IMO, a couple of odd 'findings'. Saying "There's also no way to put the AX100 cleanly into a production setup, since there isn't a breakout solution (yet) for HD-SDI" makes no sense. That's not the target audience for the AX100 so why would Sony do that? I consider myself much more serious about video than the average guy and I have no interest in an HD-SDI solution.
Their resolution #s
seem out of whack. They claim the AX100's resolution was in keeping with other cams like the GH4 and FZ1000. They measured the GH4 at 975 horizontal & 1100 vertical, the FZ1000 at 1,000 horizontal & 1100 verical. Their AX100's resolution was 1100 horizontal & 1150 vertical. So even though the did measure a higher resolution on the AX100 than the GH4 or FZ1000, their measured resolution was far less than Slashcam's findings and not much greater than the better HD camcorders. The best 3-chip Panasonic HD cams measured something like 1,000 lines horizontal. Is that why there is so much more detail visible in any of these 4K cameras than any consumer/prosumer HD cams? Something is really whacky with their measurements, unless I'm missing something. Watching videos from the GH4, FZ1000 and the AX100, it's clear that the AX100 is sharper.
They then headlined their Performance section with "The sharpest camcorder we've ever seen". Really, duh? Based on their own measurements the section should have been entitled "The sharpest CAMERA we've ever seen". I'm very used to reading reviews over the years and sometimes there's subtle and not so subtle biases that come out. But here the push was for the GH4.
They then say this relative to the GH4: "This pro-grade Micro Four Thirds system camera has a bigger sensor, which makes for a noticeably cleaner 4K signal and better HD options". I call this utter nonsense. I did close comparisons between the AX100 as did Mark. Both his results and mine were the same, clearly the GH4 had more chroma and luma noise than the AX100. It was very obvious the AX100 put out a cleaner signal. Absolutely no question about it.
It seems they were too ready to jump to conclusions based on preconceived notions about sensor size, bit rates etc. The cameras use different codecs and different electronics. Sometimes it's dangerous to come to conclusions based on what you see on paper.
As an example, here's what they said about the FZ1000 in terms of low light: "In our standard low light test, the FZ1000 required 10 lux to make an image at 50 IRE. This is another test where the smaller, 1-inch sensor showed its weaker side when compared to Micro Four Thirds. A bigger sensor with more surface area usually requires less light to hit that 50 IRE mark."
The problem with this logic is that the AX100, with a 1" sensor, requires only 4-6 lux for a 50 IRE image, a far better performance. So it aint just about what's on the spec sheet. It amazes me these reviewers don't see their own contradictions.
Their bias for the GH4 was clear when they failed to criticize the GH4 for not having built-in ND filters. But somehow they 'expected' that from the higher end Sony offerings such as the AX100. Not sure how that works.
In fact at times I wasn't sure if I was reading a GH4 or an AX100 review.
Yet interestingly, for reasons unknown, they gave the AX100 a '10', the GH4 a somewhat lower '9.7' and the FZ1000 a '9.5'. That's fine, but these ratings seem inconsistent with the verbiage.
So it seems to me that this was not a thoroughly thought out or objective review and I question their testing methodology at least as it applies to resolution.