New Panasonic 4K 60P Camcorder HC-X1000

[Mike Warren]

Is it too much to hope they've made this combination exposure system available on the iris ring? I would have no problems with the iris ring adjusting a computed optimisation on Iris/ND/Gain, and even shutter speed, as long as it was optional.

 

[Camera Expert]

The closest competitor right now seems to be the Sony PXW-X70, which cannot record internal 4K yet (Sony promises the capability unlocked in a future firmware upgrade) and sells for less cost than the Panasonic. It remains to be seen how the image from these two cameras compare as the Panasonic has yet to be released. I'd recommend waiting for these inevitable video comparisons to see which looks better to you.

Closest competitors would be the JVC HMQ10 and the Sony AX1. All 3 have similar sized chips and all 3 shoots 4K 60p (2160 60p).

 

[mschagen]

About the apperture; I once figured out how the apperture on my old mx300 was constructed by pointing it at a tiny lightsource with an otherwise black background and bringing it out of focus. The bokeh, and the way it changes with changing f-number will tell you how it is constructed. The mx300, being an old consumer cam simply had two opaque strips with wedge-shaped cuts which moved up-and down, giving a diamond shapes bokeh of varying size. Something you can still find on the cheaper consumer cams. The lower half of the bokeh was often darker than the upper half with a sharp line seperating the two halves, and this line moved up or down as the f-number changed. Clearly it also had a nd-filter with a sharp edge which moved up-and-down as you changed the f-number. The sharp edge of the nd-filter of the mx300 introduced diffraction-diffusion of its own so a natural improvement would be to make the transition gradual.
With panasonic consumer cams, the f-number is always a virtual f-number resulting from a combination of aperture size and nd-filtering.
I can imagine that this cam has a more advanced aperture with more blades and pieces of glass with various gradations. I suspect that e.g. by using blades and/or pieces of glass without any sharp edges but which all have smooth transitions from opague to transparant a lot of diffraction diffusion can be avoided. Using the setup I described one can figure this out if you don't have access to service manuals or panasonic engineers.

 

[mschagen]

Here are links for two of the best 4K clips I've seen shot with the HC-X1000. Even with Youtube compression, they look damn good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTdXxYCeHbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mb98It2I54

The first shot indicates that low light performance should be pretty good but it als show quite a bit of purple fringing. Could this be caused by the combination of shooting with the shortest focal length and widest aperture? The second shot doesn't show this, possibly because the apperture was narrower.

I suspect that if they would have selected the lens of the x920 instead of that of the v750/w850 they would have had a better optical quality (but less zoom range). However, I feel that this new lens design will end up in more models from panasonic. I have even wondered at what point they will drop the 3mos system for consumer cams altogether. The low light benefit is becoming pretty marginal and it propably can't be combined with their new lens design.

 

[Barry_Green]

Is it too much to hope they've made this combination exposure system available on the iris ring? I would have no problems with the iris ring adjusting a computed optimisation on Iris/ND/Gain, and even shutter speed, as long as it was optional.

Yes, that would be too much to hope for.

They'd actually done that on the AC90 (and the HMC40); they integrated the ND filter and the gain system all into one "exposure" ring. It's actually pretty high-tech and painfully obvious -- instead of worrying about three different controls (iris, gain, and ND), it integrated them all into one ring, with "brighter" in one direction and "darker" in the other. The way it works is pretty clever; within a certain range (wide open down to f/2.8) turning the ring opens or closes the iris. If you open it up more than "wide open", it goes into gain, adding gain as you open up more and more. And if you try to stop it down below f/2.8 (the diffraction limit on the AC90/HMC40) it instead brings in a little bit of ND filter, and progressively more and more ND filter, until the ND is fully engaged at f/6.8. At that point the physical iris is still f/2.8, and the ND filter has brought the exposure down to effectively f/6.8. Stop down any more and it'll start moving the iris again, so -- you can lower exposure, but you will be running into progressively more diffraction. So this system is optimized to produce maximum image quality under a broad range of lighting conditions, avoiding gain when you don't need it, and keeping the iris at its best position for as long as possible.

It was a brilliant solution to the problem, but it was hampered in that the integrated ND filter was (IMHO) too weak. I think it was only about 2 2/3 stops, and you really need a lot more; you ended up still needing to crank up the shutter speed or attaching a 2-stop (or 4-stop) external filter in order to deal with daylight. The camera could keep the iris out of the dangerous diffraction zone by cranking up the shutter, but I always found that a highly unsatisfactory solution; I'd much rather just bolt on a 2-stop ND rather than see the shutter jump to 1/250.

I was hoping for the same type of integrated exposure system on the HC-X1000, somehow integrating the stronger 4-stop and 6-stop ND filters. But that's not what we got. Instead it works more like a traditional camera in that it has a dedicated iris ring that adjusts only the iris; there's a gain wheel which lets you finely control the gain as smoothly as if it was an iris wheel (you can increase or decrease gain in 1dB increments), and you have a separate ND filter switch that lets you swap in 2, 4, or 6 stops of ND. The exposure effect is immediate (i.e., brightness drops by two stops with each click of the switch) but other than the brightness change there's no visible indication that anything else happened (i.e., you don't see a filter wheel frame rotating through the shot as you change the filter position).

In manual mode, you control the three features separately. In automatic exposure, the camera can take control of all of them (and also the shutter) and create seamless exposure changes from broad daylight to deep shade.

 

[Barry_Green]

I can imagine that this cam has a more advanced aperture with more blades and pieces of glass with various gradations. I suspect that e.g. by using blades and/or pieces of glass without any sharp edges but which all have smooth transitions from opague to transparant a lot of diffraction diffusion can be avoided. Using the setup I described one can figure this out if you don't have access to service manuals or panasonic engineers.

When I had the camera I did peeir into the iris with a flashlight to see if the iris worked the same on this camera, as it did on the AC90 and HMC40. It is not the same system, and the iris is a lot rounder in this camera; I think the AC90 and HMC40 were using very few blades (3 or 4? don't remember offhand) whereas this looks more like it was at least six or eight. The iris stays round, it's not a triangular or diamond shape like on the other cameras.

However, I didn't see any obvious ND filter intrusion on the imaging path when engaging it. You can hear it swap in, but I didn't see exactly how it was happening. It was much easier to see on the HMC40 & AC90.

 

[Barry_Green]

The first shot indicates that low light performance should be pretty good but it als show quite a bit of purple fringing. Could this be caused by the combination of shooting with the shortest focal length and widest aperture? The second shot doesn't show this, possibly because the apperture was narrower.

Consider that all the shots out there are from preproduction units, which could have suffered from various maladies due to the prototype nature of the camera. On the unit I was using I did see some fringing at full tele, but -- it's a Leica lens, I expect it to perform well once the final units are assembled to final specifications. The unit I was using was more of a working prototype, a pre-production model.

I have even wondered at what point they will drop the 3mos system for consumer cams altogether. The low light benefit is becoming pretty marginal and it propably can't be combined with their new lens design.

This HC-X1000 is not a 3MOS, it's a single-sensor.

 

[harddrive]

The ND is different on this camera. It can be switched in seamlessly (I.e., you don't see a physical filter wheel move through the frame). I don't know exactly how it does it, but it is no longer absolutely prohibited to change ND in the middle of a shot. Furthermore, the auto exposure system can seamlessly control exposure from dark shade to full sun, again seamlessly. It can combine swapping the ND with small changes in the iris and adjusting the gain to deliver practically completely undetectable exposure changes over a huge range. All while totally avoiding diffraction. ..................

It is new. You have to embrace the new ways to use it. You can get every shot you want, but you might be approaching it in a slightly different way.

The only thing I disagree with in that whole answer is the phrase "It is new"! The reply from mschagen has virtually said it all, and it's a technique long used in consumer cameras with small chips. I can't remember the camera model but a very similar technique was found to be used in a camera owned by a friend some years ago, though I believe in that case the ND took the form of a grad filter that moved in and out very close to the plane of the iris. It's what I'd expect in such a camera.

This is just how it is going to be with small-sensor 4K cameras. All I can say is: don't knock it until you've tried it. It works.

Well.... it works in so far as it can allow a decent range (3-4 stops, anyway) of "in-shot" exposure adjustment without diffraction problems, but from what I've seen it's making the best of the situation, it would be totally wrong to think it's going to be as good as a more conventional iris situation. Apart from suffering from a somewhat greater servo lag effect, it will (as mschagen mentions) affect bokeh, and perhaps most importantly will mean that control of depth of field will be virtually non existant. That will be whatever you get within a stop of wide open - take it or leave it.

Personally, I think the future just does not lie with using this size of chip in this sort of camera - 4k and small sensors of this type just do not go together. Maybe in cheaper consumer cameras, but not in anything that wants to be thought of as "pro" - which may be one consideration why this is from the consumer division, not professional? Not only will larger chips ease exposure control problems, they must (all else equal) mean far better low light performance.

Yes, that would be too much to hope for.

They'd actually done that on the AC90 (and the HMC40); they integrated the ND filter and the gain system all into one "exposure" ring. It's actually pretty high-tech and painfully obvious -- instead of worrying about three different controls (iris, gain, and ND), it integrated them all into one ring, with "brighter" in one direction and "darker" in the other. The way it works is pretty clever; ............

..........I was hoping for the same type of integrated exposure system on the HC-X1000, somehow integrating the stronger 4-stop and 6-stop ND filters. But that's not what we got.

In manual mode, you control the three features {variable ND, iris, gain} separately. In automatic exposure, the camera can take control of all of them (and also the shutter) and create seamless exposure changes from broad daylight to deep shade.

Like Mike Warren, I was also expecting a "one ring" solution in manual mode to give a range of smooth continuous exposure control. (With switchable NDs to give coarse control.) What you describe sounds a nightmare in any sort of run and gun situation with unpredictable lighting levels - at least if you want to use manual exposure. The auto system sounds fine, but unless you've all the time in the world I wouldn't like to try it in manual mode. I'm surprised. That sort of one ring control is what I remember my friends consumer camera having many years ago, and when I read your first reply about variable ND etc assumed (like Mike?) would be how this camera would handle it. It's bad news that is not the case.

 

[Mike Warren]

The only thing I disagree with in that whole answer is the phrase "It is new"!

I was about to answer, but you've said pretty much what I was going to say.

though I believe in that case the ND took the form of a grad filter that moved in and out very close to the plane of the iris.

Yes, that's how they work, and what I was hoping for this camera.

perhaps most importantly will mean that control of depth of field will be virtually non existant.

I don't think DoF control is a high priority for any small chip camera. I can accept that as a limitation of the beast, especially because physics dictates it.

Personally, I think the future just does not lie with using this size of chip in this sort of camera - 4k and small sensors of this type just do not go together.

I mostly agree with this. The problem with large chip cameras is that good long range zooms are prohibitively expensive and quite heavy, so I expect there will still be a market for small chips cameras. But maybe it's time to go to 1/2", or even 2/3" as the new 1/3". It seems to me that manufacturers are holding off on doing that, although Sony's new 1" cameras are an interesting development.

Like Mike Warren, I was also expecting a "one ring" solution in manual mode to give a range of smooth continuous exposure control.

As it stands, the iris ring is only of any use at all in HD mode, and even then it's limited. I've wondered for a long time why variable ND hasn't been included on 1/3" cameras, and assumed it was because the graduation would have been obvious across the frame, but Sony have just done it in the X180/160, so it seems it was purely a marketing reason all along.

What you describe sounds a nightmare in any sort of run and gun situation with unpredictable lighting levels - at least if you want to use manual exposure.

Yes, even filming wildlife I'm constantly riding the ND on a 1/3" camera. It can get very frustrating.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well.... it works in so far as it can allow a decent range (3-4 stops, anyway) of "in-shot" exposure adjustment without diffraction problems, but from what I've seen it's making the best of the situation, it would be totally wrong to think it's going to be as good as a more conventional iris situation.

Obviously. But again, you can't have a conventional iris situation. It just isn't in the cards. You can't have a conventional iris situation with a 1/3" HD camera either. That ship has left the port, and we're now tasked with finding out how to work with the tools that, like it or not, are going to be part of the arsenal going forward.

Apart from suffering from a somewhat greater servo lag effect, it will (as mschagen mentions) affect bokeh, and perhaps most importantly will mean that control of depth of field will be virtually non existant.

You're overthinking the theory and getting caught up in it when, in fact, none of that matters a single atom, since you're unlikely to be doing rapid iris changes when at full telephoto, and when you're at normal fields of view, there won't *be* anything like "bokeh" because the entire field of view is going to be in sharp focus. Not trying to be a smart-aleck, just pointing out that there isn't much in the way of selective focus at all unless you're at the long end of the lens.

Personally, I think the future just does not lie with using this size of chip in this sort of camera - 4k and small sensors of this type just do not go together.

And yet, there are many reasons for exactly this type of camera. Large chips mean large lenses which means large expense and heavy weight (or extremely limited zoom range). There are as many reasons for a 4K palmcorder/handheld camera as there ever have been for HD palmcorders/handheld cameras, or standard-def palmcorders/handheld cameras. The need for this type of camera hasn't changed. There are some uses where a DSLR's 3x zoom range, or the weight of a shoulder camera, or the expense and weight of a cine-sized lens, are simply not appropriate and simply will not get the job done. And at that point, you look back at something like this and say ... holy hell, a 20x zoom and 4K resolution in a handheld package with killer OIS? One, please. And at that point, that's when you'll realize that the efforts you have to put in to getting the image the way you want it, are worth it.

Now, this may never be a practicality for your particular personal usage, sure... but for many live-event style shooters, this may be exactly the ticket they're looking for. And yes, it's a little more work to get great images out of a small-chip 4K camera, just like it was a little more work to get great images from a small-chip HD camera. The technology has made it vastly more approachable and practical.

Not only will larger chips ease exposure control problems, they must (all else equal) mean far better low light performance.

Yes, but they also mean larger lenses and shorter zoom ranges and higher costs and heavier weight. Again, not suitable for all users or all uses.

What you describe sounds a nightmare in any sort of run and gun situation with unpredictable lighting levels - at least if you want to use manual exposure. The auto system sounds fine, but unless you've all the time in the world I wouldn't like to try it in manual mode. I'm surprised. That sort of one ring control is what I remember my friends consumer camera having many years ago, and when I read your first reply about variable ND etc assumed (like Mike?) would be how this camera would handle it. It's bad news that is not the case.

David, come on... I've used it, you haven't; I say it's workable, you say it's "a nightmare." Just give it a try before you condemn an entire class of cameras.

The fact is, things are different now. The days of "never ever use auto for anything" are over. The type of user who's going to be using a camera like this, is not going to have a crew and a separate producer and a grip truck. In controlled situations manual is fine, but in unpredictable situations manual is not going to be the way to go. It just isn't. Like in cars, manual transmissions used to mean better gas mileage and faster performance -- and that's why practically every car I've bought since 1984 has had a manual transmission. But today, the best performance is gotten from automatics, or automatically-controlled manuals. Better gas mileage, and better speed. Tech has improved, and stood the old rule on its head.

So that's where we're at with the new small-chip 4K cameras -- the old way doesn't work anymore. You're right, the old way doesn't work (well) with a 1/3"-chip-sized 4K camera. But that doesn't mean the world is collapsing and this whole class of camera gets dumped in the dumpster. If I was in a run-and-gun situation where I couldn't predict what the lighting situation was going to be, I'd use automatic face exposure. The system will lock in on the face and it will adjust the exposure and keep the face (ideally) exposed as best it can, and it will do it a darn sight better than you or I would with a manual filter wheel, a 3-position gain switch, and an iris ring. I would go so far as to predict that for "run and gun" footage shot in unpredictable conditions, a higher percentage of footage shot with auto face exposure would be usable, as versus conventional operation of all manual control of a camera of this size. It's a different world now. You don't have to live in fear of your subject walking past something white in the background and the exposure suddenly lurching darker, and then they pass a black sign and everything overexposes, etc. The camera is smart enough to know what a face is, to lock in on it, and to expose it properly, and to ignore the guy in the background with the white t-shirt (which might cause an older camera to change exposure).

If you know you're going to be in controlled situations, use manual all you want. It's there, it works, you have complete iris and gain and shutter and ND filter control. But if you're in an unpredictable scenario, it may be more difficult because of a more limited iris range that you can safely (diffraction-free) use, and in those scenarios, judicious use of certain auto features will likely deliver perfectly useable footage without the fear or hassles.

Your mileage may vary. You may decide you don't even want to try a camera like that. You may decide that the whole field of small-chip 4K cameras needs to be eradicated. That would be your opinion, but it wouldn't match mine. I've found it to be workable, I've found it to deliver great footage, and I've found that while it's a different way of working, it's no less valid.

 

[Mike Warren]

The fact is, things are different now. The days of "never ever use auto for anything" are over.

Does the X1000 have an easily assessable exposure compensation function? That's something that could easily be put on the iris ring. Often, auto exposure just doesn't work for me. I can be filming a black bird and 3 seconds later a white bird. I have to go from about 1 stop over to 2 stops under. With wildlife things can change very quickly and a second often makes the difference between getting an interesting behaviour and seeing an animal just sitting there.

 

[Phil vG]

Maybe the fact that a lot of people on here are "knocking it before they try it" is the exact reason why Panasonic is releasing it on the consumer market before they try putting these sort of things in a pro camera.
Even though it will cost the same as a starting pro, its still not a pro cam. So normal consumers need to be able to use it. That (IMO) means making the AF a priority.

 

[mschagen]

Large-sensor vs small sensor, shallow dof or deep focus, in the end every camera is a set of compromises and the task of any professional is to pick the right tool for a job and to work around it's limitations or even use it to its advantage. As far as I understand it, the typical properties of a large sensor camera when compared to a small sensor camera are: larger, heavier, slower and more expensive lenses with less zoom range, more light gathering area, slower read-out speed and therefore more rolling shutter, shallow DOF. Pick whatever is more important to you and work around the others.
Also note that many of the 'blessings' or 'language' of traditional camera's or cinema are simply also the result of technical restrictions. Shallow dof in cinema exists because it is extremely hard to get deep DOF in 35 mm. And if you manage to obtain deep dof on 35mm, you can get praise for it: https://library.creativecow.net/wilson_tim/Cinematic_Composition-DoF/1. And the 24 frames per second were initially not an esthetic choice but was the smallest frame rate producers could get away with. Initially the frame rates were even lower.
Personally I suspect that as resolution and screen sizes increase, and the image covers an increasingly large portion of the viewers field of view, we may see a change in shooting style, towards more static shots where the viewer is allowed to look around in the frame as he pleases. This however requires more DOF and a director who is not afraid to let go of some control of the viewers attention. Or who directs attention using other means, possibly similar to how this is done in theater. Larger screens will also require faster frame rates which small sensor camera's can more easily achieve. I think 4K and small sensor camera's might in fact be a better combination than some people think.

 

[vienna1944er]

first test on slashCAM is out .... at tis time not yet available on the english version from slasCAM
therefore as "translated by google" link

https://translate.google.at/transla...ompakter-4K-Allesdrin.html&edit-text=&act=url

they write

When the internal recording all landed we tested all formats with 4: 2: 0 Color scan on the memory card.
Even the 200 Mbit FullHD All-I uptake remained at this greatly reduced chroma subsampling.

is that really true ..... 200Mbit for full HD ... and in 4:2:0 ??? .... maybe 8bit in cause to consumer Cam,
but all formats are only in 4:2:0 ??

 

[harddrive]

......... you say it's "a nightmare." Just give it a try before you condemn an entire class of cameras.

The fact is, things are different now. The days of "never ever use auto for anything" are over........... In controlled situations manual {exposure} is fine, but in unpredictable situations manual is not going to be the way to go. It just isn't.

Well, I actually wrote ""The auto system sounds fine....." so (when appropriate) there isn't any argument about what you say about the use of auto in certain situations. I'm acknowledging that the way it drives iris/vari ND/gain in unison is the way to go given the small chip issue - at least in a technical sense, the operation aspects are a whole separate debate.

I didn't actually say "it's a nightmare." - the actual quote was "...sounds a nightmare in any sort of run and gun situation with unpredictable lighting levels" which is not quite the same thing. The point I was trying to make was regarding (in manual) having separate controls for iris/vari ND/gain - rather than what Mike Warren originally described as a "combination exposure system available on the iris ring".

I think you may be interpreting my remarks as far more negative than they are intended. In essence, I'm reassured that it does use a variND/iris combination - much less impressed that in manual mode they are operated separately. I can't put it better than Mike did originally: "I would have no problems with the iris ring adjusting a computed optimisation on Iris/ND/Gain, and even shutter speed, as long as it was optional."

In response to that, you said yourself "Yes, that would be too much to hope for. They'd actually done that on the AC90 (and the HMC40); they integrated the ND filter and the gain system all into one "exposure" ring." so I thought we were in agreement? The question remains why they've gone away from such a system?

Yes, but they {larger chips} also mean larger lenses and shorter zoom ranges and higher costs and heavier weight. Again, not suitable for all users or all uses.

Yes to the last sentence, that's always the case, and camera design is always a compromise.

And in principle, I'd agree with the first sentence as well. But... it got me searching, and following on from Benjobe's post (134, this thread) I thought I'd see how the Sony PXW-X70 (with 1" chips) compared with this camera physically, optically, and for price - look at http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_pxw-x70-c and for cost http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/panasonic_hc-x1000e.

First off is that price is at least comparable - the Sony having a rough 20% advantage. Weight? Pretty similar - 1.4kg for the Sony, 1.55kg plus battery for the X1000 - though it's possible to use the X70 in a stripped down mode. Sizes are also similar between the two.

It's down to the optics where it gets interesting. The X1000 is a 20x zoom, 35mm equivalent about 29.5-600mm, the X70 is a 12x zoom, 35mm equivalent about 29-348mm. Max aperture is f1.8 (ramping to f3.6) for the X1000, f2.8 (ramping to f4.5) for the X70.

So the X1000 is undeniably the winner for zoom reach - same w/a, but 600mm versus 348mm equivalent at the tight end.

As far as aperture goes, in terms of f no the X1000 is over a stop wider - but when considering the relative sensor sizes the X70 sensor is over 5x the area. That equates (all else equal) to over a two stop advantage for the X70, so in nett terms the X70 is here the likely winner by at least a stop.

In respect of these figures, it is therefore obviously a compromise. *I personally* would go with the lens/chip arrangement of the X70. To me, the loss of telephoto reach is more than compensated for by the low light advantage and extra usable aperture range (should be over a stop) - others may differ. But doing that exercise has surprised me a little - increasing chip area by well over 5x has led here to some loss in zoom reach - but very similar figures for size, weight, price.

I would like to make clear that I am *NOT* therefore saying that all that proves the X70 to be the better camera. You'd have to look at far, far more variables to make any judgement at all - let alone comparing real images. The above figures are solely intended to be comparative in respect of lens/size/weight implications when increasing sensor size.

 

[Barry_Green]

Does the X1000 have an easily assessable exposure compensation function? That's something that could easily be put on the iris ring. Often, auto exposure just doesn't work for me. I can be filming a black bird and 3 seconds later a white bird. I have to go from about 1 stop over to 2 stops under. With wildlife things can change very quickly and a second often makes the difference between getting an interesting behaviour and seeing an animal just sitting there.

There is programmable exposure compensation, yes. And you can also assign backlight and spotlight to user buttons, which will quickly pop the iris up or down about 1.5 stops.

 

[Barry_Green]

It's down to the optics where it gets interesting. The X1000 is a 20x zoom, 35mm equivalent about 29.5-600mm, the X70 is a 12x zoom, 35mm equivalent about 29-348mm. Max aperture is f1.8 (ramping to f3.6) for the X1000, f2.8 (ramping to f4.5) for the X70.

Optics are different, yes -- and the other missing element is that the X70 isn't a 4K camera. It's "4K upgradeable", but at the price you pay for it, it is only an HD camera. No 4K recording. They say it can handle 4K with a "future upgrade", but what does that mean? Do you need a $2,000+ add-on in the form of an Odyssey 7Q? Or will it be a free firmware update that makes all 4K recording internal? They don't say, and they give no indication; if we are to take the FS700's 4K upgrade path as any indicator, then turning the X70 into an actual 4K camera may be quite expensive and result in a much less handheld-friendly combination.

So -- if it's a free firmware update for internal-recording only, then your comparison holds. But if it cannot record internally, if there's missing hardware that needs to be added, then -- the comparison doesn't hold, because we don't know what the additional cost, drain on battery life, weight, etc. of the appropriate missing hardware would have been.

Would I rather have a 1" chip and a 12x zoom range instead of a 1/3" sensor and a 20x range? Likely, yes, for most scenarios. But would I rather have a 2-part camera/recorder and an additional expense to buy that recorder just to get 4K? Certainly not. So, as always, it comes down to tradeoffs and compromises. All cameras are tradeoffs between size, price, features and performance. I think that at THIS price point, for 4K recording, the X1000 offers a very interesting and usable option that certainly fills a slot in the marketplace. It performs really well, all things considered.

This whole conversation reminds me very much of a bold proclamation I made back when 1/3" HD cameras were first coming on the market. I said loudly, "we will never see 1/4"-chip HD cameras, because of the diffraction limit. We just won't. You can't beat the laws of physics." Well, as well-intentioned as I may have been, and as book-smart as I thought I was, the fact is that scads of 1/4" HD cameras came out and produced really sharp footage (with imposed limitations on what iris you can use, of course) and then even 1/6" HD cameras came out and were surprisingly workable... to the point where I just have to say that I am not all that concerned about 1/3" 4K. It works. You do need to keep the iris in check, yes. But, also, and what's not being said here, is that this 1/3" 4K makes one hell of a sharp HD picture, and when going for an HD finish, that can really relax the iris limitation. Whether in-camera (where the entire chip is always scanned at full resolution, and then properly downscaled to HD, but recorded in 8-bit 4:2:0) or in post (where you can do the downconversion and get 10-bit 4:4:4 1080p out of it) it does really, really well. And when going for a 1080p finish, the diffraction issue becomes a lot less important. You can easily go to f/5.6 or more with no worries about diffraction because the downconvert is still going to deliver plenty-sharp 1080p.

 

[Mike Warren]

And you can also assign backlight and spotlight to user buttons, which will quickly pop the iris up or down about 1.5 stops.

Not ideal for my situation, but probably usable.

In case I haven't been clear, I think this camera has a very nice feature set for the price. If I thought it was junk I would have just ignored it. The purpose of my posts here is to gain more information about whether it will be worth buying one for me. I wasn't impressed with the first 2 sample videos, but those 2 recent short clips at the car show perked my interest.

My most significant issue is that its low light performance might be too poor for me. Because of where I live I will have no opportunity to try before buying, and Australian stores don't generally allow returns unless the product is faulty or falsely described.

I'm not interested in 4K, but I do want quality HD, and as much magnification as possible. I'm hoping that at 40x the quality will still be reasonable HD.

I'm looking forward to seeing a user manual.

 

[harddrive]

.........the other missing element is that the X70 isn't a 4K camera. It's "4K upgradeable", but at the price you pay for it, it is only an HD camera. No 4K recording. They say it can handle 4K with a "future upgrade", but what does that mean? ...... if we are to take the FS700's 4K upgrade path as any indicator, then turning the X70 into an actual 4K camera may be quite expensive and result in a much less handheld-friendly combination.

Just looking at the official website, they go a little further than "with a future upgrade" - exact wording is : "The PXW-X70 is also 4K ready and can handle 4K recordings with a future upgrade.". It can only be speculation, but that is generally being taken to infer in-camera recording and not via an external device. I don't think the FS700 is a valid comparison as it only had coding chips for AVC-HD inbuilt, not XAVC - hence there would always be a necessity for extra hardware. For the X70 it's different. It's got the XAVC coding chipset which makes the thought of the upgrade not needing any extra hardware far more likely than for the FS700.

But I did try to stress that I did not want to make too many general comparisons about the specific cameras - rather just use certain specs to compare chip/lens options on two cameras that are so similar in many other ways apart from very differing chip sizes.

So -- if it's a free firmware update for internal-recording only, then your comparison holds. But if it cannot record internally, if there's missing hardware that needs to be added, then -- the comparison doesn't hold, because we don't know what the additional cost, drain on battery life, weight, etc. of the appropriate missing hardware would have been.

No - I think the comparison is generally valid whatever the X70 itself holds for the future. Because the really expensive part of developing processor type chips is initial design, nowadays it's the norm to produce a single basic chip across a product range, and enable or disable functions as required. This was evidenced when it was discovered how to enable 4k internal recording on the F5. Sony used the same chips for the F5 and F55, just inhibited features for the higher model. I think it's highly possible that even the X70 may share exactly the same XAVC encoder chip - it's just a question of what's enabled.

Point is that for a given basic codec, enabling higher bitrates, etc should not mean any extra hardware. If a camera doesn't offer higher bitrate modes, it's likely down to either marketing (protecting higher end models via inhibitions) or - more charitably - that higher bitrates means faster memory, and manufacturers want to limit the calls about cameras not working because users simply haven't used fast enough memory.

Whatever happens with the X70 and 4k, there is no reason whatsoever why internal 4k XAVC recording should technically mean any additional cost, drain on battery life, weight, etc - certainly if the camera has a XAVC encoder chip built in. Marketing, is of course another matter.

This whole conversation reminds me very much of a bold proclamation I made back when 1/3" HD cameras were first coming on the market. I said loudly, "we will never see 1/4"-chip HD cameras, because of the diffraction limit. We just won't. You can't beat the laws of physics." Well, as well-intentioned as I may have been, and as book-smart as I thought I was,......

Well, you were right to an extent. We did see smaller than 1/3" HD cameras - but I think it's fair to say they were generally fair and square in the consumer camp, anything with any "professional" pretensions was at least 1/3", and it was the use of the 1/2" chipset that gave the EX1 such a headstart. (It's always surprised me that other manufacturers never followed with 1/2" chips? At least for the more expensive models.)

And I think it's the same here. I am certainly not trying to say "1/3" cameras won't work at 4k", period. I am saying that as more 4k cameras come out, aimed at the "affordable pro" end of the market, they are far more likely to be larger chips - and 1" is probably optimal in this market sector.

 

[harddrive]

They say it can handle 4K with a "future upgrade", but what does that mean? .......They don't say, and they give no indication; if we are to take the FS700's 4K upgrade path as any indicator, then turning the X70 into an actual 4K camera may be quite expensive and result in a much less handheld-friendly combination.

So -- if it's a free firmware update for internal-recording only, then your comparison holds.

Further to the previous answer, it's been pointed out to me that the X70 seems to be the pro version to the consumer AX100, and shares many common components. Since the AX100 already records 4k internally, it seems almost certain the X70 will handle 4k the same come the upgrade. The question that hasn't been answered is why - if the AX100 can do it from day one - why the wait for 4k on the X70? Best guess seems to be that a higher bitrate version is hoped for - though that beings up the question of memory spec.

The expectation also seems to be it won't be free - but may bring other features as well. Even then, the upgrade price is still likely to leave the X70 cheaper than the X1000.