Translated version of http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090204/zooma397.htm (http://66.102.9.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=ja|en&u=http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090204/zooma397.htm&prev=/language_tools&usg=ALkJrhgixQ9XjVJ4FRNFmjXQpNjrAn6bBQ)

The two flagship models for this year, and the winner is the Sony!
+Better low light performance thanks to the new sensor.
+Better stabilization.
+Better diagraph.

Don't forget extra "gimmicks" on the Sony:
+GPS geotagging
+High resolution screen.

Peter,

I read the link you cited but do not see the conclusions you are referring to.

As far as I can tell the story begins by saying the Canon will be reviewed next week and this article is about the Sony camera.

Where do you find the better low light, better stabilization conclusions?

And what is a "diagraph"?

Thanks,

Larry

Larry,

pls download the video samples and judge for yourself. There are sample videos for both cameras for extreme low light and image stabilization (videos for both Canon and Sony) and sample pictures (for both Canon and Sony) of the effect of the diagraph.

Yes, this is my conlusion based on the downloaded samples!

Rgds,
Peter

Peter,

I downloaded the 4 sample videos and made my own comparison, and agree with your opinion.

The comparison is a bit odd in my opinion, since Canon's AVCHD camcorders now offer 24 Mbit/sec recording whereas this latest Sony model still only offers 16 Mbit/sec for its maximum quality.

Therefore, the competition between the two is really more complex than merely anti-shake and low light, since the image quality with more normal lighting and with motion may be entirely different.

I guess I would not declare "Sony is the winner" just yet!

Larry

The comparison is a bit odd in my opinion, since Canon's AVCHD camcorders now offer 24 Mbit/sec recording whereas this latest Sony model still only offers 16 Mbit/sec for its maximum quality.

Sometimes higher bit rates just let you more accurately record the noise in the original image! :)

The two flagship models for this year, and the winner is the Sony!
+Better low light performance thanks to the new sensor.

OTOH, Canon has 30p mode, which could make up the difference.

+Better stabilization.

How about the AF? Will it be improved?

Don't forget extra "gimmicks" on the Sony:

But does it have aperture and shutter speed priority mode?

But does it have aperture and shutter speed priority mode?

Hard to make out exactly, but this sentence: "Unfortunately for the consumer to Sony's machine is the lack of aperture priority mode" suggests no aperture priority mode.


I think diagraph = diaphragm

And those stills are interesting...

Downloaded the OIS and night samples, no comparison, the Sony won hands down on both counts (take a close look at the vehicle motion in the night clip...). Not really a big surprise as I've always felt the OIS of the Canons was not really all that impressive, but if the night performance of the Sony was accurate, it will certainly up the ante - perhaps putting the new offerings on par with the EX1 and EX3 for low light performance...

Now just do something to compete with the HMC150 with one big EXMOR-R or better yet three of 'em, and some manual controls... THAT would make for an interesting camera!

That's an initial evaluation, it's always hard to know exactly how things were tested (I liked that they did the double camera bracket simul shoot trick - I've found that's the best way to REALLY side by side evaluate two cameras...), but any interest I might have had in upgrading cameras suddenly shifted to the Sony and away from the Canon HF-S...

And why the heck Sony refuses to have a "expert mode" that would give shutter, gain and aperture control on even a rudimentary level is beyond me... sometimes that stuff comes in handy if you know how to use a camera, ya know?! Put a hidden, blacked out button somewhere to offset the "easy" button, OK?! Hide it under a hatch with a tiny screw for Pete's sake if you're worried that some soccer mom will botch her shot and start "hatin' on Sony" - Stop crippling these for no reason - give us the "new TRV900"!

Stop crippling these for no reason - give us the "new TRV900"!
The last time they made a camcorder with decent features was the A1u. Usually companies don’t want smaller prosumer camcorders competing with the bigger camcorders but with JVC releasing the HM100, they should at least realize that maybe it’s in their best interest to release a competitor. Same goes for Canon and Panasonic. If not, JVC will have no competition in that category.

In those samples the Canon actually has a better looking image than the Sony (Sony's image was softer). But the stabalization in the Sony was noticably better.

Peter,

I downloaded the 4 sample videos and made my own comparison, and agree with your opinion.

The comparison is a bit odd in my opinion, since Canon's AVCHD camcorders now offer 24 Mbit/sec recording whereas this latest Sony model still only offers 16 Mbit/sec for its maximum quality.

Therefore, the competition between the two is really more complex than merely anti-shake and low light, since the image quality with more normal lighting and with motion may be entirely different.

I guess I would not declare "Sony is the winner" just yet!

Larry

I would agree the low-light and OIS looks better on the Sony, but the video of the girl walking looks sharper on the Canon. So I suspect the Canon remains the sharper cam.

My question is how do they test these cameras? Do they only use auto modes? It looks to me that very frequently auto modes are quite lame, but if the camera has a nice set of controls they will produce a fantastic image. JVC HD7 is a prime example, where it was dissed in almost every review, but in right hands it outperformed other cameras.
Marketing these cameras as "prosumer" is just a hype! They don't even have a viewfinder, and record 60i.
JVC moved in the right direction, but there has to be some first hand user opinions and some footage before I would spend the cash.

I'm sure they use primarily auto, after all they have a bit of pressure to get reviews out. And yes, if you get a bit more experience with any camera you learn the "tricks" to get better results.

I think one of the biggest improvements in this review was that the two cameras were mounted side by side and shot SIMULTANEOUSLY, which is a HUGE improvement in seeing what two cameras will do under IDENTICAL shooting conditions - it makes a difference, having tried it myself - even minor changes which can occur between "takes" can skew results.

My only comments are that there was so much noise in the Canon night scene that in comparison to the Sony "sharpness" wasn't even a consideration, and saying that the image where the Sony super OIS was making for a usable picture while the Canon was jiggling all over the place showed a "sharper" image for the Canon is almost laughable...

It doesn't matter how "sharp" an image is if it's noisy or jiggly... unusable footage is unusable footage... noise in low light (poor low light performance) as well as shaky images are probably THE two major flies in the ointment when shooting HD. Miniscule differences in image sharpness are far outweighed by a stable image and usability in "normal" conditions these consumer cams are used in, like "indoors", candle light, etc.

Now if Sony would just put these new EXMOR-R sensors in something with some basic manual control capabilty...

I've noticed that Canon tends to be "contrasty" (increasing percieved sharpness) vs. the preset Sony look - turning AE down 1-3 notches often helps this. When I tried the HV20, it looked "sharp" at first glance, because blacks were "blacker", but the comparable Sony had more real usable detail.

I'd also want to see how each cam handles color... Canon can vary a lot (with some inaccuracies that really stick out to me), and I haven't been thrilled with them in the past...

My only comments are that there was so much noise in the Canon night scene that in comparison to the Sony "sharpness" wasn't even a consideration, and saying that the image where the Sony super OIS was making for a usable picture while the Canon was jiggling all over the place showed a "sharper" image for the Canon is almost laughable...

It doesn't matter how "sharp" an image is if it's noisy or jiggly... unusable footage is unusable footage... noise in low light (poor low light performance) as well as shaky images are probably THE two major flies in the ointment when shooting HD. Miniscule differences in image sharpness are far outweighed by a stable image and usability in "normal" conditions these consumer cams are used in, like "indoors", candle light, etc.

Now if Sony would just put these new EXMOR-R sensors in something with some basic manual control capabilty...

I've noticed that Canon tends to be "contrasty" (increasing percieved sharpness) vs. the preset Sony look - turning AE down 1-3 notches often helps this. When I tried the HV20, it looked "sharp" at first glance, because blacks were "blacker", but the comparable Sony had more real usable detail.

I'd also want to see how each cam handles color... Canon can vary a lot (with some inaccuracies that really stick out to me), and I haven't been thrilled with them in the past...

Dave a couple of comments on your observations. I think Sony dropped the gain kick-in for the new camera. That may be part of the reason why it's less noisy BUT also darker. I'd bet you can achieve much better results in the Canon by cutting the gain or exposure.

As for the sharpness difference, we don't always take that type of video (while walking). However, the sharpness difference will always be there. I'll still take the sharper cam and figure out how to handle 'walking videos' so that every other video I take will be sharp. The fact is the Canons (consumer units) usually test out with more measured resolution. So this is not just a function of 'perceived' sharpness and contrast.

Now, on the other hand, I've recently purchased a Sony Z5 HDV cam and that puppy is both sharp as a tack and is easier to achieve a stable hand held image due to its size and weight. It's prosumer counterpart (the FX1000) was measured at an amazing 900 lines of horizontal resolution.

So Sony can certainly make a sharp camera if they so choose. I also don't understand why Sony is stuck on 16mbps bitrate. That's a bit old at this stage of AVCHD. But hey, may hat's off to their OIS and low-noise video.

I'm thinking that Canon has always seemed to have "blacker blacks" vs. Sony, so I'm not sure it's a gain issue - this was supposed to be the big boost of the "R" sensor, improved low light performance.

Presuming that the new sensor design ACTUALLY improves low light capability, the smoothness of the image was impressive, and I thought the Sony looked significantly better and more like you'd expect it to look in real life, without video noise.

It'll be interesting to see what CCinfo has to say - they must have these two either in hand or on the way, and while I don't always agree with their testing protocols, they should reveal at least some of the strengths or weaknesses of these cameras.

I'll admit the specs of the HF-S really looked great and I was thinking I'll have to try one (might still do it...), and I wasn't impressed at all with the GPS equipped Sonys... but specs and real life use are two different animals.

I downloaded and have run the videos side by side quite a few times, and based on those, I'd take the Sony, both for low light and for motion. The night scene looked more "real" to me, and far less noise, and the idea of a small camera that doesn't HAVE to be on a rig to be stable sure resonates for me - having tried to shoot while moving with a Canon (HV20), it was not worth a darn. The sharpness may or may not be enough of a factor to matter - IOW "sharp" images that are blurry due to motion are just junk.

In my mind if you can shoot in lower light and while moving, it means more opportunities to capture a moment, meaning the camera is more useful in a practical sense, lines of resolution be darned. Yeah, still looking for a "perfect" camera, but those two improvements look like they are more than just marketing...

OH, and yes that Z5/FX1000 looks pretty sweet <wink>!

And I'd second the 16Mbps - that's just strange given the 24Mbps rate everyone else is at, but maybe the perceived "improvements" just weren't all the specs would imply?

Dave, I sure can't argue about the look of those night shots or the steadiness of the OIS. But man oh man, a GPS in a camcorder has got to be the most lame 'add-on' I've ever seen in the world of video! :)

Ken: I really like the GPS function, just think about traveling and being able to tell exactly where the shot was made...

OK, was I seeing things, or was there a very distinct black "ring" around the white spots on the red mushroom top, that's NOT in any of the other test shots from that particular site (the original German site, I've got it bookmarked for reference, as it seems they have a fairly consistent test shot they use)??? Something's a bit amiss with how the Canon is handling transitions between those areas, maybe it makes things LOOK sharper, but if it's not there with any of the other camera tests, it ought not be there in the HF-S shots...

AND I don't see any test shots of the XR500/520 on that site either - simply says "not yet tested"... so I'm not sure how one can reach a conclusion comparing apples to ?

When something as glaring as those rings is seen, I'd become very nervous about the camera...

FWIW, I vehemently disagree with "noise" coming with geater dynamic range - greater latitude shouldn't be synonomous with a noisier or grainer image, though I'm afraid that too many cameras gain up and try to call it "better low light"...

I'm still waiting to see some further tests of the XR, but the low light and OIS still look better to me than the Canon... even if it turns out to be a bit soft.

>When something as glaring as those rings is seen, I'd become very nervous about the camera...

The Canon cameras come with enough picture settings to remove contrast, saturation, sharpness etc. Plus Cinemode.

Ken: I really like the GPS function, just think about traveling and being able to tell exactly where the shot was made...

Jurij, maybe it's me, but if I took shots in London on vacation, I'd know that and that would be enough. Somehow knowing to the nearest foot where the shot was made doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But that's me.

I think setting the time is more important than the place. On our trip to Australia/New Zealand last fall we were changing time zones frequently and on the first day from Canada I set the clock 12 hours out!! This meant that both the time and Day were wrong!!! Took me several days to figure it out and correct and then I did it again traveling from the East coast to the West Australia!!! I think for family videos the GPS setting of date and time will be great. Don't need to do it all the time if you don't travel. I will likely buy a XR500 to go with my SR11.

Ron Evans

...GPS in a camcorder has got to be the most lame 'add-on' I've ever seen in the world of video!Tongue in cheek noted, Ken, but I disagree. Law enforcement, real estate and frequent travelers are three primary markets that could make serious use of a GPS feature... not to mention integration into Google Maps... it's actually kinda cool, in my opinion.

You see Chris, as always, there's a market for anything and everything...even in this economy! ;)

>When something as glaring as those rings is seen, I'd become very nervous about the camera...

The Canon cameras come with enough picture settings to remove contrast, saturation, sharpness etc. Plus Cinemode.

Hmmm, so you have to tweak the camera to remove artifacts or other image issues that shouldn't be there in the first place? I've had cameras like that... HAD being the operative word.

I'm going to say maybe there was something wrong with how they shot those samples, because that "ringing" was pretty obviously a nonexistent part of the original scene (and it was evident in many other places where there was a high brightness/white spot area adjacent to a low brightness/color area, just most evident on the mushroom).

I'm just pointing out that image ACCURACY is as important as perceived image sharpness when it comes to post.

I have no doubt that the Canon has LOTS of nifty tweaks and twiddles (that Sony doesn't bother to offer, ARGH!), but sometimes when one wants to shoot not tweak, that may not be so wonderful. I admit the feature set and tweakability of the Canon is quite attractive, so much so that it makes the Sony look like the ugly stepsister!

BUT it all comes down to what image quality comes out of these new sensors and processors and firmware - and how usable it is out of the box as well as when tweaked in.

I'll go for a CLEAN (meaning as little sensor/processor/firmware induced NOISE), stable image over a jiggly noisy one, even if it sacrifices a bit of sharpness. That's where even judging stills is a rather questionable measure when "moving pictures" are what you're going to be shooting!

Dave, the Canons have always been for those that like to tweak and as a result, possibly get the best image available. The Sony is more geared to the true 'point & shoot' crowd and may not, in many instances, provide the best image possible because of this lacking of adjustability.

There's a market for both.

Hi first time poster! Got my XR500V on monday and found this forum from a like at AVS forums.
The Sony HDR-XR500V and XR520V Owners thread - Page 2 - AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1109300&page=2)

Full Unboxing Flickr Set is here at:
09-Sony HDR-XR500V Unboxing - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadath/sets/72157614709169036/)

Will be blogging my tests at:
Navesink.Net: Sony HDR-XR500VUnboxing and Testing (http://www.navesink.net/2009/03/sony-hdr-xr500vunboxing-and-testing.html)

First test video is up at:
EAhoLaula.com - Photos by Sam Posten III - Wider IS Better!- powered by SmugMug (http://www.eaholaula.com)

To see it better tho, most of you will probably want the better quality versions.
Here is the raw iMovie 08 output:
Navesink.Net: SonyHDR-XR500V-IcicleTest Film (http://www.navesink.net/2009/03/sonyhdr-xr500v-icicletest-film.html)

Here's a native .MTS file, it plays like crap on my Mac Pro via VLC...
Don't kill my bandwidth please if you don't need a real MTS file =) (http://www.navesink.net/public_html/icicle10.MTS)

-Only changes I made to the out of box settings was to select full HD recording, and yes it seems to cap at 16MB.
-I'm not sure if theSteadyshot was on or not. I havent read the book yet and the menus were somewhat obtuse. I'm hping it wasnt cause it looks like it could use some stabilization.
-It was shot at Dusk
-I only have iMovie 08, which resizes all files to a max of 920 wide or something stupid like that.
-I'm a total noob with iMovie
-It was shot at dusk
-After iMovie resized it, Smugmug resized it again.

I'm looking to get Premier Pro soon for my Mac seems to be that will be my best editing option.

If anyone knows how to turn steadyshot on and off I'd be grateful, there doesnt seem to be a menu option.

If anyone knows how to turn steadyshot on and off I'd be grateful, there doesnt seem to be a menu option.

Yes! Go to the HOME menu (little icon upper left), then select the icon on the bottom right that looks like a suitcase. then scroll to page 2. It's there under STEADYSHOT.

I got this camera a week ago and I am very, very happ with it.

I had HDR-TG1 but was unhappy with its low-light performace. This one is great.

Hi first time poster! Got my XR500V on monday and found this forum from a like at AVS forums.
The Sony HDR-XR500V and XR520V Owners thread - Page 2 - AVS Forum (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1109300&page=2)

Full Unboxing Flickr Set is here at:
09-Sony HDR-XR500V Unboxing - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadath/sets/72157614709169036/)

Will be blogging my tests at:
Navesink.Net: Sony HDR-XR500VUnboxing and Testing (http://www.navesink.net/2009/03/sony-hdr-xr500vunboxing-and-testing.html)

First test video is up at:
EAhoLaula.com - Photos by Sam Posten III - Wider IS Better!- powered by SmugMug (http://www.eaholaula.com)

To see it better tho, most of you will probably want the better quality versions.
Here is the raw iMovie 08 output:
Navesink.Net: SonyHDR-XR500V-IcicleTest Film (http://www.navesink.net/2009/03/sonyhdr-xr500v-icicletest-film.html)

Here's a native .MTS file, it plays like crap on my Mac Pro via VLC...
Don't kill my bandwidth please if you don't need a real MTS file =) (http://www.navesink.net/public_html/icicle10.MTS)

-Only changes I made to the out of box settings was to select full HD recording, and yes it seems to cap at 16MB.
-I'm not sure if theSteadyshot was on or not. I havent read the book yet and the menus were somewhat obtuse. I'm hping it wasnt cause it looks like it could use some stabilization.
-It was shot at Dusk
-I only have iMovie 08, which resizes all files to a max of 920 wide or something stupid like that.
-I'm a total noob with iMovie
-It was shot at dusk
-After iMovie resized it, Smugmug resized it again.

I'm looking to get Premier Pro soon for my Mac seems to be that will be my best editing option.

If anyone knows how to turn steadyshot on and off I'd be grateful, there doesnt seem to be a menu option.

Cool. Congratulations!


"First time poster" :)

Yes! Go to the HOME menu (little icon upper left), then select the icon on the bottom right that looks like a suitcase. then scroll to page 2. It's there under STEADYSHOT.

I got this camera a week ago and I am very, very happ with it.

I had HDR-TG1 but was unhappy with its low-light performace. This one is great.

I didn't see a way to scroll to page 2. Will look again tonight.

I didn't see a way to scroll to page 2. Will look again tonight.

There should two arrows, one up and one down on the left side of the screen when in that menu

I found these 2 comparisions between Sony XR520 and Canon HF S10

Translated version of http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090204/zooma397.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=ja|en&u=http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090204/zooma397.htm&prev=/language_tools)

Translated version of http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs//20090212/zooma398.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fav.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2F%2F20090212%2Fzooma398.htm&sl=ja&tl=en)

Personally I think Sony has better stabilization + low light performance and Canon has better details when you have correct light (I think this mostly because of 24Mbps vs 16Mbps).

I think for person like me Sony is the winner.. I point and shoot, family stuff only. For someone that uses tripod, post processing, twicking, Canon is better because you can achieve better quality in your final product.

Anyone have an idea when XR520 will be available in UK?

Dave, I sure can't argue about the look of those night shots or the steadiness of the OIS. But man oh man, a GPS in a camcorder has got to be the most lame 'add-on' I've ever seen in the world of video! :)

Ken I'm not a fun of GPS and movies, but I found this quite interesting for pictures. Have you seen google maps photos (panoramio)? I think Flickr also allows you to see an album on the map now.

But anyway one of the reasons why it's not popular in DSLR's is because it drains the battery and takes a while to initialize - I wonder how sony did that?

And certainly I would prefer to pay a bit less for XR520 and not have GPS :)

Checked it out at the Sony Style store in Costa Mesa, CA today.

1) Dumb MStick free space problem.
Deleted files, had about 100MB free on a MS, wouldn't record at all. Warning sign appeared. Had to delete nearly 300MB free just so it could say '1min' free on the LCD before it could start recording --- and my recording was only for a few seconds anyways, only took up 38MB in the end!
I can see parents and such going nuts trying to figure out why they can record to MS when there's more than enough space. Well, gotta make that indicator display 1min or more first by deleting files.....
and even dumber, dropped an unknown AVF_INFO folder (hidden) on the stick filled with ~105MB of junk files (only the video in the AVCHD folder was all you need) on the stick as well. sigh....

2) Very touchy zoom to get slowest craw zoom to work. Just a touch less pressure and it's back to a full stop, can't really feel it getting close to 0/no-zoom unlike other camcorders. A little too much and it's zooming faster. Not as easy as the Canon HF11 to dial in.

3) Nice high-res screen. You can read the print off a letter page ad in the store after framing it top-to-bottom. Wish all camcorders had high-res LCD screens like this.
But once again, touch-screen interface, so you're always messing up the screen with dirty fingerprints!
And trust me, after you've picked up a camcorder used by everyone going through the store, the touch sensor doesn't work well - sometimes, you have to push OK or the on-screen buttons several times to get them to register. Wishing for real buttons.....

4) RED Memorystick write LED not very bright. Might not be able to see it in daylight outdoors, and that's bad. No on-screen indication of this either, so you'll have to cup your eyes over this and make sure you're not removing the stick mid-write.

5) Bulky and heavy (vs. lighter HF11), more like a 1st gen HDV camcorder. Not jacket pocketable in all cases, not slim in any direction.

6) 24Mbps video looks fine indoors. Did a zoom out in store and noise was decent for dark black areas, focus worked fine, resolution looked good, and nothing really out of place.
That said, face detection focusing while zooming might not work for everyone - it'll keep relocking to another face as you include more people. Better to turn off if you're zooming in/out of scenes.

7) Stabilization seemed good most of the zoom range, 1-handed hand-shake noticable once you're at the last 3/4 of the zoom range. Nothing that would suggest miracles here zoomed in, probably decent zoomed out for walking about. As stable as Sony's prior AVCHD models from last year, if not more so.

8) Everything takes multiple screen presses to get to settings. Nothing where you can just list them all in a column and scroll through. So expect to get lost if you haven't read the mnaual and you'll have to look in several locations. (Why they have a Home and Menu screen buttons with burried settings for each is beyond me.....)

----

Doesn't have Canon's dual-AF system, so the focus isn't snapping into lock as fast (fast on the 520, but a smooth fast, not a Canon quick fast) indoors. But nothing 'objectionable' for most consumers. Here, I still prefer the Canon AF because AF lock still occurs as fast as light drops (uses infrared light and sensor to AF in addition to contrast AF).

My own SR12 just edges my hdv FX7 in very detailed resolution card tests i have done and i am sure the hdv canons have no more resolution than an FX-7.

There's a German (?) site that just posted some shots from the XR520 (camcorder-test.com). Their comparison shots seem to be fairly consistent, and frankly if the low light is as good as it appears from their test shots, it's close to matching the EX1 and EX3, maybe even less noise. VERY impressive new sensor (EXMOR-R).

Sony should be trying to get the new sensor into something a bit more professional (meaning w/manual control) ASAP... I'm a bit surprised how good the new XR's look, they appear to be giving the "high end" of Sony's line a serious run for the money.

Now if they would just stick the "R" sensor block in something like the old TRV900 or the FX7...

David -

The other files are required for longer clips, and for "housekeeping" functions. Most users willl be using a new clean stick or the HDD... not an almost full MS... User malfunction is not a reason to knock the camera.

Zoom - presuming the usual "Sony feel" is there, should be fine...

Glad to hear the screen is so sharp. Touchscreen isn't everyone's cup of tea, and it's no big deal to have a small stylus available... it's VERY efficient and effective for spot focus/exposure. Manual controls/buttons would be nice though.

I've turned my SR11 off while it was running (emergency battery change, whoops). Didn't lose anything. IF the user is using the MS to record to, they again should be smart enough to stop recording, wait a few seconds, THEN remove the MS - again, user malfunction isn't a valid criticism.

The XR series have a viewfinder and the HDD, not to mention a healthy size LCD screen (3.2" vs. 2.7"). Not as pocketable, sure, but I'd rather have the VF and big LCD most times... still I hope they will continue in the tradition of the SR11/CX12 and release a MS only version in "pocket size" - seems like the CX7 and CX12 were both "late" announcements (Aug/Oct instead of Jan/Mar), so maybe it'll happen.

XR does 24Mbps? Thought it still topped out at 17... expect it will look good either way. Face detection is a mixed bag (I think it takes a good bit of the cameras processing horsepower), but when it works it seems to work well.

Low light and stabilization both seem to be superb with the XR's, look far superior to anything else in class from samples so far.

And yes, Sony's newer menu system is a pain in the rear to learn to navigate... much prefer the HC style, or something like the FX7. I'm sure that they felt the menus were effective for the intended user... it's just a shame to have the level of quality that this camera looks like it can put out and not have some real control functions easily accessable!

I'll still be watching for the street price to come down a bit, but the XR500/520 is looking pretty good in many respects.

There's a German (?) site that just posted some shots from the XR520 (camcorder-test.com).

Looks like the total score is better for both SR12 and Canon HF11 than XR520 which I find a bit strange. Yes maybe XR520 lacks zebra etc.. but I think the weights to the individual tests are not set correctly when camcorder with better low light, stabilization and same resolution is loosing to another camcorder with few more functions that only semi-pro people will be using. I think people still forget that XR520, SR12, HF11 are 'CONSUMER' camcorders and lack of manual control is not the most important for the market this camcorders are trying to address.

Sony is still stuck at 16mbps according to Sony's own specs (you can download their manual), so zero change there. I don't know why they can't go to the limit of the AVCHD format, 24mbps, as Canon has for the last two years.

It definitely helps with fine detail and motion and is something very welcome in the world of AVCHD. Maybe next year.

But also consider that Sony has apparently done a nice job with low-light improvements as well as image stabilization. Everything I've seen, including downloaded clips, show that there has been a dramatic improvement in OIS...surpassing Canon's OIS. So I think Dave Chien is understating the improvement on this end.

Many may not be familiar with Sony's G lens, but in my opinion it's a definite improvement over the Zeiss lens used for years. The G lens is a joint developement between Minolta & Konica, two very well-respected lens makers. I recently bought a Sony Z5 HDV pro camcorder with the new G lens. This is a successor to the Z1 and the improvement in PQ is dramatic in my opinion. Its picture blows away any camcorder I've ever used before. Of course there are other factors that go in to the improvement (sensor, processing, etc.) but it seems to me that the lens is playing a huge role in the improvements I'm seeing.

Of course this doesn't guarantee the consumer cams are blessed with the same quality G lens, but I'd bet it's still an improvement over the Zeiss lens which I was never overly impressed with.

I traded my SR12 for the Canon HG21 last year and I find it takes superior videos to the SR12, but with the new lens, new sensor, improved low-light and OIS, the new Sonys are surely worth looking at. I'd sure look at them if I were in the market.

I'd also take CCI's reviews with a large grain of salt. Anyone that owns or is very familiar with camcorders they've reviewed, knows there are times it seems they're not looking at the same camcorder you are.

An excellent example of this was a recent comparison of the Sony FX1000 to the Canon XL-H1. Just for starters, the FX1000 is about $3,500 and the Canon is over $6,000. Second, CCI made a big issue over the 'brightness' of the two camera's images in low-light at 0db gain. If you guys have done much shooting in low-light with cameras whose gain can be adjusted, you know that you don't use 0db of gain in situations like that. The more important test is how do both cameras look with say 9db or 12db of gain? THOSE are realistic conditions and the camera that had a brighter image at 0db of gain may all of a sudden look FAR grainier AND dimmer than the other cam at higher gain settings.

The above is not theoretical and is precisely what happens to those two cameras they reviewed. In fact the Sony FX1000 blows the Canon away under REAL WORLD low light conditions where the user will obviously dial in gain to get a usable image. The Sony presents a much quieter and brighter image at the higher gain settings.

So I say this to emphasize the point, use your eyes as the final determiner of picture quality and reviews like CCI's for just some added info, but not the source for which camera is the 'best'.

Sony should be trying to get the new sensor into something a bit more professional (meaning w/manual control) ASAP... I'm a bit surprised how good the new XR's look, they appear to be giving the "high end" of Sony's line a serious run for the money.


Dave, they did, they're called the FX1000/Z5. The low light of these two cams is nothing short of extraordinary and unprecedented for HD anywhere near this price range.

If you're familiar with the Sony VX2000/VX2100 (the Kings of low light), suffice is to say that the new Z5/FX1000 are every bit as good as these two SD camcorders, but with far far better colors and image sharpness...obviously since they're HD. Of course these are all larger and more expensive cams than the XR's or small Canons.

Yes, it's amazing the image these small cams can produce, but trust me Dave, when you see the image the larger Sonys produce, there is a 'depth' and color breadth that only the larger, 3-chip cams can produce. Of course there is a huge disparity in the adjustment capability too, but hey, you may not want to take a 5lb camcorder to a family gathering! ;)

Dave, they did, they're called the FX1000/Z5. The low light of these two cams is nothing short of extraordinary and unprecedented for HD anywhere near this price range.

If you're familiar with the Sony VX2000/VX2100 (the Kings of low light), suffice is to say that the new Z5/FX1000 are every bit as good as these two SD camcorders, but with far far better colors and image sharpness...obviously since they're HD. Of course these are all larger and more expensive cams than the XR's or small Canons.

Yes, it's amazing the image these small cams can produce, but trust me Dave, when you see the image the larger Sonys produce, there is a 'depth' and color breadth that only the larger, 3-chip cams can produce. Of course there is a huge disparity in the adjustment capability too, but hey, you may not want to take a 5lb camcorder to a family gathering! ;)

i think like me dave wants a mid sized cam with the new sensers i find my fx-7 too big for casual use now,something between the consumer sr-12 and fx-7 is my dream.

Hey Martyn, at least your FX7 is a size down from the Z5! :)

Ken -
Are the sensors in the FX1000/Z5 the EXMOR "R"? I thought the XR's were the first to have the new reverse CMOS tech - frankly after seeing the test shots on the German site, the XR's were so close to the big boys, I was loading pictures back and forth and comparing thinking there must have been an error.

If those captures were accurate, the XR's come VERY close to what the EX1 and EX3 can do in low light, and match the FX1000 from what I could see, maybe even a little less noisy image... and the sharpness was quite good, without the strange "ringing" artifacting the HF-S seemed to have. These little guys may be quite the bargain.

The removal of Zebras and the lower bitrate are negatives, but until I see one firsthand, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt - I have seen some footage shot of R/C airplanes with one that was QUITE good, and motion looked excellent... I think I can live without zebras, though they ARE nice to have.

Martyn, you and I are barking up the same tree. Something near pocket size (BIG pocket maybe), focus and/or zoom rings - they can be small, but both would be nice, and something like the old TRV900 where you can press buttons for Shutter, aperature, etc. and adjust with a small wheel.

It can't be that hard to create a usable interface on a small form factor - there's plenty of blank surface area on these sleek little pocket rockets. And the old TRV900 and HC1 both show it's possible to be both small AND functional.

My thinking is once you chuck the the tape mech, you can cut size and weight significantly, so it's down to having a bigger lens if needed, 3 chips maybe (though I'm not convinced that a single big chip isn't sufficient), and the control surfaces. Think HC1 redeux perhaps, good focus/zoom ring, that little lever thingy for exposure, etc.

I don't even mind the SR11 control wheel, BUT I'd like to have a bit more control - Just SOME access to gain, aperature, shutter, etc, so that those of us who know a LITTLE BIT about photography/videography have something to twiddle with when appropriate.

I like the bigger screen, having a VF is a good thing too (both of which are lacking in the CX12 though I like that camera for size), I can't complain about the touch screen for some things (spot functions make perfect sense), but a few more controls wouldn't kill 'em to include!!!

I've got rigs to increase the size of the camera if I have to for stability (and by the looks of it, may not be as needed with the XR), but I really am not a "big camera" guy - the FX7 was about as far as I'd go, and from what I've seen of the XR's they wil absolutely beat the FX7 for PQ and low light... IMO the "R" sensor (and maybe the new "G" glass?) upped the ante far more than any of the earlier model year to year "updates" - each year seems to get better, but there's a bigger jump here than indicated by first glance or specs.

Dave, I don't think they're "R" sensors in the Z5, just Exmor, but you do have 3 as opposed to just one. I can tell you, based on the videos I've seen so far, that the low-light of the Z5/1000 is at least as good as what I saw from the Japaneese site's video. Keep in mind that the lens of the Z5 is quite a bit bigger too with greater light grasp and the cam probably has more sophisticated processing that helps them achieve their stunning low-light/sharpness results. Even the colors in very dim light are extraordinary.

In terms of sharpness in good light, from what I saw from that site, the bigger Sonys have quite a margin over the smaller XR's. Keep in mind the FX1000/Z5 horizontal resolution was measured at 900 lines...virtually unprecedented in even their price range. But the cam is much bigger and costlier than the smaller XRs, so you 'pay your dues' to get this level of performance. :)

With that said, I'm sure the XRs have a lot going for them and deserve a close look if you're looking for a small cam and don't mind the lack of controls, zebras etc. As I said, if I were in the market for this kind of cam, I'd surely take a close look.

I should mention that my friend was at CES in Vegas and took home some XR footage from the Sony booth. We both looked at it on my 60" Kuro and were a bit disappointed in the overall sharpness even though the OIS was great. There were also a few strange artifacts, but we thought it might have been due to the odd lighting at CES.

I find some of those grabs on the German site more than a bit suspect. The EX3 actually looked soft in those grabs, which is hard to believe even though I've never played with one. My Z5 is virtually always stunningly sharp on my Kuro and it's hard for me to believe the EX would not be as good, let alone better, with its larger imagers. I've never read anyone saying the EXs are 'soft'. Add to this the fact that the site's own verbiage rates the resolution much better ("excellent" for the EX vs "good" for XR) and you wonder if your eyes are deceiving you. The low light grabs also looked better on the small Sony, yet they again rated the EX3 better in their verbiage. Odd site, odd results, contradictory verbiage. Hell, even the resolution chart looks better on the XR, yet the EX is rated better in the verbiage. Something is obviously not right and I suspect it's either sloppy testing or sloppy journalism or, more likely, both. There is no way that the EX is not a significantly better cam than the XR...no way, no how.

As I've said, the only way is to look at footage you've shot and compare. Based on my limited comparison of the XR my friend shot with my Z5, it's no contest. I would assume the EX3 is a step up from my Z5, so you do the math. All you do is scratch your head with these reviews. :)

Yeah, I was rather intrigued by the image results... but Sony has made some bold claims for the "R" sensor, so there may actually be more there than you'd expect. I'm wondering if it's possible that the sensor structure is that huge an improvement, in which case it's a sign of good things coming.

I think that the low light image from the XR COULD be that good, in which case for a small single sensor with relatively small glass, it'd be a real knockout (which would lead to the question - why not 3 "R" chips and some big glass??).

I am always suspect of review sites, but that particular site seems to stay fairly consistent, at least with their still captures (I wasn't really trying to follow the verbage, my deutsch ist "rusty"...).

I think the reason I'm intrigued is that their images have been pretty consistent with my experience for those cameras I've had hands on experience with. Doesn't mean there can't be a glitch, but I usually expect things to look WORSE, not as much better as the shots from the XR were... at least that's my thinking...

I know that you usually expect $ spent to equate somehow with the quality of the results, but we've already seen the HV20/30/40 hold it's own at a fraction of the price of the big cams, as well as many of the other small cams from Canon and Sony... I'm wondering if the XR's will turn out to be one of those glorious flukes?

I've been impressed with what I've seen from the FX1000 as well, so I'm not surprised your Z5 is working for you - looks like a great camera overall, that's why I was wondering if by some chance the "R" sensors snuck in somehow. Clearly Sony is trying very hard to make each camera generation noticeably better.

Dave, actually the reason I was suspect of the site's info was their results seem to differ so drastically from my own experience AND from their own verbiage vs. their own frame grabs. I had sent this site to a friend (the guy who went to CES) some time ago and he sent me back some very contradictory things to look at. He thought the site was a joke and commented "according to that site, you can better performance from an $800 camera than a $4,800 camera". As I looked more carefully I saw he was absolutely right and that their results flew in the face of my own experience.

If you look at their images from the FX1000 (a stripped down Z5), you and I would come away with the idea the cam is soft. In fact, if you compare it on that site to the SR12, you'll think the SR12 is sharper. You'd also come away with the idea (from the stills) that the SR12 is in the same league as the FX1000 for low light.

Dave, both couldn't be further from the truth. In fact the overall picture quality of the Z5/FX1000 blows away the SR12 in sharpness, color and certainly in low light. Having owned the SR12 and currently the Z5, I know how much better the picture of the Z5 is...no comparison. Color, texture, sharpness, exposure and low light...no comparison. Yet the pictures just don't show it.

Talk about contradictory info, they give the FX1000 a 'very good' for resolution and the HV20 an 'excellent'. WHAT, HUH??? Dave, I've still got the HV20 and you know me, I've done A/Bs with both the Z5 and the HV20...again, the Z5 just blows it away.

Remember, the FX1000 was rated as the camera with the highest resolution that CCI ever tested, 900 lines...nothing was even close in their testing history. Not that I'm a fan of CCI reviews, but that's surely closer to the truth from my experience when viewed on my 60" plasma.

After that I never bothered with that site again. There is something radically wrong with their info. How can their pictures say one thing and their verbiage say the opposite? It just makes no sense, particularly when you know the cam their testing pales by comparison to another they've tested and yet the pictures don't show that.

Dave, by the way, you can easily translate that site to English by clicking on the upper right phrase "this page to English". My German is as bad as yours, but I saw that translation button! :)

Ken I'm glad you are talking about the high resolution and image quality of the Z5/FX1000. When I saw that 900 lines of resolution on CCinfo's FX1000 review, that really caught my attention. Combine that with the LCDs and viewfinders of these cameras and they rise to the top of my wish list. I'm surprised that the 900 lines of resolution result didn't seem to get much play on the FX1000 subforum. Someone said that these two new Canons are going to have 900 lines of resolution. If that turns out to be true that would be pretty cool.

Pat

Hi Ken -
They haven't posted the English translation on the XR yet, but I know enough German to know they rip it on all the pro features that are missing! You need to click on their little thumbnails to get a full screen image - that helps a lot, and gives you more to work from.

Strangely, I didn't get the same impression when comparing the SR11/12 and FX1000 from their stills, I was impressed with the FX1000 both for low light and stills, and could see it was a very accurate image with good crispness overall (one thing I noticed about their shots is sometimes their focus is on different areas of the shot... you need to watch that, as it can give some incorrect impressions!). Actually felt it was pretty much where I'd expect given the price point and relationship to other cameras...

I know that their low light samples of the SR and CX are definitely from those cameras, there are certain tell tale things in those captures... and the FX1000 was definitely a bit brighter and a LOT cleaner in low light <wink> than both of those, but there was still noise in the FX1000 that is typical of most cameras that just isn't present to the same degree in the XR still.

That is why I'm intrigued by the XR captures. They aren't "quite" as good in low light as the EX1/3, but are pretty close, and again seem to have less noise. Unless they used a different camera entirely or a completely different light array, I don't know how they would have "fudged" those shots. I also noted that the XR stills are significantly "warm" in comparison to almost every other still set on their site (there are some others though), so that may be an issue. It at least indicates a WB issue.

I don't know that I'd say the XR is better than the FX1000/Z5 and the EX's, but considering the price point, it may be far closer than anyone would expect.

One thing with verbal communication is it is ALWAYS easy to misinterpret. Pictures and bench tests "can" be fudged, but most times you can catch that pretty quick. I don't know what "excellent and "very good" mean, and they may not mean the same to two different people... But if one's evaluation is "bang for the buck", you'd have the HV series on top of the heap almost every time (and I'm not a big fan of that camera myself, but would recommend it to someone on a budget)... could be part of why they have it rated as they do?

In the context of what the $800 (now around $500) camera can do and the features it has available vs. the $4800 camera, a relative performance rating may well favor the cheaper camera!

I'm not doubting the performance of the FX1000, and would say that site would lead me to make it my first choice if the budget was there and I wanted a larger camera, but what I'm seeing of the XR from that site makes it a formidable contender by any stretch. If Sony put back the "professional" features (remember this is their "consumer division", releasing the best product they can), this would make the XR a pretty interesting camera.

As it is, I'm waiting to see other reports and reviews, but it's a more interesting upgrade than I thought it would be from the SR11!

Yeah Dave, I guess we saw those pix differently (and I did click on the thumbnails to get a larger version). You should be able to get the English translation of the XR page, I can.

As to verbiage, I think most anyone would agree that 'excellent' is better than 'very good' and significantly better than 'good'.

It's obvious that the CCI had a very different idea of sharpness of the FX1000, with 900 lines of horizontal resolution, vs. the German's site characterization of 'very good'. Let's face it, CCI was very clear in stating that they never tested a camera that came close to the FX1000's rez. So I would assume a rating of 'superb' would be in order for resolution if it was up to CCI.

The low light of the 1000/Z5 in my experience, is certainly better than what the German site showed...much better. To easily be the low light equal of the VX2100 says a lot! There are other anomolies with the German site, but we've probably spent more time on it than was warranted. Getting these cams in your hands will always be far better than relying on conflicting reviews from these review sites. Sometimes it seems that even though they tested the same model, they were actually testing entirely different cams.

But Dave, one thing I've learned with these bigger cams is that they present a 'relaxed' and 'open' image that truly smacks of the professional video you see on the networks. Even as sharp as my HG21 is (and it really is sharp and I do love its picture), it simply can't compete with the superb color rendition and utterly clean, pristine, resolute and relaxed picture of the Z5. I would be amazed if the XR series can begin to capture the color nuances in low-light that these larger cams can. Yes, perhaps they can get close in noise, but there are so many other picture subtleties in low light besides just noise. It just amazes me how the color subtleties are retained in low light. The clips I saw from my friend at CES from the XR were certainly not something that wowed me and that light was not what I'd call 'low light'. The color was not good under those conditions, but it could have been the odd lighting too.

There is a 'texture' to the image in these bigger cams (for lack of a better description) that's missing in all the smaller cams. There's no getting around those 3-CMOS sensors together with that very large lens.

But I'll certainly give the XR a look-see when I get a chance. To be honest, I've been using the Z5 for my personal shooting too. It's hard to put that beast down, despite its weight and size. The tremendous range of adjustments you have with that cam are something you just don't see with the smaller guys. You have great control over depth of field that you don't have with the smaller units. This makes such a difference in your videos from an artistic standpoint!

CCinfo just posted a new Sanyo review (the cam appears to have superb image quality for the price) and there are some comparisons with the Canon HF S100

Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000 Camcorder Review - Sanyo (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sanyo-Xacti-VPC-HD2000-Camcorder-Review-36280.htm)

and there are some comparisons with the Canon HF S100

That must mean they've got it in their test bench, I hope they put the review up soon. I'm 80% sure I'm going to get one the Panasonic TM300 is 15%, keeping my hf100 is the other
5%.