Super 35mm Exmor Sensor

[Johnnie Caraballo]

Does the NX5U have a 35mm Exmor sensor?
If not does anyone happen to know how large the senior is?

I'm guessing 26mm x ??mm

I tried to Google but no help.

Thanks.

[Nate Haustein]

Via B&H: Image Device 1/3" ClearVid 3CMOS with ExmorTM Technology 1.04 MegaPixels Each, should be same as your AX-2000.

Unless you're talking about the NEX-5 camera from Sony (E-Mount APS-C)...but that's not really a video camera.

[Johnnie Caraballo]

Yeah I saw that but what size sensor would that be?

I ask because my Mom is looking to pre order the New Sony 77
It's not a Full Frame 35mm camera. It uses a slightly smaller Exmor Sensor.

She loves my low light footage and we were both wondering if the NX5U/AX2000 might just state that same sensor

[Chris Medico]

The link below has some images to show the relative size differences.

This should help you visualize it a bit better.

James Tauber : Sensor Sizes

[Dave Blackhurst]

Completely different sensor and much different size - the NEX series cameras are APS-C, a fairly large sensor when compared to what's in most of Sonys handycam lines.

It's a little early to tell how the A77 will be for low light, but so far the NEX5n (16mpix APS-C vs. 24mpix APS-C) seems pretty good.

From my experience, the still cams with video capability are both dependent on what lens you mount, and don't do the same magic that say a XR/CX series handycam does to pull off low light performance. HOWEVER... they do a lot of things for stills that improve low light shots with special modes.

[Nate Haustein]

Ok, you made me curious, so here's a more specific answer:

Sony NEX-5N: 23.4 x 15.6 mm Exmor APS HD CMOS Sensor, 16.1 million effective pixels
Sony SLT-A77: APS-C "Exmor" HD CMOS 23.5 x 15.6 mm, 24.7 million total pixels
Sony AX-2000 Camcorder: 4.8 x 3.6mm, 1.04 thousand pixels each x3

Looking at surface area, the still camera sensors have 21 times the light-gathering surface area of your video camera. It's apples to oranges, but I think that with a fast lens, i.e. F2.8 or better, you can safely expect fantastic low light performance from the A77 on par or better than the AX-2000/NX5U. So yes, the A77 should be pretty cool.

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Nate Haustein

Sony AX-2000 Camcorder: 4.8 x 3.6mm, 1.04 thousand pixels each x3

Surely you mean 1.04 million pixels, eacg x3.

Also, the 21 time the light sensing area is not really relevant unless the cameras use all the cells for creating the video image. Most cameras using high resolution stills sensors to capture video use flawed pixel-skipping techniques that:

a) use a fraction of the total sensing area
and
b) create significant moire and sampling artifacts, that severely impair the final picture quality particularly is any re-rendering takes place.

Large sensors are not all they are cracked up to be.

Steve

[Nate Haustein]

Thanks for correcting me, Steve, its late and I shouldn't over-generalize things. Resolution clearly isn't a problem for any of the cameras shooting in 1080p, and 21 times larger doesn't necessarily mean 21 times better - but it certainly makes a difference.

Your points are all valid. Some DSLRs do have some difficult caveats that I deal with myself on a daily basis. Though saying that most large sensor stills cameras are prone to issues doesn't take into account some very real advantages, one of those being (fairly) clean low-light performance. I'm not certain on the pixel-skipping specifics on the A77, but in my experience using Canon and Panasonic Full-Frame, APS-C and Micro 4/3 sensors, low-light results have been of substantially higher quality than any 1/3"or 1/2" camcorder I've ever used. Judging from recent reviews and videos of the Sony Alpha series, they really do put out a nice image in low light. Sony even claims to remedy some of those earlier issues.

As per the OP's question, there's no reason why the Alpha shouldn't meet or exceed the AX-2000's image quality in most low light occasions, and prove to be a nice multipurpose camera for his mother. I lose sleep over moire and aliasing in my video - but for me, the benefits of a large sensor, not to mention the market demand, make up their shortfalls.

[Johnnie Caraballo]

Thank you for everyones feedback : )

[Johnnie Caraballo]

Nate,

So are you saying that the A77 could actually perform and shoot 1080 24p better than my AX2000?

[Nate Haustein]

Johnnie,

I don't own the A77, or any Sony DSLR stills camera, but judging from comparisons based on a multitude of DSLR footage vs 1/3" video camera footage, your image should be very nice at 1080p24 indeed. One of the things that draws people to the DLSR cameras is the low-light capability and shallow depth of field. What they give up is versatility.

Your AX-2000 is a dedicated video camera, and has features that make capturing video and audio much easier. The A77 is primarily a stills camera that shoots video. It will produce great images, but it's a quite different beast when it comes to handling ease. If you're prepared to make the compromise in usability, the A77 could shoot some neat looking video. It's all about selecting the right tool for the job. Me? I use both.

[Gabe Strong]

Or if you are prepared to spend more money, you go with the FS 100.
Then you get the large sensor, PLUS it is a camera built for motion, not
stills, which means the moire and aliasing are almost non existent.
Of course, it cost $4999 for the body only, so you have to decide what
your budget it.