Is that a problem with FX1000?
 

hi all,

recently i read an article about cmos vs ccd sensors? it said that cmos sensor use rolling shutter. further this article stated that:

Rolling Shutter, however, can be tricky in a variety of applications. For example, shooting under slow-flickering lights, such as old fluorescents, can be difficult. The effect will appear as a dark bar rolling through your footage. As the CMOS sensors gathers light pixel-by-pixel, there are changes in illumination because the light is flickering on and off.

During Panning:

A CMOS sensor will appear to stretch or "skew" the image in either horizontal direction, making straight lines appear to bend in a diagonal fashion.

i want to know is that the case with Fx 1000, since it is also a cmos based Camera?

kindly enlighten,

regards,


Ruturaj Mistry

It is also true for the FX1000, as it has CMOS-sensors. But the effect is not that noticeable, you have to pan very quickly to get the skewing effect, and the flickering under fluorescent lights can be solved by choosing the appropriate shutter value. Moreover if you're filming under an intermittent light source, any camera will have a problem with bands rolling over the picture, depending on the shutter speed.

CMOS does have it's disadvantages, but unless you're going to be a paparazzo, with photoflashes going off when- and wherever you are shooting, I wouldn't worry about it.

All things being equal, CCDs are better than CMOS. But things aren't equal, & CMOS makes it possible to have chips w/ higher resolution, greater sensitivity (able to operate in low light better), less noise at a lower price than comparable CCDs.

I think it is a fair trade off. These issues should be something you are aware of, but not something that pushes you away from a CMOS camera.

I own 2 FX1000s. I also own a Panasonic HMC150 which has CCDs.

I've been looking at the footage from a wedding we shot with the Panasonic, and I much prefer the way flashes look from the Panasonic over the FX1000. There is a significant difference, IMO.

Have you asked what a "normal" person thinks? See if they even notice the difference?

I like the look of a CCD better for flashes & fast motion too, but a few weeks ago I put my Z7 next to a HVX200 and liked how the Z7 had less noise, crisper picture & took less light. For me, the positives I saw in the CMOS camera over the CCD camera out weighed the negatives of CMOS in general.

There are trade offs between a CCD & CMOS, just like there are trade offs between HDV, P2, AVCHD & XDCAM EX. Some people will swear by one format & trash the other, but the reality is that each has their own place, their own upsides & their own downsides.

When looking into what camera to buy, you need to look at the price, the features, the recording format, the recording media, the chips, the lens, etc. etc. etc. But more than anything else, you need to figure out how you'll be using your camera, because there are so many great cameras out there, there is no best camera, only the best camera for you.

Yes, I have asked my wife, who is a normal person. She said that something didn't look quite right when watching the flash sections of the wedding video, but she couldn't put her finger on it.

I wouldn't buy or not buy a camera soley due to the CCD issue, but it is something to consider, especially for a wedding photographer.

I have yet to compare the footage from the two cams side by side but am downloading some FX1000 footage from the same event shot with a 150 now and will soon have a better idea soon as to the overall differences.

For the kind of work I do (corporate), the CMOS advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages. Not often mentioned, is the fact that CMOS will often have better color as well as low-light.

I've showed the rolling shutter effect on flashes vs. CCD video in the same environment to my wife and she hardly noticed any difference at all until I pointed it out. Even then she thought it was no big deal. I think that would be the overwhelming customer consensus too. I think the customer would sooner pick up on low-light issues than rolling shutter, flash-based issues.

That's exactly what I did with my wife and son also and they both didn't noticed any difference until I pointed it to them. Rolling shutter, no big deal for me nor to my clients either.

Stelios

Ken, I'm curious, do you shoot in an environment with flashes going off or with no flashes going off?

No Jeff, you are correct, I shoot in a no flash environment. But honestly, that doesn't make my observations or my wifes' any less valid. I've looked at tons of footage showing the effect and I truly think it's something the videographer gets more anal about than any customer.

Again, I've yet to hear of anyone losing future business or any customer expressing dissatisfaction as a result of this. I firmly believe a cleaner low light video will solicit more positive customer reviews than any negative impact from the rolling shutter effect with flashes.

Jeff, honestly, if I was shooting in a flash-filled environment, I would have zero concern going in with my Z5.

Like I said, just curious.

can anybody please upload a clip with photo-flashes.....i would be interested to see how it looks from fx1000.

Ruturaj, you can watch some of the videos I have on Vimeo if you want to get an idea of what the rolling shutter looks like, they were all shot with the FX1000.

The one the link takes you to, the flashes look pretty normal, maybe the type of flash the photographer was using or maybe because I was at the back of the venue zoomed in close, I'm not sure. If you want to see some bad rolling shutter, watch Jenny & Jonathan trailer, when there coming down the aisle and cutting the cake.

Ashley & Bryan Paul - Dear Lovely on Vimeo

I was watching my work from yesterday download and the rolling flash is terrible. The darker it is the worse it is.

Customers do not have to conciously see things to notice things. To say that customers "will not notice" is erroneous and makes it sound like you think your customers are idiots. They won't be able to verbalize what they see, but if they were to watch a cake cutting in a dark room from the Panasonic then see footage from the FX1000 they would quite prefer the Panasonic, I know I would! I know I did last week.

I know the first time I watched the Panasonic footage shot at my wedding last week I loved the difference and I noticed the pleasing look of the CCD chips immediately.

To all those who have shown their family members rolling shutter and they didn't notice it, that is not even close to an accurate test.

You need to show them a CMOS clip with a dozen flashes going off at the same time in a dark room and you also need to show them the same footage shot from a CCD cam.

I showed my partner last week and she not only noticed, she couldn't believe it.

Now, I just put my Panasonic up for sale, but it is not because I don't love the look of the camera, I do. I just hate the AVCHD. But the differnence in scenes with flashes is dramatic. I wish I could go all CCD cams, but the AVCHD thing made me crazy in less than a week.

I can't imagine anyone in the wedding business full-time that would feel differently. You will find Ruturaj that most people that dismiss the rolling shutter are not full-time wedding videographers.

Well, everything is relative. The other day I was filming at the press conference where the come back of Swedish pop group Roxette on the Night of the Proms was announced, and there were at least 20 still photographers, with just as many flashes going off all the time. All three the screen grabs you see here are from the Z7 with its CMOS sensors.

On several occasions I have frames that are entirely overexposed because a flash went off in synchro with the rolling shutter (example 1). On some other frames you can see the typical banding caused by the flash out of synchro with the rolling shutter (example 2). Mind you: in my clip, 4 times out of ten there's a flash in synchro. Personally, I even prefer the frames where it is OUT of synchro, because the overexposure effect is much less visible.

The third example just shows the fantastic image quality of the Z7 (and Z5).

Yesterday I showed this footage to an audience of 30 experienced videographers and very few of them had noticed the rolling shutter effect before I pointed it out myself. So for me it's not a big problem, and no, I'm doing no weddings at all, but I'm very often in the presence of many many flashing colleagues.

The worst case is a dark room with very bright flashes - if it's one or two, it's not really going to matter, but if it's something like a press conference (as above) with lots of flash it does look pretty odd.

I did a birthday party and was about worried about the flashes going off, but they weren't that bright relative to the ambient so the end result isn't that noticeable unless you know what you are looking for.

If you have something really important, so you can always fix it in post but the less we have to do here, the better.

I would really like to see a firmware fix to do this automatically in camera - as has been announced by a different manufacturer of CMOS cameras...

My point precisely. There are many videographers using CMOS for wedding work and if this issue were so severe and so very bothersome to the majority of users, I doubt you would see that many using CMOS equipment. When you can show it to a group of 30 experienced videographers and have very few of them even notice it, I just don't think it's a biggie. Too often understated, is the superb low-light response of CMOS-based cams like the Z5/FX1000. That's a huge 'flip-side' in my opinion!

Obviously for those that use these CMOS cams, see the issue, and find it DOES bother them, that's a different story. But I don't think that comprises the majority of those that use this equipment in a flash-filled environment. I've always felt that shooting in a flash-filled environment with ANY equipment (CCD or CMOS) is potentially distracting...they're just different 'types' of distracting.

But everyone sees it differently. It seems the majority of those videographers you showed your footage to, see it the way I do.

Yes, and so do I. Photflashes are always a nuisance for videographers. Of course that doensn't mean that I wouldn't welcome a solution for the problem.

The most successful and experienced wedding videographer I know (based on income and years of experience) also churns out basic and boring wedding videos. He doesn't care about rolliing shutter either when I've showed him.

In fact he also claims his clients are completely happy with 4:3 footage and that they don't notice or care about 4:3 vs 16:9. He often shoots with a 4:3 cam in stretched 16:9 mode and says it looks great. I say it looks like crap.

His reasoning is that his clients don't complain. His clients don't notice these things he says, so why should he invest in new cameras?

This is a classic example that outlines why I don't understand it when people say "My customers don't complain about (fill in the blank) so everything must be fine."

It might be the economy, but my friend's business is down this year by about a third. The strange thing is my business is up and I've raised my prices, and am about to raise them again. What's even stranger to me is he actually doesn't believe those of us he who claim our business is up. He thinks we're lying. He's stuck in a mindset that is going to cost him money until he wakes up.

The CMOS thing is for the most part out of my control economically. I shoot with CMOS cameras, and while I hate the rolling shutter for my style of work, I am living with it. But I do not pretend it's OK. Its not. I won't minimize it and pretend.

Quality wedding video is all about aesthetics. That is why non-wedding videographers don't care about this, and creative wedding videographers do.

So yes, I am aware that you can find hundreds of people who will not notice the aesthetic differences between CMOS and CCDs, but there will always be those that do.

Since CMOS cams are what is being sold now, I feel somewhat safe in the sense that most other videographers with newer gear are suffering with the same issue, so I don't come out of it looking any worse than most everyone else in this respect.

weddings
 

Jeff,

Don't let that "It will be right" friend of yours get to you.

You will win out as you obviously take pride in the 1%'s.

Well done.

I also have a wedding friend who has a very similar attitude.

Best to be friends with these people but not discuss business.

Good point Martin. We don't argue. I find common ground and we stick with that. He still knows a lot more about video than I ever will.

Jeff, most cameras consumers now buy will be CMOS and unfortunately for the traditional video business will be HD. Someone who has just bought a Sony XR500/520 and just uses AUTO will have a wonderful picture almost all of the time. I have used this little camera on auto with AE shift at -4 in the last three shows I have shot and it makes my FX1 video look a little sick!!!! The FX1 will be changed soon. Rolling shutter is not an issue for me but clean noise free video is as all my projects are theatre with high contrast and dark lighting. That little XR500 at 18db has less noise than the FX1 at 12db. I can leave it through the stage going to black and not worry about grain at all. Just amazing. Would love this technology in a more capable camera. This is the technology that the professionals will have to compete against. Most people see noise, color and contrast.
Seeing a poor 4x3 video from a professional video outfit will NOT cut it any more.
Ron Evans

I'm sure we'd all love to have these CMOS cams without the RS. But the overlooked bright side is the amazing low light of the Sonys. Given a choice, I'd take the low light over a CCD with inferior low light.

The guy that Jeff described is a guy that simply doesn't care about quality, RS or not.

CMOS is touted for its low light abilities because the companies promote it to be so, but my Panasonic HMC 150 is close to the same. CCDs are not being developed in 1/2 or 1/3" sizes because they cost more than CMOS and are not as profitable.

I do not see the Sony's low light ability as "amazing" Ken, its not better than the VX2100 in the low light department. The Z5 and FX1000 are rated at a higher lux, and when promoting the camera prior to its release Sony even used trickery by saying the lux rating was possible (at 1/30 shutter). What kind of BS was that? They say if you can't baffle them with brilliance baffle them with bullsh_t.

Granted the CMOS sensors on the new small Sony's are much improved, but so what, its taken a couple of years for a 1/2 inch cmos to catch up with the low light abilities of the CCDs of the same size.

If I'm not mistaken the high-end broadcast $50K HD cameras are CCD still. The low end broadcast cams like the EX1 are CMOS.

CMOS is what the low end of the business gets and is a way for the companies to save money on manufacturing. To tout CMOS is like a woman bragging about her cheap dress bought at Target, saying it is as good as the dresses at Neiman Marcus. Technically they may seem the same, but she is only bragging about the Target dress because she doesn't know better.

It is similar to Mp3 vs CDs. Virtually every single kid today listens to mp3s happily.

If you ask them about the differences betweetn mp3 and CDs they will tell you that mp3s are BETTER! That is of course, bullshit.

I owned an entertainment company in the 80s and 90s, and remember how everyone thought that CDs sounded better than LPs when they came out. They did not, of course sound even close to the same, but that is the perception the companies promoted. The vast majority who play vinly now are old hippies, collectors, and audiophiles who know the difference. Hip Hop DJs know the difference even if the people don't.

People are largely embracing CMOS because it is all that is out there! It is what the companies are selling, and what they are promoting.

CMOS is not better. But it is cheaper, for sure. Until you shoot with a HD camera with 1/3" CCD chips, it might be best to hold of on proclaiming the superiority of CMOS. It won't be long before there will be virtually no CCD chips left at our level as they are not as profitable as CMOS sensors.

If you've watched a football game in Hi-Def, you've watched CCDs. That is the quality difference.

Just because CMOS is dominating doesn't mean it is better. It means only that is what the companies are pushing.

If you pay attention, when you reach 50-60 years of age you will have seen the whole cycle repeat itself so many times it that it will only take you only a minute to recognize the work of the multinationals when you see it. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I disagree with you Jeff on several points. First and most importantly, it's very often consumer advances that work their way UP to the pro level. Many pro cameras now have onboard (no seperate monitor) color monitoring abilities that consumer cams have had for some time. It wasn't that long ago that pro cameras would shun any onboard color LCDs in favor of higher resolution B&W monitoring.

Second, CMOS imagers do have some superior abilities relative to CCD. For a given size, they are capable of both better color and better low light sensitivity. You are mistaken if you think that CMOS is for 'cheapo' cams. Some of the most expensive digital still cameras are utilizing CMOS...and trust me, at their price range the manufacturer could have thrown in a CCD. CMOS simply has some undeniable quality advantages.

CMOS imagers are immune to overload. Yes, CCD has improved greatly in that area, but that artifact can still be visible when bright light points are in the scene.

I certainly stick to my assertion that the FX1000/Z5 are unparralled in their field for low light imaging. Jeff, you simply can't compare an HD camera's sensitivity with an SD camera's sensitivity. It is FAR harder to produce an imager that has great low light when it has so so many more pixels. The fact that the FX1000/Z5 can even be considered in the same ballpark as the VX2100 (which I own) is a phenomenal accomplishment. It is just not the ability to see detail in low light, but also to do it with great color AND exceedingly low noise levels. I've yet to see a prosumer HD cam that can do all that anywhere near that price range.

As for the quality difference you're seeing in broadcast Jeff, it's NOT the "CCD vs CMOS" argument, it's the SIZE argument. Broadcast cams are blessed with imagers that are 1/2" at the low end and larger at the high end. That and superb lenses & processing that we can only drool at are the reasons the image looks so good. It aint the CCD vs CMOS debate...trust me.

They're not the only ones. Canon touts the A1s as being able to shoot at 0.5 lux.... at 1/4 sec shutter speed.

Ya gotta read careful, I tell ya.

Jeff, I'm just into video for fun, but I've been a professional rock photographer for the last 20 years, and I strongly disagree with you as far as your point of view on CMOS is concerned. In my business, where 'no flash' and high ISO are the trademarks, CMOS has done miracles for the image quality. Three years ago I sold for 25.000 euro's worth of Nikon camera's and lenses because Canon's CMOS cams were SO much better in low light. Barely a year after that, Nikon came out with the D3 - a CMOS cam- and I realised I could have kept all my stuff...

The difference between the shots made with my old CCD-based Nikon's and the CMOS-Canons, is clearly visible on my site: Concertpix' homepage

So your claim that CMOS is only in the market because the marketing guys promote it, is turning things around: CMOS is there because it is - for certain important aspects - WAY better than CCD, and of course the marketing guys would do a very bad job indeed if they wouldn't convey this USP to the public. I'm sure you know the saying 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not alle of the people all of the time'. Well, there is not one of my colleague photographers who still uses CCD. They just cannot be fooled.

And when I play my old long playing records and compare them to CD's, the noise-signal ratio of the records is so bad, that I'm ready to accept the small disadantages of the CD's anytime. Just the same for CMOS-CCD...

I opened up too many cans of worms, obviously, so I'll just comment for now on what you said Ken about improvement working their way up. That is often true, quite true. But the reverse is often true as well. For example technology that has been developed for the aerospace industry often works its way down into the consumer market.

CMOS sensors are simply an extension of the digital revolution, and there is no stopping it. I know that.

As far as what you say about CD vs vinyl, Luc, I love the convenience of CDs vs LPs also. Without the digital technology that allows us to utilize digital files we would be back to VCRs, and no one wants to go back to that, even me.

So while some of my assertions may or may not be correct, I am happy to question it all. Regarding CMOS for digital still cameras, yes they are amazing, but video and still cameras are not the same. Rolling shutter with video will never be considered a benefit but is a shortcoming that needs to be worked out. Eventually, regardless of my feelings about the matter, it will all be CMOS regardless.

Ah, and before we forget, let's chalk up power-saving abilities of CMOS imagers vs. their CCD couterparts. Battery life time got a significant boost when we went to CMOS-based cams.

Yes, each has their pluses & minuses, but I think the group here has outlined the fact that CMOS has more going for it, in general, than CCD.

But Jeff, if you don't like CMOS, I'm sure you won't have to wait too long before the next radically new imager makes center-stage. Our wait for things like this is never too long. :)

"I think the group here has outlined the fact that CMOS has more going for it, in general, than CCD." Ken Ross

If you were to take the discussion to the Panasonic AVCHD forum you would get different a different reaction.

1. Long time Sony user and nationally known wedding cinematographer who has abandoned Sony for the HMC150 after using both the Z5 and the Panasonic side by side.

2. At least two others in that forum who have sold their Sony FX1000s for the Panasonic.

3. Many who have both cameras and prefer the look of the CCDs by far over the CMOS.

I have both and if it were not for the AVCHD mess I would sell the Sony's in a heartbeat. I have both, have used both, and seen the difference. Actually the differences in the images are much too insigificant to matter, to me but the losing of the rolling shutter alone would be wonderful.

I guess it's subjective Jeff, but there's no way in hell I find the image of the 150 superior, let alone the equal of the Sony based on what I've seen. But whatever floats your boat...that's why we have two 'camps'.

As to the three people you mention on the other forum, that's their opinion and I'm sure we could find many respected professionals who feel just the opposite. I know you've often quoted that one videographer, but Jeff, he's entitled to his opinion and he has his biases just like anyone else. His opinion does not make anything 'fact'.

However, regardless, it does nothing to address the factual benefits of CMOS (power consumption, no smear, better overload protection, color characteristics etc.) of one imager over the other. You can feel one way or the other 'subjectively' about an overall image, but the facts of the imager characteristcs are what they are.

I would also be very cautious about generalizing "CCD vs CMOS" based on one camera from each grouping. You could find 2 CMOS-based cams that would behave entirely differently just as you could find 2 CCD-based cams that would look totally different.

I also find your comment about 'selling the Sony in a heartbeat' (if it weren't for Panasonic's AVCHD) to be a bit odd since you never said the image of the Panasonic was superior. You generally seemed to see them as close in quality. So I can only imagine your motivation is entirely based on RS, which you've made clear many many times that you hate.

Show me one person who has sold the Panasonic for the Sony. If you can show me one of those, then show me a few more. BTW, the people who have both cams tend to hang in the Panasonic forum, not here, at least that is what I have found.

Here's a typical comment from a Panasonic user (Norman G): "I initially bought an FX1000, then an HMC150. I liked the HMC150 so much I sold the FX1000 (took a $500+ loss) and bought another HMC. Go shoot with it. I'm confident you'll like it much better than the FX1000 in short order. Too cumbersome for run & gun. The HMC is so much lighter and it's far better balanced. No rolling shutter. Tapeless. XLR. The FX1000 was slightly better in low light but not enough to outweigh all of its disadvantages."

Ken, I actually like my Sony FX1000 images quite a bit. It is a fine camera. I don't prefer the Panasonic overall, but for wedding video it is better suited in many ways.

I think I might have see ONE person around here who sold the Panasonic for the Sony, but I'm not sure. I do remember one person who sold off the Panasonic if I'm not mistaken.

My comment about selling the Sony's is not odd. I'm a wedding videographer. Rolling shutter is not a plus, and the best any one can say bout it is that "No one will notice".

One thing you hear from those who have both, and their are a few around, is that they stongly prefer the image of the Panasonic. I have never heard the reverse. But of course now that I've said that someone will. I personally don't prefer one image over the other. I really like the image from my Sony for sure, but it is not better, it is different.

I believe that for image quality and tone, the Sony is very suitable for Corporate work. I believe the Panasonic is especially useful for creative videography. One cam is not better than the other, they are different tools that are best suited for specific purposes. I don't think their is any doubt that the Panasonic offered much more bang for the buck at $3195, but now they have raised that price to $3495.

I'm going to stop now and let you have the last word, I need to be done with this for today.

I really don’t think Sony or any other companies are using CMOS to line their pockets.
In most ways it is more efficient. It’s the same as all technological advances. I’m sure
at some point down the road the CMOS will become significantly better. Some people
still haven't gotten over losing DOS on their computers. With CMOS you’re getting HD with
better low light, more affordable pricing, vivid colors, etc. The rolling shutter is something
we’re not used to seeing so it will look different. You lose the entire frame with CCD but that is what people have become accustomed to seeing. RS is more like film which is what people are striving for these days anyway. As time goes on, you will see more and more of this on TV and it will be accepted as the norm. As a side note, AVCHD sucks. I've also heard
of a lot of problems with the 150's solid state issues and sound. You and I have tape backups on our cameras.

Selling the Panasonic for the Sony is an indication of absolutely nothing other than the person that did it had some reason that made it work for him. I don't see 'waves' of people doing this. Jeff, let's look at the reasons why the guy you quoted loves his Panny and traded:

* Tapeless- So is the Z5 when coupled with the MRC. Now you have BOTH tape & tapeless...best of both worlds as far as I'm concerned. A 'win win'.

* XLR- So does the Z5...so? He got the wrong camera (FX1000) if that's what he wanted

* Lighter- With a tripod that's a non-issue, but yes, I would like the Z5 to be lighter. Enough of a reason to change to a camera that produces an image that's not as good (in my opinion) and certainly not as good in low light and uses a format that's very tough to edit? Nope, not for me.

When you say you haven't seen people switching from the Panny to the Sony...well Jeff, everyone that still owns a Sony apparently doesn't agree with that. Why not take a look at sales of the two cameras? That might be a better indication of the concensus out there. There are motivations that some people have for buying equipment that have nothing to do with image quality. Many people will buy on price and the Panny is cheaper compared to a Z5 equipped with the MRC. I've seen tons and tons of people do all kinds of rationalizing when they buy cheaper equipment because their budget didn't allow better, more expensive equipment. I see it in forums on consumer cams as well as prosumer cams. I see it for virtually any kind of equipment you can think of.

I'm not saying all Panny owners are in that category, but I'd bet the bank some are!!!

Jeff, my only gripe with your comments is that you are constantly pushing & praising the 150 on a Sony forum. All these cameras have their pluses & minuses (yes my friend, even the 150) and it's fine to point them out on their respective forums. But constantly touting the 150 on a Sony forum is not what I consider to be useful information to people using Sony camcorders. That's what the Panasonic forum is for. I see this all the time on other forums and it's almost like 'trolling'. I know that's not what you're doing Jeff, but the end result isn't much different.

Rob, that's the point I've made many times here. With CCD you blow out an entire frame. If you prefer that 'look' then so be it. But I honestly don't think RS is the death knell for CMOS. They have too many advantages that CCD simply does not have.

Quite right. Look at example 1 on page one of this thread (the Roxette press conference screengrabs): it is how the frame would look on a CCD-camera, when a photoflash goes off. Example 2 is how it looks most of the time with the Z7 (= Z5 as far as imager is concerned). I know what I prefer!

Luc what kind of CCD camera are we talking about?

I've got footage of a cake cutting with flashes going off on the Panny and the Sony and the difference is significant to me. Same with the introduction of the bridal party.

The Panasonic did not lose focus or change exposure in any way that I could see, it looked perfect. The Sony looked great, as always, till the flashes go off, then the half frame coverage of the flashes due to RS was made was quite obvious.

I don't hate CMOS per se. But running these two camera side by side and viewing the footage side by side on the timeline the differences are plain to see.

As I've said, I REALLY like the Sony. It looks great. And yes I hate the RS, but I can live with it. But the Panasonic is very nice as well. There are definitely advantages to CCDS over CMOS, and I suppose vice versa.

As you point out Rob, AVCHD really does suck. It is why I just sold the camera!

There are those making AVCHD work but good Lord what a pain I have found those files to be. After only a few days I couldn't deal with it any longer.

Jeff, without sounding 'flip', and I'm really not trying to be, I truly believe you should work out the AVCHD editing routine and get/keep the 150.

Even if you need to buy a high-end computer, I honestly don't see you happy with a Sony. If I were you I'd switch to the Panny after investigating the AVCHD editing process and how you can make it work. There are people that are doing this and having good luck with it.

But seeing how you feel about the Sony and its RS, I don't see how you can stay with it.

Actually you've suggested that before Ken. Since I own both cameras I feel I can pretty much judge the cameras pretty objectively. And I must say I have found that the results have confirmed what has been said about both cameras. And yes, you are being snarky, but that is ok, I can take it.

I have stated quite clearly I like my Sonys overall. If the workflow with the Pannys were better than it is, I would sell the Sonys in a heartbeat. But they don't, so I'm sticking with the Sonys. These are business decisions based on what I feel I need to do to stay profitable and to have a fast workflow, not based on loyalty to any brand or model.

I run an i7 workstation with a dual power supply running at 3.8 with 12GB of ram and Velociraptor drives, so my computer is decent enough to run pretty much any common video file.

I'm not in love with either camera. On occasion however I do love some of the images they produce. But in the end they are tools, nothing more. And if anyone wants to diss either of them, that's OK. I do find that Sony users tend to be more loyal and more biased toward their cameras.

I have just sold the Panasonic (actually sale is pending till Friday) and it is a shame. It is a fantastic camera that happens to shoot in the sucky AVCHD format. I am still torn about it, but what are you going to do? Unfortunately there is no pefect camera, but the Pansonic, IMO comes closer than the Sony.

Jeff, there was no intent to be 'snarky' (or did you mean 'snarly'? :)). But even in your last post you say 'I like my Sonys overall' and then go on to say again "I would sell the Sonys in a heartbeat". Kind of like telling your wife you love her and then smacking her around. ;)

But again, my main objection to some of your posts is the consistant elevation of the 150 relative to the Sony in a Sony thread. I think your posts are entirely appropriate in a Panasonic forum, just not a Sony forum.

We get that you think the Panny is a superior camera to the Sony if it wasn't for AVCHD...we get that. But I just don't think the constant drum-beat of that theme is appropriate here. But that's me.

And when you mention that Sony owners are more loyal and biased toward their cameras, perhaps there's a reason for that...as in they consider THOSE cameras produce the best image?