This is identified as the FDR-AX1 4K camera:

http://www.photographybay.com/2013/08/29/sony-fdr-ax1-4k-camcorder-leaks-out-priced-under-5k/

4K for under $5,000 (without using four SDHC cards).

Ah, it's XQD powered. But is it a single sensor design? This doesn't look too much different from the prototype that's been surfacing around.

Link changed to original source.

Please use original sources on this site, instead of links to other links -- thanks in advance.

Moved to Area 51 until it's official...

Well, it's the same arguments as you're already familiar with from this thread - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/518354-imec-codevelops-4k-2k-cmos-12-bit-sensor-w-panasonic-2-3-inch.html :-)

The higher the resolution, the more of a problem diffraction limiting becomes, and the more the advantage to a larger sensor.

The form factor shown is what we associate with a 1/3" camera, possibly 1/2", and from the same arguments as the other thread diffraction limiting will be bad enough at 2/3"/4k - let alone 1/3"/4k.

So - you won't be surprised to hear me say that if this rumour is accurate, a lot may hinge around the sensor(s) size - and that's a spec that's glaringly obvious by it's absence from the specs listed in the leak report.

I can't help feeling it's a lot more about marketing than what is really wanted. I do think that 4k is going to become the norm very soon *at the top end of the market*, but at under $5,000 that's hardly who this is aimed at. But I suppose if you see 4k TVs as the next thing to get people to part with their money, you've got to have a range of cameras of all prices with "4K" badged on them? :-)

Offhand, I'm guessing three 1/3", possibly a single 1/2" sensor.
I wouldn't be surprised if it has the same performance as the HMQ10. I do like the XQD card over JVC's four SDHC card solution.

Offhand, I'm guessing three 1/3", possibly a single 1/2" sensor.
If so, it becomes little short of a gimmick. Put "4k" on the side (albeit with technical justification) and watch the crowds come. Never mind that such small sensors are all but useless for 4K.
I wouldn't be surprised if it has the same performance as the HMQ10. I do like the XQD card over JVC's four SDHC card solution.
No disagreement about the XQD card being far preferable to the JVC implementation. As to the rest, well, let's wait and see until there's real news - especially regarding sensor size. The minimum I would hope for in this type of camera is 2/3", preferably more - even if it would mean maybe such as shortened zoom range or other lens compromises.

I figure it's time to toss around the idea of how this fits into Sony's camera fleet.

It seems to me that this camera will be a marketing nightmare for Sony. At $5000, this camera directly competes with some NXCAMs and some PMW XDCAMs. This camera will likely negatively affect the sales of these cameras....unless it's carefully crippled to help fight that problem.

1.) Could this camera only have 60i?
2.) Could it have locked shutter speeds below 1/60?
3.) "Shutter" and/or "gain"...Could it have manual control of only one thing at a time? (and the other auto only)
4.) Low bitrate? 16Mbps for AVCHD was common and it first appeared in Handycams at the beginning. At 4 times the resolution of HD, (4K) it's conceivable that 64Mbp/s would be an "entry level" consumer bitrate. This should offer "OK" 4K quality.
5.) 4:2:0 - 8 bit is almost certain for this camera...including HDMI out
6.) What about a higher level "pro" camcorder? (EX1/PMW200 - class) Something 4:2:2 8 bit with SDI out?

Who knows? But it will be interesting to see how this is positioned in their lineup.

Also, it's reasonable to expect a "Semi Pro" sister that is black and has different firmware. (and 24p?)

Anyone care to jump in?

Well it's Exmor R sensor so it's back Illuminated which will help greatly with lowlight with that many pixels packed in. I think it's 1/3" chips with the 20X G lens and Exmor R sensors. Diffraction will be very difficult to deal with especially as you'll need to shoot at least 2.8 or higher for a sharp image.

1.) Could this camera only have 60i?
No. No new system is likely to be interlace. Interlace was sensible when most displays were CRTs, but don't expect any forthcoming systems to use it - technology has moved on. You will get more 1080i cameras for legacy reasons - most broadcasters use 1080i/25(30).
4.) Low bitrate? 16Mbps for AVCHD was common and it first appeared in Handycams at the beginning. At 4 times the resolution of HD, (4K) it's conceivable that 64Mbp/s would be an "entry level" consumer bitrate. This should offer "OK" 4K quality.
You can't scale bitrate up with resolution and/or framerate in such a direct manner. Typically, the higher you go, the more it's possible to take advantage of efficiencies through redundancies in the data. I fully expect it to use XAVC S ( Sony Global - News Releases - Sony expands XAVC format to accelerate 4K development in the professional and consumer market. (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201304/13-038E/) ) announced a while ago, and specifically flagged as the consumer variant of XAVC. (Most notably, it uses an mp4 wrapper, not mxf.)

(The announcement of XAVC S may have been taken as a clear sign something along the lines of this was on the way, so I'm inclined to give this rumour reasonable credence. Frankly there are so many details not mentioned, that the "leak" doesn't really cause many surprises.)
5.) 4:2:0 - 8 bit is almost certain for this camera...including HDMI out
Let's get one point clear. Past preferences for 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 have largely been based on interlace systems, as halving vertical chroma resolution with interlace scan causes various issues. Move to progressive and 4:2:2 has less point. In progressive systems, both 4:2:0 and 4:4:4 have their own pros and cons, 4:2:2 rather falls between stools.

Likewise remember 4:2:0 etc are ratios, not absolute numbers. Move to 4K, and 4:2:0 still represents a chroma resolution of 1920x1080 - normal full luminance HD!!!
....... it will be interesting to see how this is positioned in their lineup. Also, it's reasonable to expect a "Semi Pro" sister that is black and has different firmware. (and 24p?)
Again, "24p" seems to have acquired a mystical "desired" status for historic reasons. Nowadays, expect it to be there as legacy. More interesting is whether it will support 4k 60p - or be limited to 24/25/30p.

But most interesting of all will be sensor size.

This is identified as the FDR-AX1 4K camera:

(SR5) First picture of the “Cheap” 4K camcorder. (SR2) Mid-frame mystery cam. | sonyalpharumors (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-cheap-4k-camcorder-coming-soon-sr2-mid-frame-mystery-cam/)

Just looking at the link Chris has replaced the original with, the much less substantiated rumour it mentions is quite intriguing: “maybe there will be a mid-frame camera coming".

Ok, it sounds like from someone whose first language is not English, but if it has any substance it's interesting to wonder what "mid-frame" may mean.

Just as a guess, I wonder if it could be a sensor that's half-way between the 1/3" that you'd normally expect for this type of camera and such as 4/3 or s35 - so 1" or maybe 2/3"? That would make technical sense. It would overcome the worst issues of using such as 1/3" for 4k, but make a 20x zoom more viable than if such as s35 was used.

From the timing and the lack of sensitive specs, (and as this is Area 51 :-) ), I'm also inclined to speculate that what has been leaked may have been done so with official sanction. To generate pre-interest and comment before an official IBC announcement, maybe?

I changed the link, not Chris, because I put the wrong one in. It now has the original link.

The medium frame they're referring to is for a stills camera, not the 4K cam. Sony is rumored to be releasing a medium format camera. It has the SR1-SR2 designation, which by the article's scale, is low on the rumor mill. The 4K cam has an SR5, which is a virtual certainty it'll be released.

So,...if this new Handycam is allowed to have 24p and 60p (and 29.97p?) than what would be the major factor that keeps it below it's upper (NXCAM-type) sister? Currently, the AX200 and the NX5 have the FMU difference and frame rate differences.

Aslo, will the "upper sister" to this Handycam model have the "NXCAM" brand? Will Sony keep "NXCAM" only for HD and create a new "XX-CAM" brand for future 4k products?

I would guess that we could have a new Sony "something-CAM" line in the works that carries on with all new and future entry level Pro 4k products. So maybe we might have this:

HD
Handycam = HD 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (consumer market with crippled features)
NXCAM = HD 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (entry Pro market)
XDCAM = HD 4:2:2 @ 8 bit (mid - Pro market)

4K
"Handycam" = 4k 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (consumer market with crippled features)
"Something-CAM" = 4K 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (entry pro market)
"Other-CAM" = 4k 4:2:2 @ 8 bit (Mid - pro market)
"Super-CAM" = 4k 4:2:2 & 4:4:4 @ 10bit (high end Pro market)

I think we will find out very soon

Like all things technology wise, 1080 is "current", but that means there's something "future"... likely 4K... supposedly there are 4k cell phone cams in the works...

Tech marches on, it wasn't that long ago that "HDV" was the bleeding edge...now it's ancient history.

The medium frame they're referring to is for a stills camera, not the 4K cam. Sony is rumored to be releasing a medium format camera.
It's ambiguous, but the way I read it, a medium format camera is just an interpretation of the phrase "maybe there will be a mid-frame camera coming", mid-frame may equally refer to camera with a sensor in between 1/3" and 4/3 or s35 - and 1" would make a lot of sense for a consumer oriented 4k camera.

But yes, it's all guesswork, and I don't pretend anything else.

It's also worth reading down the comments in the sony rumours link. Maybe the most interesting is the last one, which quotes a press release from Aptina - and a quick bit of googling finds the original at Press Release - Aptina Imaging (http://www.aptina.com/news/press/aptina_combines_stunning_dslr_picture_quality_and_4k_digital_cinema_video_in_new_ultra-high_speed_14-megapixel_camera_sensor/)
The high-speed readout gives the sensor the capability of providing full 4K video at 60fps, in either the Quad HD (3840H x 2160V) or the wider Digital Cinema 4K format (4096H x 2160V), and a blazingly fast 120fps 1080p video mode, enabling slow-motion video capture without loss of resolution. This speed also gives the user the unique capability of grabbing full 14MP resolution still images without interrupting a super-sharp, oversampled 1080p HD video stream.
The implication is that it's intended for semi-compact stills cameras which can also do 4k video, but it is also highly likely that it could work well in the camera being discussed here. And it's 1"...... Could this be the origin of the term "mid-frame"? Between previous DSLR and compact camera sensor sizes?

My assumption would be that the 14megapixels are for the area of sensor used for stills, video being a 16:9 crop (4096x2160 is about 9 megapixels). Hence it shouldn't be necessary to employ any pixel skipping or binning techniques - which is what causes the most issues with still sensors used for video. If it is true, it makes technical sense.

Another press release on the Aptina website also caught my eye - Press Release - Aptina Imaging (http://www.aptina.com/news/press/aptina_enters_into_patent_license_agreement_with_sony/) All speculative and circumstantial - but it would all tie together?

So maybe we might have this:

4K
"Handycam" = 4k 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (consumer market with crippled features)
"Something-CAM" = 4K 4:2:0 @ 8 bit (entry pro market)
"Other-CAM" = 4k 4:2:2 @ 8 bit (Mid - pro market)
"Super-CAM" = 4k 4:2:2 & 4:4:4 @ 10bit (high end Pro market)

I think we will find out very soon
Firstly, as regards XDCAM and NXCAM the differences are far beyond codec and even as far as that is concerned, then 4:2:0, 4:2:2 etc are by no means the most significant difference. Quite apart from which XDCAM EX is likewise 4:2:0! Far more significant than colour space are the differences between AVC-HD and the MPEG2 based codec used in the EX.

Hence, as far as your table above, then forget about those distinctions - technology has moved on.

To your core point - how will Sony distinguish between market sectors - then most significant may be whether the camera will record RAW or coded..... or both! :-) Hence, this may "only" record a coded 4K signal, whilst such as the F5/55 will be capable of recording RAW. (Yes, same for the FS700 - but only with extra hardware.)

Yes, RAW may be better for the digital cinema crowd for the post flexibility it allows, but it's expensive and demanding in terms of data etc. XAVC S may far better suit the users this camera is aimed at.

If anybody is thinking "who is going to want to shoot weddings in 4K!?" then even if the end product is going to be HD, 4K shooting allows flexibility in framing, for example. (You may deliberately shoot wider, for example, then be able to zoom in without eventual quality loss on an unexpected event that happens towards the edge of frame.) For other uses, then 4K video allows far more potential for framegrabs to be used as stills. No, they'll never be as good as images taken with a dedicated good stills camera for many reasons (artistic as well as technical) but they will extend the number of times they may be considered "good enough".

To me, the article is talking about two different rumors regarding two different cameras. I don't think it's ambiguous at all. Or at least that's how I'm interpreting it. And remember, translating info from asian sources doesn't always give you precise info. Which is why the author gave the medium frame (format?) rumor a low confidence rating.

Besides, can Sony make a 20X zoom for a medium frame sized sensor in a small camcorder body? Assuming the zoom info is correct, doesn't a 20X zoom, based on the picture, almost guarantee a small sensor? If we assume the sensor is a "medium format" at around 1", even 2/3", how big will a 20X zoom have to be? And all this for under $5,000? The only 20X zooms I've seen on camcorders have always been on 1/3" chip cams, 14-16X zooms on some 1/2" cams.

Besides, can Sony make a 20X zoom for a medium frame sized sensor in a small camcorder body? Assuming the zoom info is correct, doesn't a 20X zoom, based on the picture, almost guarantee a small sensor?
I'd say no - the 20x zoom does not guarantee a small sensor. (With the caveats below!)

It all comes back round to the arguments in the thread on the IMEC 2/3" sensor thread.

All lens design is a compromise, and one of the factors is max f stop and how it ramps over the zoom range.

It follows that in general principle, it's perfectly possible to have a :

1] Large sensor
2] Big zoom range
3] Size as expected here

as long as the designer is prepared to accept a fairly small max f no That's the compromise that the laws of optics force.

It's only if you want 1] Large sensor, 2] Big zoom range *AND* something like f1.8 that it MUST be much larger and more expensive.

Before you say "but I don't want an f5.6 max lens! That'll be no good in low light" then (as said before) for a given size of lens, then sensor size is irrelevant independently to low light ability. All else equal, a 1" sensor may be 3 stops more sensitive than one of 1/3" - but for the same physical size of lens, that will be 3 stops less when used for 1" rather than 1/3". (Say f5.6 rather than f2.)

I'd say no - the 20x zoom does not guarantee a small sensor. (With the caveats below!)
)

Nah, I'm not buying it. I'm betting no larger than a 1/2" sensor, more likely a 1/3" sensor set. Not with a 20X zoom, not with the sensitivity needed for all the pixels crammed into a 4K chip. What is that, about 8 million pixels a chip?

Trying to market a maximum F5.6 lens? No way. In full 20X zoom, what would a F5.6 lens ramp down to? Why bother making it? The physics may work for a F5.6, 20X zoom for a large 4K sensor, but actually trying to sell one? Under $5,000? It doesn't make any sense, not for a Handycam.
But, that's assuming the lens really is a 20X zoom.
A 1/3" 4K image may not look the best, but this is marketed as a Handycam, not as a competitor to an Epic.

And if this is a response to the BM4K, this prototype came out at CES 2013, before the BM4K came out at NAB 2013.

If that lens is the same one that has been around for several years, it's traditionally used on 1/3 sensors in Sony cameras.

I strongly suspect this is still the case.

But what sensor this time? 1/3 inch 4K? (low light performance will be challenged)
Will it be a single bayer sensor?
Will it be a full raster 3 sensor block? (no Bayer problems)
Will the pixel count be lower than 4K and then "pixel shift" up to 4K? (Sony has done similar things in other products)
Will it be a single sensor that has a 20% oversample for Bayer removal?

If this a "Handycam" it MUST be considered "low end" and MUST be the "least" Sony offers. It's safe to say that they have higher spec plans for better cameras up stream to meet the current "NXCAM-style" market.

So, the question still is; How with they limit and cripple this camera? There are at least a dozen ways they have done this in the past.

Fascinating!

Now we know why Sony released almost nothing at NAB this year. They are working on their "next-gen" product fleet.

CT

Nah, I'm not buying it. I'm betting no larger than a 1/2" sensor, more likely a 1/3" sensor set.
I'd actually take you up on that bet, but probably to no more than about $10. :-) My money would be on 1", possibly 2/3". Either way, I think we'll know for sure which of us is right pretty soon - my guess would be IBC.
Not with a 20X zoom, not with the sensitivity needed for all the pixels crammed into a 4K chip. What is that, about 8 million pixels a chip?
If it's 4k, it's just under 9 megapixels, but surely that argues for a bigger chip size? A 1" chip is about 16mm horizontal, a 1/3" is about 6mm. Assume 4,000 photosites horizontally and that gives a photosite spacing of about 4 microns for 1", but only about 1.5 microns for 1/3". That makes the area of the photosites on the 1" chip far bigger - even more than simple numbers suggest when you take inter-site spacing into account.
Trying to market a maximum F5.6 lens? No way. In full 20X zoom, what would a F5.6 lens ramp down to? Why bother making it? The physics may work for a F5.6, 20X zoom for a large 4K sensor, but actually trying to sell one?
Here I'll go along with you. In real terms, f5.6 on a 1" sensor and f2 on a 1/3" sensor should give the same low light performance - but yes, unfortunately it's simple numbers that marketing people like. That said, exactly this has been happening with the DSLR lens market for a while. Lenses for such are typically much slower than they used to be (to get zoom range up, whilst keeping cost and size down) - but since it's permissible to set a DSLR to a far higher ISO than you'd previously have considered for film, it's been seen as OK.

Practically, the f5.6 number was meant as an illustration of the principle, and to compare 1/3" with 1". Maybe a better comparison is the 1/2" PMW200 with an f1.9 lens. Keep the same front element dimensions and a 1" version of that may be expected to be f3.5 (2 stops down). Maybe make it a little bigger and you're at about f3.2....... sound better for marketing? :-)

We'll see......

If that lens is the same one that has been around for several years, it's traditionally used on 1/3 sensors in Sony cameras.
Highly unlikely it's exactly the same, I'd expect it may have similarities, but almost certain to differ to meet 4K requirements.

It's also possible to consider the separate parts of a zoom lens individually (at least in principle). The same front section can be used with differing rear sections according to the sensor area to be covered, which obviously affects the effective f stop.
Now we know why Sony released almost nothing at NAB this year. They are working on their "next-gen" product fleet.
Errr, they might not have actually made the announcement at NAB, but I think you may be forgetting the F5/55.....? True, announced a couple of months before, but they were just starting to ship around that time and I'm told were what got the most attention on the Sony stand at NAB.

And what about the PMW400? Didn't that get announced very close to NAB, if not actually at the event?

I'd actually take you up on that bet, but probably to no more than about $10. :-) My money would be on 1", possibly 2/3". Either way, I think we'll know for sure which of us is right pretty soon - my guess would be IBC.
..

OK, $10 says the chip(s) is no larger than 1/2". But I'm guessing there's no betting on this site, so not sure we can ever collect. ;-)

OK, $10 says the chip(s) is no larger than 1/2". But I'm guessing there's no betting on this site, so not sure we can ever collect. ;-)
:-) Note that I wasn't prepared to bet more!

I'm not going to comment anymore other than to say that in a camera at this price point, if the sensor is 2/3" or bigger, this would be a very, very interesting camera. If you're right, and it's 1/3", it's nowhere near as attractive. Maybe I was a little harsh in what I said in post #6, but it's as Monday Isa said earlier on - if it is 1/3" you would need to be at about f2.8 or wider to get full benefit of 4K resolution. That would give it a usable iris range of likely little more than one stop!

........ but it's as Monday Isa said earlier on - if it is 1/3" you would need to be at about f2.8 or wider to get full benefit of 4K resolution. That would give it a usable iris range of likely little more than one stop!
I wasn't going to comment any more on this until definite news, but one point that's just been made to me in a discussion is something I'd overlooked. Namely that whilst the basis of what I'd previously said was sound, then it's down not to the sensor size as such that really determines diffraction limiting, but rather the actual physical size of the lens components.

So compared to an f2 lens for 1/3", then if the physical dimensions of the lens remain roughly the same, whilst it may indeed translate to an f5.6 lens for 1" that won't gain you any advantage. It'll still start to diffraction limit stopped down the same amount - so if the usable range for 1/3" is (say) f2-f2.8, the corresponding figure for 1" may be about f5.6-f8. You still only have a one stop usable range.

The truth is that as the system resolution increases, the laws of physics dictate that the only way to maintain much of a usable aperture range is to physically increase lens size.

I was also made to think about exactly what some of the spacing numbers actually mean. As said earlier, for 4k type resolutions, a 1/3" chip must mean photosite spacing of roughly 1.5 microns (1500 nanometre), for a 1" chip it's roughly 4 micron (4000 nanometres). Since the wavelength of red light is around 700 nanometres, 4k resolution on a 1/3" chip effectively means spacing approaching the wavelengths of light.

The reason I believe it's 1/3" chips is the 20X zoom and also the sensor is EXMOR R. EXMOR R is a back illuminated sensor which till now have been for smaller sensors then 1/3" which pack a lot of pixels on a small size. 4K on 1/3" sensors means Sony would have to use back illumination. The NX70 uses EXMOR R but it's a 6MP sensor on a single 1/2.88 chip. Sony could use this size as a 3 chipper. We'll find out soon enough. I honestly believe its a small sensor and those that know about diffraction and how it effects image quality will have a hard time exposing with this cam as you need 2.8 and higher to get a sharp image where you can start to get into diffraction problems.

Interesting comments about sensor and lens sizes. My own experience. I have a NX5U ( looks just like the 4K version) with 3 1/3" sensors, I have several small Sony AVCHD cams too. Also a HX30V still camera with an even smaller lens and 1/2.3 sensor and 20x optical zoom. In good light this still camera shoots lovely 60p video as good as my CX700 or NX30U. The 1/2.88 sensor in the CX700 or the similar sensor in the NX30U easily out perform the NX5U in low light with a much bigger lens and 3 1/3 sensors. The small cameras do of course have newer "R" sensors compared to the NX5U with about 6M pixels. Operating these small cameras requires a different approach and I run them in semi auto mode so that the designers knowledge that is in the on board processor has control not me. I just tell what to focus on and how light or dark I want the image. Touch focus and AE shift is the key. I think it will be a single sensor a bit bigger than 1/2 so that the depth of field is reasonable for camcorder use. If users want the shallow depth of field they will go the NEX range.

I used my FX1 when it came out in HDV mode but edited in DV so that I could pan around the image and am keen to do the same with this 4K version if it does in fact arrive.

Ron Evans

What we may be overlooking is "ClearVid."

The diagonal pixel arrangement that claimed better sensitivity, at the cost of interpolation.

What we may be overlooking is "ClearVid."

The diagonal pixel arrangement that claimed better sensitivity, at the cost of interpolation.
As I recall, in the early days of 1/3" HD, the first two camera sensors (3 chip) either used 960x540 sensors (HVX200) or 960x1080 with horizontal pixel shifting (Z1). (Approx 0.5 megapixel and 1 megapixel respectively.) Then came the EX1 with 1920x1080 (2 megapixel) - but went to a 1/2" chip to keep the photosite size up.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the diagonal ClearVid technology is that 1 megapixel on 1/3" was seen as desirable for photosite size reasons a good compromise on 1/3" chips between 0.5 megapixel and 2 megapixel - but undesirable as it wasn't horizontally/vertically symmetrical in resolution terms. (That mattered less for the Z1 and 1080i - more so as progressive scan became more common.)

The point of the diagonal arrangement is that it allows a 1 megapixel sensor to have equal horizontal/vertical characteristics (an effective resolution of about 1440x675 after processing), whilst keeping fairly straightforward processing arrangements (it treats the diagonal matrix as two interleaved 960x540 diagonal matrices, and processes them to a 1920x1080 output)

As far as this thread goes, then if the main boast of this product is 4k, I don't see how any ClearVid arrangement is going to help, without lowering resolution such that it can't truly be called 4k?

As far as this thread goes, then if the main boast of this product is 4k, I don't see how any ClearVid arrangement is going to help, without lowering resolution such that it can't truly be called 4k?

I see no reason why a Clearvid arrangement could not be devised to create an interpolated 4 K output just like it did for 1920x1080. I fully expect this first Sony product to be interpolated in some way as the benefits in sensitivity are certainly real and to me more important than a definition that requires sensors of 4K. If the sensor and on board electronics generate a recordable 4K output its 4K !!!! Of course it will not have the tested resolution of a very expensive production camera under a range of conditions. I don't expect it to. But I also expect it to be very acceptable in most conditions that the interpolation will work effectively and accept that the conditions will effect the performance of the interpolation just like it does in all the Sony AVCHD cameras I have now. Another reason to let the camera decide settings in a semi auto mode as it knows how best to setup for optimum performance. Tell the camera what you want in focus and how light or dark you want the image. I think if one is interested in controlled depth of field etc one is going to have to spend a lot more money !!! At least an NEX FS700 +

Ron Evans

If the sensor and on board electronics generate a recordable 4K output its 4K !!!!
Hmmm - becomes a bit of a question of where you draw the line..... ? At what point do you say "that's not 4k! It's just 1080 upscaled!" :-)

Even cameras like the F5/55 (which have a 4096x2160 Bayer sensor) are considered by some to be stretching the definition of the term "4k" - they've got a 4k sensor - but after deBayering the max resolution is going to be only 80% max of what 4k is really capable of.

I'm inclined to give those cameras the benefit of the doubt, but any less.....?

I suppose a lot may depend on whether it's 3 chip or 1 chip, how practical 3 chip is at these sizes and resolutions. In which case (if 3 chip) maybe 3 ClearVid 4.5 megapixel chips? Which should give resolution to about 2880x1620. Would that satisfy to be called 4k?
I think if one is interested in controlled depth of field etc one is going to have to spend a lot more money !!! At least an NEX FS700 +
It's not just depth of field, it's usable aperture range. In pocket HD cameras it's already the case that the iris hardly changes to vary exposure, it can't without the image becoming unacceptably soft. They rely on a continuous variable ND moving in the iris plane to control the amount of light transmitted. That may be OK for a small pocket camera, but not for anything more professional.

But as far as spending more money to get something more professional, then yes, you're right. I suppose it should be remembered that if the report is true, this is going to be under $5,000, so perhaps one should be realistic with expectations.

The usable aperture range on the NX5U is quite small for acceptable results too. In fact not too different from the small camcorders as anything smaller than about F4 starts to degrade the picture. Not surprising since the sensors are a similar size. Left in auto mode it moves to similar ranges as the NX30U etc. Hence my comments about letting the engineers who designed the system decide where the best performance is for the camera ( semi auto mode). For the NX5U use the ND filters when the system tells you too !!! Although I am sure for marketing reasons this new 4K camera will have the manual controls it may well perform a lot better in semi auto mode for the above posts reasons . Almost all my projects are in dark theatre so the aperture is always open and gain is on quite a bit !!!

My comment about depth of field relates to the current desire for shallow depth of field shots not really easily possible with these sorts of cameras in my mind. Needs bigger sensors, bigger lenses etc etc ...Money!!! However for me I need the opposite. Large depth of field as I want things on the stage to be in focus all the time even if I pan and zoom around the stage. The NX5U accomplishes this within reason. So for almost 4 times the cost of the smaller Sony's I get zooming without refocusing all the time, XLR audio, dual record with FMU128 and SD cards. The smaller Sony's do not as they all have a backfocus issue requiring focusing if zoomed. However in auto mode all the small Sony's have better performance since they all have improved sensors and electronics over the NX5U. If the main improvement in the new 4K model is to bring it up to date with the small Sony's it will be good !!! Now if it has touch focus and continuous AE shift it will be great.


Ron Evans

There will be a more professional version of the FDR-AX1, too, called PXW-Z100.

Has anyone else noticed it has almost the exact same body as the AX2000? Even the lens looks the same. The FDR has more controls underneath the top handle forward mount.

I think the 6 customizable buttons have been moved as well as the status and menu buttons too. I cannot quite read what the middle button says between the menu and status buttons. Don't see the profile button that is on my NX5U. Not sure if the AX2000 has picture profiles like the NX5U. Would not be surprised to get a similar feature difference on an NX4K model that are between the AX2000 and NX5U.

Ron Evans