AC90: Basic question: dynamic range and comparison with X909 consumer model

D

Dave_2013

New member
Hi guys,

I need help in order to make my decision for the AG-AC 90. I am searching an update for my current small consumer camera and what I heard from the AC90 is really good, and the enthusiasm of some forum members has infected me also.
I am just an ambitious moviemaker, not something professional, played until now with a consumer canon HF100 and I would have some dollars available for a really good new camera, if it does what I want. The “cheap and old” canon is a ok, very portable and quite sharp despite from some disadvantages like bad wide angle, grainy pictures at low light and limited dynamic range. Moreover I am missing manual control.
Now I am looking for

  1. Exceptional sharpness (The HF100 was very good, but the time does not stay still and I expect of a state of the art camcorder slightly better results).
  2. Better dynamic range (dark must stay dark without that bright things are overexposed).
  3. Better manual control (which may give me additional opportunities to improve the picture)
  4. Better low light capability.
The Question for me now is: Does the AG-AC 90 fit to me? And my reference is the real impression of my photo motive, definitely not the argument, that the picture quality of the camera is very good for the price!
I had the chance to take a look at some mts-raw files from Vimeo from a camcorder expo. I saw an enthusiastic guy who praised the OIS, but despite OIS he was delivering a picture shaking, as if it were made ​​without OIS. NO chance to get a real impression. Other videos on Vimeo and Youtube were good. But I have the feeling that nearly all of these tests are overexposed in light which gives me the feeling of limited dynamic range.
What I heard from the AC90 is that it is in principle based on the X900-series consumer camcorders. I did not try them out but I heard that these consumers are really good and very sharp, even slightly more sharp than the AC90. However, dynamic range is “only” good from some tests. I expect from the AC90 (which has an around 3 times higher price as the standard consumer model X909) more than only XLR-sockets, pro-looking body, good manual controls etc. My reference is the picture quality. Achieve the gamma settings and Knee visibly better results than the consumer models without those settings?
The Question for me is: Have I switch better to a consumer model just to get “only” the picture quality of the AC90 and save money, or have I switch better directly to a more pro-camcorder and invest more money?
Thanks for your help.
Dave
 
There has been speculation that the upcoming Panasonic consumer X920, which is still some weeks away from being available in the USA , has sensors and a lens that are the same as the ones in the AC90. All of the currently available X900 series consumer cameras definitely use older, less advanced sensors than the AC90.

The price difference is also not anywhere near as great as you say, at least here in the USA. B&H Photo is now selling the AC90 for only $1,799

You don't mention what type of shooting you do. If image quality is really your primary concern, you may want to consider the new Panasonic GH3, as it has been producing absolutely stellar results. It has been such a huge hit that its availability has been pretty bad. But Panasonic is now keeping up better with demand, and it is no longer so hard to find one.

Although the GH3 is the most video optimized camera on the market today, there are sometimes when a true camcorder is definitely preferable to use. Still, many people are producing spectacular looking footage with it.


 
I've found the dynamic range to be surprising good with the AC90. I make cooking videos and some of the shooting I do is on a white bench, with white plates and I also wear a black apron, it handles this great. It also handles a black wok on a white cook top great also.
 
Thank you so far for for this assessments. The shootings with the GH3 are realy impressing and very well done by the way.
But indeed I didn´t mentioned the type of my shooting: I am focused on nature movies and therefore often I have to handle big contrast differences. I'm up to now still a bit critical of making videos with photo cameras. I do not know why, maybe it's unnecessary. In any case, it seems to me that photo cameras like the GH3 are a bit stickier to handle.
If the X920 becomes available I have to take a look on it. But it could be that the price difference to the AC-90 ist not so huge at the beginning and the lack of Gamma, Knee and DRS significantly reduces the possibilty for further picture improvements...
 
Well, camcorders still have many advantages. They generally have far better image stabilization, which is a huge help when shooting handheld. And the new HC-X920 has the same exceptional image stabilization system that the AC90 has.

While the HC-X920 is not yet shipping here in the USA, it is now starting to become available in Europe. I came across this video made by a brand new owner of the HC-X920 in Norway, which looks very lovely indeed, all shot using the Intelligent Auto feature.


 
The test footages from the X920 are really good. It seems that this camcorder is the true little brother of the AC-90 and not the X909 like stated elsewhere.
A remaining question of me is still the lack of real setting options for knee, gamma, and DRS.

Or does anyone think that the X920 also adjusts these functions but only automatically in order to produce the best possible images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top