manual spot focus, but it hunts also. low light is a nightmare for me...

on the end, the color reproduction (the snow some times during the day comes green :)) and focus is a disappointment to me, and a big one.

This may be a "your mileage will vary" issue somehow. I haven't seen this autofocus issue with a wide angle lens, limited though my experience is with that usage. Were you filming fast-moving objects or something similar? Or just filming scenery? I filmed the globe at Epcot's Illuminations recently and don't see this issue during playback even though a lot of stuff was going on around the subject, including fountain streams to its front left and fireworks shooting off all around it.

I think there's some general agreement that the Sony autofocus to date is a little slower or pickier than the Canon autofocus, though I'm seeing preliminary good reports about the 2010 cams. But I have been using Sony HD cams for three years now and really don't have any complaints to register about the autofocus. Typical footage for me would be scenery, trains moving from far to near and away again, soccer games, and pets moving around. Maybe I'm just not filming the same kind of subjects as you film...

Martin -
Almost wonder if you got a "bad" unit. I've not seen major focus problems, although I did notice a bit of hunting in some footage I was editing - a busy scene, camera wasn't sure what to lock onto. Spot focus should lock onto the pint you tell it to and stay on that point, but if you've got a lot of motion in the scene, it could be trouble, but ANY cam will struggle under that sort of scenario.

Your "green" snow also puzzles me, as auto and one push WB are fairly reliable.

Honestly I edited some footage last night, and it looked very very good on all counts, in difficult lighting.

This may be a "your mileage will vary" issue somehow. I haven't seen this autofocus issue with a wide angle lens, limited though my experience is with that usage. Were you filming fast-moving objects or something similar? Or just filming scenery? I filmed the globe at Epcot's Illuminations recently and don't see this issue during playback even though a lot of stuff was going on around the subject, including fountain streams to its front left and fireworks shooting off all around it.

I think there's some general agreement that the Sony autofocus to date is a little slower or pickier than the Canon autofocus, though I'm seeing preliminary good reports about the 2010 cams. But I have been using Sony HD cams for three years now and really don't have any complaints to register about the autofocus. Typical footage for me would be scenery, trains moving from far to near and away again, soccer games, and pets moving around. Maybe I'm just not filming the same kind of subjects as you film...

if your `millage will vary` means that i am not handling the camera right, i am hoping that you are right.
in good lighting camera is OK, where the iris is narrow, depth of filed solves the big deal of the problem. i am not doing a lot of stuff outside. but indoors and low light is the problem. tele and wide open iris and your problems will begin for this camera, my experience.
here are the examples.
if sometimes in million cases canon fails to deliver sharp focus in same situations you just literally shake it centering the subject and focus gets it, and from there you are safe.
sony is always catching the easiest thing to focus, which is horrible solution.
the tele position was in range of a focus, it is not the problem :-)

P.S. the PMB sony browser rocks - this thing is making my day. excellent tool. fast, not processor/memory demanding, very organized and viewable. the BIONZ should be programmed by this falks :-)
any way to tell PMB to delete videos after importing? - i saw this option once on some menu that popup just once, and clicked it - but nothing happened and that popup i cant find any more?

Martin -
Almost wonder if you got a "bad" unit. I've not seen major focus problems, although I did notice a bit of hunting in some footage I was editing - a busy scene, camera wasn't sure what to lock onto. Spot focus should lock onto the pint you tell it to and stay on that point, but if you've got a lot of motion in the scene, it could be trouble, but ANY cam will struggle under that sort of scenario.

Your "green" snow also puzzles me, as auto and one push WB are fairly reliable.

Honestly I edited some footage last night, and it looked very very good on all counts, in difficult lighting.

the green thing may be disregarded due to WA adapter, and the grass was green so in the motion it is a bit sluggish, but the whole picture is a bit tinted. on the second it is going blue due to CromaAberrations.
so, that probably is not the camera fault.

Hi Milutin -
With PMB, there's a big red "X" in the toolbar - that deletes media files, and you can right click, the options are on an extensive menu. When in the preview window, again the big red "X" does the trick.

If you've got CA from a bad WA, that's not the WB, bad glass is bad glass... and I've seen some really bad WA's. About the best is the Sony HG0737Y IF you can find one. Big, heavy, and very very crisp, the earlier and later HG lenses are smaller and lighter, but you'll see a few quibbling points with the image...

On the three images, the third one is probably center weighting in action, the other two puzzle me, as the cam SHOULD be focusing on the center of the frame, right where the subject is. I'm not sure why switching to spot focus and pointing at the specific spot on the screen you want in focus isn't working, these are the exact type of shots where I've found that function to work well...

ONE possibility is if you're tele'd in too far, you may simply be outside the range where the camera lens can resolve focus - that's a distinct possibility with those first two shots, and it will TRY to focus, but not be able to shift to the closer plane, and it WILL keep trying. You may need to spend some time getting a feel for the focal range and where it can and can't focus. If you're zoomed in, and try to get close to a subject, it can get iffy.

You mention shaking a Canon to reset focus... with Sony, a crash zoom out and back in is more effective <wink>! Forgot about that trick, might help you! Every camera has it's quirks!

if your `millage will vary` means that i am not handling the camera right, i am hoping that you are right.


No, actually I meant that you may be filming in some entirely reasonable way that just isn't the same as what I'm filming, also in a reasonable way. What and how I'm filming may not find the weak points of the autofocus where what and how you're filming may find them. That's why Dave was trying to understand the details of what you're doing.

He may also be right that your particular cam itself may not be performing to its own specs - it may be "a lemon" or sour compared to what it's supposed to be.

Hi Milutin -
ONE possibility is if you're tele'd in too far, you may simply be outside the range where the camera lens can resolve focus - that's a distinct possibility with those first two shots, and it will TRY to focus, but not be able to shift to the closer plane, and it WILL keep trying. You may need to spend some time getting a feel for the focal range and where it can and can't focus. If you're zoomed in, and try to get close to a subject, it can get iffy.

You mention shaking a Canon to reset focus... with Sony, a crash zoom out and back in is more effective <wink>! Forgot about that trick, might help you! Every camera has it's quirks!

I've definitely seen what you describe here, and the my solution has been the same as well. If the distance just isn't right for clean focus, alter the zoom. And when you start out with telephoto zoom up high and point it at something and get a blur, just zoom out, get the focus, and then bring the zoom back in. It's as if the autofocus resets itself in the process and finds something to grab at lesser zoom, and then does fine zooming back in.

One has to remember that Depth of Focus will typically become more shallow as you zoom in, and the focal plane has to be within the range the lenses can resolve.

In other words, something that the camera can focus on when zoomed out may simply be outside the lens range if you zoom in 50%.

To illustrate, pick a scene a few (fairly close, say 3-4) feet away from you, sit in a chair or put the cam on tripod so you can keep the distance/scene steady. Start wide, slowly zoom in... at some point the focus should fall apart (and not usually gracefully) as you exceed the lens range.

I tested at close range, and was able to get to about 75% before it lost it, at around 6 feet (from the primary object) it seemed able to go through the entire range and hold focus on the foreground object as the background went out of focus - remember that add-on lenses are going to "adjust" this, dependent on the lens.

I moved the cam a bit off the primary object (a cloth covered chair with not much pattern to detect), and as soon as the background was into the central area, cam zapped to the background, and foreground went OOF. Switched to spot focus, selected the chair area, now off to one side, camera sought out and locked it, and MAINTAINED that focal distance (think of spot focus as "assisted manual"). Touching the background, it zapped right to it, going back to the foreground it had to hunt a bit, but got it.

I've always found spot focus to be nearly as effective as having manual focus (I prefer an assisted manual ala the FX7) once you get the hang of it. Just don't forget to hit the "auto" button as you exit, or it will be stuck in the manual mode! It may well be the "getting the hang of it" that is presenting a challenge.

Overall, I'm very happy with what the XR500 (and now the CX500) can achieve image wise, and while I'm waiting to get hands on the CX550V, these are pretty good and usable. There can be a variance between cameras of the same exact model, so it may be that Milutin got one on the far end of "spec", but I hope the tricks we've mentioned will help. It's funny how when you get used to a camera, you just do certain things without thinking, like that crash zoom out and in!

It'll be interesting to see what the added manual controls of the new releases really offer... and they WILL have a wide lens range that looks to be equivalent of the current cams with a .7 WA attached.

i have tried everything, with WA option, without it...etc.
i have bought new one WA lens which is perfect, but still the sony is stubborn.

What WA lenses do you have that you have tried? (brand and model #).
Thanks
Greg

One has to remember that Depth of Focus will typically become more shallow as you zoom in, and the focal plane has to be within the range the lenses can resolve.

In other words, something that the camera can focus on when zoomed out may simply be outside the lens range if you zoom in 50%.
........

maybe i`v got a lemon, but the main subject is unfocusable for me. and it is really making me mad, since i can`t relay when shooting on this cam. but i will have to live in not so happy marriage, since i can`t return it. thus this is ending any kind of my sony experience :(, so i have to stop veining and start working with my not so smart cam

i have uploaded some more examples, there is no way to focus on first subject in the shot.
clearly seen on the guy with the telephone (pic n3 - the wardrobe is in he fokus also), i have start zooming and grrr (pic n1), the back is my sony favorite. then to zoom gymnastics and a bit closer shot of the same guy (picn n2), and the focus is Ok. that kind of gymnastic discredit this camera even for the family snap shots - since wardrobe and wall will be only sharp thing on the birthday party :)
even on the broad day light, cops are unshrap, and the back is. i wish i win the lottery and break this camera in peaces for the you tube :)

(i will upload original files later, they are 18mb, and my upload is very slow, i am going to play games and internet is needed :-)

- PMB, the delete button X is only for deleting the movies on the PC HDD, not on my camera, but i would like after importing do delete all camera footage from PMB if possible. so i don`t have to bother in the camera. on the import screen i cant find anything of that kind?


What WA lenses do you have that you have tried? (brand and model #).
Thanks
Greg

the lens is Fujiyama 0.45/52mm diameter with ring to 37mm. quite nice and adequate lens for many purposes. all shoots are with it. hp boxes also

Fujiyama 0.45 x Wide Lens : Moneta d.o.o (0.158) (http://moneta.rs/?id=12&engine=vukovac&t=t16&tveza=u2_xx&grlo=wide&pid=41)

http://www.fujiyamacorp.com/productDetail.php?product_id=53&category_id=4

price ~30 euro

Ok, let's start with the easy part - PMB. When importing (first screen that pops up when you connect the cam), there's a button for settings, and you can check or uncheck a box for "delete clips from camera after importing" or something to that effect - it's in the same area where you select your target folders. You can also delete from in camera if you left clips on, as it will only detect and delete NEW clips I think. With the in cam delete menu it's pretty fast and you can select all...



In the third pic, the center of the frame IS the background, and that's where the cam will focus unless you use spot focus on the guy on the phone. That's a "center weighted focus". Spot focus overrides that, and is about the only effective way to do it.

NOW... about that WA lens... I'm presuming you're leaving this lens fitted when all the focal problems are occurring? I can see it look relatively sharp in the center, but looking soft(er) as it goes out to the edges - VERY typical cheap lens "performance". may be almost OK in the center, and gets worse as you go out... even more of a problem with a 16:9 image.

You're talking about a lens that's probably retail around $50 US... I've got some here, I actually keep them around for the odd optical distortions, in case I want that effect...

The Sony HG0737Y when issued was nearly $300 (it was designed for the HC1, which was a 2K camera), even the current HG (High Grade) Sony lens is around $200 IIRC, and I've got several versions of the HG0737 - ONLY the Y makes the grade IMO, but it's too darn heavy to drag around, so I usually keep a "C" version handy, and live with a little less image quality.

What I'm geting at is if you're putting cheap glass on an expensive camera and blaming the camera for the issues which arise, you're looking in the wrong place. Cheap glass is cheap glass. When it comes to optics "you get what you pay for".

I understand the desire for a wider field of view (Sony evidently does too, as the cams released later this year have a "WA" field), but I've seen how badly a cheap WA degrades the image on an HD camera, and it's simply unacceptable. I don't know how Sony's current WA compares (HGA07), to me the HG0737C is barely acceptable, but it's way better than the cheap stuff.

I understand your frustration, but myself and many others have and use this cam to excellent results, so unless you have a lemon (which I'm beginning to doubt), you need to look at your whole system before writing off the camera or Sony...

What I'm seeing is "normal" operation and indications of a cheap WA add on lens.

I've shot some very challenging close up focus situations (and yes, lots of "family" stuff), and had NO problems whatsoever...

Milutin -
Just for kicks I pulled out my XR500 and a few WA lenses...

A cheap-o Digital Optics import lens (oh, but it SAYS "high definition" on the box...) probably equivalent to the lens you've got, more or less...

a VCL-0637 Sony SD WA .6 lens

The VCL-HG0737C, and the 0737Y

The DO had lots of image quirks, particularly halo'ing/CA around bright areas, and worse at the edges, and has a definite softness to it. The 0637 is a "bit" better, but the two HG lenses it's immediately clear have a sharper image overall, with the Y being the best (but it weighs as much as my CX500V I think!! And not MUCH less than the XR!)

The DO and cheap Sony came close to replicating some of what I see in your captures.

SO, I went a bit further and discovered something - the camera seems to like the lighter areas of a frame (I suspect a part of the algorithm that presumes the subject will be well lighted?)- something that is in each of your images I think - the background is brighter than the subject you're trying to focus on - if I pointed at a white tile with a darker backgound out of focus, it would grab the white tile every time, and jump right back to it if moved so it re-focused on the darker background then moved back...

Then I tried a dark foreground with a brighter background, and yep, it didn't want to focus on the darker object.... HOWEVER, when I used the spot focus to set the focus distance to the dark foreground object, no problem whatsoever, although I think it took two passes to be sure it had the lock. If you know you're shooting a scene, set the focus before you start to record using the spot focus, and you should be OK, presuming you keep the subject/camera distance reasonably constant.

SO, in some respects I've replicated your issues, I still say you're going to need better glass if shooting HD with a WA (did you have a WA for the Canon? Perhaps an adapter ring?), and the spot focus may be needed with a light background and a dark subject in the foreground.

ALSO, you might want to consider a small "fill" light, particularly when shooting the above conditions - even a 3-10W can help if you're close in, I use the Sima 36 LED "20" series myself for fill. Something that would brighten up the subject just a touch, should make the focus lock easier.

I have the Sony VCL-HG0737C WA converter (37mm, HD for the Sony). It's actually fairly light. I took it to Disney World two weeks ago. The only sample I have of video taken with it is a fireworks clip from Epcot on YouTube:

YouTube - Epcot Illuminations Fireworks filmed in HD wide angle 20 Jan 2010 (vs most clips filmed without WA) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIWGVbcqIAs)

I doubt that the subject gives much chance to see any of the details or lack of same for sharpness at the edges of the WA. But the clip overall does show how the CX500V does in fireworks mode. This was all handheld, by the way. I see some clips viewed well up into the 30,000s that I think look much worse in terms of equipment performance...

Anyway, the C lens seems like it might be a good compromise between quality and weight/size from what Dave said.

Speaking of CX performance, I filmed the "Festival of the Lion King" with a CX12 in 2008 and the CX500V last month. The difference in the low light performance is astonishingly in favor of the CX500V. I didn't expect that since my memory was that the CX12 clips were pretty good. I guess my standards have changed now.

The "C" variant of the 0737 is pretty light and seems a bit better than the earlier "X" and no suffix versions of the HG lenses (don't ask me why X and Y came before "C"...). The current HGA07 is even a bit smaller and supposedly lighter, but haven't seen one in person, likely won't with the CX550V coming out... I've seen it for around $140 US on eBay. While the Y is great, it's not a good match for the petite CX cams! And I suspect with the upcoming CX550V I won't need WA lens add-ons at all (but if my calculation is correct, the .7 will give me around an 18mm!!).


I've also filmed the same play for the last 3 years with my kids... the XR500 is CLEARLY the best image over the SR11, and 7 series cameras (HC7/9, CX7). Much less noise, and far better lattitude and detail, very little if any need to tweak in post to get a nice overall look. 4 camera multicam edits nicely on the new i7 machine, all non-transcoded AVCHD.

I am still surprised by the CX vs. the XR, there's definitely an extra stop or two of usable low light (and I'm finding more noise on in dark areas), but I'm beginning to suspect the color differences are due to the different LCD's in the two cams - the CX having a more vibrant display... may have to do a side by side shoot to see...

my sony had plummeted me to desperation when i saw that the image stabilizer is not helpful at all on zoom, and in full zoom...total shaking, like no IS.
but there is a bug in the program, while there is a wide or tele lens convertor on in conversion lens menu, the IS is almost not working. i was shaking for several days thinking that my lemon is as yellow as the sun, but it is just a bug. so it maybe my cam only, i don`t know. but OIS stop to work when ANY conversion lens is turned on in the sony menu. when OFF, the OIS works like a charm



@ Dave -
i am learning the touch focus, since AF is TOTALLY useless in my cam. pity. PMB had that menu you mention just once, like some previous version. but on my menu there is not such thing to choose. is it the same?

I have the VCL-HGA07 xo.7x lens and i was unaware of any converter setting that needs to be changed in the menu?

mine will shake on over zoom and more so on full over zoom but i can still get it's fairly steady on tripod zoom.

it must be a bug? here is a recent example of me zooming in/out and you can see some shaking but thats my shaking hands as i hild the cam out the window of the car. You can definitely see the anti shake working overtime for me :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UynaT5hP928
russ

NO IS will be effective once you zoom in past a certain point, but the OIS in this cam is fairly good for a significant part of the range.

PMB -You might try clicking the "change" button? I've got a later version of PMB, and the interface has changed, definitely has the delete files from camera option... not sure which version that first was available, and it may not be in your version... but could be buried somewhere in a submenu too.

I've also filmed the same play for the last 3 years with my kids... the XR500 is CLEARLY the best image over the SR11, and 7 series cameras (HC7/9, CX7). Much less noise, and far better lattitude and detail, very little if any need to tweak in post to get a nice overall look. 4 camera multicam edits nicely on the new i7 machine, all non-transcoded AVCHD.



I agree about the changes since the SR7. I to have been through the SR7 ( which my daughter now has) and still have the SR11 and XR500. With the SR7 my FX1 was definitely better, the SR11 started to challenge the FX1 and the XR500 is better a lot of the time. I miss the zebra from the SR11 on the XR500 but it is able to do a good job left on AE shift a lot of the time. I use spot focus all the time a great feature and its sad that Sony have not used this feature on the new NX5 or AX2000 one of which will replace my FX1 soon!!!

Ron Evans

Yep - touch screen is pretty cool, speaking of which I notice the TX7 is in stock and shipping - a bit more than the HX5 and not quite as versatile, but I know I love the touch screen of the TX1, which is "upgraded" by the TX7 FWIW.

I know the TX1 isn't as good in low light as say the XR500 or the CX500 (which is even better in low lux mode, if a tad noisy), but if the TX7 is as good as the TX1 (should be the same sensor), it's a heckuva lot of camera in a small package! And it has spot focus <wink>!

I think I will still wait for the HX5. My needs are for a small, do most things, camera for my ski trips and general "in my pocket camera". The HX5 I think is a better fit with more zoom, Active Steady Shot, Semi-manual focus, continuous focus even for stills, GPS etc. It's also $50, less enough for a big SD card!!!!

Ron Evans