Hi everyone.
Very interesting thread, that, I hope, might help me with my long-delayed decision to get a small, 2nd camera, to accompany my Sony EX-1. I need a second camera for interviews mostly... to get that second, tighter angle, from the side (EX-1 is locked off in front, on a tripod). I often want to be able to adjust the iris manually (if there's a window in the background)... that sort of thing.

There's the new Canon Vixia HF-S10:
- 24Mbps recording (I've learned from this forum that this isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all)
- claims to have Manual Exposure
- 24p and 30p recording
- microphone "terminal with Manual Audio Level Control"
- large lens

The new Sony HDR-XR520V
- getting some rave reviews on this thread, re low-light shooting, colour, etc.
- no manual focus or iris control, but at least, a mic input.
- 37-mm lens (not as big as the Canon or Panasonic)

The new Panasonic HDC TM300:
- allows for manual control: "The manual ring gives you easy, fingertip control over the focus, zoom and exposure setting
- external microphone jack

The Panasonic seems very good, but when I look at specs I'm only able to scratch the surface, so I'd love your advice.
Cheers, Malcolm

Just a minor technical point, 37mm is the FILTER THREAD size, not necessarily the size of the actual lens. Not sure yet how much real difference the HF-S will have, other than you'll need to get bigger filters and lenses... so far I still suspect the "R" sensor may be the one to beat based on samples I've seen.

I think it's still too early to make a choice, unless you buy all three, try 'em and send back the two that you don't like.

The specs on the Canon certainly look great on paper, and samples so far seem good, Panasonic looks passable, though soft, and of course the Sony lacks as much manual control...

I'm one of those that has Sony accessories, so logically I'll probably lean towards the XR since it's not a big deal to buy the extra kit that one should have for shooting (no need to buy what you've already got!). Canon has some tempting product to be sure though. I'm just waiting for more information and availability "hands on" - can't really say for sure until you've got access to the options! The XR's are in the retail chain, but not sure about the other two, although apparently some have gotten early access to the HF-S buying overseas.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. Since I see no mention, on Canon's HF-S page, of the option of manual focus, am I right to assume it doesn't have it? At least there's manual exposure.
On the same subject, you say the Sony lacks "as much manual control". What manual control does it have?

Are there any down sides to the Canon that jump off the page for you?
Cheers, Malcolm

Panasonic looks passable, though soft,
What samples are you referring to?

Yes....there is manual focus. I assign manual focus to the CUSTOM button on the HF-S10.

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave. Since I see no mention, on Canon's HF-S page, of the option of manual focus, am I right to assume it doesn't have it? At least there's manual exposure.
On the same subject, you say the Sony lacks "as much manual control". What manual control does it have?

Are there any down sides to the Canon that jump off the page for you?
Cheers, Malcolm

Sony HDR-XR520 review
Sony HDR-XR520V review - infoSync Reviews (http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/camcorders/sony-hdr-xr520v/10187.html)

Canon Vixia HF S10 review
Canon Vixia HF S10 review - infoSync Reviews (http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/camcorders/canon-vixia-hf-s10/10176.html)

Canon - better image quality when bright..
Sony - low light performance unbeatable..

And probably the best summary for both:

"..the Sony HDR-XR520V is our #1 tourist camcorder while the Canon Vixia HF S10 proved itself as our #1 budget film cam."

I'm now pretty convinced the need these camera manufacturers (with the exception of Panasonic which has lately not been in contention - image quality wise) have to take out more manual controls from their latest, but otherwise excellent, consumer cams. The videos produced by these cams come dangerously close to those produced by the like of Sony Z5/Fx1000 or Canon XH, XL series, not to mention older designs like Sony V1/FX7, FX1 etc. Based on the grabs shown on the above site, the Sony XR500 series' low light capability even seems to eclipse the company's own PD170/VX2100.

Maybe, now is the time to re-learn the way we handle video cameras and get used to fiddling with the remaining controls that they have. In my area, the image quality produced by the XR500s and HF-S10 far exceeds most commercial requirements of the local market. Also, the use of these cameras would represent unprecedented values from the perspective of a growing number of producers of commercial video content.

Think about how much money will be left for good audio pre-amps, shotgun mics, lighter lighting kits, computer system upgrades etc. if we find a way to work around these compact cams' shortcomings.

Wacharapong

In some of Sony's press releases about the XR500/520, they call it an AVCHD camcorder and in their spec sheet, the format is called AVC. Their new Webbie HD's format is often called either AVC or AVCHD. I was thinking that these were two different versions of H.264, but it seems they may be the same thing? Added note: I later looked at the Webbie HD manual and it clearly says: "This camera will not support the AVCHD format". This seems to indicate that AVC is in fact, a different version of H.264.

People seem concerned here about the low bit-rate of the Sony XR5 models, which Sony lists in the manual at 16 Mbps. I picked up a progressive-scanning Webbie HD last month and it's amazing how much quality and detail it produces, with just 4 Mbps for 720p and 6 Mbps for 1440 X 1080p. As long as you don't rapidly pan and aggravate the rolling-shutter into flutter and blur, motion seems fairly good. You can pan, if you keep a moving subject in the same position in the frame. Its limitations put your shooting skills to the test, but I'm learning how to do fairly well with it. I've posted some Webbie HD videos on my Vimeo album, where their direct playback is heavily compressed. If you are registered there for a free subscription, you can download the full uploaded files, for much better quality. I figure if I polish my abilities with this camcorder and make it work for me, then shooting with my HC9 or a new XR5 model, will be much easier.

My newest steady-mount design helps a lot, with the unstabilized Webbie HD. Here's a link to a photo of my steady-mount. I also use it with an HC9 and in the future, possibly an XR5 model. I have a Sony NP-F960 battery in the external power-pack, for 10 times the recording time of the internal 500 mAh battery.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3354257355_58305ffd30.jpg

Interesting discussion about comparing the new Sony AVCHD cam to the EX1&3.
I have an EX1, and an SR12. When I first used the SR12 I was amazed at the PC, and looking at test shots, etc. was inclined to think it was very close to the EX- at least in good light. Over time however, I began to notice that the difference between the two became much more apparent when viewing complete, edited programs done with each camera. I think that an entire edited program in its final delivery format, with the variety of lighting, motion, CC, effects, and so forth seems to be more the acid test for comparison. When I watch a program shot completely with the SR12 it looks very good indeed, but when immediately followed by an EX project I definitely come away with the feeling that the small cams do not match up to 35mbs, 1/2" chips, Fujinon lens, advanced controls, profiles, etc.
However, the EX is indeed a fat little pig and there is no way I am dragging it on travel shoots, and therein lies the difference. The little AVCHD cams provide me with a very nice finished HD product if I shoot carefully. The final frontier to me has always been low light performance and it sounds like the XR520 is close to cracking that problem.
But the EX- it sets a pretty high standard.

Looking through the owner's manual for the XR500/520, I find that although the base bit-rate is listed as 16 Mbps, this is a VBR recording system, which will raise the bit-rate accordingly, for complex images or those that have motion. This will accomodate situations where a constant bit-rate (CBR) at that level, might show more compression artifacts. In my experience with the Sony Webbie HD, which uses the same MP4/H.264/AVC/VBR format and that has a base bit-rate of 6 Mbps for 1080p, it has an actual rate that varies from 5.5 to 6.6 Mbps, for an entire clip, based on content. Also in the manual for the XR500/520, it indicates that 238 GB of the HDD is available for recording. With 1760 minutes of HD recording at the highest level, that figures out to 18 Mbps. No explanation for this, but maybe that's an estimate of what would result with typical video content and a VBR.

I've just looked at the samples posted from an XR500V and was disappointed in how badly the image fluttered and blurred during panning and when the camera jerked around. I'm surprised that no one else has been discussing this. The same problem exists with the HD video from the Sony HX1 and Canon SX1 digital cameras. They use progressive scan, while the XR500 is an interlaced-scanning model. My Sony HC9 has a CMOS and interlaced-scanning, but shows almost none of these rolling-shutter artifacts. Due to this, I expected that the rolling-shutter problems would be minimal with all interlaced/CMOS models, but that must be a mistaken assumption.

Apparently, the way to avoid the flutter and blur of a rolling-shutter, is to use CCD sensors, which function with global-shutters. The CCD pixels can store their responses and are exposed all at the same instant. The scan then collects the stored responses as it passes each pixel. Since the CMOS pixels can't store responses, their active exposure occurs at the same instant the scan passes them, causing an exposure time-lag between lines that results in the flutter and blur when panning. CMOS sensors can be made with extra transistors on the pixels, which could store their responses and allow the simultaneous exposure of a global-shutter. But, this would reduce the sensing area and dynamic-response.

I don't know why the manufacturers ignore these undesirable side-effects of using CMOS sensors on video cameras, but it forces you to avoid panning, unless following a moving subject that stays in the same position in the frame. Why my HC9 avoids this problem so well, I don't know. I don't think my finances are going to be depleted by buying an XR5 model.

Here's a link to a good article by Barry Green on the subject of rolling-shutter. Don't miss the link part-way through, to a comment by CMOS designer Jason Rodriguez.
There's more links to related articles at the end.
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

Many people make the mistake of making comparison while viewing on a computer monitor. Unless you view on a large screen (which is far more revealing), you'll miss the true picture quality differences when comparing any 2 or 3 cams.

Small computer monitors, even a 22", is no way to compare cameras.

my sr 12s pans are just as good as my hc-1 and fx-7 hdv cams they are perfect played direct to tv,some softwares tend to spoil the pans a little compared the hdv pans though ,it would be strange if the new models are worse in this respect.

I've just looked at the samples posted from an XR500V and was disappointed in how badly the image fluttered and blurred during panning and when the camera jerked around. I'm surprised that no one else has been discussing this. The same problem exists with the HD video from the Sony HX1 and Canon SX1 digital cameras. They use progressive scan, while the XR500 is an interlaced-scanning model. My Sony HC9 has a CMOS and interlaced-scanning, but shows almost none of these rolling-shutter artifacts. Due to this, I expected that the rolling-shutter problems would be minimal with all interlaced/CMOS models, but that must be a mistaken assumption.

Apparently, the way to avoid the flutter and blur of a rolling-shutter, is to use CCD sensors, which function with global-shutters. The CCD pixels can store their responses and are exposed all at the same instant. The scan then collects the stored responses as it passes each pixel. Since the CMOS pixels can't store responses, their active exposure occurs at the same instant the scan passes them, causing an exposure time-lag between lines that results in the flutter and blur when panning. CMOS sensors can be made with extra transistors on the pixels, which could store their responses and allow the simultaneous exposure of a global-shutter. But, this would reduce the sensing area and dynamic-response.

I don't know why the manufacturers ignore these undesirable side-effects of using CMOS sensors on video cameras, but it forces you to avoid panning, unless following a moving subject that stays in the same position in the frame. Why my HC9 avoids this problem so well, I don't know. I don't think my finances are going to be depleted by buying an XR5 model.

Here's a link to a good article by Barry Green on the subject of rolling-shutter. Don't miss the link part-way through, to a comment by CMOS designer Jason Rodriguez.
There's more links to related articles at the end.
CMOS Rolling Shutter (http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/)

Links to the samples you thought were bad? I've seen plenty of people who post "samples" incorrectly processed that make a camera look horrid. Even higher res previews in Vegas look awful, and a still taken from it would be unusable... and I have yet to have a final render that retains the undesirable artifacts.

Keep in mind when checking reviews, samples, and opinions they may have wildly varying accuracy or none whatsoever. For instance the above referenced "reviews" were helpful in GENERAL, but almost worthless because not one single "comparison" shot was shot at the same exact time, with both cameras side by side... at least the Japanese site has undertaken to do their samples that way, and it was helpful in that respect. BUT, I can see that the HF-S with the proper settings can do some serious image quality in low light, the settings make a big difference, but the Japanese samples were probably in "default" mode...

"User malfunction" is the technical term for this phenomenon, and it's one reason that taking ANYONE'S "opinion" or posted "evidence" must be done with a grain of salt the size of a battleship... review sites MAY be better, but have typically short "experience spans" with a camera.


Your HC9 has all the "RS" issues, guaranteed, as it is a CMOS sensor... so why don't you have the same problems? Because CAMERA TECHNIQUE makes a huge difference when shooting these cameras - you also use an add on stabilizer (clever design BTW, different from mine, but similar concepts), which IMO is a necessity for these small cams to get professional results.

CMOS v. CCD has been discussed ad nauseam, regurgitated, spewn about, flame broiled, and lineage disparaged to the point of being absurd. CMOS are the "future" as far as small consumer cams, and Sony has even committed their high end line to the same tech. It's a price/value/cost thing I'm sure, and one day when things (like the new "R" sensor) exit the lab, it's quite possible that CMOS can go global - it's similar to Moore's law (can I make a new law for video and call it "Dave's law"??) where as semiconductors improve, shrink, and improve in manufacturing efficiency and overall speed, you get more bang for the buck, and better performance.

Just imagine for a minute trying to edit even HDV on a 10 year old computer... that's pretty close to what the first HC1 user faced, and now NO ONE disputes being able to edit HDV footage with reasonable results (though some still fail epic-ly at it...)

You shoot with the best camera you can afford that meets your needs/objectives. I've been very happy with AVCHD/tapeless, and don't plan on going back. I wasn't too sure about the XR5xx, BUT I'm convinced after seeing several reviews now that the low light by itself is worth the price of entry, and while I wish for other features, I think I could find the XR500 useful as it is.

I will say that the HF-S looked quite good the way the reviewers set it up (cinemode seems to help low light a LOT), and it's a tempting camera, what a great time to be camera debating once again! EITHER the XR500/520 or the HF-S10/100 should be a knockout camera (and yes, both use CMOS). The Panasonic results were a bit disappointing, all things considered, I'm waiting for them to come in with a category killer, the HMC150 (with CCDs) is doing quite well among wedding/event guys, with NO competitors, so Panasonic CAN keep up if they want to.

As with many things, if the user learns to use the equipment properly, you can get pretty good results - or you can find fault with every little thing and sit around whining rather than DOING.

RS is a "big deal" the first time you see the "partial flash exposure", the bendy verticals and the rubbery jello from whip pans or bouncing... Operator technique takes 2 out of 3 of these OUT of the equation, the first you just have to get used to, and the main problem is for wedding/event video that you want to slo-mo. Other than that, it's a annoyance, as were flashes and smear with CCD (different annoyance, but STILL ANNOYING!).

If you're happy with the HC9 (which is the last of the tape based consumer cams I suspect, and now at least two generations back tech wise), you won't find any disappointment with it's later replacements, at least not as far as RS goes - I suspect the XR's may have some improvement in that area, as did the SR11/12 & CX12's... yes there's RS, so learn to stabilize the cam and control what you do with it, and you won't really be worrying about the "technical flaws".

Dave, you are a born salesman and put on a very good argument about the reasons and remedies for the rolling-shutter artifacts of the XR500/520. It's true that the poster of the XR500 samples on this thread swung and jerked the camera too fast. But, every time the camera moved, the flutter and blur appeared and regardless of technique, that shows a severe limitation on shooting options. I'll take the rather easily-avoided artifacts of CCDs anytime, rather than the CMOS problems. There has to be more to these artifacts than just the fact that certain cameras have CMOS sensors. Some of them seem to avoid the artifacts more than others.

It's true that the software playing programs can make the artifacts worse. Before I updated my computer's CoDecs with a download of the K-Lite CoDec Pack, I was seeing these problems about twice as severly and my players previously had some trouble showing AVC video smoothly. Now, Windows Media Player 11 and MPC handle them without a flaw, except if the rolling-shutter flutter and blur exists, they will still show it to an unacceptable degree. I already have one little camcorder, the Webbie HD, that has to be used very carefully, to avoid the artifacts.

I will certainly take a Pro Duo card to a local dealer, when an XR5 model is in stock and use a demonstrator camera to see what it will do for me. I'll deliberately try to show bad artifacts and then do the opposite and shoot good video. We'll see how that works out, after I edit and produce some finished pieces from the footage. However, when I pan my HC9 around fairly fast, I see very little blur and flutter and often, none at all. Watch this HC9 video I posted on Flickr, where I pan around in an almost 360-degree arc. It's fast enough to cause rolling-shutter effects in some other CMOS cameras: http://www.vimeo.com/1998054 I'd really like to get to the bottom of this great difference in results from the various CMOS camcorders and digital cameras I mentioned in a previous message.

When I play my Webbie HD directly over an analog HD-component connection to my HDTV set, the video looks very good, with few of the artifacts I see on my progressive LCD computer screen.

It appears that Dave Blackhurst and recently Wacharapong Chiowanich have seen video samples from the TM300/HS300 that maybe I haven’t seen yet. Again, which ones? I hope it's not from the Watch.Impress review because I don’t think they did a good job.

It appears that Dave Blackhurst and recently Wacharapong Chiowanich have seen video samples from the TM300/HS300 that maybe I haven’t seen yet. Again, which ones? I hope it's not from the Watch.Impress review because I don’t think they did a good job.

The Info Sync links a few posts back also have a 300 review linked, and CCI had a few bits comparing the 300 in their Sanyo HD2000 review. So far they seem to be burying the Panasonic... It's not "bad", just not up to speed with what Canon and Sony can offer in image quality. I've had a couple of Panasonics over the years, and like them overall, but they need to rethink their "3 sensors" strategy IMO and get a more capable sensor block somehow. Put a better imaging block paired with the camera chassis and manual control set, and they'd be right there neck and neck.

Even the HMC150 is getting hit for being a bit soft at the highest resolutions, being best at 720 rather than 1080, because of the way Panasonic is doing their sensors. Not saying it doesn't work, and I'd probably go for a HMC150 over anything else in it's price range for a number of reasons were I buying... but you'd think they could bump things up a notch and be more competitive.

I’m not even going to comment on InfoSync's conclusion because it seams too biased but where in Camcorderinfo’s HD2000 review did it got compared to either the TM300 or the HS300?
So what’s wrong with ¼” chips with a native resolution of 1920x1080 each? The chips are the exact same specs as the HPX300. I’d say it’s just a smaller version. That’s more than the V1u which also has 1/4" chips. If their really is something wrong with the camcorder then it’s definitely not the chips. I think without many native samples to view, it’s being treated unfairly.

Dave, you are a born salesman and put on a very good argument about the reasons and remedies for the rolling-shutter artifacts of the XR500/520. It's true that the poster of the XR500 samples on this thread swung and jerked the camera too fast. But, every time the camera moved, the flutter and blur appeared and regardless of technique, that shows a severe limitation on shooting options. I'll take the rather easily-avoided artifacts of CCDs anytime, rather than the CMOS problems. There has to be more to these artifacts than just the fact that certain cameras have CMOS sensors. Some of them seem to avoid the artifacts more than others.

It's true that the software playing programs can make the artifacts worse. Before I updated my computer's CoDecs with a download of the K-Lite CoDec Pack, I was seeing these problems about twice as severly and my players previously had some trouble showing AVC video smoothly. Now, Windows Media Player 11 and MPC handle them without a flaw, except if the rolling-shutter flutter and blur exists, they will still show it to an unacceptable degree. I already have one little camcorder, the Webbie HD, that has to be used very carefully, to avoid the artifacts.

I will certainly take a Pro Duo card to a local dealer, when an XR5 model is in stock and use a demonstrator camera to see what it will do for me. I'll deliberately try to show bad artifacts and then do the opposite and shoot good video. We'll see how that works out, after I edit and produce some finished pieces from the footage. However, when I pan my HC9 around fairly fast, I see very little blur and flutter and often, none at all. Watch this HC9 video I posted on Flickr, where I pan around in an almost 360-degree arc. It's fast enough to cause rolling-shutter effects in some other CMOS cameras: A Buzzard's Eye View on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/1998054) I'd really like to get to the bottom of this great difference in results from the various CMOS camcorders and digital cameras I mentioned in a previous message.

When I play my Webbie HD directly over an analog HD-component connection to my HDTV set, the video looks very good, with few of the artifacts I see on my progressive LCD computer screen.

I looked at those videos, the SmugMug one looked a bit jerky with some horizontal shear that I see quite often with web video... not sure what causes it, but it wasn't RS, the rest looked OK to me here, so I'm going with there's something with your computer (mine has quirks too... so that's not a negative!).

You note that even your Webbie with low bitrate looks a bit bad on your computer screen, but not on HDTV... I'll bet that the XR's will be significantly better than the Webbie...

It's not a matter of being a "salesman", it's just actual experience with these cameras, and I went through the early adopter headaches with HDV (HC1). You need a reasonably fast computer to work well with AVCHD, and I still feel that the editors and codecs could use some tweaking... BUT there's not a RS issue if you handle the camera and video post properly. I can't say why some people are having more issues than others, but that's life on the bleeding edge.

I had hoped to see more refinement in the AVCHD editing/processing department by now, but with the economy, perhaps it's taking a bit longer. With the number of these cameras selling to the general public, you can bet the kinks WILL get ironed out sooner or later.

I can tell you with Sony Vegas Pro, the preview window becomes horribly blurred and smeared as soon as I go past the lower settings for the preview window - motion trails are unbearable, and skew looks worse - dropping to a lower quality level (that is plenty good for editing) all the artifacts disappear, and I mean completely GONE... and I don't have problems with my rendered results either.

I don't know what it is about AVCHD that seems to be prone to ghosting/motion artifacts under some circumstances, but it's not something that should make your output look bad from everything I've shot. Evidently it's pretty easy to goof up though, as many of the web videos I've seen indicate. If you 've got .mts playing smoothly, download the raw clips before you jump to a conclusion.

Remember too that your Webbie tops at 6-8MBps (allowing for VBR), and the XR5xx will top out at around 16-18 (maybe higher, again allowing for vbr), and that 2-3x increase in bits flowing through the pipe will tax your computer - maybe a lot.

As an example, I was experimenting with encoding BR to a regular DVD for playback on a BR player... encoding to 8MBps playback was fine but looked pretty bad from the low bit rate, and when I tried the template max setting of 25MBps, it jerked, shuddered and choked... finally went to around 17MBps, and got good playback AND good image quality. The lesson is that more bits take more horsepower to push about effectively and smoothly, and sometimes you have to tweak settings to get usable results. Of course, going direct into a HDTV from the camera is a fairly decent test, and you generally won't get the problems there.

I’m not even going to comment on InfoSync's conclusion because it seams too biased but where in Camcorderinfo’s HD2000 review did it got compared to either the TM300 or the HS300?
So what’s wrong with ¼” chips with a native resolution of 1920x1080 each? The chips are the exact same specs as the HPX300. I’d say it’s just a smaller version. That’s more than the V1u which also has 1/4" chips. If their really is something wrong with the camcorder then it’s definitely not the chips. I think without many native samples to view, it’s being treated unfairly.

Not sure where you feel there was bias, they seemed quite excited about the camera (the specs and layout ARE great), but when it came to the image quality, there were issues. Maybe they needed more time with the camera, or picked terrible times to shoot tests, but I wouldn't count on it.

My mistake on the CCI review - they compare a Panasonic model, for some reason I thought it was the latest release... and that camera didn't perform badly, just not as good as the Canon and Sony. It will be interesting to see a full review from a couple other places.

In theory, 3 x 1/4" chips ought to be fairly good. Perhaps as more info comes out, the camera will shine, but Panasonic has been bringing up the rear for a while - when you consider the price points, they need to deliver the picture quality, not just the excellent ergonomics and controls. And in some respects the good layout and controls might trump minor defects in image quality, depending on the user needs.

I've owned some Panasonics and really liked them A LOT, so I certainly keep an eye on what they are doing, but they have yet to convince me that there's a reason to go with them again...

Camcorderinfo tested the Sanyo against the cheapest Panasonic camcorder for this year and the TM300/HS300 is the most expensive which they haven’t even reviewed yet. I’m looking forward to that one even though I don’t agree with everything they say but I do trust them a little bit more than InfoSync.

It's going to be an interesting 3 way shootout that's for sure - clearly they have hands on a HF-S, and should have an XR5xx... the Panny should be in the mix.

I don't "trust" any of the review sites per se, I try to see what sort of results are common between them, and based upon my own experience with past cameras and reviews, I can get a pretty good idea what to expect. The personal "reviews" here also count for quite a bit in my book, as everyone here is WAY more picky and analytical than the typical "reviewer", and so it's hard for a camera (or a review site!) to get away with much!

Test on Vimeo: Sony XR520 vs Canon HF S10 in low light (http://www.vimeo.com/3890854)

It certainly appears that with proper settings, the HF-S will do quite nicely in low light, although from the posted samples I've looked at I think I like the XR a little bit better (just a tad less noise, and crisper blacks), but looks like finally the low light/hi def barrier is falling in the consumer end. I still am amazed by how good these little monsters are getting for the price! The SR11 has been a great little camera all around, the XR does look like it might justify the upgrade.

What a tough choice of cameras! If Sony doesn't refresh the CX12 with the "R" sensor or come up with a DSLR with video that makes sense, might just have to see about getting an HF-S for manual control too!

New Test: Sony XR520 and Canon HF S10 in day light (http://www.vimeo.com/3903041)

The new iris design is promising for smaller cameras. But I agree with J. Stephen that there needs to be at least global shutter sensors inside the machines to really avoid the rolling shutter artifacts for good.

The new iris seems to get overlooked, but I have been noticing that the bokeh seems to be more pleasing with the XR in shots where the backgound is out of focus - it's minor, but noticeable from the shots I've seen.

RS will cease to be a problem when the processing is fast enough to read the whole sensor array in one pass at a high enough speed to effectively shoot "frames", not half frames or partial frames without overheating or choking on the data stream. It'll likely happen sooner rather than later IMO. I've seen this sort of data "log jam" problem in other media in the past, and processor/memory/buffer speed eventually will solve the "problem".

Apparently iMovie has been patched to fix some of the combing artifacts I was seeing:
TidBITS Media Creation: iMovie '09 8.0.1 Update Brings More than Just Bug Fixes (http://db.tidbits.com/article/10173)

Sam

My SR-12 played direct to any of my hd tvs look amazing the picture jumps out at you so vibrant and amazing sharpness better than i have seen from from any of my blu ray films or hd broadcasts,if these next generation cams [sony canon]are better will the tvs be up to showing it.
my edited results as yet do not quite match the camcorder played footage though.

I was confused when I saw these clips. They must have that hfs10 shooting on an auto mode. Or the camera person was very confused. I have zero noise on all my shots. If you let the AGC go wild it's not so good...But who uses AGC anyway..unless you really had to. Just wait for about one more week till everybody figures out how to work their Hfs10 then compare...I will post some clips soon.. I haven't seen image quality like this without spending an obscene amount of money...Just give it time and the cream will float to the top.

My SR-12 played direct to any of my hd tvs look amazing the picture jumps out at you so vibrant and amazing sharpness better than i have seen from from any of my blu ray films or hd broadcasts,if these next generation cams [sony canon]are better will the tvs be up to showing it.
my edited results as yet do not quite match the camcorder played footage though.


Hi Martyn,
thought I would drop in a comment here as you have the SR12.I own the SR11 and I believe that what you are experiencing is the results of AVCHD compression.I too noticed a significant difference in the two i.e what I saw live to the LCD and what was captured.If you were able to record the uncompressed HDMI feed to a good codec then the image you see in live mode to your LCD would be the same after editing.
That is my area of interest and if you check out the captures I have done over the last few months below you will see that the degradation is indeed happening in the camera when it compresses to to AVCHD.When I capture to Cineform using a Blackmagic intensity,edit using Cineform and export to Cineform - there is no visual degradation at all and the picture is absolutley amazing.Of course what is uploaded to Vimeo is WMV so that loses some quality but the SR11 can produce a picture many times its value when recording HDMI output.

HDMI/Composite HD captures on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/channels/hdmicaptures#4014006)


I have also done some captures of the HFS10 using compsoite HD and the results are eye popping .

As an aside - for those who are pinning their hopes on the Panasonic TM300 for semi pro work.Please allow me to humbly express my opinion - let me just say I bought one a few weeks ago (one of the first to arrive in the UK) and I sent it back after playing with it for the afternoon.Very underwhelmed - I have never been so disappointed with a camera that promised so much.Build quality was so so.Low light was poor even though it is advertised as great.It had horrible grain the darker it got and when you turned up gain in the dark it went all plastic like.A bit like when you add a slight pastel look in Photoshop.I have seen this look on some other Panasonic professional cameras as well.To my eyes the SR11 had a better picture from a sharpness and detail perspective - hands down - oh and I mean live to the LCD so no codecs involved.Subjective but in my opinion true.In contrast the HFS10 has blown me away.There is a small downscaling issue I believe i.e when filming straight diagonal lines one can see pixels peep out - don't know how to explain it but the lines aren't perfectly clean and straight -I think it is called aliasing but even so it is amazing.The SGblade seems to lessen this artifact.I do miss the touch screen but can live without it.The SR11 has an amazing LCD and the Canon's is not as sharp or high resolution - but it is usable.I assume the XR5200 will be very good to.

In the end what did it for me was that the HSF10 had more resolving power,more manual control and 24p even if it is wrapped in a 60i stream (NTSC version from Japan) .Low light is a whisker better on the Sony no doubt but no progressive modes on the Sonys sealed the deal for me.I so wanted to stay with sony for digital cinema but I have now jumped ship to Canon and use that with the SGblade for my film stuff - the SR11 for PAL stuff.


Let me know your thoughts on the videos.Best wishes.

I was confused when I saw these clips. They must have that hfs10 shooting on an auto mode. Or the camera person was very confused. I have zero noise on all my shots. If you let the AGC go wild it's not so good...But who uses AGC anyway..unless you really had to. Just wait for about one more week till everybody figures out how to work their Hfs10 then compare...I will post some clips soon.. I haven't seen image quality like this without spending an obscene amount of money...Just give it time and the cream will float to the top.

Couldn't agree more mate - this camera is the business for the price one pays

Henry I think Martin was referring to playback from the SR12 to his TV compared to his edited output. In this regard I agree with him that it is better than commercial product !!! In his case it is his editing rendering that is the issue not the AVCHD initial encoding. Any editing that does not use a smart encoder will re-encode the output and frankly I have found it better to then go to MPEG2 HD rather than poorer AVC encoders that are around at the moment not all of which are actually Bluray compliant.
I do agree however that the direct output to HDMI from the imager of the Sony's is likely very good and with a lossless encode at a higher data rate will be better than the current 16mbps limit of the Sony encoder.

Ron Evans

Hi Ron,
Understood and I think we are on the same wavelength.Perhaps my emphasis is that the damage is done at acquisition.Anyhow as it turns out I agree with him whole heatedly that after editing the AVCHD files there is a noticeable difference between what is played live to the LCD and what is captured.Could be from the render codec of choice - I agree.In a nutshell I was proposing however that the difference he is noticing is perhaps due to the pounding that in-camera compression does to a wonderful image; of course not withstanding anything else that is a weak link in the post production chain.I have placed a direct comparison between simultaneous captures to AVCHD and also Cineform HDMI on my vimeo channel.Difference is noticeable.

I have converted my AVCHD files to the Cineform intermediate during editing.This has maintained any quality captured throughout my post workflow but found it always came up short compared to the initial live HDMI/Composite HD captures even if the final edit is rendered out to Cineform again.I am unashamedly a fan of Cineform as an acquisition format because the SR11/12 is amazing live out the HDMI/Composite HD port.I think that may be the difference that is being noticed but only Martyn can answer that.

I can say the same thing for the HFS10.Went out with the family today in London - looked amazing on the Camcorder LCD - got home - watched it on the 40 inch Bravia and slumped my shoulders.It's useable but then again ........Aww shucks well I have been spoilt with this HDMI capture business....just wish that Nanoflash were'nt so pricey.

One interesting thing that I've found (and I don't know why it's taken me so long to see this) is that there is much more 'headroom' built into the Sonys. By that I mean Canon is apparently using more in-camera sharpening than Sony.

It's easy to see the effect of this when I tinker with my Pioneer Kuro's sharpness control. With the Canon (HG21), raising sharpness just 2-3 clicks will bring about some ringing and edge enhancement. But with the XR, I can raise sharpness 8 clicks and still see no evidence of ringing or edge enhancement.

What this does is to allow you to raise the sharpness of your HDTV when playing the XR footage. This has a pretty dramatic impact on the apparent sharpness of the video and makes the Canon and Sony much closer in appearance with regard to sharpness.

I am a bit late to this party but only found it in the last couple of days and then had to wait the weekend to get validated.

I went between the HFS10 and 520V for a good while and settled on the 520V. The creative-geek in me much favored the Canon, but with my wife being as much of a user of this particular camera as I, I went for the 520V. I'm waiting for Sony to update something like the A1 which I sold to get this one that is along the lines of the JVC HM100, but the 520V makes a lot of sense for the time being.

I put up a couple of first runs at the links below.

First few days of footage: First Footages ~ Sony HDR-XR520V on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4628273)

Smooth slow record montage: Sony HDR-XR520V ~ Smooth Slow Record Shots on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4658775)


-Michael

I just posted a short example of my running backwards while filming. It has a clip with and without iMovie's own stabilizer processing.

Sony HDR-XR520V Stabilization Stress Test on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/4730860)

-Michael

Just courious but what happens if you use both stabilizers?

Just courious but what happens if you use both stabilizers?

That's what you can see in action in that video. I have one part with just what the camera does on its own and then the same clip with the camera IS as well as some IS from iMovie 09's new stabilization processing.


-Michael

Interesting - a lot of the frame is cut off using the iMovie stabilizer... but does seem to help a bit.

I'd think that a small bracket rig/homebuilt fig rig type device would smooth that out even more as well, but the new super OIS does an amazing job. I've run a few test runs with some of my stabilizing rigs, and am very happy with the results.

Interesting - a lot of the frame is cut off using the iMovie stabilizer... but does seem to help a bit.

I'd think that a small bracket rig/homebuilt fig rig type device would smooth that out even more as well, but the new super OIS does an amazing job. I've run a few test runs with some of my stabilizing rigs, and am very happy with the results.


Yeah, it's a smooth, zoom and crop process. On that clip it was about 130% (iMovie's scale) where 100% is just the normal video. You can control the trade off between smoothing and cropping/zooming. 130% is pretty heavy, imho, and you can see the cropping that happens at that level playing the clips back to back. On some other shots I've done, 10% or so is just enough to make the handheld HD video very usable without being totally distracting with shake or cropping too much.

I would still prefer a proper stabilizer/glide-cam kind of rig, but I can't exactly fit that in my wife's purse when we're out to the park for fun.

-Michael

Regardless of the image quality and bells and whistles, I would go with the S10. Of the two, it's the only camcorder that offers full manual control over gain, WB, shutter, iris, focus and zoom.

I think the issue of gain is much less valid when comparing these two. When you see the Sony's picture in low light, you surely don't get concerned with gain. Because the Canon isn't nearly as good in low light, you do need control over the gain.

But I found that even limiting gain on the Canon, gave me a picture that was very dim and lacking in detail.

As for control of WB, the Sony gives you that too, including MWB. Focus? They both have manual control over focus, though without a ring adjustment neither is particularly good.

So the main differentiator is that of iris and shutter. If you need that and don't do 'run & gun' type video, than the Canon is a good choice. I found, even with my two Canons, I almost never use manual iris or shutter since it's almost always spur of the moment shots for a cam like this where I don't have the time.

Regardless of the image quality and bells and whistles, I would go with the S10. Of the two, it's the only camcorder that offers full manual control over gain, WB, shutter, iris, focus and zoom.

I do not think the Canon has full control of gain. Canon has a gain limit control that sets the upper limit for gain but the camera will auto adjust the gain until this limit is reached, it is not fixed or independently controllable . There are just four choices for this gain limit. It does have different auto control like the shutter priority or iris priority mode. WB, focus and zoom are the same for both Sony and Canon with Sony having the advantage of a LANC control for tripod or waterproof housing control. The manual control on the Sony does allow you to control the application of gain if you know where on the scale gain starts!!! IT of course only starts after the iris is full open whereas in full auto the camera is clever enough to set for the best conditions and will apply gain even when the iris is not fully open keeping the lens as close to its sweet spot as possible. On the Sony this can be biased with the AE shift control.

Ron Evans

Once one learns how to manipulate the Sony, it's surprisingly controllable. Yes, independent control of each setting (WB, iris, gain, shutter speed) on individual buttons would be great, but not terribly practical in he small form factor. Upsize the cam to something around the size of the old TRV900, now you've lost portability, but I think it would be a decent trade.

With AE shift and exposure controls easily accessible from the button/knob, you've got fairly effective control. Frankly the spot focus function is probably a better option than "manual" focus on a small cam with a small monitor. Anything other than a full size ring is mighty fiddly of you're honest about it... and if you're realy trying to "focus" on the 2.7" LCD... well, good luck with it...

The strong points of a good clean low light image and excellent OIS (and a viewfinder, bigger LCD) are pretty good and compelling package for many users. I'd prefer those things even at the expense of a slightly less sharp "good light" picture.

Well, I used the XR520 on a real project for the first time on Wednesday, in conjunction with the Z5 and I must say I'm immensely impressed with the low-light results from such a small cam.

The gig was a rock concert for kids to show off their talents to family and friends, so it was a (very) low budget affair. It was a single-handed effort with the main cam (hand-held, mobile) being my Z5 and 2 small cams mounted on clamps fixed to structures on either side of the stage. The 3rd cam was a borrowed (from a friend) Panasonic HDC-HS100 which I had seen results from in good lighting which were pretty good. However, the low-light capability was much less impressive - to the extent that I don't think I'll even be able to cut it into the finished edit due to the massive difference to it's footage compared to the 2 Sony cams. I'll let you know how I get on once I start editing. At the moment, I'm just converting everything to Cineform intermediates.

You can see the difference between the Z5 footage and the XR520 footage (as you would expect for cameras with several thousand pounds difference between them) but it's not so different that it disturbs the viewer when cutting from one to the other with all the coloured disco lighting - unlike the footage from the Panasonic.

The audio was recorded on an Edirol R-44 using 4 mics on seperate channels (guitar, bass, drums, vocals). I did a quick test using PluralEyes for syncing the 3 video tracks (using the on-camera audio for syncing) with the 4-channel Edirol tracks and was suitably impressed - it certainly speeds up the syncing process from doing it visually! I'll probably buy the release version (just released).

Well, back to work. I'll let you know how things progress. The star of the show is my 12 year old nephew, who is a killer guitarist! Watch this space!

My main setup is Sony FX1 , SR11 and XR500. Lots of projects are by myself with cameras on tripods or Magic clamps. SR11 and XR500 focused with spot focus and AE shift at -4. In good light they are better than the FX1 a lot of the time. FX1 has the edge when things get difficult to expose or focus for but considering I could buy two more XR500's before I get to the cost of the FX1 the XR500 is really good. I am looking forward to see how the NXCam family turns out as I am sure for me one of them will replace the FX1. The XR500 is used as the full stage camera mostly as it responds great to the lights going up and down with low grain again less than the FX1 a lot of the time. I too am very impressed with the XR500 for the cost.

Ron Evans

Lack of progressive recording has to be a big downer on all sony consumer cams.

I'm still struggling with understanding why people think the progressive recording is visibly superior for normal HD usage playing back through an HDTV. The 1080i recordings from the Sony cams look spectacular on a Sony 46" 60Hz TV, and I understand the newer TVs at 120Hz do all sorts of clever interpolation and the video might look even better there. I can't even really tell the difference between playback quality on a PC (nominally progressive) vs the HDTV (nominally interlaced) except that the former is on a much smaller screen and isn't my target output device in practice. So that rules out the only source of regret I might have about using a 1080i cam.

I've also heard that some of the advertised 1080p cams aren't actually capturing in that mode, they just interpolate themselves and play it back that way.

I understand the technological difference but wonder how much it really matters at this point. For example, I definitely don't buy that a 720p recording looks superior to a 1080i one on my TV. So is the difference something that is visible to the average consumer on an average HDTV today, or is it a futures consideration except for people who are trying to emulate film cameras used for movies?

I'm with you Tom. Since most modern HDTVs have excellent conversion to progressive, in many cases there is no difference at all between feeding the HDTV an interlaced vs. a progressive signal.