AVS Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have an SR11. I'm looking at "upgrading", but trying to work out the differences is next to impossible.


The SR11 has a 5megapixel cmos image sensor. The FX7 has Three - 1/4" ClearVID CMOS Sensors.


??? Can anyone tell me if one is better than the other?


Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrensDad /forum/post/18306853


I have an SR11. I'm looking at "upgrading", but trying to work out the differences is next to impossible.


The SR11 has a 5megapixel cmos image sensor. The FX7 has Three - 1/4" ClearVID CMOS Sensors.


??? Can anyone tell me if one is better than the other?


Thanks

If you stick with the single-chip consumer models, the CX550V and XR550V are just shipping now and are very fine camcorders. These are descendants of the SR11 family, basically, and much more capable than the SR11.


By contrast, the FX7 looks to have been released in September of 2006 and I think the next models are coming up soon. Nominally, the three sensor configuration is prosumer or pro level, as would be the upcoming models. But you definitely don't want to assume that a 2006 three-chip camcorder is automatically a "better" camcorder than a single-chip 2010 model. From the postings I've read by people who have and love FX-7s, they're all salivating over the newer single-chip models and anxiously awaiting the 3-chip equivalents. Due to the price differential, I think some have bought multiple single-chip camcorders to serve as secondary cams when doing multiple-viewpoint videography.


In the meantime, unless you have some awfully demanding videography needs, the newest single-chip models are two full model seasons past the SR11, and that's a lot of change time for digital devices like these camcorders. Sony has also reworked the optics in that timeframe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks Tom. I guess i pull from your analysis that there's probably not much to choose between them. It does seem the FX7 users REALLY like it a lot. The price seems really agreeable. I'm also wanting a little more flexibility with control, which I'll get with the FX7 over the SR11, and I'm sure the 20x optical zoom is much nicer than the 12xoptical I get with the SR11, even if it also has 150xdigital...? It also seems I'll get better audio with the FX7 since I can add a better external mic.


One other question I had - why is it that there are so many "camcorders" like the SR11 that have hard drives, but the prosumer and professional camcorders (at least the one's below $10K) are all minidv - seemingly a very outdated format?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
The HMC40 would be a much better buy. For one thing the picture quality is significantly better, it has many HD formats including native a 1920x1080 24p mode and a 720 60p. Theirs an XLR adapter that allows XLR mics to be hooked up to the camera natively. It comes with the very popular Edius Neo 2 Booster editing software and a 3 year warranty.


I think the only significant advantage the FX7 has is that the lens give you more reach.


Actually, Mini DV is already deal. All of the top of the line cameras under $10,000 are flash based, not Mini DV tape based. Even Canon's new 422 camera will be flashed based.


Anyway, if your not in a hurry, you may want to wait until NAB next month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrensDad /forum/post/18308021


Thanks Tom. I guess i pull from your analysis that there's probably not much to choose between them. It does seem the FX7 users REALLY like it a lot. The price seems really agreeable.

..........

One other question I had - why is it that there are so many "camcorders" like the SR11 that have hard drives, but the prosumer and professional camcorders (at least the one's below $10K) are all minidv - seemingly a very outdated format?

I guess I'm suggesting that the two cams serve different types of videographers, to begin with. If if were 2006 and you were looking at the FX7, you wouldn't be looking at an SR11 equivalent, and vice-versa. It might make sense now because the FX7 price has presumably dropped? But otherwise, if you need something like an FX7, better cams in that class are either out or about to be released. The price tag will be presumably high. Note that I haven't ever bought or used anything like an FX7 so you should hunt down other posters' input from other threads.


The post just in front of this one notes that MiniDV is essentially dead, which I would have said as well. For one thing, the HD ones typically had a 1440 x 1080 resolution instead of 1920 x 1080. I had one of those and can easily see the difference, comparing clips. For that and other reasons, mid-to-high range tape-based consumer camcorders are either gone or very much on the way out. The pro ones may be trailing in that regard - again, I'm not knowledgeable about them at all.


Actually, I just had a stray thought based on almost wanting to say that advances in quality are being made in consumer cams much faster than pro ones, but that didn't seem logical. However, it is logical if you think about turnover between buying new equipment. It's probably much easier to convince someone to trade in their $1000 cam for a better model than to trade in a $3000 cam that still does the job you needed done. That is, the consumer market is more about wants than needs and has a lower price point. So the technical changes could in fact develop and be sold more quickly than in the pro camcorders. The cam market is now based more on computing changes than optics changes, so it is evolving more quickly than even say five years ago. And having the new TV and video standards out must have given it a big push.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,694 Posts
I agree with Tom... the FX7 is old news and old technology.


HDV is dead.


There has been absolutely no advancement in that field now for quite some time in both hardware and software.... and there won't be. Getting into this now is rather self defeating.


Go with a newer avchd cam where the technology is moving forward by leaps and bounds. The sensors are better, the audio is better, the ois is better...etc


The SR11 is a pretty good cam (I have it) but it's an earlier avchd cam and avchd has moved mountains since then. Have a look at the xr500 series for example. Or if you're looking to get into it at more of a pro level then have a look at Sony's new NXcams (pro level avchd cams)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks guys. I guess I didn't even see any that used memory cards before now - thanks for alerting me to them. What do you guys think to the Sony HDR-AX2000 AVCHD Camcorder?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
Junk.


I mean it has 1920x1080 60i and 1920x1080 24p within 60i. Other camcorders such as the HMC40, HMC150 and the NX5 offers native 1080 24p and 720 60p. To me having 720 60p is very important in a lot of situations. I'd rather have the HMC40 than the AX2000.


You may want to wait until NAB next month because we will definitely see new cameras for example theirs a highly likely chance that we will see the successor of the HPX300, called the HPX370. Since that camera is newer than the HMC150, I'd expect the HMC150 to get a replacement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
Based on features, it's definitely worth much more than $500 extra. You get a lot more for only $500. It also has HD-SDI output and you're able to hook this up to it. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mory_Unit.html .

You can't with the AX2000.


Their are a lot of good arguments to choosing all of the camcorders that I mentioned. The AX2000 is really not a good idea. Even $3,000 would be a bit high for that piece of junk. I have never described a camera in that way before and I don't want to offend anybody that's getting it but I just can't stand the idea of that camcorder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira /forum/post/18310808


Their are a lot of good arguments to choosing all of the camcorders that I mentioned. The AX2000 is really not a good idea. Even $3,000 would be a bit high for that piece of junk.

I've seen others make the argument for the 720p60 mode on the HM40 vs. the Sony AX2000. I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree strongly with Paulo.


First of all, I own a HM40 and an AX2000 (and have been shooting with a NX5 for the past week on loan). All are great cameras, and any talented camera operator can get a lot out of any of these cameras.


That being said, the AX2000/NX5 certainly have higher image quality at a higher price point than the HM40.


The AX2000/NX5 have larger chips (1/3 vs. 1/4" chips) and the chips are a generation newer so are significantly more light sensitive and sharper. Then the AX2000/NX5 expand that advantage by putting a better piece of glass in front of the chips. The Sony lens is faster (so combined with the lens and the chips the Sony kills the Panasonic for light sensitivity). Further, the Sony lens has much more range (particularly at the wide end). Most serious shooters have to put a wide adapter on the Panasonic which further hurts your IQ and your light sensitivity. The Panasonic/Leica lens is perfectly sharp, it just has a limited range and is a bit slower.


The Sony's also have a MUCH better LCD. In anything other than bright sunlight, you can critically judge focus on the Sony display. You really can't on the Panasonic and will need to use an external display for any critical focus work. This is a HUGE advantage for serious shooters. The Sony's have better image stabilization and some nice usability advantages (3 rings, dual media slots, etc...).


Put all that together, and you're simply able to get better images from the Sony than the Panasonic.


The Panasonic is less expensive (even with the XLR Upgrade) and older so it's not really a fair comparison. The Panasonic is also a bit smaller/ligher if that's important for you're shooting style. Paulo did point out that the Panasonic has a couple modes 720p60 and true p24 which the NX5 has but the AX2000 does not. Frankly, I don't find either of those modes that useful.


There are almost NO delivery formats that use p60 modes. So the reason you want p60 is for the extra headroom when editing, etc... A perfectly reasonable thing to want. EXCEPT for the fact that all these cameras are constrained by 25 mbit/sec throughput. So if you choose to record 60p you are guaranteeing that half your bandwdith is wasted on extra headroom versus pixels that you'll actually deliver to your audience. In a 35 mbit/sec or 60 mbit/sec system I can really see the value of 60p capture, but when you only have 25 mbit/sec I want it all for the audience. So in these cameras 60p is really a niche format. It's trivial to get true 24p out of the AX2000. So frankly I wouldn't pay $500 for the NX5 vs. the AX2000 for those two features. I would pay $500 for SDI out (if I had a SDI display or capture device) or if I needed/planned to use the NX5 solid state module.


If the HMC40 is in your budget, buy it and you won't be sorry. If you pay more for the AX2000 (or even more for the NX5) you WILL get more. The people that disagree usually don't have hands on experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
Significantly sharper? Since you got both, can you post a comparison video on Vimeo since I haven't seen any yet. In broad daylight I find that hard to believe although it could be a little sharper just like the HMC40 could be a little sharper and people have said that the HMC40 is very sharp in general. Also, I said that I'd rather get the HMC40 over the AX2000 just like you'd rather get the AX2000 and you have. Nothing wrong with that. I never tried to imply that the low light capabilities of the HMC40 was close to the AX2000. besides, If I were to pick a camcorder for good low-light capabilities I'd rather get something like the HMC150 or the NX5.


Is Blu-Ray not considered a delivery format to you? Why does a lot of people shoot sports using the 720 60p mode? That's also good for slow motion although I'd rather get the successor of the HMC40 since I believe it'll have 1080 60i.


I really do think $3,500 is too much for that camera and that's even more than the HMC150. I'll tell you this, the NX5 on the other hand is an excellent value compared to the AX2000.


I actually worry about those that are getting this camera not knowing that you have to remove pull-down if you shoot in 24p. Their are a lot of horror stories online. That's one of the big reasons that I can't stand this camera. I own a GH1 and their are many reasons why I'd pick it over a T2i but even I will say that the GH1 should have had native 24p without pull-down and I'm really hoping Panasonic adds that mode to the successor to the GH1 because people should not be dealing with pull-down in 2010.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira /forum/post/18318347



Is Blu-Ray not considered a delivery format to you?

720p in the Blu-Ray spec is either 720p/24 or 720p/25 (for PAL). There is no 720p60 in the Blu-Ray spec.


Even most versions of 1080p60 are more limited than the 720p60 that the HMC40 and NX5 can capture. Any display device designed before July 2008 that claims to support 60p formats does so using H.264/AVC High Profile Level 4, which is really 30p with every frame duplicated (the dual frames are not allow to be different).


To see true 720p60 as per the NX5 or HMC40, you need a device that can decode H.264/AVC High Profile Level 4.2. That ISNT part of the Blu-Ray spec, it was recently added to ATSCbut only a tiny % of ATSC hardware supports it, so it's almost never used. To my knowledge no US broadcaster uses it. So you're only delivery platform for true p60 formats is the PC playing files off local storage. Again, I'm not against the format at all, it's simply that all delivery formats for video are a set of bandwidth, resolution, and CPU load compromises, and with todays technology 60p is rarely worth the compromises to bandwidth. Some very savvy people do shoot 720p60 for the extra temporal data, but MANY people that use 720p60 don't realize that they really aren't delivering 720p60 to their audience.


I certainly agree with your argument that it's a shame there are all these confusing combination that cause many viewers (and creators) to not have the best possible viewing experience. i.e. not knowing how to get 24p from a 60i stream, etc... It's all a big mess.


You're entitled to your opinion (and tons of people would agree with you) that the HMC40 is a better value than the AX2000. Of course you could also argue that at over twice the cost the HMC40 isn't a good value compared to a Sony CV550V, and the Sony isn't a good value compared to a Flip UltraHD at $150, etc... Personally, I'm grateful for all those choices. And I could imagine them all being the right tool for certain circumstances. I wouldn't call any of them "junk" especially if I had never used one.


I agree with you that if you need dual simultaneous recording, very long recording times, 720p60 recording, or HD-SDI out, the $500 to upgrade from the AX-2000 to the NX5 is a good value. Hopefully you'd also agree that if you'll never use those features you shouldn't waste the extra $500.


Frankly, this is the first time the "consumer" version of Sony dual options has been very appealing. In all previous iterations you needed to step up to the "Pro" version of the camera to get decent audio. This time around, the extra features in the Pro version are much more niche, which is why the price difference is less extreme.






Why does a lot of people shoot sports using the 720 60p mode? That's also good for slow motion although I'd rather get the successor of the HMC40 since I believe it'll have 1080 60i.


I really do think $3,500 is too much for that camera and that's even more than the HMC150. I'll tell you this, the NX5 on the other hand is an excellent value compared to the AX2000.


I actually worry about those that are getting this camera not knowing that you have to remove pull-down if you shoot in 24p. Their are a lot of horror stories online. That's one of the big reasons that I can't stand this camera. I own a GH1 and their are many reasons why I'd pick it over a T2i but even I will say that the GH1 should have had native 24p without pull-down and I'm really hoping Panasonic adds that mode to the successor to the GH1 because people should not be dealing with pull-down in 2010.[/quote]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,075 Posts
I never said 1080 60p is a normal standard, I just want it especially for slow motion. Stations such as ESPN and ABC has been shooting sports in 720 60p for a while now so I don't see them having a problem with it. If Blu-Ray doesn't support 720 60p than how come it's in the Blu-Ray presets of my Adobe Encore CS4?. I have 720 60p files inside my PS3 and they play perfectly fine. I'm going to have to find a link to a Blu-Ray sports title that's in 720 60p that I've heard people talk about.


We all know that it's used a lot for slow-motion. The D7's and the T2i's 720 60p mode isn't perfect especially compared to the GH1's but a lot of people still use it for the slow-motion effect regardless.


I don't see how you can say the $1850 HMC40 is over twice the cost of the CX550v (at least that's what I'm assuming you meant). Even with the XLR attachment, it's still not over twice as much. Never mind the fact that it also comes with a 3 year warranty and a free copy of the very popular Edius Neo 2 Booster.


I know it sounds like I'm going too far with this but still, the least Sony would have done was to offer a 24p mode without pull-down. It just doesn't seam right that they can sell a camera for $3,500 without native 24p especially when you can get an HMC150 for less money. Never mind the fact that the HMC150 also adds 720p modes.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top