AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Thanks for posting the dance video. Sorry to say but this footage does not do it for me. If you had told me this was DSLR footage I would have not doubted. The 120fps is noticeably soft as well. If this is what the camera is ( I would trust Adorama had some time to get a decent image out of it) then it misses the mark for me.
 
k0bayashi said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Firste thought: You were right when you claimed you exposed right. A lot of information literary came to light. Good to know that it was stored in V-log. This footage, though not perfect maybe, is what I consider pleasantly looking. I get more and more the feeling that this camera has to be studied before it delivers what you want (or there just has to be the right LUT).
 
joe 1008 said:
Firste thought: You were right when you claimed you exposed right. A lot of information literary came to light. Good to know that it was stored in V-log. This footage, though not perfect maybe, is what I consider pleasantly looking. I get more and more the feeling that this camera has to be studied before it delivers what you want (or there just has to be the right LUT).
Click to expand...

that original Tobacco GOLD LUT ate a lot of highlight info. I do still like the way it looks on my computer, but when when it gets uploaded it looks way harsher. This looks is a bit more truer to what I had in camera. As you can see there is lots of info in those original V-LOG files. I'll try and get the camera again next week and shoot more for my full review and post footage here again. Cheers
 
Got mine yesterday, and did my first two concerts last night with it. Think I got a good picture for the first try, only had a couple of hours before the gig to get used to it.

One thing I noticed was the LCD was much brighter than the EVF, and the LCD only has a LOW and HIGH backlight adjustment. A medium would have been perfect!

So not sure which one was correct. Putting the footage into the computer now so I'll find out soon.

Battery was about to run out in the second concert and I even managed to change the battery out of its compartment in the back of the very dark school hall, which was a relief!

Cheers,

Vaughan
 
rule 1 of camera club: dont talk about camera club. rule 2: use an exposure aid like zebras or waveform--dont try to judge evf/viewfinder by how bright/dark it looks.
 
I don't think Adorama's 'Breaking Through' footage is a good example of the DVX200 quality. For one the shooters come from a DSLR background, and were surprised by the DVX200 being a full video camera. They also added that the DVX200 would be good for someone 'just getting into the world'. Shows they're lack of experience with this style of camera. I'd be curious to see their settings, because the footage does not look like a good example of the camera's quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guPVpySHrcI

Kobayahi's footage is quite nice.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEDid you use a scene file? if so, which one? How did you take your white balance in a concert situation...][/QUOTE]

I used Scene File 1, and added a bit of chroma as suggested in this thread (somewhere) when I practised in the backyard the colours were a bit subdued when I put the footage into the computer.

However I overdid it a bit with the kids all in bright colours so will use it a bit flatter when I go back for another concert there tomorrow.

It does appear to be a very similar image to the HC-X1000, and the operation of gain, WB, HPhone volume etc, is exactly the same too, so I expect to be able to match those two cameras very easily.

For my work I must say that they seem to have improved the audio limiters in the camera (compared to the 130/160 series), as loud applause did not distort the audio system on either channel, one using an external mic on manual control, and channel two using internal mic on auto level.

As I was recording 4K on a wide shot, (as I had a 2nd cameraman doing close-ups), I won't say too much about the image except that I learnt a lot very quickly and I'm looking forward to using it again tomorrow night at the same venue!

Cheers,

Vaughan
 
AlbertArt said:
I don't think Adorama's 'Breaking Through' footage is a good example of the DVX200 quality. For one the shooters come from a DSLR background, and were surprised by the DVX200 being a full video camera. They also added that the DVX200 would be good for someone 'just getting into the world'. Shows they're lack of experience with this style of camera. I'd be curious to see their settings, because the footage does not look like a good example of the camera's quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guPVpySHrcI

Kobayahi's footage is quite nice.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.... I think it was a "See, if you are a photographer just getting into video this would be a good camera to use" kinda thing...
 
Vaughan Wood said:
It does appear to be a very similar image to the HC-X1000, and the operation of gain, WB, HPhone volume etc, is exactly the same too, so I expect to be able to match those two cameras very easily.
Click to expand...

Will you be working with both cameras often?

I shot with the HC-X1000 recently and found the dynamic range to be poor. The image seemed ok but I remember seeing a YouTube video comparing cropped images from the HC-X1000 and the GH4 at 4k and the GH4 Carried noticeably more detail. Seeing as the AG-DVX200 is supposed the most recent generation M4/3 sensor, I am hoping that even without V-Log the AG-DVX200 will have much better dynamic range than the HC-X1000 and more detail

Seeing as you have worked both cameras I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the above
 
Impressive night scenes but if the 5-axis OIS was on, was anyone expecting more stability than what we see in this video?
 
cescsbd said:
It would be interesting to see a comparison between the low light AG-DVX200 and HC X1000
Click to expand...

If you mean in terms of low light, the 4/3 DVX200 would logically be substantially better in low light than the 1/2.3 HC-X1000. Not much to compare in that regard - like apples and oranges.
 
tflak said:
If you mean in terms of low light, the 4/3 DVX200 would logically be substantially better in low light than the 1/2.3 HC-X1000. Not much to compare in that regard - like apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Barry who wrote somewhere earlier in this thread, that, factoring in the brighter lens of the HC-X1000, the difference is not THAT big?
 
I also would like to see a real side by side with the HCX1000 or Sony FDR-AX1. I only want to shoot in UHD 60P which crops the sensor on the DVX200 so the wide angle will not be as good as either the HCX1000 or the FDR-AX1 and they have the advantage of a faster lens too. So there may not be much of a difference in real life between them.
 
Ron Evans said:
I also would like to see a real side by side with the HCX1000 or Sony FDR-AX1. I only want to shoot in UHD 60P which crops the sensor on the DVX200 so the wide angle will not be as good as either the HCX1000 or the FDR-AX1 and they have the advantage of a faster lens too. So there may not be much of a difference in real life between them.
Click to expand...

There is a good chance I can get the DVX200 next week for a few days, and a friend of mine has an HC-X1000, will try to get both and shoot some side by side comparisons. Can't promise, but will do my best to get that comparison as it seems a lot of our readers as well as folks on here are quite interested to see how they stack against each other. I think the HC_X1000 is rather limited in DR from what I've seen (given the smaller chip and processing) but it will be fun nonetheless.
 
joe 1008 said:
Wasn't it Barry who wrote somewhere earlier in this thread, that, factoring in the brighter lens of the HC-X1000, the difference is not THAT big?
Click to expand...
I don't think I would have said that in relation to the X1000. I said that in relation to a 1/3" camera, like the AC160 or HPX250, which have a native ISO of about 320. But the X1000's native ISO is 40, which is a lot darker.

Perhaps this will put the speculation to rest. I set up a very low light environment, and shot the DVX200 and X1000 at a test chart. I set both cameras to scene file 1, defaults. I put the DVX200 at High Sens, otherwise it was stock. Both lenses wide open, both cameras in UHD/60P, both shot from the same distance, both on 1/60 shutter.

In this photoshop document, there's a still of the DVX200 at 0dB, and the X1000 at 0dB. Then, I cranked up the gain to where the white chip just hit 100 IRE. On the DVX200, that was at 8dB of gain; on the X1000 I had to go all the way to 24dB and it still wouldn't reach 100 IRE, it only made it to 90. Each still is saved in the PhotoShop .PSD document as a layer, so you can toggle the layers on and off to see how each did.
 
Thanks Barry, when referring to ISO 500, is at high or low mode sensivilidad ?.
This test can be seen in low sensitivity mode?
Thank you.
 
cescsbd said:
Thanks Barry, when referring to ISO 500, is at high or low mode sensivilidad ?.
This test can be seen in low sensitivity mode?
Thank you.
Click to expand...

The base ISO is 500. In "HIGH SENS" mode, it becomes 1000.

Why would you use the camera in a low light scenario, in low sensitivity mode? The very first thing you should do, in a low light environment, is put the camera in HIGH SENS, that's what it's there for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top