Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor ! - Page 15 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 455 Old 02-08-2014, 07:01 PM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 27
The Dest's graded pictures seem about right to me. If you are the type who likes to toy with the grading process in post the general idea is to capture as much data (compressed or otherwise) as possible in your footage. It may look at first murky, dull-looking and flat in both color and contrast. You bring it to your NLE of choice Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, Final Cut Pro etc. and then play with the gamma level, color saturation and color balance of the footage and you will see how far you can bring it back to life.

The limitations are the color sampling, 4:2:0 in your samples, color bit depth, 8 in your case, the data rates of compressed video information and the type of compression used, your samples 24-28 Megabits per second and H.264 in AVCHD file structure. The less the limitations the more you can play with the above three key parameters in post before things start to look wrong.

As I don't have the RX10 to experiment with, it appears you did your exposure as well as your settings right. The only question I have is whether the "portrait" mode you set rendered any bias in the color balance (not color saturation) and "baked" that bias in your footage. Because of the limited color sampling and bit depth you may not be able to bring the color cast or bias back as close to what you would have liked.

Some people like myself, just shoot our casual and vacation videos aiming straight for the final results, meaning hoping to get the normal realistic looks from the moment we press the record button. This approach has some downsides as The Dest describes above but for the most part we believe it's a fair trade off between having fun shooting and archival quality. Don't be too panic when you see the bleeding of the colors, the red in particular and the blue next. It's just a limitation of the RX10's color sampling, not your fault. I also shoot most of my vacation footage in highly compressed 4:2:0 and am generally very satisfied with it, color bleeding and all. As for my professional work, it's another matter. I just have to get into the habit of lugging some ungainly devices and spending much more time in post to get things done and get paid.
thedest likes this.
P&Struefan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 455 Old 02-08-2014, 08:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post


SHARPNESS: I always use the sharpness at -3. Why? Sharpness increases the local contrast on fine details, and that can actually destroy those fine details. To get the most amount of detail out of the camera, the sharpness should be all the way down. The problem is that the video will look very soft, so you will have to add sharpness in post. Sharpness added in post is much better optimized than the sharpness added in-camera. The big problem with that is that adding sharpness in post is very difficult. So I would recommend leaving it at 0. Maybe at +1. You have to do your tests to see what you like better.

You will be losing information if you do that, not gaining it. Un modified footage will have sharpness at 0. If you increase it will be digitally increasing sharpness, but generating artifacts in the process. If you choose the negative settings you are artificially blurring the image, in other words throwing information away before you record it. Once that information is gone, there is no way of getting it back without introducing even more artifacts.

For the closest thing to what is coming of the sensor you should have all the settings at 0. The + or - adjustments are modifying the image and degrading information in the process.
Tugela is offline  
post #423 of 455 Old 02-08-2014, 08:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

You will be losing information if you do that, not gaining it. Un modified footage will have sharpness at 0. If you increase it will be digitally increasing sharpness, but generating artifacts in the process. If you choose the negative settings you are artificially blurring the image, in other words throwing information away before you record it. Once that information is gone, there is no way of getting it back without introducing even more artifacts.

For the closest thing to what is coming of the sensor you should have all the settings at 0. The + or - adjustments are modifying the image and degrading information in the process.
No. No. Consumer cams sharpen by default - the 0 setting does not mean no artificial sharpness is applied in camera, it means the sharpening default. This is mostly over-sharpening. It is very obvious in most camera and camcorders, some more than others. You can see halos in '0'-set videos.

You have assumed something that is not true. The cameras that shoot video RAW have very soft images compared to what comes out of consumer video cams. This is not because of bad lenses or bad sensors but because there is no - zero - artificial sharpening.

The default (0) settings are what Sony and other manufacturers think consumers will find attractive. They also set contrast high as the default and crush blacks. Superficially appealing.

theDest and P&Struefan have it correct.
markr041 is online now  
post #424 of 455 Old 02-08-2014, 09:10 PM
Member
 
P&Struefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I think the optimal sharpness depends very much on the camera model. In my experience it could be anywhere from the default 0 down to the lowest negative value but most likely somewhere in between.
P&Struefan is offline  
post #425 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 01:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

No. No. Consumer cams sharpen by default - the 0 setting does not mean no artificial sharpness is applied in camera, it means the sharpening default. This is mostly over-sharpening. It is very obvious in most camera and camcorders, some more than others. You can see halos in '0'-set videos.

You have assumed something that is not true. The cameras that shoot video RAW have very soft images compared to what comes out of consumer video cams. This is not because of bad lenses or bad sensors but because there is no - zero - artificial sharpening.

The default (0) settings are what Sony and other manufacturers think consumers will find attractive. They also set contrast high as the default and crush blacks. Superficially appealing.

theDest and P&Struefan have it correct.

I disagree. You are the one making the assumption.

Consumer cameras have an automatic grade applied to them. That is what makes them look clearer than RAW, not sharpening. Any additional sharpening or blurring is done as an offset adjustment.

The "halos" you see in camcorder shots have nothing to do with sharpening, they are caused by light scattering at the sensor level. Adjustments to the camera settings may minimize the appearance of them, but their source is physical, not from software.
Tugela is offline  
post #426 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 01:37 AM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post

I think the optimal sharpness depends very much on the camera model. In my experience it could be anywhere from the default 0 down to the lowest negative value but most likely somewhere in between.

The debeyering probably has a lot to do with that, since every camera is going to be using it's own scheme and algorithm, some better than others. It is not really sharpening, it is just how the information from individual sensor cells are shared to build up the composite.
Tugela is offline  
post #427 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 05:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
thedest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Tugela, 0 only means that its set to the default level of the picture profile. So it means that there is sharpening going on. Even at -3 you have some sharpening going on. And that is about the same for contrast and saturation.

There is an easy way to prove that. Set your camera to Portrait profile with the contrast, saturation and sharpness at 0. Then set the camera to shoot with the Vivid profile at 0;0;0. You will see that the Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation will look completely different. All the picture styles will look different at 0:0:0 and they will also look different at -3;-3;-3.

The vivid profile looks over-contrasted, over-saturated and over-sharpened even at negative values.

So there is no way to turn off the sharpening on those cameras, you can only dial it down.
thedest is offline  
post #428 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 06:15 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
I too have found the meaning of '0' to vary greatly in the cameras I've used. It's anyone's guess as to what '0' means on any camera. I've used some cameras where '0' looked more like a +3 on another brand. Trial and error is the best way to determine.

With the Sonys, the profiles all look different in terms of color, contrast and sharpness at their '0' setting. So even with a given camera, '0' can mean different things depending on your settings.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #429 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 06:33 AM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I did try to add a little bit of contrast in PP and did not like output too much, actually I liked original better. Will try again.
My hockey work flow looks like this:
If I am not at the bench - I do the footage and my two bantam players pick the clips and stitch them together in PD 11.0 as a game highlights for the team channel. I barely involved in the final editing.
Anyway this unedited footage is better then anything I had before.
I think I'll leave this as is for now, but will try to improve my and my boys editing editing skills smile.gif

Thank you all.
bobk77 is offline  
post #430 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 07:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

I disagree. You are the one making the assumption.

Consumer cameras have an automatic grade applied to them. That is what makes them look clearer than RAW, not sharpening. Any additional sharpening or blurring is done as an offset adjustment.

The "halos" you see in camcorder shots have nothing to do with sharpening, they are caused by light scattering at the sensor level. Adjustments to the camera settings may minimize the appearance of them, but their source is physical, not from software.

You are wrong about halos (they are being used by me as a technical term [halos are also what angels have]) and about grading and about default settings (and your use of the term "clearer" is not a technical video term). You are correct that the settings one makes offsets what is done in camera, which includes sharpening the RAW mage. That's the whole point - offsetting too aggressive sharpening or contrast or whatever by lowering relative to zero. Canon EOS cameras in video, for example, set contrast as a default very high, crushing blacks. Offsetting contrast (below zero) looks better in many situations.

You do not know anything about what consumer camcorders do because the manufacturers do not say. Grading is also a meaningless term as you use it - the process of grading involves color, gamma, sharpening, setting contrast, noise reduction, and other parameters. You evidently do not have sufficient experience using multiple cameras and camcorders (let alone using RAW video). As Ken Ross (who has lots of experience and takes a pragmatic view of video quality) says, how much auto sharpening is done in camera varies a lot. That is also my experience. The defaults of different cameras are all over the place. That is why in top cameras there are settings for sharpness, contrast and other things. Lowering sharpness as a setting just lowers the amount of in-camera sharpness and probably contrast done to the RAW image. This is not to say that for most settings the defaults are bad.
markr041 is online now  
post #431 of 455 Old 02-09-2014, 08:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
The camera does not have the computational power to do anything other than apply a look up table for whatever white balance you have set, and debeyer in real time. Those adjustments you make, such as contrast, color depth and sharpness, are likely just variables to the debeyering algorithm (or registration algorithm in the case of a three-sensor camera), they are not sharpening in the sense that you would in an editor. When you increase the sharpness setting you are essentially sacrificing color accuracy for resolution, and likewise the reverse. The reason for using RAW in the first place is to maximize color accuracy, and to do that you lose resolution. That would account for why it is soft, the data is processed that way to generate an optimal image, not because of sharpening. You can use software to make it appear sharper afterwards, but the information lost in the debeyer is gone forever.
Tugela is offline  
post #432 of 455 Old 02-15-2014, 07:30 PM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hockey again.

Here is another try - through the glass this time.

Added just a little bit of saturation and contrast to compensate the glass in PP. Not thrilled with boys choice of music but...

https://vimeo.com/86797679

Thank you all for your help..
bobk77 is offline  
post #433 of 455 Old 02-16-2014, 06:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,981
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobk77 View Post

Hockey again.

Here is another try - through the glass this time.

Added just a little bit of saturation and contrast to compensate the glass in PP. Not thrilled with boys choice of music but...

https://vimeo.com/86797679

Thank you all for your help..
You are doing well both shooting and in PP!
bsprague is online now  
post #434 of 455 Old 02-16-2014, 10:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Looks very nice Bob.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #435 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 73
TheCameraStoreTV: Did the RX10 just kill the camcorders?

jogiba is offline  
post #436 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 08:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 56
I'd have to agree that the RX10 killed the G30, but the G30 was never the top of my list. It's large, heavy, and expensive and its principal benefit is only the long 576mm f22.0 equivalent zoom. There's still room for the X920, in my opinion, because its so much smaller, lighter, inexpensive and idiot-proof than the RX10 and with excellent bright light image quality. But I must admit I am torn between the AX100 and the next-generation RX10 which will shoot 4k with the same codecs as the AX100. Would I be willing to give up the 348mm f14.0 equivalent zoom of the AX100 for the 200mm f7.6 equivalent zoom of the RX10? Not sure... I often use my TM700 at 400mm but wonder if I couldn't get by with 200mm. And I'd have to agree with Chris and Jordan, I'd rather have the 24mm wide angle of the RX10 than the 29mm of the AX100. Decisions decisions.
hatchback is offline  
post #437 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 09:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Killed the HF-G30 ?,they gave the low light to the Canon and the G30 lens is a winner by a mile, i have used and use camcorders and cameras for video they both have their benefits,The size of the HF-30 is perfect for me [maybe with a handle like my XA10 had]but having good stills on the camera like the Sony is a big plus there ino doubt.
flintyplus is offline  
post #438 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 09:43 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
As I mentioned in the other thread, their discussion was good, obviously biased toward a DSLR style camera, but I think they left out a few points:

* IMO the form factor of a camcorder cannot be beat. I've used both the DSLR form and the camcorder form for shooting video. For stability, there's no question in my mind the camcorder form factor is inherently better for video and more stable.
* The RX10 is great, no doubt about it, I love it. However they omit the biggest issue (IMO) with the camera, and that's its relatively poor OIS. It's almost impossible to get anything approaching a steady clip when you're anywhere near the limit of the zoom. Thus I try very hard to stay away from that and that effectively limits the zoom range. That should not be a factor at all with the AX100 as I expect the OIS will be more effective and the form factor will make it easier to hold steady. Sure you can carry a tripod with you, but that kind of defeats the whole concept of portability.
* The DSLR type camera for video (not the RX10 obviously) is prone to sensor dust when changing lenses, which can be a real problem once you get it. Particularly because you'll often not notice it until you get home. Even if you do see it while shooting, there's not much you can do about it in the field. Depending on the location of that ugly spot, it can really ruin your videos. No such issues with camcorders. I've had it happen on my NEX VG20, VG30 and Panasonic GH3. This is despite me trying to be very careful and very quick while changing lenses.
* You will generally get a very nice range of focal lengths with the one fixed lens of a camcorder. To duplicate that in a DSLR will generally require several heavy lenses.

Now these are obviously pluses for a camcorder and you can come up with another list in favor of a DSLR. But the reason I went with the RX10, was to get the great videos & stills, but not have to worry about lugging around a set of lenses. I really have no desire to do that anymore. Even if I got a GH4, I'd almost certainly stick the 14-140 lens on it and be done.

As for stills, I remember getting some very nice stills with my VG30.

For me, I'm full steam ahead for the AX100. smile.gif
hatchback likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #439 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 09:44 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

I'd have to agree that the RX10 killed the G30, but the G30 was never the top of my list. It's large, heavy, and expensive and its principal benefit is only the long 576mm f22.0 equivalent zoom. There's still room for the X920, in my opinion, because its so much smaller, lighter, inexpensive and idiot-proof than the RX10 and with excellent bright light image quality. But I must admit I am torn between the AX100 and the next-generation RX10 which will shoot 4k with the same codecs as the AX100. Would I be willing to give up the 348mm f14.0 equivalent zoom of the AX100 for the 200mm f7.6 equivalent zoom of the RX10? Not sure... I often use my TM700 at 400mm but wonder if I couldn't get by with 200mm. And I'd have to agree with Chris and Jordan, I'd rather have the 24mm wide angle of the RX10 than the 29mm of the AX100. Decisions decisions.

Having second thoughts on the AX100, hatch? eek.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #440 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 11:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
The AX100 and G30 are very similar in form aspect, size and weight.
Tugela is offline  
post #441 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 11:23 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
^ Interestingly, the RX10 weighs slightly more than the AX100.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #442 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 11:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Having second thoughts on the AX100, hatch? eek.gif
Not after your post, my brother! I momentarily forgot how much better the OIS is on the camcorders vs the DSLRs, and am glad to hear it directly from an RX10 advocate that I trust.
Ken Ross likes this.
hatchback is offline  
post #443 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 11:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
Hatch, I'm surprised that's not mentioned more often. I suspect that those that haven't actually owned it are unaware of it. It's a point that's raised by many RX10 owners.

To be honest, I was really surprised and was totally unprepared for it. Having had many Sonys, I just expected the typical Sony OIS. I think it's very tough to design a really stable OIS in a large lens.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #444 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 12:34 PM
Senior Member
 
Tugela's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 489
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 64
I suspect that the optimal IS for a still camera is not the optimal IS for a video camera. So they would have made a compromise, probably in favor of the stills function.
Tugela is offline  
post #445 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 12:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 136
The distinction between camcorders and cameras for video is important.

Besides the OIS difference, there is also the issue of zooming: even if a camera (as opposed to a camcorder) has a zoom lens, and even if it is powered (rare for DSLRs), it is not likely to be parfocal (hold focus) or even hold exposure. You cannot zoom on the GH cameras with any lens without focus shifting (even in manual focus) and there are some lenses where the exposure also changes briefly. Most Canon zoom lenses are not parfocal. The lost focus while zooming affects nearly all the P&S cameras too. For sports, where zooming is not only appropriate but essential, there is no substitute for a camcorder - focus stays put and so can exposure. Parenthetically, the smaller sensors on camcorders also helps for sports, where shallow dof is not as important.

Does the RX10 hold focus (always) while zooming?
markr041 is online now  
post #446 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 01:23 PM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

The distinction between camcorders and cameras for video is important.

Besides the OIS difference, there is also the issue of zooming: even if a camera (as opposed to a camcorder) has a zoom lens, and even if it is powered (rare for DSLRs), it is not likely to be parfocal (hold focus) or even hold exposure. You cannot zoom on the GH cameras with any lens without focus shifting (even in manual focus) and there are some lenses where the exposure also changes briefly. Most Canon zoom lenses are not parfocal. The lost focus while zooming affects nearly all the P&S cameras too. For sports, where zooming is not only appropriate but essential, there is no substitute for a camcorder - focus stays put and so can exposure. Parenthetically, the smaller sensors on camcorders also helps for sports, where shallow dof is not as important.

Does the RX10 hold focus (always) while zooming?

Yes it does, but zoom is so slooooooooooooooow.....
bobk77 is offline  
post #447 of 455 Old 02-28-2014, 01:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,317
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1214 Post(s)
Liked: 1377
^ Agreed Bob. It does hold focus but it is slow. Since I'm not doing sports with the RX10, that's been less of an issue than the poor OIS for video.

Tugela may have hit upon something I never really considered with the RX10. It is possible the OIS has been optimized for stills as opposed to video. I'm not sure about that though given Sony's emphasis on video for the RX10, but it certainly is a possibility.

I'm still more inclined to believe the poor OIS is the result of the mass of the lens.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #448 of 455 Old 07-14-2014, 11:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 29
The RX10 has dropped below $1K. The RX10 Mk2 is arriving soon? Will Sony fix slow zoom, so-so OIS and will it increase the bitrate?
Ungermann is offline  
post #449 of 455 Old 07-15-2014, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,981
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post
The RX10 has dropped below $1K. The RX10 Mk2 is arriving soon? Will Sony fix slow zoom, so-so OIS and will it increase the bitrate?
Maybe the price drop is a reaction to the Panasonic FZ1000.
bsprague is online now  
post #450 of 455 Old 07-15-2014, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Glashub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA, CA - 818
Posts: 1,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Maybe a price drop across the lineup as in AX100 & CX900? The $999 makes the RX sooo tempting even if it doesn't have a remote control for anything other than zoom in and out stills.
Glashub is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off