So yea, I know this has been talked about plenty over the years, but I just wonder if there's anything I've missed. I've not been paying too much attention to the camcorder market.

Yesterday for the first time I had clients unhappy with my wides and cutaway shots. I use Sony CX730s for safety net wide shots, and point it at guest tables during the speeches.

I guess to those booking me based on my highlights videos, they might turn their noses up when they see their edits cut to CX730 footage even if only briefly.

SO... is it time to upgrade? How much better will the AX100 look over the CX730s? Is it worth the price? Has anything else come out that competes? 4k would be useful but not immediately necessary for me.

I've also been setting up my RX10ii for some secondary static shots. The 30 minute clip limit adds stress during a ceremony though. I downloaded the Play Memories Remote Control app though earlier today, so I can stop and restart the recordings. (As long as I remember!)

I'm still wondering about buying Atomos Ninja and recording out of an RX10 or Sony a6000/a6300.

How can it be that a Camcorder can still be almost double the price of an a6300???

Man I am really curious. What did hey actually say about it?

I mix HD camcorders and DSLR and have not yet had anyone say anything.

I always debate upgrading to the CX900, AX100, or FZ1000 or similar 1" cams... But still mixing my Sony, Canon, and Nikon cameras.

Is the cx730 footage that different looking?

I was using a three half inch sensor cam along with two CX type cams and then I got a AX100 that is almost too sharp in comparison.
The Ax100 4K is great for the extra resolution and mix well with the smaller cams.

If i use the PM200 with the AX100s I have to grade a little on the AX100 stuff, soften it a bit etc. bit time-consuming to match

Can't comment on the 730 but the AX100 and CX900 are great little cams. I use one of each with my X70. Did have an RX10 as a third cam but it looked horrible to my eyes compared with the CX900 and X70 (replaced it it with AX100). Impossible to match.

I'm currently using a GH4, GH4r, GH3 and a hacked GH2 that gives continuous recording. That said I too had 1 client pick up on the difference, more so with the GH2. This year I'm looking to add another GH4r, so 3 of my cameras are the same.

If I was to go down the camcorder route, it would be the AX100. However I prefer to keep my cameras of the same make and the GH4r works very well on that regard, plus I can switch between the 2 GH4s for other sections of the day, with 1 on a gimbal and the other on a slider.

How can it be that a Camcorder can still be almost double the price of an a6300???

Because the most expensive part of a decent camcorder is a quality zoom lens, which the A6300 doesn't have come with. True, there are cheap camcorders with zoom lenses, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Make it b/w and sharpen it.... lol. Well, we are a slave to our client's feed back to an extent. So it might be worth while thinking about changing things up. Ours is an industry that continues to change, so I expect to upgrade every 5 years or so.

All that being said, take your clients feed back to heart, rinse and repeat.

How much better will the AX100 look over the CX730s?

The colors are very similar which is why I use my cx730's together with my ax100 to shoot a ceremony and they match fine, I only need to lift the saturation and contrast a little bit on the ax100 and add some sharpness on the cx730, the most obvious difference is the detail, the cx730 can get soft in the edges at certain focal lengths while the ax100 remains pinsharp. Both camera's are equally light sensitive, only the cx730's are cleaner at the highest iso, the ax100 can get quite noisy, so noisy that I had to use neatvideo on occasion. I always shoot in 4K with the ax100 and shoot wide most of the time on a fixed tripod and then choose my compositions in post by cropping, the cx730 is still the better camera for handheld because the stabilization is much better.

I also have mixed ax100 footage with my gh4 that shot in a standard preset and had to add considerable contrast and saturation to make both match, compared to my gh4 the ax100 looked quite flat.

I think with this couple that complained, it was partly to do with quality, but also probably to do with it being static and unexciting.
The camera exists primarily as a safety net - a backup as you will, secondly it exists for me to cutaway to if I need to move quickly, or whip around suddenly to frame up somebody at another table. But also, sometimes during toasts or applause, it just makes sense to show the fuller room picture.

This couple came back and asked me to only use the static footage where it was absolutely necessary. It did make me begin to wonder if I'm cutting corners in terms of quality in the one area.

I made up a screenshot comparison (after grading), so maybe you good folk can give me your thoughts.

Is it below par? Would an AX100 raise the bar adequately? Or am I worry too much about one fussy client?

Showing an example of a shot from each camera doesn't really give a great insight into what they might be unhappy with. If all three camera shots are basically unchanging throughout the speeches, then it might be down to being unexciting as you suggested. Speeches are boring from a visual point of view and you need to be very imaginative with your manned camera to try to keep it more interesting.

If you have wireless connectivity with backup cameras, try varying the zoom so that the shots are not the same each time you cut away. Even with HD footage, you can still get away with small ammounts of cropping and frame zooming in post to add a bit of movement. Perhaps the occasional PIP or split screen to show both speaker and reaction at the same time, anything to add variation.

I would be surprised if the negative comments were about the technical quality of the footage unless they are very technically minded.

Roger

Sounds to me like 1 fussy client. I use 4 cameras and cut inbetween when needed, though stick to 1 and 2 for majority, which are on the person speaking and audience reactions. Wide shots are for toasts and another covers a wide shot of the table incase camera 1 and 2 controlled by me are obscured. Whatever you do, someone will complain about it - thats what people do.

I don't see anything wrong with the cx730 shot, you might sharpen it up a bit more to match better with the other camera's but other then that it just looks fine, you just have a bridezilla, no-one should tell you how to do your edit unless they are paying for a custom-made film.

Use the smallest sensor for the tight work and the big sensors for medium and wide

I actually would suggest the opposite, the only camera to shoot wide for me would be a 4K one as it gives more options in post and sensor size doesn't matter then. If you zoom in with small sensor camera's the f-stop ramps quicker causing low light issues.

I don't see anything wrong with the cx730 shot, you might sharpen it up a bit more to match better with the other camera's but other then that it just looks fine, you just have a bridezilla, no-one should tell you how to do your edit unless they are paying for a custom-made film.

Yeah, if they want even lighting, hire a lighting company to provide it.

Wide shots will benefit from using big sensors full frame or super35 like used in the a5100/a6000 and upcoming a6300. use a fast wide angle prime and it will be tack sharp if focused

That depends, a smaller sensor 4k camera will outperform a larger sensor 1080p only a6000 when it comes to detail when set wide.

a6300 4k is the answer then

And still it doesn't mean that a larger sensor 4k dslr will automatically have a sharper image set wide , put a cheap lens on it and it will also have less detail then a smaller sensor 4K camera. a larger sensor size does not automatically mean you will have more resolution.

That's going to be good news for all those feature film producers, knowing they can get sharper images when needing a wide shot if they use smaller sensors lol (so long as they don't use a crappy lens), Seriously though. All things being equal and with sufficient skill a bigger sensor will produce a sharper image with more dr etc

Like Noa I would use an AX100 for the wide safety shot as it will allow you to reframe & provide variety so the view doesn't look so static plus the image will be sharper & match better with your other cameras.

All things being equal and with sufficient skill a bigger sensor will produce a sharper image with more dr etc

Still not buying it, you cannot generally assume that a larger sensor automatically means more DR and a sharper image, there are more factors that determine that.
Why has the small sensor BM pocket cam more DR then most other camera's in it's range with a larger sensor? If bigger sensor gives such a sharp image, why does a full frame the 5DIII has a softer image then most other smaller sensor camera's?

You guys have reassured me somewhat.

Besides, I find it hard to spend £1300 on a camcorder for such a basic simple purpose.

Combine that with my previous difficulty in selling my CX730s for a reasonable price.

If I may explain my full setup:

A7sii in my hands normally
RX10ii on the couple
CX730 On the guests
Maybe the other CX730 on the wide of top table

I have my A7s on my gimbal, but I use this for the B&G room entrance and there's normally not enough time to remove it and implement it during the speeches.

I like the RX10ii on the couple - it means I don't have to pan back to them for reaction shots. Using a CX730 for the wide of the top table can be tricky though, as it is often backlit. Changing to manual exposure is always a risk for an unmanned camera - who knows if the light both indoor or outdoor might change over 45minutes.

I'm starting to wonder if I should bin the shot of the guest tables.


Another bit of info... i recently bought the Sony 18-105 f4 for my A7si. It is an aps-c lens, which then works out at 27-145mm (or something like that). I find it to be a great flexible reach for things like speeches and ceremony. The servo zoom is also helpful - nice and smooth.

At some point you may find you have to. Your other 2 cameras are 4K and I find 4K cameras deliver very good HD compared to HD only cameras. My GH3 and GH2 have the same issues. I too have a camera on the couple, you never know where a priceless reaction shot will happen. Did the Bride complain about that camera too - I thought the RX10ii delivered quite a good image. Your photo doesn't suggest the room was so dark to betray the cameras 1" sensor. Though perhaps the fullframe A7sii matches poorly with the smaller sensor cameras. There is a look to fullframe that even micro 4/3s can't really match let alone something smaller.

Interesting you don't have time to swap the camera off your gimbal; I've never had this trouble. True the Speeches can sometimes be starting as I'm placing my camera back on a tripod, but with other cameras on the table, its never a problem. I'd worry the battery lasting on my gimbal should the Speeches stretch on. Makes a loud beep when the battery gets too low, which would be a bit embarrassing.

They look good enough to me. Obviously the lighting on the guests' tables isn't as bright as the main table. Maybe it would be better to have your locked off camera (cx730) facing the guests? That would avoid the problems of a possible blown out window etc and would give you a more dynamic shot because you would see peoples reactions which is always interesting even if the shot is static. You already have the rx10 on the couple and the moving cam getting details.