OT: Got impartial professional camcorder review?

Rich Parry wrote on 7/8/2014, 12:37 AM

I’m having difficulty deciding on the Sony FDR-AX100 at $2000, the Sony HDR-CX900 at $1500, and the Canon HF G30 at $1400. Cost is not the issue.

I suspect all will meet my needs of shooting wildlife, landscapes, and nature outdoors in National Parks with occasional family video at the beach. I don’t need 4K or Night Vision but not adverse to having it as an unused feature. Who knows, maybe I need it and don't know it.

I have found dozens of reviews on the web from many sources, B&H Reviews, Amazon Reviews, CNET reviews, YouTube reviews and for the most part, the people with a particular camera like what they have.

I am looking for an professional impartial review of camcorders similar to what DPReview does for still image cameras or what Consumer Reports does for washing machines.
http://www.dpreview.com/

When looking at a product I know nothing about, I don’t know what questions to ask. I don’t own a camcorder and have no basis for comparison. I'm a DSLR video guy ready to purchase a dedicated video camera.

Something as simple as what the hot/cold shoe supports may be of interest or knowing the brightness of the OLED viewfinder or the size of the buttons. I find reading what a camcorder professional likes and doesn't like useful. “OldSmoke” on this forum likes the AX-100 and gives good reasons. I’d still like to see a full review from a source that routinely rates camcorders and doesn't just say how wonderful the camera is.

Got any suggestion for full reviews from an impartial professional review source?

Thanks in advance,
Rich

Back to post

Comments

OldSmoke wrote on 7/11/2014, 2:40 PM

John

I am a big fan of 60p but the FDR-AX1 has a very small single sensor and that just didn't do it for me. All my sporting events I use the 1080 60p that the AX100 offers and that footage is impressive too. Sure, AX1 has all the bells and whistles of a pro camera but I know of a few users that sold it and bought a HXR-NX3 instead. A single 1/2.3" inch chip is just not good enough in my opinion, not for 4K and and not even for 1080p. The HXR-NX3 has 3 1/3" full size 1920x1080 sensors and does 1080 60p. If you after 4K in 1080 60p, just wait, it will come.

MikeyDH wrote on 7/11/2014, 3:33 PM

And the confusion continues on choosing the flavor of the day at the price one could afford. Where does it all stop? What is the best bang for the buck? All of it is subjective and in the end will the general populace even know the difference? It appears that you can dig a pretty deep hole where only a shovel full might be needed to show the dirt.

deusx wrote on 7/11/2014, 10:40 PM

>>>i sometimes get the feeling the repetitious praise of GHx cameras is more a self-reinforcement of a purchase rather than an objective view of the practicality of such cameras for commercial video production<<<

Then again AX100 users could be doing the same. Paying $2000 for a fixed lens camera that shoots about the same quality video as a 10 year old HV20 ( sure, on paper it's better, but on a HD TV it all looks the same ) is questionable at best.

That was fine in the old PD-150 days, but the ability to use different lenses is what can give you different looks. Besides that GH series is easier to shoot with. AX100 is ergonomically crappy. When all is said and done it's just a $2000 granny/holiday cam. You don't need to take my word for it either. Go to B&H site and click on professional video cameras. GH4 will probably be near the top. AX100 won't be listed at all, you have to go to the consumer camera section to find it.

I don't think GH4 should be under pro video either, but that's where they put it.

OldSmoke wrote on 7/11/2014, 11:11 PM

Paying $2000 for a fixed lens camera that shoots about the same quality video as a 10 year old HV20

And where is you prove for that?

BruceUSA wrote on 7/11/2014, 11:18 PM

HV20 hdv was a good cam for its day. But to compare its video quality to a 2014 4k camera is laughable.

Serena Steuart wrote on 7/11/2014, 11:23 PM

>>>same quality video as a 10 year old HV20<<<

Have you conducted tests that prove this? Or are you being a bit reactive to other comments? The deciding point is that the AX100 suits the OP better for his purpose than the GH4, rather than which is the better performing camera. Obviously the AX100 would not suit your own needs and it might not suit mine. Nor might the GH4.

ushere wrote on 7/12/2014, 12:03 AM

i'm sorry deusx, but if there was an ignore button you'd be top of my list.

i get the distinct feeling you're either a troll or know nothing about commercial video - to even equate a dslr to a pro video camera as ergonomically better....

John_Cline wrote on 7/12/2014, 12:41 AM

Deusx, are you still trying to sell that "HV20 shoots video just as well as any new camera" nonsense? Perhaps a trip to an Optometrist is in order...

(SCS: bring back the "Ignore User" button!)

RalphM wrote on 7/12/2014, 7:43 AM

I bought a Panasonic GX7 when they first came out (little brother to the GH4). I specifically bought it because I wanted a good stills camera that also shoots good video. It was a great choice for traveling light - I did not want to take both a stills and a video camera.

While the video I shot with it was surprisingly good, I don't consider it a replacement for a dedicated camcorder. Even something as simple as zooming is ergonomically difficult unless extra gear is employed.

bigjezza wrote on 7/12/2014, 8:35 AM

I own the Canon HV30 and Canon XA20. Let me just say I can identify which camera shot what simply by watching it on my HDTV... With the XA20 ahead by any measure.

FPP wrote on 7/12/2014, 9:57 AM

Rich Parry:
I just entered the "HD World" and I started off with the Sony CX900..
Without much background in this type of camera I found it to be a rather smooth transition.
The CX900 offers a great deal of "Old School" manual control settings and it produces a video image in full HD set on AVCHD and 24p movie setting that feels like open arms to me for the kind of image I want to produce.
Of course I had to put some clothing on it, such as a BeachTek DXA-HDV with Phantom Juice along with a Sennheiser MK600 Shotgun.
The baby brother of the FDR-AX100 certainly puts you in the right arena of exceptional performance.
Eventually I would like to upgrade to 4K, but for now I'm still enjoying the "Buzz" I'm getting from the CX900.
I have to credit my engagement in this forum as highly influential in my decision to purchase this unit.
My minimum expertise in "HD" file base recording doesn't stop me from saying that this current line of Sony Camcorders may be a game changer for this type.

John_Cline wrote on 7/12/2014, 10:23 AM

B&H doesn't consider the GoPro cameras as professional either but that sure hasn't stopped professionals from using them in movies and TV shows.

Marc S wrote on 7/12/2014, 1:03 PM

So are you saying the GH2 is a pro camera?

Technically the AX100 is probably considered a prosumer camera but having one I can attest that the results are very professional and many times I use it and actually get better quality than my EX1r. Having all of the manual controls put this little baby over the top for me and brought it far beyond consumer world. No other small camera has so many pro manual features at your fingertips. It's not perfect but wow it's a great little camera with stunning results.

Here's a good review by a "professional" cameraman.

ushere wrote on 7/12/2014, 7:13 PM

bill conduit has risen....

Serena Steuart wrote on 7/12/2014, 9:24 PM

It's the user that determines whether a camera is "professional", not some retailer's list. A Sony F65 would be a "holiday" cam in the wrong hands.

deusx wrote on 7/13/2014, 4:57 PM

No I don't consider GH2 to be a pro camera. Whether one can get pro results with it and/or something like AX100 is a completely different matter and that is not what we are discussing. A lot depends on what your definition of pro means. If we are talking about movies it's impossible to get pro quality look from GH anything or AX100. If you are talking about some reality TV show then who really cares? It will always have that cheap video look.

Let's look at it another way. The world cup final just ended. I'm sure there were plenty of images taken with DSLRs probably even including some GH4s, and plenty of video footage taken with DSLRs as well as larger dedicated video cameras.

I can guarantee you that there was not even a single guy/gal with a press/photographer/videographer pass at that stadium using an AX100 or anything shaped like that. Those things although capable of producing decent video just aren't well suited for the job.

OldSmoke wrote on 7/13/2014, 9:06 PM

Deusx

And how many ARRI or RED you think where there? I ask you since you are an expert on guessing. The AX100 is a fairly new camera, released in April but I am very certain it will catch on fast. The owner of the rental I shop I usually get my gear from sold it's FDR-AX1 and got a AX100 instead. It just produces so much better images due to the larger sensor combined with a great lens. Anyway, you don't own one, probably never will and so it shall be. How about a Canon XA20 or 25? Are these professional cameras in your view? If yes, the HF G30 is exactly the same without XLR input and I can tell you the AX100 shots by far better images and video.

Serena Steuart wrote on 7/13/2014, 9:15 PM

>>> impossible to get pro quality look from GH anything<<<

Gosh, you're undermining my faith in your experience. Have a look at http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-great-camera-shootout-part-oneprofessional shootout[/link]

deusx wrote on 7/13/2014, 11:24 PM

>>>And how many ARRI or RED you think where there?<<<

None because they were shooting a soccer game, not a movie.

That should have made it even easier for AX100, but none were to be found. Nobody is going to use a little consumer shape cam in a situation like that. Hand held it almost always results in shaky, wobbly footage. That alone makes it not pro.

I'm not even questioning the quality of the video itself. I'm sure that on a tripod it could have produced some fine footage, but why bother when it's easier to get good results with a DSLR like GH4 or larger pro cams.

OldSmoke wrote on 7/13/2014, 11:40 PM

deusx
Again, you don't own an AX100 hence what makes you think you are an expert on what it is and what it can do. Specifically with sport events you will get much better footage from a real "video" camera instead from a DSLR. You will never be able to fit a 20x zoom lens on a GH4 and have a zoom rocker that will allow for very fast zoom action. When it comes to sport events, I mostly shoot figure skating and you constantly need to control your zoom, at least a 20x zoom and you need fast and accurate focus; something you will not find on a DSLR in the same price range. Not even my Z5U was as good as my current AX100. But I don't have to convince you, nor will you be able to convince me otherwise because compared to you, I own an AX100.

Laurence wrote on 7/14/2014, 8:56 AM

I for one have absolutely no interest in large "professional" cameras. I would consider myself a professional in that people pay me for my work and what I give them is top quality. I shoot mostly with a GH3, but would have no problem using shots from my little Sony RX100. While I love my GH3, an AX100 would be a much better fit for sports type shooting. It would be a better match for shooting any sort of stage performance as well.

How is the audio in? For a while there Sony was making cameras that were really wonderful optically but could only do audio that was run through their automatic level adjusting circuit which meant that you had to run dual system audio. What is the audio situation on the AX100?

OldSmoke wrote on 7/14/2014, 10:51 AM

Laurence.

The audio situation isn't too as bad. For shooting outdoors or a simple interview I use a Sony shotgun mic, ECM CG50 but for performances where I need audio in from the system I use a Beachtec HDV-DXA. In any case I use external input, I set the audio to manual adjust the volume level around middle. The build in mic is good but not directional.

Edit: here is my setup http://www.dropbox.com/s/vv26d1gqx8l7j1w/image.jpeg

FPP wrote on 7/14/2014, 12:59 PM

I had been shooting with a Canon xl1s for several years, and because I owned it and knew how it worked inside and out, I felt that it was the best camera for a Videographer working with documentaries, interviews and small budget movies.
Standard definition and a fairly large unit indeed.
Meanwhile the rest of my peers were evolving and accepting new technology as the "New Norm".. Such as recording in full HD and other high end rez's.
It seems to me that once the recording instrument changed, so did the playback devices.
Professional camera is in the hands of the beholder.. If you approach your project
with a professional attitude, you will in most cases end up with professional results.
But you have to be real about it too.
If you are the only one that will view what you shoot, there is a whole lot of $150 units out there that you can have fun with... They are designed to do all the calculations for you with less than professional results by today's standards and expectations.

John_Cline wrote on 7/14/2014, 3:13 PM

"AX100 would be a much better fit for sports type shooting"

I shoot a lot of automobile racing and 24p and 30p result in a stuttering mess on pans, 60i and now 60p are the only frame rates at which l can work. The AX100 will shoot 60i and 60p at HD resolutions but only 30p at 4k resolutions.

There are a lot of people here shooting in a bunch of different styles, which is why I find all of deusx's rather myopic comments so absurd.