I see the camera does not have XLR inputs for mic so I guess a beach tech adapter will work ?

Doug

So Ron, would you think the XAVC bitrate is dynamic in nature on the AX100? Is this something you've observed on the AX1? I think it's true for most cameras I've used. Complex scenes see a jump in bitrate as opposed to scenes where little changes and detail is modest.

Yes, XAVC-S is a long GOP H264 codec so is really a "better " version of VBR AVCHD. As to difference between shooting in 1920x1080 or 3840x2160 in the few tests I have done shooting in 3840x2160 and downconverting gives a better image than shooting in 1920x1080 on my FDR-AX1.

Ron Evans

Just to clarify. The FDR-AX100 uses XAVC-S as does the FDR-AX1 which is a long GOP, 4:2:0 8 bit codec. The PXW-Z100 ( more pro version of the FDR-AX1) uses XAVC 10bit 4:2:2 codec like the F5/F55 cameras. XAVC on the PXW-Z100 is currently an intra frame codec( each frame is individually encoded) whereas the XAVC-S is longGOP inter frame codec. Data rates of course are then very different. the FDR-AX1 at 60P is 150Mbps but the PXW-Z100 at 60P is 600Mbps and will consume a 64G card in about 10mins !! Hence the reason I got the FDR-AX1 !!!

Ron Evans

Man oh man, 64gigs in 10 minutes. That's just really painful!

I just read a comment on Vimeo from the guy made who shot the cat video and he said it was all handheld. That is pretty impressive for the OS.

Man , where are the in hand reviews? The GH4 has a bunch all ready, come on Sony!

Out of curiosity: in general with a 4k camera if I like to get a good HD file, is it better to rec in XAVC and to convert it into HD files or directly to rec in HD? In other words what are the differences of image quality (video) between a HD converted file and a HD file (with same camera)? Thanks

This will be one of the questions that will be hard to answer before "hands on"... the 1080/60p will also be at a high bitrate, so there should be some noticeable improvements in 1080p footage shot that way, and I would expect in SOME situations involving high motion, the 60p could be a "better" choice, but in others the 4K will be "better"...

I could be completely wrong when the camera becomes available and we can test actual performance, but I think the above makes some sense... and it's one reason I'm a little less concerned about the 30p limitation of the 4K, I expect the 1080 60p will be pretty impressive, and make for a versatile camera overall.

I wish this little guy wasn't so...little. It's shaping up to be amazing for the price but I'd feel odd using a little handycam for any gigs, despite the fact that it's almost universally acceptable now to shoot things with little DSLRs.

I just wish this sensor was dropped in the Z100 or some other pro-cam. Always so close...

[QUOTE=James Hobert;1835278

I just wish this sensor was dropped in the Z100 or some other pro-cam. Always so close...[/QUOTE]

Then it would need a bigger lens than is currently on the Z100 or AX1. I would like that too if the features of the FDR-AX1 and PXW-Z100 stayed. Maybe we will see that in the future but then expect the price to be more than these cameras not just a little more than $2000 !!! I still think we will see an EA50 4K version as that would make sense in the lineup for Sony. Sort of a large sensor interchangable lens addition to the FDR-AX1 at much the same price I expect.

Ron Evans

My RX10 is 50Hz/60Hz (in historical terms NTSC/PAL) switchable. I shoot at 60Hz because when playing 50Hz files on a computer monitor I observe motion artifacts with 50Hz files. This happens with my EX1 also.

I prefer 30p vs 25p also.

I wonder if the FDR-AX100 is also switchable like the RX10 version sold in New Zealand, a PAL country. I note at the Sony UK site the following options: XAVC S 4K :3840×2160/25P, 24P, "XAVC S HD :1920x1080/50P, 25P, 24P", AVCHD:1920x1080/50p(PS),24p(FX,FH),50i(FX,FH), 1440x1080/50i(HQ,LP), MP4: 1280x720 25p

And at the Sony USA site: XAVC-S 4K : 3840×2160/30P, 24P; XAVC-S HD : 1920x1080/60P, 30P, 24P;AVCHD:1920x1080/60p(PS),24p(FX,FH),60i(FX,FH), 1440x1080/60i(HQ,LP); MP4: 1280x720 30p

All of which leads me to believe the FDR-AX100 will not be switchable. That means B&H will get my order and not Sony New Zealand. No mention of the FDR-AX100 at either the New Zealand or the Australian site that I can find.

I wonder why the RX10 is switchable and how and why Sony decide to include switchability, or not?

Well John, you won the coin flip this time, the US market RX10's aren't' switchable... go figure.

Then it would need a bigger lens than is currently on the Z100 or AX1. I would like that too if the features of the FDR-AX1 and PXW-Z100 stayed. Maybe we will see that in the future but then expect the price to be more than these cameras not just a little more than $2000 !!! I still think we will see an EA50 4K version as that would make sense in the lineup for Sony. Sort of a large sensor interchangable lens addition to the FDR-AX1 at much the same price I expect.

Ron Evans

Would it need a bigger lens...or have a lens at roughly the current size, but only a 10x zoom. I think many would swap the extra zoom range for a larger sensor.

I was thinking of a 20x zoom, F1.6 etc, which would be bigger for a 1" sensor I think. Of course one could just put the FDR-AX100 guts in the larger body. If that would have the encoders of the larger cameras that would be great.

Ron Evans

Just finished this entire thread in one read. :) Nice to read some educated discussion rather than the usual fanboi drivel.

I'm in the market for new cameras. My two TRV 900's just don't cut it any more.

This NAB will be my tenth or so. Are you guys plotting a meetup? I'd love to buy beer and listen.

So the real world performance may only be 1/3 to a stop faster than the AX1.

One question, many others cameras in that price range do line skipping to downscale the image to the desired resolution when used for video. Compared to that the AX100 as I understand it actually reads the entire sensor then downscales after that. Does that mean it would perform better in low light since while other cameras effectively throw away much of the light they have gathered before sending the image to processing, the AX100 uses all gathered light from the sensor and then processes that? I think Sony calls is 'Direct Pixel Readout" or something like that in their jargon, but I believe all it means is that they don't line skip and instead use all data collected by the sensor. I don't think the AX1 has that, so maybe that would make a difference in low light performance when compared to the AX100?

old marketing, will they ever change? no 60p? really? but in the stills they were forced to lift all the limitations and give the same for all the models, like all the others do with stills): but with video they are back to the 1980 marketing. Guys it's up to us now: we have to let them know that this old marketing is in the past. or they think that we are stupid or something.

The AX1 has 8M pixels exactly correct for 3840x2160 so has to use them all. Don't be confused by the sensor specs as it is not a 16x9 sensor coming from a still camera. The crop for the lens in the AX1 or PXW-Z100 only addresses a 1/3" crop of the full sensor. AX100 has 14M ( not sure if this is 16x9 either: Just checked and it is the 16x9 )so does have to downscale a little to the 8.3M needed and how this affects the low light performance. I tried to account for this in my very simple calculation. We will have to wait to see what the real world performance is like between the two cameras. My guess is at full wide angle there may not be much difference and the AX100 will have a shallower depth of field.

Ron Evans

I have been looking at this "cat video" again on a 27 inch iMac (2560 x 1440, not it's not 4K)

This image Jell-O's badly. The more I look at it, the more I cringe at the motion artifacts. Hopefully, this is just a prototype problem.

If it's not a prototype issue and all the final cameras have this...than this explains why it was allowed to have full manual controls for this low of a price. Sony gave this little guy everything and that shocked me and I couldn't figure out why that did that for only $2000.

If rolling shutter "jell-o" is going to be the AX100's big Achilles Heel, than Sony can certainly load up and "de-cripple" all the rest of the functions without any sales cannibalism worries.

If the next Sony 4k camera that is priced above the AX100 has significantly less skew than it wont feel any competition from the AX100. (that alone is enough to protect a higher and more profitable model's sales)

If the AX100 is deliberately built this way than it's a brilliant marketing strategy on Sony's part.

It's very interesting that the RX10 does not at all show that amount of skew.

CT

@ Anthony - the AX100 has higher bitrate 1080 60p than the RX10, so it's the RX10 that is "crippled" in that sense... and IMO it COULD have done 4K... whatever, I'm enjoying the camera and shooting with it quite a lot, as-is. I'll pick up a slightly used AX100 from someone who expects it to bring them a chilled beer and is "mad" because it doesn't, and I'm sure it will be a good camera.

I know you want to argue that somehow the manufacturers are playing some game and ripping "us" off, but EVERY camera has compromises, EVERY technology has limits, and EVERY company, if they hope to keep supplying new and innovative products, has to make money once in a while! Add to that the fast rate of change in ANY electronic product, and yes, "next years product" will most likely be "better" than "last year's product", making it "seem" like they held stuff back or something (Apple has this down to an art...)

Yes, companies make design decisions, things like a "slow" zoom that many complain about as being TOO slow, but it prevents amateurs from crash zooming, something that probably is a good design call in a "consumer" product... perhaps they realize that putting a 4K/60p product on the market without a reasonably priced and readily available MEDIA to record to would cause a "few" problems, so they stuck to a more feasible 30p at a lower bitrate.

If you transported some video guy from "5 years ago", and showed him the new toys, he'd be mad if you sent him back in time... OK, "10 years ago" guy would go "whut, when did the HC1 get 4K?!?". He'd still be blown away by the image quality....




@Cliff - just spitballin', but maybe the RX10 is reading/processing 1/4 of the information for a 1080 "frame" - so it probably is taking relatively longer to do a full read of the sensor to the processor to produce the 4K image?

One of the reasons to get the AX100 over the CX900 is to see where the "issues" may arise with 4K. Inherently there's a lot more data being tossed around that must be dealt with and accounted for somehow. I'm quite certain there will be bumps in the road....

The AX100 is a "first", and we'll have to see where it shines, and undoubtedly will run into places where it falls a bit short. Some of the early "test video" from the RX10 was actually pretty badly skewed and lots of "motion artifacts" due to bad camera operators/"reviewers".

I'm generally skeptical of "first tests" where swinging the camera wildly in a way NO ONE would do in real life, except to "prove a point" (that you CAN swing a camera wildly and get bad results)... is regarded as "testing methodology". If it's done to show that rolling shutter exists, well, slap me with a fish, I did not know that! Oh wait... we did... but of course there's no "standardized" test of how far and how fast the camera is swung wildly, so the "example" proves... you can swing a camera wildly and get bad results...

When the camera becomes more widely available, then we will see what it can do when properly handled...

Color me as unimpressed by the wild swinging and resulting jello. I guess if that test bothers some, the AX100 is not for them. If I saw this jello throughout the video and in shooting scenarios like I'm accustomed to, then I would be concerned.

But I guess I'm the oddball and tend not to swing my camera to & fro, back & forth in an attempt to nauseate my audience. No, I tend to shoot more like the tester did prior to the frenzied "rockin & rollin' where no jello was visible. :)

As for the lack of 60p, yup, I guess I'll be 'stupid or something' and buy the damn thing! ;)

I have been looking at this "cat video" again on a 27 inch iMac (2560 x 1440, not it's not 4K)

This image Jell-O's badly. The more I look at it, the more I cringe at the motion artifacts. Hopefully, this is just a prototype problem.

Are you looking at the Vimeo, YouTube or download version? There are problems inherent with all three which I'm sure you're well aware of, but keep in mind that if you're looking at the 1080p download from Vimeo that it's being upconverted to WQHD by your graphics card.

I'm not doubting that you're seeing what you're seeing but we're looking at and analyzing converted conversions. ;-)

Raw 4K files will be the tell tale, only 11 days left. He also confirmed that his camcorder is a preproduction model yesterday on his Vimeo page and we don't know if he engaged the OIS etc.

@Dave...

I''ll admittedly go way out on a limb here and throw in a bunch if speculations on my part. (at the risk of looking like a bigger bone-head than I already do!..lol)

I "think" the AX100 and the RX10 share the same sensor.
I "think" The AX100 and the RX10 share the same Boinz-X processor.
I "think" The AX100 and the RX10 scan the same number of pixels (100%) on each read cycle for 16x9 cropped video.

I "think" that the RX10's scale-down job is actually MORE difficult than the AX100's job. The RX10 takes the same amount of pixels and carefully reduces them to a very sharp 2 megapixel HD image. The AX100 takes those same pixels and reduces them only to a 8 Megapixel 4K image. BUT!,...the RX10 needs to read those pixels/data 60 times a second. The AX100 as we all well know, only needs to do HALF that data rate per second.

I "think" the AX100's skew and rolling shutter is not an accident. I believe it's deliberate and necessary. Reducing it would actually be a BAD thing for Sony's long term 4K camera plans and future fleet. Between NAB next month and IBC at the end of the year, I would "guess" that Sony will release 3 or 4 more expensive and higher class 4K cameras.

If the AX100 does "not" have this rolling shutter skew, that would make it tougher on these 3 or 4 future higher models. The AX100 must fit into a 1-3 year 4K model roll out plan and sit carefully in a specific roll.

Remember, the AX100 and it's possible future sister "pro" model are going to cause DIRECT COMPETITION to existing HD cameras today as well.

Sony must carefully walk a marketing "tight rope" during this HD to 4K transition. There are many Sony cameras competing against each other for many different reasons. And yes, AX100 rolling shutter will be one of those carefully planned reasons.

I "think" it's no accident.
I "think" Sony knows about it very well and has tested it extensively. (along with the seemingly low 60Mbp/s data rate)
I "think" Sony is very happy to have it there and they are glad we noticed it. (rolling shutter skew)

I "know" I'll be buying an AX100 and I "know" I'll be happy with it because of all the other cool things it offers. ;-)

CT

(unless the "pro" sister model has an XLR handle...then I "think" I'll get that one instead.)

Cliff, can you give me a time code where you saw the rolling shutter issue prior to the shooter's seizure at the end? I may be wrong in the assumption that you saw it prior to his 'test'.

In the 3 videos I've seen thus far, I've only seen it in the wildness at the end of the video in discussion where it very obvious. Perhaps I'm just not sensitive to this or my shooting style makes me confident it won't be a factor?

Cliff, can you give me a time code where you saw the rolling shutter issue prior to the shooter's seizure at the end? I may be wrong in the assumption that you saw it prior to his 'test'.

In the 3 videos I've seen thus far, I've only seen it in the wildness at the end of the video in discussion where it very obvious. Perhaps I'm just not sensitive to this or my shooting style makes me confident it won't be a factor?

I was thinking the same, I've watched the 4K and downloaded versions over a dozen times, haven't seen the phenomenon he described until the end torture test.

I can definitely see a shaky hand, but the user admitted to and apologized for it saying he had a cold. I don't think the OIS was enabled either, my take.

Shaky hand =/= jello effect.

Looking at the cat around the 3:22 mark, that's just shaky cam footage, zero jello. I've actually never seen that effect unless the camera was panned too fast and that isn't happening in any of the footage until the end again. Meh.

@ Anthony
I know you want to argue that somehow the manufacturers are playing some game and ripping "us" off, but EVERY camera has compromises, EVERY technology has limits, and EVERY company, .

the stills marketing had to stop with those tricks after canon got caught (by us) with the pants down intentionally limiting the 300D to make the 10D look good? After that they all stopped. Now all the still cameras shoot the same pictures , and the more expensive ones sport more added features (hard stuff, like a professional faster shutter, heavier body, stabilization etc. NOT software stuff, and the sensors are all pretty much the same, with the same processing) the Nikon D700 takes the same pictures of a D3 , canon 5DII and 1DsIII , canon 5D and 1Ds , even Sony/Minolta: same pictures to all the models.
siding with the marketing guys would be like the husband making sure that the wife's lover is satisfied (with her). something like that. If we are not vigilant they'll start selling cameras with the sensor as an optional (ah.. if ONLY they could do that!)
can't you see that in the video prosumer marketing they position the models with the cheaper ones always missing something important and always software (firmware) RELATED? and the model carrying the important stuff will cost thousands more, not just peanuts. only with video!. until we wake-up and do what the stills friends did. (don't worry: I'm sure that when the laughable D300 firmware blockings was revealed there was somebody siding with the manufacturer.. so you are not alone)

^ So let me get this straight, you're asking us not to buy this $2,000, relatively tiny camcorder, that produces these excellent 4K videos because you think Sony has somehow, through its software, locked out 60p?

Now the omission of 60p couldn't possibly be due to the fact that the necessary processing power for 4K @60p is either a) too expensive to meet the price point of $2,000 at this point b) produces too much heat for this small body to handle at this stage of development without fans (ask Panasonic about how many responded to the inclusion of fans to deal with heat in their small 1080 60p camcorders) or c) to keep the cheaper SDXC cards in play, Sony decided to go with 30p as the data requirements for 60p @4K would have been so much greater, that a different, larger, more expensive media would have been necessary.

Conspiracy theorists will always point the finger at the manufacturers. Many of these same people initially claimed a) the AX100 Sony demo was never really shot by the camera, but rather by a larger, more expensive 4K cam...it was just too good or b) the material was carefully chosen by Sony because with anything else, you'd see how bad the camera really is.

I continue to believe, based on the actual videos, that this is an amazing camera at this price point. Unprecedented in fact.

But please, don't imply that those of us who choose to buy this camera are 'stupid'. That's both insulting and uncalled for, particularly with the weak, rather poorly thought out 'evidence' you propose.

BTW, using your logic, I can only assume Panasonic is also involved in this same conspiracy with their GH4, that's also limited to 30p. ;)

These new cameras remind me of the first time I looked through the viewfinder of a VX1000 back in the middle nineties: "This can't be what I'm getting. It's WAY too good".

But I was wrong. I was getting just what the viewfinder said.

My next thought was: "Sony's shooting themselves in the foot"

I was wrong again. They brought out the PD-150 and it was even better.

Sony's smarter than us.

the stills marketing had to stop with those tricks after canon got caught (by us) with the pants down intentionally limiting the 300D to make the 10D look good? After that they all stopped. Now all the still cameras shoot the same pictures , and the more expensive ones sport more added features (hard stuff, like a professional faster shutter, heavier body, stabilization etc. NOT software stuff, and the sensors are all pretty much the same, with the same processing) the Nikon D700 takes the same pictures of a D3 , canon 5DII and 1DsIII , canon 5D and 1Ds , even Sony/Minolta: same pictures to all the models.
siding with the marketing guys would be like the husband making sure that the wife's lover is satisfied (with her). something like that. If we are not vigilant they'll start selling cameras with the sensor as an optional (ah.. if ONLY they could do that!)
can't you see that in the video prosumer marketing they position the models with the cheaper ones always missing something important and always software (firmware) RELATED? and the model carrying the important stuff will cost thousands more, not just peanuts. only with video!. until we wake-up and do what the stills friends did. (don't worry: I'm sure that when the laughable D300 firmware blockings was revealed there was somebody siding with the manufacturer.. so you are not alone)

Anthony, I hope at least some of your "fervor" is due to language barriers you've mentioned previously... the members here at DVi are NOT "stupid", by any means... and we ARE critical when appropriate, note... WHEN APPROPRIATE. While we certainly enjoy "speculation" and analysis (and frustration with "features" from time to time), we generally do it tinfoil free.

YOU cite an "incident" involving a camera released by Nikon in 2007, discontinued in 2009, and tar and feather all the "players" in an entire industry...

YOU state a list of VERY different cameras, followed by the nonsensical statement that " same pictures to all the models" - again, I hope this is a lack of familiarity with the English language, as it's complete silliness - I have owned and currently own multiple models from Sony, and they most certainly have differences between models, and definitely model years... definitely noticeable differences in picture quality, features, capabilities, and so on. And certainly differences between BRANDS, even if they do sometimes "share" technologies and "parts"!

You're suggesting that there's some grand conspiracy to trickle out or deliberately disable features in a market that is drying up faster than a shallow puddle?? This is a market niche that needs to innovate aggressively if it is to survive AT ALL, by general accounts of sales. There comes a point where product has to be brought to market and SOLD, warts and all. And it better be something GOOD that people will buy! By some estimations, some of these companies may not be around if they don't figure out how to adapt to market changes...

Sony has broken new ground with the RX series (and they are continuing to try to add features). Am I "mad" that the RX100 had a "regular" sensor and no articulating screen?? Umm... I suppose I COULD be, but I shot a LOT of excellent pictures and video with that camera, that I suppose was "overpriced", but I got one at a decent price, and I'll get decent value out of it when I get around to selling it. Am I "mad" that they added the articulating screen and "R" backlit sensor (among other features, those two "matter" to me) with the RX100M2 version? Hmmm, I suppose I COULD be, but again, I'm getting plenty of USE out of it, I feel it's a bit "better" for my uses, and if there's a M3 that has compelling upgrades... I'll probably upgrade and pass the carefully used M2 along to someone else, who will get lots of good pictures and video from it!

My point is that you're "argument" doesn't even make sense - technology is constantly CHANGING, not the "same", there's no conspiracy, features may be added or removed for reasons we may not understand, but many times there are reasons that are not conspiratorial in nature, they are just engineering, marketing, accounting, customer support, etc. decisions... that's business.

Sony will likely sell far more sensors for the cell/tablet market than they will the entire 1" sensor market. I'm glad they will, and I'm fine with them innovating as fast as possible in that market, so they survive to produce things like the RX series!

Sorry if my tone is a little rough, but I've tried to figure out what you're trying to say, and no matter how many times you've repeated it, it doesn't make sense... and if you call the people here who want to discuss things realistically, "stupid"... well, that's just stupid <wink>. Hope you take this in the way intended, and get busy shooting whatever camera you've got, that's what it's all about after all!

Dave Blackhurst,
yeah. in video there is always something important missing , making us spend thousands more for just some little software adjustment.
and it wasn't Nikon , that laughable "incident" was well established and it was Canon . After that they all never did it again.
you can read the word "canon", right. it was written pretty clear in my post.
I don't remember Nikon doing it. The only thing that Nikon did was limiting the WB value so photoshop had to guess. but that was a war between Nikon and adobe (they used to sell "upgrades" at full price when a new camera was out. Nikon sent a message that they could make the life at adobe's much more complicated if they started hiding the software in their cameras.
As you can see the temptation of limiting a product via "software" was well established before the Canon's mistake.
in video they are still doing it, with us. Big time.And you defending them makes me laugh : they do it against you LOL Only because we are not as smart as the still friends doesn't mean that we have to take it and be happy. Look at the GH2. it was hacked in no time , but it was thanks to the still guys, not us.
let me put it this way: they do it, then stay at the window to see if we buy it. When they see somebody like you buying everything and even addressing all upset the few who move doubts then they know that one more trick made it to the bank.

Dave, unfortunately this is not a language barrier issue. That's pretty clear now.

@Dave...

I''ll admittedly go way out on a limb here and throw in a bunch if speculations on my part. (at the risk of looking like a bigger bone-head than I already do!..lol)

I "think" the AX100 and the RX10 share the same sensor.
I "think" The AX100 and the RX10 share the same Boinz-X processor.
I "think" The AX100 and the RX10 scan the same number of pixels (100%) on each read cycle for 16x9 cropped video.

I "think" that the RX10's scale-down job is actually MORE difficult than the AX100's job. The RX10 takes the same amount of pixels and carefully reduces them to a very sharp 2 megapixel HD image. The AX100 takes those same pixels and reduces them only to a 8 Megapixel 4K image. BUT!,...the RX10 needs to read those pixels/data 60 times a second. The AX100 as we all well know, only needs to do HALF that data rate per second.

I "think" the AX100's skew and rolling shutter is not an accident. I believe it's deliberate and necessary. Reducing it would actually be a BAD thing for Sony's long term 4K camera plans and future fleet. Between NAB next month and IBC at the end of the year, I would "guess" that Sony will release 3 or 4 more expensive and higher class 4K cameras.

If the AX100 does "not" have this rolling shutter skew, that would make it tougher on these 3 or 4 future higher models. The AX100 must fit into a 1-3 year 4K model roll out plan and sit carefully in a specific roll.

Remember, the AX100 and it's possible future sister "pro" model are going to cause DIRECT COMPETITION to existing HD cameras today as well.

Sony must carefully walk a marketing "tight rope" during this HD to 4K transition. There are many Sony cameras competing against each other for many different reasons. And yes, AX100 rolling shutter will be one of those carefully planned reasons.

I "think" it's no accident.
I "think" Sony knows about it very well and has tested it extensively. (along with the seemingly low 60Mbp/s data rate)
I "think" Sony is very happy to have it there and they are glad we noticed it. (rolling shutter skew)

I "know" I'll be buying an AX100 and I "know" I'll be happy with it because of all the other cool things it offers. ;-)

CT

(unless the "pro" sister model has an XLR handle...then I "think" I'll get that one instead.)


@ Cliff -

I suspect it depends a bit on where in the processing chain the data is "massaged" - I'm pretty sure you're right about the same sensor and processor - BUT... just as one can program a computer differently, there may well be some options in HOW those components are utilized. I've seen Sony "groups" use what is supposed to be the exact same sensor and processor "generation" in different cameras with very different results... seems odd, but having seen it firsthand, I can only suspect that there are "teams" of engineers that work in parallel within the company - so you can see a "TX" camera that is different from an "HX", despite shared "guts".

IOW, I'm not sure about exactly how the sensor is being "read", and suspect that that may be the "cause" of the 30p and skew (and that's the reason I have to withhold anything other than speculation until a cam is in hand).

What we DO know, is that the RX10 is tossing around 1's and 0's at a bitrate of 28Mbps at 1080/60p, the AX100 is basically doubling that (60Mbps) for 1080/60p and 4k/30p, so there's "something" different under the hood! Perhaps there is higher performance from "some" of the parts being produced - not unheard of with "processors"?

I'd also suspect that within the year, 4K will become a "necessary" feature, I read there are several just announced cell phones that will have it, there is speculation that there will be a new Alpha series with 4K shortly... it's coming, and relatively fast! That's where the AX100 is a good "toe in the water" for what is coming towards us rapidly, even if there are "issues", as there always will be with being on the bleeding edge!

Dave, unfortunately this is not a language barrier issue. That's pretty clear now.

LOL!

Too funny, always one. :-)

Dave, unfortunately this is not a language barrier issue. That's pretty clear now.

yup...

@ Anthony -

So it's a 10+ year old "incident" - my mistake to google D300 (oops, you MISTYPED SOMETHING!) and now (upon "regoogling") find there were TWO "D300's"... or actually a 300D... whatever, you still stated " same pictures to all the models", an absolutely ABSURD statement... and attribute this nonsensical and empirically unsupportable result to this now ancient "incident"??

My understanding is Nikon has relatively recently used sensors from Sony, with features Sony doesn't enable... hmmm... whatever.


No one forces you to buy anything, at least not camera gear. If you feel cameras are "missing" something, don't buy 'em, use whatever old thing you've got, "protesting" in your tinfoil hat to your heart's content...

I usually buy good used "stuff" from people who don't understand how to use it (or think it's missing something, and maybe it is, for them) at good discounts, and can stay in reasonably current "crippled" <wink> gear quite nicely... no complaints...

Yes, a smart manufacturer that wants to be around for the long term watches to see what sells, and tailors products to what they think will sell, otherwise they will be OUT of business shortly! Sony broke ground with the RX100, it "worked", they released a Mark2... it still works, and out of nowhere, the RX10, and it works... the AX100 probably will do pretty well in a market niche that frankly is on life support at best!

Look around at the sales #s for cameras, by segment and in general - manufacturers that are struggling to survive in rapidly shrinking markets don't have time to worry too much about playing games - survival will depend on releasing products that SELL, because they offer something that justifies the purchase for enough buyers to pay back the R&D and production costs and a profit! That's increasingly hard to do with cell phones and tablets dominating consumer imaging... there may be at best a limited "enthusiast" niche within 2-3 years, and "prosumer" cameras may well ride into the sunset with the P&S... I'm OK with helping see the market segment survive, as shooting stuff with a cell phone sorta stinks! At least for now...


Insulting the rest of us who are here to engage in civil discussion is one way to get banned, just FYI.

LOL!

Too funny, always one. :-)

Yup, no matter what forum you go to, always one. The question that confounds the human race is, why? :)

The Sony FDR-AX100 not having 4K at 60p is a HEAT issue, pure and simple.

I have the FDR-AX1, and if you take the time to look in the front air vent, there is a HUGE heat sink visible in there. One the back right corner, there is a fan & vent. Here in tropical Central America, at room temperature (say 85F / 29C degrees), the FDR-AX1 exhaust air temperature is burning hot. And I mean really, really hot, not just sort of warm.

I recently had the FDR-AX1 way down at the bottom of South America, and it really loved the 5-7C degree (41 - 44F) temperature. Battery lasted longer, and the exhaust air was just barely warm.

People need to STOP making this no 4K 60p in the FDR-AX1 a "Sony is ripping us off" issue... it's purely an engineering issue. Give it a couple years, and they will have a faster, more efficient processor, and you will have your 4K @ 60p in a tiny, handy-cam package.

Wait for it.

The AX100 is a different sensor and processor, which may or may not have heat issues - I haven't stress tested the RX10 for overheat, but so far no reports, knock on wood.

Then again, as I pointed out above, even if the sensor and processor are the same, they are being pushed a bit harder with higher bitrates.

I think there's only been one person suggesting "Sony is ripping us off", the rest of us just "wish" that it had 60p, but are planning to, or seriously considering, buying it anyway <wink>!

There are several possible issues, heat may have been one, I'm guessing the lack of affordable "consumer" memory that could handle 60p was another big one - a camera that would cost huge amounts to buy "proper" memory for, would probably prompt many CS "nightmare" calls from frustrated consumers trying to use "regular" memory, As it is, I suspect many people will put lower grade memory into their shiny new toy, and it won't "work"!

Of course, as you point out, 2-5 years from now, we will have 256-500G memory cards with insane high transfer bitrates, and this will be "history"! It'll come, soon enough, but we're all impatient, can't even wait a few more days for this horribly flawed, "crippled" camera to be available! Silly us <wink>.

For me, the AX100 not having 60p is a non-issue.

I shoot 29.97p on both my EX1r and FS100. When rendering out to 60i for Blu ray, 29.97p gives a nice PSF look in 60i. And 29.97p over the web is about the best you will stream anyway.

Does YouTube and Vimeo even offer 60p? We know Blu ray wont do it.

Anybody have an HDMI 2.0 video card? Im guessing almost all of us will answer "no". Without HDMI 2.0, all we get is 30p anyway.

Hell, Im going to get one of those cheap Sieki 39 4K monitors for 500 bucks. Yep...30p only. HDMI 1.4

60p is nice fir some shooting. But for me, ehhh...its no big deal.

It'll come, soon enough, but we're all impatient, can't even wait a few more days for this horribly flawed, "crippled" camera to be available! Silly us <wink>.

Now c'mon Dave, stop sugar-coating this, what you really mean is 'stupid us' ;)

Cliff, I'd still prefer 4K @60p for smooth motion while watching down-rez'd 4K>2K footage. I can largely achieve 60p's smooth motion by using the frame doubler in my displays, but if push came to shove, I'd rather not use it and start with native 60p.

Of course I have that option if I choose to shoot in 1920X1080, but I'm definitely going to begin archiving all my footage in 4K to future-proof that footage. The additional benefit is that the down-sampled 4K footage just looks better than native 2K.

As for native 4K, you're right, not too many of us have 4K displays, especially with HDMI 2.0...yet. :)

I suspect that this 1 inch sensor and Bionz X sensor can do 60p 4k without the AX1 style cooling fan.

With my RX10 shooting 60p (and supposedly reading 100% of the pixels on 16x9 crop) I'm able to record 6 back to back 29 minute recordings with no heat problems whatsoever. (Using Sony AC power adapter) In fact, the RX10 doesnt even feel warm at all.

As far a I know, AX1 does not use the new Bionz X processor. This could be a huge difference in its heat performance difference with the AX100.

We "could"..."maybe"..."might" see 60p enabled on the possible pro sister to the AX100 at NAB next month. (Maybe they will add an XQD socket in this pro model?

I strongly suspect the AX100 is locked at 30p for marketing reasons only. There are many more Sony 4k models comming soon.

Cliff, remember the RX10 & AX100 are totally different body styles that may be very different in terms of how effectively they dissipate heat.

I'm also not sure of the number crunching impact on heat generation between 4K @60p vs 4K @30p, but I'm guessing it's considerable.

So with these 2 factors present at the time of the AX100's design, who knows what the actual feasibility of having 60p actually was?

I guess none of us can know for sure. But it's certainly feasible that a new, more efficient chip, could have surfaced 6 months after the design of the AX100 was completed. I guess we'll never know.

It's my asumption that the AX1 was a bit "rushed" to the market. They wanted to get it out there fast because Sony 4K TV were hitting the streets in stronger numbers too.

I suspect that the Bionz X chip was designed to handle the 2014 wave of new 4K products. Its my guess that the architecture if the chip was designed from the ground up to handle 4K 60p and run cool. Its something Sony intended to use in multiple future products for at least 2 years down the road.

Yes. I suspect the RX10 outfitted with the XAVC codec circuit would be able to record 60p 4k and stay cool.

Its interesting that the RX10 and the new AX100 both have metal bodies. This would be a first in a small handycam. Could this also act as a heat sync? Is the Bionz X chip mounted to metal that runs into the body to disperse heat? Or is the magnesium body there to be fashionably cool? Hmmm..

Lots if questions, philosophy and theorizing! Lol

Encoding 1920x1080 AVCHD 60P at 28Mbps is very different than 3840x2160 XAVC-S 60P at 150Mbps. I do not think the issue is sampling the sensor its encoding to XAVC-S and writing consistently to memory.

Ron Evans

True, that is a solid point.

I dont even really know specifically what functions that Bionz X actually does. Does anybody out there?

Does it handle sensor read out? DeBayer? Level and color balance? Camera operating system. Compression? Data buffering and card writing?

Anybody know? I suppose the last 3 are handled by a different processor? Or multimple others?

I suppose there are only a handfull of Sony engineers that could really answer this.

I shoot 29.97p on both my EX1r and FS100. When rendering out to 60i for Blu ray, 29.97p gives a nice PSF look in 60i. And 29.97p over the web is about the best you will stream anyway.

Does YouTube and Vimeo even offer 60p? We know Blu ray wont do it.

Anybody have an HDMI 2.0 video card? Im guessing almost all of us will answer "no". Without HDMI 2.0, all we get is 30p anyway.

Hell, Im going to get one of those cheap Sieki 39 4K monitors for 500 bucks. Yep...30p only. HDMI 1.4

60p is nice fir some shooting. But for me, ehhh...its no big deal.

Well some of us have our own websites and deliver 60p to customers no problem, I've been doing so for many years. Likewise many of our customers are already rocking retina type displays that are already far beyond regular 1080p. So 60p to me and others is very important as we aren't locked to traditional tv's, 99% of my customers are on computer, phone or tablet. So I'm not happy about 30p....but I'm hoping it will just be that way for a year or so and then they will have a new small fanless video camera that will record at 60p. In the meantime I can't wait, while 4k in the tv world is rare in the computer world 1080p is basically old hat and resolutions higher than that are relatively common so I really need to move forward to 4k as soon as I can. I'll just tolerate 30p for now.


I strongly suspect the AX100 is locked at 30p for marketing reasons only. There are many more Sony 4k models comming soon.

I dunno, I remember constantly hearing about overheating issues on some of their small cameras when used for video recording, it was a major issue. Given that the AX100 is also small and fanless I'd imagine overheating with 60p would be a major issue as well. It really needs to work 100% of the time for video, overheating is not an option so I prefer that they err on the side of caution.

It's my asumption that the AX1 was a bit "rushed" to the market. They wanted to get it out there fast because Sony 4K TV were hitting the streets in stronger numbers too.


The mockup was show almost a year before so was expected before the main push for the 4K TV's. Also the processing chip in the AX1 and Z100 is supposed to be the same as in the F5/55. So I think it is a case of them trying to fit the high end processors into a prosumer body. This form factor is common to a few camcorders so they needed a 1\3" chip that could be made to do 4K. Hence the present products.

Ron Evans

Whatever it is, whenever it was conceived, the AX1 is nothing to sneeze at. It produces some remarkable video.

@ Anthony -

google D300 (oops, you MISTYPED SOMETHING!)



yes, still now I have to pause for a sec to remember where to put the D



My understanding is Nikon has relatively recently used sensors from Sony, with features Sony doesn't enable... hmmm... whatever.

Nikon do buy all the sensors from Sony , and it is my understanding that Nikon writes the software (but I don't buy it, Sony writes the software too in my opinion)




Look around at the sales #s for cameras, by segment and in general - manufacturers that are struggling to survive in rapidly shrinking markets don't have time to worry too much about playing games - survival will depend on releasing products that SELL, because they offer something that justifies the purchase for enough buyers to pay back the R&D and production costs and a profit! That's increasingly hard to do with cell phones and tablets dominating consumer imaging... there may be at best a limited "enthusiast" niche within 2-3 years, and "prosumer" cameras may well ride into the sunset with the P&S... I'm OK with helping see the market segment survive, as shooting stuff with a cell phone sorta stinks! At least for now...

Much better, bravo . see? I'm getting something out of you now. Well done.
but the analysis is limited and a little childish but you are definitely in the right path.
the "thing" is that video involves "broadcasting" (where the money is). That's why our tools will never be able to produce like the broadcast tools. Still productions are not as important as the big video productions. So still cameras can be all the same , but video cameras? no way!
see now why they can't sleep at night to make sure that the limitations will put enough distance between the prosumer and broadcast segments. After the D90 their little world of "limitations" was seriously in danger, and for the first time they had to explain why they sold such limited camcorders to us when a "cheap" D90 produced "broadcast" quality. like a TV studio productions to be clear.: the technology was there even before the D90, but it was "off limits" to us. See it now? now the funny part : because of the D90 they (all) were forced to use real sensors , but now they work twice as hard to put all the limitations possible to defend the "other" business. let's be clear : what do we need? a real sensor, like the DSLR's , a good zoom (30-600), a good lanc, etc : look at the models (all, sony pana,canon) : there is NO WAY we can have all those things in the same camera, NO WAY.


Insulting the rest of us who are here to engage in civil discussion is one way to get banned, just FYI.
no no: I am talking to you : can you imagine me trying to involve others to come and help me? no. I do it myself.

For me, the AX100 not having 60p is a non-issue.

I shoot 29.97p on both my EX1r and FS100. When rendering out to 60i for Blu ray, 29.97p gives a nice PSF look in 60i. And 29.97p over the web is about the best you will stream anyway.

Does YouTube and Vimeo even offer 60p? We know Blu ray wont do it.

Anybody have an HDMI 2.0 video card? Im guessing almost all of us will answer "no". Without HDMI 2.0, all we get is 30p anyway.

Hell, Im going to get one of those cheap Sieki 39 4K monitors for 500 bucks. Yep...30p only. HDMI 1.4

60p is nice fir some shooting. But for me, ehhh...its no big deal.

no, there is a difference : I shoot EX1 too and there is a difference.
few months ago I proposed blu ray to a soccer team and they said "blu what?". that's what they said. do you use vegas? XDcam? there is no 108030p as an option, correct?
4K and 60p are the future , pretty much like HDV used to be.when they limited the camera to 30p they knew exactly what they were doing

OK, now I'M feeling sick to my stomach. I need some sleep!

From everything I've been able to glean and surmise, the Bionz X is a "new" processor, very likely designed from scratch, and almost certainly designed to "handle" 4K. I suspect we have yet to see what it can do. It may well be "choked" by other factors (see below).

As far as heat, yes a metal body can help with heat distribution and dissipation, and if Cliff can shoot as described, I don't think heat will be an issue. Having owned a couple Axx series that had the overheat issue, and read extensively on the problem with NEX series, I am pretty sure you'd know it if heat was a problem - the compact bodies DO increase the "potential" issue, and we've not heard of any with the RX's.

Actually, the AX100 should have a much easier time of handling any heat generated, although I expect the 4K and high bitrate 1080p WILL create more heat, all things being equal - just more data being shoveled around inside the thing! It occurs to me that this "could" be the actual reason that the RX's are "limited" to 1080/60p 28Mbps? Oh to be a "fly on the wall" when the engineers are stress testing components!

Of all the factors, I'm betting on it being availability of fast and economical memory that will handle the higher bitrate 4K - the "chain" is only as good as the weakest link - and since Panny was apparently using hand picked and tuned memory to get the GH4 working as expected, that's good enough "evidence" for me!

A "consumer" camera that would cost 50% again as much as the camera itself to buy a decent amount of memory for... would probably not be a wise thing to bring to market!! That doesn't mean that higher speed and capacity memory won't be "cheap enough" in fairly short order if the market demands it. So I guess we keep "squeaking" for more to keep the engineers from slacking off, eh!?


Having had a blast shooting with the RX10 over the weekend just "for fun", I'm just tickled with what IS possible and "relatively" affordable - sure, I'd like it to have had 4K, preferably in 60p "flavor", but "it'll do"! I'm pretty sure the AX100 will "do" as well for a dedicated video camera. I have yet to own a "perfect" camera, but Sony has definitely been hitting the mark lately!