Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Thanks, Chris for giving your view on the camera. I guess generally speaking the small sensors plus that ambitious zoom range would be too much a compromise technically for a "step-up" from my EX1R. Looks like either the new PXW-X200 or the much cheaper X70 are the only practical choices for the kind of fast shooting and mostly hand-held, no scene set-up shooting I do.

The X200 in particular seems to strike the perfect balance between size, convenient run and gun controls and the overall IQ. 2/3" cameras are significantly bulkier and lack convenient automated controls like AF and image stabilization. Bigger format cameras are IMO out of the question for fast run and gun shooting.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

I am not sure what else you expected. The 160/180 are updated models of the PMW160 and NX5U both with 1/3" sensors. With that sensors size they will start to go soft quickly above F5.6 and on my NX5U I try and stay in the F3.4 to F4 range. That way I do not see the ramp in the lens when zooming either. To stay there one must use ND's or gain and I agree that with the NX5U above 9db and it really starts to show grain. 12db is the absolute limit. Using this approach the 160/180 have the nice feature of variable ND which would make it a lot easier to follow my approach. Set iris and gain and ride exposure using the variable ND. I looked at upgrading to a 160 from my NX5U but the issue of new media and batteries etc still leave me thinking.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

I will be getting my hands on an X200 for a try out in the next couple of weeks or so. Looking forward to putting it through its paces. To me that camera ticks a lot of boxes, a lot of which you outlined WC. F13 sensitivity with those new 1/2" sensors in that size camera will be decent performers I'm sure . The new 17x lens and overall size and ergonomics plus XAVC really appeal to me.

I have a number of clients, mainly sports broadcast, who will still require me to shoot XDCam disc so for them I will continue to do so. For that sort of work a nice hi-res 2" viewfinder and long B4 lens with remote servo is still the easiest kit to work with. For anything else though something like the 200 would fit the bill quite nicely I think. An x200 and an x70 would make for quite a nice little combo and all up for my mixture of work they offer more flexibility than just a full size ENG type camera. As always there is no perfect camera. Like a carpenter, different sized chisels for different aspects of the job.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Paul,
you are far more experienced than me, but I'm finding that the24X zoom loses a little quality but is still at least as good as the HMC150 I had before. I can't see it being as poor as a $200 camcorder
I'm limiting AGC to 18 where I can, that seems OK. But at 33 gain you need 'Neat ' to take away some of the noise.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

$200 camcorders look pretty good circa 2015. :-)

How does Neat handle motion, say 30db of gain at 60 frames per second?

Paul

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

with difficulty! but, as I'd filmed at 33dB by mistake early on ( left on iA!), it did something, but at that level it was very easy to get a plastic look, The shots were static, no real motion, Thai monks walking very slowly, not your level of action! but it helped. Not used it since on lower gains
The difficulty was that the image was very 'busy'- no large area of pure noise, too many objects in the image. Neat works best when the is large area of pure noise that it can calculate from, then is does a good job

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Most of the testing I've seen has been in daylight situations, which renders good results. In poor lighting, clear zoom on the X70 is not so good.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Chris: General / off-topic question I know, but hopefully there is a quick answer or redirect me to the relevant info. I usually see sensitivity quoted as minimum illumination in lux, which I understand. But how does this equate to these F values. I did try to google F / sensitivity etc, but no dice - I keep pulling up definitions for F stops.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

This may be of some use. What is Lux: Shedding Some Light on Low Light Cameras | Videomaker.com But generally unless cameras are tested side by side and one can see the quality of the image then the ratings only mean much if they come from the same manufacturer in the same division !!! For instance my NX5U has low light rating of 1.5 lux 1/30 shutter and auto gain ( which means gain will go to 18db at which point the image is not usable !!!) My NX30U is quoted at 6 lux at 1/60 shutter auto so gain is about 27db and is much more usable than the NX5U at 12 db !! I did a test a little while back of NX5U, X70, NX30U and FDR-AX1 in the same room set to get about the same framing and image quality. NX5U F1.7 9db, X70 F2.8 24db, NX30U, F1.7, 18db, AX1 F1.7 24db.

Ron Evans

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Basically, f13@2000 LUX would mean that the camera would require an iris setting of f13 to produce 100IRE video level when it's target is being struck by 2000 lux of illumination. If another camera has to open it's iris up to f8@2000, say an old 1990's Betacam, you could see how that would be a less light sensitive camera. Last generation 3 tube cameras were right around f4-f5.6@2000.

F12@2000 is the current high point for 60Hz (f13 for 50Hz) HD broadcast cameras. My old Panasonic SPX800 was f13@2000 (f14 in PAL), but it was standard def from the 2005 era. I really wish they would make some sweet super low light 1080P 3 chip cameras that focus on bigger pixels rather than packing a 10 billion super duper megapixel sensor into stuff that doesn't need it. the smaller each pixel is, the less photons will be able to strike it sending a "light" signal to the recorder.

Paul

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Okay. So basically the digital zoom exacerbates any noise issues related to poor lighting conditions? So sunny day/brightly lit room = okay, muddy room = not so okay.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Exactly. The ClearImage zoom is the same as any other digital zoom, except you get a little better performance due to the 20.9MP's worth of pixels.

Paul

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Paul, I understood the ClearImage Zoom to be a crop of the 20 Mega pixel sensor, and therefore not like a digital zoom, but more like the GH4 with tele zoom, are you saying that is not the case?

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

Either way, sounds like in bad conditions = bad image.

Re: Sony PXW-X70 announced: Pro XDCAM version of AX100
 

I'm not 100% sure about the X70 but on my AX100 and CX900, identical cameras optically speaking, the Clear Image Zoom reduces the image detail noticeably. The more I zoom in the more it becomes noticeable. On the AX100, this CIZ is limited to 18x in 4K mode and 24x which is the same as the CIZ on the CX900 in 1080p mode. What makes me believe the CIZ is just a cropped-and-scaled up of either the raw 4K and HD image frame is that this CIZ feature is always activated whenever I select the Steadyshot in Active mode. In the standard Steadyshot mode when the lens is stabilized only optically, I can't use CIZ and it's the same vice versa.

The easiest thing to do is try zooming in on a very detailed scene or chart at the full tele at both the normal 12x and CIZ at 24x. I'm sure you will see the difference.