Same as other Sony AVCHD cams like the NX5/AX2000 and CX5xx which shoot 24Mbps AVCHD, about 2½ hours.

with a 32 GB card? wow, I was hoping at least 4 hours at the speed of 24Mbps.

As far as low light capabilities. I am hearing this camera does great in low light? Man, serious, I am stuck here. I really would like to wait for this and pre order it. But not having it in my hands and not being able to play with it is hard. I shoot social events (weddings, corporate etc) and low light is essential to my shooting at times. So between this and the Sony FX1000, I am hard in choosing.

Am I reading this right? The Sony VG10 shoots at a minimum of 11 lux? and FX1000 at 1.5 lux? What the?

Yeah, that is the specification we've been talking about. Note that it is the specification for a particular zoom lens and that particular lens apparently only goes to f/3.5.

Maybe there is or will be lens that will go down to f/1.6. But maybe it will have only shallow depth of field. Maybe it won't. It is still too early to tell.

As for recording times, you can get close to 4 hours with 17Mbps "FH" AVCHD. I just checked my NX5 manual. It says the FX 24 Mbps capacity on a 32 gig card will be 170 minutes (not quite 3 hours) while FH (17Mbps) capacity will be 235 minutes (so not quite 4 hours).

If you get an MRC unit with your FX1000, you'll get the 170 minute recording time for HDV.

Am I reading this right? The Sony VG10 shoots at a minimum of 11 lux? and FX1000 at 1.5 lux? What the?

I would be very cautious about drawing conclusions from the lux ratings of any of these cameras.
You need to see what the actual low light images look like.
Depending on the camera, the image can look a lot better, or worse than the rating implies.
For example: a low light shot that gives a "bright" but noisy image is useless, an image that is a little darker, but has no noise, silky blacks with detail in the shadows, is an acceptable image that can be worked with. The raw "lux" ratings do not address these qualitative issues.
The little Sony CX550 is rated @ 11lux and yet produces outstanding low light images. Here are some sample shots:
Sony 550 Night Shots (http://www.irondocvideo.com/Sony%20550%20Night%20Mainframe.html)
Keep in mind that these images are Flash for web- in the BR version on HDTV the image quality is quite stunning

You get about an hour on an 8G MS (56 minutes is coming to mind), if you're recording at 17mbps - that drops down to about 40 minutes at the higher bitrate, so multipy that by 4 for a 32G stick/card (remember Sony takes SDHC now!), and you come out just a bit over 2 1/2 hours...

In some ways this camera is a bit strange when you consider the CX550, with 64G built in memory AND the card slot, excellent low light, and pretty smooth motion with 60i... I definitely share Ron's take for events, and wonder about it for wedding use. I do think the "lux ratings" are likely about useless because of the interchangeable lens - what we really need to find out is how the sensor performs and if it's clean and handles gain well, only hands on will tell that story.

OTOH, I'm looking at this more as though it is a DLSR that is optimized for video - got to go search for NEX5 footage and stills and see if it's passing muster (since the lens, sensor and basic menu structure are supposedly "borrowed"). The shallow DoF and the ability to use Alpha lenses (manually focused) still opens some interesting possibilities as a "dual use" camera - my primary concern is where the compromises are if any (already noticed the still side lost RAW... jpeg only).

This definitely isn't your run of the mill "handycam", seems more like the inverse of the 5D2 - instead of a still cam that does video, it's a video cam that does stills...

... what we really need to find out is how the sensor performs and if it's clean and handles gain well, only hands on will tell that story...

Looking closly at the VG 10 shot "Bali" short that is posted earlier in this thread, it has some very good low light footage. Some of it was shot with faster lenses (f 1.8), but still, what I see certainly implies that the camera is probably going to be up to the job. It's hard to imagine that Sony wouldn't use the same technology for low light that has been such a winner with the 520/550 series.
We'll see...

Ron wrote: "Yes I agree Robert. Of no interest to me almost the exact opposite of what I want for stage stuff. I want large depth of field, smooth motion and low light performance. It appears to have none of these features!!!"

The specs given us for the stock lens have all the downsides that Ron listed.
No, not really. It will not have smooth motion, but it will have EITHER good low light performance OR large depth of field - depending on the lens chosen.

The stock lens will give dof comparable to a 1/3" camera wide open, and similar low light performance as well. Put a fast lens on and you'll get shallow depth of field and much better low-light performance. (But don't expect to get such a lens with a large zoom ratio.)

This is in resonse to Robert's post about the lux ratings and there have been a couple of intervening posts by Robert and David. This doesn't go to their latest comments.

What I've found over the years is that Sony's lux ratings are useful for comparing Sony cameras, For example, my HDR-HC1 was rated down to 7 lux while my VX2000 went down to 2 lux, and knowing those things, I had a pretty good idea of how well an NX5 or an FX1000 would work for me. So, when I see the VG10 with an 11 lux rating from Sony, it raises big questions in my mind.

But it does not answer any of them, which I think is the point that Robert was making.

Re the CX550 -- the manual's specs give a base rating of 11 lux but then there is another spec for the camera's "low light" mode (activated with a button on the side) and that mode has a 3 lux rating. Many of the low light pictures I've seen from the CX550, as well as what I myself have shot with it are made using that low light mode and, to my eye, it yields very good results.

For Kristian: It is really hard trying to decide between a camera you think is suitable and one a few months down the road that might (or might not) be be suitable for much less money. This camera won't even be shipping for at least a month and a half, and we do not know anything about lens kits at this point.

But, if you can wait two or three weeks, we'll probably be getting more details about what the other lenses do and what comes stock and what does not. We'll have a much better idea of how things actually work. Somebody will get hands on with this camera. You will get a better idea whether the less-expensive VG10 will be as suitable for the kinds of things you do as the FX1000 you are looking at.

If you need to get a new camera right away, your questions about recording times make me wonder if you might not be better off looking at the AX2000 rather than the FX1000. The AX is only about $300 more than the FX. If you want long recording times with an FX, you would need an MRC unit which is more than double the price difference between the FX and AX. If you are not getting an MRC for the FX1000, you would be limited to the 1 hour time of HDV tapes. The AX2000 runs two 32 gb cards in tandem/relay which would give you almost 6 hours of recording time if long recording times are important to you. (You can use the less expensive 16 gb cards, swapping out a full card while the camera continues to record to the other one.) On the other hand, by the time the VG10 starts shipping (assuming it will have a lens kit suitable for what you do), the 64 gb cards may be down to a more affordable price, and that would give you nearly 6 hours of 24Mbps recording time,

I do get that the attraction of the VG10 is that it may be $1500 less than the AX/FX cams that seem to have the features you want. SO, the question is whether you need a new cam right now or can wait a few weeks to feel more comfortable with a decision.

...Is that because the video makers chose that style or because that's how this camera works with everything? If the latter, then this camera is absolutely out of the question for me, too. Maybe Sony made this thing to be THE camera for the indie film makers and the other folks who really like the film look and film-type shooting styles?

The shallow depth of field is due to a combination of f-stop and chip size.
Works exactly the same as a 35mm still camera- an f-1.4 plus a 35mm frame is going to give a very shallow DOF. f-8 plus 35mm frame will give an extended DOF. These characteristics are enhanced by the focal length of the lens as well- extreme Tele= shallow DOF, Wide Angle=greater DOF.
So, with the APS chip, shooting f-1.9, moderate focal length lens= shallow DOF
APS chip + high f-stop= extended DOF.
There is no question that the Bali movie was illustrating the shallow DOF capabilities of the cam, (because that's usually not possible with small handicams- it's unique to the VG )but certainly you can shoot with greater DOF as well, and quite easily so.

I don't disagree about the foregoing, I just think it is too early to tell if this is a camera can easily work well for everybody. Clearly, it seems likely to be aimed at the folks who happily use DSLRs and film-movie techniques. But, how well will it work for event shooters like Ron, Kristian and me?

I like the way Dave put it: is this a video camera optimized for DSLR still shooting?

Will it record at anything other than 30p which might not work so well for shooting dancers in performance? (That's the "smooth motion" Ron was talking about a few posts back.) So, how well does it's 60i conversion work? It might be splendid, it might be middling acceptable to some and not others. At this point, we all have concerns and opinions (and suspicions) but none of us have gotten our hands on one to see what comes out.

And just so nobody mistakes my points for dogmatism, my point about the specifications is that the early ones raise questions and concerns for event shooters but don't provide answers. What we need is somebody to get hold of one for review as Adam Wilk did with the NX5. Until that happens, there isn't enough info for anybody like Kristian to make a purchase decision.

Will it record at anything other than 30p which might not work so well for shooting dancers in performance? (That's the "smooth motion" Ron was talking about a few posts back.) So, how well does it's 60i conversion work?
Jay, it's misleading to think of it as a "conversion" to 60i (which is more properly now referred to as i30 - the convention was changed to always refer to frame rates) and I think you are assuming that will give a motion look equivalent to 1080i/30 - it won't. What we are talking about is psf - "progressive, segmented frames" - which is a way of carrying a true 30p signal over an i30 system. But the motion rendition will still be exactly the same as 30p.

Psf is exactly the same as how films have been shown on TV ever since TV first started. Hold the frame in a gate, scan the odd lines, scan the even lines (without moving the film!) then onto the next frame. (OK, it's more difficult with 60Hz in the US, I know...) And the televised film still had the movement of film, even though it was a standard NTSC or PAL signal.

Obviously, its time for me to learn the new vocabulary. But I'm a little confused by it.

My HDV cams shoot what used to be called 1080i/60 but that is what we now call 1080i/30, right? So, what is the proper term for what used to be called 1080p/30? Is that still "30p"? I get that psf is different, but does that really make a difference in how smoothly rapid motion is reproduced? Or, like so many other things, does it depend on each manufacturer's implementation? Or is what psf does just like movie projectors which hold a frame and use shutters to flash the light through twice?

Obviously, its time for me to learn the new vocabulary. But I'm a little confused by it.

My HDV cams shoot what used to be called 1080i/60 but that is what we now call 1080i/30, right? So, what is the proper term for what used to be called 1080p/30? Is that still "30p"? I get that psf is different, but does that really make a difference in how smoothly rapid motion is reproduced? Or, like so many other things, does it depend on each manufacturer's implementation? Or is what psf does just like movie projectors which hold a frame and use shutters to flash the light through twice?

Your HDV cam shoots true 60i- it records the odd lines first, then (it's now a fraction of a second later in time) the even lines. If you put these two fields together, they do not make a progressive frame- they are offset by time. This is the origin of "interlace artifacts" and why it requires sophisticated software to satisfactorily "deinterlace" the fields into acceptable looking pseudo progressive frames.
As near as I can tell, the VG10 actually records a progressive frame and then, after the fact as it were, splits that frame into 2 fields- just as in the example of prepairing a movie for broadcast TV- called psf.
When you view true 60i, the motion is very smooth because you are playing back 60 different moments in time (fields) per second. The psf "60i" is playing back only 30 moments in time per second- it looks exactly like 30p. The fact that it is divided into 60 fields is irrelevant, and with fast motion, fast panning, etc. can have a bit of a "juddery" rendering of motion.
Those of us who love the motion of 60i tend to notice and object to this appearance. Those who love 30p/24p work around it and aren't bothered by it.
Most ordinary viewers don't notice any of this- in that regard the entire topic is a little esoteric.
Without question, if you are shooting a basketball game, 60i or 60p looks better, but for most stuff, IMO, it verges on the academic from the viewer's point of view.
As was just mentioned, the Sony CX 550 does have a 3 lux "low lux" setting. I don't use that setting and just FYI the CX 550 low light samples posted earlier were all shot with the "standard" settings, rated at 11 lux.

Even without the Low lux setting the CX550 wide open does pretty well in bad light, but if you want to see how the f stop affects things, turn on the iris control, and zoom in... you can see both the iris closing down, and the light sensitivity dropping, rather significantly IMO. This is where clean gain (and that is something the R CMOS seems to handle very well in the XR and CX cameras) could come into play, and until we see some real world tests, we won't know what this camera is capable of...

I did see some footage shot by engadget (IIRC) at a Sony show that looked promising - their mini review was interesting, as they at least got hands on a working camera.

Honestly I'm a little nervous about the 30FPS or whatever, I've got a couple Sony P&S that used 30p and I didn't like the way they handled motion all that well, although I'd venture 99.8% of people would have found the footage acceptable, and more likely "excellent". This goes back to the challenge of creating a camera that is both an excellent still and an excellent video camera... there's always some compromises from my experience, although the performance may well be more than "acceptable", as has been the case with Video DSLRs. As the first camera to "go the other way", but with a dedicated sensor apparently developed with BOTH in mind, this should be an interesting product even if it's a flop (which I doubt, I suspect they'll sell a gigantic boatload of these).

As a "closeup" and "glamour shot" camera with a CX550 or two for cutaway, I am already pretty sold on this camera, presuming Sony doesn't come up with something in an SLR format that fits the bill, the announcements on those new toys should be hitting shortly.

Maybe I need to relearn my vocab too - my understanding was that complaints about progressive "judder" were complaints about pulldown (i.e. repeating frames to deal with 24P on television and DVD). There is no pulldown with 30P and so I don't see why it would judder with an appropriate choice of shutter speed (although there will be greater motion blur and thus less perceived sharpness).

I agree that pulldown introduces even more problems, but, for example, with an EX1 set for 30p, and even more so if set for 24p, I can do a fast pan and see the jerky/juddery motion in the LCD monitor as I'm shooting, and also when I playback in the camera, and certainly with playback in the NLE. I think it is purely a function of the slower frame rate. It was seen even more dramatically back when a lot of web video was 15 fps- any movement looked "jerky" or discontinous.
Proper shutter speed, slower panning, & other cinema tricks of the trade help a lot, but it is probably consensus that 60i or 60p renders fast motion more smoothly than the slower frame rates.

Obviously, its time for me to learn the new vocabulary. But I'm a little confused by it.
You're not the only one. The approved format used to be

{no of lines}/{frame or field rate}{interlaced or progressive}

- so the second number would be frame rate if progressive, field rate if interlaced. So 1080/30p and 1080/60i would both have 30 frames per second.

A few years ago, the bodies reponsible for setting standards agreed to change nomenclature so that the second number always referred to frames, never fields. To show the new nomenclature was in use, the format was altered to become:

{no of lines}{interlaced or progressive}/{frame rate}

so the above examples become 1080i/30 and 1080p/30. Unfortunately, the change seems to be taking a long time to happen, and the old style is still in wide (if decreasing) use.

Does that help?
My HDV cams shoot what used to be called 1080i/60 but that is what we now call 1080i/30, right?
Yes.
So, what is the proper term for what used to be called 1080p/30? Is that still "30p"?
Yes.
I get that psf is different, but does that really make a difference in how smoothly rapid motion is reproduced? Or, like so many other things, does it depend on each manufacturer's implementation? Or is what psf does just like movie projectors which hold a frame and use shutters to flash the light through twice?
In terms of motion rendition, psf and p give exactly the same effect. Try looking at Progressive segmented frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_segmented_frame)

Hi Professors,

Sony has issued a good PDF to explain Progressive.

http://www.sony.ca/hdv/files/white/HDV_Progressive_Primer.pdf

You're not the only one. The approved format used to be

{no of lines}/{frame or field rate}{interlaced or progressive}

- so the second number would be frame rate if progressive, field rate if interlaced. So 1080/30p and 1080/60i would both have 30 frames per second.

A few years ago, the bodies reponsible for setting standards agreed to change nomenclature so that the second number always referred to frames, never fields. To show the new nomenclature was in use, the format was altered to become:

{no of lines}{interlaced or progressive}/{frame rate}

so the above examples become 1080i/30 and 1080p/30. Unfortunately, the change seems to be taking a long time to happen, and the old style is still in wide (if decreasing) use.

Does that help?

]

The problem with the approach is that it gives no indication of temporal motion. 30P, 60i, or 30P in 60i are all 30 frames a second. 30P and 30P in 60i will look much the same but 60i will be a lot smoother since it has twice the effective frame rate. Camera for 60i is actually exposing at 60 frames a second but only recording fields. Sony put the 30P in 60i since for playback on a TV it cannot be 30P. Choices come down to1920x1080P24, 1920x1080 60i, 1440x1080 60I or 1280x720P60 for Bluray.

I have several Bluray discs of concerts that I am sure were shot with a combination of 30P and 60i cameras. Very annoying to me since I hate the motion artifacts of slow frame rates.

Ron Evans

So what's the "proper" usage of Psf? 1080psf/30?

All you need to know is that you can get true progressive frames from it. Although not silly 24p.

As Alister pointed out on the first page this *isn't* the prototype that was shown at NAB. So expect the EX beater to be announced later. Personally I've had enough of the darling camera phase and I won't be chasing tech any more. I you want me to use a particular camera then hire it and I'll come along and use it for you. Otherwise put up with what I own already.

The problem with the approach is that it gives no indication of temporal motion. 30P, 60i, or 30P in 60i are all 30 frames a second.
I don't dispute that, Ron, I'm just passing on what the standards bodies have decreed. And the nomenclature that is increasingly being used by manufacturers and broadcasters.

The other side of the coin is that 1080i/25 and 1080p/25 have the same amount of uncompressed data per second - the approved nomenclature makes that more obvious. I am now finding it easier to always talk in frame rates.
So what's the "proper" usage of Psf? 1080psf/30?
The three most common forms are 1080psf/25, 1080psf/24, and 1080psf/30. You can easily and losslessly revert true 25p, 24p, and 30p from them respectively. The first is compatible with the 1080i/25 system, the other two with the 1080i/30 system. And it's for compatibility reasons they are used instead of 1080p/25 etc.

Thanks. Actually all I meant was how do you type the terminology - i.e. 1080psf/30 it seems.

I don't dispute that, Ron, I'm just passing on what the standards bodies have decreed. And the nomenclature that is increasingly being used by manufacturers and broadcasters.



Yes I understand. It just happens to be a poor representation of reality and in my career not the first time the standards bodies have missed the point. This camera is a typical instance of the problem. One thinks one is getting 60i but its actually 30P. The issue is one of focusing on time code rather than the temporal motion. IF the time code had been based on exposure rate we would not have this problem !!!!

Ron Evans

There may be 30 frames per sec in both cases, but how those frames are constructed is different.

I think that the problem comes with how motion ends up being represented - I may be crazy, but I swear I can see almost a stop motion effect with 30p stuff I've shot - it appears I'm not alone in this, so I feel a bit more vindicated. 60i looks "smoother" and more natural to my eye.

Strangely, when I render out to 24p from 60i, it still looks smooth, when it "should" look worse, I may have to experiment with some of the 30p stuff I've shot and see how it renders out... Now this is really beginning to gnaw at me...

With a sensor that huge if it doesn't at least outperform the EX camera in low light I have no use for them. Even If this camera doesn't at least it encourages other companies to release something that will.

Personally I've had enough of the darling camera phase and I won't be chasing tech any more. I you want me to use a particular camera then hire it and I'll come along and use it for you. Otherwise put up with what I own already.


Amen brother. Too many options! I'm falling back into digging for stories and content. Like Yogi Berra said to a future Hall of Fame 2nd baseman: "Keep it simple stupid." I'm tired of chasing tech too. I mean it seems to me the purpose of these cameras are to sell lenses!

There may be 30 frames per sec in both cases, but how those frames are constructed is different.

The point is a true 60i camera exposes at a rate of 60 frames a second so the temporal motion is 60 frames a second. Since the 60i camera only records fields every 1/60 second, and two fields make a frame the standard says its 30 frames a second !!!! 60i is smoother, its taking twice as many shots of the scene as 30P. If the exposure is the same then the 30P video will judder in comparison to the 60i camera, a bit less than 24P, but still a judder.
This camera completely identifies the weakness in the standard. 30P in 60i and 60i are called the same but they are very different.

Ron Evans

This camera is a typical instance of the problem. One thinks one is getting 60i but its actually 30P.
I agree with the second sentence, but surely that's not a problem with the camera, but with the old style terminology? What the camera is actually giving out is a perfectly valid 1080psf/30, and if it's referred to as such, rather than as something like "30p in 60i", the confusion should go away.

To try and move on, if we can all agree it's 1080psf/30, I'd like to return to the question I put in post 76 - why ONLY 30psf, why not 1080i/30 AS WELL? It's a consumer camera, and traditionally 1080i/25(30) has been Sonys primary mode in these?

As I said before, "It's only a theory, but MAYBE, just maybe, it could be because they can read out the entire chip prior to downconversion at 25Hz, but not at 50Hz? Doing that, rather than the arrangement used in most current DSLRs would be a huge step forward since it should take away many of the aliasing problems and give far better sensitiivity. Just a thought."

For Kristian: It is really hard trying to decide between a camera you think is suitable and one a few months down the road that might (or might not) be be suitable for much less money. This camera won't even be shipping for at least a month and a half, and we do not know anything about lens kits at this point.

But, if you can wait two or three weeks, we'll probably be getting more details about what the other lenses do and what comes stock and what does not. We'll have a much better idea of how things actually work. Somebody will get hands on with this camera. You will get a better idea whether the less-expensive VG10 will be as suitable for the kinds of things you do as the FX1000 you are looking at.


Thanks so very much for that response. As much as I would LOVE to wait for this camera. It is rather hard to know what this camera can do without seeing it first. As Robert mentioned... HDV is a thing of yesterday and to be honest with HDV shooting at 1440x1080, that makes it a bit inferior to shooting 1920x1080, even if the VG10 is only 60i. And the FX1000 now shoots 24p. Geez, I dont know... I am so tempted to just go with 2 Canon 7Ds and roll with em and see how they do. The audio sucks on them, I know. But Video looks simply amazing. So with that, I would have to either a Tascam or Zoom recorder, making it more $$$.

The stock lens will give dof comparable to a 1/3" camera wide open,

David, I may have missed something in the discussion along the way but I have been using my Z7 (1/3" chips) with a f1.4 "pro" Fujinon lens which is a faster lens than the stock lens and should give a shallower depth of field. And I have a DSLR which has the same size image sensor as the NEX-VG10 (APS). My DSLR camera came with an 18 - 200 f3.5 - 5.6 lens which is very similar in spec to the stock VG10 lens. And I am sure that that I can achieve a great deal more bokeh with the DSLR and the standard lens than the Z7 can ever hope to achieve with the even better f1.4 lens. The APS sensor is HUGE compared to a 1/3" chip. I thought I saw something that said it is 15x larger. That is a lot of difference And from what I understand, 35mm movie film is approximately the same size as an APS sensor and so is the RED ONE camera.

For those that have pre ordered this camera. What Memory cards are you using or recommend?

I already have sandisks 16GB class 6 cards from my T2i that I will be using and also a couple of Transcend Class 6 16GB cards as well. Hope this helps.

Greg, I would say the 1/3" chip camera at f1.4 would be roughly equivalent to the new Sony camera at f8 for equal DOF.

The APS sensor is HUGE compared to a 1/3" chip. I thought I saw something that said it is 15x larger. That is a lot of difference.
If we call it 16x, that is how much bigger it is in area terms - it will be something like 4x as big in terms of diameter. For dof purposes, there is an equivalence change of 2 stops for every doubling of chip dimensions, so in this case the difference will be slightly under 4 stops.

Hence, if you are using f1.4 on a 1/3" camera, the dof will be equivalent to slightly wider than f5.6 in this case and that's why I said dof on this camera with the stock f3.5-6.3 lens will be comparable to a 1/3" camera, presuming the latter to have a faster lens, typically f1.8, say.

OK, if you're using this new camera such that you can use f3.5 it will be shallower for dof than any 1/3" camera (unless you get a f1.0 lens!), and maybe f1.8 is more typical for most 1/3" cameras - that gives an equivalence of around f6.3.

Obviously if you can get a fast lens for this camera it will give vastly shallower dof, but an f1.8, 18-200mm lens for this is going to be very heavy, very big, and very expensive!

Most important is that in all the comparisons above, the same angle of view is assumed. Hence, in the case of the bigger chip, the comparisons assume a focal length four times bigger than in the case of the smaller chip.

It seems like now I am leaning more towards the Sony AX-2000. I mean, it records in 1920x1080 with option for 24p. I love the film look. and the only it lacks from the VG10 is the interchangeable lenses. Compared to the HDV format that the FX1000 carries, it would be foolish NOT to spend 300 bucks more on the AX2000. With certain specs being the same between the VG10 and AX2000, what exactly is the "wow" factor with the new VG10 then? Because at this point there seems to be more of a "ugh" factor from most Pro Users on this Forum.

If we call it 16x, that is how much bigger it is in area terms - it will be something like 4x as big in terms of diameter. For dof purposes, there is an equivalence change of 2 stops for every doubling of chip dimensions, so in this case the difference will be slightly under 4 stops.

Hence, if you are using f1.4 on a 1/3" camera, the dof will be equivalent to slightly wider than f5.6 in this case and that's why I said dof on this camera with the stock f3.5-6.3 lens will be comparable to a 1/3" camera, presuming the latter to have a faster lens, typically f1.8, say.

OK, if you're using this new camera such that you can use f3.5 it will be shallower for dof than any 1/3" camera (unless you get a f1.0 lens!), and maybe f1.8 is more typical for most 1/3" cameras - that gives an equivalence of around f6.3.

Obviously if you can get a fast lens for this camera it will give vastly shallower dof, but an f1.8, 18-200mm lens for this is going to be very heavy, very big, and very expensive!


I know this theory, but from my experience that doesn't actually work like that. Even if you open an iris 2stops you would still not get the same dof from the same distance for same composition. Try and see.
I will try and explain: lets take an SLR for example:
a 50mm lens will have a certain perspective to it. Now you put this lens on a 1.5 APSc sensor -
the lens is effectively 80mm, but from a perspective point of view it is still 50mm with center crop.
The apparent distance relations in the frame will maintain the 50mm lens perspective.
If you take a 2/3 lens it is very easy to blur the background half the way through the zoom range,
it is virtually impossible to do so with a 1/3 camera. Certain image characteristics just cant be matched
only by changing the iris. All those lenses have different angles of view or what's it called,
so as 6x13 on 2/3 will probably be 2x13 on 1/3 lens. I am not good in math so don't judge me for that.
Cheers

Ah - Boris, you've made me realise that everything I wrote before is assuming that in all cases compared we are talking about the same angle of view. I'll go back and add that qualification.

What that means is that if we start with a 20mm focal length on a 2/3" camera, to get the same angle of view on 1/3" chips the focal length must be 10mm. If the aperture is f4 in each case, there will be greater dof for the 1/3" camera. If we wish to have the same dof, the aperture on the 1/3" camera must be two stops more open - f2.

but from a perspective point of view it is still 50mm with center crop.


Agreed. Since perspective depends solely on subject distance, it doesn't matter what lens or camera you use -- perspective will always stay the same until you or the subject actually move.

I know this theory, but from my experience that doesn't actually work like that.

Actually, it does. But I think your position only seems to be in conflict with David's because you are thinking of a different method of scaling for sensor size. Here are the three different methods to compare sensor sizes:


Keep focal length and perspective the same, then vary angle of view with sensor size.
Keep focal length and field of view the same, then vary perspective with sensor size.
Keep angle of view and perspective the same, then vary focal length with sensor size.


The first method is interesting to explore in a discussion, but in practical reality, no one ever does this. (For example, no one says, "I'm using 1/3", therefore I must always shoot extreme closeups whether I want to or not. I upgrade to 35mm then I'll finally be able to zoom out enough to shoot my first headshot." In reality, we choose the appropriate focal length for the camera depending on whether it's an ECU, headshot, or wide-angle.)

The second method is only possible some of the time, but it downplays the vital role of perspective in composition. (For example, if you have 14mm lens on 1/3" and 35mm and have full control over distance, then it's possible to get the same field of view -- but only with exteremely exaggerated perspective, which always makes the shots unequal and often ruins the aesthetic too).

The third method is the one that David was actually using. It's really really the only sensible way to compare different sensor sizes. Of course, since DOF and so many other things are inexorably linked to specific characteristics of the lens itself, it removes the possibility to keep all those factors constant between comparisons of different sensor sizes. This problem can be somewhat negated by taking care to compare lenses of generally similar design (ideally finding lenses with MTF plots where the overall shape is generally similar after spatial frequency is scaled for the linear size difference). Still, I generally consider it less important than the factors more vital and fundamental to composition: angle of view and perspective.


a 50mm lens will have a certain perspective to it. Now you put this lens on a 1.5 APSc sensor - the lens is effectively 80mm,


I think what you mean to say is that the "35mm equivalent focal length" is 80mm, right? As I think you know, the lens effective focal length is always 50mm, no matter what the sensor it's used on. A 50mm lens on a 1.5X APS-C has an angle of view equivalent to an 80mm lens on FF35.


If you take a 2/3 lens it is very easy to blur the background half the way through the zoom range,
it is virtually impossible to do so with a 1/3 camera. Certain image characteristics just cant be matched
only by changing the iris.


Right -- one must change both the focal length and the iris, not just iris alone, like this example:


1/3": 4.8x2.7mm sensor, 4.8-48mm f/1.4-2.8
2/3": 9.6x5.4mm sensor, 9.6-96mm f/2.8-5.6


The 1/3" at 48mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet has the exact same angle of view, perspective, and depth of field as the 2/3" at 96mm f/5.6 at 10 feet. (Since 2/3" lenses are often much faster than f/5.6, they can have much thinner DOF.)

In other words, when you keep perspective and angle of view the constant, then DOF will be the same if you scale f-number with sensor size.

It seems like now I am leaning more towards the Sony AX-2000. I mean, it records in 1920x1080 with option for 24p. I love the film look. and the only it lacks from the VG10 is the interchangeable lenses. Compared to the HDV format that the FX1000 carries, it would be foolish NOT to spend 300 bucks more on the AX2000. With certain specs being the same between the VG10 and AX2000, what exactly is the "wow" factor with the new VG10 then? Because at this point there seems to be more of a "ugh" factor from most Pro Users on this Forum.

You seem to be looking for the "best" camera.
The bad news is, there is no "best " camera ;-)
Every camera on the market fits some customer's profile of what best suits their needs.
So, the issue is to figure out exactly what your requirements are for the kind of work you'll be doing, even getting down to the basics like what size camera is optimal for you (travelling a lot- small is good, studio work- the sky's the limit).
Anyway, you need to sort out your specific requirements and work backwards towards the camera that fills all the blanks. If you're not 100% sure what you want- like for framerate- go for the camera that gives you the choices.
Regarding the VG10, nobody quite knows what to make of it because nobody has actually seen one yet.
BTW, the AX2000 looks like a very feature rich cam that should cover the bases for most any sort of project. It's got 1/3" chips, but they can do a very competant job. The low light specs look good. How can you miss, if you don't mind the 5 lb weight?

...The 1/3" at 48mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet has the exact same angle of view, perspective, and depth of field as the 2/3" at 96mm f/5.6 at 10 feet. (Since 2/3" lenses are often much faster than f/5.6, they can have much thinner DOF.)

In other words, when you keep perspective and angle of view the constant, then DOF will be the same if you scale f-number with sensor size.

One thing that's cool about this is that the absolute aperture size is the same in both cases. A 48mm at f/2.8 has an aperture with a diameter of 17.1mm (48mm/2.8.) A 96mm lens set for f/5.6 has the same 17.1mm aperture diameter.

So, if you stand the same distance from your subject, frame the image the same, and keep the absolute aperture diameter the same, you will get the same DOF, regardless of sensor size.

Of course, with small sensors, to match what a full frame 35mm sensor can do, you quickly find that your lens spec has a ridiculous aperture. For instance, you can get a 50mm f/1.2 lens for a FF body. To match that performance with a sensor of 1/6 the size would require an 8mm f/0.2 lens. You won't find that in a Cracker Jack box!

You seem to be looking for the "best" camera.
The bad news is, there is no "best " camera ;-)
Every camera on the market fits some customer's profile of what best suits their needs.
So, the issue is to figure out exactly what your requirements are for the kind of work you'll be doing, even getting down to the basics like what size camera is optimal for you (travelling a lot- small is good, studio work- the sky's the limit).
Anyway, you need to sort out your specific requirements and work backwards towards the camera that fills all the blanks. If you're not 100% sure what you want- like for framerate- go for the camera that gives you the choices.
Regarding the VG10, nobody quite knows what to make of it because nobody has actually seen one yet.
BTW, the AX2000 looks like a very feature rich cam that should cover the bases for most any sort of project. It's got 1/3" chips, but they can do a very competant job. The low light specs look good. How can you miss, if you don't mind the 5 lb weight?

Thanks again Robert, we are just in the market for a camera that shoots full HD. Alot of cameras offer it but not in "real" Full HD. Thats the turn off with the Sony FX2000. I cannot find myself spending more money on a camera that only shoots 1440x1080. The more I read posts on this particular thread I am realizing that the VG10 may not be for us. But I must say that this thread has been EXTREMELY helpful and appreciate all the replies. I am curious where Sony is going from here though. Here is crossing our fingers for a Pro model of the VG10.

YouTube - Sony Handycam NEX-VG10 New videos show the features (NEX VG10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeYvbH-V8aI)

Alot of cameras offer it but not in "real" Full HD. Thats the turn off with the Sony FX2000. I cannot find myself spending more money on a camera that only shoots 1440x1080.

The FX1000 is HDV 1440x1080i which is anamorphic( non square pixels= 1920x1080 square pixels) and full HD on playback, the AX2000 is 1920x1080 AVCHD at max data rate and anamorphic 1440x1080 at lower data rates and all full HD. Depends what you mean by full HD.

Ron Evans

I don't think the average human eye can detect any difference between
1440 anamorphic and 1920 square at normal viewing distance. It's pretty
much a non-issue. As Ron says, it's all Full HD as long as it's 1080 tall.

I guess what I tried to say was that in real world conditions it is VERY hard to compensate for smaller
sensors by adjusting all the other factors. I am not saying that smaller sensors are less capable, they are
just more suitable for certain stuff. You don't often see pro photographers shooting with compacts for a reason. Most common way to compensate for greater dof is by going futher away and zooming in more
for the same shot size, but what happens in this case is that the whole frame gets compressed and as such
has a different feel to it, but yes, the background is blurred.
Cheers.
P.S Sorry, this post probably does not suit the topic too much.

I must say that the more I look at the potential of this camera, the more I like it. I scoffed at first glance.
I haven't made the DSLR jump yet, but for a light weight, dual use camera for stills and video, this might do the trick. I certianly would have to budget a little extra for a Beachtek for Juicedlink audio preamp. But I could use this for personal and professional use.

Most common way to compensate for greater dof is by going futher away and zooming in more for the same shot size, .........
I know what you're saying, but there are many occasions when that is not possible - an interview in a small office, for example. And as you say, it may give a more blurred background, but completely change the perspective - the foreground may be the same size of shot but you'll see far less angle of view of the background.

Kristian:

As Chris and others have pointed out (while I was trying to type this up), the difference between "1440" HDV and "1920" AVCHD is basically only pixel shape. Picture definition pretty much looks the same to viewers. There are or can be other advantages to 24 Mbps AVCHD but the pixel shape is not the one to be concerned about.

Also, most of the current versions of NLEs such as PPro do not seem to have any trouble using both 1440 HDV and 1920 AVCHD on the same timeline. There are other considerations in choosing between an FX1000, AX2000 and whatever the shipping version of the VG10 turns out to be.

I agree with Robert about the "best camera" questions. The question has to be more specific than "best camera." The question is really best for whom to do what within a budget of how much?

In a previous post, I suggested some reasons why, for shooting longer duration events, you would probably prefer the AX2000 over both the FX1000 or VG10. Here's some additional things that would factor into my deciding between these cameras.

Will your new "full HD" cam be the only camera you will be using or, instead, will you be using it with others for, say, multi-cam shoots of weddings? This matters to me because I already have other HDV or AVCHD cameras for "b-roll" (such as CX550s). I find it pretty easy to mix and match their footage with an NX5/AX2000. I think it would be more work with a VG10 to get color matching. Perhaps more importantly, as Ron pointed out above in describing some concert footage he had seen, it may be problematic combining 30p footage from the VG10 with the 30i footage from your other cameras. Some of us find the motion differences annoying or jarring. For other folks, the difference might not even register. My problem is that I don't know which of my customers will turn out to be folks who would be oblivious and which customers would be annoyed.

Now, if the VG10 were my only only HD camera (or the first of several), this kind matching/ workflow issue would not come up. (I might still find 30p annoying with high motion footage, but I would not be looking at the contrasting motion depictions.)

How much and what kind of handheld shooting will you be doing? The AX2000 is definitely heftier than the VG10 but the extra size is not enough to make any real difference to me. On the one hand, for traveling or doing things like riding a mountain bike, the VG 10 would not be small enough for me. (My personal preference for these things is the much smaller CX550.) On the other hand, for paid gigs, I do not do enough long-duration handheld shooting for the smaller size of the VG 10 to matter much to me. I do find that an NX5/AX2000 is much easier for me than an FX1000 with a bunch of stuff hanging on it. For instance, I do some handheld shooting at wedding receptions. That is mostly getting guest interviews to make what we call a "video reception line". The shooting is short clips rather than continuous handheld shooting for long periods of time. I also like using a shotgun mike when doing this because the interviewee can hold the mike close and this greatly reduces the amount of noise I get from the room.

Before I got my NX5, I was using an FX1000 (and several other cameras before that) which I equipped with with an XLR adapter and a mike bracket plus I also had an MRC tapeless recording unit (with its battery) sitting in the shoe mount. This array was heavy, was awkwardly balanced, and the XLR connections or controls stuck into my hand when using the hand-hold strap. The NX5/AX2000 don't need the extra stuff and it has the quick release holder for the shotgun mike which makes the mike easy to hand a mike to the guest and then remount.

The VG10 seems like it would be about halfway in between -- lighter but still cumbersome. Part of the cumbersomeness will be in working with external mikes. While the VG10 has a very interesting on-board mike set-up, I'm sure that set-up would have trouble screening out the room chatter and noise typical of the wedding receptions I shoot. So, with a VG 10, I would still need to add a mike bracket and an XLR adapter. If were also hauling lenses along with me, it might not be as convenient as it first seemed. Now, if Sony does eventually make a "pro" version of the VG10, it will probably have a shoe mounted bracket/XLR adapter like the one that came with the HVR-A1U, which would clean it up somewhat. But, if past Sony pricing holds to pattern, the pro-set-up with the XLR box/mike holder and lenses, would likely be in a price range close to that of the AX2000. So, for me, I don't see the smaller size of the VG10 as mattering very much to me.

Speaking of that, how much would you want to work with interchangeable lenses? Some of us DVinfo participants really want and like this capability. For others (myself included), this capability would mostly get in the way and go largely unused.

Finally, a few posts back you asked about SDHC cards. I'm using 16gb Transcend SDHC cards (class 6, I think) with my NX5. (I've also got an FMU unit back when there was a hugh rebate on them, but the AX2000 is not set up to use them,) When I got the 16gb SDHC cards, it was cheaper to buy a certain number of 16gb cards than half that many 32 gb cards. Using these lesser capacity cards is not a big deal with NX5/AX2000 because of the ability to relay record. (That is, you fill up the A card and the camera immediately switches to record on the B card, which allows you to swap out the A card so that, when the B card fills up, the camera automatically switches back to the new (empty) card in the A slot.) On the other hand, the VG10 has only one card slot. That means you would need higher capacity SDHC cards for recording events whose segments run more than 85 minutes. Some people would not bat an eye at this. Some folks are paranoid about using larger capacity cards --- its the "having all the eggs in one basket" problem. Its a personal choice.