It's really not productive or accurate to label the contributors here "fanboys"...it sounds rather defensive. I've got 2 canons and two Sonys. I pick my units based on picture quality and overall performance. Sometimes that leads me to Canon and sometimes to Sony. Being "brand loyal" doesn't always get you the best product.

Bubba, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you as you seem intent on doing. But to be informative, you are confusing bitrate with resolution. They are two different things. Yes, you.can indeed have a lower bitrate and higher resolution, it all depends on the cameras.

I also never said the Sony had higher rez than the Canon, so please don't put words in my mouth. I DID say I found the Canon sharper in good light and the Sony sharper in low light. That's because the Canon softens the image as light decreases...not an unusual approach for cam manufacturers to take.

But if you really think the Canon has 40 or 60% more rez, you're mistaken. If you take CCI #s, the Sony had higher vertical rez and the Canon had higher horizontal rez. CCI themselves said the two were close in overall sharpness. Enjoy the Canon, it's a great cam and it works well for you, that's all that matters!

Some 520V footage from my first week
 

Maybe this is off-topic by now, but in the very recent past got a 520V and my dvinfo.net credentials verified.

My last camera was a (Sony) A1 which I sold while getting the 520V. I went thru a lot of the back and forth like this forum has on the HFS10 and the XR models and finally settled on the Sony. Half of its usage will come from my better half in full-auto. (Do they make half-auto? ha ha) For the time being the Sony makes a lot more sense for us. It seems like one can really go either way depending on your needs and wants.

Here are a couple links to some of my first few days of filming:

First Footages ~ Sony HDR-XR520V on Vimeo

Sony HDR-XR520V ~ Smooth Slow Record Shots on Vimeo


Thanks,
Michael

XR500 vs. Canon HF100
 

Nativ AVCHD streams from XR500 vs. HF100

19.05.2009 Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Mai 09

in my german blog.

Well in looking at the comparisons on my 22" computer monitor, what strikes me is the following:

* Low light is no contest. Again the Sony is remarkably free of noise. Very nice and unprecedented in a consumer HD cam.
* The exposure on the Sony seems to me to be better in general. The indoor mall shots certainly showed this. The outdoor shot with the woman looking at flowers has the Canon too dark in shaded areas and obscuring detail.
* Some outdoor shots seem a bit sharper on the Canon and others a bit sharper on the Sony. There didn't seem to be a consistency with this.
* Colors also flip flopped, perhaps because of the way the AWB was behaving on both. At times the Canon colors were richer and at other times the Sony's colors were richer.

Thanks for the comparisons Wolfgang.

HF100 or HF-S100
 

Just so I understand correctly, is the Canon in this comparison an HF100, i.e. not an HF-S100?

I procrastinated for ages over the HFS10 and the Sony Sr12 but waited too long as the Sony XR500/20 came out before i could make up my mind.

I am upgraded from the Sony201e that I bought some 5 years ago. Due to a little salt water issue it finally gave up it’s last legs. It was sad to see it go but now it was time to get updated and move on.

I have to say the video samples uploaded to vimeo of comparing HFS10 and XR500 is quite impressive. In fact it almost swayed me to purchase the canon simply because of the great clear image quality that I was seeing.

But once I took my rose coloured glasses off and thought about it more I remembered how all the critical negative reviews were around the Sony dvd201e and yet I found it to be a fantastic cam. I had none of the so called daylight issues that you see in all reviews about Sony cams.

In fact 99% of my video is outdoors and a lot on boats on the water where the sunlight is exceptional brighter with water reflections.

Perhaps I am just looking at things differently. As an end user who is interested in shooting from the hip but at the same time producing great quality video imaging I found Sony accommodating to this. With very good automated features It was easy for me to create content very quickly so that I spent more time filming rather than tweaking knobs and dials.

While the canon guy is still tweaking his knobs and dial settings the Sony guy has already shot 3 films and seeking out his 4th.(that was a joke:))

The other thing that appealed to me was the large hard drive. I tend to like to film in highest setting and then convert down for other application like YouTube ect... That way I always have one good copy to work from.

It is difficult to decide if the huge hard drive is of benefit or not since a lot of people are mobile with laptops and external drive like myself.

I guess the only advantage is you don’t have to hurry to get off the cam onto your PC/Laptop to make more room.

So at the end of the day I chose Sony XR520 which is due to arrive today :)

Good luck Russell, I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Let us know how you like it!

Hi Ken, i will :). I forgot to add i am not a videophile type person (probably already guess that), and do not look too closely if there is a pixel missing at upper left corner or if there is a slight shading issue when viewed under a microscope. I still watch B&W movies because they lack special effects but have great content :)

So please only take my view point from a general end user perspective. I video anything any time :).

Hey Russell, you don't have to be a videophile to enjoy these cams! :)

You'll find the XR to be a nice camera - very good for the "shoot anything/anytime" approach - it adds enough range in low light to make for more shooting opportunities that other cameras would miss or get so-so results. It's not for a "serious" film-maker, I think we've beat that horse dead, but as a "get the shot" camera, that you'll have with you because it's compact and easy to carry about, I think it's hard to beat.

Ultimately all the controls in the world won't matter if the camera botches the shot while trying to auto adjust or the operator is twiddling knobs. I think I'm actually resigned to sacrificing some of the "manual control" to the AI circuitry if it means getting more usable footage... Doesn't mean a slightly larger manual model with the auto features as well wouldn't get me excited, but that doesn't seem to fit the Sony marketing plan...

You probably couldn't make a "wrong" choice between the Canon and the Sony, just enjoy shooting with whatever you've chosen!

<Just so I understand correctly, is the Canon in this comparison an HF100, i.e. not an HF-S100?>

Yes, HF100 not HF-S100.....

I think an important point to consider, is that even though the Canon gives you more control over the image, it could never be considered a serious film-maker's camera nor does it mean that additional controls will produce a better picture. I think we confuse that issue at times and think that although the Sony is better at 'running & gunning', the Canon is for the 'pros'. It aint so.

I found that regardless of the controls the HS-10 offered me, I could not get an overall image, in both bright & dim conditions, that matched in quality the overall image the XR500 produced.

Most anyone serious about 'film-making' is not going to use any of these small consumer cams as their sole camera. I for one would never ever go to a paying client with either the small Canon or the Sony. This despite the fact that many of these small cams can actually give a sharper, more detailed picture than their big brothers. However when you compare their image to their big brothers, you see that the big boys still have better color and a better dynamic range to capture both highlights and lowlights.

2 gig file size limit?
 

just wondering do Sony AVCHD cam like the Sony HDR-XR520 or HDR-CX100

has the 2 gig file size limit problem? can the sony cams join the files seamlessly?

Most if not all the AVCHD cameras format the storage in FAT 32 which has the file size limit. Sony supplies Sony Motion Browser software ( I think it is just PC) that joins these files together seamlessly on transfer to the PC. They show of course in the camera and in the Motion Browser software as one big file defined by the start and stop of the camera recording and once transfered to the PC are one big file certainly in my NTFS formatted hard drives on my PC. I use my SR11 and XR500 to record theatre shows and regularly record for over 1 hour and 40 mins. This file shows as one in the camera and one file when transfered to the PC with the Sony Software. This can be brought into Vegas as one native file for editing or I usually convert to Canopus HQ and edit in Edius.

Ron Evans

i looked at Wolfgangs's Sony and Canon clips with VLC player, and i think i see Sony produces a visibly better DR, i mean look at the clip with a woman picking flowers at the street florist's. The white flowers in the foreground are almost completely washed out in Canon, but in Sony's clip there's definite texture and more than a hint of yellow. And even more obvious Sony has better shadow detail. But then again that may be configurable in Canon, maybe one can dial something down/up and get a better DR with Canon's as well.

Actually i think HV40 beats then both, XR500 and HF100, but that's just how my eyes see it.

Yikes
 

Great.. I know Wolfgang is a Sony fan boy.. I don't mean that negatively ( i know it sounds it). You purchase equipment and you like to stand behind it I understand. I'm just glad I met Chris H before I stumbled onto this post.. I don't think it's very objective or accurate.. Which is too bad, because that was one of the things I enjoyed about this site 4-5 years ago..Anyway I'll stick to asking my network of professionals.. I guess that's the pro/con about the internet in general.. Lot's of info you just need to know how to sift through the garbage..
Cheers. and no offense.

Yup, and it's pretty obvious we have our share of Canon 'fan boys' too. ;)

But objectively, there was definitely more shadow detail in the Sony image. You may prefer the Canon, but more detail in shadow is more detail in shadow. The low light pictures were truly a blow away in favor of the Sony. That would be hard for anyone to refute. Each cam has its pluses and minuses.

I'm not sure where anyone would get the idea that what is being said about these cameras is not "very objective or accurate".

If you like your Canon, good for you, but I've seen enough footage from both cameras to be quite confident in the image quality of the Sony under the sort of shooting conditions I want the camera for. The other commentary here comes from other guys who also contemplate similar uses - and I GUARANTEE you we'd all jump brands in a heartbeat if there was a compelling reason... but for the moment the XR meets or exceeds our expectations.
I also will stand by the commentary on low light performance, OIS, the nice addition of having a VF, and the bigger LCD. Please point to any inaccurate or less than objective aspect of any of those...

We are comparing two cams in a general price class (or generally the "top of the consumer line"), both have plusses and minuses for various uses. I'm not going to criticize someone's choice to go with the HF-S (or maybe even the TM300... though that one isn't living up to it's "specs" IMO). I am thinking of trying out the HF-S for specific uses once the price inevitably drops (Canon resale prices make them attractive in the used market... and their retail/new price always seems to reallly plummet once they become readily available). But I also see things in the images from the cam that I didn't like, and this thread has confirmed them, so I'd make an educated decision if I try it.

Once one learns to work with the Sony XR, it's a darn fine camera under a lot of conditions where I feel quite certain the Canon WON'T hold up. It also beats earlier SONY cameras under those same conditions. If it didn't work for you, enjoy the Canon, but don't toss flame bait around. Given the mixed value of the "review" sites out there, I think the discussions here represent a good "professional" real world evaluation of the relative merits of the cameras.

I couldn't agree more.
I find the manufacturer's sites and review articles useful for obtaining specs and a general notion about a particular camera, but the extensive dialog available on this forum, the wealth of personal experiences & observations, really gives me a feel for what to expect from a particular product.
I usually have a specific set of personal objectives I am looking to fulfill when I purchase a camera, as opposed to finding the "best" camera- if there even is such a thing. All of these detailed posts allow me to gain some scrutiny of the particular issues that are most important to me, and really help me make an informed decision.
I have seldom been disappointed or caught by surprise when I finally get the item in my hands.

re
 

Wolfgang, can you tell me please, if Sony XR500 (or 520) has 50Hz frame rate or hasn't? I can't found this at the camcorder specification.

I just wanted to jump in here and give a total novice opinion. I owned the XR for 3 days before returning it for the Canon. I'll use layman terms because its all I know! This has all been said already but its one more opinion, either way.

1. With proper lighting the Canon beats the Sony easily. I filmed outdoors with both cameras in some great Southern California weather. Basically flowers, plants, insects and whatnot. I had both cameras set to auto with max resolution then burned Blu Ray disks and viewed on a 52" 1080 plasma. The Canon made me say "Wow" literally, the colors and clarity were just awesome and I really dont think you could get better quality from a camera that cost even 10 times more. It looked perfect.

Mind you my technical experience is nil, but I have a good eye and have watched alot of HD programming and Blu Ray movies :)

2. In low light the Canon pretty much sucks. The picture gets grainy too soon. The Sony beats it hands down. But I asked myself if I wanted superior quality in proper or poor lighting. You decide which way you want to go there.

3. The Sony OIS again blows the Canon away. It had a weird feel to me on the Sony like the camera was kind of "behind" what I was doing in terms of speed though. I dont know, I just didnt like it much even though it worked better. The Canon takes a conscious effort to keep smooth which I adapted to pretty quickly and doesnt feel like an effort so much anymore. I found with both cameras I used both hands to film, even the Sony wasnt good enough for my one-handed efforts. I learned to not hold the Camera with my hand so much and let it float in my palm while using my arm for stability and my left hand on the LCD. If you wrap your fingers around the camera, its gonna shake more.

4. I've never been a fan of touch screen LCD's so the Canons navigation stick gets my vote. My hands arent huge either but I still dont like stabbing at those LCD menus trying to get what I want. I really like the way the manual functions are accessed on the Canon too. It took me awhile to learn all the different menu settings, theres alot and they are easy to get to.

5. The still images from the Canon looked better to me, in camera only mode. If you use the function to shoot while filming the images are 6mp compared to 8mp in camera only mode.

6. The software that came with both cameras is garbage IMO. I only use it for the easy import function before going into Premiere.

In conclusion they are both great cameras, the Sony has more range for shooting conditions and is easier to use. I would say for the majority of the consumer population to go with the Sony. For me though, the "Wow factor" of the blu ray disk, and not planning to shoot in low lighting, made the Canon the best choice for me.

I have the HF - S100 and while I haven't tested footage from it on my 52" rear-projection TV, I do find its image quality (subjectively speaking) mirrors your experience.

I don't have any technical experience either, but I know you don't have to have an engineer's eye to recognize good picture quality.

Agreed, then again, I didn't buy my 'S100 for its low-light performance. I would have expected the Sony to have a bit of lead in image quality, because of their long experience in manufacturing CCD imaging chips for their line of broadcast cameras.

I'm fairly shaky and find the Canon really needs a tripod to produce the best images. In other words, I think Canon could have done a bit better job with the OIS.

I prefer the Canon's stick-type control too. I actually found the menu structure fairly easy to understand and make use of. Then again, I used to own a Canon HV30 and the basic logic underpinning the menu system on that camera is quite similar to the 'S100.

I've not really used my 'S100 to capture still images, but the few I have taken with it are OK, but not especially good for an 8MP sensor. I have a Canon Rebel XT digital SLR which has an 8MP sensor and it does somewhat better on the image-quality front.

I don't use Premiere, so I don't need to go through the same pre-rendering process. In Vegas, it's a simple case of importing from the memory card and then dragging and dropping clips onto the timeline.


The Sony is ideal for people who want to do nothing more than point and shoot. For people like me, who want more control over shutter speed, aperture and frame rates, the Canon is the way to go.

evaluations of consumer camcorders
 

Hi guys,

Thanks very much for your informative discussions of these cameras! I'm coming from a somewhat larger camera (Sony FX1) which I'm comfortable with, but it was just too bulky to take on my last family trip. (Not to mention the video from the latest consumer cams seems to be embarrassingly good :-)

I had a brief play with the XR520V in a local store and what worried me most was the autofocus. It seemed to be much slower than what I'm used to even in the well-lit store. Has that also been the impression of you folks that are using this camera for typical camcorder subjects (eg. fast-moving kids)?

John -
It's a pretty typical Sony AF - and if you test against the instant AF of the Canon, it's going to feel slow. I find that while it can hunt a bit at first, once it locks on, it's as good or better than any other Sony I've owned. One of the few things that impressed me about the HV20 I owned briefly was the IAF... it's actually very effective from my experience, and I presume it's retained and improved in the HF-S.

You have to remember that the Sony AF works based on analyzing the image, meaning hard lines and strong contrast = faster focus lock, soft surfaces or low contrast = slower time to lock in. Obviously the XR500, because of the improved low light performance, will focus better than earlier Sonys in poor lighting. But you still can't expect it to "beat" an active system that is sending a "ping" out constantly and listening to the reply to calculate distance (Canon IAF).

Of course IAF won't work if you put an add on lens on the camera (blocks the emitter/receiver), though the Canon also uses image analysis for focus too. I regularly have a WA attached, to get a more usable field of view, so the IAF "advantage" to me wasn't that big a deal, even if the fast focus lock was impressive.


Focus is one place where I LIKE having the Sony touchscreen interface - spot focus/exposure functions are mighty handy when you have a complex image and a shallow DoF or an image where you want to nail the focus on one specific focal plane... or exposure on a otherwise dark part of the image.

Spot focus/exposure allows you to bypass the normal "center weighted" camera defaults, so you get the best of both your "choices", and the cameras "auto" adjust functions - IMO that works rather well, once you learn to use it along with the button/wheel adjustment capability. I can adjust things much faster than with a "joystick" interface, but that comes from using Sony cams for a while - I'm sure a joystick user could become quite fast too!

For family use, it's hard to beat the Sony, just because the low light performance and OIS are highly optimized, as are the auto image adjustments. But, as has been oft repeated, be aware that manual control is limited (but you CAN manage some once you learn the cam).

IMO the spot focus/exposure feature is brilliant. It's very fast to access & I use it much more often than the manual controls when I'm shooting on the run.

One thing that I like about it is the face detection focus. Instant focus is great if your subjects are always in the center. But if you have faces properly composed, the XR500 will detect the face and slowly but surely focus on the face and then follow it! Very useful for every day family shooting with a little cam.

Very useful for ANY shooting with a small cam - Sony seems set upon making the camera smarter than the operator as much as possible. While I still would like to see manual control, or even an override so it was possible to set individual settings for gain/shutter/iris, I have come to appreciate that the camera can probably adjust faster than I ever could... meaning more usable footage with minimal effort.

Wow this is a popular thread - I've been wrestling with this because I want a second cam and these two seem to be at the top of a bunch of people's lists. The issues I'm wrestling with are:

Canon HF-S100
Likes
Flash: SDHC, can get 32 GB cards NOW for less than the price of 16 GB MS Pro Duo

Lowlight performance excellent judging from footage on Vimeo.
Hint: Use 30p, 24p modes.

AGC / Manual Audio Gain Control

Less expensive

Dislikes:
10x Zoom

No Viewfinder - Need to get Viewfinder cover

Can’t change SDHC card while on tripod mount

Sony HDR-XR500V

Likes:
Lowlight performance excellent good judging from footage on Vimeo

12x Zoom

Bigger LCD - Wonderful

Viewfinder

Access to everything while on tripod mount

Compatible with Wide, Tele Adapters I already have

Compatible with SportPak I already have

Footage will likely blend better with footage from the Sony HDR-HC9 I already have

Dislikes
Flash: MS Pro Duo, can get 16 GB cards NOW, 32 GB not available.

AGC Only Sound

No ability to set shutter, aperture.

No progressive modes

More expensive.

Bill -
Unless you're going to be recording to the MS Duo, the XR series Hard disk will give you far more capacity than a "flash" camcorder. 8GB cards (good for 1 hour) are fairly reasonable, I saw the 16G ones at Frys for around $70, and you CAN switch the camera to record to the MS Duo instead of the HDD...

Sony recently released the CX500V and CX520V, which ARE flash based, but you lose the VF and get a smaller LCD, so I fail to see how the slightly smaller size is that big an advantage.

If you've already got accessories for the HC9, they should all cross to the XR, and you'll find the image quality significantly better.

As for the rest of your list, those are things you'll just have to decide for yourself. Personally the bigger LCD, viewfinder, superb low light performance and excellent OIS do the trick for me. And I've picked up XR500V's fairly reasonable secondhand, whereas the Canons don't seem to come up that often...

Dave,

I'll probably end up going with the XR500V, but who among us doesn't like keeping our options open?

I did notice today at Fry's Electronics that a Patriot Brand 16 GB SDHC Class 6 card was $33.00
I don't think Sony is going to hit that kind of pricing anytime soon.
But I'd be real happy to be wrong...Oh please, please, please...

I appreciate the larger capacity of the XR500V hard drive over flash memory.
But a 32 GB card in the Canon HF-S100 would handily cover the events I do, so I'm
good either way as far as capacity is concerned.

From a reliability point of view, I appreciate the no moving parts of a Flash card.
And I'm not the sort to allow footage to endlessly accumulate on the hard drive.

What probably bugs me the most is the XR500V having fewer options in the menu than the HC9. So with the HC9 I have control over shutter speed and can do either AGC Audio OR Manual Linear Gain Audio...but can't with the XR500V bugs the heck out of me. So the XR500V is a more advanced camera (sensor, codec), higher price, with fewer user controls - what's up with that Sony? And why are you expecting your advanced amateur users to be happy with that?

One advantage for the real amateur is the ability to store on the hard drive. The XR520 for instance may have enough storage for the life of the camera!!!!
I agree about the gap that Sony now has in the camera line-up. With the Panasonic HMC40, Sony really do not have a competitive product in their line-up. I for one wish they did and am waiting to see what they do before upgrading from my FX1 as I would really like a more capable XR500 rather than the FX1000. A three chip AVCHD would be great!!!

Ron Evans

The disadvantage is all those people who are going to lose everything they ever shot because they never offloaded/backed up their footage and the hard drive just died. Or the camera got stolen. Or <whatever>.

Do you really think a three chip sensor block has a prayer of showing up in a consumer level form factor/product?

I'd be thrilled if Sony enlarged the sensor to 1/2 inch and upped the bitrate to 25 Mbps. And put my missing menu options back.

Well I didn't mean that they just stored video on the camera. My daughter backs up everything to the PC, often makes DVD but still has all the video on the camera so that she can show people anytime. That is the way I would expect most people that I have talked to would use the camera. This is the advantage of AVCHD on hard drive and the ease of selecting clips for view.
As far as a three chip. Sony used to make prosumer three chips, it would be nice if they did again though I would be happy with a big single chip with all the manual controls. In good light the XR500 gives a better picture than the FX1 and I hope for an AVCHD camera with the same capabilities as the FX1000 in a slightly smaller package.
The Panasonic HMC40 comes close and I was hoping that Sony would view this as competition and provide a nice competitive product.
Ron

I agree with your sentiments (and others here) regarding purpose governing the purchasing decision. Most of the "live-event" projects I've done, I've been able to shoot A, B & C footage over different performances to cut together differing angles etc. (I only have the 1 Z5, so don't currently have multi-cam option - well, until now) and they have been mostly dim/stage/night type lighting - hence my going for the Z5 for it's low-light capabilities (It's brilliant by the way!). Anyway, cutting to the chase, I am about to film a one-off event on a non-existant budget (a 4 hour rock concert for talented kids), so don't have the advantage of filming several performances for 'B' roll etc.

I therefore finally decided I needed a second/back-up cam (on a limited budget) so I started looking at these cams for a 'B' cam I could set up and leave unattended for the duration. Whilst it would be nice to get another Z5+MCRK1, my budget would no way stretch to that so I started thinking a top-end consumer cam could be the way to go - with the added advantage that it would be way more practical for holiday/family type stuff too! The audio side was less of an issue, as on-camera audio is crap for this type of work. It's seperately miked up to an Edirol R-44.

After a lot of reading/research I also narrowed it down to the Sony v. Canon and, whilst I knew I wouldn't get the same results from either camera (as my Z5) I was already leaning towards the Sony on the basis of better colour matching (G lens and Exmoor) and the better low-light capability. So armed, I took a trip down to the local outlet for a hands-on comparison.


Likewise, I used a combination of this forum and reviews/specs to initially narrow down the options but specifically wanted to check the low-light noise/depth and how well the colour balance would match the Z5 without loads of cc. in post. So, down at the local outlet, wandering around the shop shooting under differing lighting/subject-detail/distances etc. I was very impressed with the colours/sharpness/noise. The real test (for my proposed usage) would be how it fared under crap lighting conditions. A trip down the dingy, covered, dark alleyway down the side of the shop showed up exactly what I expected - the Canon couldn't cope but, whilst it could no way compare with the Z5, the HDR-XR520 produced a very low-noise (standard setting) image, with good shadow detail and slightly more shadow detail but much noisier image on 'low-light' setting. My inclination would be to use the 'normal' setting (keeping the noise down) and adjust gamma in post where necessary.

Conclusion:
For my proposed use, the XR520 won hands-down over the Canon. Quite honestly, even if my budget could have stretched to an FX1000, I would have probably still gone for the XR520, for the simple reason I need to be able to film continuously for several hours and to do that with the FX1000 (or another Z5), I would have needed to factor in another MRCK1 as well (adding another £800 or so) - and it's a lot easier to carry around on holiday etc.!

The proof will be in the pudding though, so it will be interesting to see the results from the up-coming concert (shame I couldn't go a third cam too!). I'll let you know how it turns out. The concert is on 15th December so, hopefully, I'll be able to get something up on vimeo soon after that.

All my projects(theatre) are multicam and a lot are by myself. I use FX1, XR500 and SR11. I have found a good setup for me is to set the XR500 up on full stage view AE shift at -4, spot focus on the centre stage. Set the SR11 to one side or the other closer in shot, spot focus and on manual exposure set for main lighting( the reason is it definitely shows grain if left in AE shift). I then track action with FX1 on full manual. All cameras are on tripods with LANC controllers.
I look forward to the new NXCAM so that I can go total tapeless and not worry about tape changing for long events.
IF I can get an audio feed I connect through Studio One box to the XR500, use a Rode mic on the FX1 and use SR11 audio as needed.

Ron Evans

What are the stage light conditions like? I'm not sure I understand why you're using that much automatic exposure shift and would like to know in case I can do the same sometime... Thanks / Tom

I use -4 for most bright stage lights( I would actually like it to go more but -4 is the limit on the XR500 and SR11), if the play is dark all the time I use -3. It is easy to brighten just a little if too dark and by making the camera stay darker it avoids too much auto gain. For the XR500 with the stage going to black it shows less grain than the FX1 in full manual at 9db!!!! Sony tend to have scene too bright anyway so even for normal use I think AE-1 or -2 is more natural. For any stage lighting I prefer it a little darker to focus on where the lighting person wants the action to be . The XR500 still retains all the shadow detail so can be brightened easily in Edius YUV filter to taste. You need to experiment to find the look that you need for the camera you use and fits the editing style.

Ron Evans

Got it, thanks. The stage lighting is very uneven then as the lights are focused on different targets. Dave Blackhurst had recommended a -1 AE shift in bright light outdoors as well. The Exmor-R seems to be doing its job of letting in more light than the Exmor chip and maybe the Sony AE algorithms need a bit of adjusting as a result.

The type of performance is important. Even lighting can use a AE of-2 or-3, dark sets with spotlight areas will need AE -3 or -4 to counter the auto exposure from opening up too much due to the dark average reading. Its in editing I then lighten a little for the few times there is even lighting in such an event.

Ron Evans