I have the AX2000 and also a Panasonic AG-HMC40. I want to get rid of the Panasonic in part because its auto-iris is completely useless and also because I would like to get another Sony to have a color curve that matches the AX2000, even if it's not the same exact camera and sensor. So I'm thinking about selling the Panasonic and either putting some money on top to get a Sony HXR-MC2000U, which is an AVCHD version of the older HVR-HD1000U, which I had but I ended up selling because the quality wasn't that great, in part because of the HDV format. I'm guessing the AVCHD version should have better quality since it's capturing at almost the same bitrate but in h.264 instead of the 1440x1080 MPEG2 of HDV. One thing I loved about the HD1000U was the shoulder format, it was very well designed in the sense that it was very well balanced and light, something I didn't realized until I got a Panasonic AG-HMC80, which is a horrible camera also shoulder mounted but with a viewer so big that you can't keep it straight, it always tilts to the left.

However, I know that the MC2000U is still a consumer camcorder in a big body to make it look professional, and it's not going to look as good as the AX2000. But the AX2000 is really hard to keep handheld for long times, because it's much heavier, while the HD1000U I could keep it on my shoulder for hours without breaking a sweat and I would love to have that again. Unfortunately Sony doesn't make another shoulder mount camera before it gets to the $10,000 price tag, which is far out of my reach. But I worry that if I get the MC2000U it's going to suck if I have to do anything in low light and show a big difference with the AX2000.

The other option would be to go for a Sony DSLR, the Alpha a55, which sells for about $1000 and has 1080-60i video, but I'm also worried that the quality, while probably good, may be even more different than between the AX2000 and the MC2000U. And also that it's going to suck if I have to use Zoom a lot, trying to move that little zoom rocker.

So for a videographer, which of these two options makes more sense? Has anybody here tried the MC2000U, and what do you think about it?

I have both the HD1000 and the MC2000 and have done side by side comparisons.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-hvr-hd1000/488096-hd1000-vs-hxr-mc2000-2.html#post1616494

The link is to my particular post but the entire thread is worth reading. If after reading it you still want an MC2000 I'll be happy to sell you one of my test units with virtually no hours on it.

So when you compare both the MC2000 is even softer than the HD1000? I thought it would be the other way around, being that the HD1000 is HDV and the MC2000 AVCHD. When I did comparisons between the AX2000, the HMC40 and the HD1000, the latter was pretty bad compared to the first two, but I assumed it was mostly because it was HDV. If the MC2000 is even softer, I will have to pass.

I just wish Sony would make the AX2000 in the same casing they use on the HD1000 and MC2000. Sure, I can get one of those shoulder pad rigs, but that's extremely unconvenient when you have to take the camera off the tripod and start shooting handheld in just a few seconds. It would take much longer to take it off the tripod, unscrew the tripod plate and then screw in the shoulder mount.

The minimum illumination for both the HD1000 and the MC2000 is 11 LUX which is terrible. MC2000 is not any better than the HD1000. I have a 1000 and tested a 2000 but ultimately just went all in on a NX5U instead. If you absolutely need a shoulder mount camera, I'd go with either a new JVC GY-HM750 or try finding a used JVC GY-HD200 on eBay. Those cameras actually match up very nice to my NX5U. Any shoulder mount in the lower price range is just a waste of money in my opinion.

The JVC GY-HM750 is a $7000 camera. If I was able to afford a camera that expensive I'd jump to the $10,000 Sony. Although to be honest, If I had $10,000 to spend, I'd get another AX2000 and spend thousands on a good Steadicam so I wouldn't need a tripod at all.

So when you compare both the MC2000 is even softer than the HD1000? I thought it would be the other way around, being that the HD1000 is HDV and the MC2000 AVCHD. When I did comparisons between the AX2000, the HMC40 and the HD1000, the latter was pretty bad compared to the first two, but I assumed it was mostly because it was HDV. If the MC2000 is even softer, I will have to pass.


The MC2000 and HD1000 are both single chip consumer cameras wrapped-up in a plastic shoulder-mount case, mainly for the low-end wedding/event market. The AX2000 is a cut-down consumer version of the AVCHD NX5 camera which is a three chip front end with a new Sony 'G' lens. This front end is also shared with the HDV model Z5 and its consumer equivalent the FX1000.
Even on the better three chip front end cameras, the resolution is determined by front end performance and tape (1440x1080) and solid state (1920x1080) recording has little if any influence. With the low spec. consumer front ends of the single chip models, the recording format makes no visible resolution difference at all.

Steve

I know all that, but the format has to make a difference. Perhaps not in these models, but you can't compare HDV, which is not even full HD but relies on an enlarged resolution and is 25 Mbps Mpeg2 with AVCHD in this camera which is full HD and almost the same bitrate but compressed using h.264. Even if HDV was full HD it would have to have 50 Mbps to be as good as AVCHD. Of course I wasn't expecting the MC2000 to have the same picture quality as the AX2000, but I was hoping it would be a lot better than the HD1000.

What's irritating is that if they would even just put the chip from the CX560 into the MC2000 they'd have an absolutely stellar performer. They don't even need to repackage the AX2000/NX5 into an HD1000/MC2000 body to do it. All they need to do is use their top consumer chip. But they don't because they don't feel they need to.

To me this is a clear case of when "good enough" isn't. But I'm not in the Sony marketing department so I'm not privy to how they think.

Maybe they are afraid that if they do this they will cannibalize sales of more expensive models, but I think this is a stretch.

So when you compare both the MC2000 is even softer than the HD1000? I thought it would be the other way around, being that the HD1000 is HDV and the MC2000 AVCHD. When I did comparisons between the AX2000, the HMC40 and the HD1000, the latter was pretty bad compared to the first two, but I assumed it was mostly because it was HDV.
The format has nothing to do with the softness; the Z5 is pure HDV and blows away the MC2000 in terms of sharpness. It's all about the front end, as Steve very aptly points out. It's all about the chip and how it handles light and how it has to gain up and how it introduces noise when doing so. The compression scheme has little to do with it.

The problem with their marketing tactic about this is that they don't have a good option for regular event videographers when it comes to shoulder mount cameras. I doubt that a normal event videographer is going to spend $10,000 in a video camera unless they make way too much money, but then their only option below that price in the same brand is a low quality camera. They should have a version of the AX2000 that is shoulder mounted, that would sell like hot cakes.

Even if HDV was full HD it would have to have 50 Mbps to be as good as AVCHD.
I don't think so.

That statement implies that AVC-HD in this type of camera gives the same results as MPEG2 with less than half the datarate. If you have access to a camera with the "HF" AVC-HD mode (13Mbs, constant bit rate) it's easy enough to demonstrate to yourself this is not true.

If it was, HF mode should give better quality than HDV. I'm prepared to put a pretty big bet down that you'll find this not to be the case, either in artifacting on a static scene, or on high movement.



[EDIT - Sebastian, I've just noticed you say you have an HMC40. That doesn't have an HF mode, but I believe it does have the HG mode - still 13Mbs, but variable bit rate, so should be a bit better still. Try it - and tell me if you think it's better than HDV. :-) ]

I'm talking about the highest bitrate mode in camcorders these days, it varies depending on the brand, on my Sony AX2000 it's called FX and I think in Panasonics it's called something else. I don't recall because I set it to the highest bitrate and never touched it again. But in that highest quality mode, the bitrate is a variable 21 Mbps with a maximum 24 Mbps. So that, in h.264, is far better than MPEG2 at 25 Mbps. h.264 is by far a more efficient compression than Mpeg2.

h.264 is by far a more efficient compression than Mpeg2.
It may well be the case that H264 is more efficient than MPEG2, and at the max bitrate AVC-HD may well be better than HDV. Where I really don't agree with you is the amount - hence the suggestion to try the lower bitrate mode. It gives you the chance to see how AVC-HD stacks up against MPEG2, with the latter at twice the bitrate. It's intended as an experiment - not a way of working.

It's also important to appreciate that "H264" implies a collection of techniques, but it's not neccessary for all the techniques to always be used to make an H264 signal, and the effectiveness will vary widely from coder to coder anyway. In the UK, broadcast HD transmissions are now at something like 10Mbs using H264, and in that case they may well indeed be rivalling MPEG2 bitrates of twice as much.

But that's with new, very sophiscated coders, able to employ all the techniques that H264 can offer - and costing many, many times more than the complete camera in the cases we're talking about here - let alone the coders in those cameras!

Cheaper (much cheaper) coders means less of the possible techniques used, so far less than the 2:1 advantage you may be hoping for. Probably about comparable quality to MPEG2 at about 80% of the bitrate - not 50%. And the downside is that it needs more computer power to edit.

It may well be the case that H264 is more efficient than MPEG2, and at the max bitrate AVC-HD may well be better than HDV. Where I really don't agree with you is the amount - hence the suggestion to try the lower bitrate mode. It gives you the chance to see how AVC-HD stacks up against MPEG2, with the latter at twice the bitrate. It's intended as an experiment - not a way of working.

I wouldn't care to compare 13 Mbps AVCHD against 25 Mbps HDV, because it's about the same, and in that case it mostly comes down to the rest of the components. My Canon HF100 consumer camcorder in AVCHD at 13 Mbps looks way better than the Sony HD1000U, both in overall image quality and pixelation in movement.

My original point was that comparing the HD1000 and the MC2000, one being 25 Mbps MPEG2 and the other 21-24 Mbps h.264, the MC2000 "should" be much better, because both are a consumer camcorder in a big case, but the MC2000 has a much more efficient compression system.

My original point was that comparing the HD1000 and the MC2000, one being 25 Mbps MPEG2 and the other 21-24 Mbps h.264, the MC2000 "should" be much better, because both are a consumer camcorder in a big case, but the MC2000 has a much more efficient compression system.
As Steve Game and Adam Gold have previously said, in such cameras (with a single small chip) it's the front end performance that is far, far more important than codec. Compare a good front end in an HDV camera with a 1/4" single chip and AVC-HD and the former will blow the latter away, HDV or no. I think you're putting far too much emphasis on codec, far too little on chipset.

As Steve Game and Adam Gold have previously said, in such cameras (with a single small chip) it's the front end performance that is far, far more important than codec. Compare a good front end in an HDV camera with a 1/4" single chip and AVC-HD and the former will blow the latter away, HDV or no. I think you're putting far too much emphasis on codec, far too little on chipset.

Not really, not when comparing two camcorders that are failry similar in internal components such as the HD1000 and the MC2000. They are, aren't they?

Now if we compare a very expensive HDV camera to another consumer or prosumer one with the highest h.264 bitrate mode, then yes, the HDV camera would be better in picture quality. Regardless of that, I would still get the AVCHD camera because AVCHD has many advantages over HDV or any other tape based format.

Not really, not when comparing two camcorders that are fairly similar in internal components such as the HD1000 and the MC2000. They are, aren't they?...Pretty obviously not. The HD1000 has a 1/3" chip (actually a hair bigger) while the MC2000 is 1/4", and that apparently makes all the difference.

Not really, not when comparing two camcorders that are failry similar in internal components such as the HD1000 and the MC2000. They are, aren't they?

Now if we compare a very expensive HDV camera to another consumer or prosumer one with the highest h.264 bitrate mode, then yes, the HDV camera would be better in picture quality. Regardless of that, I would still get the AVCHD camera because AVCHD has many advantages over HDV or any other tape based format.

If you really want to compare the (negligible) impact of CODECs, then read reports on cameras with identical front ends, e.g. the NX5/AX2000 vs. the Z5/FX1000. The front ends of these cameras are all the same, i.e. the lens and sensor. The only relevant difference is the No. of samples per line. (1440 vs.1920) and the CODEC used. The sensor resolution is 1037000 pixels, also exactly the same as on the Z7 and the S270.

Sampling at a higher resolution does not increase the real quality, indeed, all other things being equal, it just increases the bandwidth requirements, so potentially, it worsens the quality. So any improvement in quality by moving from 1440x1080 MPEG2 HDV to 1920x1080 MPEG4 AVCHD (even at 24MB/s) is far less than the simple numbers suggest. There is however NO increase in resolution. If you want to benefit from a 1920 horizontal resolution CODEC, the camera needs either three true 1920x1080 sensors or a single chip with a native resolution with about 4K horizontal pixels and a Bayer filter. In all cases, the lens needs to be designed for about 1000 horizontal lines. The cheapest cameras that can do this are currently the EX1 and the XF300.

With the cheap hardware used in pure consumer cameras and their 'prosumer' derivatives, the situation is even more futile. Designs rely on edge enhancement to provide a perception of improved resolution on a first generation recording. Any re-rendering during editing will rapidly reveal unacceptable levels of artifacts. The consumer market is dominated by hype based on pseudo-tech numbers. Even mobile phones claim HD resolution through their 1/6 inch sensors and plastic lens!

I don't know what the situation is in other countries, but here in the UK the BBC quite happily uses HDCAM with its 1440x1080 resolution, and there's no chorus of complaint saying that Sky with its touted 1920x1080 spec. is any better when viewed.

As far as AVCHD is concerned, yes it is correct that the CODEC is capable of more efficient compression than MPEG2, but only if the full set of compression tools that the standard includes are used. I'm not aware of any camera that uses all of them as it requires additional hardware to do real-time compression with them. Even with professional equipment, there are better codecs than AVCHD, even with the full toolset. Manufacturers know that the expense would be wasted on an audience with consumer level cameras that have front ends that rarely meet 720p standards and frequently aren't as good as a professional SD camera. AVCHD was introduced because it enables manufacturers to make cameras more cheaply.

Steve

I have 3 single chip Sony AVCHD cams, SR11, XR500 and CX700, a NX5U and HDV FX1. I got the NX5U because all the little Sony AVCHD cams made the FX1 look like the consumer camera !!! Whether that was CCD front end or HDV is not that important. They are sharper and have cleaner video image especially the XR500 and CX700 with the "R" sensor. Interestingly they are also "cleaner" than the NX5U. However the NX5U has more depth to the image and in good light has a wonderful image. I often shoot with another fellow who uses his EX3. It too has more video noise than the small Sony cams but has still more depth to the image. Rank order is easy to see. In the theatre shoots that I do the EX3 can"see" in lower light than the NX5U but the CX700 has the lowest noise of them all and is very good in low light even at 21db of gain. I just wish Sony would make an upgrade to the NX5U with the R sensor and 60P.

Ron Evans

Ron,

The FX1 is nearly 7 years old and was the first 1080 line camcorder on the market below $30000. All HD cameras have improved considerably since then so a comparison is meaningless. As you have noted, the prosumer cameras with the larger sensors give what you say is a deeper image. If you compare both types of camera's footage as a second or third generation compression, to you would probably find that the prosumer camera's output has lower artifacts and a better overall image. The CX700 uses a 12Mp sensor that downsamples to HD without any filtering which is probably OK if all footage is only ever viewed raw and not edited. The artifacts may be visually imperceptible at the first generation, but will make their presence felt with subsequent compression.
That is why pro. cameras have lens and sensors optimised together for a clean image rather than maximum sharpness, straight out of the camera. Also they don't force design compromises by having a still shot capability.

Steve

Yes I got my FX1 when it first came out and then bought a SR7, SR11, XR500, NX5U and CX700 when they came out too. Progression in quality of the image is noticeable. All my projects are theatre shoots of plays etc usually 4 or more cameras, so all in high contrast dark environments. Video is edited and then SD DVD made for cast and crew. With a little filtering all the cameras can be made to look much the same from the timeline. The EX3 is usually used for closeups, NX5U for mid shots and the others fixed wide shots. The CX700 is noticeably cleaner than all the others, EX3 included. This is definitely visible on the SD DVD. Originals are shot at 1920x1080, edited in Edius, rendered to Canopus HQ and downscaled/ encoded to SD MPEG2 using TMPGenc 4. Output is also rendered to h264 from Edius for Bluray disc. The differences are clearly visible between the cameras to the expert eye. However the cost difference for the visible difference is also considerable. EX3 about $11,000, NX5U $5,000, CX700 $1100. Depends what they are used for. The EX3 and NX5U are 3 chip, have lots of manual controls but in a point and shoot family environment, in automatic, hand held, I can attest to the fact the CX700 is easier and gives a better picture. Which is its intended use of course !!!

Ron Evans

Sebastian, you have my email. If you want to put your hands on an EX3 and a 7D and play for an afternoon, shoot me an email and we will go shoot some stuff. I have both sitting in my office here in Raleigh. They both are great tools for VERY different jobs.