Yes, finally found and bought a second hand pxw-z280 with low hours (48) in perfect condition for a great price.

I shoot mostly stage shows and want to use the Z280 for the close ups and my FX6 for the wide shots.

On the fx6 I selected : shooting mode custom, SDR mode and from the base look ITU709 (you have here also s-cinetone, standard and still)

on the Z280 I selected: SDR, gamma setting on, category STD 5 (R709)

Both were on WB5600K for this test.

I have no idea i selected the best matching color profile on both.
They didn't matched perfectly. The red is not matching good. more orange on the fx6. I did color matched them in post and this was the best result I got.

So any tips on this for a better match?

I think that is a pretty close match. Well done.

I shot a 3-camera pro bono stage performance earlier this year with my Z750, Z280, and FX6 and was also able to get a pretty close match using similar settings to yours. The fine-tune in post.

They didn't matched perfectly. The red is not matching good. more orange on the fx6. I did color matched them in post and this was the best result I got.

So any tips on this for a better match?

I have a suggestion which helps me out when mixing the Sony single chip S35 and FF cameras with the Sony three chippers. The Z280 tends to push a little to magenta compared to the FX6. But then most of the previous PMW series did as well. Of which the Z280 is a descendant of.

As a starter, go into the paint menu of the Z280 and look for the matrix menu and in there you will find a "phase" adjustment. If you want the reds on the Z280 to come closer to the reds on the FX6 adjust the Z280's phase to around -9. You will see the Z280s reds slowly move more towards the slightly orange reds of the FX6. Play around with that phase adjustment to get as close as you can. Ideally, it's best to do this on a switcher while using a vector scope, so that you can wipe between the two cameras on a monitor to see the adjustment. Failing this, shoot a number of clips at say -5, -6, -7, -8, -9 etc. up to maybe -12 and then compare them in your edit software to see which one comes closest to the FX6 reds.

Conversely, if you want the FX6 to come closer to the FX9 adjust the phase on the FX6 in the + direction. IMHO the reds on the FX6 are more accurate, so in the past I've always adjusted the three chippers to match the FS7, FX6 and FX9 cameras.

Chris Young

When I have more time I will try your tip Chris with the phase adjustment.

Yesterday I filmed outside with pxw-z280 a performance.

Shot this in UHD 25P. Shutter 1/50, variable nd, aperture manual at F1.9 and auto gain. The gain was mostly at zero db. Only at the end it went to 3db when it become darker outside.

But looking at the footage it is not that sharp. Autofocus was not always good (I used peaking) and everything was in red I thought.

-> SDR, gamma setting on, category STD 5 (R709)

Well, there are a number of things that could be going on. Here are some random thoughts, take them for whatever they are worth.

First, your paint menu settings for detail and aperture might be too low. All of my custom Scene Files have higher detail settings and different aperture values than the default settings. HD and 4K both have separate detail settings in the menus, which is great.

Colored peaking is inferior and less precise. You should be using Normal peaking if you really want to ensure sharp focus. Colored peaking is a prosumer camera feature and should never be used on a pro camera that offers Normal peaking.

AF on the Z280 is only reliable when you're using the Face Detect mode. Were there focus boxes around those two faces? If so, which one was the camera actually using for focus? Only one face can truly be in focus at any given time unless both faces are exactly the same distance from the camera. In this shot it looks like the man should have had priority over the woman. Did it?

If no Face Detect boxes were shown, then you're not using the right settings. AF on the Z280 can only be trusted for human faces. But in my experience, in that mode, it is infallible with the right menu settings. Almost Perfect.

Try stopping down to f/2.8 or even f/4. You don't need the shallowest DoF in a situation like this. You bought a used camera, right? Maybe then lens is not performing perfectly anymore. Stop down a little and see if it sharpens up.

I'd never use Auto ISO under any circumstances, but it probably has nothing to do with your sharpness problem. It seems odd that you're using variable ND and then allowing the camera to raise the ISO. Seems contradictory to have two settings fighting each other. If you want better results, exposure should be on full manual 100% of the time.

STD5 isn't appropriate for outdoor uncontrolled lighting. You should be using one of the HyperGammas.

When was the last time you adjusted the back focus?

3 Ways to Maximize Performance of the Sony PXW-Z280 on Vimeo

hey Doug,

Thx again for your time to answer my question. Yes, It was a second hand one with only +/- 45 hours on it.
I did not set up the back focus so far.

I didn't know about the normal peaking. I used it today for my test. It gives you a white color if I did it correct. To me the colored peaking are easier to see.

Yes I used the face detection prority mode.Mostly there was a box with a orange line underneath it and the other box was grey or white. Not sure about that color. I can't remember the man had priority over the woman.

I guess the STD5 was not a good idea to use outside. I didn't know about that.

I made a short video about my back focus test, sharpness test and the face detection.

sony pxw-z280 back focus test - YouTube

When zooming out for the back focus test my subject was not more in focus. Yes, I followed your tutorial and it was F2.8 and full manual focus.

So i wanna fix this back focus issue but I have no official chart. In your video you say: anything with high contrast and lots of detail will work. But I have no clue what that could be?

Google images for back focus chart and you will find numerous examples you can download and print. Here is an example: https://www.mediacollege.com/video/camera/focus/back-focus.html

I didn't know about the normal peaking. I used it today for my test. It gives you a white color if I did it correct. To me the colored peaking are easier to see.

That's what everyone says when they first see Normal Peaking (also called edge enhance peaking). Dial down the settings so you can barely seem them. It takes a trained eye to get use to it but you will never accept colored peaking once you get used to it. Some of the higher-end Sony ENG cameras do not even offer colored peaking because no experienced operator would ever use it. Trust me, disregard your initial reaction and use normla peaking until you get used to it. Nobody in any workshop I have ever taught ever wanted to go back to colored peaking.


I made a short video about my back focus test, sharpness test and the face detection.

In the test with the metal bird the back focus is way out of whack and needs immediate attention.


I guess the STD5 was not a good idea to use outside. I didn't know about that.

STD 5 is a 1990's era gamma with horrible dynamic range and easy clipping outdoors. In those olden days of STD5 Knee was used to try to bring it under control, but even then it still looked awful. When people say something has a "video" look, one of the main culprits is a bad gamma. The various HG gammas are a far better option on modern cameras.


So i wanna fix this back focus issue but I have no official chart. In your video you say: anything with high contrast and lots of detail will work. But I have no clue what that could be?

It literally could be any flat surface with lines and strong contrast. The bigger the better.
A small chart like Bill recommends might work, but I'd rather use a brick wall or a big poster on a wall or something like that instead of an "official" printed back focus chart that is only 8x11. Bigger is better. If it doesn't work the first time you can always try again with something else. You could also take the chart Bill linked to and display it on a big TV to make it many times larger. Done that before and it worked great.

thx for the help Bill and Doug!

Today I adjusted the back focus when displaying a focus chart on my tv.
I think it worked! Watching it on my tv it seems to stay all the time in focus.

So manually focused on the metal bird again.

back focus chart test - YouTube

This test was now with a hypergamma (HG2). Now I have to match a hypergamma with my FX6 for multicam.

difficult to match the hypergamma (HG2) with the FX6. the FX6 has 4 profiles. still, s-cinetone, ITU709 and standard.

In my test I could not decide which was closest to the Z280 hypergamma.

Any thoughts on this? Next weekend i have to shoot a stage show and want to use these 2.

I found this video:

Changing the FX6 Base Look using a LUT - YouTube

Still testing right now

after color match I got these results. still not perfect but close I think. It seems that the FX6 has a warmer color at the same 3200K white balance. So lowering to for example 3000K brings it more closely I think. (judging on the lcd monitor of camera)
Can this be true?

But the biggest problem I had with filming was the shutter speed! I think this more a general question.

I set my shutter on the Z280 on 1/50 because I film 25P. auto iso was mostly 0db gain but the diafragma went up to F8 sometimes! So I switched the shutter speed to 1/100. It reduced to F2.8 - F4 mosty.

When shutter was on 1/120 or 1/60 I got horizontal lines in the footage -> see example

I was affraid for loss in sharpness with F8 or higher. When I set the shutter on auto it sometimes dropped to 1/25 and I don't want that for motion blur.

So how do you guys do this? In the past I always filmed 50P and I think in that case the auto shutter won't go below 1/50. Not sure about this but I takes lots of space on my hard drive.

I would never use auto shutter on any video camera in any circumstances.
And if you live in a 50 Hz part of the world, you want to stick to shutter speeds that are multiples of 25. 1/60 and 1/120 are for 60 Hz area -- thus the horizontal lines you experienced.

thx for the answer Doug! Can you also answer my other questions?

I'm not sure what you are wondering about specifically. Ask again.

BTW, you can never match color on cameras by dialing-in the same color temperature number The numbers are virtually meaningless. You need to manually WB both camera on the same white target at the same time and location. For example, when I'm shooting a multi-cam stage events I have the facility give me "show" lighting and then I bring each camera to the stage and white balance them one at at time on the same white card. Even then there will be differences between different models/brands of cameras, but it gets them very close and usually a little adjustment in post is enough to get a pretty good match.

I always go for a preset. It's too difficult for me to white balance on stage.

So I asked now which lights there are using the most. In the 2 stage events I filmed this week
it was mostly 3200K and 4000K. It seems to work good when looking at the footage.

But the biggest problem I have is the shutter speed. I push direct menu and scroll to the shutter speed for manual control. It was on 1/100 (pal country here) and the diafragma was mostly between F2.8 and F6.

There was sometimes much less light (bethroom scene) so I scrolled the side wheel quicly to shutter 1/50
to avoid much of gain kicking in. My unmanned FX6 was on 1/50 in low base and there it mostly F2.8 - 4.5 when I sometimes checked it.

I read here somewhere on the forum that the Z280 can go quite soft when going above F4 aperture...

So how do you control this? I don't think I will have to use the variable nd for stage show?

I hope someone can help me out how to shoot indoor when switching manual shutter to control iris.
Outside no problem with the variable nd filter.

Had yesterday again a stage show. pxw-z280 settings: 25p, F2.8, 1/50 shutter, auto iso (but was mostly on 0 db) and turned on the variable nd filter the have the fixed F2.8. Otherwise the F stop would go beyond F4.

In darker scenes I have switched off quickly the nd filter.

It seems the Z280 is lacking some sharpness against the FX6. I had no control about my FX6 because it was on the side and I was standing between the audince with the Z280.

FX6 was also on 1/50 25p and auto F stop.

So is the lack of sharpness (what I may be telling myself) of of the choosen profile?

See attached images.

And a link to the test video from yesterday.

repelsteeltje test - YouTube

forget to mention. Also the autofocus (face priority) was not always flawless... I checked the backfocus the day before and there was no issue.

This is a bit long-winded, but I think it will go some way to explaining what you are experiencing.

This is a subject that comes up now and again, and it all really comes down to the physics of the sensor, the lens and the size of "Airy disc" created at any given aperture with regard to the actual pixel dimensions of the sensor involved.

I shoot with a number of cameras, FF, S35, APSC, 2/3" and 1/2". We are talking 1/2" cameras here, like the Z280 and comparing it to another 1/2" camera. The Z280's predecessor, the PMW-300. The Z280 is a 4K 4096 x 2160 camera that has pixel dimensions of 1.56µm. the PMW-300 is an HD 1920 x 1080 camera with pixel dimensions of 4.4µm.

Bear with me as this has relevance further down as to how, with reference to the previously mentioned "Airy disc". Now, how is our signal from the sensor measured out. The percentages are. Light Measure of brightness. The measured value of brightness; reflected light measured on motion picture screens as footlamberts or candelas per square meter.

The video luminance signal is formed by combining a proportion of 30% red, 59% green and 11% blue from the colour signal.

This combined output becomes the luminance (brightness/ monochrome) signal. It is written as Y. In TV usually derived from the RGB signals originating from a camera.

In 99% of cases when doing measurements in the video domain, most measurements are based off the green wavelength as it is the major component of the video signal. It is the Y, luminance signal in the YUV video signal.

If we measure the Airy disc size generated at F/2.8 on a theoretically perfect lens, we will see that the focus spot size is 3.55µm. This greatly exceed the size of the pixels on the Z280 sensor, which has a pixel dimension of 1.56µm. The result is the focus spot size is bigger than the target pixel. Therefore spills over onto the adjacent pixels. As this is happening all across the sensor, all focus spots tend to a degree blur into one another. No distinct boundary per pixel, therefore limiting both the resolution and very importantly the contrast of higher resolution smaller pixel sensors. Lower contrast makes things look less sharp. Look at the attached Airy disc size chart that is attached, read its summary in relationship to how the Airy disc size can surpass pixel size. Also attached is the sensor calculation chart for the Z280, demonstrating the size of each pixel at 1.56µm. Even shooting at F/2.0 on the Z280 we still have an Airy disc spot size of 2.54µm which is still 60% aver the Z280s pixel size of 1.56µm. Of course, shooting stage shows you generally need at least three meters DOF on the stage to allow for movement and an acceptable range of perceived sharpness in front and behind your critical focus point. Which you are struggling to do when shooting from the back on the long end of the lens to a theatre stage that is many meters away from the camera positions.

Now we come to the HD PMW-300 with its 1/2" sensors. Same size 1/2" sensors with the same dimensions as the Z280 but having an HD resolution of 1920 x 1080 only. Herein lies the difference. The pixel dimension on the PMW's 1/2" sensor is 4.4µm. So what does that tell us. That a lens at F/2.8 delivering a focus spot size 3.55µm is going to land nicely within the boundaries of the 4.4µm pixels. No bleeding over the edge onto the adjacent pixels. Therefore, not overpowering the resolution of the sensor or diminishing its contrast. Look at the attached graphic of the Airy disc impacts on pixel size for a visual understanding.

To sum up. I had a reasonable understanding of the principles outlined above because of my technical as well as shooting background in television. But the 100% confirmation for me was having it confirmed on a number of occasions when using said two cameras, the Z280 and a PMW-300 side by side on certain shoots, especially lower light shoots such concerts and stage shows. The 300 consistently delivered sharper, higher contrast images. In post, I've had to increase contrast and apply detail to the Z280 images to match the two cameras.

Hope this helps explain what is going on.

Chris Young

I think you're concentrating on the wrong things. Technically the image looks fine from both cameras. I personally would never us ND inside and most cameras are sharp enough up to F16. For simplicity sake I would only use the iris to control exposure. I'd also leave the camera in manual focus. This stage in particular is quite shallow and shouldn't need AF.

The main issue I see is your ability to smoothly pan and zoom. You're zoomed in too close. Most actors don't want to be shown that closely. You're missing the context by zooming in that much. If you zoom in to head and shoulders while actor is talking, you're missing the other actors reaction. If you are selling this to parents every time you zoom in that much you are excluding the other actors who their parents want to see. This is a stage performance not a movie. The video should give you the experience as if you attended the performance.

I would invest in a better tripod head because the camera movement isn't smooth and is distracting. The farther you zoom the hard it is to get smooth pans and tilts. To me the camera work of stage performances should be transparent complimenting whats going on not distracting. I would concentrate more on what is occurring on stage and less about your camera settings.

Pete. The problem with stopping down past F/5.6 on the Z280 brings on quite severe diffraction with a pronounced softening of the image. Seen it quite often even in bright daylight.

Why his FX6 looks way sharper is the fact that it has enormous pixels of about 8.36 µm, so absolutely no diffraction or Airy disc diffusion onto other pixels. Big light sensitive pixels that are pretty immune to diffraction until you get down below about F/11.0

Chris Young

thx Christopher you for long answer! I had to read it several times to understand it better.

But how do you shoot stage shows like this? If I leave it on auto shutter I will have horizontal lines (banding) in my image. Never of my previous camcorders (panasonic dvx200, sony NX3, sony FS100, canon XH-A1) had such banding (horizontal lines) when leaving it on auto shutter when shooting stage events.

For the stage show I had posted here my shutter was on 1/100 fixed but even then my F-stop was going above F4.

And always scrolling through the wheel to have other shutter speeds is not easy because it's not 1/50 multiply. You have 1/60 1/100 1/125 ... so several shutter speeds not "pal" based.

So I used the variable nd and a fixed shutter of 1/50 so my F-stop would stay at F2.8 I had chosen.
When it become to dark in some scenes I switched it off.

@Pete: the Z280 has normally great face autofocus so why would i go for manual focus?
I understand the not smooth pan and zoom but this was a quick test I made.

Pete. The problem with stopping down past F/5.6 on the Z280 brings on quite severe diffraction with a pronounced softening of the image. Seen it quite often even in bright daylight.

Why his FX6 looks way sharper is the fact that it has enormous pixels of about 8.36 µm, so absolutely no diffraction or Airy disc diffusion onto other pixels. Big light sensitive pixels that are pretty immune to diffraction until you get down below about F/11.0

Chris Young looked up the z280 and I stand corrected even at f16 this camera suffers from distraction. So for a bright performances using the lowest ND isn't a bad idea.

I just ran a test on my 2 camcorders
Panasonic X2 1" sensor doesn't show any appreciable sharpness difference in any aperture but it is limited to 3.5-11
JVC HM600 1/3" sensor has a much larger range of aperture 1.8 - 22. f22 awful, f16 soft but usable , f8 much better, 5.6-3.5 the sharpest, 1.8 a little softer like f8

Pete. The numbers you've just quoted for the various sensor sizes is pretty much in keeping with my experiences with similar sized sensors.

Chris Young.

@Pete: thx for testing this out with your camcorders!
@Christopher: so how do you shoot stage shows like this to avoid diffraction?

Here's a diffraction test I filmed this weekend. In confirms what Chris said small sensor cameras are susceptible to it while 1" cameras and larger are not.

JVC HM600 1/3"
JVC 600 Iris test (https://vimeo.com/951231876/7930c1e324?share=copy)

Panasonic CX350 1"
Panasonic CX350 Iris test (https://vimeo.com/951232107/24fe9b2cf1?share=copy)

@Pete: thx for testing this out with your camcorders!
@Christopher: so how do you shoot stage shows like this to avoid diffraction?

You have 3 options to reduce the exposure without using the iris above f5.6
1. ND
2. Higher Frame rate 60p/120fs (This will reduce the light by one stop)
3. Negative Gain. This camera can go down to -3db.

In my experience I've never filmed a stage event brighter f8 @ 0 gain. Using 2 & 3 would bring you below f5.6. Most performance aren't very bright but if you have any doubt ask the lighting guy to put on the brightest lights before the show to determine what you need to do to lower the exposure without going over f5.6. If it bothers that much I'd sell the Z280 and get a 1" camcorder they don't suffer from any diffraction at any aperture.

thx for the tips Pete. Never used the negative gain. will have a look at it.

Bothers me? it is just something I experience now with this camcorder. I wanted this camcorder already for years and finally bought like new second hand on a very good price last year.

I think I will keep it but a 1inch is a good alternative like you said.

I've used many camcorders and they all have different annoying issues. You usually only learn about them on a real job.

If it bothers that much I'd sell the Z280 and get a 1" camcorder they don't suffer from any diffraction at any aperture.

Not true. All cameras can suffer from diffraction problems at small apertures. I can even make it happen with my super35 and full-frame cameras. Furthermore, I guarantee that there is no 1" camera you can buy that will outperform the Z280.

Not true. All cameras can suffer from diffraction problems at small apertures. I can even make it happen with my super35 and full-frame cameras. Furthermore, I guarantee that there is no 1" camera you can buy that will outperform the Z280.
I have tangible proof that's not the case.
https://vimeo.com/951232107/24fe9b2cf1?share=copy

You said: get a 1" camcorder they don't suffer from any diffraction at any aperture.

I can speak from experience that the some 1" camcorders absolutely do suffer from distraction. You did not specify a specific model, so your statement is false because it paints all 1" camcorders with the same brush.

I've never tested the CX350 specifically for diffraction, but I was part of a shootout in 2019 that compared it head-to-head with the Sony Z280 and Z90 and other cameras for a MGM/Amazon sports/reality show that was shot a few months later in Fiji; and the CX350 was an inferior camera in almost every way. In fact, it was rejected even before all the testing was completed because of its poor performance in low light. I think that would be an important consideration for anybody who is shooting indoor stage performances. Dynamic range was also a problem with the CX350, and even in your test shot with rather flat light, we see the flowers are already blown out.

I'm not saying its impossible to shoot nice video with the CX350, but having used both cameras, I can say the Z280 is a far superior camera.

The fact that your camera seems sharper at f/11 raises some red flags. What was the camera focused on? I'm impressed by how well you matched exposures between the shots. Did you control exposure with shutter speed? If so, what speeds were used for each shot?

Pete, I've been unable to find out what is the minimum aperture of the CX350. Since you used f/11 in your tests, I'm going to assume that is the minimum. If so, why do you think Panasonic gave it that limitation? Most cameras and lenses, including the Z280, go to f/16 or f/22. If the CX350 is limited to f/11 (if that actually is the limit), do you think the reason could be to avoid diffraction?

f11 is the maximum aperture. It could very well be that they don't allow smaller aperture because it would suffer from diffraction. We will never know. Chris pointed out that the smaller sensors are more susceptible to diffraction. In the old days of photography the golden rule was 5.6 was the sharpest and either extreme would be softer. Although lenses can be design to be sharper wide open or closed down.

But I stand by what I said that the camera doesn't suffer from any diffraction. Btw, I don't care for how Panasonic set it up because there are no hard stops if you go over f11 the camera blacks out which is a very odd choice.

To maintain the exposure I change the shutter speed and maybe added an nd wide open then tweaked it in post.

finishing this project. hard time color matching these 2 camcorders.

It seems to me that using the variable nd filter inside has some color cast and makes the footage less sharp?

I attached 2 samples with before the nd and after the nd.

I was reading this online: On the other hand, with variable ND filters, the image and the colors suffer as we change their intensity. this is about the sony variable nd.

Tom, I'd be willing to take a closer look and offer you my forensic opinion. But I can only do that if you upload two matching 20 second MXF clips from both cameras. Hopefully you know how to extract 20 short segments using Catalyst Browse. If you do it right, the copies will be identical to the full-length clips in every way (except shorter) with all metadata and image quality intact. It is absolutely essential for anyone judging the clips to be looking at originals that have been downloaded, rather than some JPG stills posted on a forum.

If you don't want to, that is fine. But I'm making the offer.

hi Doug, thx for the help you are offering again.
But this 2 screenshots are both from the Z280 (not from me FX6) Sorry for the confusing.

I saw while editing I switched quickly on the nd on the z280 in this scene (the fx6 was unattended and without nd filter and I had no acces to it when the stage show started)

Now I saw (I tell myself) that the nd filter shows color shift and less sharpness in this scene.

Sorry Tom, you were clear about both shots being from the same camera. I muddle my reply.
My offer still stands, however. Send me the two clips from the Z280 and I'll give you my evaluation of them, and try to pinpoint why they are different.

You should never see any difference in image quality with the variable ND. Let's take a closer look.