[sony 170] questions before buying... at DVinfo.net

Marco Mezzalana · April 2nd, 2005, 10:33 AM

Hi to everybody,
I've a mx500, but I would upgrade to a 170 to shoot wedding.
Today I meet a friends that have one, so I can make some test, and here the opinions about this test:

1. My mx500 reach f16 in iris range, it is useful when you are in a very bright eviroment, but the 170 only reach f11. Ok It has 2 nd filter, but in daylight it could be necessary an iris closer...

2. In daylight I didn't found a lot of difference between 170 image and mx500...If you take a fast look you can't see the difference in my opinion

3.In the lowlight the 170 is obviously bettere, but...hmm reading the forum I expected better...

Ok what do you think?someone could show me some frame about night shooting?In you opinion can this camera be used for shooting little film?

thanks

Marco

Shawn Mielke · April 2nd, 2005, 10:57 PM

Stick with the cam that you have if you feel the 170 is hardly an improvement over it, and/or get hands-on experience to help clarify and/or verify. There isn't much we can do from over here, although most of us ARE convinced that the 170 IS an improvement over just about any cam with chips smaller than 1/3". Chances are you will gain several stops more light sensitivity and a cleaner Gain.
You will also look more pro while shooting, which may or may not matter, depending on what you do. Also, if you're making films and not lighting them properly, then it really doesn't matter what camera you shoot on, as it will probably end up looking poor and amateurish anyway.

Mike Rehmus · April 3rd, 2005, 01:22 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Marco Mezzalana : Hi to everybody,
I've a mx500, but I would upgrade to a 170 to shoot wedding.
Today I meet a friends that have one, so I can make some test, and here the opinions about this test:

1. My mx500 reach f16 in iris range, it is useful when you are in a very bright eviroment, but the 170 only reach f11. Ok It has 2 nd filter, but in daylight it could be necessary an iris closer...

-------------------
No, the ND filter is adequate and a better solution as lens performance falls off as you get to the small aperatures.
-----------------------------

2. In daylight I didn't found a lot of difference between 170 image and mx500...If you take a fast look you can't see the difference in my opinion

---------------------------------
In good light, unless you know specifically what to look for, you won't see a lot of difference. But then most cameras manage to look pretty good in good shooting conditions.
--------------------------------

3.In the lowlight the 170 is obviously bettere, but...hmm reading the forum I expected better...
-------------------------------
Better in low light or better overall? If your opinion is that the 170 is just marginally better, then you just haven't yet had to bring home good video in less than perfect conditions. And there is the matter of controls and sound which you need to investigate too.
-------------------------------

Ok what do you think?someone could show me some frame about night shooting?In you opinion can this camera be used for shooting little film?

------------------------------------
The camera and its siblings have been used to shoot movies, and a lot of broadcast footage. Do a search on this forum for more information on that.
------------------------------------

thanks

Marco -->>>

Tom Hardwick · April 3rd, 2005, 03:27 AM

Your MX500 may well claim to shoot at f16, and even on replay it'll say the shot was taken at f16, but I assure you that it wasn't so, Marco. The Panasonic (like nearly all camcorders that don't have external switching ND filters) use internal and automatic ND filtration, so when your camcorder says f16 it really means the shot was taken at f5.6 using two internal ND filters.

The PD170 is miles better than the MX500 in poor light - many stops better. You're right though - in good light the Panasonic gives startlingly good results, but come the middle of the afternoon and it gives up, piling on the gain and ruining the colour and smoothness of the image.

If you want to shoot weddings the 170 really is the camera to have. Not only can you plug in proper XLR microphones (so important) but it'll continue shooting when a movie light would be a ghastly no-no.

tom.

Marco Mezzalana · April 3rd, 2005, 05:29 AM

ok folks,
thanks to all for the replies...

very very useful...

Marco Mezzalana · April 3rd, 2005, 06:37 AM

ok I've post in an italian forum a post with fram confrotation between mx500 e sony 170...ther's deinterlace e jpg problems, but you can see the difference (in video ther's less difference...)

another questions: in 170 if I want to see mic level the camera display them in almost visible area of lcd, so it became difficult to see the image...is this normal? Can I check the mic level without covering all the image?

The optical stabilzer is switchable only eith menu, I found this not very confortable...what do you think?

here ther's italian forum confrontation

http://www.videomakers.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=40991#40991

Peter Jefferson · April 3rd, 2005, 11:01 AM

the PD poo poos on the MX.. easily.. and you really cant comapre the 2 cameras as one is prosumer while the other is consumer..

the PD allows for more cuadio control however teh MX layout is brilliant, in good light, you can get some really REALLY incredible shots, but once u go inside, forget it, the tiny 1/6th ccd of the MX just cant handle it.
I still use my MX500 for stills during weddings, as well as taking some candids.. like a disposable camera, i keep it around my neck while im filming weddings. It serves as a great back up, but it does not compare to a VX, PD, DVX, XL... it cant compare simply beaucse it wasnt designed to.
Sure enough you can get some footage which will even blow away a 1/3 cam, Hell, with a GS400, you will poo ur pants when its set correctly.. i kid you not.. theyre that good..
but this is in extreme conditions where these camera are at their element. (ie extremely well lit locations, on a tripod, running 16:9, with light hitting the subject head on.)

the beauty of the MX and GS is its native full screen 16:9 and frame modes, which the PD and DVX dont even have.

Marco Mezzalana · April 3rd, 2005, 12:35 PM

How can use mic level without the indicator hidden the image?

Another question, I put all in manual (I think) when I turn on zebra I do some shoot...but I found a sort of real time correction...for example If I look the ground, the sky is overexposed with zebra , but if I pan vertically the sky became exposed correctly...
with the 2 nd filter and f11, the sky was overexposed!But I f I would record a blue sky at 12am I can't?With the iris I can't go closer...and I don't want increase the shutter, so?

Don Bloom · April 3rd, 2005, 03:33 PM

First-the audio indicators.
They only hise a small amount of the lower portion and with the framing lines there, you shouldn't have any problem with framing unless you're shooting something extremely tight. You can still tell where the lower framing line is even with the audio indicator showing.

As for the exposure, it sounds like not everything is in manual mode. ALL of the controls need to be set to manual. Shutter,white balance, iris and gain. Then you have total control of the camera.

HTHs
Don

Mike Rehmus · April 3rd, 2005, 05:19 PM

Unless you have zebra set to 100%, blue sky should show a lot of the zebra pattern.

Blue sky, green grass are all at about 70%.

Marco Mezzalana · April 4th, 2005, 12:24 AM

Uh, So I've to put zebra to 100% to see the correct exposure, I didnt know this!
I remeber that I put shutter, iris and focus in manual...set gain to 0 db...maybe wb was preset;
I don't know why this automatic adjustement...
What I don't understand is the 170 seems too bright!At 15.00am in a sunny day, I was at overexposure limit and I can't close the iris more...even with the 2 nd filter the image was very very bright; if I need to shoot for example the sun glare on the water, I can't because the iris is too much open, what's wrong?

Don Bloom · April 4th, 2005, 05:38 AM

Marco,
Unless you are shooting the sun OR you have your shutter set to 1/8 or something else like that, shooting outside with the 170 should not be overexposed. I've done hundreds of hours outside in all conditions including shooting back into the sun and by simply adjusting the shutter speed and using the proper ND filter (one of 2 built into the camera) I have not had an overexposure problem as you have described.
Frankly in my opinion, I think the 150/170 is conservative in its exposure meaning I fee it has a tendency to UNDERexpose but thats just the way I see it.
Marco, either we are not "getting" exactly what you are saying or you are getting getting what proper exposure is or something.
Perhaps you could re-explain the problem again but detail out EVERYTHING you are shootung and how the camera is set up.

Don

Marco Mezzalana · April 4th, 2005, 07:21 AM

I'm sorry,
I'm newbye and my "problem" descriptions, was very poor and simple...pardon me!
I must confess it was the first time I use this wonderful camera.
I think there was some controls not setted in the right way.

this image for example
http://digilander.libero.it/marcomesa/170.jpg

the 170 settings was:
2 nd filter
iris f11
shutter 1/50

The image is ok,but at the first look I had no idea how to get a darker image. In my opinion only with a faster shutter I could get a darker image...I understand this is silly questions, please forgive me!

Don Bloom · April 4th, 2005, 08:40 AM

Marco,
Although it is difficult to se the proper exposure on the computer screen and should really be seen on a production monitor, I don't see any overexposure at all. Frankly it looks a bit dark or under exposed but that might just be my monitor.

Heres a quick way to tell if the image is proprerly exposed, at least as far as the camera is comcerned. Set your white balance, set your gain, set your shutter speed. Set the iris to AUTO let it pick up the exposure THEN push the iris button to see what the iris is set for. You can then adjust the iris to your own taste manually.

There is another thing to consider as well and that is if you are using the LCD screen it might not be set properly. It's possible that the brightness of the LCD screen needs to be adjusted.

Frankly the image that you posted looked pretty good.

Don B

Marco Mezzalana · April 5th, 2005, 12:32 AM

ok guys,
thanks for the suggest, very useful...
I'll do other test to understand how this camera work.

thanks very much!

April 2nd, 2005, 10:33 AM	#1
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	[sony 170] questions before buying... Hi to everybody, I've a mx500, but I would upgrade to a 170 to shoot wedding. Today I meet a friends that have one, so I can make some test, and here the opinions about this test: 1. My mx500 reach f16 in iris range, it is useful when you are in a very bright eviroment, but the 170 only reach f11. Ok It has 2 nd filter, but in daylight it could be necessary an iris closer... 2. In daylight I didn't found a lot of difference between 170 image and mx500...If you take a fast look you can't see the difference in my opinion 3.In the lowlight the 170 is obviously bettere, but...hmm reading the forum I expected better... Ok what do you think?someone could show me some frame about night shooting?In you opinion can this camera be used for shooting little film? thanks Marco

April 2nd, 2005, 10:57 PM	#2
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Stick with the cam that you have if you feel the 170 is hardly an improvement over it, and/or get hands-on experience to help clarify and/or verify. There isn't much we can do from over here, although most of us ARE convinced that the 170 IS an improvement over just about any cam with chips smaller than 1/3". Chances are you will gain several stops more light sensitivity and a cleaner Gain. You will also look more pro while shooting, which may or may not matter, depending on what you do. Also, if you're making films and not lighting them properly, then it really doesn't matter what camera you shoot on, as it will probably end up looking poor and amateurish anyway. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

April 3rd, 2005, 01:22 AM	#3
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Re: [sony 170] questions before buying... <<<-- Originally posted by Marco Mezzalana : Hi to everybody, I've a mx500, but I would upgrade to a 170 to shoot wedding. Today I meet a friends that have one, so I can make some test, and here the opinions about this test: 1. My mx500 reach f16 in iris range, it is useful when you are in a very bright eviroment, but the 170 only reach f11. Ok It has 2 nd filter, but in daylight it could be necessary an iris closer... ------------------- No, the ND filter is adequate and a better solution as lens performance falls off as you get to the small aperatures. ----------------------------- 2. In daylight I didn't found a lot of difference between 170 image and mx500...If you take a fast look you can't see the difference in my opinion --------------------------------- In good light, unless you know specifically what to look for, you won't see a lot of difference. But then most cameras manage to look pretty good in good shooting conditions. -------------------------------- 3.In the lowlight the 170 is obviously bettere, but...hmm reading the forum I expected better... ------------------------------- Better in low light or better overall? If your opinion is that the 170 is just marginally better, then you just haven't yet had to bring home good video in less than perfect conditions. And there is the matter of controls and sound which you need to investigate too. ------------------------------- Ok what do you think?someone could show me some frame about night shooting?In you opinion can this camera be used for shooting little film? ------------------------------------ The camera and its siblings have been used to shoot movies, and a lot of broadcast footage. Do a search on this forum for more information on that. ------------------------------------ thanks Marco -->>> __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 3rd, 2005, 05:19 PM	#10
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Unless you have zebra set to 100%, blue sky should show a lot of the zebra pattern. Blue sky, green grass are all at about 70%. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 3rd, 2005, 03:27 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Your MX500 may well claim to shoot at f16, and even on replay it'll say the shot was taken at f16, but I assure you that it wasn't so, Marco. The Panasonic (like nearly all camcorders that don't have external switching ND filters) use internal and automatic ND filtration, so when your camcorder says f16 it really means the shot was taken at f5.6 using two internal ND filters. The PD170 is miles better than the MX500 in poor light - many stops better. You're right though - in good light the Panasonic gives startlingly good results, but come the middle of the afternoon and it gives up, piling on the gain and ruining the colour and smoothness of the image. If you want to shoot weddings the 170 really is the camera to have. Not only can you plug in proper XLR microphones (so important) but it'll continue shooting when a movie light would be a ghastly no-no. tom.

April 3rd, 2005, 05:29 AM	#5
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	ok folks, thanks to all for the replies... very very useful...

April 3rd, 2005, 06:37 AM	#6
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	ok I've post in an italian forum a post with fram confrotation between mx500 e sony 170...ther's deinterlace e jpg problems, but you can see the difference (in video ther's less difference...) another questions: in 170 if I want to see mic level the camera display them in almost visible area of lcd, so it became difficult to see the image...is this normal? Can I check the mic level without covering all the image? The optical stabilzer is switchable only eith menu, I found this not very confortable...what do you think? here ther's italian forum confrontation http://www.videomakers.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=40991#40991

April 3rd, 2005, 11:01 AM	#7
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	the PD poo poos on the MX.. easily.. and you really cant comapre the 2 cameras as one is prosumer while the other is consumer.. the PD allows for more cuadio control however teh MX layout is brilliant, in good light, you can get some really REALLY incredible shots, but once u go inside, forget it, the tiny 1/6th ccd of the MX just cant handle it. I still use my MX500 for stills during weddings, as well as taking some candids.. like a disposable camera, i keep it around my neck while im filming weddings. It serves as a great back up, but it does not compare to a VX, PD, DVX, XL... it cant compare simply beaucse it wasnt designed to. Sure enough you can get some footage which will even blow away a 1/3 cam, Hell, with a GS400, you will poo ur pants when its set correctly.. i kid you not.. theyre that good.. but this is in extreme conditions where these camera are at their element. (ie extremely well lit locations, on a tripod, running 16:9, with light hitting the subject head on.) the beauty of the MX and GS is its native full screen 16:9 and frame modes, which the PD and DVX dont even have.

April 3rd, 2005, 12:35 PM	#8
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	How can use mic level without the indicator hidden the image? Another question, I put all in manual (I think) when I turn on zebra I do some shoot...but I found a sort of real time correction...for example If I look the ground, the sky is overexposed with zebra , but if I pan vertically the sky became exposed correctly... with the 2 nd filter and f11, the sky was overexposed!But I f I would record a blue sky at 12am I can't?With the iris I can't go closer...and I don't want increase the shutter, so?

April 3rd, 2005, 03:33 PM	#9
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	First-the audio indicators. They only hise a small amount of the lower portion and with the framing lines there, you shouldn't have any problem with framing unless you're shooting something extremely tight. You can still tell where the lower framing line is even with the audio indicator showing. As for the exposure, it sounds like not everything is in manual mode. ALL of the controls need to be set to manual. Shutter,white balance, iris and gain. Then you have total control of the camera. HTHs Don

April 4th, 2005, 12:24 AM	#11
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	Uh, So I've to put zebra to 100% to see the correct exposure, I didnt know this! I remeber that I put shutter, iris and focus in manual...set gain to 0 db...maybe wb was preset; I don't know why this automatic adjustement... What I don't understand is the 170 seems too bright!At 15.00am in a sunny day, I was at overexposure limit and I can't close the iris more...even with the 2 nd filter the image was very very bright; if I need to shoot for example the sun glare on the water, I can't because the iris is too much open, what's wrong?

April 4th, 2005, 05:38 AM	#12
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Marco, Unless you are shooting the sun OR you have your shutter set to 1/8 or something else like that, shooting outside with the 170 should not be overexposed. I've done hundreds of hours outside in all conditions including shooting back into the sun and by simply adjusting the shutter speed and using the proper ND filter (one of 2 built into the camera) I have not had an overexposure problem as you have described. Frankly in my opinion, I think the 150/170 is conservative in its exposure meaning I fee it has a tendency to UNDERexpose but thats just the way I see it. Marco, either we are not "getting" exactly what you are saying or you are getting getting what proper exposure is or something. Perhaps you could re-explain the problem again but detail out EVERYTHING you are shootung and how the camera is set up. Don

April 4th, 2005, 07:21 AM	#13
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	I'm sorry, I'm newbye and my "problem" descriptions, was very poor and simple...pardon me! I must confess it was the first time I use this wonderful camera. I think there was some controls not setted in the right way. this image for example http://digilander.libero.it/marcomesa/170.jpg the 170 settings was: 2 nd filter iris f11 shutter 1/50 The image is ok,but at the first look I had no idea how to get a darker image. In my opinion only with a faster shutter I could get a darker image...I understand this is silly questions, please forgive me!

April 4th, 2005, 08:40 AM	#14
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Marco, Although it is difficult to se the proper exposure on the computer screen and should really be seen on a production monitor, I don't see any overexposure at all. Frankly it looks a bit dark or under exposed but that might just be my monitor. Heres a quick way to tell if the image is proprerly exposed, at least as far as the camera is comcerned. Set your white balance, set your gain, set your shutter speed. Set the iris to AUTO let it pick up the exposure THEN push the iris button to see what the iris is set for. You can then adjust the iris to your own taste manually. There is another thing to consider as well and that is if you are using the LCD screen it might not be set properly. It's possible that the brightness of the LCD screen needs to be adjusted. Frankly the image that you posted looked pretty good. Don B

April 5th, 2005, 12:32 AM	#15
Marco Mezzalana Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 85	ok guys, thanks for the suggest, very useful... I'll do other test to understand how this camera work. thanks very much!