|
I've got the Sony -520, and I like it alot.
Looked at the Canon, and reserved the last one the store had, and when I got there, only then did I realize there was no viewfinder! = No sale! I shoot mostly airshows, which means a lot of zoom (optical only), and manual focus to infinity. And a viewfinder is an absolute necessity. I also like to use a wide angle adaptor lens at airshows, so I got the small, clip-on one that Sony makes. Well, it did not focus AT ALL at anywhere near max zoom, so it went back, and I got the larger screw-in one, again from Sony. This one also has the same problem. At max optical zoom with the wide angle lens on, I have to manually focus to what the camera says is 25 meters to get sharp focus on things such as a ridgeline 20 MILES away! And this is with the camera set for the wide angle lens. (There is such a setting on it) Bummer! The stability system is pretty good, but you try videoing a 15 minute aerobatic display, looking up, straining your neck muscles, while trying to be as steady as possible, and then do it again and again throughout the day, and you'll see the need for buffed-out deltoid muscles! The XRs stability is light-years ahead of the HDR-SR1 sony that I previously used. My next camera will definitely be flash drive--BUT ONLY IF IT HAS A VIEWFINDER!!! (are you listening, sony and canon?) The capacity of the -520 is amazing, it will hold 29 hours of high-def video at the highest quality setting I'm a hobbyist with video, and I'm happy with the Sony. |
Airshow filming: might be worth trying the "landscape" scene at some point to see if that helps with the distance focusing. Not sure it would help, but maybe....
|
A couple quick comments -
Using AE shift helps prevent blowouts in the highlights, which can SOMETIMES be a problem - Sony's algorithms tend to overexpose a bit, probably because it's preferable to losiong stuff in the shadows. The Exmor R seems to have better overall range from shadows to highlights (you get "more" of both), so it's significantly superior to earlier consumer level cameras, but (and this is where we stil hunt the Zebra) there is a danger of blowing the highs. SO, the trick is to shift things down a bit as needed (easy with the button/wheel on these cams), instead of riding the exposure (also easy and sometimes more appropriate). AE shift from -2 to -4 seems to be a reliable "standard" for long time Sony users. You can still ride the exposure too if needed, but in multicam shoots, better to have any spare angles auto adjust to the "best" setting, then adjust further in post. Also a reason to set to ONE WB setting so the camera sticks to one preset, and less adjusting later. Shawn - which Sony WA lenses are you using??? I've got the VCL-HG series (multiple flavors) and ALL are zoom through, the camera focuses fairly well with them. It sounds to me like you got some single element non-zoom through (the "clip on" for sure) inexpensive lenses? You're shooting HD - cheap glass is DEATH to HD image quality, and that sounds like what you've got... Let's see what you've used (model #'s) and find a recommendation - I haven't tried he new HGA07 that they added this year, but I've got all the earlier HG offerings, plus some cheap stuff that "works" if you understand and accept the flaws... I'm a little unsure why you're mounting a WA and shooting full zoom... sort of counterintuitive? I don't usually use the WA when I have the option of moving back to frame. Definitely share the opinion on having a VF, particularly for outdoor action shooting! And I use a belt pod to ease the pain of these type shoots! |
third time I've tried this
This is the third time I will have tried to reply to this. Here goes...
Tom; thanks for the idea, I'll try it on "landscape" and see if that helps. Dave; I've got the VCL-HGA-07, and that's the one that won't focus at infinity while at full (optical) zoom. (The viewfinder will show the infinity symbol, but the image is way out of focus, and sharpness is only achieved by focusing down to what the viewfinder says is 25-28 meters.) Using a wide angle adaptor lens at max zoom at an airshow is not as goofy as it sounds. I'm a novice at videoing, and us beginners tend to fill the frame with the plane as much as possible, which produces a lot of jiggle, and makes tracking difficult. the wide amgle lens reduces the zoom by a factor of .7, and that helps, but it also is neeed for the "bombburst" maneuvers by such teams as the 'Blues, the 'Birds, and the Collaborators, when they spread out. Also, the WA is needed for the "static" (parked aircraft) displays so you don't have to back up and wait for the crowd to clear out to get the whole plane. What does a belt pod look like--can you tell where to see one on the 'net? I made a monopod out of a piece of bamboo about 20 inches long, it is VERY light, lighter than aluminum, and it helps a bit with fatigue, but it can introduce a bit of jiggle if I'm not careful. It's a mixed blessing. Perhaps it should be attached around my waist somehow? Thanks for your replies, Shawn |
Hi Shawn -
HMMMM, I don't have the HGA07, but it's SUPPOSED to be a zoom through lens, similar to it's predecessors in the HG series. Only thing I can think of is that perhaps the autofocus hunts, yet it sounds like you'reusing manual with strange results... ya got me on this one! Right now it's getting ready to snow, but I'll try some things with the WA lenses I have and see if I can replicate once the sun shines again! I understand where the WA can be handy - I always have one (usually the HG0737C, direct predecessor to the one you've got, the 0737Y is WAY too big and heavy!) in my bag, but try to avoid it wherever I can - it does come in handy though. I too like airshows, so I know the sorts of things you're trying to catch! A belt pod is a variation of the monopod (just shorten it up!), you can either get dedicated belt pockets, use an existing pocket (those little watch posckets on some jeans are good), or I have a plastic molded thing called a BiGGLuGG 2 thats actually a tool holder from Home Depot, but it works really well as a socket for most of the monopods I've got - hooks over your pants or belt, makes a nice rest for the foot of the monopod. The advantage of a belt pod is you can turn and track a bit easier - going all the way to the ground with a monopod, I tend to get too much sway. If you're really into it, you could even cobble up a shoulder rig with handle(s), but you start to lose the advantages of a small camera! Even with the excellent OIS of the XR/CX's, it's tough to track fast moving objects and get a usable image! |
My replies disappear.
Seems I have trouble getting my replies to stick.
Dave, thanks for your interest and replies. Anyway, here's the "small print"-- "When using the conversion lens at a telephoto position, the image may be out of focus. If this occurs, adjust the zoom towards the wide-angle position until the image is in focus" Why the hell would I do that?--I WANT THE ZOOM LEVEL I HAVE CHOSEN APPROPRIATE TO THE MOMENT,I DON'T WISH TO ZOOM TO THE LIMITATION OF THE LENS!!!-- What part of disclosing product limitations and capabilities does sony not understand? Serious limitations in capability of a product should be disclosed in a manner that permits a potential buyer to make an informed decision!! I chose this lens because of the statement made by a sony rep on the phone who said this lens would properly focus throughout the entire zoom range!! (the phone call was made in response to my puchase and subsequent return of a different sony WA adaptor that had an even more severe manifestation of the same nature) Oh, well, time to go to the sony website and write another review for this lens, as I did for the first one. A negative review, of course. Does anyone know if the Canon camera and WA adaptor have the same limitation? Maybe I bought the wrong camera.... |
First gig using XR520 with Z5
OK guys, the gig's in the can and I've started post. I can say I'm very impressed with the XR520's results in low level stage/disco lighting and it matches up quite well with the footage from the Z5 (with a very little tweaking for contrast). The Panasonic HS100 that I borrowed as 3rd cam pretty much sucked at those low-light levels to the point that I doubt I'll end up using any of the footage (do we still talk about "footage" when we're using digital media?) from that one.
I've uploaded one clip of my 12 year old nephew Oliver playing Red House (with the impromptu help of a few friends). This was his first ever live gig in front of an audience and it didn't phase him in the slightest! You can see it on youtube I'm going to upload the other tracks as I go (I'm compiling them one at a time before stringing them together for the final complete video). I must say also, that Pluraleyes is brilliant for syncing up the video tracks with the 4 channel audio from the Edirol R-44 - what a time saver! Definitely going to have to get the final released version once my trial runs out! |
XR500 for underwater videography
I got the XR500 because I shoot a lot of underwater footage and the water is not the cleanest here. Light levels are very poor even at 3m. So the low light performace of the XR realy sold me. I'm just waiting for the new housing to arrive (stuck in cutoms, go figger) and when it arrives ans I test it out I'll let you know how well it works.
|
Quote:
I posted some YouTube room lighting clips a while back comparing full auto to low lux modes and a couple of twilight clips as well. Last night and tonight I posted two outdoor clips taken at night. One was during a snowstorm with quite a bit of light reflected off the falling snow and the sky. The next was full night after the storm with just some house lights and a streetlamp or two nearby. I started with full auto mode and the cam making all the exposure decisions, and then kicked in the Low Lux mode for comparison purposes. I did two uploads because the first one included some dancing pale green lights that I thought were reflections off a clear filter I was using. The second night proved this to be correct. So I just uploaded a second clip without the dancing light. I don't like using the cam without the protective filter in place, but there have been a few times where it has caused an issue, like this time. Here's the URL to the one just uploaded. The other one has the green light issue, but includes the snowstorm, which is kind of interesting to see. YouTube - Snow on Two Nights 2 - CX500V Low Light Example - No filter so no dancing green light! |
Z5 & XR520 results
Well, the first few clips are now up on youtube
Shot using the Z5 and XR520 and Edirol R-44 for the audio. |
Just did a winter hike to lower Grand Canyon with the CX500. The footage looks like I was using a tri pod, best OIS I've ever used on a small camera.
|
I'm coming late to this thread, but I have to say I'm suprised at the enthusiasm for the Sony given (as I understand it) its lack of manual control of shutter speed. Am I missing something here, or is fixing the shutter speed relative to the frame rate not a big deal for other folk?
|
Re manual controls on the Sony: I am a point and shoot person generally, so my comments come from that direction. I am basically interested in results and not how they're achieved, so I have no drive to understand aperture, f-stops, shutter speeds, etc. as they relate to taking digital video. It boils down to getting the right exposure and in special cases, the right frame rate.
Sony may actually be making a bold move into the future by not providing direct manual controls for aperture and shutter speed called those names. For people coming from the photography world, these terms are vital to taking good pictures and you want to control them. But wanting them in the digital video world assumes that (a) they physically still exist in that world at the same level of importance as they did with film and (b) they are the best way to get the results camcorder users want to achieve. I suspect both of these things are no longer true. Sony's CX and XR cams give you direct manual control over exposure, focus, white balance, and three apparently fixed shutter speeds: normal to produce 60i frames, slow motion, and low lux (1/30th second). They also provide spot exposure and spot focus and combined spot focus/exposure via touchscreen. So if aperture contributes to exposure in digital video (and much less to depth of field than in stills) as does shutter speed, shouldn't I really want a manual exposure control? Which I have? In practice, though, the actual way in which exposure and light and focus work in these modern digital cams is much more subtle than human-set aperture, focus, and shutter speed settings. In fact, other than shifting white balance and exposure generally (which Sonys let you do), I trust the auto settings much more than my own eye, generally - particularly when changing light and motion is involved. I'll lock the cam settings down in very special cases, but I'd argue that it generally does a much better job of manipulating all the factors than I would. These are now very sophisticated optics and computing systems so while I understand peoples' desire for manual control, I'm not sure I believe that's what the average person requires by any means. Steve Mullen produced the "Sony SR12/CX12 Handbook" in 2008 and it discusses the insides of the cam to a high degree. Part of my point here is that some of these manual controls that seem essential are effectively vestiges of the past in some way. They don't necessarily reflect how the cams actually work today. So they're a convenience for people who already know them, but somewhat misleading for people who don't. If you can control exposure without having to set three things, and can control focus and white balance and have a few specialty shutter speeds (slow motion, low lux), what more does an average point and shoot person need? (Film frame rates are a limited market, I'm pretty sure...) Here's a paragraph from p. 35 of Steve's handbook that emphasizes what I'm discussing a bit. The following page contains a table showing how each of Sony's exposure stops represents an intersection of the more standard shutter speed, iris, gain, and neutral density filter settings. That is, you can set the exposure and it's the same as if you manually set the other four items on a more complicated cam. Note in the quote that Steve emphasizes that "shutter speed" (actually CMOS integration period) now takes precedence in exposure over iris manipulation because the electronics are both faster and more precise than the physical iris mechanism. "Understanding the Exposure System The Sony SR/CX camcorders control exposure primarily by adjusting shutterspeed— not by adjusting the iris. Specifically, exposure is controlled by altering CMOS integration period. (See Appendix A to learn more about CMOS integration period.) The period can be altered smoothly and very accurately from 1/50th or 1/60th second to 1/800th second Of course, the iris, at times, is also used. But, because it is mechanical and thus slower and inherently less accurate, it becomes the secondary way exposure is controlled. In Appendix A, you can read about both “diffraction interference” and “longitudinal chromatic aberration.” The former motivates not using Fstops smaller than f/5.6 while the latter motivates not using F-stops larger than f/2.8. Thus, for a 1/3-inch CMOS camera the best F-stop is f/4. As you will see in the following Chart, the Sony camcorder quite cleverly achieves this goal. To accomplish this, the SR/CX camcorders will switch a Neutral Density filter into and out of the light path when necessary. This ND filter cuts light by one F-stop. Once the iris has opened fully, the only option for obtaining proper exposure as light levels fall is to add video gain. Gain is added smoothly up to +18dB." Just as digital photographers have to relearn some of what they knew from using film cameras, digital videographers have to relearn some things as well. I don't miss setting shutter speed and aperture in the slightest for video, and I'd bet the cam is generally making much better decisions re exposure than I could, and responding to changing conditions far more effectively when they occur. That said, I know some people miss the sense of being in control when they had specific settings they could manipulate and they'd get known results. I just wonder if the cams that provide those controls are just translating to the real physics and the bottom line is exposure control 99% of the time. |
No doubt Sony users would like to see more manual controls... but with cameras this small, there's little or no real estate to put them on. Sony seems to have gone highly "artificial intelligent" with pretty respectable results, IOW, the camera can probably beat you to the settings most of the time.
Personally I "miss" manual control, but with Sony, you've got a set frame rate, no 30P and 24P, just 60i, which I believe results in 1/60 shutter speed take it or leave it, or for low light I believe it slows to the equivalent of 1/30. Then as noted there is a "special effect" to record 3 seconds at a fast frame rate and play it back in 12 seconds... Aperature again would be handy, as there are times when one would "like" to control the "F-stop" to control DoF, at least in theory - again with the small size of these cameras, you're not going to get a lot of DoF anyway... Sony chose to put SOME control into these cameras, and if you learn how those controls work, you can get very acceptable results with them. Learning how the AI works helps some too, so you can override where needed. That said, the AI algorithms are pretty frighteningly effective. Put the "brains" and OIS and R sensor into a bigger camera, and you'd have a winner - still waiting to see if and when Sony makes this step, the NXCAM seems to be in this direction, but higher end - there's a HUGE gap between these pocket rockets and the "pro" line... logically there should be some cameras in there to compete with the HMC150 and kin... Upsize the EXMOR R to 1/2" or 2/3" from the 1/3" sensor these use, make it a bit bigger, toss basic manual controls on it, plus the AI and OIS... and toss in those other frame rates for those that want them... To completely change gears... got hands on a CX500, and it's an interesting step from the XR500, loses some things, but seems like it gains in others. Will make some observations once I get more time playing with it, but does seem to be a tad better in both low light (at the expense of more noise, so it may just be more agressive gain) and OIS performance (could just be easier to hold a lighter camera?). If one keeps in mind these are image acquisition devices, designed for "no-brainer" capture of crisp, clean high definition video in all sorts of conditions (including especially difficult ones), you'll "get" these cameras, if you want knobs and buttons and adjustments to tweak, you'll be scratching your head... a lot... I have no doubt Sony "could" put buttons and wheels to access the traditional "manual" functions - the AI does it, obviously, but for whatever reason they just don't feel that capability meets their market, would be nice to see them reconsider! As it stands, these little cameras keep up nicely with their "big" pro line cams, even on full auto, that is pretty impressive even if you can't tweak things as much as you might like... |
> IOW, the camera can probably beat you to the settings most of the time.
Thanks for the thoughful replies guys. I agree with much of what you've said, and indeed with the quote above EXCEPT when it comes to shutter speed - to me the change in motion signature if shutter speed rises above 1/60 in bright light is really not acceptable. Now it seems from your replies that maybe these new Sonys don't allow that shutter speed increase to happen (or at least the cameras stick to 1/60th for as long as possible and perhaps beyond that could be managed by adding external ND filter). So I need to learn more about this ... since Sony's own product information in mostly silent on this kind of detail. |
I claim amateur status, first - so the technical details need to be verified exactly as you suggest <g>.
Based on Steve's quote, two thoughts: 1. There is no shutter in the old sense - there is manipulation of the CMOS integration period which affects how long light is allowed to hit the sensor before it gets measured and processed. This is all electronic, at least in the Sony cams. 2. Since it's electronic, it's computer-controlled, which means the cam is constantly adjusting this as its major way of creating the proper exposure. The physical iris still exists but is much slower so it is essentially a gross adjustment now where the CMOS integration period (called "shutter speed" for convenience) is the major player. Overall, I'm suggesting that the real question is whether you're provided enough manual controls to make the cam dance for you, easily producing the effects you want to produce. I vote "yes" in this case for my purposes. In fact, I'd argue the controls are simple and provide what I need and make more sense to me inherently than saying I should adjust aperture and shutter control properly to get the right exposure. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't need to learn some things, but this is maybe a bit like arguing about stickshifts vs automatics in cars. At this point, with modern antiskid, antilock, and other chip-controlled safety features in cars, some set of features is now available that you don't want to override. Quick example: Steve discusses how electronically-controlled signal gain is used to adjust for certain issues in the digital cams. It's automatic and manually controlled to some degree by fixing the exposure setting you control. Do the cams with aperture and shutter speed manual controls also include a gain control? If not, why not? It's part of the equation. But it's not part of the old manual video equation, so it's left out because it wouldn't make sense to people using aperture and shutter control. So those controls (missing part of the equation) are a simulation of the older approach in any case, they're not real in some ways. Anyway, Steve's guide is an interesting read because it clearly points out how much these cams differ from their ancestors. It's probably still for sale over the Internet - maybe he'd offer a discount now since it's for last year's models! As an aside, he also includes a section on how to post-process 1080i video to emulate all of the various cinematic-like outputs. And he discusses the Exmor chips extensively, though the new R series puts the chip superstructure behind the sensor instead of in front of it where it used to block some of the incoming light. Basically, there's a lot to be learned about the inner workings of these all-digital cams. Much of it is beyond my basic knowledge so I can't discuss it cleanly. Some of the old terminology is still being used but no longer lines up with the mechanics of the actual cam itself. So the question isn't really "how can you function without manual controls with these specific names?" but "does the cam give you the manual controls you need to produce the results you want?". For me, the answer is clearly "yes". For an experienced videographer, I don't know, but I suspect so. There just might be a learning curve for that person. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, this appears to be a sophisticated Electronic Image Stabilization that uses the extra pixels around the frame to damp down twisting motions in the "3rd dimension". I have been amazed at the CX image stabilization. That and the low light improvements over other cams have been worth the price of admission to me. |
We all have to remember these are consumer cameras meant for the point and shoot market. Most of the time my SR11 and XR500 outperform my FX1 !!! I too am looking forward to the NXCAM models. Things I would like to see on the XR500 that would make manual control more effective but still use all the smarts of the camera are limits on controls ( ie F stops up and down, effective shutter speed, gain limits etc) I have started to use the AE shift a lot and would like a greater range. I shoot stage productions and use the XR500 unattended full stage view, spot focus and AE shift at -4 most of the time. I would like the metering in AE shift to be assigned to upper or lower limit etc( meter for brightest area, sort of auto spot meter, range limit !!! etc). This would make the camera really great and worth paying more for a model with these attributes. The cameras computer is really good I would just like to bias it a little to the form I would like it to create.
I believe the auto system has the capability of manipulating segments of the sensor rather than going to full manual control which would effect the whole sensor. There is the possibility that the auto system can always produce better images than the camera in full manual because of this ability to manipulate the exposure across the sensor. This is I believe how the dynamic range expansion and highlight capabilities are achieved. Details in the shadows as well as the highlights in the same scene. Selective dynamic range expansion. As a family camera in full auto its great. Ron Evans |
I think the question should be asked... if a consumer uses a "professional" camera, does that make it a consumer camera... or conversely if a "pro" uses a consumer camera, does that make it professional...
I know that sounds silly at first, but the question becomes one of whether an imaging device can capture a high quality image for a specific task. EVERY camera has limitations and useful applications, and ultimately it's the creativity and skill of the user (and of course the quality of the "content and talent") that really determine the ultimate usefulness of a given tool. Sony has made some very effective "tools", and they come in handy (big) pocket size, perfect for capturing things you might otherwise miss because the "big gun" is too bulky to drag everywhere. SO, you catch more memories and hopefully great footage. These cameras do an amazing job of making that much easier, whether you're a consumer or a pro... Ron, I think you're on the right track with the idea of "manual override" vs. full manual, although there are probably times when you'd in theory want full control... maybe. |
Short CX500 vs. XR500 overview
OK, with both in hand, I've got some observations!
CX isn't "that" much smaller, yet feels lots smaller, and a bit lighter - perhaps enough to make it more comfortable for a long day of shooting (like amusement parks/tourist traps/museums). Improved LCD size over earlier CX models is appreciated, almost as big as the XR LCD. CX AiShoe cover is back to a better design than the slightly sloppy feel of the XR's slide up & over, and rattle around cover - CX shoe retracts INTO the camera body, not out over the top. CX of course loses I/O options of headphone and mic (mic input still available through AiShoe with proprietary mics...), and viewfinder - LCD is quite good even in very bright sunlight though. LANC still available through A/V jack, which is now in an awkward position mid body right under the handstrap... no using THAT jack while handheld! Sony completely redid the menus... still not too sure about it, but it's workable. The display options are unusual, with two auto modes (one with W/T/Rec buttons displayed on touchscreen, one without, both with details that "disappear" after a few seonds), and one "on" mode. Not sure about the disappearing display details with the auto modes... but touch the screen they return! I think I preferred the "disp" button (SR/XR) that cleared the screen if you wanted. The return of a "personal menu" with the functions you want to access the most is very nice, last saw something similar with the HC9, nice to have 6 "quick access" buttons! CX appears about two "stops" (if the Sony adjustments can equate to stops) brighter than the XR, and there seems to be more gain noise at the brightest end. AE definitely needs to be set negative, -4 is about right. Colors also seem to be pumped up a bit over the XR, need to take some side by side footage to see what's really going on there, but this is reminiscent of earlier CX models, which had similar characteristics vs. their other Sony models. Need to put the OIS through some tests, but sure SEEMS to improve over the XR, which was already impressive. New control knob/button at the rear of the cam (button inside the LCD cavity) replaces the front mounted one from the SR, XR and CX12 - no room on the front anymore because of the reduced profile, but I'd say the front positioning was better, so far. Overall I'd say the XR is a more "balanced" package with more handy features, where the CX is a nice cam in a small package... |
Quotes from Dave Blackhurst (why doesn't the system offer Quote instead of just reply?):
"Improved LCD size over earlier CX models is appreciated, almost as big as the XR LCD. " They made it larger by removing the physical buttons for W, T, and Rec down the left side, turning that strip into LCD touchscreen instead. Note that the XR LCD resolution is much higher than the CX, though I'm fine with the CX resolution. "Sony completely redid the menus... still not too sure about it, but it's workable. The display options are unusual, with two auto modes (one with W/T/Rec buttons displayed on touchscreen, one without, both with details that "disappear" after a few seonds), and one "on" mode. Not sure about the disappearing display details with the auto modes... but touch the screen they return! I think I preferred the "disp" button (SR/XR) that cleared the screen if you wanted. The return of a "personal menu" with the functions you want to access the most is very nice, last saw something similar with the HC9, nice to have 6 "quick access" buttons!" Back to the future - I think your mention of the HC9 is exactly correct. I had an HC7 which had a much flatter menu structure. I remember it as very similar to what's in the CX. I am delighted to have the My Menus back (it's actually 18 choices total - 6 each for video, photo, and playback modes, though you can use most menu items in any of the three modes). I also much prefer the flatter structure to that of the XRs and the CX12, which I owned. Note that the addition of scroll bars, fast scrolling through menu choices, etc. is new and wasn't in the HC7. Overall, I'm pleased they revamped the menus. Re the disappearing display, I thought that was pretty cool the first day - the screen clears after about 3 seconds so you can see everything for filming or playback. But I quickly discovered I needed the symbols on the screen almost all the time, so I disabled the disappearing symbols by day 2. Your remaining thoughts: 1. Not sure about the AE shift. I've tried it in various settings and I must just prefer the brighter images. With bright daylight, I have used the AE shift. On cloudy days or indoors, I haven't liked the effect in the LCD. I haven't tried experimenting with it for throwaway comparisons. I should do that. Most film I was taking was transient - get it now or miss it altogether. 2. On some clips, I think the OIS is phenomenal. I had three HD models in a row so I have clips I can use for comparison. My tripod hasn't been out of the house for a month and a half now. I know I should still use it sometimes but I don't feel compelled to do so now. 3. The rear-side manual control knob is hard to turn compared to the front one. I think the front position was better and easier to manipulate as well. My next experiment will be to use slow-motion recording to catch our pet sugar gliders jumping between family members in mid-air. At regular speeds, they're just a blur once they push off. I see some people who have taken great stills of the motion. Either they're using some kind of sports mode with a camera (burst mode) or they're using slow motion. The Sony buffers while in standby mode, so you can set slow motion mode to capture the three seconds before you press the Record button, or the three seconds after you press the Record button. I'll have to use the former for the gliders... |
Quote:
So this morning I set the cam to slow-motion mode using the "before" option. That is, I have the cam on standby monitoring what I want to film, and when I see it, I immediately press Record and get the three seconds prior to that moment at 120 frames per second instead of 30. So a 3 second realtime clip plays back in 12 seconds. This turned out to work beautifully except the lighting was somewhat dim and the video is underexposed. The resolution is less than usual and the colors a little subdued - a documented way that this mode works. Anyway, here's a sample clip with some blurring and cropping on the left to protect the innocent... I have not otherwise post-processed the clip. YouTube - Sugar glider jumping (four repeats) Sony CX500V slow motion mode |
Here's another - my favorite because the glider wiggles his wings up and down for in-flight adjustment. Not sure if this will come across OK with the cropping but hopefully so.
YouTube - Sugar glider jumping (eight repeats) Sony CX500V slow motion |
"LANC still available through A/V jack, which is now in an awkward position mid body right under the handstrap... no using THAT jack while handheld!"
Dave, Sony have a pistol grip that can be used with these new camcorders with LANC. Turns into a little table top tripod too. High Definition Camcorders - DVD Camcorder - AVCHD Camcorder - Camcorder Accessories - Tripods - GPAVT1 - Sony Style Canada Ron Evans |
I'd have the cam on tripod or a shoulder mount or some other system if I were using the LANC anyway... it's just one heckuva odd placement choice!
|
Quote:
YouTube - Sugar glider Spartacus jumps and jumps and jumps in slow motion |
After a little more time with the CX, I've got some more observations...
OIS - this definitely has an upgraded OIS from the XR500, I tried "wiggling" the cameras, up and down, side to side, and also around the lens axis (typical of the sort of handheld bouncing you'll get)... up and down and side to side, the two were fairly similar, not enough difference to my eye to quibble over, BUT when wiggling the camera slightly around the lens axis, the CX was distinctly & effectively adjusting for the motion! The XR500 OIS was already quite impressive, the CX is astounding - you wouldn't want to video an earthquake with it, you probably wouldn't even see anything going on... Low light - Doing a bit of testing in a fairly dark room with little ambient light and dark walls... worst case scenario, I can't see much with my bare eyes, although it's not entirely dark and I can make out objects. They definitely "hopped up" the gain on this pup... maybe good, maybe not so much. On full auto, low lux, it produced a quite bright image, significantly brighter than what I could "see". At these highest gain settings, there's a LOT of noise, reminiscent of the old "blue snowstorm" of the HC1 in low light. Not exactly my idea of "good", BUT perhaps if light is so low as to be impossible to get footage any other way, it could come in handy. I tried using -4 on the AE shift, and it still was a bit noisier and "brighter" than it really needed to be... using exposure and going 3 "steps" was better, and most of the noise was gone or not objectionable (and very close to the XR picture). Perhaps a combination of the two adjustments would be best in "live" conditions. Looks to me like Sony is still in a learning curve with these new "R" sensors, now with 4 cameras with them (and a couple with the "old" CMOS tech), there's quite a range of results... the XR500V seems to yield the most balanced results, very low noise signature, and not overly bright image. The CX500X "pushes" the image a bit much IMO, but if you want a bright, punchy (color wise) image, it's got that, even more than the XR, which now appears just a tad "flat" color wise. In comparing to three Sony still cameras (that also can shoot either 720 or 1080 video), both the XR and CX make a better go of it in low light. The HX1 (non-R CMOS) couldn't see much of anything - just a few indicator/display lights, the rest was pretty much black mush. Same for the TX1 (R CMOS), wich was hobbled by it's small lens and size (although it takes some decent video considering, now if I can just get Vegas to properly recognize the mp4 files...). WX1 (R CMOS)was slightly better (I'm guessing it's got about 2-3 stops on the TX from a larger lens, even though I think they use the same sensor), I've found the WX tends to "overexpose" in general use, similar to what the CX seems to be doing, so there's a common thread there. I think it's safe to say the "R" CMOS represents an overall improvement in performance, but there's a range of implementation that comes as a bit of a surprise - and sometimes with noise that isn't a welcome addition. |
Quote:
I'm not sure Low Lux mode is much different from what the CX12 produced in low light regularly - I never used the 12 much indoors because of the noise. But the CX500V on full auto without Low Lux mode on seems far superior to the CX12. Did you try variants of filming in low light (but not "almost missing" light) without invoking Low Lux mode? If you do, does that seem noisier and brighter than the XR as well? |
What it looks like to me is that Sony added about three to four steps of gain (with the added noise!) over the XR.
So it's sort of a tradeoff - with the low lux mode on, you have to pull back about 3 steps on the exposure manually (or use AE shift + exposure), unless you're willing to put up with the noise. Subjectively the XR "looks" cleaner in it's low lux mode, but it's also not as bright. FWIW, the noise seems worst against dark backgrounds... not as visible with a light background for some reason. Not sure which is "better" - instinct says it's handy to have the extra plunge into the depths of darkness when wanted, yet I'd rather have a clean but still usable image - that's what the XR manages, even in low lux mode... When I had a CX12 and SR11 vs. the XR500V, there was no contest, the XR was significantly cleaner and sharper in low light, period - that's why I upgraded rather quickly. The CX500 is a bit of a throw, simply because the "auto" choices seem to add a lot of noisy gain, yet if you back that off, you get a pretty nice (and bright, colorful) image... going to have to do some general shooting with it to see what the final verdict is... I like the size and OIS, and if I can tame the low light (and there isn't a general overexposure bias I can't adjust around), I can see using the CX500 for some things. Otherwise, I may just go back to the XR's. I'm a little concerned by the color differences, but those can be tweaked in post fairly easily, and aren't much different from the CX12/SR11, which exhibited the same minor differences. Unless you really need (or want) the small size or flash memory/no HDD, the XR500V is still probably the better all around camera. The CX500 has it's nifty features though too... |
Quote:
|
Hi Tom -
I'd have to sit down and turn off the low lux modes on both side by side - don't have both handy right at the moment, but the best way to describe is is there's a slight overlap, with the CX having 2-4 "steps" more brightness. When the XR is on max luw lux it's about the same as the CX backed off 3 clicks on the exposure - those last steps look like "pure gain", with attendant noise to me, where the XR remains clean. I suspect the CX might be a hair brighter with low lux off, and should produce a very clean image. I prefer to leave the low lus set to on, and back it off manually... |
Low lux still - don't get Quote as a choice argh
Dave, doesn't using the slower "shutter speed" to get Low Lux mode affect the effective frame rate negatively in some way? I know the actual output frame rate is fixed, but doesn't low lux essentially take fewer measurements per second than regular filming? Most of my indoor filming is of the sugar gliders who are moving very fast a lot of the time. Do you get more motion blur in Low Lux mode for fast-moving subjects?
By the way, I've given your recent comparisons a plug over on the AVS Forum as they address some of the questions bouncing around there from people looking at these Sony cams. |
I have to speculate a little bit on how low lux currently operates...
In the HC7/9 they had a mode that automatically went from 1/60 to 1/30 shutter when needed to get that extra low light performance. Given the noise, I have to wonder if (at least with the CX500) they went a different direction, i.e. electronic gain instead of shutter adjustments. I know you were using the high speed mode for the sugar gliders - I presume the Low Lux is disabled in that mode? I'm still just starting with the CX500, so have to do more shooting with it - got some footage I want to check out, but it looked good on the LCD... |
Quote:
Don't know about the slow motion / Low Lux assumption. I'll have to check that out. I don't like Low Lux mode much if there's halfway decent light, so I never thought to try to combining it with the slow motion mode. Low Lux mode is documented in the manuals as being what you describe for the HCs, I think - leaving the "shutter" open twice as long as usual. Though from everything Steve documented, I really have to think the "shutter speed" is never fixed that completely as you manipulate exposure. That is, I think it's convenient for them to say it that way but I suspect the reality of the CMOS integration period is more subtle. |
2 Attachment(s)
i`v got 500v and i find on first sighting it is mediocre camera in many respect.
- auto focus is awful, it is irritating, i put my hand over 95% of the screen and he focus on 5%, how did she figure that out i don`t know. i have played with all AF options. it is just one example. it is incomparable with canon AF - the color rendering was calibrated by some color blind folks in sony, the camera has no color at all. all is washed away like t shirt after a 20 years. the `axrvtrtmrt` color space is just for the camera user guide - to say it exists, the use of it i did not find. - contrast is non existing, the worst picture i have ever seen. i don`t see any white in the picture, just whitish gray to cal it... - the menus is more capable on my nokia camera in the telephone - wb has out door and indoor, how conviniant - and custom WB. oh thank you sony, how noble of you. - the OIS seems the only good thing on this camera. canon hv30 wins this camera in all respect out of OIS. and to say my canon sx200is video is straight out of hollywod for this 1000$ sony cam. i hope i am just disappointed since it is a new camera, and i have not get to know her, but i don`t see anything in menus of the camera to play with, and get other thoughts. here is a screen capture of sony and my sx200is video. the color on the 200is is miles away from sony. left is sony... i see the sony is not on 100%, so i put another grab. but still no difference |
Milutin -
You can't expect the AF to match the IAF active system Canon uses - it can't and won't, as the principles are different. OTOH spot focus is fairly effective, something Canon doesn't have. After playing with the CX500V, I'd have to agree the XR looks a bit flat for some reason, by comparison... although I've found you can punch it up in post if need be. Frankly, looking at your color samples I see the overly "hot" Canon reds, which I personally dislike immensely, as they will tend to bleed - sure it looks vibrant, but I'd rather not have color bleed. X.V.Color, to which I presume you referred, is subtle at best, and if I understand the function correctly may not even show up under a lot of conditions - I just turn it on and leave it on, no harm from it so far. You didn't get into low light, but in tough lighting, I'd take the XR anytime... it will be cleaner, have better color and give a more usable image hands down... Contrast is again another area which bugs me when I look at Canon footage - it looks more contrasty because the blacks are crushed, but you'll have lots less detail in shadowy areas to work with in post - yes blacks may "look" blacker in the Canon under some conditions (except at night or in low light where the noise will make the Canon footage much less acceptable while the XR500 will outperform), but after adjusting the XR500, you can get a good picture - try using AE shift set -2 to -4, and tweaking exposure after that if/as needed - Sony tends to lean towards overexposure, and it's always been something you should be prepared to compensate for - the CX500 is even more agressive, IMO, but looks more punchy than the XR500 when dialed back appropriately. Menus take a bit to learn, along with how the camera functions... I can't say I'm a huge fan of the Sony menus, but learn the interface and you'll find it capable of more than you expect. Who needs more than 3 WB settings (and of course "auto")?? I know Canon likes to give you a pile of options, but again, you don't NEED them if you are tweaking in post. I prefer simple over "let's throw lots of options at them"... For that matter, there is "WB shift", which will give you virtually infinite WB control! If you learn the menus, they are effective and offer surprisingly adquate control. When I tested the HV20, I saw LOTS of options/settings, making it appear like you had control, yet VERY limited control was ACTUALLY available IMO when you wanted to tweak their presets - it felt very constricting to me, but perhaps with more time... I couldn't get over the cheap plastic-y construction, so wasn't interested in taking a lot of time to fiddle after that - the audio was so noisy as to be unusable with all the chassis noise, something I've NEVER had with a Sony... Yes, the OIS is superior on the XR500, and has been further improved on the CX500V. The "image stabilization" on the HV's was horrid, not even in the same league, let alone ballpark. Having tried the HV20 (basically the same cam as the HV30), it's a toy by comparison, sorry. Noisy, cheap build, lack of low light performance, and to my eye the crushed blacks, and hot colors that may look good at first glance but will bug you once you catch on to them... The XR500 should give you more usable footage to work with in post once you know how to use it. Sony and Canon have very different approaches to how the image is processed and will appear. Different strokes as the saying goes. I tried the HV20 when it was the "hottest camera ever", and just didn't see it... In the end, you may well prefer the Canon philosophy, which is of course perfectly fine! The XR500V kept pressure on Canon and the HF-S11 and upcoming HF-S21 have numerous upgrades intended to "keep up with the Sonys". In turn, Canon keeps pressure on Sony to improve, so I LOVE Canon too! I wouldn't mind trying the HF-S21, but I suspect it will have the same things image wise that have always tilted me towards the Sonys, but that's what keeps the gear side of this interesting. Try spending some time with the XR500 menus - I hated the "new" menus at first, and found the "even newer" redesigned menus in the CX500 frustrating too, but after a little time, you should "get" what they can do. It is a shift, but it's just like driving a different car, you just have to find everything! |
Dave, thank for your answer and comforting words and advices. i still have not played with sony enough and hope it will surprise me opposite.
the thing that i really like is picture motion browser, really cool think for download and sorting of the files, as preview also, with cool options. maybe you can share a advice on AF, i have not manage to bridle it. simple panning makes you lose the focus in anything than wide angle. focus is definitely slow, when you move the camera he just loses it and starts to goes from another end to other. canon af is really good. i have also tried color correction on premiere cs4, and no easy solution i have found to boost the contrast and color correct it...? any post production tip? i will post my thoughts when i have some more experience with it. on first sighting i was very disappointed with it`s performance. Oh, and no shoulder strap!? i know sony is thinking that once you have it cam in the hand you don`t want to leave the beauty, but some times i would like my hands free and table is not the option :) |
I haven't found the focus to be that big a problem, but if you're used to Canon's active system, I'm sure it would seem slow. If I'm shooting something where I am trying to focus on a certain object, I switch spot focus on - it still may "hunt", but is usually better when it's not trying to figure out what to lock on to.
Focus is always tough, as if there are multiple objects/targets, it may take a while to sort out which to focus on. Canon using an active system is great, as it's at least somewhat likely that the "target" will be the closest object in focal range... Whereas Sony is using algorithms to analyze the image and decide what the target is - there have been some complaints in Sony's high end cameras deciding a wall behind the subject is the "target"... it happens, thus spot or manual/assisted auto focus is a highly desirable feature for eliminating the misunderstandings between camera and operator! I've actually been fairly happy with the footage in post, but I definitely see the CX500 having more bold colors... enough to make the XR500 look a tad flat - I'd suggest booting saturation a bit, actually want to take a closer look at that as I'll be trying to match the XR and CX, and I like colors to be a bit more bold. It's not that the XR is "bad", but I suspect it was tuned more towards a flatter look. When I've looked at unprocessed footage from movies, I've always noticed it looks terribly flat if it's from early enough in the process... perhaps that was an influence... Easy solution for the shoulder strap - these are light enough that a lanyard clipped to the "D" ring in the handstrap is perfect! I made a couple custom ones that I can change the length, but you can find lanyards for keys, etc., and if the length is good for you, you're all set! Get one with a metal clip, I've seen some plastic ones, and wouldn't trust the camera to those. |
8 Attachment(s)
the thing that is missing is definitely the WB stuff. however canon colors may be, it has at least 8 common presets, that are accurate or less accurate. but sony WB breads all the time, it is vary bad for the consistency. in general under the sun/outdoor it is OK. the only shure thing. the rest is a bit of gamble. so it is a vaste, that it has not a locked set of presets. it would make her a more powerful camera.
the focus is not as good, in many respects. first is a constant lack of avernes and not focusing on the front subject. some times front is 80% of the footage, and he lockes on the rear!? in low light especially. very annoying. Raynox RAHD5050PRO HD-5050PRO, 37mm, 0.5x, Super Wide Angle Conversion Lens is a bad peace of glass or plastic for that matter, at least on this sensor under all the aperture settings it is bad so f8 doesn help, the corner vignetting is very `loud` before i had some no name glass, but less wide - it was marvels. raynox is destroying the picture in a manner, where it only use is where widdens is needed for the sake of the quality. but it is very wide. somewhat like 24mm on 35mm lenses (the marvless one was 35mm). that is really great and i am sorry for the less wide angle lens that i will have to carry on this sony camera most of the time the pavement is nice example of raynox lens. corners are in heavy spherical aberrations - more tele and the things gets worse, even in strong light, makinging sure that Fstop is high. you can also see how cops are unsharp. etc.. two pictures of the sony original lens, the difference is huge. /flag, shopwindow/ (all the pictures are in the zip, in original size.. they are sorted in the folders)) Download sonyxr500.zip from Sendspace.com - send big files the easy way the last one is captured photo/video in trolleybus, and you can see how sony xr500 video did not do the mat for the WB, since it is yellowish, but the sony xr500 picture that i took in the same moment is pretty good. but much sharper one is from the video grab :) that is the problem with the sony WB lack of options. since it is pretty bad in the artificial lighting |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network