AVS Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just got the CX300 Sony camcorder that just came out, and I'm very happy with it especially the wider angle lens and the great low light resolution. I'm perfectly happy with the 16gb built in flash especially since i can use my old 16gb SD cards with it.


I'm just wondering if it would be worth exchanging for the CX550 because of the bigger 1/2.88 sensor. will I see a noticeable difference? I don't really see any other advantages, and the Cx550 is $400 more.


Any input would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
The only real advantages over the bigger CMOS size is better low light quality and higher still picture resolution, 3 (I think) vs 8 megapixel. That extra 2.63" in size makes a big difference in that regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for the answer. I'm not too concerned about the quality of the still pictures because I use an SLR for those. With my experimentation so far, I'm seeing pretty good low light results (certainly much better than the Canon HF200 that I just sent back) so I'm not sure it will be worth spending the extra $400. I'll have to think about it for awhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr /forum/post/18315194


Thanks for the answer. I'm not too concerned about the quality of the still pictures because I use an SLR for those. With my experimentation so far, I'm seeing pretty good low light results (certainly much better than the Canon HF200 that I just sent back) so I'm not sure it will be worth spending the extra $400. I'll have to think about it for awhile.


How does it compare to the video's i posted. I'm pretty sure the CX150 and CX300 have the same guts, the only difference might be the awesome wide angle lens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr /forum/post/18315194


Thanks for the answer. I'm not too concerned about the quality of the still pictures because I use an SLR for those. With my experimentation so far, I'm seeing pretty good low light results (certainly much better than the Canon HF200 that I just sent back) so I'm not sure it will be worth spending the extra $400. I'll have to think about it for awhile.

Poke around threads for the last week or two - I'm pretty sure this or a very similar question has been asked twice during that period and some feedback has already been offered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Well, I had to have the better sensor, and it was confusing and a little bit of a pain using the SD card for recording to, so I just returned the CX300 and purchased the CX550.


For some reason the built in 16gb drive would give 116 minutes of recording time, but the 16gb SD card would offer 235 minutes of recording time. I never figured that one out. It might have been my imagination, but it seemed as though the quality recorded on to the SD card wasn't as good as the quality on the built in flash.


There were a few other minor reasons for my decision. If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to list them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr /forum/post/18325923


Well, I had to have the better sensor, and it was confusing and a little bit of a pain using the SD card for recording to, so I just returned the CX300 and purchased the CX550.


For some reason the built in 16gb drive would give 116 minutes of recording time, but the 16gb SD card would offer 235 minutes of recording time. I never figured that one out. It might have been my imagination, but it seemed as though the quality recorded on to the SD card wasn't as good as the quality on the built in flash.


There were a few other minor reasons for my decision. If anyone is interested, I'll be happy to list them.

I recently purchased the 350 which is very similar to the 300. So far, it has been a very dissapointing experience. The quality, even with the OIS, is not up to my old HC3 (circa 2006).


Indeed the OIS is spectacular, however on 80% of my videos, there is a distinct "jiggle" to the video. I would not call it screen door or stair stepping . . . the image is constantly shifting (minutely).


Question: how is the quality of the 550 as compared to the 300.


And, I am beginning to believe I have a defective unit.


Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
I have the 550 and I tried to hold the camera like I had Parkinson's disease and the picture looked 99% stable. I am pretty impressed with it. I don't know if the OIS is different between the 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustindu4 /forum/post/18355005


I have the 550 and I tried to hold the camera like I had Parkinson's disease and the picture looked 99% stable. I am pretty impressed with it. I don't know if the OIS is different between the 2

Just be aware that the perceived performance of any camera's image stabilization will look *much* more effective at a wide angle setting than it will at a telephoto setting.


Don't play with the image stabilization at just full wide angle and make a judgment on its merits. Zoom in a good deal and then move around with the camera.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
In the next few days I am going to do some stabilization tests by manually shaking the camera at different zooms and filming the camera with another camera to show comparisons
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Av8tr /forum/post/18313124


I just got the CX300 Sony camcorder that just came out, and I'm very happy with it especially the wider angle lens and the great low light resolution. I'm perfectly happy with the 16gb built in flash especially since i can use my old 16gb SD cards with it.


I'm just wondering if it would be worth exchanging for the CX550 because of the bigger 1/2.88 sensor. will I see a noticeable difference? I don't really see any other advantages, and the Cx550 is $400 more.


Any input would be appreciated.

The larger sensor in the 550 should give better low light capabilities and give you more depth of field control compared to the smaller sensor in the CX300. What I mean is that you have more ability to keep subject in focus and foreground or background out of focus with a larger sensor.


In addition, the 550 has numerous other features that you might want, such as a viewfinder, larger higher-res LCD, mic input and headphone jack, GPS, etc. If these extras don't matter to you and DOF control is not important, the CX300 should be fine. It won't do poorly in low light, but the CX550 will do better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustindu4 /forum/post/18355417


In the next few days I am going to do some stabilization tests by manually shaking the camera at different zooms and filming the camera with another camera to show comparisons

Couldn't you just do the shakes in front of the mirror and record it with the camera as you shake it?


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sholle /forum/post/18355423


and give you more depth of field control compared to the smaller sensor in the CX300.

I think you will find, if you do the calculations, that the difference in focal lengths between the cameras negates the difference in sensor size.


In other words, the longer focal length of the 550 (for the same field of view coverage) negates the larger circle of confusion that it has.


Or in other-other words, for the same field of view between the two cameras, their dof will likely be the same.


I do agree that the larger sensor should provide markedly better low light capability though.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suntan /forum/post/18355470


I think you will find, if you do the calculations, that the difference in focal lengths between the cameras negates the difference in sensor size.


In other words, the longer focal length of the 550 (for the same field of view coverage) negates the larger circle of confusion that it has.


Or in other-other words, for the same field of view between the two cameras, their dof will likely be the same.


I do agree that the larger sensor should provide markedly better low light capability though.


-Suntan

It depends on how you make the comparison, but a larger sensor gives you the capability of creating shallower depth of field. This is well known from still cameras and various pro video cameras. One of the reasons film makers are so attracted to the DSLR's that can shoot video is that they can create very shallow DOF with their large sensors.


[EDIT to add:]


Think of it this way. A larger sensor camcorder, compared to a smaller sensor camcorder, using the same angle of view (not same focal length), will have a smaller DOF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sholle /forum/post/18358179


Think of it this way. A larger sensor camcorder, compared to a smaller sensor camcorder, using the same angle of view (not same focal length), will have a smaller DOF.

Sorry. In re-reading my response I can see how did not express it very well. I did not mean to imply that "theoretically" the camera with a larger chip would provide the same dof given the same aperture, subject distance and field of view. But that "practically" the difference will be very small between the two in real usage.


-Suntan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sholle /forum/post/18358179


....

Think of it this way. A larger sensor camcorder, compared to a smaller sensor camcorder, using the same angle of view (not same focal length), will have a smaller DOF....

And another point for the original post: the number of pixels on the larger sensor exceeds that of Full HD output significantly, so the extra can be used to capture finer detail for still photos that the video wouldn't capture. To the degree you use the camcorder for stills, you will get more pixels from the larger sensor (approx 6MP vs 3MP in this case if I remember correctly). The increased number of pixels may also help with the electronic portion of the image stabilization some, though I'm less sure about how much of a difference that makes.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top