RX100 video IQ impressive

Started Jul 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,129Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to marike6, Jul 18, 2012

"You obviously didn't read the EOSHD review I posted."

I had read it long before your posting. That site devotes itself to cameras with video, not to camcorders. The RX100 is superior in video to most DSLRs (an amazing accomplishment). The problem is all DSLRs are inferior in resolution and in having artifacts compared to camcorders. These guys don't know camcorders. For example, they don't know about quality power zooms (since no DSLRs have them) so they miss how bad the RX100 zoom capability is.

The videos are lovely. Experienced photographers can do wonders with any camera. I wish I had the time and skill to do those. Does not tell us squat about what the video would look like with a good camcorder in the hands of the same person, does it?

"I have a Canon VIXIA m41 and the video quality is OK but it's interlaced as opposed to 1080p60 from the RX100. And VIXIA image is full of aliasing issues which are not present in the RX100."

Right, interlaced is inferior, so how about comparing to a camcorder that shoots 108060p? This is an irrelevant comparison. No one said your Vixia was high quality; there are plenty of mediocre camcorders. Really?

" And full manual control is not just an advantage but a requirement for any serious video work. You need at least a GH2 or FS100 to get similar performance to the RX100."

I would prefer full manual control too. But it is not a requirement - btw, on a mid-level camcorder you have manual focus, manual wb, manual exposure. You cannot control shutter and gain (wish you could). oh, and you can control audio level - and you cannot with the RX100. The RX100 audio is lousy, with AGC pumping. I also care about resolution and aliasing and audio levels. People can choose which is important.

And yes, you get similar perfromance to the RX100 with the GH2, but because it too has aliiasing artifacts and lower resolution, compared to a mid-level camocrder (shooting 108060p). Oh, and the GH2 does not shoot at 108060p and it has really poor audio (no manual control).

" Consumer camcorders are convenient but most are terrible in low light with deep DOF making any subject to background separation impossible."

Most may be terrible, but not all. And deep dof is advantageous in a lot of situations. Shallow dof is a problem in many. Trade-offs again (did you forget that audio is 50% of video?).

"Anyway watch the video again and feel free to post a better sample from a consumer camcorder."

Thanks for the advice. Here's something for you:

Look at the reviews of the RX100 and the GW77, which have links on this page.

http://www.slashcam.de/

(you can select the English version). The English translation is not great, but the charts need no translation.

Look in particular at the resolution charts for both cameras. You will be astonished how bad the RX100 is. And how good the GW77 is (one example of a mid-level camcorder that is the size of the RX100).

Then come back and explain to me why you think the RX100 produces better video. The review, btw, agrees with your EOSHD review - the RX100 is better than most DSLRs; just much inferior to most Sony camcorders in today's line. Too bad EOSHD is unaware of camcorder performance, as are most people posting in this thread.

 Markr041's gear list:Markr041's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Canon EOS M Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow