Sony's FDR-AX100 4K Handycam ships in March for $2,000 (hands-on)

Razz16mm said:
IMO modern digital cameras with high resolution and broad DR are a new medium that will evolve its own aesthetics over time. New breed all around. You can emulate just about any aesthetic look or style you want with modern post tools and these cameras. None of them look like film though. They just don't, even with tools like Film Convert.
Click to expand...

Maybe not to you, but to countless viewers, the difference really works and they're all that matters professionally.
I and lot's of producers can get results using digital cameras as basic as a 5D with Filmconvert and totally impress our clients who are looking for a film like image.
We deliver that work every day.

So yes, you can get digital acquisition to look like film to paying clients and the viewing public - just maybe not to a handful of wonks who talk on forums.
 
snowblindfilm said:
And they should- that what art is all about. The whole idea about going backwards and trying to achieve "film look" was rather silly to begin with. In visual arts there isn't right or wrong. Yes, they are basic rules (like lighting or framing), but honestly people should spend way more energy on exploring the new possibilities digital cameras brought to the masses, instead copying what was already done in the past.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was ever about going backwards. It was simply an effort to try and make a beautiful image.

I mean, look at The Artist. Yes it was black and white, but do you think they did that just to go backwards?
 
Last edited:
Yea, they shipped my preorder a number of days ago. But I'm still away on vacation so its sitting over there all by its lonesome.

This vacation is also the first real purposed use I'm getting out of the rx10, and thus far my main grip with it is the poor stabilizer. Hoping to see an improvement on the ax100
 
For anyone interested in the AX100, but put off by the low 4K bitrate (just 60mps), there's a professional XDCAM version on the way. The new 'unlocked' AX100 seems to sport full XVAC codec as well as much higher bitrates. From the pics, it looks like it will take XQD cards alongside the usual SDXC too. And the bundled XLR top-handle attachment is fully detachable, turning into an unassuming small camcorder, just like the AX100.

Hopefully, there will be also more options for picture and color adjustments too, including sharpening, contrast and gamme / image curves. To anyone who can afford the undoubtedly 'professional' price Sony will put on this little baby, it does seem worth it. Considering the current AX100 compares very favorably with the GH4, despite recording at almost half the bitrate, and lacking the later's extensive image controls. I always suspected the AX100 was intentionally crippled by Sony to protect their upmarket professional range.

http://www.redsharknews.com/images/JMBX1371.jpg

http://www.redsharknews.com/technol...k-we-know-what-the-mystery-xdcam-from-sony-is
 
Last edited:
tull_power said:
I always suspected the AX100 was intentionally crippled by Sony to protect their upmarket professional range.
Click to expand...
That's the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time. The AX100 provides the best image quality short of an F5 with none of the hassle and for only $2k. No other camera comes close. There is nothing crippled about it; it's the deal of the century. Even the 50Mbps XAVC S codec is outstanding, providing image quality far greater than AVCHD at lower bit rates.
 
Yeah I've been using the AX100 quite a bit lately having done 13 shoots with it so far, it's an excellent camera with great picture quality, a total bargain for the price. I'll probably be getting a second as a backup. My main gripe with it is that I wish it was wider. With active stabilization on it seems to be around 30mm on the wide end, I wish it was closer to 26mm. But for only 2k I can't complain really.
 
noirist said:
The AX100 provides the best image quality short of an F5 with none of the hassle and for only $2k. No other camera comes close.
Click to expand...

I've seen some really nice stuff shot with the AX100. My only question about the AX100 is, how much image adjustment does Sony provide in camera ?
 
TheDingo said:
I've seen some really nice stuff shot with the AX100. My only question about the AX100 is, how much image adjustment does Sony provide in camera ?
Click to expand...
Only one. The gammas. Standard gamma and a cinema tone gamma. But the camera just produces nice pictures. I actually de-sharpen the camera in post.
 
noirist said:
That's the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time. The AX100 provides the best image quality short of an F5 with none of the hassle and for only $2k. No other camera comes close. There is nothing crippled about it; it's the deal of the century. Even the 50Mbps XAVC S codec is outstanding, providing image quality far greater than AVCHD at lower bit rates.
Click to expand...

Care to back your statement? From the article and pics I posted, it's pretty obvious the 'new' XDCAM is merely an AX100 with full XAVC codec, faster bitrates, XQD slot etc. Indeed an 'unlocked' AX100. Nowhere did I say that the AX100 is not a good camcorder, quite the opposite in fact, here's a quote from my original post; 'Considering the current AX100 compares very favorably with the GH4, despite recording at almost half the bitrate, and lacking the later's extensive image controls.'

However, the in camera sharpening and contrast, as well as the limited image control do detract from the quality of the footage, as well as flexibility for grading in post. Do you know why Sony did not add these options, when Panasonic managed to provide these and much more in a camera costing $400 less? Do you believe the AX100's hardware tops up to 60mbps in 4K and cannot support better bitrates and encoding? I personally don't, and from what I've seen and read, and from past experience, it is clear the AX100 has been crippled in firmware. While the hardware for which you are paying $2k is capable of much much more, it is being artificially restricted by the manufacturer, so that it can sell the same identical camera (plus XLR handle and XQD) for double the price or more.

 
Last edited:
tull_power said:
Care to back your statement? From the article and pics I posted, it's pretty obvious the 'new' XDCAM is merely an AX100 with full XAVC codec, faster bitrates, XQD slot etc. Indeed an 'unlocked' AX100. Nowhere did I say that the AX100 is not a good camcorder, quite the opposite in fact, here's a quote from my original post; 'Considering the current AX100 compares very favorably with the GH4, despite recording at almost half the bitrate, and lacking the later's extensive image controls.'

However, the in camera sharpening and contrast, as well as the limited image control do detract from the quality of the footage, as well as flexibility for grading in post. Do you know why Sony did not add these options, when Panasonic managed to provide these and much more in a camera costing $400 less? Do you believe the AX100's hardware tops up to 60mbps in 4K and cannot support better bitrates and encoding? I personally don't, and from what I've seen and read, and from past experience, it is clear the AX100 has been crippled in firmware. While the hardware for which you are paying $2k is capable of much much more, it is being artificially restricted by the manufacturer, so that it can sell the same identical camera (plus XLR handle and XQD) for double the price or more.
Click to expand...
Actually, the AX100 is cheaper than the Gh4 because you get the very impressive lens built into the camera. And when I mean impressive I mean IMPRESSIVE. The AX100 is a consumer camera but really packs an image. And the XAVC-S codec at 60Mit is far more efficient than the GH4's 100mbit (which I have yet to see 100 mbits happen on the Gh4 as I see averages of 77 Mbits from the Gh4). Also, I have seen nowhere that the upcoming 10 version of this camera does 4K. I'm sure it will as Sony is pushing 4K like no other but what if the camera is only 1080p? The Ax100 is no slouch even with it's limited controls and so called weak codec. It's a blast to shoot with and performs very well.
 
dustylense said:
Actually, the AX100 is cheaper than the Gh4 because you get the very impressive lens built into the camera. And when I mean impressive I mean IMPRESSIVE. The AX100 is a consumer camera but really packs an image. And the XAVC-S codec at 60Mit is far more efficient than the GH4's 100mbit (which I have yet to see 100 mbits happen on the Gh4 as I see averages of 77 Mbits from the Gh4). Also, I have seen nowhere that the upcoming 10 version of this camera does 4K. I'm sure it will as Sony is pushing 4K like no other but what if the camera is only 1080p? The Ax100 is no slouch even with it's limited controls and so called weak codec. It's a blast to shoot with and performs very well.
Click to expand...

Although I don't own an AX100 (but was considering the CX900 at one point), I do agree it is indeed an impressive camera, so I'm definitely not putting it down. However I disagree with some of your points. For example, from the different comparisons to the GH4 and reviews, compression artifacts and clipped highlights are far more evident on the AX100 then on the GH4. Regarding codec efficiency, Andrew Reid (of EOSHD fame) in his evaluation of Sony and Panasonic cameras, actually found that Panasonic's encoder to be better then Sony's at the same bitrate, retaining more detail and dynamic range.

If you're shooting 4K to pan and zoom for 1080p video, the ugly compression artifacts will impose serious limitations. In the CameraStore's review www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5e-GphXgkk) , the zoomed in 4K footage clearly shows such artifacts, as the low bitrate cannot preserve the huge amount of detail the sensor pumps out. On the other hand, the GH4 does not have this problem, with zoomed in footage being quite clean and sharp all the way to 8x. As can be seen in this video; www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrICbNcz38. Same goes for grading, the limited image options and low bitrate cause the picture to break down as soon as heavy grading is applied.

If the 'baked in' image look and compression artifacts are not a problem for you, then there is no denying that the AX100 is one hell of a camcorder. I agree with you that it is a terrific bargain, as long as the footage is going to be used 'as is'. My point was that the hardware is capable more, and it has been castrated so that Sony can sell the same identical camcorder with a different name for double the price.
 
Last edited:
tull_power said:
From the article and pics I posted, it's pretty obvious the 'new' XDCAM is merely an AX100 with full XAVC codec, faster bitrates, XQD slot etc. Indeed an 'unlocked' AX100
Click to expand...

This new PRO AX100 is coming at the end of 2014, so there's a good chance it could have completely reworked electronics to handle the higher bitrates and pro imaging adjustments. Much like the GH4 camera looks almost identical to the GH3 camera but has completely different "guts", this could be the case with this new PRO AX100 camera from Sony.
 
tull_power said:
Although I don't own an AX100 (but was considering the CX900 at one point), I do agree it is indeed an impressive camera, so I'm definitely not putting it down. However I disagree with some of your points. For example, from the different comparisons to the GH4 and reviews, compression artifacts and clipped highlights are far more evident on the AX100 then on the GH4. Regarding codec efficiency, Andrew Reid (of EOSHD fame) in his evaluation of Sony and Panasonic cameras, actually found that Panasonic's encoder to be better then Sony's at the same bitrate, retaining more detail and dynamic range.

If you're shooting 4K to pan and zoom for 1080p video, the ugly compression artifacts will impose serious limitations. In the CameraStore's review www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5e-GphXgkk) , the zoomed in 4K footage clearly shows such artifacts, as the low bitrate cannot preserve the huge amount of detail the sensor pumps out. On the other hand, the GH4 does not have this problem, with zoomed in footage being quite clean and sharp all the way to 8x. As can be seen in this video; www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrICbNcz38. Same goes for grading, the limited image options and low bitrate cause the picture to break down as soon as heavy grading is applied.

If the 'baked in' image look and compression artifacts are not a problem for you, then there is no denying that the AX100 is one hell of a camcorder. I agree with you that it is a terrific bargain, as long as the footage is going to be used 'as is'. My point was that the hardware is capable more, and it has been castrated so that Sony can sell the same identical camcorder with a different name for much more. Imagine how much more capable your AX100 would be with image curves and profiles and higher bitrates!
Click to expand...
I don't need to look at others videos as I own the AX100, the Gh4, and the BMC4K. Now if you are not trying to grade the image like the movie 300, the AX100 stands up to the other two quite well.
 
@TheDingo

The GH4 is a completely new camera, and shares little with the almost two year old GH3 (which incidentally used a Sony sensor) except the body. On the other hand, the close release dates of the 'consumer' AX100 and PRO XDCAM AX100, to me is a clear indication they are one and the same camera. Plus the fact that the 'PRO' is already being showcased fully working barely a couple of months after it's little less capable twin saw the light.

Also, Sony have been doing this for ages, re-releasing top end consumer camcorders as NXCAMs or XDCAMs by adding an XLR handle and enabling pro features and options. Panasonic used to play this game too, a few years ago they released a small high-end 3CCD consumer camcorder, and an identical model, with just a better gamma curve, for almost double the price. Nowadays though, their 'prosumer' camcorders and cameras are almost as capable as their higher end cousins; the GH4 being a perfect example.
 
Last edited:
tull_power said:
The close release dates, plus the fact that the 'PRO' AX100 is already being showcased fully working barely a couple of months after it's little less capable twin's release, to me is a clear indication they are one and the same camera
Click to expand...

The article states that the PRO AX100 will be released at the END OF THE YEAR, which does not sound like close release dates to me. It's quite possible that the electronics package inside the PRO version is different than the non-PRO version, though we probably won't know for sure until somebody takes one apart when it ships in December 2014.
 
@dustylense
I've seen your excellent video a number of times, for which I (and I'm sure like minded enthusiasts) thank you. The AX100 stands up to the GH4 only because the footage is not (or lightly) graded and not zoomed in. As you try to do any or both, the AX100's video image falls apart. Again, I'm not putting the AX100 down but horses for courses. If the 4k footage is to be left relatively untouched, the AX100 would be a worthwhile camera. If Sony had left options and bitrates intact, just like Panasonic wisely did, you could zoom in, grade and do way more with your AX100 videos. As it is, you'd have to wait for the 'PRO' XDCAM version and fork out double.... or chose a different camera!
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
The article states that the PRO AX100 will be released at the END OF THE YEAR, which does not sound like close release dates to me. It's quite possible that the electronics package inside the PRO version is different than the non-PRO version, though we probably won't know for sure until somebody takes one apart when it ships in December 2014.
Click to expand...

It'll be still only 9 months from the AX100 release, and the PRO XDCAM AX100 looks to be complete and working, unlike the GH4, which was being displayed as a re-badged GH3 barely a few months before its release. So it's actually a much shorter interval then 9 months! I doubt Sony re-engineered or heavily modified the AX100 just to add an XQD and increase bitrates. To me, common sense (and Sony's previous practices) point to an identical product with different firmwares and different labels.

...we probably won't know for sure until somebody takes one apart when it ships in December 2014...
Actually, if some entrepreneuring genuis (like Andrew or Vitaly) can check the AX100's board for an XQD slot connector and inspect the firmware, I have a haunch they'd find proof the AX100's hardware already has these capabilities. It is all conjuncture of course, but if true, it is sad such business practices are still persisting to this day!
 
tull_power said:
@dustylense
I've seen your excellent video a number of times, for which I (and I'm sure like minded enthusiasts) thank you. The AX100 does stands to the GH4 only because the footage is not (or lightly) graded and not zoomed in. As you try to do any or both, the AX100's video image falls apart. Again, I'm not putting the AX100 down but horses for courses. If the 4k footage is to be left relatively untouched, the AX100 would be a worthwhile camera. If Sony had left options and bitrates intact, just like Panasonic wisely did, you could zoom in, grade and do way more with your AX100 videos. As it is, you'd have to wait for the 'PRO' XDCAM version and fork out double.... or chose a different camera!
Click to expand...
I'm not following your "zoomed in" statement. I've shot plenty of long zoomed in footage with the AX100 and the image is fine. Maybe some reports of this zoomed in artifacting is from people that were shooting with the clear image zoom function? Turn that off and zoomed in footage looks just the same as wide angle footage from the camera.

Now the video I posted above, keep in mind that was 3 separate trips with each camera. The BMC4K was first and shot in film mode. The other two were CC'd to the BMC4K. Each camera was set to 5600K. So the Gh4 and the AX100 were color corrected to the BMC4K footage. Regardless of the level of color correction, they were in fact "graded". When I watch the material in my NLE the Gh4 and the AX100 pass the test for "color correction" without issue. Now pulling secondaries (while possible) on the GH4 and the AX100 is a challenge it's due to the 420 codec and color info within. Like I said, I don't expect to "grade" the image to such as a movie like 300 with heavy effects. If I have a project that requires that kind of color treatment I will rent a RED or Sony F55, or at least shoot a 10 bit camera.

It says it right on the side of the AX100. It clearly reads as "handycam". But I'll tell you that the Handycam packs a very detailed and resolute image (maybe the most of all three). If you're worried about how good a camera will "grade" then I suggest paying out $50,000 for a camera that is built for such. I really hate the word "grade" for color correction especially when talking about 420 cameras that cost less than a mortgage payment. I prefer color timing and color correction for such cameras. When I shoot internally with the Gh4 and the AX100 I anticipate that secondary keys are not going to be used heavily. But I will WB correct and contrast correct and in both the Gh4 and AX100, they hold up just fine with that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top