Originally Posted by Ken Ross
Well I received my 900 today...yes, I ordered the 900. So here are my initial thoughts on how this compares to the CX700:
* Outdoor quality of the 900 is significantly better than the CX700. Colors are richer, more saturated and yet look very lifelike. The CX700 by comparison looks a bit washed out and pale. Additionally the 900 provides greater detail & sharpness than the CX.
* AWB works better on the 900 and does not shift like I saw on the CX700.
** Low light is definitely better on the Sony. Images are much cleaner in very low light if you're stuck in a really poorly lit area. If low light is your thing, the Sony is the better choice.
* Data rates can get extraordinarily high. I saw them peak in excess of 30mbps and the PS3 does not like that. For some reason my clips gave the PS3 much more trouble than Mark's clips. I have no idea why.
On the downside, I've got an annoying rhythmic 'beep' that begins about 2 seconds into each clip. It's a very low level beep, but it can be heard and it Overall a very nice bump up in quality from the Panny 700 and in conditions other than low light, definitely better IMO than the CX700.
Wow Ken, the shipping companies must love you.
I think it's interesting that The Panny is better in bright light but the Sony is better in low light yet has trouble with the focus. That makes it kind of a wash. My wife prefered the TM700/900 footage everytime over the Sony even when she didn't know which camera it came from.
When mine comes in I'll check for a beep, is it possible you have a setting buried in the menu that is doing that?
What did your PS3 do when the data rate climbed?
I think Canon will be the winner for low light performance this year, they seemed to have focused on that.