RX100 video IQ impressive

Started Jul 16, 2012 | Discussions
perfeet
Junior MemberPosts: 36
Like?
Re: A Moot Point
In reply to Stephen McDonald, Jul 17, 2012

Stephen McDonald wrote:

Since almost all digital cameras record video, they are also camcorders. Inescapably, this also becomes a video forum as well as a camera forum (and more so as time goes on). Comparisons with video-oriented camcorders are useful and valid. Many of them can also shoot excellent photos. The two types are becoming more similar and are gradually merging. There's a few D-SLR cameras, such as the Canon C300, that are primarily for video. Photo-only purists just have to grin and bear that truth.

Canon C300 cost over 16.000$....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Oelph
Contributing MemberPosts: 621
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive compared to most still camera videos
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

The guys over at EOSHD seem to think its good enough to intercut with Canon 5D footage. From a pocketable compact who's video is probably going to be used for home movies then I think it's plenty good enough.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review
http://vimeo.com/45682834

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive compared to most still camera videos
In reply to Oelph, Jul 17, 2012

"The guys over at EOSHD seem to think its good enough to intercut with Canon 5D footage. From a pocketable compact who's video is probably going to be used for home movies then I think it's plenty good enough."

First, it is plenty good enough for most.

But the reason the RX100 clips can be intercut with the Canon video clips is that the Canon video is also relatively low resolution and artifact-laden compared with camcorders, just like the RX100. You could not intercut footage with a Panasonic TM900 because its superior sharpness and moire-free clips would be quite conspicuous. According to tests the RX100 video is actually a bit better than that of Canon DSLRs (but they have superior glass to choose from).

 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
javafool
Regular MemberPosts: 349Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to shawnfb, Jul 17, 2012

Obviously a small camera with a reasonable grip. If you don't want one, don't buy one. Why post a trolling remark like that ????????????????????

shawnfb wrote:

seriously... ? want a grip??? hold your DSLR.. want a pocketable camera? use an RX100.. what do you want?????????????????????????????????

-- hide signature --

shawn

-- hide signature --

E-620 & E-30 DSLRs, E-P3 & OM-D E-M5, Canon S95 & SD4000 P&S

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter v.d Werf
Contributing MemberPosts: 657
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to shawnfb, Jul 17, 2012

shawnfb wrote:

seriously... ? want a grip??? hold your DSLR.. want a pocketable camera? use an RX100.. what do you want?????????????????????????????????

What a strange and sniping way of responding to a completely normal remark. But maybe it's your lack of knowledge about the grips Richard Franiec makes for small camera's.. I got them for a S90, S95 and will order one for a RX100 when available.

Doesn't size up the camera but these small grips make it a lot better to hold.

Oh yeah; Just a hint, but your Shift+? combo seems to be stuck..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Peter v.d Werf
Contributing MemberPosts: 657
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

I agree with everyone it is amazing to get good video in a small package, but this is also acomplished in just-as-small video cameras, with higher quality.

Can you point me to any types of camcorders you refer to as having better 1080p/50fps video quality then this cam but in the same small package? Just curious as I'd be very interested.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
RX100 video IQ impressive, but not as impressive as a small camcorder
In reply to Peter v.d Werf, Jul 17, 2012

"Can you point me to any types of camcorders you refer to as having better 1080p/50fps video quality then this cam but in the same small package? Just curious as I'd be very interested."

Absolutely - the Sony HDR-GW77V. It came out at the exact same time as the RX100.

Its videos are stunning. Same great stabilization system as the RX100, but with a 10X optical zoom.

Here is a link to my thread on the camcorder:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1419847/sony-hdr-gw77-waterproof-dustproof-shockproof-small-hd-camcorder

There are videos to watch and download (there will be more), frame grabs and even a still (no one is arguing its stills are equal to the RX100!).

I have compared its videos directly to those of the Sony NEX-5N, which I own, and the small camcorder videos are much sharper and better.

Here is a link to what the camera looks like and the specs:

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666458540

 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
RicksAstro
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,370Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive compared to most still camera videos
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

"The guys over at EOSHD seem to think its good enough to intercut with Canon 5D footage. From a pocketable compact who's video is probably going to be used for home movies then I think it's plenty good enough."

First, it is plenty good enough for most.

But the reason the RX100 clips can be intercut with the Canon video clips is that the Canon video is also relatively low resolution and artifact-laden compared with camcorders, just like the RX100. You could not intercut footage with a Panasonic TM900 because its superior sharpness and moire-free clips would be quite conspicuous. According to tests the RX100 video is actually a bit better than that of Canon DSLRs (but they have superior glass to choose from).

Given Canon DSLRs are currently used for some TV and movie production, if the RX100 is better (and it is based on my using both), I think we can safely say that differences between it and the best video cameras are inconsequential when compared with most other aspects (lighting, composition, story telling) and certainly good enough for home movies.

I've owned a TM700, and was disappointed in the lens...contrast wasn't very good especially at the tele end. Video was exquisite, but let down a little by optics. And the still capability was pathetic, so I ended up never taking it with me. The GH2 was far preferable for my use due to the better optics and equally excellent video. But this was from a tech geek perspective. Both far exceeded my skill level.

So, yes, you can argue that a video camera is "better" then an RX100 just like you can argue that a Ferrari is better than a Lexus, but in the end, both get the job done efficiently and pleasantly if I'm not trying to race.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rob Vermaas
Contributing MemberPosts: 931Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive, but not as impressive as a small camcorder
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

There is a separate forum for your off topic quiblings.....
It's called Digital Video Talk

 Rob Vermaas's gear list:Rob Vermaas's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony a77 II Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive compared to most still camera videos
In reply to RicksAstro, Jul 17, 2012

"Given Canon DSLRs are currently used for some TV and movie production, if the RX100 is better (and it is based on my using both), I think we can safely say that differences between it and the best video cameras are inconsequential when compared with most other aspects (lighting, composition, story telling) and certainly good enough for home movies.

I've owned a TM700, and was disappointed in the lens...contrast wasn't very good especially at the tele end. Video was exquisite, but let down a little by optics. And the still capability was pathetic, so I ended up never taking it with me. The GH2 was far preferable for my use due to the better optics and equally excellent video. But this was from a tech geek perspective. Both far exceeded my skill level."

I agree with most of what you say. But I think the old argument that lighting, composition etc. are more important than technical quality is irrelevant for most users of these cameras. They want videos that appear to be stunning in most circumstances, and resolution is the most obvious characteristic. People here are posting pictures of their dogs, for heavens sake. They are not setting up lighting tents and reflectors. And don't get me started on audio.

I disagree that the GH2 and the TM900 videos are of equal quality. I own both, have compared extensively, and the TM900 has better video, even in dim light - color and sharpness. But perhaps we value attributes differently.

The bottom line is that it is apparent that for many of the posters here and perhaps most people, the RX100 video is "good enough." But not for me, and for those like me who really value sharp, clean video as the base for what we compose and light. Quality that is readily available in small affordable packages (camcorders). So we are NOT comparing to multi-thousand dollar equipment, which wold be silly and pointless.

 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
Rob Vermaas
Contributing MemberPosts: 931Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to nosnoop, Jul 17, 2012

In reply to Mark:

The most annoying on your breaking in, in every thread about the video quality of the RX100 is the your arrogance.
Your opinion that RX100 video is inferior is YOUR opinion and nothing more.

No need continuing to try to persuade all RX100 owners that their opinions are not as valid as yours!!!
I, (RX100 owner) find the video quality outstanding!!!!

 Rob Vermaas's gear list:Rob Vermaas's gear list
Sony RX100 II Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony a77 II Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to Rob Vermaas, Jul 17, 2012

"The most annoying on your breaking in, in every thread about the video quality of the RX100 is the your arrogance.
Your opinion that RX100 video is inferior is YOUR opinion and nothing more.

No need continuing to try to persuade all RX100 owners that their opinions are not as valid as yours!!!
I, (RX100 owner) find the video quality outstanding!!!! "

Your last statement is fine with me; it's your opinion and what counts for you. I have said over and over that if you are satisfied with the video then you don't have to pay attention, or call names. However, that the video is inferior to other camcorders is established in tests and is not subtle.

The facts are the RX100 has lower resolution than many comparably-priced camcorders and more artifacts. Tests have shown that; it is not controversial. In addition, I can see the difference, and I care. You don't see the difference or you don't care - fine. That does not make you inferior and there is no need to be defensive. But the video inferiority to named camcorders is not just my opinion. And the mechanical restrictions on zoom are not my opinion (how important they are is a matter of style and preferences and not fact). Nor do I think everyone should have my values.

Look at the slashcam.de tests and see the basis for the concern if you want to check if this is just my weird view. And compare videos of the RX100 to camcorder videos to check. But I recommend you do not because, why not stay satisfied and complacent?

It seems like I am harping on the inferiority, but it is just my compulsion to try to clear up the confused statements like yours that mixes up opinion, tastes and facts. The Rx100 is really quite good; it is even impressive. It is just not state of the art in comparably-priced camcorders. And it is fine to say, so what do I care? (It is not fine to name call even if what I am saying happens to be wrong - just show what is wrong.)

 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
RicksAstro
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,370Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive compared to most still camera videos
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

I disagree that the GH2 and the TM900 videos are of equal quality. I own both, have compared extensively, and the TM900 has better video, even in dim light - color and sharpness. But perhaps we value attributes differently.

Actually, I didn't generally like the OOC color from the TM700 (maybe the 900 is better) or the GH2. The E-M5 actually has a nicer color OOC than either, and is quite "punchy" and sharp, probably preferable to most casual shooters. It just has a crap encoder, so if you have a lot of moving detail, the picture goes south. Ans the continuous AF stinks, which is important for casual use.

In low light is where I found the TM700 was unacceptable to me...the colors became muted and the picture got muddy. The GH2 held up a little better. I actually like the RX100 better than either for low light color.

And low light is important to me and that's where this little camera shines, more so than in bright light. If it's not important to you, then fine.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nosnoop
Senior MemberPosts: 1,691
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive, but not as impressive as a small camcorder
In reply to Markr041, Jul 17, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

Absolutely - the Sony HDR-GW77V
Its videos are stunning.

Hey, Markr041, trying shooting HDR-GW77V under low light, and compare it with RX100 under the same condition!

You'd find that the RX100 would blow the HDR-GW77 away under low light condition.
(and yeah, go and check it at slashcam.de yourself, the site you often quoted)

And most users would much prefer the visibly superior low light performance of the RX100 over the subtle slight edge of sharpness of the GW77 under day light.

Can you get shallow DOF video footage with GW77? No.
Can you control the aperture with GW77? No.
Can you control the shutter speed with GW77? No.
Can you control the ISO with GW77? No.

Sure GW77 has its advantages like longer zoom and water proof. But RX100 can do things which the GW77 cannot, and can perform in some situations better than the GW77.

So your blanket statement about RX100 being inferior to mid-level camcorder is totally misleading.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to Markr041, Jul 18, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

I agree with everyone it is amazing to get good video in a small package, but this is also acomplished in just-as-small video cameras, with higher quality.

RX100 Video Sample
http://vimeo.com/45682834

The problem with your argument is a consumer video camera like a Canon VIXIA or Panasonic HS900 does not have higher quality video than the RX100. You get more DOF control, and much better low-light with the larger sensor RX100, not to mention 1080p60 for smooth slow-mo.

Things like shallow DOF, and low-light are one of the main reasons why consumer video cameras are a dying bread, with little application beyond home movies.

Here is the review of the RX100 from EOSHD
http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review

For stills, I got rid of my wonderful X10 and ordered an RX100 not so much for the stills, but because the RX100 seems to be a truly fantastic video camera and an outstanding stills camera.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
theokalat
New MemberPosts: 10
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to marike6, Jul 18, 2012

marike6 wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

I agree with everyone it is amazing to get good video in a small package, but this is also acomplished in just-as-small video cameras, with higher quality.

RX100 Video Sample
http://vimeo.com/45682834

The problem with your argument is a consumer video camera like a Canon VIXIA or Panasonic HS900 does not have higher quality video than the RX100. You get more DOF control, and much better low-light with the larger sensor RX100, not to mention 1080p60 for smooth slow-mo.

Things like shallow DOF, and low-light are one of the main reasons why consumer video cameras are a dying bread, with little application beyond home movies.

Here is the review of the RX100 from EOSHD
http://www.eoshd.com/content/8499/sony-rx100-review

For stills, I got rid of my wonderful X10 and ordered an RX100 not so much for the stills, but because the RX100 seems to be a truly fantastic video camera and an outstanding stills camera.

I agree.I have the Panasonic SD900, top of the line last years model, and I cannot for the life of me see any difference in video quality when recording same daylight scenes and playing back on my HD TV.

Have not tried indoor comparison yet, but I don't expect much if any difference between them.

Though the sd900 has better sound and longer optical telephoto range than rx100.
And easier to hold comfortably for long video recording sessions.

No 30 minute time limit either,but I hardly, if ever, record for more than 5-10 minutes at a time anyway.,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive, but not as impressive as a small camcorder
In reply to nosnoop, Jul 18, 2012

"And most users would much prefer the visibly superior low light performance of the RX100 over the subtle slight edge of sharpness of the GW77 under day light.

Can you get shallow DOF video footage with GW77? No.
Can you control the aperture with GW77? No.
Can you control the shutter speed with GW77? No.
Can you control the ISO with GW77? No.

Sure GW77 has its advantages like longer zoom and water proof. But RX100 can do things which the GW77 cannot, and can perform in some situations better than the GW77."

I agree with these points, except the first two: who knows what "most" users want? And I have posted in the video forum shallow dof footage taken with the GW77 - check it out. But the RX100 in general will take more shallow dof, and also struggle more to get focus!

Those advantages of the RX100 are what attracted me to it to investigate. The poor zoom lens and limited range and video quality in good light disappointed me, a lot.

One additional point, though: the narrow f4.9 at 100mm really reduces the advantage in low light for the RX100. May not be much use of full telephoto in dim light, but it is a constraint. And the the GW77 has some manual audio control; the RX100 has none.

There are trade-offs; I wish for the manual controls of the RX100 and the higher-resolution, artifact-free GW77 video quality. Maybe next generation.

 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
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to theokalat, Jul 18, 2012

"The problem with your argument is a consumer video camera like a Canon VIXIA or Panasonic HS900 does not have higher quality video than the RX100."

I am sorry, this is simply NOT true. You can assert this over and over, but there are tests on slascam.de that show you why you are wrong, for example. The RX100 does have some great advantages - full manual control of video in a small package, nice perfromance in low light at wide-angle, but it is simply silly to keep asserting something that is not true.

If you think the RX100 has the same video quality in good light, great - makes you a happy owner. But all you can do is say YOU do not see a difference.

 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
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: RX100 video IQ impressive
In reply to Markr041, Jul 18, 2012

Markr041 wrote:

"The problem with your argument is a consumer video camera like a Canon VIXIA or Panasonic HS900 does not have higher quality video than the RX100."

I am sorry, this is simply NOT true. You can assert this over and over, but there are tests on slascam.de that show you why you are wrong, for example. The RX100 does have some great advantages - full manual control of video in a small package, nice perfromance in low light at wide-angle, but it is simply silly to keep asserting something that is not true.

If you think the RX100 has the same video quality in good light, great - makes you a happy owner. But all you can do is say YOU do not see a difference.

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

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

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

RX100 Video Sample
http://vimeo.com/45682834

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Markr041
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,012Gear 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads