AVS Forum banner

Panasonic WX970 vs Sony AX 33

12K views 76 replies 21 participants last post by  NetworkTV 
#1 ·
The question is simple, which one would you buy and why?

Even without the final products on hand, we know that both brands make very reliable camcorders and I just want to hear what other people are thinking of these two camcorders based on available information.

Cheers!
 
#68 · (Edited)
I know this thread is a bit old, but I'm looking at the possibility of going with either of these models vs. the AX100, which is double the price of either of the other two discussed here.

I have a few questions that hopefully those who have used both might be able to answer:

1) How is the edge to edge sharpness compare? Every sample clip I've seen of the 970 looks like the edges are soft. There's actually a shootout between the 970 and the AX100 and the sharpness is night and day, especially at the edges. Does the AX33 have the same issue? If anyone has some good shots showing the quality of the sharpness edge to edge on these two cameras, that would be very helpful.

2) How do the 970 and AX33 compare directly in low light? The 970 performs decently, but I've heard nothing but complaints about the Sony. The problem is, I've only seen low light clips for the 970, so I can't confirm anything.

3) How easy is it to do rack focus with either camera without actually moving the camera to point at another object. For example, can you just touch the screen to focus on a specif spot or do you have to actually dial it in? My goal is to be able to record a locked down shot, but shift focus between two object reliably, quickly and without potentially upsetting the camera.

4) Can these cameras accept stereo inputs, such as dual head stereo mics and actually record that stereo signal?

5) Do these models have variable power zoom? I want the flexibility to ramp into and out of a zoom, as well at the option to creep in at a snails pace.

6) Do these cameras output a full 4K signal through the HDMI port or do they downconvert to 1080p? In other words, can I connect the camera directly to my 4K TV and see the actual 4K output?

Edited to add:

7) How is the depth of field in decent indoor lighting? I'm currently shooting with a DSLR and one of my biggest complaints is how shallow the focus is, even fully wide. If I'm using this on a hand-held steadicam type stabilizer, am I going to have a hard time keeping the subject in focus during normal distance changes that occur without having to leave the camera in auto focus?

Finally, would it be possible those who have these cameras could record some footage under normal room lighting conditions, such as you might have at a birthday party or holiday get together? I really need to see real world samples of how much noise comes in when shooting 4K without a light kit. While I doubt I'll shoot much under those conditions, I want to see the worst case scenario so I can know what that will look like.

My goal here is image quality in various types of lighting. I want sharp pictures and a camera with the best capabilities for coordinated shoots where the camera will either be on a tripod, jib or some other support. Handheld shots will be rare, so image stabilization will be low on the list of priorities. That's one reason I still may ultimately go with the AX100. If the AX100 gave me XLR inputs with that larger footprint and real zoom/iris/focus rings, it would seal my decision. Right now, though, it seems the biggest gain is that sensor and the optics overall. The other options seem to do everything else better for less money.

I just would rather save the extra cash if a cheaper option will get me there. I just don't want another camera that is going to be throwing up noisy low/lower light video like my DSLR does.

Thanks for your help, everyone.
 
#69 · (Edited)
You understand that the AX33 has no full exposure control? You can either select a priority mode, or you can lock overall exposure without having any say in what the shutter speed, aperture and gain would be.

As for racking focus, all touch-sensitive systems I played with upset the camera, so you see a little jolt. Maybe with a better tripod it will be less noticeable. The transition itself does not look like a manual professional one as well. The older Sony pro cams offered several profiles for transition, like start slow, then go fast, then slow down.
 
#70 ·
You understand that the AX33 has no full exposure control? You can either select a priority mode, or you can lock overall exposure without having any say in what the shutter speed, aperture and gain would be.
I didn't at the time I posted, but I've since found the dedicated thread.

What I read was....disappointing...

I think I'm definitely going with the AX100. The only really bad things people say about it are the lack of really good image stabilization and the size and weight.

Since I seldom shoot handheld, neither is an issue. I just didn't want to pay more than I needed to.

I just keep looking at the beautiful images people keep posting from the AX100 and have realized the cheaper options simple don't come close enough to accept the compromises.
 
#75 ·
I like this camera but when I watch videos on youtube I don´t like the color. Everybody says colors are dark, washed or flat. I agree with that statement. I read different solutions in AVS forums:

Awatson said: "Then I can adjust white balance and boost the color a bit in my editor".

Sookgoo wonder: "Wouldn't it give us more saturated color if we increase the level of color in 'picture adjustment'? +3 to the colour"

El nombre said (about X920 model): "Add +3 to the sharpness and +3 to the colour... the camcorder is now behaving like one would expect from £900 worth of kit".

lastquark said: "I immediately turn down the exposure by 2 notches and increase the color by another 2".

I would like to know if those new adjustments (in the camera not in the editor) work well. Could you upload a video or post some links to watch the color improvement?

Thanks.
 
#77 · (Edited)
I haven't seen as much from the Panasonic models, but it's been my experience Sony tends to yield a cooler image than other brands when in auto mode. In manual white balance mode, the difference is much less. Since I've shot professionally, I tend to shoot in manual mode even on consumer cameras.

The one pro Panasonic model I tested once back in the SD video days yielded similar results to what you described: flat colors with a more washed out appearance. Tried as I might, I couldn't get truly acceptable video with it for commercial production. We ended up sending it back and bought a nice Sony Hyper HAD shoulder cam with a Fujinon lens that produced tack sharp images even on analog Betacam. The best part is, we were able to add it into the studio setup for larger productions requiring more cameras since they were the exact camera with studio connections instead of the dockable deck. Being the same camera, we could just use the same scene file in video shading, with just a few minor tweaks.

The one thing I did like about the Panasonic was its low light capabilities. I guess the flatness was the compromise needed to get there. Had it been for news photography instead of commercial production, I might have OK'd the camera for all those times news crews are shooting indoors and at night.

I do prefer the saturation and black levels of Sony cameras, but they do require careful white balancing to avoid looking too cool. I've had mixed lighting conditions where the placement of the white card made a massive difference.

At one station I worked at years ago, the sports guy always tried to get me for his shoots because he liked the look of my video under stadium lights. Too many other photogs would come back with orangy video from the sodium vapor lights or blueish from mercury vapor ones. I would always try to get an opportunity to have someone hold my card out on the playing surface to ensure it was fully within the field lighting.

Later, in the Creative Services department, when I did commercial production, I often found myself in store front businesses with large windows, fluorescent lighting and lots of shadows. It took a lot of finessing to make those places look respectable with a small Omni Light kit to even things out.

The common thing between both situations was a lack of advance post production correction equipment like we have today in digital editing systems. I had Video, Setup, Chroma and Hue adjustments and a scope to monitor them. That's it. Now, everything is pixel-based, so you can control not just individual colors (and even correct white balance after the fact) and gamma levels, but individual parts of the image. It used to be all or nothing. Now, you can bring out one little detail while leaving everything else intact. I get some really awful video at times and it's amazing how good I can make it with the capabilities of today's non-linear editing systems. Add in tools like After Effects and control is endless.

Having said that, there's still no substitute for properly shot video. The less tweaking I need to do, the better for image quality. Too often, the more you have to do to make video look acceptable, the more compromises that occur compared to the same video shot properly.

At any rate, I opted to go with the AX100. I seldom shoot hand held, so I can do without the BOSS stabilizer. I've only had it for the day, but I'm already very happy with the results.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top