True. But that is a far cry from Knalberto's 'Shoot jpeg or let it be.' There are significant and numerous reasons to choose RAW and he simply ignores them by saying good (or 'goooood') photographers don't need RAW. Many do for very valid reasons.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why I'm returning my NEX
- Thread starter GAD807
- Start date
adam3544
Leading Member
What do you mean by that ?
Knallberto, do you actually have this camera ? Did you shoot videos at all ? I just wonder.
Adam
--
http://www.pbase.com/adam3544
Kiril Karaatanasov
Senior Member
Why did tyou buy nex in the first place?
There are planned Zeiss and other wide aperture lenses to come very soon.
Sony has 3 lenses + 2 adapters now - which is roughly same as m4/3
There are planned Zeiss and other wide aperture lenses to come very soon.
Sony has 3 lenses + 2 adapters now - which is roughly same as m4/3
I wanted to give NEX-5 a chance but I didn't know how crucial stabilization is for video. I already have som Zeiss glass but nothing stabilized. What I loved with the camera was the picture quality and the tiltable highresolution screen. Right now NEX-5 is my first choice for pictures and GH1(3) for video. I would be in heaven with a NEX-7 and some stabilized Zeiss glass.
Well, just as easily I could say it's clear YOU won't listen. Since my opinion on this fabulous artifact-free cam is IDENTICAL to every other professional review that's been conducted on this cam, it's pretty clear your opinion is in a tiny minority.
Yes, there are people who had fan noise issues (I wasn't one of them unless recording in a very quiet area...not what I typically do), but for most this issue was not a deal-breaker.
If you were seeing artifacts, you were alone in this. No review ever mentioned 'lots of artifacts', so you either had a bad unit or something going on with your display. But when viewed on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma, the 700 produces as artifact-free a picture as I've ever seen in the many many years I've been using video cameras. The picture in many instances is indistinguishable from very high end HD camcorders and it does NOT have a 'low bitrate' when shooting at 1080p. In fact it has the highest bitrate (28mbps) of any consumer camcorder when shooting at that resolution. It is not a 'soccer mom' camcorder as you so condescendingly put it since it has more manual controls than most camcorders and enough that would confuse the hell out of the typical soccer mom. Sonys are more geared to soccer moms with their fewer controls and automatic style...but you knew that.
So I'm sorry we disagree, my eyes agree with every professional review I've ever seen on the 700...and there were many. So maybe you're right and we're all crazy. Whatever, you seem to have an agenda.
Hard to say Foxwizgsk. Relative to the TMV700, the NEX-VG10 starts off with one disadvantage IMO and that's the lack of 1920X1080 60p full-HD recording. That's not to say it won't or can't produce a great picture, many HD cams that shoot at 1080i do and I've owned more of those than I'd care to mention. But Panasonic's execution of 1080p in the 700 produces a picture that I've never seen matched. It has the highest resolution (when vertical & horizontal resolution #s are combined) of any camcorder, under $5,000, on the market. In any kind of decent light it has extremely low noise that is essentially invisible. It also has one of the highest color accuracy scores ever recorded according to some reviews that measure that picture parameter. I myself have never seen more accurate color in any cam I've owned, whether from Canon, Sony or Panasonic.I know the nex-vg10 is not out yet, but do you think that video camera will do as good or better than the 700?
--
So the Sony has some hurdles to climb in my book to match or beat the picture quality of the 700. Of course the Sony has interchangeable lenses if that's important to you when shooting video and that's something the 700 can never do. Additionally, the Sony has one large sensor as opposed to 3 smaller sensors like in the 700, so the impact of that remains to be seen. That might produce better performance in some areas and worse performance in others. We'll have to wait and see.
It should be interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing how it performs. I seem to go through these camcorders like water, always looking for the 'next big thing'. But the 700 is the first camcorder I've ever owned (and I've owned much larger, much more expensive prosumer HD camcorders like the Sony Z5 whose picture was great, but still not as good as the 700 IMO) that makes me think every time I see its picture "How are they going to top this without introducing a new format?"
Yup, I agree. I never thought there would be a need for stabilization in a lens like the 16mm, but apparently there is. I've got a pretty steady hand as I do video for a living, but it is difficult to pan smoothly with the NEX and the non-stabilized 16mm lens.
It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it would if I relied solely on the NEX for videos. For me (and more so for my wife) it's definitely a still camera first and a video camera in a pinch second. Generally when my wife and I go places, she uses the still cam for pix and I use a dedicated HD video camera for videos. This way we're never disappointed. The 30p sensor output from the NEX would always be an issue for me as a dedicated video camera since I appreciate buttery smooth motion and don't like to be limited by a subject's motion. For me the bigger change I'd appreciate is if Sony had implemented a TRUE 60i output. I honestly think their advertising was misleading since to most it does appear as if it shoots a true 60i as opposed to 30p in a 60i wrapper...two very different things. Even Sony's tiny TX7 seems to output a true 60i as its motion is buttery smooth. Go figure.
But in a pinch the NEX video is fine.
It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it would if I relied solely on the NEX for videos. For me (and more so for my wife) it's definitely a still camera first and a video camera in a pinch second. Generally when my wife and I go places, she uses the still cam for pix and I use a dedicated HD video camera for videos. This way we're never disappointed. The 30p sensor output from the NEX would always be an issue for me as a dedicated video camera since I appreciate buttery smooth motion and don't like to be limited by a subject's motion. For me the bigger change I'd appreciate is if Sony had implemented a TRUE 60i output. I honestly think their advertising was misleading since to most it does appear as if it shoots a true 60i as opposed to 30p in a 60i wrapper...two very different things. Even Sony's tiny TX7 seems to output a true 60i as its motion is buttery smooth. Go figure.
But in a pinch the NEX video is fine.
Foxwizgsk
Leading Member
I read that the NEX-VG10 records in 60p but saves as 60i so to make it easy to edit later on. I saw it in a thread in dxuser.com. I'll have to find it and post the link.Hard to say Foxwizgsk. Relative to the TMV700, the NEX-VG10 starts off with one disadvantage IMO and that's the lack of 1920X1080 60p full-HD recording. That's not to say it won't or can't produce a great picture, many HD cams that shoot at 1080i do and I've owned more of those than I'd care to mention. But Panasonic's execution of 1080p in the 700 produces a picture that I've never seen matched. It has the highest resolution (when vertical & horizontal resolution #s are combined) of any camcorder, under $5,000, on the market. In any kind of decent light it has extremely low noise that is essentially invisible. It also has one of the highest color accuracy scores ever recorded according to some reviews that measure that picture parameter. I myself have never seen more accurate color in any cam I've owned, whether from Canon, Sony or Panasonic.I know the nex-vg10 is not out yet, but do you think that video camera will do as good or better than the 700?
--
So the Sony has some hurdles to climb in my book to match or beat the picture quality of the 700. Of course the Sony has interchangeable lenses if that's important to you when shooting video and that's something the 700 can never do. Additionally, the Sony has one large sensor as opposed to 3 smaller sensors like in the 700, so the impact of that remains to be seen. That might produce better performance in some areas and worse performance in others. We'll have to wait and see.
It should be interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing how it performs. I seem to go through these camcorders like water, always looking for the 'next big thing'. But the 700 is the first camcorder I've ever owned (and I've owned much larger, much more expensive prosumer HD camcorders like the Sony Z5 whose picture was great, but still not as good as the 700 IMO) that makes me think every time I see its picture "How are they going to top this without introducing a new format?"
I think it's in this thread somewhere. I don't have much time to read through now but later on today I will try to find it.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=216852
--
Here's a highlight of features I pulled from a site:
•
Large ExmorTM APS HD CMOS Sensor for cinematic HD video with Interchangeable Lens Full HD Camcorder
•
Sony E-mount SEL18200 image stabilized zoom lens included
•
14 MP Stills at up to 7fps for superb detail and fast action
•
Full HD recording at 1920x1080/60i resolution at up to 24Mbps
•
Utilizes Sony E-mount and A-mount (via adapter) lenses
So ultimately, you have to look at the video as 60i. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just not as good as a true 60p. The video may well be fabulous, let's just wait and see.
For me, with the supplied 18-200 zoom lens, it would be far bigger than my TMV700 with a similar zoom ratio, but I'm sure the Sony would be better in low light. I like the portability factor of the 700 and that was what attracted me to the NEX. So the Sony would really have to outperform the 700 for me to dump my 700 in favor of the larger camera. For the 'run & gun' video I typically do with the 700, the whole interchangeable lens feature doesn't quite have the same appeal for me that it might have for others.
But hey, it should be fun to see how this puppy performs.
•
Large ExmorTM APS HD CMOS Sensor for cinematic HD video with Interchangeable Lens Full HD Camcorder
•
Sony E-mount SEL18200 image stabilized zoom lens included
•
14 MP Stills at up to 7fps for superb detail and fast action
•
Full HD recording at 1920x1080/60i resolution at up to 24Mbps
•
Utilizes Sony E-mount and A-mount (via adapter) lenses
So ultimately, you have to look at the video as 60i. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just not as good as a true 60p. The video may well be fabulous, let's just wait and see.
For me, with the supplied 18-200 zoom lens, it would be far bigger than my TMV700 with a similar zoom ratio, but I'm sure the Sony would be better in low light. I like the portability factor of the 700 and that was what attracted me to the NEX. So the Sony would really have to outperform the 700 for me to dump my 700 in favor of the larger camera. For the 'run & gun' video I typically do with the 700, the whole interchangeable lens feature doesn't quite have the same appeal for me that it might have for others.
But hey, it should be fun to see how this puppy performs.
Knallberto
Veteran Member
Sorry, I have Canon 550D, Lumix GH1 and NEX5 with ~ 20 lenses fitting ALL THREE CAMERAS !
Making photos AND fullHD movies with these three and a lot of other cameras.
Making photos AND fullHD movies with these three and a lot of other cameras.
It just took me 10 seconds to find a review that mentions the artifacts.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/panasonic-hdc-tm700/4505-6500_7-33976887.html
Sorry to break then news.
It is a major flaw putting a fan by the microphone.
Please read the reviews again. I linked to one that mentions them.
Also, don't forget. The TM700 has a tiny sensor, and small, not great quality lens. There is a very limited dynamic range and it can't do a very shallow DoF.
And just for fun here is video shot at 50Mbit AVCHD (almost double yours) in low light (something the TM700 could never ever do)...
http://vimeo.com/13317933
Yeah, I bet 10 seconds. I'm sure you SCOURED every review imaginable until you found this. If you use CNET for your information on camcorder or camera purchases, God bless you. And that review from CNET does not even indicate at what setting they saw artifacts. ANY review that clearly pointed out the value of 60p shooting does not mention artifacts. So cherry pick as you like, the review does not indicate the setting at which it saw artifacts AND, if you notice the findings of the ACTUAL USERS on CNET, they gave it a universal FIVE star rating. But hey, you've obviously got a thing with this cam and I'm not sure what your agenda is, but once again, your feelings run VERY contrary to professional reviews. Would you like to try THIS review site which specializes in camcorders as opposed to CNET which tests everything from boom boxes to God knows what? In case you don't want to go through the entire review, here's their conclusion to which I 100% agree:
"So far, however, the HDC-TM700 has blown everything else out of the water in terms of video performance, and the camcorder showed significant improvement over last year's exceptional HDC-TM300."
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-HDC-TM700-Camcorder-Review-37681.htm
And for most users it's a non-issue or they've used external mikes. You'll never get quality sound from any onboard mikes. Move on.
AFTER a hack and I'll still bet the detail on the 700 is better along with the color accuracy. Additionally, the video you showed shows a CLEAR stepping of the iris that I find very disturbing and something you won't find on the 700 (right at the beginning as he pans upward toward the sign) and also shows blown highlights in spots. I see nothing here that's so exceptional except for the overall low light ability which I've always appreciated on my GH1. You keep mentioning the lens, and my comparisons with BOTH cameras clearly shows more detail on the 700. So if that constitutes an 'inferior' lens relative to the GH1, I'll take that 'inferior' lens every time. Add to that the awkward ergonomics of the GH1 as a camcorder (and you'd have to be in another galaxy to deny that...but hey, nothing would surprise me here), poor autofocus while using the zoom and the impossibility to use that zoom smoothly while recording, I'll take the better PQ and ergonomics of the 700 every time.
Does the 700 have better control over its DOF and is it better in low light? Yup. But that's it buddy, that's it. I STILL own both cameras and have no bias unlike some here. I can recognize the good & bad in both...unlike some here. For doing typical HD video, the 700 is superior, period. If you are desperately in need of DOF control, then use the GH1, no skin off my back. I've been doing this for many years and I have yet to find anything out there that can match the 700's overall PQ.
We shall agree to disagree.
Actually, it was the first review to come up. You claimed that no review mentioned the artifacts, and I found one in 10 seconds...so you were wrong. I am done posting in this thread because I clearly proved this point.
btw, if you want to keep making your strange claim...why don't you go take this over to the Canon DSLR forum and make your claim about how the TM700 is better tha the 7D or 5DmkII...or even better go over to dvxuser.com and tell the pros to quit using DSLRs to film episodes of "House" and instead use the TM700 with its small dynamic range, no DoF, and average qualtiy zoom lens.
Once again, you don't seem to grasp the significance of 1080p. Any interlaced video will or can show artifacts. The 1920X1080 60p is artifact-free and one of the major benefits of the mode. The CNET review did NOT indicate at what mode they shot their footage at. This is indicative of CNET reviews on topics like this and is precisely why I would never go to CNET to read camera or camcorder reviews. I can only assume they saw artifacts at 1080i since no other review spoke of artifacts in 1080p (but some did in 1080i...not surprisingly) and I've surely never seen them on a 60" Pioneer plasma.
I'm done with this too since you simply don't want to see the truth, don't want to believe the review sites that primarily only review CAMCORDERS and have universally declared the 700 the best they've seen, can't see the issues I pointed out in the very GH1 video you linked to (or chose to ignore them) and so it's clearly a waste of my time to discuss this with you. I have both cameras, lots of video experience and two good eyes that enable me to see the pros & cons of both cameras. One is still a DSLR designed primarily for pictures but with the capability for shooting video (and the best capability on that end for DSLRs IMO) and the other a 1920X1080 60p camcorder designed primarily for superb video that can also shoot 'so so' pictures for a camcorder.
I love my GH1, but not as a camcorder with its inability to hold focus while zooming, the inability to zoom smoothly, visible iris stepping when going from dark to light and back again (as shown in your linked video!) and a 1920X1080 mode that's only 30p and not 60p which results in issues for recording motion in many situations. It's the major reason I only use the GH1 @720p.
I don't need a large DOF for typical running & gunning video. If you do, then the GH1 is the better choice. My major objective in buying any HD camcorder is to achieve the best combination of resolution, color accuracy and dynamic range along with good ergonomics in a portable package.
Bye bye.
I'm done with this too since you simply don't want to see the truth, don't want to believe the review sites that primarily only review CAMCORDERS and have universally declared the 700 the best they've seen, can't see the issues I pointed out in the very GH1 video you linked to (or chose to ignore them) and so it's clearly a waste of my time to discuss this with you. I have both cameras, lots of video experience and two good eyes that enable me to see the pros & cons of both cameras. One is still a DSLR designed primarily for pictures but with the capability for shooting video (and the best capability on that end for DSLRs IMO) and the other a 1920X1080 60p camcorder designed primarily for superb video that can also shoot 'so so' pictures for a camcorder.
I love my GH1, but not as a camcorder with its inability to hold focus while zooming, the inability to zoom smoothly, visible iris stepping when going from dark to light and back again (as shown in your linked video!) and a 1920X1080 mode that's only 30p and not 60p which results in issues for recording motion in many situations. It's the major reason I only use the GH1 @720p.
I don't need a large DOF for typical running & gunning video. If you do, then the GH1 is the better choice. My major objective in buying any HD camcorder is to achieve the best combination of resolution, color accuracy and dynamic range along with good ergonomics in a portable package.
Bye bye.
What Steve has to say is very reasonable about the 700 and other high-quality consumer cams. Two other advantages of a camcorder like the 700 over the NEX video camera and the DSLRs with video:
1. There is a power zoom. For run and gun, street video or sports it is essential to have a controllable power zoom. It is next to impossible to do a smooth zoom manually while shooting.
2. While many have touted the shallow dof of cameras like the NEX, in many situations shallow dof is a major disadvantage - again, with sports and street run and gun. Auto focus and shallow dof is a ticket to disaster, as the camera will pick a focus point that has nothing to do, at times, with what the photographer wants. And manual focus while shooting video (as opposed to set up shots) in narrow dof situations is also impossible. With wide dof, focus is not as critical.
Those who like the DSLRs for video - the pros - are using them in a way that most of us will never do: mostly set up shots with fixed focus in a predictable scene set up in advance with a stationary camera in a fancy rig. Power zoom, wide dof and autofocus, along with manual control over audio and aperture/shutter/gain are what are desirable for what most people use video cameras for - shots of scenes with moving subjects that are unpredictable. This includes pro journalists.
Finally, a big disappointment of the NEX video version is no manual control of audio. Audio is a major element of videography, and autogain sound, no matter what the quality of microphones, sounds bad.
1. There is a power zoom. For run and gun, street video or sports it is essential to have a controllable power zoom. It is next to impossible to do a smooth zoom manually while shooting.
2. While many have touted the shallow dof of cameras like the NEX, in many situations shallow dof is a major disadvantage - again, with sports and street run and gun. Auto focus and shallow dof is a ticket to disaster, as the camera will pick a focus point that has nothing to do, at times, with what the photographer wants. And manual focus while shooting video (as opposed to set up shots) in narrow dof situations is also impossible. With wide dof, focus is not as critical.
Those who like the DSLRs for video - the pros - are using them in a way that most of us will never do: mostly set up shots with fixed focus in a predictable scene set up in advance with a stationary camera in a fancy rig. Power zoom, wide dof and autofocus, along with manual control over audio and aperture/shutter/gain are what are desirable for what most people use video cameras for - shots of scenes with moving subjects that are unpredictable. This includes pro journalists.
Finally, a big disappointment of the NEX video version is no manual control of audio. Audio is a major element of videography, and autogain sound, no matter what the quality of microphones, sounds bad.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum