Come on now Ken, appropriate? The original topic was basically questioning CMOS vs CCDs, so I think all the posts, yours and mine and everyone else's have been perfectly appropriate. This has been a perfectly civil and healthy debate, IMO.

Speaking of CMOS, has anyone shot with the HDR-XR500v yet alongside a FX1000 or Z5? I just discovered these in another thread and they appear to be amazing little cameras. These are, of course a 1/2" cmos chips and I am thinking about getting one or two.

No, they're not. They are 1/2.88", or just over 1/3". The video they produce is stunning.

Sony | HDR-XR500V 120GB High Definition Handycam | HDR-XR500V

HDR-XR520V | HDR-XR520V 240GB High Definition Handycam® Camcorder | Sony | SonyStyle USA

Things you should know about the 500/520 before you rush out and buy one (they're the same except for HDD size): They're AVCHD, which you've already said you don't like. Despite having a chip about the same size as the FX1000/Z5, they're about half as light sensitive at the same shutter speed (and we all know how you feel about low-light). They don't have a LANC input -- none of the new compact Sonys do -- so you can't use any LANC remote controllers you might have. And they're still CMOS; your feelings about that are pretty clear as well.

XR500/520 Manual

I'm begging you to download and read the manual before you buy one of these so you know what it can and cannot do. You really need to be a little less impulsive and do more research before you buy, Jeff, or we'll see still more posts about yet another quick purchase that you're disappointed with and are trying to sell. All due respect, of course ;-).

Actually I was wondering about the long clip thing you mentioned, I wonder if the memory card duo has the same file size limitations as the other cards. I'll be checking that out.

Its good to be in a forum where people know you, how else would I get such specific tips and advice?

Actually, I have resolved the AVCHD issue, at least for the Panasonic. I shot a wedding over the weekend but only late afternoon did I figure out the transcoding thing, and it worked beautifully with the Panasonic transcoder. It was a piece of cake.

The transcoder wouldn't work on the first wedding because it was shot in 720p. I shot Friday in 1080i and it transcoded quickly and painlessly.

I since cancelled the sale of the camera and am giving it another run this weekend.

Thanks for the link Adam. I have seen the listing at B and H and was shocked at the low price of the cam for the quality of it. Very nice.

The Memory STICK is for stills only, not video. Video goes to the HDD. But the manual makes no mention of any file size limitation.

Actually I just read a review and now understand the role of the memory stick which makes sense. As a Sony owner I should have known instantly the stick was for stills, especially since it is a hard drive cam. I have never used a video camera for stills so it never even occurred to me. I thought the stick was some kind of supplemental memory for video.

Anyway Anderew, I just re-read some of Ron Evans' posts and he said that using the Sony software you can have hours of footage come off of the drive as a single file if that is how it was recorded. Sweet, eh?

A few corrections. They do record video to the memory stick. They will even record from the HDD in camera to the memory stick just a few selected clips. In fact one can record still to the HDD and video to the Memory stick if you want. Storage is independently selectable for video and still to the media of choice. They do have LANC but it is on the "D" connector so the new Sony consumer tripods have this connector and will control with variable zoom these new cameras as well as buttons for photo and guide frame. I just bought one of these tripods and took the handle off and put it on my Manfrotto. Cables are available to go from this new 10 pin connector to the old style LANC. lKan have a new unit that will control these cameras with a built in monitor too. File size is FAT32 as are all these flash cameras. I think one reason for this is that FAT32 is economical for small memory sizes in the amount of overhead it uses. The camera is not perfect but for about $1000 it is wonderful.
Editing with the output is easy if one doesn't try and do it the same old way. Use the Sony Browser software to capture to the PC and the FAT32 files size limit is invisible. Use Cineform or Canopus HQ conversion and editing speed is not an issue. Just archive the AVCHD , they use less space than HDV ( about 2/3 thirds). The XR500 may not be as sensitive as the FX1000/Z5 but it is more sensitive than my FX1 with more apparent latitude and a lot less video noise. The controls are not there to satisfy me as a main camera but as an unattended camera that will do a credible job on AUTO it is very good. And the XR500 will record about 14 hours continuously at 1920x1080 double that time for the XR520. As a family camera totally meets all the requirements I have for a one camera unit. Good stills, superb OIS, excellent face recognition features and really small.

Ron Evans

Jeff, if you've got the AVCHD editing issue resolved, why would you even consider additional CMOS-based units, let alone keeping the Sony, considering how strongly you feel about RS? You feel the 150 is a superior camcorder, has no RS issues, so I'm confsued.

I'd think you'd stick with your Panny, sell the Sony and add to it from there.

As to my comments in the other post, it's perfectly fine to point out issues of the camera being discussed in the thread, but your touting of the 150 as a better camera is pretty pervasive regardless of the discussion or thread.

Adam, I've got the Sony 500 and you can actually record video to a memory stick if you so choose. Oops, I just saw Ron addressed this.

As to it matching up with the bigger Z5 or 1000, it does have a somewhat similair color balance, so that's good. However, as you'd expect, the Z5 has a great breadth of color and, as Ron pointed out, greater exposure latitude. What I find fascinating is that the XR500 actually has less noise than the Z5 (or any other camcorder I've ever seen!) but the Z5 will have a brighter picture at the same low lux readings.

In theory, yes. But read the posts in the Tapeless forum and you'll find it doesn't always work.

And really, Jeff, how would you feel if I called you Jerry?

Good point; I stand corrected.Then it isn't LANC. I didn't say they didn't have remote.

Don't get me wrong: I think this little beauty is a gem. I've seen screen grabs where it blows away the EX1. I just want Jeff to know more about it before he jumps.

It is indeed LANC. LANC doesn't only come on a 1/8" connector. LANC protocol started life on a 5 pin DIN connector( I still have an SVHS Sony with the 5 pin DIN and a 5 pin DIN to 1/8" adapter cable), then migrated to the 1/8" connector labeled remote or LANC depending on model. You are correct that if someone has a 1/8" LANC remote control it is not immediately usable. There are several adapter cables that will make this work though. So all that is needed is an adapter. Some of these adapter cables will also make audio and video available for monitoring.
You also mentioned issues with files in your response to Jeff. Could you reference that for me as I have not had any such problems with SR7, SR11 or XR500 and these were and are all used as fixed wide cameras unattended sometimes for up to 3 hours. This over a two year time frame and all these files have been transferred to the PC as one clip as expected. However one MUST use the Sony Browser software. It is also very easy to divide the clips in camera and delete unwanted video before transferring. Most of the response of problems are usually people trying to bypass using the manufacturers software and just bring the files over to the PC and then trying to join them together.

Ron Evans

Well, semantic bickering aside, you're right that my point was, if you have a LANC remote you can't use it with the XR as-is.

Here's one thread about the Sony software not doing a great job seamlessly joining clips. There are others.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-...tor-error.html

Good to know you've had good luck with this, though. I know one of these is in my future at some point.

You will like them Adam for the price. I have no knowledge of the software that comes with the MRC1 and don't know if it is different from the Sony Motion Browser that comes with the Handycams. The reference to drag and drop in the post you referenced is certainly different as the Sony Motion Browser is one of selection ( check the boxes on the clips in the preview) and press the Import( think that's what its called , not in front of editing PC now) button to bring the clips into the PC. Drag and drop and then use a stitch utility doesn't sound like a Sony approach. I would expect the software even for the pro unit to present the clips in a preview, have the user select the clips and then the software would transfer to the PC. Still sounds like user error to me. The Motion Browser software allows you to select folder for the clips to go to and will log them for future reference. Excellent for family stuff as with the new XR series it even logs the GPS coordinates!!!!

Ron Evans

Ken, I've generally held the cameras are different, and that neither is better. I've said repeatedly that these are tools, nothing more. I mentioned that the Panasonic comes close to perfect but more accurately what I meant was is a nearly perfect value, not a nearly perfect camera as I said.

Sony vs Panasonic? CMOS VS CCD? I personally cannot decide which image I like better. Generally so far I like the Sony better still because the Panasonic has not been tested properly, and I've not learned to use the camera correctly yet to get decent images. I haven't even figured out the white balance, it's a bit weird to me.

Truth be told, 90% of the time the rolling shutter is really not a big deal. But when it is bad it is very bad. Those occasions are relatively rare, but they really stand out.

When you encourage me to sell my camera, you are actually saying "go away". You have asked me to go away a few times. How is that working out for you.

But is that what you really want? A group of mindless loyalists to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on your purchases?

I believe it should be similar to most other Panny cams. There is a button on the front of the camera just below the lens barrel on the left side which you need to press. Press once for white balance, press and hold for black balance. Extremely simple.

Thanks David.

It seems with this cam you are supposed to push the joy stick, but I was rushed and the results didn't look right, it diddn't seem to take, so I just went with auto for the last shoot. That was a mistake!

Thats not correct Jeff. I just checked the manual and its exactly as I said previously. The button is marked AWB located on the front bottom left of the camera.

Thanks David, I went into the manual and that is what is says.

Wow! We are a bit paranoid Jeff are we not? I meant nothing of the sort. I always try to help people out and telling them to go away is not the right way to do that. However, when I see someone that is always extolling the virtues of one camera and finding serious flaws with another, I think it's pretty reasonable to encourage that person to go for the unit he very obviously prefers.

Your only obstacle was AVCHD editing and now you've got that solved. You said on several occasions that if it weren't for you having issues with AVCHD editing, you'd 'sell the Sony in a heartbeat'. You said it Jeff, not me. So now, at least as of the last post that you mentioned AVCHD editing, you've got it solved.

So why would you not sell the Sony and get the Panasonic? If you interpret that as me telling you to 'go away', you are quite wrong.

And no Jeff, I don't want 'mindless loyalists', c'mon now, you really are getting a bit silly.

I have found flaws with the Sony and have mentioned it. I don't like the autofocus, I wish it were lighter, I have some issues with the MRC unit, etc. No camera is immune to flaws and discusing the flaws of THAT camera in THAT forum are very appropriate. What is not appropriate in my opinion, is constantly touting another camera in a different forum.

You are welcome.

Ken, you really are a great guy, so if I miscontrued anything you said I apologize.

You are very helpful and have helped me a few times.

Lets just drop this and move on, is that ok with you?

Jeff let me just say here that if I were you I would stick with the camera that I feel comfortable to shoot with; and when I say "comfortable" I mean, psychologically, comfortable.

Stelios

I think what really got all this started is when Jeff compared the 1000 to the 150 side by side when a flash went off. He prefered the way the 150 handled it, as most of us would, that is what were use to.

But Jeff, if you prefer the 1000's PQ over the 150, just remember, that's what your seeing 99% of the time when viewing your finished DVD's.

I agree Jeff, let's move on and apologies certainly accepted. I sincerely hope you wind up with the cam that does the job for you best.

Actually Stelios, I am very comfortable with the Sony. It is a fine camera. I slammed some of its quirks early on, but for the most part I like it.

On the other hand I haven't had time to really get to know the Panasonic. I bought it on the spur of the moment because it was an amazing deal and had only twenty minutes on it. It has huge potential. I'm shooting with it directly next to the Sony this weekend and it will be a very good test. The first time it was used it was placed in different locations all day and it was run by someone who went wild with the manual settings, so I can't use that as a good comparison.

Tim, your observation is correct in that the flash aspect is a minor annoyance MOST of the time. As you know it is during the most critical shots of the day that it happens. Cake cutting, when they leave the altar, first dance, etc.

That is one reason it is hard for those who don't shoot weddings often to understand. Even if you do weddings on occasion, but not every weekend it is not the same. If you do enough of them the RS will rear its head and there isn't much you can do about it.

For most weddings, the rolling shutter never makes much trouble. But I had a garter, bouquet and cake cutting at one wedding in particular that was in a very dark hall, almost pitch black, and the resulting video footage was bad, really bad, and I even had my light on. When it is really dark that is when the trouble occurs and the video looks abnormal, almost defective.

I can already tell you that I'm likely going to sell the Pansonic anyway, but for reasons I didn't know about before I purchased it.

I run three cameras. If I go with the Panasonic, I will have to buy two more. When I bought this one, I didn't know the price for new ones had gone up several hundred dollars. Ouch. If I stick with the Sony I would simply sell the Panasonic and get a Z5 or Z7 (for the pro audio and card thing) and I'd be set.

After buying the Panny and finding out about the price increase it almost immediately effected my plans.

At any rate, it is really great to have the luxury of having the Panasonic for testing. It is a very solidly built camera with many progressive shooting options and pro audio that make it a solid contender.

One very bad thing about the Sony that I find is it seems much more cheaply built than the VX2100s. Twice this past weekend I had to close and reopen the tape door because it wouln't eject the tape carrier. On my other FX1000 the mic jack is defective and I cannot use it. And that tape mechanism just feels cheap and flimsy. It seemed the VX2100 could be dropped on the floor and kicked around and it never missed a beat. It was truly a workhorse.

I wonder if the Z5 is built better. I still shoot quite often with my VX2100 and actually find the Z5 to be better built and more solid. The tape door is one example, more solid on the Z5 than the 2100.

On the other hand I've never had a problem with the 2100 and it's too early to tell with the Z5. But I've always found that Sonys are very well built and last quite awhile.

I doubt that the Z5 or Z7 tape mechanism is any different, but who knows. The metal parts of it seem thinner and flimsier to me, and the Sony's I had, all four of them, never had that thing happen with the tape mechanism, and I bought all of them used.

Other than the tape carrier it is very solid.

Jeff, one of my 1000's has a defective mic jack too. I guess I will send it in for repair when I get a break.

Well Tim, at least your not the only one!

I can't say the Z5 tape mechanism to me feels much different from my old, cheap Sony camcorders (the TRV series). Certainly I wouldn't describe the tape loading door as "solid", but it's not "flimsy" either.

It certainly doesn't feel "expensive" as you might otherwise expect it would...

Tim, be aware when you send it in it will cost you $250 for them to fix it. The warranty on these Sony cameras basically use a deductable system so even if you've had the camera for only one day; a warranty repair will cost you at least $250 no matter what.

This is a sucky warranty.

I'm not intending to bring up the debate again, but I did some interesting reading of trade type articles regarding CMOS vs CCDs.

It was just as I said earlier. The main advantage of CMOS is cost to the manufacturer, not image quality for the consumer.

Because technology is now being poured into CMOS the quality will gradually improve and eventually move past CCDS, but only because that is where the money and research is going, not because CMOS is inherently better.

High end cameras are light years from using CMOS, as the cost savings of CMOS are irrelvevant to the broadcast market and the accent there is quality.

When the FX1 came out my knowledgeable friends all complained that Sony had started using these "cheap" CMOS chips as a manufacturing cost control. Yes there is power savings on the camera, but so what? Will a CMOS chip give me an extra hour of battery life? I don't think so.

So anyone who is a fans of CMOS simply because it is CMOS, don't fall for the hype.
Case in point, has anyone ever heard of a manufacturer actually state that the CMOS sensors are superior? No, of course not.

Here's one article regarding CMOS vs CCD:

CMOS PRIMER

If you read articles whose target audience are manufacturers or manufacturers reps, salespeople, etc., you will get a more accurate idea of what CMOS is all about. It is about the integration of CMOS manufacturing in the same process as the supporting systems so that the cost saving for manufacturers is HUGE. The use of CCDs is much more expensive than CMOS.

Major manufacturing and design such as the switch to CMOS from CCDs are made by manufacturers for profit reasons, not quality.

Now, I'm currently downloading the footage from the Panasonic HMC 150 run in a controlled shoot (wedding) and I am anxious to see how it stacks up agains the FX1000. The LCD on the Panasonic is so poor I cannot believe it, by the way. Absolutely horrible. If I were to base my opinion on camera based on how the footage looks through the LCD alone, it would have been gone quickly. I'll keep you posted, I'm anxious to see how this turns out.

Thanks Jeff, I didn't know that about the warranty. I purchaced the extended warranty that B&H offered.

By the way I was wrong about the mic jack, it's the headphone jack that's bad. I may not even worry about that.

I rarely use headphones except on the camera with the wireless.

I find the onboard audio of the FX1000 so superior I rarely even run a shotgun at a reception; I am in love with the audio quality of these cameras.

Jeff,
you seem to have missed the main point in the article you referenced. I quote
"Pixel Addressibility - CCDs use of the bucket brigade to transfer pixel values means that individual pixels in a CCD cannot be read individually. CMOS imagers on the other hand have the pixels in an x-y grid allowing pixels to be read individually. This means that CMOS imagers will be able to do functions such as "windowing", where only a small sample of the imager is read, image stabilization to remove jitters from camcorders, motion tracking and other advanced imaging techniques internally that CCDs cannot do."
Bucket brigade format of CCD's leads to the streaking that we are all aware of with a bright light. This is non existent for CMOS. Individual pixel read out of CMOS is the main technology advantage of CMOS over CCD and with the current Sony CMOS in the XR500/520 they have improved even further. This allows the DSP in the camera to increase the latitude/dynamic range of the array to the point that is impossible with CCD's. Allows face recognition easily, black stretch and knee controls in consumer cameras etc etc. Yes they are lower cost because they can include other technology on the same piece of silicon( amplifiers and DSP processing etc)to change the way the pixels are read and processed that is advantages in every possible way. The manufacturing equipment is also the same as other computer technologies so there are further savings. I am sorry to present this but it is the same as vinyl/CD disc issue all again. CMOS is cheaper and better when processed and implemented to advantage. Just like audio it is possible to make a really cheap poor CMOS imager just like a really cheap poor CD of audio. In reality neither the cheap CMOS or the cheap audio CD is as bad as a cheap vinyl disc or cheap CCD imager. Technology has moved on.

Ron Evans

Ron, no one is disputing CMOS is here to say and the way it is going to be. It is and will be.

Anyway the main point of the article I read was different than the one you read.

They made three major points in comparison of the two devices and two of the three had to do with cost and manufacturing. One point addressed advanced features, etc, but it never claims the overall image is improved over CCD, only that CMOS can implement advanced features such as OIS and face recognition.

These advanced features that are used to sell consumer camcorders are of no interest to most professionals as I see it. I don't even use image stabilization, ever though many people do.

The article outlines three points of the CCD vs CMOS thing.

"1. Integration - Because CMOS Imagers are created in the same process as processors, memories and other major components, CMOS Imagers can integrated with these same components onto a single piece of silicon. In contrast, CCDs are made in a specialized process and require multiple clocks and inputs. This feature limits CCDs to discrete systems, which in the long run will put CMOS Imagers at a cost advantage, as well as limit what kinds of portable devices CCDs can be integrated into."

#1 Boils down to Cost Advantage.

"2. Pixel Addressibility - CCDs use of the bucket brigade to transfer pixel values means that individual pixels in a CCD cannot be read individually. CMOS imagers on the other hand have the pixels in an x-y grid allowing pixels to be read individually. This means that CMOS imagers will be able to do functions such as "windowing", where only a small sample of the imager is read, image stabilization to remove jitters from camcorders, motion tracking and other advanced imaging techniques internally that CCDs cannot do."

#2 Boils down to advantages such as images stabilization, motion tracking and advanced imaging techniques. Pixel addressibility does not seem to address picture quality per se, only the ability to offer improved peformance in advanced technicques such as OIS. that is what the article says.

"3. Manufacturing Cost - Since CMOS imagers are manufactured in the same process as memories, processors and other high-volume devices, CMOS imagers can take advantage of process improvements and cost reductions these devices drive throughout the industry."

#3 Boils down to Cost again, as did #1.

Of the three points made about CMOS vs CCD, two of the three were concerning cost and manufacturing processes.

Cost is the main advantage from the manufacturers point of view, and that is clear. There is much discussion in the article about the various types of noice of CMOS, but it is never stated that image quality is inherently better.

The primary advantage of CMOS from a consumer point of view are things like face recognition, etc. The day I need a camera to recognize a face for me will be a sad day! Now granted the possibilities are endless with CMOS, but those consumer features are for hobbyists as of now. Some of the possibilties of CMOS will translate eventually into cool things we can all use no doubt. As has been said they are the future.

But I ran my Sony today with my HMC150 and there was less noise in the Panny than the Sony. Also, I don't like the "interlace type" lines in my FX1000 footage. I get these lines that run across the screen, don't care for it, I don't know what they are.

The article does go into some detail about the noise issues of CMOS and there are plenty of them. This would explain why the HMC150 is less noisy at increased gain then the Sony FX1000. Of course comparing the two cameras is like comparing apples and oranges, and is really not relevant depending on how you see it. As you say a high end CCD will blow a cheap CMOS sensor away, and a high end CMOS sensor will best an equivalent CCD away, so it really is a pointless comparison especially in the case of these two cameras.

Pana and Sony have always been quite different anyway, and to compare CCD to CMOS between different brands is not fair to either. The CCD chips in the VX2100 was notoriously better then the CCDs in the Panasonic in the opinion of many videographers, but Panasonic still had a huge following, so go figure. It often came down to features and lenses, not just chips.

Anyway, CMOS is here to stay, it is the future of consumer and low end pro equipment without a doubt. I can't even imagine with the noise issues that broadcast equipment will use CMOS for a long while. CMOS has way too far to go for that to happen soon.

Ron, just want to be clear that I understand that this is truly a pointless debate.

No matter how anyone feels about CMOS vs CCDs, it won't make a lick of difference in the change in the market place and what the manufacturers do. And since consumers are clamoring for what I feel are stupid gadgets, the writing is on the wall, as CMOS features offer tons of potential for marketers.

In addition, CMOS is much better suited for Hi-definition and that is where it is really at, isn't it?

All discussions like these are subjective and depends on the likes and dislikes of the user. I personally use on a regualar basis a few Sony cams including the venerable VX2100 and a poor excuse for a CMOS camera the Sony FX7. I also use a few Panasonic cameras including A DVX and to me the Panasonic has a way better picture than the Sony and even in very low light I much prefer the Panasonic to the VX2100. To me Sony colors seem artficial while Panasonic seem more like real life. The clincher with Panasonic cameras is that they tend to give better manual control, less need to go into menus and they are all available even while recording.

Should I go around trying to convince everyone to ditch their Sony cam for Panasonic? Of course not, I would be wasting both my time and other peoples time. We should just buy the cameras that we can afford to like.

i never liked the low quality compression of the hmc pixel shift. If I were to go for a good low light ccd camera with pixel shift I would get the jvc hm100. All footage I've seen from that blows the hmc away in terms of pq. It's still not as sharp as the fx1000 though.

Also I wonder if the noise from the fx1000 is due to hdv compression. I had an h-fs100 canon cmos camera and it's avchd footage is cleaner that anything I've seen coming from the hmc or fx1000.

Jeff I too think this debate has gone on long enough. However the one point about CMOS you missed out is the most important and the one that makes all the others work. CMOS has individual pixel processing something that is technically impossible with CCD. In consumer cameras this allows fancy features but also will allow individual exposure control by pixel, technically. Cost and device speed of course limit this use but this will come and will allow better detail in dark areas and highlight control just not possible with CCD. In most current CMOS the pixels are read as blocks but technically they could be read and processed individually. With the technology used in the Sony XR500/520, using connections behind the sensors and immediate A/D( not possible with CCD), noise levels are very low. My XR500 at F1.8, 18db is a lot less noisy than my FX1 with CCD at 12db.
Anyway enough.
Ron Evans

I too wonder about this. I shoot with FX1 , SR11 and XR500. The two AVCHD cams are cleaner and sharper than the FX1. They don't have the manual controls of the FX1 so at times the FX1 does get the better picture. I would get an AVCHD version of the FX1000 if it came out. Having compared these three cameras now for the last few months the FX1 has to go but I am at a loss as to what to change to. I will likely get a FX1000 as I have so many Sony batteries, chargers, LANC controllers etc and maybe some nice small HDMI recorders will come in the future at a reasonable price.
Ron Evans