or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor ! - Page 3

post #61 of 447
This reminds me of a job I was trying to get. The candidates who answered the job posting had camera's with time limits and when I mentioned AC90 and GH2 he/she immediately wanted to known if my cameras will stop recording halfway through a play. After I said my cameras aren't like that, I didn't get a response back so I assume they probably used one of the first people to respond that had no time limit. I saw the posting 2 days after it went up. If your trying to get a video gig off an online posting, it's best to respond on the same day the posting went up or your chances starts to go down.

Anyway, it must really be stressful for both the videographer and the clients to find out that a play didn't get recorded in it's entirely becasue of a limitation. Keep in mind that besides not going over 4 gigs or 30 minutes depending on what the camera's limitation is, another reason for cameras to stop recording is overheating. I've been in a gig with another person in which his camera would stop recording unexpectedly. Luckily my GH2 kept on going. At least the newer cameras from other companies have gotten better when it comes to overheating. When your camera stop during the 4gig 20 or 30 minute mark that's one thing since at least you'll have an idea where it'll stop recording but if theirs a heating issue, the camera will stop no matter how long the duration was.

This Sony still seams like a great camera despite the 30 minute limit. It has a lot of cool features including built in ND filters and the ability to have XLR inputs is huge! Now if this camera is really as sharp as a GH2/GH3, even better.
post #62 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

- even with fast jets and Mark 82s wink.gif
I was once trained, equipped and capable of dropping a nuclear tipped torpedo on Soviet submarines. Now I take pictures and videos.
post #63 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

I was once trained, equipped and capable of dropping a nuclear tipped torpedo on Soviet submarines. Now I take pictures and videos.

Back there I could fly a gunship, I could drive a tank, I was in charge of million dollar equipment, back here I can't even hold a job parking cars!
post #64 of 447
A sincere thank you for deterring the Big War and preserving the security of the Free World, guys. I mean that. Not many people know what it took to hold the line during the Cold War (and the "small" hot wars between 1945 and this day).

Now, back to arguing about who has the best camera smile.gif
Edited by brunerww - 10/27/13 at 7:46am
post #65 of 447
I am still waiting for Mark's review. I am sure eventually he will give up and test it smile.gif
Live is pretty weird - I was trained to fight American invaders back then smile.gif
post #66 of 447
There are couple of more test RX10 videos on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3rv_89AuE4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnXYhXPvXeo

I wonder how this would compare with Canon G30?
post #67 of 447
Did the guy from the RX10 video forgot to turn on the OIS? The OIS from the HX300 is simply awesome - you can go 1000mm+ handheld. This one is shaking a lot even at wide angle.
post #68 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobk77 View Post

There are couple of more test RX10 videos on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3rv_89AuE4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnXYhXPvXeo

I wonder how this would compare with Canon G30?

Certainly that first clip is razor sharp. As for the shakiness of the video, it seemed pretty obvious to me the guy was battling a very windy day.

I downloaded an original .mts file from Vimeo (not one of the above files) and was very impressed with the output from this camera, watching on a 64" plasma. I was skeptical about the camera at first, but it's hard to argue with some of the quality I'm now seeing. Between the nice zoom ratio, constant 2.8 aperture, stepless iris and other goodies, it really does look like a nice camera. As some of the reviews have pointed out, the lens itself may be worth the price of the camera.

I've now got the RX10 on my 'watch list'.
post #69 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Certainly that first clip is razor sharp. As for the shakiness of the video, it seemed pretty obvious to me the guy was battling a very windy day.

I downloaded an original .mts file from Vimeo (not one of the above files) and was very impressed with the output from this camera, watching on a 64" plasma. I was skeptical about the camera at first, but it's hard to argue with some of the quality I'm now seeing. Between the nice zoom ratio, constant 2.8 aperture, stepless iris and other goodies, it really does look like a nice camera. As some of the reviews have pointed out, the lens itself may be worth the price of the camera.

I've now got the RX10 on my 'watch list'.
Ca

Can you point me to the Vimeo clip?
post #70 of 447
I want to see it too.

https://vimeo.com/78302676
https://vimeo.com/78300422
https://vimeo.com/78199989

Those 3 samples look very shaky, and it looks like in the third one he used a tripod or something. Very strange considering its not a big zoom and the cheaper HX300 has a wonderfull OIS. Man, those reviewers are really bad at making tests. Mark should create a review site with decent samples
Edited by thedest - 11/6/13 at 5:38pm
post #71 of 447
There is an interview on dpreview with the Sony guy responsible for the RX 100, RX 1 and RX 10.

In it he suggests that all of the 1" sensor is used in the video mode, as if that was unusual. Frankly, I seem to never quite get the tech side, but I thought it interesting he would make the comment.

Note that I'm one who thinks that my HX9V and RX100 record stellar video. It may be hard for me to NOT buy a RX10.
post #72 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobk77 View Post

Ca

Can you point me to the Vimeo clip?

Yup, it's the one below. I downloaded it and played it on my plasma. Very clean, neutral appearing, nicely saturated color as well as very detailed without any visible artificial enhancement. The constant 2.8 aperture presents a nicely consistent zoom.

In short, a professional looking image. smile.gif

https://vimeo.com/78199989
post #73 of 447
The building on the right looks nasty in the zoom.
post #74 of 447
How do you mean Bill? I'm not seeing that at all. I had 3 video friends look at it and nobody mentioned that. Are you looking at the original download file??
post #75 of 447
The downloaded RX10 video: My impression.

1. No aliasing or moire.

2. Wan colors. Just like Sony camcorders.

3. Reasonably sharp at the wide end, loses contrast and resolution at the telephoto end. Really mushy trees.

I think GH3/GX7 video looks better, no?
post #76 of 447
I also didn't think that video was anything special. The red trees in the foreground at the wide end of the lens lack detail. Either the camera is doing a bad de Bayer or the bit rate is too low. Either way, it looks like mush.
post #77 of 447
post #78 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

The downloaded RX10 video: My impression.

1. No aliasing or moire.

2. Wan colors. Just like Sony camcorders.

3. Reasonably sharp at the wide end, loses contrast and resolution at the telephoto end. Really mushy trees.

I think GH3/GX7 video looks better, no?

Mark, I agree on 1, no sign of aliasing or moire that I could see. That should bode well for fine detail.

I also agree there seems to be the characteristic Sony color in that clip, but I generally like Sony colors. As far as I could tell (and without being there, it is a guess) the colors looked true. The red trees at the bottom of the scene prior to zooming, looked just like the fall foliage I'm seeing in my area.

On 3 is where we disagree. If you look at the area where he ended his zoom in the distance, prior to his beginning the zoom while he's wide, that area is inherently lower in contrast. It's very flat without much to differentiate itself relative to the higher contrast of the foreground. I've shot many pictures like that over the years with SLRs and high quality lenses as well as video with good quality camcorders. I've always found that's how the image looks when fully zoomed in. There just isn't much contrast to grab hold of relative to the foreground. But with that said, I do see detail in both the buildings and trees when played on my 64" plasma.

I think the shaky clip reposted below, shows that contrast retention doesn't appear to be an issue. The subject being zoomed in on is inherently higher in contrast than the other scene and as a result retains that contrast when the zoom is complete. Two very different scenes with very different, but I think expected, results at the end of the zoom.

What I'd love to do is test it against my GX7 which is not lacking contrast or detail. I think until we get it in our hands, we won't know for sure. But I'm encouraged and surprised by what I've seen in a few clips posted so far.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3rv_89AuE4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZ3rv_89AuE4
post #79 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

I also didn't think that video was anything special. The red trees in the foreground at the wide end of the lens lack detail. Either the camera is doing a bad de Bayer or the bit rate is too low. Either way, it looks like mush.

I suspect you're looking at the clip via Vimeo. Viewed that way, I'd agree. Once you've download the clip and played it on something like a PS3 or BD player with an SD card slot (while watching on a good quality, large screen display), you'll see something entirely different. I could clearly make out individual leaves on that tree, no mush at all. It was actually rendered very nicely and at a level you'd expect for a good 2K camera. Likewise at full telephoto, there was a reasonable amount of detail to see given the subject matter, distance and relatively low contrast of the background.

As for that last clip you posted, it's really hard to tell much from it IMO, as it appears it was a murky day and shot either early or late in the day.

One thing I'm curious about with this cam is the focusing. I've been very impressed with the focusing on the GX7. We were at the zoo yesterday and the tracking focus was excellent. Videoing a leopard as it went behind trees and reappeared, the camera maintained focus on the cat and wasn't distracted by the trees. I haven't seen that kind of focusing behavior since the last Canon camcorder I had. I've never seen it on any DSLR I've ever owned...not in the video mode. So I'm really interested to see how the RX10 handles things like that. Unfortunately, it's been my experience with the many Sonys I've owned, that the autofocus is very hit and miss.
post #80 of 447
Ken said "I also agree there seems to be the characteristic Sony color in that clip, but I generally like Sony colors."

But there are two Sony video colors really:

The Sony NEX colors, which I like and I think you like. And Sony camcorder colors, which you have expressed concern were not saturated enough (in commenting on my Sony GW77 videos). I agree with these assessments.

The RX10 video clip (I downloaded) has colors like Sony camcorders, which tend to lack color. I do not like that look compared with what the bigger-sensor cameras produce, including the NEX and Canon and Olympus and Panasonic.
post #81 of 447
If the RX10 were cheaper it would be a really cool camera, but for its price I would rather buy an EOS M (for low light, shallow DOF and pictures) and an HX300 for an amazing zoom.

Check that out. 2000mm zoom and an amazing OIS.

.

___

. Check out that second video. The RX10 doesnt look 1k better.

___

.

And it has a better resolution than the RX100, HX9V, LX7 etc
Edited by thedest - 11/7/13 at 9:40am
post #82 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Ken said "I also agree there seems to be the characteristic Sony color in that clip, but I generally like Sony colors."

But there are two Sony video colors really:

The Sony NEX colors, which I like and I think you like. And Sony camcorder colors, which you have expressed concern were not saturated enough (in commenting on my Sony GW77 videos). I agree with these assessments.

The RX10 video clip (I downloaded) has colors like Sony camcorders, which tend to lack color. I do not like that look compared with what the bigger-sensor cameras produce, including the NEX and Canon and Olympus and Panasonic.

Mark, if it turns out that way, it won't be a keeper. But I'm not sure from what I've seen thus far, that's the case. We haven't really seen any clips whose content demonstrated rich, saturated colors. The closest I've seen is that cluster of red/orange trees at wide angle at the bottom of the frame in the building zoom video. Those trees look very saturated and rich. So, I think we need a lot more content before we can say one way or the other. One thing I will say in looking at that clip, it had a 'large sensor look'...at least to me. Some small chip camcorders have, for lack of a better description, a 'thin' picture. The output from the RX10 doesn't look thin to me.

The other thing is that I've owned small-chip Sony camcorders that did have rich colors (some even a bit overboard). There tends to be variation from one model to the other and from one year to the next. The GW77, which I still have and will be selling once I find that damn proprietary HDMI cable, was particularly bad in terms of desaturated colors. But I've had handicams that had much richer colors than the 77.

I should have clarified, but when I mentioned 'Sony colors', I was more referring to an overall warmth to the color palette. Panasonic camcorders (not their DSLRs) tend to have a much cooler color palette, which is not to my taste.

I think we'll just need to wait until we can render a final verdict on this unit. But it unquestionably has some great shooting features which I like (fixed 2.8, stepless iris etc.).

Edit: Mark, you've probably seen this clip (and I'm sure it's destroyed by YouTube's compression), but I think it's another example that the color output from the RX10 is nothing like the 77's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrrIrYsrMWU
Edited by Ken Ross - 11/7/13 at 11:17am
post #83 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

If the RX10 were cheaper it would be a really cool camera, but for its price I would rather buy an EOS M (for low light, shallow DOF and pictures) and an HX300 for an amazing zoom.


__

. Check out that second video. The RX10 doesnt look 1k better.

___

.

And it has a better resolution than the RX100, HX9V, LX7 etc

Now that's an example of what I call a 'thin' look to the video. Colors were desaturated and almost one-dimensional. It's also hard to watch videos where people are enamored with their 1,000x digital zooms. The output I've seen from the RX10 far exceeds that example and yes, given what the RX10 has to offer, I do think it may be $1,000 better. As some reviews have pointed out, the lens itself may be worth the price of the camera. As for what is truly $1,000 or $100 better, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Regardless of whether I buy and/or keep the RX10, I'll still have the GX7 if I need a really shallow DOF. But keep in mind, you probably can get a very nice DOF with the RX10 and that's courtesy of the 3-step ND filter. ND filters are our friends. smile.gif
post #84 of 447
One point of view on the RX10:

http://www.mikekobal.com/blog/?p=9124
post #85 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

How do you mean Bill? I'm not seeing that at all. I had 3 video friends look at it and nobody mentioned that. Are you looking at the original download file??
My bad. I watched the quick vimeo version. The building was wavy.
post #86 of 447
Yeah, there's a huge difference Bill between the Vimeo version and the original download file. I figured something must have been up when you said that. On Vimeo, some of the detail does look mushy. It's too bad we don't have access to all the original files that have been posted.
post #87 of 447
BTW, it's generally acknowledged that the RX10 is expected to have better video as well as sharpness & detail than the RX100 II even though they both share the same sensor. I think the below video, shot with the RX100, helps put to rest some concerns about color saturation from the newer Sony cams. It isn't the final word of course, but it is encouraging.

https://vimeo.com/73986939
post #88 of 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

BTW, it's generally acknowledged that the RX10 is expected to have better video as well as sharpness & detail than the RX100 II even though they both share the same sensor. I think the below video, shot with the RX100, helps put to rest some concerns about color saturation from the newer Sony cams. It isn't the final word of course, but it is encouraging.

https://vimeo.com/73986939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

BTW, it's generally acknowledged that the RX10 is expected to have better video as well as sharpness & detail than the RX100 II even though they both share the same sensor. I think the below video, shot with the RX100, helps put to rest some concerns about color saturation from the newer Sony cams. It isn't the final word of course, but it is encouraging.

https://vimeo.com/73986939



Ken, Dan great bloke always films on vivid mode in his films,his GH2/3 films always had more vivid color than most but they look great,this is a personal taste thing,regarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrrIrYsrMWU this film you showed, i know youtube mushes things up but it looks like some banding in it to me.
post #89 of 447
Flinty, he didn't mention which mode he used, but in one of his videos he did say he didn't alter colors in post. But even if it was shot in vivid mode (which wouldn't surprise me), it does show you can, more than likely, get normally saturated colors with the camera set to standard mode. I linked that video only to show how very saturated the colors were. With some cameras you can stand on your head, spit nickels, and never get that kind of saturation.

Not really sure about banding in that clip, but original files I've seen have none. As you say, it is YouTube, so I'd be hesitant to pin any artifacts on any camera based on how the site mucks up quality.

We'll know for sure if the camera is the real deal or not in a few weeks.
post #90 of 447
The best RX10 video to date and shot by a guy who knows what he's doing! Colors look fantastic and since this is all night footage (but with bright amusement park lights), I think it looks very promising...especially given the YouTube compression.

The guy who shot it, Steve Huff, called the video it shoots 'spectacular'. I'm becoming very optimistic about this cam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bs8MFiDWM4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !