Has anyone tried this camera? And with 120fps is it still 1080p?

I think everyone's been going for the AX100 - there are some "hands on" user reports on about the last 5 pages on that (huge) thread - including some reports on the 1080p, and I'm sure someone can confirm the details on the high frame rate, but I seem to recall it is 720p. There are some differences, but the guts of the cameras should be fairly comparable.

I'm behind on selling off some things, or I'd probably have an AX100 inbound myself... or if ebay runs a special larger ebay bucks kickback again, it may end up happening anyway...

As much as the CX900 makes some sense and saves a nice chunk, the 4k is looking a little too good to resist...

Thanks David always appreciate your input.

For me the AX100 does not make sense. That many small pixels doing 4K would not be worth it for me. I own the F55 and that is what I would use for 4K and it is VERY rare you will need 4K until you can broadcast it with out loads of compression. The CX900 makes a lot more sense to me with the pixel size, too bad the 120fps is 720p. But I am sure we will know more after NAB.

Thanks David always appreciate your input.

For me the AX100 does not make sense. That many small pixels doing 4K would not be worth it for me. I own the F55 and that is what I would use for 4K and it is VERY rare you will need 4K until you can broadcast it with out loads of compression. The CX900 makes a lot more sense to me with the pixel size, too bad the 120fps is 720p. But I am sure we will know more after NAB.

I do not understand - the CX900 has the same sensor and "small" pixels as the AX100.

More importantly, what we are all discovering is that the HD from AX100 4K video blows away all HD video from HD cameras. Almost all of us are viewing the AX100 4K video in HD, and it is just visibly better than anything from HD camcorders viewed as HD. The AX100 sensor is much bigger than most pro camcorders as well (same as the CX900). If you are solely distributing in 1080, the AX100 shooting 4K will give you visibly better HD than almost anything. I get wows displaying AX100 video in HD I do not get displaying, say, BMPPC HD video from RAW or Canon EOS video in HD

If I'm reading the "hands on reports" from other DVi'ers correctly, the 1080p (from the AX100, which would be comparable to the CX900) is GOOD but the 4K downrezzed is BETTER... that along with a couple of other features the AX has over the CX, and the difference in price is a little hard to balance out, at least from my view. As attractive as 5 Benjamins are... that dang 4K sharpness is not something to argue with...

I was initially thinking the CX900 would probably come up cheap (ugly stepsister syndrome), and would be fine for 1080p... but the 4k is simply a little too much to ignore from the AX100, even viewed at 1080p. I'm judging from the RX10, which produces very nice video to put it mildly, and while it's still quite GOOD, you can definitely see where the AX100 is sharper.

I did not expect the RX10 to look "soft" anytime soon, but using the same sensor and processor, Sony bested their own "best" in just a couple months of further development. I still anticipate the RX10 and RX100M2 will intercut adequately, but they were already sending my other "HD" cameras off to hiding in a corner. Simple solution to the extra $500... sell a couple of things that were perfectly "fine" until Sony came up with this new sensor... they seem to have gotten this one VERY "right" in the AX100, and the CX900 starts to look like a tough sell, unless you knock a few hundred more off the price?

As I see it, the extra $500 investment gives you a camera that is probably going to look pretty darn good for a couple more years at least, vs, a camera that is already quite possibly bordering on "obsolete" (OK, it's probably going to produce some pretty fine 1080 60P at a high bitrate...) before it hits the shelves.

I'd probably look at the CX900 at $1000-1300 a bit more seriously, and I predict it'll be there fairly quickly in the shrinking "consumer camcorder" market, if it's going to sell vs. the AX100. Just my opinion, but I've watched SD, tape, HDV and even newer cameras drop heavily in value as newer cameras are leapfrogging the image quality. It's not that these "old" cameras are "bad", they might well have been the "best" in their day, but the tech is progressing far too fast, leaving things from just a couple years ago heading towards the dustbin...

but the tech is progressing far too fast, leaving things from just a couple years ago heading towards the dustbin...

I was under the impression that we we reached a limit how sharp HD can look compressed on vimeo and youtube but when seeing the sample videos from 4K it looks we are coming very close to that "looking through a window" kind of effect or a kind of resolution/sharpness our eyes can perceive.

I only don't think "old tech" will become obsolete soon, 4k is no substitute for talent and soft 5D footage with those creamy/blurry backgrounds will sell well for many years to come, but that depends who your audience is. With the new Sony handicams you won't be shooting any high end commercials but they will be popular among wedding videographers to get wide angle pinsharp b footage or even get used a main camera.

I only don't see where else it would fit because the target audience you might expect (handicams -> "soccermoms") is not going to shell out 2k to shoot their family/holiday so that only leaves the enthusiastic hobbyist and semi-pro user, not exactly a hugh market, at least not compared to the soccermams ones, but they buy/shoot with mobilephones instead and you allready see 4K introduced into those devices as well.

I expect the current 4K handicam models to be replaced as fast as Sony did with their cx line so I also expect some nice price drops (my cx730 was 1200 euro introductory price and I got it at 830 euro just before it was replaced) so I will wait until that happens before I"m replacing my handicams.

Actually Noa, the 4k makes a excellent interview camera.

Just went onto Youtube to watch downsampled 4K footage to 1080p from the AX100 ... and I have to say I am very very impressed.

Looks like it would make the ultimate B cam and A cam on certain jobs.

@ Noa -

CONTENT is always "king" (and queen, princes and princesses...). The quality of capture is of course HIGHLY variable...

And one has to realize the market has changed - there is a MUCH larger "gap" between "consumer" and "creator" markets...

Yes, the "consumer" of "today" WILL NOT be buying a $2K video camera, or a $1K camcorder/camera, or even a $200 P&S... the painful fact (at least if you're a camera manufacturer) is that they will buy the latest greatest cell phone, it will include a pretty darn "nice" camera, perhaps with passable resolution and image quality, and a "HD" 1080p or greater video camera - it will "cost" them under $100 in many cases... it will be "good enough", and since they always have it with them, they will leave the "big" (or small) cameras and camcorders at home. Or maybe they have a tablet... you can't "consume" content (surf, check mail/social media, read a book) on a camera after all... but ALL these things have a camera in them!

Now, you and I know that these cell phone cams are not "bad", nor are they "good", they are a capturing device, one of CONVENIENCE, so it's easy to capture CONTENT the user cares about, even if the quality is so-so. Remember "brownie", Polaroid, 110, disposable cameras.... cheap "capture devices"....

This is why I really don't see the CX900 being a viable market proposition. in the current economy, no one is going to spend $1500 to shoot little Jonnie or Jane's soccer match, birthday party or whatever... they will whip out a cell phone and get something "good enough"... for the limited "audience"...

At least with 4K the AX100 has SOME "future proofing". That said, yes, "consumer" cams refresh on a yearly cycle, sometimes faster, and prices drop when new ones come out (usually, not so much lately because of a thinner market, and for a couple years at least, minimal image improvement).

4K is very close to "looking through a window", almost shockingly so, it's not "cinematic reality" (DSLR), which has it's own place in the toolkit, but the AX100 DOES have some shallow DoF potential too, thanks to the larger sensor.

As a CONTENT CREATOR rather than a CONSUMER, you have to look at the market differently - can you use a particular "tool" to CREATE and make a profit (or gain greater enjoyment for yourself from what you create). Will your content be more eye-catching, higher quality, easier to work with in edit... IMO, 4K is noticeable enough that if you CAN shoot in that resolution, there are some good reasons to do so. I'm getting really tired of seeing "soft" SD resolution "content", and would rather have sharp images, both to watch, and when I'm "creating". I'm fine with what the RX100M2 and RX10 can do right now... but an AX100 is on the list after I clear out a few things!

...Yes, the "consumer" of "today" WILL NOT be buying a $2K video camera, or a $1K camcorder/camera, or even a $200 P&S... the painful fact (at least if you're a camera manufacturer) is that they will buy the latest greatest cell phone, it will include a pretty darn "nice" camera, perhaps with passable resolution and image quality, and a "HD" 1080p or greater video camera - it will "cost" them under $100 in many cases... it will be "good enough", and since they always have it with them, they will leave the "big" (or small) cameras and camcorders at home....

You forgot to mention that they will shoot video vertically causing, among other things, the death of many birds: Vertical Video Syndrome - A PSA - YouTube

Thanks for the corrections to my post, sorry I have been away. It looks like the extra money will be worth it. Will see all the input after NAB then I think I will go for the AX100.

Appreciate the help.

Hi

Don't forget in order to get 4K you have to do sacrifice frame-rate, this means 24fps or 30fps, motion and fast action will not look good. Even worse, in 50Hz land the maximum frame-rate is only 25fps with the Sony AX100.

So down-scaling 4K to give you 1080P will be 1080P at 24fps (or 25/30), this isn't the same thing as 1080P captured at 50/60fps.

Also 4K is looking good downsized for a few reasons:

1) On YouTube you end up watching 1080P from a higher quality/faster streaming source given to 4K. You could just upload 1080P resized to 4K, then watch that 4K resized down to 1080P and see a similar improvement.

2) 4K downscaled to 1080P is giving you something more like 4.2.2 colour sampling, or an approximation of, so up close and pixel peeking it will look better. However, how will you distribute your footage? If all you want is 1080P then that will be rendered out very likely as typical 4.2.0, advantage lost.

3) 4K is captured at a higher bit-rate by the camera, so when squashed down to 1080P you gain an advantage over typical HD footage we might have at 28Mbps. If you take a quadrant of 4K it gives you 1080P, which essentially on the AX100 is encoded at 15Mbps per HD quadrant, and then watch that full screen on an HD monitor, it looks pretty poor quality for HD. My point, everything looks good downsized, a 420P YouTube clip looks pretty damn sharp on a small mobile phone display.

What does 1080P at 60fps look like captured at 50Mbps on the Sony, I wish we had some native clips to watch, as I think most people will be saying that looks pretty sharp as well, and the motion will be smooth and realistic, giving that "looking through a window" feeling that is lacking on low frame-rate 4K.

Regards

Phil

I can absolutely confirm that shooting in 4k and scaling down to 1080 creates SPECTACULAR "HD" videos.

A "typical" HD camera will resolve maybe 700-800 lines. A "really good" 3 sensor HD camera can resolve up to 800-900 lines (realistically)

The AX100 shoots much, much higher resolution than that. When scaled down to "HD", that video could easily reach the maximum 1080 lines of resolution. It pegs the 1080 limitation meter right to the very last last pixel. Your 4:2:0 4k now becomes 4:2:2 (4:4:4?) HD and has the absolute maximum pixel density. It's sad for me to think that my AX100's downscaled 4K to 1080 image now makes my EX1r native 1080 image look...."soft".

Plus, you have the benefit of being able zoom/crop a 1080 window and move it around your 4K space for framing.

It's a no brainer for me. The AX100 is WELL worth the extra $500 over the CX900.

I do need to warn you though, this 4K stuff is highly addictive. I have only been doing it for 6 days now and I'm already completely addicted to it....be very careful. Don't let it get the best of you. (As it has already done with me)

CT

Looks like the AX100 will be my B cam when it's out ...

Well, even if Phil was correct in those theories... The AX100 has a couple extra features over the CX900, and will ALSO shoot high bitrate 1080/60p, if motion is an issue... an easy fallback, but motion blur with the 4K footage so far seems "pleasing" enough.

I was figuring the 4K might be a bit "rough" as a first effort out of the gate, and took it as a good way to "dip a toe in", for future reference. It now looks like with proper technique, 4k will be very useful and good enough for many uses.

Hi

I can absolutely confirm that shooting in 4k and scaling down to 1080 creates SPECTACULAR "HD" videos.

A "typical" HD camera will resolve maybe 700-800 lines. A "really good" 3 sensor HD camera can resolve up to 800-900 lines (realistically)

The AX100 shoots much, much higher resolution than that. When scaled down to "HD", that video could easily reach the maximum 1080 lines of resolution. It pegs the 1080 limitation meter right to the very last last pixel. Your 4:2:0 4k now becomes 4:2:2 (4:4:4?) HD and has the absolute maximum pixel density. It's sad for me to think that my AX100's downscaled 4K to 1080 image now makes my EX1r native 1080 image look...."soft".

Plus, you have the benefit of being able zoom/crop a 1080 window and move it around your 4K space for framing.

It's a no brainer for me. The AX100 is WELL worth the extra $500 over the CX900.

I do need to warn you though, this 4K stuff is highly addictive. I have only been doing it for 6 days now and I'm already completely addicted to it....be very careful. Don't let it get the best of you. (As it has already done with me)

CT

The irony is due to the long hold up times of LCD and OLED displays the resolution chart when seen as a moving object at just 24fps/30fps will be not much better than 1080P at 60fps.

I can't watch this 24fps 4K footage without feeling ill, it isn't shot like film so the slow frame rate is very evident and just presents itself to me as a very fast slide show, I see 24 individual images a second and rarely does it look like fluid motion. This is a known problem with 24fps, especially when shot and shown as video, and I think we have an element of the emperors new cloths here and people are somewhat ignoring the obvious issues. Search the Internet, the limitations and issues are well know, but now suddenly 24fps is great, I'm sorry but I don't understand the hype of this consumer 4K format.

The Big Judder Problem and the Overhyping of 24p (http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm)
Is 24p judder really this bad?? (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?235337-Is-24p-judder-really-this-bad)
Frame rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate)
24p Judder & The Most Cost Effective Models To Tame It? (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1237891/24p-judder-the-most-cost-effective-models-to-tame-it)
GH2 Stutter/Judder/Strobe issues discussion - Personal View Talks (http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/526/gh2-stutterjudderstrobe-issues-discussion/p1)
An interesting 24p Judder solution... (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?316673-An-interesting-24p-Judder-solution)
What is 1080p24? - CNET (http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/what-is-1080p24/)
TweakGuides.com - A Guide to HDTVs (http://www.tweakguides.com/HDTV_9.html)

When 4K is at 60fps I'm buying it, but not before, and people need to be aware of the limitations these 1st generation consumer 4K camcorders come with. Going back to low YouTube type frame rates just so the hardware can struggle to capture 4K at high compression levels is not something I'm willing to fork out on, and others my feel the same and wish to know the compromises these early devices are making.

If someone wants to capture what will be recognised next year as poor quality 4K footage just because it looks good at 1080P despite the low frame rates, then that is everyone's own choice to make, but lets at least acknowledge the short comings so people can make an informed decision.

24fps/30fps does not belong as a 4K video format. The UHD standard doesn't specify 30fps as a recognised frame-rate, for video it starts at 60fps with an eye firmly on delivering 120fps. UHD includes 24fps and 25fps for legacy reasons only, should a 4K camcorder costing a not inconsiderable amount of money to most consumers be stuck in the past in only offering legacy 4K capture?

Regards

Phil

Phil,

I think that saying 24 fps is obsolete is a bit like saying that shadows are obsolete because we can't see the details in the shadows.

Certainly, news, and reality-based content, 50 or 60 fps is great. For sports, 100 or 120 fps or faster would be wonderful. But for narrative material the 24 fps has its place. It's not going away.

Note that there's a problem when you shoot with a shutter time less than 1/100 in 50 Hz countries or 1/120 in 60 Hz countries - you'll get flicker from lights, especially fluorescent lights. At 100 or 120, you need a 100% shutter to avoid flicker. (Okay, you could shoot 200 or 240 if you sync the frame rate and sample when the lights are at their peaks, but now you start to fight signal to noise.)

With narrative film, we hide things. We build false sets in sound stages. Our actors put on costumes and wear makeup. Scripts are written to hide character intent. Shallow DOF hides details that are off plane. Grading obscures real colors. Framing hides content outside of view. Shadows hide things in the view. And 24 fps hides details in time.

It's no accident. Imagine a scene with, say, 6fps and extreme motion blur. You could use this as an effect to portray an affected reality or altered state of consciousness. Speed this up to 24 fps and 1/48 and the altered reality is on the cusp of being transparent. Things look real but somehow slightly not real. It's like being in and out of a dream. Speed things up to 120 fps or so and things start to look more like real, waking life.

Personally, I wish that our systems allowed truly dynamic frame rates. One could then show fast frame rates for a hyper-fight with the character on amphetamines. Then slow to 24 fps for drama. The TV within the scene plays at 60 fps. The character starts drinking and the frame rate slows from 24, 23, 22...

Regardless of the technical measurements, frame rate and shutter speeds are artistic choices.

And if somebody wants the 24 fps look, a 24 fps camera is all they need.

The UHD standard doesn't specify 30fps as a recognised frame-rate, for video it starts at 60fps with an eye firmly on delivering 120fps. UHD includes 24fps and 25fps for legacy reasons only, should a 4K camcorder costing a not inconsiderable amount of money to most consumers be stuck in the past in only offering legacy 4K capture?

FWIW, SMPTE ST 2036-1 includes 24/1.001, 24, 25, 30/1.001, 50, 60/1.001, 60, and 120 fps for UHDTV. (Some proponents would like to add 100 and 120/1.001 fps.) There's no asterisk near 24 fps saying that it's for legacy use only.

This said, if you want to shoot at higher frame rates, go for it! Shoot at the rate that fulfills your vision. And if you buy a UHD TV that supports 60 fps, that would set you up for future UHD sports broadcasts. On the other hand, if you watch films - and that's the primary UHD content today - and don't watch sports, a 24/30 fps UHDTV will do the trick.

Having 4K (or UHD) at 60p is a nice thing to have, no doubt.

For me, back in the days when I was shooting 1920x1080, (just last week) my normal frame rate was 29.97p. I have my EX1r, FS100 and NX70 all set for 30p.

Like many people here, I HATE 24p as well. But 30p? I think it looks like "film" without the judder. 30p also slices into 60i for Blu Ray perfectly. I'm a big believer in 30p to 60i - PSF

So for me, I'm perfectly happy with the AX100 shooting 30p. Correct me if I'm wrong but there aren't many "true" 4K 60p displays out there right now. (or even "true" 60 HD either...HDMI 1.4 cant even carry it today) Web-YouTube and even Netflix 4k are only 30p. (Fro NetFlix, I'm not 100% sure but I'm fairly certain of this.)

The AX100's 30p looks great to me and when bounced down to HD, it still looks crazy amazing.

The best thing to do is get yourself a direct 4K file form the AX100 and evaluate that. YouTube's 4k judders under motion pretty heavily. I suspect their stream uses a VERY long GOP structure. Rather than use a key frame every 15, it looks like they double the length and spread out the I frames to lighten the CODEC.

It's funny. Before I got the AX100, in my mind, I have all these ideas that this camera was mostly a toy. I got it anyway to play with 4K today and invest big next year. After a few days of shooting and TONS of zoomed in playback and pixel peeping the crap out of this footage, I was shocked at how good it actually is. (200-300% zommed in 1080 crops)

Trust me, this camera is much better in the real world than it really should be. It defies the numbers. Yes, 60 Mbp/s 30p on paper sounds weak. Surprisingly, it's pretty damn good. As hard as I wanted to dismiss it, this camera has won me over...but only AFTER I started using it for 5 days.

Get ahold of some direct recordings, then see what you think.

CT

I don't think anyone has been "thrilled" about the 30p limitation, in fact it's been heavily discussed in advance of the release of the AX100...

BUT, the footage coming in does not look bad. I can't stand to shoot 24p, because it does look jerky, BUT if this camera manages to keep it smooth looking enough, as seems to be the case, I will gladly "fiddle" with the 4K output for the price - and that high bitrate 1080/60p is always there if need be, not aware of ANY other 1080/60p camera at this price and bitrate...

I often render out to 24p, just to reduce file sizes, and it's always looked fine to me, so as much as I would prefer 60p, I'll give 30p a shot... so far the video looks good enough, even with some motion in the frames...

Yes, next year they may well have 60p 4K...but by then I'll at least have some time working with the footage and 4K, and if there's something "so much better", I can upgrade or use the thing as a B cam.

And if somebody wants the 24 fps look, a 24 fps camera is all they need.

Jon, I think most of the hatred for 24p viewing outside of analogue projection theaters comes from seeing the pulldown judder as opposed to the slowness of the true 24p framerate in traditional film based acquisition and projection. In the old days, when we watched movies at the theaters, we saw or noticed most of the intended effects you mention but definitely not the uneven pulldown sequence of frame playback on the digital computer monitors we now see.

In video, when we talk about watching something at "24p" on our computer displays, this 24p content mostly originates in either true 24p, 23.96 or 60i with 3:2 pulldown. Even if you have a true 24p content, when it was played back on the monitor (not frame interpolation HDTVs), it is never perfectly in sync with the typical monitor's refresh rates which are normally in the range of 50 Hz to 60Hz to accommodate viewing by users in both NTSC and PAL areas. Maybe some mega-buck monitors can do 48 Hz or 96 Hz but most consumers are not likely to have one of these.

Ignoring the camera handling skills required to shoot 24p or 23.96 to best tame the juddering effects, this mismatching of image acquisition/viewing pipeline partly as a result of the legacy interlace video standards makes evaluation of attributes like motion very hard to judge.

The AX100 ... will ALSO shoot high bitrate 1080/60p

I believe the CX900 also shoots the high bitrate (50Mbps) 1080/50p (60p US) XAVC-S

Cheers
Dave

yes, the point being that the AX100 will do everything the CX900 will do, including high bitrate 1080/60p... with the added 4K capability.

The AX100's 30p looks great to me and when bounced down to HD, it still looks crazy amazing.

The best thing to do is get yourself a direct 4K file form the AX100 and evaluate that. YouTube's 4k judders under motion pretty heavily. I suspect their stream uses a VERY long GOP structure. Rather than use a key frame every 15, it looks like they double the length and spread out the I frames to lighten the CODEC.

It's funny. Before I got the AX100, in my mind, I have all these ideas that this camera was mostly a toy. I got it anyway to play with 4K today and invest big next year. After a few days of shooting and TONS of zoomed in playback and pixel peeping the crap out of this footage, I was shocked at how good it actually is. (200-300% zommed in 1080 crops)

Trust me, this camera is much better in the real world than it really should be. It defies the numbers. Yes, 60 Mbp/s 30p on paper sounds weak. Surprisingly, it's pretty damn good. As hard as I wanted to dismiss it, this camera has won me over...but only AFTER I started using it for 5 days.

Get ahold of some direct recordings, then see what you think.

CT

Cliff, trust me on this, you will never in 3 lifetimes convince Phil that the AX100 is anything but a piece of garbage. He goes from forum to forum throwing bombs at the camera in almost every thread you can find on the subject of video.

The fact that in some respects (resolution & sharpness) it outperformed a BMC 4K camera or that it actually graded well with the BM so that you could intercut the two, just doesn't interest him.

He likes 60p and so do I, but that doesn't make the AX100 anything less than a truly excellent 4K camera that, as you say, performs shockingly well. I've had the pleasure of seeing it on a really large screen UHD TV and that was a treat. :)

Well said Ken,

That makes it better to let rants go. After all this forum is about learning and sharing.

Here is my Sony HDR-CX900 test : Sony HDR CX900 Footage - YouTube

As nice as that looks, very comparable to what the RX10 produces... somehow the 4K of the AX100 is a little more like looking through a window.

Much appreciate the clip, the 1080/60p does look nice!

Hi

Here is my Sony HDR-CX900 test : Sony HDR CX900 Footage - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFQIUex_UIg)

Thanks for the clip. Any chance you can upload this to Vimeo so we can download the original at 60fps, unfortunately YouTube converts to 30fps of course and re-compresses.

Regards

Phil

Has anyone seen a comparison of the 1080p video shot with the CX900 with the 1080p shot with the AX100. According to the specs, the Ax100 will shoot 1080p, but is there a significant difference in quality, or none at all. If they were the same, then getting the AX and shooting in 1080 would future proof the camcorder for future use.
Just a thought, incase anyone knows.
Denny

As far as we can tell from the specs, the AX100 adds 4K and a couple minor (or major, depending on how important they are to you) additional features. Otherwise the cameras are nearly identical, both shoot higher bitrate 1080 60p than prior "Handycam class" cameras. I can't see any reason that the "HD" output should be any different in those comparable modes.

Of course with 4K it's possible to downconvert to 1080. Some are getting good results with this approach.

The only question is whether the extra $500 is worth it to have the additional capability. I'd rather have the 4K option and also be able to shoot high bitrate 1080 60p.

I noticed on the Sony Website that there is a firmware update for the CX900 that was dated Mid June. Has anyone updated their CX900, and is there an improvement in the auto focus as the update information suggests?
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Denny

HI Dennis,

I will check this out and if I am prior firmware I will update. We use this as a mounted cam on some shoots with decent success so far.

Thanks Paul, I will anxiously await your results.
Denny
BTW, the update is located at http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=HDRCX900&template_id=1&region_id=1&tab=download#/downloadTab

Dennis,

I did the update and reset the camera to my settings. Can I notice a difference just sitting at my desk? No

But it will get used again later this week and I will have a better idea once I upload those clips.

As I said we use this camera locked down on a suction cup spider, or in the hands of a producer for behind the scenes shots. I have also used it for personal use on my own adventures where is has worked well. Great little handycam

Hi Paul,
Thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see if the slow focus and the zoom speed updates were effective at all.
Denny

Couple more test and it does seem slightly better on focus.

Hi Paul,
Has the zoom speed been slowed down by the new firmware upgrade?
Thanks,
Denny

Paul - Are you saying that when "producers" shoot they typically use a wicked awesome camcorder set to AUTO? Not trying to pull any punches here. Just curious.

Dennis, don't want to keep you hanging but I am not near that camera till Thursday. At that point I will look at it further for you.

Phil,
Not really sure what your point is with this loaded question? The producers I work with are excellent and I mean excellent writers, and they see the big picture with skilled eyes and make the team better on every shoot I have been on. But they are not camera people. There are times when they want grab some shots and just want to hit record. That is when I set it to auto and let them use the camera.

Hi Paul,
Any update on this topic?
Thanks,
Denny

HI Denny,

We did use the camera again locked down as we normally do. So I do not have any info on zoom. But the focus seems to be a little quicker. Sorry that is all I have at this time.

Thanks Paul for the input.
Denny

1080 from the CX900 should be better low light than 1080 from the AX100 because the AX100 has more pixels and they are smaller, right? Kind of like the PMW200 or 300 has better 1080 than the Z100 because the Z100 has more pixels and they are smaller, right?

"1080 from the CX900 should be better low light than 1080 from the AX100 because the AX100 has more pixels and they are smaller, right? Kind of like the PMW200 or 300 has better 1080 than the Z100 because the Z100 has more pixels and they are smaller, right? "

Wrong. The CX900 and the AX100 have exactly the same sensor and number of pixels. The CX900 is a crippled AX100 - it just doesn't have the capability of doing 4K. 1080 mode in the AX100 should be identical to 1080 from the CX900.

From the Sony site (Sony AX100):

"Pixel Gross : Approx.20.9M pixels
•Color Filter System : RGB primary color filters
•Imaging Sensor : 1" (13.2mm x 8.8mm) back-illuminated Exmor R® CMOS Sensor
•Processor : BIONZ® X image processor"

From the Sony site: (Sony CX900):

"•Pixel Gross : Approx.20.9M pixels
•Color Filter System : RGB primary color filters
•Imaging Sensor : 1" (13.2mm x 8.8mm) back-illuminated Exmor R® CMOS Sensor
•Processor : BIONZ® X image processor"

Are these mistaken?

Wow Mark. Thanks so much for this. I totally missed the mark.