Sony 1" or Panasonic HC-X1000?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I'm looking for a future-proof (read: 4k) camera for my retirement days (which came earlier than expected due to my illness) - and am torn between the 2 options:

- a camera with large sensor (Sony AX100 or X70), unable of anything above 30p
- a camera with a smallish sensor (1/3.2"), less sensitive but capable of 50/60p - like the Panasonic HC-X1000

The first "teaser" clips from Panasonic on YT were not very spectacular, with a much softer and less detailed image that that coming from the little Sonys - moreover, ever since there is almost no discussion of the HC-X1000 on the fora. Does it mean that the image quality is really that bad? Please share your opinions - I'm tempted by the superb form factor, ergonomics, 3 lens rings of the Pana but of course wouldn't like to end up with a camera whose IQ is questionable! TIA

Piotr

[Andy Smith]

Yes I agree with you in that the Panasonic has a soft image compared to the AX100 for example.

[Paul Anderegg]

I heard the Panasonic crops the image smaller for HD.....you lose a lot of wide angle.

Paul

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Paul Anderegg

I heard the Panasonic crops the image smaller for HD.....you lose a lot of wide angle.

Paul

This is not what Panasonic people are saying (e.g. in the B&H product page video); 1080p is supposed to be obtained by "very clever" (as they put it) line addition or something to that effect...

But what matters for me is 4k IQ; I'm unable to shoot for production anymore (editing I will still be doing of course), so what I'm after is a cam for those "beauty shots" of architecture, landscape etc, edited with my own music.Something I have always been planning for retirement days...

There is another promising camera coming from Panasonic in September - the AG-DVX200 - which will ofer the best of the 2 worlds: larger sensor (4/3", though with a fixed lens), and better recording format choices (50/60p, 4k at 150 Mbps, etc.) Plus - as it's still planned as just an 8 bit, 4:2:0 camera - the price is supposed to be good (4-5k USD). But with the experience of not-quite-good IQ in the HC-X1000, I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile to wait.

BTW I have always been a Sony guy; is it normal for Panasonic that such a thoughtfully designed machine like the X1000 offers a sub-standard picture quality?!!

[Jack Zhang]

If you stand by the AX100, wait a little longer. The HXR-NX100 shows they're going the 1'' route for cameras. That new NXCAM has a digital doubler that doesn't lose resolution... Sounds like a 4K capable sensor straight from the AX100.

I would have no doubts we'll see a 4K 60p capable 1'' camera from Sony from IBC.

[Tom Grushka]

Then again, this is coming at the end of July:

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/pro...kmagicursamini

Just. Wow. 4K, interchangeable lenses, dual CF recorders, and XLR audio for $3K. Kind of puts my X70 to shame. Could it be overrated?

EDIT: Possibly even the $3K 4K model has GLOBAL SHUTTER. Damn.

[Ron Evans]

By the time you buy lens, batteries and CF cards it may be several times the cost of the X70 !!!

Ron Evans

[Mike Griffiths]

And you'll want a EVF at ? $1500?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Mike, please elaborate your post - is it a question for me?

Piotr

[Ron Evans]

Piotr,
I think for what you want to do the AX100 at the slower frame rate may not be a problem and it is not going to break the bank to buy and try. Will get you into playing with UHD and if something better comes out later in the year it will still have resale value.

Ron Evans

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Yes Ron - having checked as many pros and cons as I only could (searching the Internet for reviews, sample clips etc) - I also think that the AX100 is the best way for me to go.

BTW. Someone stated in this thread the Panasonic X1000 has the same (lower than the larger sensors cameras) PQ as the 1/2.3" Sonys (AX1 and Z100). Well - I would say, based on many clips I saw from the three small sensor 4k products - that the PQ is not the same among them at all; I'd rank them in this order (starting with the best PQ):

- JVC HM200
- Sony AX1/Z100
........................

- Panasonic X1000

Something is terribly wrong with the latter - e.g. grass or foliage looks worse than SD to me (and I'm not talking about the highly compressed YT clips, but one native cliip straight from the camera that I managed to find). Strange....

Piotr

[Mark Goodsell]

It'll be interesting to see what Canon does with their XA20 in terms of going 4k with them. I personally like their approach to these cameras and if you note what they are doing with some of their other new 4k camera sensors (larger), they might follow suite doing the same with the XA.. line, which means, a 1" or even larger sensor. Right now it's speculation. These are nice cams for portable situations. I really like their menu system and they provide some great features. But only 4:2:0 8 bit. So it all depends on what you need/want. Probably nothing until next year though.

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

I'm looking for a future-proof (read: 4k) camera for my retirement days (which came earlier than expected due to my illness) - and am torn between the 2 options:

- a camera with large sensor (Sony AX100 or X70), unable of anything above 30p
- a camera with a smallish sensor (1/3.2"), less sensitive but capable of 50/60p - like the Panasonic HC-X1000

The first "teaser" clips from Panasonic on YT were not very spectacular, with a much softer and less detailed image that that coming from the little Sonys - moreover, ever since there is almost no discussion of the HC-X1000 on the fora. Does it mean that the image quality is really that bad? Please share your opinions - I'm tempted by the superb form factor, ergonomics, 3 lens rings of the Pana but of course wouldn't like to end up with a camera whose IQ is questionable! TIA

Piotr

Panisonic typically only reads it's 4k cameras in a 1:1 pixel scan. They take about 8 megapixels for UHD/4k and make their image from that. So that's 4 million green, 2 million red and 2 million blue. (Roughly)

SONY's 1 inch type sensors in 16x9 for UHD use more than 16mp...so thats over 8 million green, 4 million red and 4 million blue. Sony's green channel alone is already full raster UHD.

So yeah, Sony's over sampling pays off in allot more detail.

I think that oversampling 16+ megapixels down to 8 for 4k is better than starting with just 8mp and taking the RGGB bebayer resolution loss

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

So yeah, Sony's over sampling pays off in allot more detail.

I think that oversampling 16+ megapixels down to 8 for 4k is better than starting with just 8mp and taking the RGGB bebayer resolution loss

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's not so much how many photosites there are in total as to how they're used. If you start with 8Mpixel (3840x2160, to be precise) it's relatively straightforward - normal deBayer, and that gives you a desired QFHD straightaway - no scaling.

But increase the number and it's not so simple to do it well - far more photosites to deBayer, and the resultant then will need downscaling to QFHD, and high quality downscaling is difficult to do well, certainly in real time with limited processing. Consequently, it's the norm to simplify - typically via some sort of binning process - to bring the workload down to manageable levels. The result is that starting with 8Mpixels will give the optimal result - don't forget that's the count as used in some very high end pro video cameras such as the F55 and the Varicam.

In the thread about the new Sony A7R II, I've speculated about what that be doing in full frame mode, as it is quoted to have 41 Mpixel. At first sight, it may be thought it will give even worse problems - even more pixels!! :-) - and need even more "binning"!

But look more closely at the numbers, and if you have EXACTLY 7680x4320, everything changes. If you take the photosites in 2x2 Bayer blocks (2 green, 1 red, 1 blue), it follows you have exactly 3840x2160 blocks. Hence each block can translate directly to a single output pixel for 4K, with the red, green, blue values being directly read. Practically, that theoretically means very high quality 4K *WITH SIMPLE PROCESSING* from a sensor which will also give very high quality stills resolution, and with no need to crop or compromise in other ways.

I have no idea if this camera is actually doing this, but with this photosite count (*) it must be seen as highly likely. Point is that it's not a case of "more is better than less" - it's a case of how they are read, and that certain exact numbers become geometrically important.

(*) - the number 7680x4320 is for a 16:9 frame. Since for stills use it will be 3:2 (vertically cropped for video) that would imply a total count for the 3:2 frame of 7680x5120 - just under 40Mpixel. The A7R II is quoted as having max resolution of 7952x5304 - so would only need a linear crop of just over 3% to get to the "magic" number.

[Cliff Totten]

Sony states on all their 1 inch-type sensor cameras that they don't "line skip" or pixel bin in UHD video. The A7s supposedly does not line skip or pixel bin either.

How Sony scales down a heavily over sampled image? I have no idea. In fact, I suspect only a handful of Sony engineers know that exact math on this trick. That is part of the Sony "secret sauce".

The A7s uses 10 mega pixels and samples down to 8mp for UHD so that is a "mild" over sample. The Fs7, F5/F55 and FS700 uses 13+MP. Again, not too crazy. The AX100 and other 1 inch-type models use almost 17mp to start with and scale down. So, that's close to a 2X over sample (2:1) as opposed to Panny's 1:1.

Just about everybody I have talked to agrees that Panasonic's 1:1 read out looks OK but lacks the eye popping detail that Sony's over sample gives you. Panasonic will moire less in the high frequency details (because there are less details) And,..Sony will moire more often (Because it has more high frequency detail)

I guess the proof is in the pudding. An A/B camera comparison most of the time reveals it.