Hey Martyn, at least your FX7 is a size down from the Z5! :)

Ken -
Are the sensors in the FX1000/Z5 the EXMOR "R"? I thought the XR's were the first to have the new reverse CMOS tech - frankly after seeing the test shots on the German site, the XR's were so close to the big boys, I was loading pictures back and forth and comparing thinking there must have been an error.

If those captures were accurate, the XR's come VERY close to what the EX1 and EX3 can do in low light, and match the FX1000 from what I could see, maybe even a little less noisy image... and the sharpness was quite good, without the strange "ringing" artifacting the HF-S seemed to have. These little guys may be quite the bargain.

The removal of Zebras and the lower bitrate are negatives, but until I see one firsthand, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt - I have seen some footage shot of R/C airplanes with one that was QUITE good, and motion looked excellent... I think I can live without zebras, though they ARE nice to have.

Martyn, you and I are barking up the same tree. Something near pocket size (BIG pocket maybe), focus and/or zoom rings - they can be small, but both would be nice, and something like the old TRV900 where you can press buttons for Shutter, aperature, etc. and adjust with a small wheel.

It can't be that hard to create a usable interface on a small form factor - there's plenty of blank surface area on these sleek little pocket rockets. And the old TRV900 and HC1 both show it's possible to be both small AND functional.

My thinking is once you chuck the the tape mech, you can cut size and weight significantly, so it's down to having a bigger lens if needed, 3 chips maybe (though I'm not convinced that a single big chip isn't sufficient), and the control surfaces. Think HC1 redeux perhaps, good focus/zoom ring, that little lever thingy for exposure, etc.

I don't even mind the SR11 control wheel, BUT I'd like to have a bit more control - Just SOME access to gain, aperature, shutter, etc, so that those of us who know a LITTLE BIT about photography/videography have something to twiddle with when appropriate.

I like the bigger screen, having a VF is a good thing too (both of which are lacking in the CX12 though I like that camera for size), I can't complain about the touch screen for some things (spot functions make perfect sense), but a few more controls wouldn't kill 'em to include!!!

I've got rigs to increase the size of the camera if I have to for stability (and by the looks of it, may not be as needed with the XR), but I really am not a "big camera" guy - the FX7 was about as far as I'd go, and from what I've seen of the XR's they wil absolutely beat the FX7 for PQ and low light... IMO the "R" sensor (and maybe the new "G" glass?) upped the ante far more than any of the earlier model year to year "updates" - each year seems to get better, but there's a bigger jump here than indicated by first glance or specs.

Dave, I don't think they're "R" sensors in the Z5, just Exmor, but you do have 3 as opposed to just one. I can tell you, based on the videos I've seen so far, that the low-light of the Z5/1000 is at least as good as what I saw from the Japaneese site's video. Keep in mind that the lens of the Z5 is quite a bit bigger too with greater light grasp and the cam probably has more sophisticated processing that helps them achieve their stunning low-light/sharpness results. Even the colors in very dim light are extraordinary.

In terms of sharpness in good light, from what I saw from that site, the bigger Sonys have quite a margin over the smaller XR's. Keep in mind the FX1000/Z5 horizontal resolution was measured at 900 lines...virtually unprecedented in even their price range. But the cam is much bigger and costlier than the smaller XRs, so you 'pay your dues' to get this level of performance. :)

With that said, I'm sure the XRs have a lot going for them and deserve a close look if you're looking for a small cam and don't mind the lack of controls, zebras etc. As I said, if I were in the market for this kind of cam, I'd surely take a close look.

I should mention that my friend was at CES in Vegas and took home some XR footage from the Sony booth. We both looked at it on my 60" Kuro and were a bit disappointed in the overall sharpness even though the OIS was great. There were also a few strange artifacts, but we thought it might have been due to the odd lighting at CES.

I find some of those grabs on the German site more than a bit suspect. The EX3 actually looked soft in those grabs, which is hard to believe even though I've never played with one. My Z5 is virtually always stunningly sharp on my Kuro and it's hard for me to believe the EX would not be as good, let alone better, with its larger imagers. I've never read anyone saying the EXs are 'soft'. Add to this the fact that the site's own verbiage rates the resolution much better ("excellent" for the EX vs "good" for XR) and you wonder if your eyes are deceiving you. The low light grabs also looked better on the small Sony, yet they again rated the EX3 better in their verbiage. Odd site, odd results, contradictory verbiage. Hell, even the resolution chart looks better on the XR, yet the EX is rated better in the verbiage. Something is obviously not right and I suspect it's either sloppy testing or sloppy journalism or, more likely, both. There is no way that the EX is not a significantly better cam than the XR...no way, no how.

As I've said, the only way is to look at footage you've shot and compare. Based on my limited comparison of the XR my friend shot with my Z5, it's no contest. I would assume the EX3 is a step up from my Z5, so you do the math. All you do is scratch your head with these reviews. :)

Yeah, I was rather intrigued by the image results... but Sony has made some bold claims for the "R" sensor, so there may actually be more there than you'd expect. I'm wondering if it's possible that the sensor structure is that huge an improvement, in which case it's a sign of good things coming.

I think that the low light image from the XR COULD be that good, in which case for a small single sensor with relatively small glass, it'd be a real knockout (which would lead to the question - why not 3 "R" chips and some big glass??).

I am always suspect of review sites, but that particular site seems to stay fairly consistent, at least with their still captures (I wasn't really trying to follow the verbage, my deutsch ist "rusty"...).

I think the reason I'm intrigued is that their images have been pretty consistent with my experience for those cameras I've had hands on experience with. Doesn't mean there can't be a glitch, but I usually expect things to look WORSE, not as much better as the shots from the XR were... at least that's my thinking...

I know that you usually expect $ spent to equate somehow with the quality of the results, but we've already seen the HV20/30/40 hold it's own at a fraction of the price of the big cams, as well as many of the other small cams from Canon and Sony... I'm wondering if the XR's will turn out to be one of those glorious flukes?

I've been impressed with what I've seen from the FX1000 as well, so I'm not surprised your Z5 is working for you - looks like a great camera overall, that's why I was wondering if by some chance the "R" sensors snuck in somehow. Clearly Sony is trying very hard to make each camera generation noticeably better.

Dave, actually the reason I was suspect of the site's info was their results seem to differ so drastically from my own experience AND from their own verbiage vs. their own frame grabs. I had sent this site to a friend (the guy who went to CES) some time ago and he sent me back some very contradictory things to look at. He thought the site was a joke and commented "according to that site, you can better performance from an $800 camera than a $4,800 camera". As I looked more carefully I saw he was absolutely right and that their results flew in the face of my own experience.

If you look at their images from the FX1000 (a stripped down Z5), you and I would come away with the idea the cam is soft. In fact, if you compare it on that site to the SR12, you'll think the SR12 is sharper. You'd also come away with the idea (from the stills) that the SR12 is in the same league as the FX1000 for low light.

Dave, both couldn't be further from the truth. In fact the overall picture quality of the Z5/FX1000 blows away the SR12 in sharpness, color and certainly in low light. Having owned the SR12 and currently the Z5, I know how much better the picture of the Z5 is...no comparison. Color, texture, sharpness, exposure and low light...no comparison. Yet the pictures just don't show it.

Talk about contradictory info, they give the FX1000 a 'very good' for resolution and the HV20 an 'excellent'. WHAT, HUH??? Dave, I've still got the HV20 and you know me, I've done A/Bs with both the Z5 and the HV20...again, the Z5 just blows it away.

Remember, the FX1000 was rated as the camera with the highest resolution that CCI ever tested, 900 lines...nothing was even close in their testing history. Not that I'm a fan of CCI reviews, but that's surely closer to the truth from my experience when viewed on my 60" plasma.

After that I never bothered with that site again. There is something radically wrong with their info. How can their pictures say one thing and their verbiage say the opposite? It just makes no sense, particularly when you know the cam their testing pales by comparison to another they've tested and yet the pictures don't show that.

Dave, by the way, you can easily translate that site to English by clicking on the upper right phrase "this page to English". My German is as bad as yours, but I saw that translation button! :)

Ken I'm glad you are talking about the high resolution and image quality of the Z5/FX1000. When I saw that 900 lines of resolution on CCinfo's FX1000 review, that really caught my attention. Combine that with the LCDs and viewfinders of these cameras and they rise to the top of my wish list. I'm surprised that the 900 lines of resolution result didn't seem to get much play on the FX1000 subforum. Someone said that these two new Canons are going to have 900 lines of resolution. If that turns out to be true that would be pretty cool.

Pat

Hi Ken -
They haven't posted the English translation on the XR yet, but I know enough German to know they rip it on all the pro features that are missing! You need to click on their little thumbnails to get a full screen image - that helps a lot, and gives you more to work from.

Strangely, I didn't get the same impression when comparing the SR11/12 and FX1000 from their stills, I was impressed with the FX1000 both for low light and stills, and could see it was a very accurate image with good crispness overall (one thing I noticed about their shots is sometimes their focus is on different areas of the shot... you need to watch that, as it can give some incorrect impressions!). Actually felt it was pretty much where I'd expect given the price point and relationship to other cameras...

I know that their low light samples of the SR and CX are definitely from those cameras, there are certain tell tale things in those captures... and the FX1000 was definitely a bit brighter and a LOT cleaner in low light <wink> than both of those, but there was still noise in the FX1000 that is typical of most cameras that just isn't present to the same degree in the XR still.

That is why I'm intrigued by the XR captures. They aren't "quite" as good in low light as the EX1/3, but are pretty close, and again seem to have less noise. Unless they used a different camera entirely or a completely different light array, I don't know how they would have "fudged" those shots. I also noted that the XR stills are significantly "warm" in comparison to almost every other still set on their site (there are some others though), so that may be an issue. It at least indicates a WB issue.

I don't know that I'd say the XR is better than the FX1000/Z5 and the EX's, but considering the price point, it may be far closer than anyone would expect.

One thing with verbal communication is it is ALWAYS easy to misinterpret. Pictures and bench tests "can" be fudged, but most times you can catch that pretty quick. I don't know what "excellent and "very good" mean, and they may not mean the same to two different people... But if one's evaluation is "bang for the buck", you'd have the HV series on top of the heap almost every time (and I'm not a big fan of that camera myself, but would recommend it to someone on a budget)... could be part of why they have it rated as they do?

In the context of what the $800 (now around $500) camera can do and the features it has available vs. the $4800 camera, a relative performance rating may well favor the cheaper camera!

I'm not doubting the performance of the FX1000, and would say that site would lead me to make it my first choice if the budget was there and I wanted a larger camera, but what I'm seeing of the XR from that site makes it a formidable contender by any stretch. If Sony put back the "professional" features (remember this is their "consumer division", releasing the best product they can), this would make the XR a pretty interesting camera.

As it is, I'm waiting to see other reports and reviews, but it's a more interesting upgrade than I thought it would be from the SR11!

Yeah Dave, I guess we saw those pix differently (and I did click on the thumbnails to get a larger version). You should be able to get the English translation of the XR page, I can.

As to verbiage, I think most anyone would agree that 'excellent' is better than 'very good' and significantly better than 'good'.

It's obvious that the CCI had a very different idea of sharpness of the FX1000, with 900 lines of horizontal resolution, vs. the German's site characterization of 'very good'. Let's face it, CCI was very clear in stating that they never tested a camera that came close to the FX1000's rez. So I would assume a rating of 'superb' would be in order for resolution if it was up to CCI.

The low light of the 1000/Z5 in my experience, is certainly better than what the German site showed...much better. To easily be the low light equal of the VX2100 says a lot! There are other anomolies with the German site, but we've probably spent more time on it than was warranted. Getting these cams in your hands will always be far better than relying on conflicting reviews from these review sites. Sometimes it seems that even though they tested the same model, they were actually testing entirely different cams.

But Dave, one thing I've learned with these bigger cams is that they present a 'relaxed' and 'open' image that truly smacks of the professional video you see on the networks. Even as sharp as my HG21 is (and it really is sharp and I do love its picture), it simply can't compete with the superb color rendition and utterly clean, pristine, resolute and relaxed picture of the Z5. I would be amazed if the XR series can begin to capture the color nuances in low-light that these larger cams can. Yes, perhaps they can get close in noise, but there are so many other picture subtleties in low light besides just noise. It just amazes me how the color subtleties are retained in low light. The clips I saw from my friend at CES from the XR were certainly not something that wowed me and that light was not what I'd call 'low light'. The color was not good under those conditions, but it could have been the odd lighting too.

There is a 'texture' to the image in these bigger cams (for lack of a better description) that's missing in all the smaller cams. There's no getting around those 3-CMOS sensors together with that very large lens.

But I'll certainly give the XR a look-see when I get a chance. To be honest, I've been using the Z5 for my personal shooting too. It's hard to put that beast down, despite its weight and size. The tremendous range of adjustments you have with that cam are something you just don't see with the smaller guys. You have great control over depth of field that you don't have with the smaller units. This makes such a difference in your videos from an artistic standpoint!

CCinfo just posted a new Sanyo review (the cam appears to have superb image quality for the price) and there are some comparisons with the Canon HF S100

Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000 Camcorder Review - Sanyo

That must mean they've got it in their test bench, I hope they put the review up soon. I'm 80% sure I'm going to get one the Panasonic TM300 is 15%, keeping my hf100 is the other
5%.

Hi everyone.
Very interesting thread, that, I hope, might help me with my long-delayed decision to get a small, 2nd camera, to accompany my Sony EX-1. I need a second camera for interviews mostly... to get that second, tighter angle, from the side (EX-1 is locked off in front, on a tripod). I often want to be able to adjust the iris manually (if there's a window in the background)... that sort of thing.

There's the new Canon Vixia HF-S10:
- 24Mbps recording (I've learned from this forum that this isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all)
- claims to have Manual Exposure
- 24p and 30p recording
- microphone "terminal with Manual Audio Level Control"
- large lens

The new Sony HDR-XR520V
- getting some rave reviews on this thread, re low-light shooting, colour, etc.
- no manual focus or iris control, but at least, a mic input.
- 37-mm lens (not as big as the Canon or Panasonic)

The new Panasonic HDC TM300:
- allows for manual control: "The manual ring gives you easy, fingertip control over the focus, zoom and exposure setting
- external microphone jack

The Panasonic seems very good, but when I look at specs I'm only able to scratch the surface, so I'd love your advice.
Cheers, Malcolm

Just a minor technical point, 37mm is the FILTER THREAD size, not necessarily the size of the actual lens. Not sure yet how much real difference the HF-S will have, other than you'll need to get bigger filters and lenses... so far I still suspect the "R" sensor may be the one to beat based on samples I've seen.

I think it's still too early to make a choice, unless you buy all three, try 'em and send back the two that you don't like.

The specs on the Canon certainly look great on paper, and samples so far seem good, Panasonic looks passable, though soft, and of course the Sony lacks as much manual control...

I'm one of those that has Sony accessories, so logically I'll probably lean towards the XR since it's not a big deal to buy the extra kit that one should have for shooting (no need to buy what you've already got!). Canon has some tempting product to be sure though. I'm just waiting for more information and availability "hands on" - can't really say for sure until you've got access to the options! The XR's are in the retail chain, but not sure about the other two, although apparently some have gotten early access to the HF-S buying overseas.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. Since I see no mention, on Canon's HF-S page, of the option of manual focus, am I right to assume it doesn't have it? At least there's manual exposure.
On the same subject, you say the Sony lacks "as much manual control". What manual control does it have?

Are there any down sides to the Canon that jump off the page for you?
Cheers, Malcolm

What samples are you referring to?

Yes....there is manual focus. I assign manual focus to the CUSTOM button on the HF-S10.

Sony HDR-XR520 review
Sony HDR-XR520V review - infoSync Reviews

Canon Vixia HF S10 review
Canon Vixia HF S10 review - infoSync Reviews

Canon - better image quality when bright..
Sony - low light performance unbeatable..

And probably the best summary for both:

"..the Sony HDR-XR520V is our #1 tourist camcorder while the Canon Vixia HF S10 proved itself as our #1 budget film cam."

I'm now pretty convinced the need these camera manufacturers (with the exception of Panasonic which has lately not been in contention - image quality wise) have to take out more manual controls from their latest, but otherwise excellent, consumer cams. The videos produced by these cams come dangerously close to those produced by the like of Sony Z5/Fx1000 or Canon XH, XL series, not to mention older designs like Sony V1/FX7, FX1 etc. Based on the grabs shown on the above site, the Sony XR500 series' low light capability even seems to eclipse the company's own PD170/VX2100.

Maybe, now is the time to re-learn the way we handle video cameras and get used to fiddling with the remaining controls that they have. In my area, the image quality produced by the XR500s and HF-S10 far exceeds most commercial requirements of the local market. Also, the use of these cameras would represent unprecedented values from the perspective of a growing number of producers of commercial video content.

Think about how much money will be left for good audio pre-amps, shotgun mics, lighter lighting kits, computer system upgrades etc. if we find a way to work around these compact cams' shortcomings.

Wacharapong

Are "AVC" and "AVCHD" Interchangeable Terms?
 

In some of Sony's press releases about the XR500/520, they call it an AVCHD camcorder and in their spec sheet, the format is called AVC. Their new Webbie HD's format is often called either AVC or AVCHD. I was thinking that these were two different versions of H.264, but it seems they may be the same thing? Added note: I later looked at the Webbie HD manual and it clearly says: "This camera will not support the AVCHD format". This seems to indicate that AVC is in fact, a different version of H.264.

People seem concerned here about the low bit-rate of the Sony XR5 models, which Sony lists in the manual at 16 Mbps. I picked up a progressive-scanning Webbie HD last month and it's amazing how much quality and detail it produces, with just 4 Mbps for 720p and 6 Mbps for 1440 X 1080p. As long as you don't rapidly pan and aggravate the rolling-shutter into flutter and blur, motion seems fairly good. You can pan, if you keep a moving subject in the same position in the frame. Its limitations put your shooting skills to the test, but I'm learning how to do fairly well with it. I've posted some Webbie HD videos on my Vimeo album, where their direct playback is heavily compressed. If you are registered there for a free subscription, you can download the full uploaded files, for much better quality. I figure if I polish my abilities with this camcorder and make it work for me, then shooting with my HC9 or a new XR5 model, will be much easier.

My newest steady-mount design helps a lot, with the unstabilized Webbie HD. Here's a link to a photo of my steady-mount. I also use it with an HC9 and in the future, possibly an XR5 model. I have a Sony NP-F960 battery in the external power-pack, for 10 times the recording time of the internal 500 mAh battery.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/...58305ffd30.jpg

Interesting discussion about comparing the new Sony AVCHD cam to the EX1&3.
I have an EX1, and an SR12. When I first used the SR12 I was amazed at the PC, and looking at test shots, etc. was inclined to think it was very close to the EX- at least in good light. Over time however, I began to notice that the difference between the two became much more apparent when viewing complete, edited programs done with each camera. I think that an entire edited program in its final delivery format, with the variety of lighting, motion, CC, effects, and so forth seems to be more the acid test for comparison. When I watch a program shot completely with the SR12 it looks very good indeed, but when immediately followed by an EX project I definitely come away with the feeling that the small cams do not match up to 35mbs, 1/2" chips, Fujinon lens, advanced controls, profiles, etc.
However, the EX is indeed a fat little pig and there is no way I am dragging it on travel shoots, and therein lies the difference. The little AVCHD cams provide me with a very nice finished HD product if I shoot carefully. The final frontier to me has always been low light performance and it sounds like the XR520 is close to cracking that problem.
But the EX- it sets a pretty high standard.

Variable Bit-rate (VBR) on XR5 Models
 

Looking through the owner's manual for the XR500/520, I find that although the base bit-rate is listed as 16 Mbps, this is a VBR recording system, which will raise the bit-rate accordingly, for complex images or those that have motion. This will accomodate situations where a constant bit-rate (CBR) at that level, might show more compression artifacts. In my experience with the Sony Webbie HD, which uses the same MP4/H.264/AVC/VBR format and that has a base bit-rate of 6 Mbps for 1080p, it has an actual rate that varies from 5.5 to 6.6 Mbps, for an entire clip, based on content. Also in the manual for the XR500/520, it indicates that 238 GB of the HDD is available for recording. With 1760 minutes of HD recording at the highest level, that figures out to 18 Mbps. No explanation for this, but maybe that's an estimate of what would result with typical video content and a VBR.

Rolling-Shutter Artifacts with XR500
 

I've just looked at the samples posted from an XR500V and was disappointed in how badly the image fluttered and blurred during panning and when the camera jerked around. I'm surprised that no one else has been discussing this. The same problem exists with the HD video from the Sony HX1 and Canon SX1 digital cameras. They use progressive scan, while the XR500 is an interlaced-scanning model. My Sony HC9 has a CMOS and interlaced-scanning, but shows almost none of these rolling-shutter artifacts. Due to this, I expected that the rolling-shutter problems would be minimal with all interlaced/CMOS models, but that must be a mistaken assumption.

Apparently, the way to avoid the flutter and blur of a rolling-shutter, is to use CCD sensors, which function with global-shutters. The CCD pixels can store their responses and are exposed all at the same instant. The scan then collects the stored responses as it passes each pixel. Since the CMOS pixels can't store responses, their active exposure occurs at the same instant the scan passes them, causing an exposure time-lag between lines that results in the flutter and blur when panning. CMOS sensors can be made with extra transistors on the pixels, which could store their responses and allow the simultaneous exposure of a global-shutter. But, this would reduce the sensing area and dynamic-response.

I don't know why the manufacturers ignore these undesirable side-effects of using CMOS sensors on video cameras, but it forces you to avoid panning, unless following a moving subject that stays in the same position in the frame. Why my HC9 avoids this problem so well, I don't know. I don't think my finances are going to be depleted by buying an XR5 model.

Here's a link to a good article by Barry Green on the subject of rolling-shutter. Don't miss the link part-way through, to a comment by CMOS designer Jason Rodriguez.
There's more links to related articles at the end.
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

Many people make the mistake of making comparison while viewing on a computer monitor. Unless you view on a large screen (which is far more revealing), you'll miss the true picture quality differences when comparing any 2 or 3 cams.

Small computer monitors, even a 22", is no way to compare cameras.

my sr 12s pans are just as good as my hc-1 and fx-7 hdv cams they are perfect played direct to tv,some softwares tend to spoil the pans a little compared the hdv pans though ,it would be strange if the new models are worse in this respect.

Links to the samples you thought were bad? I've seen plenty of people who post "samples" incorrectly processed that make a camera look horrid. Even higher res previews in Vegas look awful, and a still taken from it would be unusable... and I have yet to have a final render that retains the undesirable artifacts.

Keep in mind when checking reviews, samples, and opinions they may have wildly varying accuracy or none whatsoever. For instance the above referenced "reviews" were helpful in GENERAL, but almost worthless because not one single "comparison" shot was shot at the same exact time, with both cameras side by side... at least the Japanese site has undertaken to do their samples that way, and it was helpful in that respect. BUT, I can see that the HF-S with the proper settings can do some serious image quality in low light, the settings make a big difference, but the Japanese samples were probably in "default" mode...

"User malfunction" is the technical term for this phenomenon, and it's one reason that taking ANYONE'S "opinion" or posted "evidence" must be done with a grain of salt the size of a battleship... review sites MAY be better, but have typically short "experience spans" with a camera.


Your HC9 has all the "RS" issues, guaranteed, as it is a CMOS sensor... so why don't you have the same problems? Because CAMERA TECHNIQUE makes a huge difference when shooting these cameras - you also use an add on stabilizer (clever design BTW, different from mine, but similar concepts), which IMO is a necessity for these small cams to get professional results.

CMOS v. CCD has been discussed ad nauseam, regurgitated, spewn about, flame broiled, and lineage disparaged to the point of being absurd. CMOS are the "future" as far as small consumer cams, and Sony has even committed their high end line to the same tech. It's a price/value/cost thing I'm sure, and one day when things (like the new "R" sensor) exit the lab, it's quite possible that CMOS can go global - it's similar to Moore's law (can I make a new law for video and call it "Dave's law"??) where as semiconductors improve, shrink, and improve in manufacturing efficiency and overall speed, you get more bang for the buck, and better performance.

Just imagine for a minute trying to edit even HDV on a 10 year old computer... that's pretty close to what the first HC1 user faced, and now NO ONE disputes being able to edit HDV footage with reasonable results (though some still fail epic-ly at it...)

You shoot with the best camera you can afford that meets your needs/objectives. I've been very happy with AVCHD/tapeless, and don't plan on going back. I wasn't too sure about the XR5xx, BUT I'm convinced after seeing several reviews now that the low light by itself is worth the price of entry, and while I wish for other features, I think I could find the XR500 useful as it is.

I will say that the HF-S looked quite good the way the reviewers set it up (cinemode seems to help low light a LOT), and it's a tempting camera, what a great time to be camera debating once again! EITHER the XR500/520 or the HF-S10/100 should be a knockout camera (and yes, both use CMOS). The Panasonic results were a bit disappointing, all things considered, I'm waiting for them to come in with a category killer, the HMC150 (with CCDs) is doing quite well among wedding/event guys, with NO competitors, so Panasonic CAN keep up if they want to.

As with many things, if the user learns to use the equipment properly, you can get pretty good results - or you can find fault with every little thing and sit around whining rather than DOING.

RS is a "big deal" the first time you see the "partial flash exposure", the bendy verticals and the rubbery jello from whip pans or bouncing... Operator technique takes 2 out of 3 of these OUT of the equation, the first you just have to get used to, and the main problem is for wedding/event video that you want to slo-mo. Other than that, it's a annoyance, as were flashes and smear with CCD (different annoyance, but STILL ANNOYING!).

If you're happy with the HC9 (which is the last of the tape based consumer cams I suspect, and now at least two generations back tech wise), you won't find any disappointment with it's later replacements, at least not as far as RS goes - I suspect the XR's may have some improvement in that area, as did the SR11/12 & CX12's... yes there's RS, so learn to stabilize the cam and control what you do with it, and you won't really be worrying about the "technical flaws".

The XR500 Samples Were on Post #26 in this Thread
 

Dave, you are a born salesman and put on a very good argument about the reasons and remedies for the rolling-shutter artifacts of the XR500/520. It's true that the poster of the XR500 samples on this thread swung and jerked the camera too fast. But, every time the camera moved, the flutter and blur appeared and regardless of technique, that shows a severe limitation on shooting options. I'll take the rather easily-avoided artifacts of CCDs anytime, rather than the CMOS problems. There has to be more to these artifacts than just the fact that certain cameras have CMOS sensors. Some of them seem to avoid the artifacts more than others.

It's true that the software playing programs can make the artifacts worse. Before I updated my computer's CoDecs with a download of the K-Lite CoDec Pack, I was seeing these problems about twice as severly and my players previously had some trouble showing AVC video smoothly. Now, Windows Media Player 11 and MPC handle them without a flaw, except if the rolling-shutter flutter and blur exists, they will still show it to an unacceptable degree. I already have one little camcorder, the Webbie HD, that has to be used very carefully, to avoid the artifacts.

I will certainly take a Pro Duo card to a local dealer, when an XR5 model is in stock and use a demonstrator camera to see what it will do for me. I'll deliberately try to show bad artifacts and then do the opposite and shoot good video. We'll see how that works out, after I edit and produce some finished pieces from the footage. However, when I pan my HC9 around fairly fast, I see very little blur and flutter and often, none at all. Watch this HC9 video I posted on Flickr, where I pan around in an almost 360-degree arc. It's fast enough to cause rolling-shutter effects in some other CMOS cameras: http://www.vimeo.com/1998054 I'd really like to get to the bottom of this great difference in results from the various CMOS camcorders and digital cameras I mentioned in a previous message.

When I play my Webbie HD directly over an analog HD-component connection to my HDTV set, the video looks very good, with few of the artifacts I see on my progressive LCD computer screen.

It appears that Dave Blackhurst and recently Wacharapong Chiowanich have seen video samples from the TM300/HS300 that maybe I haven’t seen yet. Again, which ones? I hope it's not from the Watch.Impress review because I don’t think they did a good job.

The Info Sync links a few posts back also have a 300 review linked, and CCI had a few bits comparing the 300 in their Sanyo HD2000 review. So far they seem to be burying the Panasonic... It's not "bad", just not up to speed with what Canon and Sony can offer in image quality. I've had a couple of Panasonics over the years, and like them overall, but they need to rethink their "3 sensors" strategy IMO and get a more capable sensor block somehow. Put a better imaging block paired with the camera chassis and manual control set, and they'd be right there neck and neck.

Even the HMC150 is getting hit for being a bit soft at the highest resolutions, being best at 720 rather than 1080, because of the way Panasonic is doing their sensors. Not saying it doesn't work, and I'd probably go for a HMC150 over anything else in it's price range for a number of reasons were I buying... but you'd think they could bump things up a notch and be more competitive.

I’m not even going to comment on InfoSync's conclusion because it seams too biased but where in Camcorderinfo’s HD2000 review did it got compared to either the TM300 or the HS300?
So what’s wrong with ¼” chips with a native resolution of 1920x1080 each? The chips are the exact same specs as the HPX300. I’d say it’s just a smaller version. That’s more than the V1u which also has 1/4" chips. If their really is something wrong with the camcorder then it’s definitely not the chips. I think without many native samples to view, it’s being treated unfairly.

I looked at those videos, the SmugMug one looked a bit jerky with some horizontal shear that I see quite often with web video... not sure what causes it, but it wasn't RS, the rest looked OK to me here, so I'm going with there's something with your computer (mine has quirks too... so that's not a negative!).

You note that even your Webbie with low bitrate looks a bit bad on your computer screen, but not on HDTV... I'll bet that the XR's will be significantly better than the Webbie...

It's not a matter of being a "salesman", it's just actual experience with these cameras, and I went through the early adopter headaches with HDV (HC1). You need a reasonably fast computer to work well with AVCHD, and I still feel that the editors and codecs could use some tweaking... BUT there's not a RS issue if you handle the camera and video post properly. I can't say why some people are having more issues than others, but that's life on the bleeding edge.

I had hoped to see more refinement in the AVCHD editing/processing department by now, but with the economy, perhaps it's taking a bit longer. With the number of these cameras selling to the general public, you can bet the kinks WILL get ironed out sooner or later.

I can tell you with Sony Vegas Pro, the preview window becomes horribly blurred and smeared as soon as I go past the lower settings for the preview window - motion trails are unbearable, and skew looks worse - dropping to a lower quality level (that is plenty good for editing) all the artifacts disappear, and I mean completely GONE... and I don't have problems with my rendered results either.

I don't know what it is about AVCHD that seems to be prone to ghosting/motion artifacts under some circumstances, but it's not something that should make your output look bad from everything I've shot. Evidently it's pretty easy to goof up though, as many of the web videos I've seen indicate. If you 've got .mts playing smoothly, download the raw clips before you jump to a conclusion.

Remember too that your Webbie tops at 6-8MBps (allowing for VBR), and the XR5xx will top out at around 16-18 (maybe higher, again allowing for vbr), and that 2-3x increase in bits flowing through the pipe will tax your computer - maybe a lot.

As an example, I was experimenting with encoding BR to a regular DVD for playback on a BR player... encoding to 8MBps playback was fine but looked pretty bad from the low bit rate, and when I tried the template max setting of 25MBps, it jerked, shuddered and choked... finally went to around 17MBps, and got good playback AND good image quality. The lesson is that more bits take more horsepower to push about effectively and smoothly, and sometimes you have to tweak settings to get usable results. Of course, going direct into a HDTV from the camera is a fairly decent test, and you generally won't get the problems there.

Not sure where you feel there was bias, they seemed quite excited about the camera (the specs and layout ARE great), but when it came to the image quality, there were issues. Maybe they needed more time with the camera, or picked terrible times to shoot tests, but I wouldn't count on it.

My mistake on the CCI review - they compare a Panasonic model, for some reason I thought it was the latest release... and that camera didn't perform badly, just not as good as the Canon and Sony. It will be interesting to see a full review from a couple other places.

In theory, 3 x 1/4" chips ought to be fairly good. Perhaps as more info comes out, the camera will shine, but Panasonic has been bringing up the rear for a while - when you consider the price points, they need to deliver the picture quality, not just the excellent ergonomics and controls. And in some respects the good layout and controls might trump minor defects in image quality, depending on the user needs.

I've owned some Panasonics and really liked them A LOT, so I certainly keep an eye on what they are doing, but they have yet to convince me that there's a reason to go with them again...

Camcorderinfo tested the Sanyo against the cheapest Panasonic camcorder for this year and the TM300/HS300 is the most expensive which they haven’t even reviewed yet. I’m looking forward to that one even though I don’t agree with everything they say but I do trust them a little bit more than InfoSync.

It's going to be an interesting 3 way shootout that's for sure - clearly they have hands on a HF-S, and should have an XR5xx... the Panny should be in the mix.

I don't "trust" any of the review sites per se, I try to see what sort of results are common between them, and based upon my own experience with past cameras and reviews, I can get a pretty good idea what to expect. The personal "reviews" here also count for quite a bit in my book, as everyone here is WAY more picky and analytical than the typical "reviewer", and so it's hard for a camera (or a review site!) to get away with much!

Test on Vimeo: Sony XR520 vs Canon HF S10 in low light

It certainly appears that with proper settings, the HF-S will do quite nicely in low light, although from the posted samples I've looked at I think I like the XR a little bit better (just a tad less noise, and crisper blacks), but looks like finally the low light/hi def barrier is falling in the consumer end. I still am amazed by how good these little monsters are getting for the price! The SR11 has been a great little camera all around, the XR does look like it might justify the upgrade.

What a tough choice of cameras! If Sony doesn't refresh the CX12 with the "R" sensor or come up with a DSLR with video that makes sense, might just have to see about getting an HF-S for manual control too!

New Test: Sony XR520 and Canon HF S10 in day light

The new iris design is promising for smaller cameras. But I agree with J. Stephen that there needs to be at least global shutter sensors inside the machines to really avoid the rolling shutter artifacts for good.

The new iris seems to get overlooked, but I have been noticing that the bokeh seems to be more pleasing with the XR in shots where the backgound is out of focus - it's minor, but noticeable from the shots I've seen.

RS will cease to be a problem when the processing is fast enough to read the whole sensor array in one pass at a high enough speed to effectively shoot "frames", not half frames or partial frames without overheating or choking on the data stream. It'll likely happen sooner rather than later IMO. I've seen this sort of data "log jam" problem in other media in the past, and processor/memory/buffer speed eventually will solve the "problem".

Apparently iMovie has been patched to fix some of the combing artifacts I was seeing:
TidBITS Media Creation: iMovie '09 8.0.1 Update Brings More than Just Bug Fixes

Sam

My SR-12 played direct to any of my hd tvs look amazing the picture jumps out at you so vibrant and amazing sharpness better than i have seen from from any of my blu ray films or hd broadcasts,if these next generation cams [sony canon]are better will the tvs be up to showing it.
my edited results as yet do not quite match the camcorder played footage though.

Hfs10 No noise
 

I was confused when I saw these clips. They must have that hfs10 shooting on an auto mode. Or the camera person was very confused. I have zero noise on all my shots. If you let the AGC go wild it's not so good...But who uses AGC anyway..unless you really had to. Just wait for about one more week till everybody figures out how to work their Hfs10 then compare...I will post some clips soon.. I haven't seen image quality like this without spending an obscene amount of money...Just give it time and the cream will float to the top.