Sony AX2000 and Fx7: shots in full light: what is better?
 

Hi, I'm using Sony FX7 (PAL) and now I'd like to replace it with a better a camera. I will use it with full light of day only.
Can you tell me if it will give better image quality ... or will it unobserved? I'd like to get news by a guy using both. I like more Sony EX1 is better but it is heavier and larger.... I don't like it. ;)
Thanks

Adriano:

The images made by the AX2000 under the best light conditions are more detailed and less noisy than those made by the FX7 under analogous conditions.

However, the difference depends on how you will observe the footage: the bigger your TV screen size or the closer you are from the screen, the more evident will be this difference.

The FX7 is the consumer V1, isn't it? The AX2k is the consumer Z5. The latter has chips that have 78% more surface area, so with that fact alone I'd say that it would be a change that you'd notice.

The FX7 has a very limited wide-angle coverage wheras the AX2k sees noticeably wider. If you had to use a wide converter with the FX7 then the AX2k would look even better.

Let's take a scale of 1 to 10. If the FX7 gives a 5 picture quality then I'd rate the AX2k as a 6.5 and the EX1 as a 10.

tom.

AX2000 is the consumer NX5U. FX1000 is the consumer Z5. Though the AX2000 and NX5 share lots with the Z5.

Ron Evans

Arkady has both of the cameras so his opinion should be noted also his locale certainly qualifies as somewhere with the "full light of day"
I've got an FX7 and a HC1 and a CX550v
Surprisingly the old 2005 HDR-HC1 produces very nice footage in the full light of day but lacks internal ND as does the CX550(for hand held work, nothing beats this little camera)
The FX1000 retains your tape based workflow and is just a tad larger than the your current camera with higher image quality from 3 - 1/3' cmos as opposed to the fx7's 3 - 1/4" cmos for sure and 3 internal ND filters for really sunny Roman Days and a super lense
The fears I had of AVCHD based work flow have been largely unfounded as pertains to blu-ray disc production so the ax2000 might be for you

I have owned both a Z5 and NX5, so will register a vote for the AX2000 (being similar to the NX5). The modern AVCHD codecs coming out of Sony (and probably anywhere now) just totally crush HDV for performance under any kind of stress. Got high detail *and* motion? You'll be *much* happier with AVCHD. Much. I certainly am. I've carried both the Z5 and NX5 with me on walks through the woods in fall while on my annual deer hunt. Leafless twigs and undergrowth extending to infinity in all directions. When played back on a big TV, the HDV, while crisp and beautiful during period of relative stillness, was brimming with nasty-looking artifacts and patches of blurriness when I walked. And the Z5 has a very mature HDV codec inside. This last fall, I did the exact same thing with the NX5. It looked *awesome*. Crisp the whole time with virtually no visible artifacting until I paused and stepped through frame by frame.

For the best-looking image under all kinds of conditions, it's no contest, IMO.

Best,
Aaron

They sure do have internal ND filtration, it's just that you have no (manual) control over when it's used and how much ND is put into the light path.

Yes, I remember, back in 2005 it was a very warmly discussion about the alleged internal ND filters in the HDR-HC1 here at DV Info forum.

As it was observed, being in the manual mode the HC1 demonstrated a strange behavior: in the middle range of the exposure control from notch 6 through 13 the settings were the same, always F4 and 0dB gain, but the picture was changing in intensity. So, the majority of those who took part in the discussion came to the conclusion that it was ND filter (maybe, two) involved.

But I also recollect, that it was one guy – unfortunately I remember only his first name, Lorin – (or it was a pseudonym?), who told that it could be not ND but the sliding bit ranges used by the camera out of the available 14 bits. He even presented the table explained in detail his theory.

Thus, the mystery of HC1 internal ND filters wasn’t solved, I may say.

It'[s easily solved. Zoom to telephoto, have the camera in manual exposure and look down into that lens with a little LED torch. Turn the exposure dial and watch the NDs flop in and out. You think you're changing the aperture, but no.

You can't change exposure by mucking about with bit depth. The whole point of using ND filters is to keep you well away from diffraction blur - and that always occurs at small apertures.

Cameras with ¼" chips should never be allowed to shoot at smaller apertures than f/4, and ½" cameras can go to f/6 or so.

tom.

So, Lorin wasn’t right. Shame, his theory looked so fascinating…

I have to agree with Aaron. I moved to the NX5U because my XR500 was making my FX1 look like the consumer camera. There is little contest in comparing HDV to the high bit rate AVCHD and full1920x1080. Having gone tapeless I would not go back.

You do have to really be careful about backups though as there is no tape to go back to once you clean off the files!!! I have moved to backup with LTO3 data backup tape just like the computer data centers. I have a Quantum LTO3 HH deck cost about the same as a mid range AVCHD cam and the 400G tapes are $25 each with enough backup time for almost 40 hours of AVCHD. I use Retrospect software for the backup.

Ron

Back-up's the thing isn't it. With HDV you'd Keep the tape, make dvds from the tape ..but now what? A typical event will generate 10 or more hours of video. Last gig produced 180gb shot with a cx550 using the next to highest bitrate so what do you do to store that amount ongoing? Now I'm going to capture from the hdmi port and it will triple the storage requirements for the same event. thankfully hdd prices are reasonable nowadays but what about longevity, Discs will fail I'm told. No doubt bright minds are busy making new methods of storage and one day it will no longer be an issue , taking with it the hotly debated comression discussions

How about downconverting HD to HDV and archiving on cheap tapes as before? OK, you've lost some quality but not a lot.

yes I've thought of down converting but I'm lazy and it's a lot of stuff.
Also thought about burning Bluray discs and might yet

But surely everyone here sees tape as being far more permanent than HDD and BDs?

far more Permanent? ...nah the word permanent doesn't work here at all, these are but fleeting glimpses into the lives of those around us and will hardly outlast us. Some of it (the truly treasured bits) will surely last a little longer as it will be viewed and copied to varying media but for the most part when its done its gone.
I film young person's activities (sports, graduations) and I'm hoping my offspring will have be able to fill orders when these kids grow up and and google their names to discover that movies of themselves as kids doing neat stuff exist and are availabe to buy.
I need my archives to last til then
Magnetic tape holds up until an EMP same as HDD
Optical storage such as dvds and Blu-ray hold up til who knows
New stuff will come along soon making compression as novel as a working 286

The advantage of DLT or any of the other data backup tape options is a lot more redundancy than video tape of any kind. IF like me you like to have more than one backup then the Backup software can manage a duplicate as well. The tape is a lot cheaper than video tape.One DLT tape of $25 is the equivalent to about 35 DV/HDV tapes and the cheapest I ever got those was about $3 each so over $100. To add to that the DLT tape occupies about the same space as about 4 DV tapes. Transfer to DLT or restore goes as fast as the hard drives will run in my case about 65MBs. Will back up an hour of AVCHD in minutes. The deck in Canada was about $1000, that is less than any of my cameras.

So more reliable than video tape,cheaper, faster backup and restore and takes up less space. Actually I am thinking over time to transfer all my video tapes to DLT as I have had quite a few with drop outs etc that will only get worse over time.

I keep disc images of DVD's of finished projects on hard drive so that I can make a quick DVD if asked. All source files with my Edius project files etc are on DLT and can be restored to further edit a project in the future if I wished as well as the DVD images and Bluray files.

Ron Evans

Hi Aaron, I'm happy read your post. I will use Sony AX2000 for my travels. I'm enough expert filmaker but lacking in technology and I'd like to ask two questions:
1) in wide angle is it possible to use AX2000 without tripod? How is it hard to use AX2000 without tripod? Usually I use my camera without it with decent success.
2) will it be significant to buy a wide agle lens?

I'm thinking to buy a Sony AX2000 or an EX1 but my worry is that EX1 is not handy as AX2000.

thanks for your reply.

I shoot handheld all the time with the NX5. It's not light, but it's well balanced. It's a two-handed job, though! :) As for the wide angle, I think that really depends on what you're shooting. I owned the Sony wide angle kit for the Z5 and sold it because I found that the camera was wide enough for me without it (for the hobby shooting I do, anyway). Also, the Sony wide angle is very heavy. I would probably not try to shoot handheld that way. Others might, but my wrist couldn't take that kind of punishment for long.

Really depends on how you define "handy," I suppose. :)

Best,
Aaron

There's probably a comparison list on this site somewhere that puts the AX2k alongside the NX5 and shows you the extra dongles you get for your NX5 buck. And if the word EX1 arrives in the same sentence as the AX2k, then I'm pretty sure the NX5 should replace the AX.

The EX1 is rather good in hand-held situations because of it's adjustable hand-grip, but the NX5 has the lens reach - going wider and more tele. This might be useful for your travels, but if you're like me you won't live without a decent wide-angle. The 29.5mm is 'ok', but not dramatically wide by any means.

Hand holding? The NX5 has the added benefit of Active Steadyshot on top of Sony's Steadyshot, so hand-holding is a breeze. But if you've even thought about the EX1 I'd say go with it. As a photographic tool it outperforms all those mentioned here.

tom.

Tom ... and if you were me what would you buy? ;)
EX1: more image performance but less wide angle.
HXR-NX5E: less image performance but more wide angle.

Another question: what are their running cost about batteries and memory flash?
I will need 4-5 batteries and 2-3 memory flash for my documentaries.

May be EX1 becomes less expensive for it because it has more Supplied Accessories?

Thanks, Adriano

My ethnic documentaries: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/alvmos/

Have you any Sony kit at the moment Adriano? I went from the Z1 to the NX5 because of the carry-over batteries, Lanc controller and wide-angle converter that I already owned. If you're starting from zero, then the EX1R is a much better camera (even though it has less zoom) because of its bigger chips, full stop.

The power consumption of the two cameras will be pretty similar and they'll both run SDHC cards so there's little to choose in the running costs, but the up-front costs are plain - the EX costs another 30% or so on top of the NX5.

What's your intended market? Will your clients pay more for films you make with the EX rather than the NX?

tom.

I agree with Tom. If you have nothing to carry over such as batteries etc and can afford the EX1 then that would be the choice for your projects. It is a more expensive camera with more expensive accessories but much better image quality that is accepted for higher level markets than AVCHD. It will need an adapter to use SDHC cards or you can also buy a hard drive unit for it too.

Ron Evans

Me too, now I'm using Sony FX7. I have some batteries so that I can use them for NX5 or AX2000.

I'm considering to buy a NX5 or even an used EX1 so that I will not pay out extra cash. Are you that EX1 can use SDHC cards as an AX2000 or NX5? If it is so, I should not spend much more money but the choice is very difficult.

I don't have any customer, it is my hobby and I pay every cost of my travels. But it soon could become my job. I'm a solitary and impassioned traveler, as my travels will become more and more expansive, I'm thinking to sell them even if it is very very hard because I don't know anybody. ;)
Thanks for your availability.

Ron, it seems that AVCHD is the new and wonderful codec, do you not think that MPEG2 codec of EX1 is mature, may it is be too much mature and soon AVCHD will replace MPEG2?

There are lots of discussions around that say that the 24mbps AVCHD is as good or better than the 35mbps EX. The difference is that there isn't available the camera quality of the EX1 with AVCHD recording.

Having looked on your site I feel that your work justifies an EX1 and also get a CX550 to take too if you can afford. None of the more professional cameras have the stabilization of the CX550 which is amazing and could be used as a "B" camera with EX1. The AX2000/NX5U does not compete with either of these for low light or video noise level. I often shoot with EX3, NX5U and my XR500 and the NX5U has the most video noise with surprisingly the XR500 having the least noise!!

I moved from an FX1 to the NX5U and it is a big improvement over the FX1.

Ron Evans

Thanks for your pleasant reply.
Ron,
if I shot with XR500 in full day light, the XR500 has the same image quality of NX5U?
From an FX1 to the NX5U you get more chromatism too in addition to better definition of image?
thanks

I should think so too, Ron! One is 6 years younger than the other and on top of that the NX costs almost exactly 2¼ times the FX1 price.

Adriano - the 550 uses internal, automatic ND filtration. With the NX you can choose when and how much ND to add, to change the look of the picture by using different apertures. So 'the same image quality' doesn't mean much unless you're using full-auto operation.

tom.

Tom .
When I bought the FX1 it was about the same price I paid for the NX5U. Listing at about $5000 Canadian. So for me they are replacement cameras though some still like the CCD's over the CMOS and as such FX1/Z1 are still available in NA and hold their price well. IF you can find a new one it will cost more than a NX5U. Even used they are close to half the price of a new NX5U as you mentioned. I have kept my FX1 as I have a lot of HDV tapes that one day I will capture and put on to DLT backup tape so that I am not dependent on video tape or cameras in the future.

Of interest is that the NX5U in automatic is not a match for the XR500. The value for me in the NX5U is the ability to use the manual controls. In a family environment in auto the XR500 beats it hands down. Better auto focus with face recognition and scene detection etc , smaller , lighter and better stabilizer.

The combination I am happy with. I am waiting to see if Sony brings out an upgrade to the CX550 since they produce a new model each year and one is due I think.

Ron Evans

The main difference between the FX1 and NX5U are in resolution and better colour. The added benefits are no tape to worry about and for me doing theatre that is important as I do not have to worry about tape changing before a program has finished. With the FMU128 flash memory I could record for about 14 hours!!!! We shoot the theatre with EX3 ( using hard drive attachment), NX5U with FMU128 flash module, XR500 and SR11. All use the large batteries so could go for about 5 hours.

NX5U is a better match for the EX3 and XR500 than the FX1 in all respects.

The XR500 is a consumer camera so must be viewed in this light. I have it unattended on a tripod for theatre, spot focus and with AE shift at -4. This does a very good job of managing stage lighting other than the most extreme contrast.

For family stuff I still tend to have AE shift at about -2 as the Sony's tend to overexpose too much for me. Face recognition is excellent in a family situation as it will correctly set focus, depth of field , white balance, I believe better than all but very fast experts who try to do this manually.

If you need to be artistic then you can do that with the NX5U but for fast responses the smaller cams in my mind will do a better job as their automatic functions are more elaborate.

Ron Evans

I'm sorry but I like to understand fine. Do you mean that NX5U with good setting can give the same image performance than EX3/EX1?
Thanks

NO, the NX5U is not up to the EX1 or EX3 but can intermix in a multicam just fine which is what we do. The EX3 is used for all the closeup shots, NX5U for mid shots and the XR500 full stage fixed. Colour balance is good between them on standard Sony indoor WB preset so editing is much easier.

Unfortunately one gets what one pays for as usual !!!!

Much like you, video is an obsessive retirement hobby and though I get paid for some things the net is at my expense so as much as I would like an EX the NX5U will have to do for now.

Ron Evans

And, really, it's not *that* bad... ;->

A consideration:
do you think MPEG2 is a codec with long life? I think it is a mature codec, may a be little bit obsolete. I think AVCHD is better and it will be a codec with longer life. Is it a wrong consideration?

All SD DVD's use MPEG2 codec so it will be around for some time yet. Lots of Sony pro cameras use MPEG2 so it will be around for some time too. AVCHD technically is a better codec but it depends on how it is implemented.

The NX5U has some real advantages in that one can record HD to the FMU128 and SD in MPEG2 to a flash card at the same time. This way one can make a quick SD DVD from the card data and still have an AVCHD file. I think TMPGenc will make a better SD file from the AVCHD file but if one needs to be quick it is a feature.

My wishes for it are in two areas. I would like the video noise level to be lower than it is and would like some of the features that are on the consumer cameras like spot focus and spot exposure for instance that are both very handy functions. The NX5U has the same touch LCD but really doesn't exploit this at all. It does have GPS but unlike the consumer cameras does not set the clock with GPS but just records the data. I think this feature would be handy for your projects. IF you had the NX5U and CX550 you would know exactly where and when you took the clips.

Ron Evans

Thanks to you for your exhaustive replies.
A last question please:
if I will shot at a remote area where there isn't electricity and I will have to make backups every time of flash memory to an external portable hard drive, will it be possible to do it with both EX1 and NX5?
thanks

If you have the NX5U with the FMU128 flash memory AND SDHC cards installed you will make immediate backups. You will have about 14 hours available on the FMU128 and use as many SDHC cards as you want to get to the 14 hours and get two copies. One set on the FMU and the other on SDHC cards. The FMU 128 connects to a PC like an external USB drive for backups to the PC. The CX550 will backup directly to a USB portable drive. It may even take the SDHC cards from the NX5U and back them up too. Not sure about that but would be worth looking into.

Ron Evans

Ron,
you are an expert filmaker and I 'm a curious man. So that I'd like to ask you a question. If you had to use both, NX5U and CX550 in AUTO (without configuring image settings), do you see any differences of image? If there are some differrences are they about chromatism, colours, sharpness? Or is it hard to distinguish their quality of image.
thanks

I don't have a CX550, mine is XR500 the series before, one year older so I can only give you a view from my cameras. In straight auto the XR500 appears better than the NX5U in good light !!!! I know this is not really believable but I think the auto exposure and particularly the auto focus are better in the XR500 than the NX5U. I find getting pin sharp focus is difficult on the NX5U and easy on the XR500. The value of the NX5U is in the manual controls for video and audio. IF you are going to operate in auto and not worry about audio then the XR/CX series may well provide a better picture, they certainly have lower video noise even against the EX3 in my experience. A XR/CX with full manual controls including audio would be a great camera. Which means Sony is never going to do that !!!!!

Ron Evans

The shallower a camera's depth of field, the less likely it would seem that the auto-focus would focus on exactly what you had in mind. I've been wondering whether that's why the smaller-sensor cameras (e.g., the consumer models, the Panny HMC15x, etc.) all seem to get so much praise for their auto-focus.

My B cam is an HDR-CX12 (the generation before your XR500), and it puts out a wonderful, ultra-sharp image in good light. However, unlike your Exmor R-equipped XR500, my CX12 is totally crippled by even the slightest light shortage. Thus, I tend to bring it out only when good light is assured.

The NX5 doesn't seem to have a lot going on w.r.t. noise reduction. Beyond what the larger sensor block offers in the way of sensitivity, the NX5 appears to be mostly saved (in low-light conditions) by the ability of the newer, higher-bitrate codec to keep up with the noise (because noise is bad, but "sticky" noise caused by insufficient bandwidth is HORRIBLE! :))

Best,
Aaron