New Sonys with Iris/shutter!!
 

I know the AX2000 is getting most of the attention (pretty much what I was hoping to see in a new "big" camera, if a little less "big" physically), but along with all the excitement about that camera, some of the other new releases might have been missed... and have some interesting features if the specs on the website are to be believed!

In what "looks" like an otherwise minor incremental upgrade, the XR550V (240G HDD) gets a bigger (and apparently new) 3.5" "trublack" LCD, a different lens range (more "wide", less "tele"), and the control knob button now lists IRIS and SHUTTER options, meaning manual control has once again returned to the small Sonys!!! Also see that up to 24Mbps data rate has been added!

The CX550V (64G flash memory) lists the same identical new feature set, just with flash instead of HDD. AND it sports a viewfinder in the small form factor!

Still no alternate frame rates or progressive (24p, 30p) from what I can tell, but these other upgrades make these two cameras quite interesting - appear to use the same EXMOR-R sensors as "last years" cameras (nothing wrong with that!), but the upgrade choices should make these two new top of the line cams a lot more competitive (Canon's new HF-S21 looks nice TOO!).

I see that they mention a new "FV" battery, making me wonder if these will be backward compatible with the FH series - Sony has this nasty habit of changing the bettery technology, then locking out the older batteries - when FH was released, the FP series were incompatible, hope that's not the case!


Sony also announced a bunch of "lower end" HD cams at lower price points too, but no "R" sensors (and lowere rez) among them, so I'd expect less than exciting low light performance.


Sony also announced two EXMOR-R based 10.2 Mpixel pocket cameras, the TX7 and HX5 that will shoot full 1920x1080 30p video. Having played with a TX1 (current line, shoots 720/30p) and HX1 (current line, non-"R" sensor, shoots 1080/30p) I would expect these new pocket cams to be VERY capable of producing some good images in small packages. I know the DSC-TX1 has been turning out to be a handy item for family use (now if I can just figure out how to propery import the mpeg4 into Vegas!).

At first I too looked at the CX550V as being just great for my ski trips to complement the VholdR Contour1080P headcam but I now think the HX5 is the better choice. Pity it will not be in time for my ski trip beginning of February !!! The TX7 may be but I think the HX5 is a better travel and video substitute camera than the TX7. Again if the specs are correct !!! They shoot 1920x1080 60i by the way at the same rate as the SR11 does but with the R sensor.

The NXCAM will definitely replace my FX1 though. Will wait until the full specs are verified but I expect the NXCAM will be a better fit for me than the AX2000.

Ron Evans

Great for my modest needs
 

I'm really excited about the CX550v. I've been using the CX520v for travel video work and a little more control along with SD card support will be welcome. I also use an HF-S100 and will interested to see how much the HF-S21 stabilization has improved as well, since stabilization is one of the most important functions for my job.

This is terrific news.
I have been so pleased with the XR 520 for a travel/casual cam- now they are giving us 24 mbs, shutter control, AND native wide angle.
The CX version, without the need for a WA adaptor anymore, really makes it a near pro level cam (in terms of image quality) that can be literally stuffed in a pocket.
Not to mention SDHC compatibility (I have a ton of those).
What a deal!!

That new CX550V looks pretty nice to me too, now they added a viewfinder to a CX series. I'm a bit skeptical about the SDHC compatibility, although I've seen an adapter for those mini/micro SDHC cards to the MS Pro Duo slot for a long time on eBay...


Ron - the HX5 does look like pretty good bang for the buck, it's an oddball IMO as it's supposedly replacing the HX1, which is a very different sort of camera (superzoom, like a mini SLR). But could be nice - I used a TX1 on holiday, and there's something to be said for a slim little cam like this!

The 720P from the TX1 is quite good (and I think you're right, these new ones DO shoot 60i at full HD rez), I just haven't figured out why it won't import into Vegas... I get a "still", got to suss that out sometime! One thing to be aware of with these "still" cameras is they aren't going to match the low light performance of the XR/CX - not that they aren't good, but if you're shooting a lot "on the edge" of "too dark", it's something to be aware of. Still, for a "does it all" camera, hard to beat these things!

I think I will get the HX5 for a few reasons. The battery will be the same as my wife's still camera ( W170) for which we have a spare and travel charger, it will fit in my ski jacket pocket rather than carrying a chest bag for the camera, it has Active OIS , and the GPS will be handy too for travel. The sensor is an Exmor R sensor of about the same size as in the video cameras ( 1/2.4 maybe a little bigger than the 1/2.88 of the camcorders !!!) so it will be interesting to see how it performs against the XR500. I don't think they will be available in Canada until March so I will have to wait !!!!!!

Ron Evans

Good sound reasoning - drives me nuts trying to keep track of what batteries are the current flavor!

I know the TX1 has proven to be a great little camera - my others never came out of the bag on the recent holiday trip. Sort of a surprise, but the TX1 was just handier! Considering the video is only 1280x720, it isn't bad at all.

Both the TX1 and the WX1 (current line) have EXMOR R sensors, look to be the same ones as will be in the TX7 and HX5 size wise. The WX has about 2 stops on the TX due to the lens size/design difference, so the HX5 should be about the same I would expect. Neither can reach into XR range, and the CX500 is set up with more gain, so it digs even deeper into dark conditions, but then again neither fits in a pocket!

I find the WX1 to be too small to handle (HX5 looks slightly bigger), but my wife likes it - the TX1 seems to fit better in my hand, and I really like the touch screen interface. Both were good upgrades on some older 5 Mpixel Cybershots!

Are we sure the CX550V has a viewfinder? - a "well known camcorder review site" says not ....

EDIT: Ignore me (and that site - sheesh!) ... yes it does. But more moulded into the body, with no upward rotation, apparently.

I have actually slipped a CX500V into a regular shirt pocket but it was a tight fit and I was afraid it would rip the pocket off due to weight at some point. I've also tried it in a back jeans pocket (OK there) and a front jeans pocket (too small). While it technically could be slid into the rear pocket, again, it was just a bit too big for that.

I did find that I could slip it into the side pocket of two outdoors jackets - one a windbreaker and the other an insulated winter jacket. This was in cold, windy weather while standing on a footbridge overlooking railroad tracks, waiting for the Capitol Limited to show up. It fit in those pockets with room to spare - I would have zipped them up if I were moving around.

So the CX500V is borderline carryable in a large pocket - nothing like carrying one of those 3x digital cameras or a true pocket-sized cam. But the cam is small enough to go in the average outdoors coat pocket, I suspect. Not that I'd generally want to carry a semi-expensive cam anywhere but in a case!

Anyway, just thought I'd report that the CX500V is borderline that small. The CX550V is bigger in all three dimensions, though only a little in one or two. But the two cams do not have the exact same footprint - the newer one is bigger.

Weeeeell... we all know how accurate that site is, most of the time <wink>. The CX550 and XR550 appear to be pretty similar aside from recording media options. 64G is plenty for me... lighter, smaller, absolutely no HDD crash worries (still lurking in the shadows despite not seeing any problems in practice).

If I had to venture a guess, the VF will pull out as an alternate switching mechanism (opening LCD turns cam on), ala the XR500 - once extended, it can be tilted up a bit. It did appear there might be a power switch though, so this could prove incorrect, guess we'll have to wait and see!

Tom -
I consider the CX series to be "pocketable" in the sense of a big jacket pocket, where these new still cams would fit in just about anything short of tight jeans! The TX1 is thinner than my cell phone and only slightly larger in the other two directions...

Either way, you can get small cases that protect reasonably well that are very small and discrete! I rig a neck lanyard to the "D" ring on the handstrap for easy access shooting, since they really don't have room for a traditional neck strap, that's a handy trick.

What's really is hard to believe is how good an image you can get in these small packages - I see the shortcomings, yet it's incredible how good the image quality is, considering the price point and size. The TX1 is the least expensive cam I've got (not counting cell phone, which actually does "shoot video"... yuck), and almost the smallest, yet it captures pretty high quality that I'm pretty sure would beat most if not all of the SD cameras in a "consumer" price range from just a few short years ago.

I'll definitely be looking into that AX2000 over the HC40 now...

Since it hasn't been mentioned .. these new Sonys' 35mm equivalent zoom range appears to be 29.8mm-298mm vs. 43mm-516mm on the previous models. And I think the new HFS Canons still start at ~43mm, right?

EdIT: Sorry Dave, I just meant the numerical values for the focal lengths hadn't been mentioned.

That's the different lens range I mentioned, starts quite a bit wider and not as much on the tele end.

The still cams are definitely unobtrusive and meant to slip in pockets. The CX500V isn't designed for that, it's too big still. But I think part of what you've identified is that the cams can get smaller and the vendors are miniaturizing effectively - probably soon up to the point where the quality of output is completely there and issues of handling and user interface keep the cams from getting smaller. Kind of like the uncomfortable attempts to use a keyboard with a tiny phone - it can be done but it has limits based on people instead of technology (they could make a functioning keyboard a LOT smaller than they do, but no one could use it!).

The way scientists and engineers have packed enormous amounts of memory and computing power into smaller, cooler, more efficient, and cheaper designs is just revolutionary.

I'm pleased to see Sony including a wider angle lens, and will probably buy one of the CX line for this very feature. I'll probably get an HX5 too.

While I have a couple of wide angle adapters for my Canon HV20, they add bulk and weight and really hinder the "pocket" nature of the camera. When you add too much extra gear to these cameras they begin to lose their appeal.

Pity about the dearth of progressive frame rates in the new Sonys though. Is it really so difficult to include native 24p? Canon is doing so this year. Apparently the HX5 includes 30p, but -- ironically -- the CX line does not?

I agree that these small cameras are incredibly useful as travel cams. If used artfully, they can produce a high quality image. I have a PMW-EX1 and love it, but it's not something you want to tote around all day.

RE the use of SD cards with the CX/XR 550-
I'm thinking that they are using the same card slots that are in the new Sony NXCam- The slot will fit either the Duo or SD card. I haven't read this specifically for the CX/XR cameras, but I have read this detail for the NXCam. The specs for the CX & XR clearly state that they are SD compatable, so it makes sense.
Hope it is true anyway.

Sony chose not to include 24p at all on its regular-sized consumer camcorders because a lot of people still have 60 Hz-only HDTV's. Despite the increasing number of available HDTV sets which support refresh rates in multiples of 24 Hz, the sad truth (at least for now) is that the majority of HDTV units (as opposed to models) that were actually sold are 60 Hz-only units. As a result of this unfortunate compromise between image quality and popularity (and also Sony's sticking strictly to the officially supported Blu-Ray specs, which allow 1080p only at 24 fps), the consumer regular-sized Sony camcorders will continue to record only interlaced video for the foreseeable future. (The Sony pocket cameras, on the other hand, can use 1080p30 because the target market for those models are people who make videos for uploading to the Internet or viewing on a PC.)

What's more, Sony (and a few other manufacturers) still include SDTV (480i) recording modes in their HD camcorders. Canon's AVCHD camcorders in the consumer line, on the other hand, are permanently fixed at 1080-line recording (no SDTV recording capability is possible); however, a choice of 60i, 30p and 24p modes are available. And as for native 24p recording capability on Canon's new camcorders, only the upper levels of its high-end line will offer this capability. The other, less-expensive Canons will continue to encode 24p inside a 60i stream.

Also I suspect that Sony tends to cater to the "consumer", and many people don't like the motion signature of 24p video - it's very much a "film maker" demand. The added support calls when a soccer mom accidently switches modes and wonders why the video stutters aren't probably worth it to them... that thar "easy" button is there for a reason pardner.

Personally, I'm not even that fond of the 1080 30p that my DSC-HX1 shoots - to me I see the individual frames and a less smooth video - it "works", most people would never see the difference, but it does pop out to me.

I agree with Dave. I don't like the slow frame rates either really bothers me and its even worse when the camera person swings the camera around just like an interlaced camera--- terrible. Can't wait for 60P or more personally. Some of these latest Sony's now output 60P from the HDMI, nice move making up for some poorer deinterlacers in flat panel displays. Sony's market is definitely the consumer and the point and shoot one at that for most of their market hence the iAuto modes on all their newer still cameras and the Easy button on the video camera ( my daughter leaves this on all the time!!!) Manufacturers don't get rich on selling low cost cameras to a very small segment of the marketplace and like Dave says the possibility of service calls from people who don't understand the issues with slow frame rate shooting.
24fps was a business decision of the last century to minimize the film stock distributed to cinemas. It had nothing to do with art or technology it was the slowest they could run the film and get acceptable sound. Before sound they ran the film even slower!!!!! Once all those cinemas had projectors the frame rate was set for decades. Hopefully with digital projection and HD we can get away from the last century economic effects. The film look is driven by the need to mask the slow frame rate. Shallow depth of field to blur the juddering backround, specific angles to mask the judder of moving objects, moving camera slowly on a dolly rather than panning , the colour saturation etc etc etc. Most of the techniques can be used with a higher frame rate of course!!!!
Personally I applaud Sony for leaving off the slow frame rates.
For me 24p on a video camera has one valid reason-a lower cost way of making and transferring to film to show at a film festival on a projector.
Ron Evans

I agree with you and Dave as well. If Sony left this off to enable giving me improved EIS, a bigger sensor, and other features I use, I'm all for that decision. I've always suspected this whole focus on 24p was being carried on by a very small but very vocal minority of the cam community. I don't want their obsession with that mode costing me money or lost features, frankly.

And how many CX series buyers target film festivals, anyway? Great point!

The small Canons have an 'Easy" button too, so it's not really an either-or situation.

Given that 24p is one of the two 1080 Blu-Ray options, that Vimeo seems to encode most (all?) of their clips in 24P, and that my new DSLR shoots 24p, I'm glad Canon doesn't think I'm too dumb to use it appropriately, and continues to make it available.

EDIT: Tom, if 24p was at the of cost those other features, then I would agree. But is there ANY evidence that is so? - I don't think so!

Agreed. I don't see how frame rates is an "either/or" proposition. There's no evidence that the inclusion of progressive frame rates dictates a removal of other features (Canon seems to manage just fine with its flagship camcorders). More frame rates = more choice.

This wider angle and shorter highest focal-length will probably be popular with many serious videomakers, along with the dedicated controls for shutter and exposure. But for some of us, who shoot wildlife and sports events, it's not a welcome change. If the flash memory models still have the 43mm to 516mm range and all the other new features, that would
prompt a move away from those with the harddrives. As usual, no one gets everything they want, in a single model. If I put my 2.2X telex on the XR550, I'd get only 655mm, instead of 1135mm, which isn't nearly enough for shooting birds on the far side of a river. I'd much rather pop on a wide-angle lens, than be limited to such a short lens reach.

Different features for different users. I prefer the maximum zoom focal length be even more limited than on the new Sonys: My maximum comfort level for focal length is a 35mm equivalent of only 85mm. (I said 85mm rather than a shorter focal-length equivalent because any shorter and the depth of field would become so great that the camera manufacturer might as well eliminate autofocusing in favor of fixed focus, and I have never been satisfied with the performance of fixed-focus cameras.) Any longer and I would have to permanently weld the camcorder onto an 800 trillion-pound block of concrete in order to even get a usable moving image since not even a $1000 tripod would hold a telephoto shot steadily enough to maintain a usable image with a 1/60 second shutter. You see, nearly all of my videos were shot in areas where the ground itself shakes quite a lot with all the truck and train traffic in the area - and in such a circumstance, a tripod or monopod proved worse than nothing at all because they tend to amplify any vibrations coming from the ground.

And please note that this is my current situation. Extremely long telephotos only work if the ground is perfectly still.

And of course, no handheld shot is as steady as a tripod-mounted shot under normal circumstances. The problem is that I often shoot in areas which specifically prohibit the use of a tripod or monopod.

I'm extrapolating from 35 years of building software products commercially. There is almost ALWAYS more feature you can pack into a product than you have people to implement it or materials it can include due to price. It's all about logistics and implementing the most important items first for your goal. Sometimes the goal is gaining market share, sometimes it's getting an avant garde reputation for innovation. Sometimes it's serving a mass market instead of appealing to specialists. I will guarantee you all of these conversations go on as the different camcorder lines are being developed.

For real-time computing scenarios such as filming video, every feature is going to get a maximum time/storage budget it can use compared to every other feature the cam delivers. I gave the classic example once of how much computing budget is given to the artificial intelligence steps in games. To us, it seems like the processor isn't stretched at all by what it's being required to do. But real-time continuous computing processes near the bleeding edge suck up storage and processor time like you wouldn't believe. So the designers are making choices based on real-world limitations interacting with the goals. If Sony ignored 24p for a while, it was a business or technical limitations choice - it wasn't some personal preference someone had for ignoring 24p.

So given what's being done today and the level of processor change over the last five years, yes, I'm making an extrapolation I'm very confident is close to reality. If you've never worked in a tight resources business, this won't make sense to you. But if you have, you only need to make the jump that these cams are now much more computerish than camera-like. The optics have become the easy part. The real-time graphics processing and compression going on in these cams is a phenomenal piece of work. You're talking top scientists and software engineers hammering out solutions that look trivial to outsiders, hiding all the complexity. But we can see some of that because not every cam offers every desirable feature. If it were a trivial thing to implement all the features, what marketing person would let the cam designers get away with not doing that?

So an example here would be Sony investing in the Exmor-R chip design and supporting software to significantly improve their low light performance. I care about that performance, I'm not interested in 24p as an art medium. Sony made a choice there that I like, and I'm sure they had to pick and choose what to implement or not implement, and a schedule for the former. All I was saying here was I like the order of their choices. I in fact chose not to buy cams where the marketing and design folks made different choices - I voted with my wallet for the features I want. On the other hand, Sony put GPS into these cams, too, which is of marginal value to me outside of being neat. So if they had put GPS into a CX12 instead of better optics, the Exmor-R, etc, to make up the CX500V - I would have voted not to spend more money to get just that new feature set.

If Sony isn't making these kind of choices because they have infinite resources and capacity in the cams they don't use and they just don't care to cover all bases, then they'd be an incredible exception to product development, in my opinion. So I am showing a bias here and assuming they operate under the same constraints the rest of us operate under when we're building or enhancing things.

Randall-I'm in the same boat and often cannot use a tripod or monopod. I had the XR520v and replaced it with the CX520v because any incremental improvement in stabilization is huge for me.

Do you know if the CX550v stabilization has been improved relative to the CX520v? The stabilization that Sony is touting throughout the new product line sounds like the same that is already in the CX520v...

On the other hand, if there's two separate card slots, there could be the ability to automatically switch recording to the 2nd card, when the first one is full.

Two slots would be great, but I'm sure a feature like that would be touted prominently in the promotional info rather than in the fine print.
I'll just be glad to have the option- tho, honestly, with 64GB of reliable flash memory onboard, I may not even use cards anymore. I think that's about 6 hrs @ 24mbs. That's an awful lot of 10-15 sec clips.

My issue isn't with progressive frame rates its with 24p. It can not be seen in its true frame rate on a 60 or 50hz display. It has to be modified to play using pulldown of some sort because 24 does not divide into 60 or 50. The display has to be a multiple in refresh rate. 72, 120 etc . To emulate a film projector the display is best with 5 blade shutter emulation ie 120hz display refresh, displays each frame 5 times. However what people see when viewing 24p on a 60hz display is an effect. 30p is different( at least for 60hz) For editing and transfer to film for projection its a good approach. But for video its just an effect. In my mind not very watchable either because the means of displaying on a 60hz display exaggerates the judder inherent in 24p and creates a cadence only seen on TV not a film projector. One now watches the deficiences of the slow frame rate AND of displaying on a 60HZ display. If you like the totally unreal motion thats your choice. I would like progressive but at least 60P until then its 60i for me.

Ron Evans

Tom & Dan -
Sort of an observation from using Sonys for a while that might apply to both of your posts... Sony seems to continually develop their firmware side of things as they release cameras, meaning if there's room to tweak, they probably will... sometimes this will be for better, sometimes maybe not... for instance, I see significantly more noise/gain in the CX500 in low light mode, but it's also a lot brighter and better color in low lux than the XR500. Don't like the noise, but sometimes that extra boost could be handy, and I've learned to dial it back...

I also see a significant difference in the OIS of the CX500 vs. the XR500, particularly in the "roll" axis, I'd expect that to be the same or even better in the new 550's of both flavors. It's pretty dang good, and I would observe that the different lens range will probably make it "appear" even better, simply because stabilization tends to become relatively easier the wider the frame, and the new range is significantly wider (I'm torn as to whether this is "better" and now wondering whether I should try to pick up some good tele glass... got the good HG series WA's...)

As for the addition of iris and shutter, there's no doubt the "hooks" were already in the hardware - they HAD to be for the camera to adjust in auto modes - they no doubt saw all the criticism here and elsewhere and realized that adding the access to allow user intervention was simply a matter of a few (hundred?) lines of code and a slightly altered user interface.

As Tom notes, the lens and sensor mechanics are probably pretty well dialed in (making the new lens range a bit of a surprise to me!), and the DSP/computer internal to the camera no doubt has adequate power and speed to do most every possible function (although I recall seeing what appeared to be the hardware "hitting the overhead ceiling" in the SR11...). BUT it takes time to get the firmware developed, tweaked, and ready for prime time (I've seen commentary from Sony execs that indicates this is at least partly why there is no DSLR-V from Sony YET!).

SO this year's model, we get access to iris and shutter and 24 Mbps bitrate - maybe a little hollering we can get zebra and peaking (ala the HC7-HC9 "upgrade"), and it really shouldn't be that difficult to add 24p and 30p IF they thought the market expected it... my guess is that Sony simply does not feel that the customers who buy these cams are intending to shoot a feature film with it, but are wanting the highest quality possible in VIDEO.

OTOH, how much of the market is passing on these just because these features aren't there? Probably going to be a lot of people again this year that go to the Canon HF-S21 because of the perception (and it looks like it might be a real serious horserace between this and the CX550V - if the Sony needs new batteries, the upgrade choice becomes a lot more interesting... the feature sets are pretty close this time out, with the Canon also supposed to be sporting improved low light and OIS!).

Customer comments on software products I've built echo much of what Dave suggests. Every change you make is evaluated by a user almost solely from his or her perspective. For the exact same change, you'll get "I've been waiting for years for that" to "please please please put it back the way it was" to "I don't care one way or the other, do my enhancement and stop screwing around with these other stupid changes". The job of your marketing people is typically to steer the developers into the changes that will please the customers and/or sell more of your product. This process often looks to users as if it's totally random, but of course, it's not supposed to be that, and in a well-run company, it's not random at all.

My guess is that the cam manufacturers are always close to hitting the hardware ceiling but the internal CPUs and GPUs get more powerful every year whether they advertise that or not. In other words, I suspect they're much closer to the limit than we suspect but the increases in computing power will let them continue to improve things each year for quite a while.

In the general case of the digital camcorder, it's a very special-purpose computer. It helps that they can set a hard performance limit to meet and they either do or don't and they can test for it. The performance / feature balance is much harder to work out where your software runs on a wide range of hardware and your user base is lots of simultaneous users. Having one piece of hardware being used by one person with very specialized needs must be very liberating in some ways...

A thought re "iris" and "shutter". From other discussions here and based on Steve Mullen's work, I think "iris" still physically exists in these cams but it sounds like "shutter" doesn't. The equivalent of the analog shutter is now the fully digital CMOS integration period - how long the electronic sensor chip is actually allowed to accept light inputs until processing of the current state is forced to occur. Steve also noted that the slowness of the physical iris vs the fully electronic "shutter (CMOS integration period)" means that the original analog equation where the iris setting is primary and the shutter speed secondary is reversed in the processing of light going on in the Sony cams. It also should be possible to apply different processing to different parts of the CMOS chip outputs - that may be how they achieve sharper focus or smile detection in specific spots. So the whole process really isn't an "iris and shutter" process anymore in a real sense, but it does make people familiar with it from analog days or still photography happy to have it presented to them that way.

One other astounding accomplishment that makes me want to tip my hat to the camcorder developers: the science and math behind the computing is high-level stuff. It's not trivial in the slightest. But in 4-5 years of using digital cams, I don't remember a single instance where the software failed outright on me in any way. I may have taken video where the video processing software didn't handle what I threw at it, probably because I used the cam poorly. But from the standpoint of the operational software, to build something so complicated but so reliable is unheard of in the applications and Windows software I use and write. You push most applications long enough (even within their design) and they will flake out on you in some highly visible way. If you're a software developer, you have to stand in awe of the people developing the software for these cams. I'd bet that errors do occur periodically and there is lots of horsepower devoted to redundancy and error recovery so you just don't see the problem. My group devotes about 1/4 of its time to bulletproofing regular software and regression testing. I suspect the percentage is even higher for camcorders - at least the reliable ones!

Based on Steve Mullen's analysis of the XR12s and CX12s, the iris still has a physical reality or close analogue but the shutter does not. The shutter is emulated in certain ways electronically but overall what we call that is only one continuously variable input to a very complicated set of programs that control how light is gathered off the sensor chip and processed.

So the UI for telling people Iris and Shutter can be controlled was probably simple. But the shutter speed values probably need all sorts of translation to go from what the user indicates to what the cam actually needs to do. I refer back to Steve's table showing four or five variables and what each exposure setting represents in those cases. I think "shutter speed" is being transformed into some much more complicated equivalent in a multi-variate equation and then the real electronics and processing kick in. Exposure settings already provided by Sony may provide a more direct way of achieving the results than "shutter speed". But so many individuals have used "shutter speed" in the past that eventually it has to go into the UI.

Again, this is all based on Steve's documentation of how the immediate predecessor cams worked internally. Providing "shutter speed" controls may (repeat, may) be an example of people saying "I don't care how it really works, put it back the way it used to be expressed because I think I understood that and can work with it". That's the power of users!

That physical opportunity existed in the CX5xx series but isn't present. They have internal large chips and you can get 16GB to 32GB chips for the removable memory slot. So they could have designed it to flip to the other chip if the first one fills up. Like other features, if enough people clamor for it, it may show up someday. I don't see any real technological barriers to it except for how to get the extraction software to know it was done. That doesn't seem like a showstopper.

You can actually SEE the iris configuration on the Sony pages for these cameras - in the picture that they use for the steady shot, you can see the 6 leaf shutter blades. I shot a few seconds of the sun - something I did with the SR11, and you can see a different pattern to the "rays" around such a bright light source - the XR also handled it much better than the SR.

You may be correct about the "shutter" actually being actually related to the CMOS refresh rate, in which case it would be interesting to test the infamous "rolling shutter" at different shutter speeds - in theory a faster refresh would aproach the ideal "global shutter" if fast enough.

Memory sticks/record times/storage:
The "rollover" capability should be possible - could have sworn I saw something about some camera doing it automatically? Maybe the Canon? On the AX2000/NX5 they have two physical slots - lots easier when the camera is bigger!. With "mixed media" (internal flash/HDD/Mem stick) it should be possible, but might get "interesting" spanning "drives" with some removable, some not... I can see some "user errors" cropping up!

I'm pretty sure that 64G on the new CX550V will be plenty - 8G records right around 1 hour, even if the 24Mbps bitrate takes more space (worst case 50% more than 16Mbps?), you're looking at 5 1/2 hours of recording time on the internal memory - that ought to be enough? You'd have to change batteries a couple times before you ran out, and 8G MS duos have come down (not to mention SDHC, presuming those work as advertised). I'll gladly take the smaller size/weight of the CX550V now that it has a VF and adequate internal storage!

"Feature creep" is a factor in ANY electronic/software device - a camera has an advantage in that it's a dedicated/closed "system", so I think you avoid all the fun compatibility issues that are usually responsible for "system crashes"? That probably helps some, but then there is still the challenge of "what to change/add/delete?" I know my first reaction to the "new" CX500 menu was mixed... but in the end it's not TOO traumatic to adjust to a new interface - the problem comes when you're used to one interface, and they go and change things around!!

I don't mind "learning" a new camera, I just like it when there are enough new features or improvements to justify the time - at first these two new cams didn't look that exciting, but after digging deeper, they may be a lot more interesting!

I am taking back part of this quote. The ability of recording in 24p mode may no longer be the case on the lower lines of the new Canon camcorders. And the native 24p recording applies to all models in the (new) high-end HF-S series. It is likely that the mid-tier HF-M series will include 24p encoding in a 60i stream, while the entry-level HF-R series might record 60i video only.

As for SD recording capability, all of the new HF-S models, plus those HF-M and HF-R models with built-in flash memory, can downconvert HD to SD in-camera - but that will be a separate step.

I checked Canon's USA site again, and discovered that all of these new Canons do offer 24p and 30p recording modes encoded inside a 60i stream. The HF-S2#(#) series will offer an additional, native 24p recording mode in addition to the 24p-encoded-inside-a-60i-stream mode.

On the other hand, in order to keep the price of the HF-R series low, Canon limited the maximum recording bitrate of the camcorders in that line to 17 Mbps. This is due to their very small 1/5.5" sensors (even smaller than the 1/5" sensor in my Sony CX100). The two higher lines offer full 24 Mbps recording bitrates.

I see some desirable features in the 55x series as before, but I am still very happy I bought the CX500V with the 12x zoom and different optical specs. I hope they offer the same two years down the road, or two models with different optical behavior optimized for distance or width.

I just spent some time at Disney World and needed a wide angle lens for the first time there to capture the fireworks at Illuminations. I probably could have just backed up 20-30 yards but then I might have lost some stability (shooting on a wall) or might have lost the unobstructed view itself. I carried the wide angle lens with me this trip because I had noticed this possible need before and that lens is small and light where the telephoto lens is large and heavy. I returned a second night this trip to use the 12x zoom to capture what was being shown on the globe itself during the show - something hard to catch with inadequate zoom. In fact, I couldn't really make it out with the naked eye but should have nice video to watch now at the 12x level.

So as you suggest, I'd rather carry a wide angle lens infrequently than a telephoto most of the time. I use the full in-cam telephoto all the time, the widest angle rarely. Others may do exactly the opposite, particularly filming family gathering indoors from what I've read here. But this is one way in which the earlier cam has an edge for certain types of filming.

I think that at least some of the explanation for the new lens range goes to "apparent stability" of the end image.

I'm sure we've all noticed that at the tele end of things, it's bloody hard to keep a stable image unless you're on a tripod - so by going with the "wider" lens, voila, even more stable video, even if no improvement is made to the excellent OIS! Plus you can get in closer to a subject, play with the iris setting, and probably achieve a bit more respectable DoF effect I suspect.

BUT you're definitely losing if you NEED the long tele end of the range... which may or may not be acceptable, I know I want to sit down and fiddle with the approximate ranges and see whether it will affect the type of shooting I typically do. I've got good WA glass, not so much in the tele department, and what I do have is bulkier and there's no escaping the vignetting, something I don't have with the WA... It's going to come down to whether the new lens range is a good fit, something to think about... Sure would be nice to see a refresh of the XR500V and CX500V with the new features - wonder if the firmware could be hacked?

I think we very often forget the target market that Sony is aiming for with most of their cameras. Its point and shoot. They may have some manual controls but they expect most of the people to leave the camera on EASY, hence the importance of the iAuto modes and now GPS etc. Also the simple interconnect to the stand alone DVD burner etc. And in camera deinterlacing to 60p for good playback on flat panel displays. Sorry, their market focus is not the enthusiast trying to get a lot out of a consumer camcorder. Sony would like us to buy the high end !!!! ( If Sony made a small high camcorder I might well buy it) With this in mind I am happy with the combination of clever auto modes for the Handicams with main camera being the high end. I use the SR11 and XR500 as unattended cameras( always on wide, so the wider the better for me) and I really like the clever auto modes. Other uses are for family events where once again the wide angle is more useful together with all the other fancy new features like face detection. The new CX550 looks really good based on my requirements, if it had zebra it would be great and replace the SR11 that my wife sometimes uses as another attended cam.

Ron Evans