new camcorder for amateur

[Dave Baker]

Originally Posted by Richard Bacevac

Do I understand it right that Sony would take better picture/video since Sony has 1" chip and for example Canon Vixia HF10 which has 1/3" chip?

Different, not better. A bigger sensor does not necessarily mean a better picture just because it is bigger. It depends on pixel size and processing as well. The lens too, of course.

As examples, a smaller chip with bigger pixels will perform better in low light than a larger chip with smaller pixels. It's easier to get a shallow depth-of-field with a larger sensor, but it's easier to stay in focus with a smaller sensor.

Dave

[Richard Bacevac]

Hello Dave, got it, thanks.
Si in general If I would be thinking between the RX100 M2 and camcorder like HF legria series in same
proce range, what would be best choice for best video quality?

One more question I am interested in. I saw many discussion about HDV vs. AVCHD. It is still preferable HDV for its better editing choice?

[Dave Baker]

Hi Richard,

There is an updated model, the RX100 M3, did you know?

I can't recommend either way. It depends on whether you plan to take stills with this camera, whether you will be happy taking video with a stills camera shape rather than a camcorder shape and whether you value shallow DoF over ease of focus.

Personally, I'd rather have to work for shallow DoF when required than have to work to get enough DoF for normal shots, which is most of the time and I prefer the ergonomics of the camcorder shape.

HDV is 1440 x 1080 and a bit out of date, AVCHD is up to 1920 x 1080 and can be edited perfectly well in any decent modern NLE, so there shouldn't be an issue there.

Dave

[Dave Blackhurst]

Richard -

HDV is "ancient" in HD terms, and tape based. AVCHD takes more horsepower to edit, but is "full" 1920x1080, including 60p, and more current technology. The RX100M3 actually adds a higher bitrate format (XAVCS) for higher quality video than you'll get from an AVCHD format, although for casual use, it's probably not a big deal.

As far as editing, you haven't said if your computer setup is as out of date as the cameras, but running a modern NLE and displaying/editing full HD will require a relatively "current" computer and should not be underestimated. You can get a nice new camera that shoots great high quality high bitrate video, and not be able to work with the files on an older computer. Moving from SD to HDV required a computer upgrade, and from HDV to AVCHD another upgrade... I just built a machine for 4K.... each time the bitrates and quality increase, more horsepower and a faster computer seem to end up on the buy list!


Dave is correct about whether you will be comfortable with shooting video with a small "stills" camera, although I've never found the RX100 to be awkward to use for video, and if I really need to I add a folding flash bracket for added stability - the small size and light weight make it pretty easy to hand hold for video.

Stills will be distinctly better from the RX100 than any small sensor video cam, and noticeably better than a small sensor P&S type cam. Just jumping from your existing SD video camera to an HD image will be HUGE. I prefer the larger sensor in general. You can probably find samples online to give you some idea as to quality expectations.

Ultimately you should ask the question of what camera will you be most likely to take with you - a "small" camcorder, an SLR size cam, or a "pocket" camera. For my use the RX100 is the most "handy" for casual use, and the most likely to be what I'll grab just to have a camera with me... the RX10 is more versatile, but more to lug along! I notice I took more pictures and video with the RX100 (before getting the RX10) just because I tended to take it everywhere...

[Richard Bacevac]

Thank you,
do you have some raw video file from RX II ?

One extra general question. What is the minimum chip size and MPx needed to really talk about full HD?
It is for example 1/4.85-inch chip and 3.28 MP is good ?