Listed on this page but not in the spec sheet. Sony Global - Digital Imaging - FDR-AX100 (http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/j4it/feature.html?contentsTop=1) This is available and in the specs for the AS100V http://www.sony.net/Products/di/en-us/products/me3d/specifications.html?contentsTop=1 Maybe Sony just got the specs mixed up !!!!

Ron Evans

I'd be interested in the implementation of the 120fps as well... I'm pretty sure that it's "in there" in the feature set, but not well documented! Ideally it would be actual full HD, and able to record more than just a few seconds!

The (continuous) high frame rate recording in the Panasonic FZ200 was sort of interesting to play with, I'd like to see the same capability but with the better sensor/lens!

Does anybody know what the maximum aperture of the AX100 lens at full zoom?

I'm trying to read the lens label. I see 2.8 to 9.3. We know it's not a constant aperture.

I really really would love to have the pro version with that RX10 f2.8 constant. (Pretty please Sony?)

Seen somewhere that said f4.5.

120 @ 1280x720?:

"High-frame-rate shooting at 120p* and HD resolution

The FDR-AX100 supports high-frame-rate shooting at HD image quality (1280 x 720 pixels). Its ability to record at 120p enables slow-motion playback at one-fifth the speed in a 24p environment when post-processing is applied. This capability opens the door to various uses, such as checking the form of rapidly moving athletes.

* Only available when recording movies in the XAVC S format."

I read f2.8 - 9.3 as well. Like Ron & some others I shoot theater as well; (theater school for kids & teens). I'm still a 'pan & scan' guy releasing SD DVD's and I'd love to release HD stuff. This looks like a real possibility.

F9.3 on tbe long end? Huh?

No no...im sure thats just a typ'o on the pre production lens.

Im sure sombody in the factory was dyslexic and accidentally typed "9.3" instead of the real "3.9".

Im sure its just a simple mistake.

F9.3 could be real. The sensor is very densely packed with pixels to achieve 4K. As a general rule, the more pixels you cram into a sensor's given area, the less sensitive the sensor becomes.

I like the pics of the prototype with the XXXXXX info on the lens. As someone else stated, maybe it's an ideal camera for porn!

edit - I don't think the 9.3 on the lens means f-stop. It might mean the zoom range, maybe in a 35mm equivelant. The actual info on the lens is: 2.3/9.3-111.6.
As a comparison, the info on the RX10's lens is:2.8/8.8-73.3 and we know the RX10 has a constant aperture lens throughout its zoom range.
9.3-111.8 is roughly 12x, as 8.8-73.3 is roughly 8.3x.

F9.3 could be real. The sensor is very densely packed with pixels to achieve 4K. As a general rule, the more pixels you cram into a sensor's given area, the less sensitive the sensor becomes.
The f-stop is solely concerned with lens optics - the ratio of focal length to iris diameter. If a sensor is less sensitive, it will need to be illuminated more - hence may need a faster aperture for a given illumination - but that's a different matter to lens ramping.

Under "Optics/Lens" in this sheet it gives the answer - 4K Camcorder with 1" sensor - FDRAX100/B Review - Sony US (http://store.sony.com/4k-camcorder-with-1-sensor-zid27-FDRAX100/B/cat-27-catid-All-Advanced-Camcorders;pgid=zeh.EzZeFPVSRpDNUFUX6Old0000JbHgarLC?_t=pfm%3Dsearch%26SearchTerm%3Dfdr-ax100) - f4.5. So it ramps a little over a stop over the whole zoom range. Pretty much what would normally be expected.
edit - I don't think the 9.3 on the lens means f-stop. It might mean the zoom range, maybe in a 35mm equivelant. The actual info on the lens is: 2.3/9.3-111.6.

The 9.3 and 111.6 do indeed mean the focal lengths at the widest and tightest ends of the zoom, but they are actual focal lengths in mm - not 35mm ff equivalents. (Remember we're talking about quite a big chip size.)

Since the width of the frame is quoted as 13.2mm, and ff 35mm is 36mm, those figures can be used to scale up to 35mm equiv figures:

Wide: 25.4mm (9.3x36/13.2)
Tele: 304mm (111.6x36/13.2) - a 12x lens, as Glen says.

I believe David is correct - 4.5 on the long end is the widest aperture, elsewhere in the specs there was an indication you could further stop down to f/11 if needed. I tried the range from f/2.8 to f/4.5 with the RX100, it's not a big "loss" of light - I know ANY is sort of traumatic once you've had constant f/2.8 <wink>, but I'm guessing that in practical use it won't be a major issue.

"Sensor readout".... We haven't talked much about this yet.

We are told that the RX10 reads all it's pixels in video mode and does not line skip. (for 1920x1080 scaling) We suspect that the AX100 uses the same sensor and could possibly use the same Bionz X processor. I'm assuming the RX10 does a "pixel binning" process for scale down to HD.

What about the AX100? Is 4K too much data for that kind of readout? How does it get 14Mp (in 16x9) to scale down to 4k? (8mp)

I would imagine at that resolution, if it did line skip, it wouldn't be a big problem?

CT

"Sensor readout".... We haven't talked much about this yet.

We are told that the RX10 reads all it's pixels in video mode and does not line skip. (for 1920x1080 scaling) .......... I'm assuming the RX10 does a "pixel binning" process for scale down to HD.

What about the AX100? Is 4K too much data for that kind of readout? How does it get 14Mp (in 16x9) to scale down to 4k? (8mp)
You need to see them on a chart to say for certain. In a lot of ways pixel "skipping" or "binning" will give similar results, so no, if the reports about the RX10 are correct, I don't think the RX10 is doing anything like that.

It is hoped that it's not only reading out the whole sensor at frame rate, but that it's deBayering it fully, (as it would for a 14 Mp still) and then doing a full downconversion to HD from that.

As far as the AX100 goes, then once you've got the deBayer of the whole sensor, it shouldn't be much more difficult to downconvert to 4K than HD.

Since still digital cameras started to do decent video, that sort of processing has been too much for the technology without severe power /cost etc issues - hence the pixel skipping and binning that's had to be used with such sensors to get viable HD. (And none of them has managed to deliver much better than 700+ lines of resolution.) But technology moves on, and processing gets more powerful, so it's quite possible we are now seeing a new highly desirable era, and something as described above becoming a reality.

Hopefully. I'm optimistic, but I for one would like to see chart results before being sure - and they need to have input frequencies beyond 4K resolution to really tell what's going on.

Again David is correct from what I've been able to find - the Bionz X is a new generation of processor that can supposedly handle the date rate off the entire sensor (which I've seen described as "5K") at frame rates sufficient for video.

This approach, rather than "tossing" (If I understand the term "binning" correctly) large chunks of information, would have ALL the data available to munch on and use to produce final output, thus should yield much better resolution and overall results. So far that seems to be playing out in the RX10, and I suspect we will see the same in the AX100.

There are always "bottlenecks" in the engineering of such things - one component or another that forces compromises (like I suspect the 4K/30p being a concession to being able to use readily available memory). To the end user, it just looks like they left something out, or crippled functionality, or maybe doesn't work like they thought it would... when the sad truth of the reality is that there are limits to technology!

Ten years on, these cameras that are bleeding edge today will no doubt look rather limited and archaic, as technology marches forward... As fond as we all were of the HC1 "back in the day", and it tickled us to see it re-appear again in the AX100 design DNA, I'd venture that it will look rather "dated" when output and performance is compared!

I've never forgotten how impressive it was to have first seen my new HC1's HDV clips being played back on my 1024x768 computer screen. Back then it was still a big leap visually compared to the best my "state of the DV art" workhorse DSR-450 could do. In about 2-3 months' time I believe the AX100 would likely do the same to my FS100 and EX1R's video like its old cousin did to the DSR's.

David Heath made a small mistake in his calculations, because he didn't take into account the ratio difference. Hence the FF equivalent of 9.3mm 1" sensor is 29 and not 25. It would have been 25, if both formats were identical. But FF is de facto 2/3 and AX100 1" sensor, is 16/9.

There's no real proof that the AX100 sensor is 16:9. For all we know it is the RX100 II sensor but with a better video processor. That sensor is 3:2.

When I was saying sensor, I meant the video area not the actual sensor. The sensor most probably is 2/3, because the still pixel count is 20MP vs 14MP for the video. The video frame is definitely 16/9 and that's the important factor when calculating the FF equivalent.

That's my #16 post in this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/520933-sony-fdr-ax100-2.html#post1826824

"Digging the pics of the Sony site I found the following:
lens 9,3-111,6 f2,8-4,5 equivalent to 25-300 in FF, according to my calculations for 3/2 aspect ratio. For 16/9 probably around 29-348. Good wide angle, but only for stills.
18X clear image zoom. Probably zooms in to native 4K resolution. Possibly more zoom in for HD.

Usually I do my calculations by myself, but always verify them with a nifty iphone app which is called "Pcam"

David Heath made a small mistake in his calculations, because he didn't take into account the ratio difference. Hence the FF equivalent of 9.3mm 1" sensor is 29 and not 25. It would have been 25, if both formats were identical. But FF is de facto 2/3 and AX100 1" sensor, is 16/9.
The RX10 & AX100 sensor is 13.2x8.8mm - which is 3:2 - that is given in the same link I posted. The derivation of 16:9 must therefore involve some vertical cropping, so I'd expect the effective dimensions for (16:9) video to be 13.2x7.425mm.

"Full frame 35mm" is normally taken to be 36x24mm - also a 3:2 ratio. If such a camera gets used for video, then it's effective area will be 36x20.25mm.

For my calculations I was using the full sensor (3:2) area in each case - 36x24 mm and 13.2x8.8 mm - which yields an equivalent 25mm figure for focal length. Switch both to a 16:9 mode and the same equivalence holds true - 9.3mm on the RX10 sensor in 16:9 mode will still give exactly the same angle of view as 25mm on a full frame sensor in 16:9 mode.

If you define "equivalent focal length" as ALWAYS relative to the diagonal of 3:2 36x24mm (regardless of aspect ratio) then what Emmanuel says is quite true. But it seems more logical to relate on a like for like basis, especially when the RX10 has a 3:2 sensor, which may be used as such or switched to 16:9 mode. Otherwise, use a real FF camera in video mode and it likewise must have an "equivalent focal length" of a little more than it's real focal length.

At the end of the day it's a matter of convention, and maybe (as with calling this a 1" size in the first place) common sense has little to do with established convention.........

When we speak about equivalent FF focal length is an empirical way to understand the angle of view of a uncommon format for a given focal length. Therefore is more appropriate ALWAYS to measure them against the diagonal of the 3:2 FF (36X24), which is something that most people involved with photography or cinematography understand by experience.

"...Otherwise, use a real FF camera in video mode and it likewise must have an "equivalent focal length" of a little more than it's real focal length."
As David mentions above:
25 focal length of FF cropped for 16:9 yields an angle of view that is smaller and more closely reassembles to 29 FF 3:2 (uncropped).

As I had stated in my initial post, which I have previously reposted again, the AX100 has an equivalent focal length 25-300 for 3:2 aspect ratio (still) and 29-346 for 16:9 aspect ratio (video).
Since AX100 is predominantly a video camera, is more helpful to state the 29 as the equivalent focal length and not the 25.
Actually most reviewers of the camera and I think Sony itself, do exactly that.

Ever since just before hdv I've yearned for a camera which would shoot stills and video at the same time and here it is finally at last...Just pick any frame.

You could see the advantage the 1" sensor has over a smaller 1/2.3" sensor when looking at the following link showing a comparison of the RX10 with 1" sensor and F2.8 zoom vs the Panasonic FZ200 with 1/2.3" sensor and F2.8 zoom.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx10/images/aperturesAOV.png

This review says the AX100 has a projector built in. What?

Sony Debuts 4K Camcorder That Costs Just $2,000 (http://mashable.com/2014/01/06/sony-4k-camcorder/)
He is incorrect , the FDR-AX100 Handycam does not have a projector.

I can't figure out if that camera has the gyro lens system or not.

any files around straight from the camera?

I can't figure out if that camera has the gyro lens system or not.

No it doesn't have the balanced optical stabilizer of the NX30U or the consumer PJ series. It just has Optical with Active mode according to the specs. Lens and sensor assembly is quite big in comparison to the 1/2.88 sensors and lens.

Ron Evans

Thanks Ron, you just saved me $2k! lol

It may not have the balanced image stabilizer but it looks to be a better AVCHD camcorder with 4K as a bonus though.

If you just need the balanced image stabilizer then the PJ790 is the equivalent and almost as expensive . The other consumer models are now 1/4" sensors or less. So for 1/2.88 sensor the choice is NX30U at $2000 or the PJ790 at about the same price too !!! Sony price to market as to what they want to push !!! For handheld shooting the balanced image stabilizer is great if that is what you want.

Ron Evans

The AX100 would have to be a much larger camera to use the balanced OSS module and that large 12x Zeiss zoom with 62mm filter thread.

http://www.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/fixedscale/400/300/products/2013/5/158/x158PJ430V-o_lensunit2.jpg

Sony's marketing is very smart in pricing the new CX900 at just below the PJ790V's in US$ according to B&H's web site. Overall the CX900 looks to be a superior HD camera with more manual controls, a bigger and more light sensitive sensor, options for a better codec. etc. except for one that really counts for a lot of people, the BOSS. Joe is right it would not be technically possible to fit a gyro unit similar to those on the PJ7xx and PJ6xx series on the CX900 due to the coverage requirement of the 1" image circle.

There you have it, 2 new and 1 carried-over top of the line Handycams, one shooting 4K at US$500 premium above the other 2 that offer different feature sets at about the same price.

The PJ-models are also going to be replaced with new ones.
With PJ-810 to be the topnotch.
Which seems to be a lot cheaper than the older PJ790?

Unveiled: New Sony Handycam Camcorders and 4K Prosumer Camcorder | BH inDepth (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/sony/news/unveiled-new-sony-handycam-camcorders-and-4k-prosumer-camcorder)
and
http://bhphoto.prod.acquia-sites.com/sites/default/files/handycam_specs.pdf

Was just on a conference chat with Sony Pro about the topic of XAVC.

We were partially discussing the Sony AX100 and I took the chance to ask about the cameras sensor read out. (even though its' only a "Handycam")

Sony did conform that the senso did not line skip in video and that every pixel is read when scanned and scaled to 4k

They refused to answer any questions about a "pro" sister model to the AX100. (as expected but I HAD to at least ask)

CT

Sony did conform that the senso did not line skip in video and that every pixel is read when scanned and scaled to 4k
This may seem like splitting hairs, but if a sensor was to pixel BIN (average like photosite colour values, straight off the chip) it could accurately be described as "reading every pixel". Even though the end results would be similar to a line skipping case.

The more revealing question to ask would be "does it read every pixel, do a full deBayer, then downscale to 4k from that?"

My suspicion is that this camera does indeed do things "properly" - but in principle just everybody be aware of the possibilities of getting truthful answers that can be misleading.

The AX100 would have to be a much larger camera to use the balanced OSS module and that large 12x Zeiss zoom with 62mm filter thread.

http://www.crutchfield.com.edgesuite.net/pix.crutchfield.com/ImageHandler/fixedscale/400/300/products/2013/5/158/x158PJ430V-o_lensunit2.jpg

Having the CX 790 with the magic eyeball, I can say I was very happy with the AX100's active mode at CES, the camera is the perfect balance of size and weight to hand hold.

I can say I was very happy with the AX100's active mode.
Hi Paul, can i conclude, does the active mode in the AX100 stabilise the same or even good as the CX790 with his extra balanced eyeball?

The sensor on the 810 (1/3.95) looks like (I can never read those dang fractions with any confidence, but I *think* I'm correct?!) it is still smaller than the 1/2.88 sensor that populated the CX/PJ7xx series cameras for the last two model years. Even though larger than the "consumer" cameras, it still looks like a distinct "downgrade" to me?

The 7xx cameras are pretty good performers, but looks like they are the "end of the line"... too bad, since the "BOSS" worked quite well - understandably it would be harder to gimbal/gyro a larger imaging block the size of that on the RX10 and AX100.


Sony feels they "hit it out of the park" with this new generation 1" sensor (and it's quite good!), I don't quite understand the crippled CX900 (and in this case it distinctly IS the AX100 sans the 4K!?). It's not like they're saving a whole bunch on the guts, or the exterior... or... or... OK... I don't get it? To me it looks like a FIRMWARE "option", unless there's a couple "secret" bits of silicon in there somewhere?! I questioned why the RX10 didn't have 4K of some flavor for the same reasons. The only other possible explanation is that Sony has a limited yield of "4K capable" Bionz X processors, similar to how it's typically been with high end processors - some of them don't quite "make the grade", but are too good to toss out, so they get a lower speed rating?



@David - There is a substantial difference between sampling every pixel, then crunching ALL the data, some of which will of necessity be "averaged out" in order to produce a downscaled image... vs. tossing out every other (or every 3rd or 4th or whatever) line worth of data. You can't use data that is simply ignored before processing.

Part of the new "X" processor is the capability to deal with ALL the sensor data early in the processing, rather than diverting substantial chunks of the data away from the "input" BEFORE processing. The more data can be preserved along the line, the better (and more free from errors/artifacts) the output should be. I see that there is a HUGE difference between the two approaches, that seems to be "in the pudding" of the output.

Hi Paul, can i conclude, does the active mode in the AX100 stabilise the same or even good as the CX790 with his extra balanced eyeball?
It works very well, similar to the 18-200 on the NEX-VG 20, For as good as the magic eyeball is, I have never been happy with the sharpness of the lens at the telephoto end on the 700 series and suspect part is due to the heavy cropping on the chip for the eyeball, not what you want with 4k I suspect.

Question: Do we know yet if this camera is capable of doing a live video out via HDMI for monitoring or recording externally? Sorry if that's been addressed elsewhere.

@David - There is a substantial difference between sampling every pixel, then crunching ALL the data, some of which will of necessity be "averaged out" in order to produce a downscaled image... vs. tossing out every other (or every 3rd or 4th or whatever) line worth of data. You can't use data that is simply ignored before processing.

Part of the new "X" processor is the capability to deal with ALL the sensor data early in the processing, rather than diverting substantial chunks of the data away from the "input" BEFORE processing. The more data can be preserved along the line, the better (and more free from errors/artifacts) the output should be. I see that there is a HUGE difference between the two approaches, that seems to be "in the pudding" of the output.
You misunderstand me. Firstly, I did say that I do feel this camera does things "properly".

But it's possible to read all the photosites on the chip, but then bin groups together - that is not the same as is believed to be the case here. "Binning" is normally taken to mean just taking a group of values from photosites and doing a simple average - without any consideration of their relative geometry.

That's not is believed to be the case here - full read out, deBayer to form an intermediate image of full sensor dimensions, then downscale.

In the case of line skipping, a typical scenario would be read two lines, skip two - then effectively do the same for columns - read two, skip two. You'd be left with a 2x2 Bayer block out of 4x4, and the resolution would be limited to a quarter of the linear sensor dimensions.

But it's easy to imagine a case where every photosite is read, but the sites for each colour just get simply averaged within a 4x4 block (ie binned). The resolution will still be limited to a quarter of the sensor dimensions.

Do a proper deBayer and it's obviously possible to get far better - probably higher than the target resolution it will be downscaled to.

All I was trying to get at is that just saying "the sensor is fully read, no sites are skipped" only tells a fraction of the story. There are three possible scenarios - tossing data away, reading it all, but notmaking anything like full use of it (ie binning), or making full use.

As said before, I'd like to see proper chart results before being specific, but yes, I'm inclined to agree that this camera probably does do it the best way.

I agree David, there are many ways to "crack the nut"... and while I think Sony got it right at the sensor and processor stage, there are still a couple gripes of the RX10 being only 1080p (when it sure appears it COULD have had 4K, but it would have stolen the thunder from the AX100 and the A7/7r), and of course it remains to be seen whether 30p 4K will be smooth enough for motion to look good, and if so how much motion will be "too much" for 30p to handle effectively (I far prefer the look of 60p myself). One could say that 30p is tossing out half the temporal "data" vs. 60p...

Any approach has potential compromises in order to keep the massive amounts of data manageable and storable on reasonably priced media - you have to pick and choose what gets tossed and where!

I'm looking forward to seeing real world tests from this camera, the RX10 is performing nicely, this should be a nice complement to it!

I'm no expert on the math behind "pixel binning". However, it's my basic understanding that binning is simply taking a cluster of pixels, capturing each output values (like "voltage" readings for lack of a better word) and averaging those clusters into one single value. (one value per cluster)

The idea or the goal is to get 1920x1080 single (pixel) values from each their nearby clusters.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the same (roughly) technique that Photoshop and other apps would do when scaling a 20mp picture down to a 2.1mp (HD size) image?

If dis guarding high amounts of image data is the goal, wouldn't a pixel averaging scheme (after be Bayer) be the best mathematical way to do it?

I imagine these pixel binning calculations are extremely complex.

CT

Dave it does 1920x1080 60p which will glorious no doubt.
30p at 4k

I am sure the FDR-AX100 is priced for marketing the 4K TV's without destroying the higher end products. Point and shoot but with the possibility of being used film style shooting at the lower frame rate by enthusiasts. I still think we will see Pro version maybe slightly bigger with 60P etc that we all want but with out other functions in the FDR-AX1 after its firmware upgrade this summer. So I don't expect it until after this upgrade to the FDR-AX1 and PXW-Z100. It will then present me with the dilemma of changing my FDR-AX1 and or NX5U !!!

Ron Evans

The key question for higher data/bit rates is what would it record to... I don't think Sony will swap out the card slot/reader in a pro version, so is there any spec that will allow for a faster SDHC or perhaps MS Pro Duo that can handle the throughput? I'm sure there's stuff coming (that 4K Panny GH will need something to record to!), but Sony needs memory on the shelf...

@Bruce - I'm sure the 1080 60p will be quite nice, and I'm hopeful that even at 30p, the 4K will be usable to crop/pan down to a nice usable 1080p as well. One can still can dream of 60p and ginormous memory cards!

The key question for higher data/bit rates is what would it record to... I don't think Sony will swap out the card slot/reader in a pro version, so is there any spec that will allow for a faster SDHC or perhaps MS Pro Duo that can handle the throughput? I'm sure there's stuff coming (that 4K Panny GH will need something to record to!), but Sony needs memory on the shelf...

The UHS-III standard for SDXC is supposed to be faster than even MicroP2. Sony has not hopped on that bandwagon though. Sony's opting to keep XQD alive in the pro market. I don't even think the FS700R supports UHS-I.

The XQD is not much bigger than an SD card and there looks to be plenty of room for it just whether there is room for 2 slots for a Pro version. I still think there will be a heat problem other wise why the fan in the FDR-AX1 and the PXW-Z100 . Unless the processor in these models, maybe from the F5/F55, is less efficient than the consumer BionzX and the drivers for the XQD are power hungry !!! Both these models only work with the 970 batteries not the smaller L series.

Ron Evans

I have a sneaky suspicion that the "new" sensor and processor were a tad unexpected performance wise, and that may have caused a bit of internal friction at Sony.

From the interviews I've read, the RX series is sort of an experimental design exercise - sort of a "come up with an unconventional design concept, and just do it" sort of thing.

Very likely someone in the video camera side of things realized they'd better put all the hardware resulting from these wacky experiments into the "Handycams" somehow, before they became completely irrelevant. The consumer side of things tends to move much faster than the "pro" side, so they might still be "catching up" in that division!

It's entirely possible that we'll see a lot more of this sensor/Bionz X combo - it seems like it falls in a sweet spot performance wise.

I use Patriot SDXC in my cameras which quote a read speed of 50MBps and write of 35MBps so should be OK for the XAVC-S 60P rate of 150Mbps. Though one still needs a quality class 10 card to meet the 60Mbps for 4K at 30P for reliable performance. This may also figure into the marketing of this camera to keep ownership at the $2000 level for reasonable length video files and time. At 60P one goes through a XQD 64G card in 50 mins on my FDR-AX1 and costs $200. In comparison a Patriot EP SDHX UHS-1 Class 10, 64G card cost $60 and at 30P would record 2 hours !!!

Ron Evans

It's funny. Sony just released two cameras with the BionzX and 1 inch sensor combo. (RX10 & AX100)

Sony seems to have put on hold their traditional practice of "camera crippling" on these two models.

Both of these cameras do a full sensor readout? No line skipping? The RX10 is given practically every feature you could ever want? (variable Zebras, peaking, focus magnification, real audio meters and full IRIS, Gain and Shutter control, ND filter and more)

The AX100 - more full sensor readout, 50Mbp/s HD, zebras, peaking, full manual control, 3 ND filters and more on a $2000 Handycam?

They seem to be suddenly throwing everything + the kichen sink into their "cheap" cameras now. Sony never, ever would have done this two years ago! Sony was the master of feature slicing and dicing. They could play that shell game better than anuone. (very frustrating to the buyer)

Today, the only "crippling" they allowed is on the codec side of both cameras. The RX10's codec looks sharp on slow motion scenes but then looks very "soft" on the fast moving pixels. (I have done ProRes tests and it's true) The AX100 is locked down to 60Mbp/s...the lowest bitrate you would ever want in 4K.

Maybe that is their plan now? Give all features to all cameras (except picture profiles) and let the codec variations seperate the camera models and price points?

Hmmmm....I like it so far.

Keep in mind that there are two market categories that Sony has traditionally sold well in that are nearly dead - compact point and shoot, and consumer video camera, both gunned down by the cell phone, and on life support at best. Those two niches could disappear entirely within a couple years for "lack of interest". Even the SLR/ILC categories took significant hits in sales this year, across the board... probably also wounded by cell phone/tablet/phablets, but also affected by a relatively stagnant level of "innovation".

Into this step new managers trying to keep a company viable financially. There is one fellow in particular that seems to have been the inspiration for these "different" designs.

Literally, companies must create new markets from "nothing", and they can't afford to play games, they have to deliver cameras not just that makes the user "believe". but pinch themselves to make sure they aren't dreaming! It's literally a "do or die" market in digital imaging, Sony has always had a small chunk of the market, and with a shrinking market, crowded with 2 "major" players and a pocketful of "minors", they need to "make every shot count".

Sony got serious shooters attention with the RX100, the M2 version continues the tradition, the RX10 has again caught a lot of people's eye, the AX100 similarly is "expensive", but has it's market to itself, at least for a while. Reviewers scratch their heads, say these cameras are really expensive, but that they are REALLY significantly revolutionary, fun cameras for the guy or gal who has grown tired of "cell phone" or compact P&S "quality".

Market stresses and shifts for the manufacturer are GOOD for the end user! It's nice to see cameras that aren't just minor refreshes of rehashed designs, new ideas, new concepts that are actually useful for pro or casual shooters alike! It's also nice to have the "wish lists" shorter rather than long, almost as though the manufacturer(s) are listening to what users want!

The CX900 1080p sample video looks soft compared to the AX100 4K sample video of the same scene .
HDR-CX900????????? - YouTube
CX900 2560x1600 screen capture :
11984355773_6283318ae3_o.png



AX100 :
11984397983_c09d8062fd_o.png


Sample Video for 4K Handycam FDR-AX100 - YouTube