I would bet dollars to donuts this thing does indeed have a LANC interface. Looking at the German presentation of the pre-production camera, I note the zoom in on the barracuda at 4:40. This tells me Sony has an underwater housing ready to go and I bet it connects to the camera the exact same way as the HDR-CX550, etc. do. All of which also have an imbedded LANC interface.

I've read all the comments so far and watched some of the videos.....

Will I now dump my EX3 and 7D - no way (not yet!). Is this a step forward, yes! Will I buy this product - probably not. Maybe a 'Pro' version might tempt me (and I'm sure it's coming). However, it'll have to be really good to prize those cams out of my bag. Exciting times ahead - for sure! It'll certainly keep Canon and Panasonic (and no doubt a few others) on their toes over the next few months.

very limited selection of frame rates and it appears as though there are no progressive modes. Crop size dslr sensor. It would be cool to slap a nice fast prime on there but then again, no 1080 24p/30p?? Dear Sony, I'd like to know why I should but this camcorder instead of the 7D.

Whoops. this post was moved from the discussion in the NX5 forum and doesn't have the posting I responded to. Edited to clarify.

Steve Kass commented (in a now moved NX5 forum posting) "It may be better then the nx5u."

One hopes, but it looks to me as though the question is still going to be "better for whom and for what?" The NEX-VG10 is certainly different from the NX5 --- with a single large sensor and interchangeable lenses and what seems to be very shallow DOF capabilities --- it strikes me that it might be "better" for some folks and not so great for others.

For example, the specs show the minimum illumination being only 11 lux (at f3.5 and 1/30th sec with auto gain) with the lens that comes with it. The NX5 is rated for 1.5 lux (f1.6 at 1/30 sec with auto gain). Even a CX550v will go down to 3 lux and do a pretty decent job of it.

These differences matter a lot to me as an event and wedding videographer who needs the low light capabilities of the NX5. But that degree of low light capability may be utterly unimportant to somebody else for whom this camera and its lens capabilities might be exactly what they need.

It is definitely interesting, and certainly blurs categories even more than the current DSLRs do.

To me, this announcement suggests what we might eventually see if Sony were to make an NX7 as a sibling for the NX5 the way it made the Z7 as the sibling to the Z5. Or, maybe, what we will see instead of an NX7.

I'd expect a LANC in the A/V jack, wherever that may be (got to look at this cam in detail later, but looks very interesting). The new "E" lens mount and lenses look to be fairly professional in design, just a "miniaturized" lens optimized for video use in the NEX series.

There are already a number of adpaters hitting the market for the "E" mount - the NEX3/NEX5 is apparently selling very very well... and while you lose auto focus, I'd expect to be able to use a lot of different lenses on this before long.

This definitley looks a lot better than the early mockup, and depending on the spec is an interesting hybrid between a video camera and a still camera - I'm fascinated by the inclusion of the proprietary Alpha hot shoe! I'd have expected the Sony AiShoe, but not that one, uless they are seeing this as a crossover for the videographer that wants to shoot stills.

This is an interesting animal, but I'm guessing we may need some time to figure out what it is and does! I was planning on whatever Sony Alpha DSLR-V showed up, now I'm thinking this beast might be a better choice...

I figure that they may eventually release a pro model as well but the lower model shouldn't have to be that less featured all the time especially if Canon or Panasonic decides to release their own consumer versions with the extra recording modes that people want. It still seams much better to handle than the new Panasonic AF100.

Those shots of the fish do not prove that they have an underwater housing ready... It proves he was in a zoo with a fish tank. Also, the lanc interface may work, but in that menu, the menu system was so wildly different, I honestly doubt that i would work without MAJOR re-engineering. My guess is it's an expanded version of their DSLR remotes if at all.

In going back over the posts, it is obvious that some were offended by me. For that I wish to apologise. That was certainly not my intent. I am simply mostly confused by others expectations. And with that, I think it is time for me to be quiet for a while.

Sincerely,
Bill Koehler

Whether they do or they don't, this will make a superb camera for underwater use. For that, it's of most use with a wide angle, fairly short zoom range, fast lens which should be reasonably small in itself. Hopefully it will have good sensitivity and coupled with the size of the camera, it should make for an excellent package.

For anyone who hasn't thought about it, if you want a camera and housing to be fairly neutrally bouyant in water, the weight on land must be directly proportional to the package volume. Hence a lightweight, but large camera in housing is useless - you'd have to weight it to get the bouyancy right.

For this use in particular, a camera which will do good quality video AND stills is also desirable.

I was thinking of getting a 550D mainly for underwater use - this is making me think again.

I'd expect the zoom would be via the lens ring, ala any other SLR type camera, based on the lineage of the NEX being an offshoot from the Alpha (and in fact are still under the Alpha flag). So a LANC with zoom might well be superfluous... these E lenses are effectively "new" designs evolved from SLR type form and function, but with optimizations for video use...

Think platypus here, this new "toy" isn't quite an SLR or a video camera per se, but a new animal that will be a bit "different" and perhaps confusing until one plays with it a bit - right now I'm chewing on the implications myself of a 14.6Mpixel still camera that uses some Alpha components/accessories, but shoots 24Mbps video TOO, and presumably will use some Sony components/accessories from the video side of the family. The one question I have is which side (if either) will be compromised - every test I've run with a still cam that shoots video, video is "OK", but shows artifacts, and for video cams that shoot stills, the stills are soft... One camera that does it all (or perhaps a "camera system", of bodies and lenses?) would be nice, resulting in less equipment to drag around.

I'd hope the lux rating is a misprint, as it would represent a horrible step backward for this to have far worse low light capability than say the CX550V, which handles low light like a champ (EXMOR R). Would kill any interest for me very quickly if that's a "real" number.

I wouldn't worry about the 60i that much, I know "30p and 24p" are the mantra, but not everyone cares for the stutter that comes with slower frame rates - I'd rather see 60p or overcranking... but anyway...

I think the only people "offended" by your remarks Bill are those with unrealistic expectations.

Hopefully we have firmly established that this camcorder is a *consumer* product.

Let's proceed by keeping that concept firmly in mind and
also by keeping delicate sensibilities in check. Thanks all,

At the $2k price point, it's definitely "high end" consumer, but the lines get blurry, and it's only going to get worse...

With many of the "consumer" cameras being very capable of full HD images and some with manual controls to varying degrees, it's not so much the camera makes the "pro", but the "pro" making the camera - each new "tool" has it's own set of possibilities, the fact this is the first interchangeable lens video camera at this price point is enough in and of itself to make the product unique and interesting... what else it can or can't do will have to wait for some production units to get into hands that can play with them!


On that "lux" issue, reviewing the specs page on sonystyle I noticed that the rating is with the stock 18-200 lens, which is pretty slow by any measure (f3.5-6.3, I've got the "A" version of this lens, and yep, it's not great in low light). Even the CX550V is f1.8 wide open and closes to about that 3.5 IIRC in full zoom, so you're talking a couple stops loss before you even get to the sensor end of the equation... Now if you could put an adapter on it and mount a nice f1.2 or 1.4 lens, I'd expect a different story.

I'll admit to being puzzled by the entire NEX concept when the 3/5 hit the streets, and this one will have me scratching my head for a while too. I've been expecting this melding of photo and video and playing with various "hybrid" cameras in expectation, and the one thing I notice is that this new camera has all of the things coming from the photo side of the bloodline (HDR, Anti motion blur, Twilight mode, high burst rate), but in a video camera oriented platform. Again, I'm reminded of a platypus - it looks kinda like a duck, walks a bit like a duck, but it's not a duck... no wonder it's a tough one to wrap one's head around!

I have a tough time seeing "soccer mom Suzy" or "Uncle Bob cam" being able to make sense of this, so it sort of rises above the "consumer" realm, yet it's obviously not in a "pro" package (although the handle was a nice touch <wink>).

I can remember when I bought my VX2000 and my FX1 that they were called consumer cameras too. They were high end consumers cameras that we adapted as best we could to our indie film style with XLR adapters and extenders, etc., etc.

Quote: I know "30p and 24p" are the mantra, but not everyone cares for the stutter that comes with slower frame rates - I'd rather see 60p or overcranking.

For me, at least, the mantra is simply "Just say no to freakin' interlace!!". I love the 720P60 on my $1800 HMC40.

Dave, I agree with you that the Lux rating is being severely affected by the kit lens. Putting a nice, wide-aperture prime on their would be a whole different story.

It's like when the GH1 was released - one site did their review with the f/4 kit lens and then said it was a terrible camera for use in lowlight, without mentioning the fact that a f/1.7 or f/1.4 would make a huge improvement.

Sony Australia released this interesting demo/promo YouTube - Sony unveils hybrid Handycam camcorder

Dan

One thing that confuses me in the discussion is that people say it is interlaced. On dpreview they state: "*Image Sensor Captured at 30p (29.97p), Recorded in AVCHD 60i (59.94i) format" in the specs.

To me, that sounds like 30p in a 60i wrapper. A stupid detour and potentially a loss of resolution (stronger filtering to prevent interline flicker), but still comparatively easy to remove in post. Or did I miss something here?

In my opinion, one of the biggest chance they missed was to put in sensor based image stabilisation like in their top-range still cams. That would have been amazing - using adapted glass (like FD lenses) with a body-based OIS.

Maybe they are using this release to get market feedback about what to put on the "pro" version.

This type of camera design is a can of worms. Discussion about the AF-100 on another forum have been pretty heated regarding the need for "video" features like motor driven servo lenses as opposed to a "cine" design. The cine design is a lot easier, here is your body, there you go. But I suspect they want the sales from the video crowd as well. And lets be honest, outisde of controlled lighting situations, how many want to try to film using manual iris, focus and Zoom? Or use a prime lens to shoot an outdoor TV show or event?...

These types of cameras might offer a great look, but we still have to use them and if they do not offer the functionality to get the shots then they will just be a novelty for many.

I do not get the 60i thing in this day and age on a $2,000 camera. HD is progressive in my mind. SD had to be progressive due to the delivery method. HD is not bound by interlaced delivery. Just seems like holding on to the past when the industry has moved on. Besides, a cine style camera outputting an interlaced signal is a clash of two worlds in my mind.

Looking at the B&H preorder page, it says the mount uses both the E mount and the A mount (Minolta), but the Sony Style spec page only lists the E mount. Guess we'll have to wait till review sites get one in their hands.

Edit:

Nevermind. Buried in another section of the Sony page is says:

Lens Compatibility : Sony E-mount lens, (A-mount lenses when used with LA-EA1 lens adaptor)

If it's truly 30p wrapped in 60i, then there are plenty of tools to convert to true 30p without loss of resolution. Sony converts it's 24p to 60i via it''s HDSDI output on the EX series. Plenty of software around to convert it back to full resolution 24p. I'm sure NeoScene will have no problem.

But for instant playback on both older and newer HDTVs, 60i is a good option. Let's wait for some tests.

and there are already adapters popping up for other lenses to be hooked onto that E mounting - should be interesting

Hi Ethan,

The lux and the frame rate were the first things I looked at too. Then I went to see if there were e-mount to eos adapters and there are, so fast lenses would lower the lux rating by 2.5 stops, but its still 60i. (You'd need two adapters to use manual focus lens unless its a third party lens with a eos mount like a Samyang, Tokina or Tamron.) I tend to think their marketing strategy is to get first adopters on the consumer version, then those same first adopters will trade up to the prosumer version that will surely come out within the next 3-4 months.

Since I haven't seen this link posted so far, thought I'd direct ya'll to the Vimeo HD promo piece for this camera


Looks pretty nice, even in what appears to be less than idea light, and I don't know why you wouldn't be able to convert to 24p or 30p in post, in fact I'm seeing some indication that the 60i is a wrapper and you really have "doubled" 30p... not sure exactly what that's all about.

The one question I'm curious about is whether this thing can do "dual shot" like the other Sony consumer cams, where they can sneak off stills while shooting uninteruppted video... I think it's safe to say the NEX sensor is getting good results for stills, and so this camera definitely should be able to do double duty better than any previous video camera.

This question is the same one I've been wondering about all day. Hope we can get a answer soon. I would imagine that it wouldn't interrupt it as the canon dslr mirrors have to flip to take the picture and since this cam has no mirror no interruption is needed. I hope we get a answer prior to release.

A niggle but there is nothing arbitrary about gain as pertains to video. A sensor has an inherent sensitivity (regardless of whether you adjust gain using ISO or decibels) and anything higher than it's native sensitivity adds gain.

Another niggle: the Minimum Illumination spec, in my humble opinion, needs to go away. It references NOTHING. Old school sensitivity ratings, like those found on broadcast cameras that state f-stop at a given luminance are FAR more accurate and useful for comparing cameras.

f13 @ 2000lux for example.

The minimum illumination spec "references" the least amount of light that produces a "useable" image. VERY open to interpretation.

Interesting development on the camera though. Once they start shipping it will be interesting to see how people use it, to it's strengths AND against it's weaknesses.

Well, that lasted a day.

A not so random thought: There have been a number of discussions about "who will build the Pentax K1000 or Digital Bolex of video cameras". Something well built, relatively inexpensive, manual operation with few frills type camera.

I've even participated in a discussion here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/area-51/...o-cameras.html

It occurred to me that we're looking at that camera. Thoughts?

No 24p? Who do they think they are making this for? What Market? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm missing something. I'm sure somebody will point out some sort of niche market for this, but seriously, does this appeal to anybody here?

Could be... I myself suspect we are looking at a fundamental change in the market - the consumer is probably more and more served by what their cell phone can do, or maybe the cheap Flip type cams...

For a more "serious" shooter, I think we may see a collection of lenses, bodies for various purposes, adapters and related accessories for various tasks. Sort of a modular camera system, if you will.

Minimum illumination may be way off with this camera, as the lens will make a huge difference, and depending on the gain in video mode (which you won't see in still mode), there may be a lot of variability.

On the dual mode, I think that since there's only one media slot, and no internal recording media, it may be too much to hope for being able to shoot a still while shooting video - at the very least the resolution would have to come down some on one or the other - on the CX550V when recording 24mbps, you can't shoot stills at all, it's locked out unless you drop to 17mbps.

I really wish there were a way to get hands on one of these and see what it really does and doesn't have, the suspense is killin' me! And there are other announcements coming from the still camera side of the equation still to come before too long... Sony lab rats have apparently been very busy with new video toys.

Niche market??? Broadcast. As a B-cam. Or A-cam on lesser channels/programs.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I render out to 24p in post... I really would rather have more data at the intake side of the equation, more to work with downstream. Now 60p WOULD be rather nice...

I think the more interesting question is why a modern camera would need a format dictated by technology choices nearly a century old... I no longer have a floppy on my computer after all, and all my data isn't crammed onto a 30Mb hard disk...

I understand there's a "cachet" to trying to mimic "film", but there's a lot more to it than one simple camera spec! In case no one noticed, DoF on this camera looks pretty good, and IMO THAT probably speaks "film" to the average viewer more than 24p...

Oh, and if the low light is acceptable, at this price, I'll be on it for an SLR replacement that does good video without artifacts (presuming it's as clean as it looks image wise), and good stills (or one could always pick up a NEX5 or NEX7 or whatever for dedicated still work).

Now, I think we have to wait for the raw .mts footage coming out of the production camera and put it through some NLEs to see if it's truly interlaced or progressive segmented frames. If it's actually PsFs in either 60i or 50i wrap, this will be the "in" camera for the cinema look crowd. Unfortunately for some casual users, this also means the videos played back on their large screen LCDs or plasmas will be compromised by the halving of the input's temporal resolution. Either way, you win some, you lose some.

I'd like to know more about the audio capabilites. I read elsewhere that it only has AGC with no manual levels. I don't know the source of this information but if correct, it will be a serious disadvantage - because it means that other than the form factor it is actually a step backwards from the GH1/7d which offer 24p & 60p as well as having more lenses and adaptors available.

The other important thing I can't wait to see a review of is the aliasing/moire - it was reported to be very bad on the NEX3/5 which have the same sensor, so lets hope they've improved it for this camera.

I'm not sure if I agree with the emphasis here. It's true that f/3.5-6.3 seems like it would be very slow and not great in low light if you look only at the f-number in isolation. But that would be a mistake because low light performance does not depend on the intensity of light, but on the total amount of light falling on the sensor. The total is a combination of intensity and area. A high intensity over a small area is the same amount of light as a low intensity over a large area.

For example, 1/4" and 1/3" video cameras are often 2-3 stops faster than this one, let's say f/1.6-2.8. Going from f/2 to f/5.6 is three stops, which means the intensity of light is *eight* times lower. That's a huge difference. But the sensor is *twenty* times larger. So there is actually more than twice as much light falling on it. We should also consider that a typical 1/3" in this price range will have *three* sensors, which means that a single-sensor camera would have to get over a stop more light just to break even.

Agreed. It is ISO, not gain, that is arbitrary. The official ISO sensitivity spec is so loose that manufacturers can do anything they want with the gain, image processing, etc. and then call it whatever ISO they feel like and still be fully within spec. That's why ISO 80 on one camera gives you the exact same highlight headroom as ISO 250 on another. The spec is not very useful, and in fact I think it misleads operators into thinking there is going to be some sort of consistency from camera to camera (there isn't).

Personally, I think it would be a lot more clear if still camera manufacturers stopped calling it "ISO" (which implies that there is some sort of standardization when there in fact is not) and just call it "gain" like the video manufacturers (they are the exact same thing in reality anyway). At least until such time as they do start using some sort of useful standard, such as raw saturation based ISO rating (itself a small subset of the possible methods of ISO sensitivity standardization).

Perhaps gain could be considered as an amplification of the sensor signal before recording, whereas an increasing the ISO could be some thing that is applied in post to the recorded RAW as per the RED.

I suppose calling it a higher ISO, rather than gain is less confusing to stills photographers and it looks more impressive for marketing..

Daniels hit the nail on the head as regards sensitivity. With the stock lens, you are likely to get performance not too different to a conventional 1/3" camera - similar low light capability, similar depth of field, similar zoom range etc. It's because making an 11x zoom reasonably small and economical is not possible except at smaller apertures.

The big difference here is that you can take that lens off and replace it with a prime or small range zoom, which it should be possible to make with a fairly large max aperture. And that will give the possibility of cinematic depth of field and very high sensitivity.

As far as the progressive/interlace matter goes, I look at it from the other side to most on this board. This is a consumer camera (albeit an expensive one) and I would have thought 25p/30p would not be so good for this market - I can see a lot of complaints about "my videos jerky!" It does look as if it is what hs been described as "25p in a 1080/i25 wrapper" - which is more properly described as 1080psf/25. Again, that means it is exactly the same as films (or 25p video) shown on broadcast TV, and hence compatability with domestic equipment it's likely to be shown on. It is also possible to seamlessly and losslessly reconstruct the original 25p from it.

The real question people should then be asking is why ONLY 25p (even if as psf)? Why not 1080ps/25 AND 1080i/25? (Incidentally, "1080/50i" is old terminology - "50i" shuld now be replaced by "i25") It's only a theory, but MAYBE, just maybe, it could be because they can read out the entire chip prior to downconversion at 25Hz, but not at 50Hz? Doing that, rather than the arrangement used in most current DSLRs would be a huge step forward since it should take away many of the aliasing problems and give far better sensitiivity. Just a thought.....

David,
Surely the depth of field is more a factor of the chip size, rsther than the lens itself (OK, there's a perceived less DoF with a wide angle compare to a telephoto...) but I can't see why there will be a difference between the stock lens and others...

Robin - it's both, chip size and lens. Yes, dof is a factor of chip size - if you keep the aperture and angle of view constant. If you increase the dimensions of the chip by 4x (the area by 16x), you will get exactly the same dof if you decrease the relative aperture by 4 stops at the same time. (Assuming a focal length to give the same angle of view.)

As far as sensitivity goes, then obviously f8 will be a disadvantage compared to f2 - but (all else equal) a chip with 16x the area should exactly compensate. This is exactly the point Daniel Browning is making a few posts earlier.

Practically, the designers seem to be allowing the lens to ramp (have a much lower max aperture when zoomed in). All I've said above assumes a small aperture throughout the range, so it should show sensitivity improvements over a comparable 1/3" camera at the wide end of the zoom, if not at the tight end.

Different lenses & with a wider aperture have a huge effect on the DoF. You can check this with a simple test by flicking your camcorder into AV/aperture priotity mode, zooming in and focusing on an object then, stepping through the aperture range. Even with small-chipped cameras you will notice a change in the DoF. Do it on a full-frame camera with a f/1.4 lens and you'll notice a huge variation as the image goes from knife-sharp all over to a very thin focal plane. Even going from f/3.5 to f/1.8 you will notice a huge difference on DSLR's.

The focal length is a part of it too... a lens at f/2.8 & 200mm will have a shallower dof than one at f/2.8 & 28mm. But the biggest factors are the sensor size & maximm aperture of the lens used.

Regarding the sensitivity, one other note is that this camera will likely have a much cleaner image when gain is added than camcorder's with smaller chips. With the DSLR's it is not uncommon to shoot at or upwards or ISO 800 and get a usable image. You can effectively use ISO as one of your variables, so if you want to keep the aperture closed down a bit, you can bump the ISO upwards to compensate. With most camcorders, you would only use gain as a last-resort, but with this thing you will be able to play around with it alot more freely.

I just hope that Sony has added a visual audio level monitor meter in the viewfinder.
This is something that is seriously lacking in my SR11 right now.