Comments

Dreamline wrote on 1/27/2010, 3:40 PM
You couldn't pay me to use that cam.
John_Cline wrote on 1/27/2010, 3:45 PM
It's got some impressive specs and features, particularly for Sony's consumer line. Look like it will be in the $3,500 range. They'll sell a lot of them
John_Cline wrote on 1/27/2010, 3:48 PM
"You couldn't pay me to use that cam."

That is a thoroughly negative comment with no substance to back it up.

Tell us, what's your problem with this camera? (This is going to be good...)
ushere wrote on 1/27/2010, 3:50 PM
and they'll be a lot of new pc's to follow ;-)
corug7 wrote on 1/27/2010, 3:54 PM
If you've read any of FishEyes previous comments, you know that he's complaining about the CMOS sensors. Boo-hoo.
Dreamline wrote on 1/27/2010, 4:15 PM
Its a fx1 with a different codec and less features but mostly it is way overpriced. 1/3 chips are too small for HD.

The cmos problem is there too. The clip browser can't fix ax2000 video files. I do like the 20x zoom.

Sending the can in for the 60i upgrade is complete an utter bull, but I don't know if this cam is eligible for this upgrade as is the NX5U.

Honestly I can't wait to buy a new cam and the ex1r almost made the list, but I'm waiting for Canon's announcement. MXF files play really well in Vegas. There are many pros and cons and the video field & pricing is changing every day. I also change my mind sometimes.
John_Cline wrote on 1/28/2010, 2:02 PM
I wonder if it will have anywhere near the low-light capabilities of the legendary PD150/170?
CClub wrote on 1/28/2010, 8:42 PM
In the B&H specs for the AS2000 camera, it states that the "minimum illumination" is 1.5 lux. The PD170 was usually listed at 1 lux, whereas my Sony V1U is listed at 4 lux. I'm not sure if that's all apple and oranges depending on all the other settings. I'd guess based on those numbers that it's not quite as good as the PD170 but better than the latest generation of Sony HDV cameras such as the V1U.
John_Cline wrote on 1/28/2010, 8:50 PM
Anything would have to be better than the V1u in low light. I have one and it is nearly blind in anything but broad daylight.
srode wrote on 1/30/2010, 4:15 AM
Wish they would have put in a HDD instead of using the flash sticks -looking forward to reading reviews from actual users.
LongTallTexan wrote on 1/30/2010, 5:17 AM
Just my thoughts. First and foremost doesn't it use the AVCHd codec. Real painful edit scenario. Also from what I can tell it has identicle specs as the FX1000 except it does offer solid state options. I would hold off as I agree with MXF ease in Vegas. I hear a few more affordable Sony MXF options are comming down the pipe. I am happy as punch with my 5 Sony FX1000s and they are acceptable broadcast cameras. For me the next obvious upgrade should be the 1/2" XDCams such as EX1 series. Just my 2 cents.

L.T.
John_Cline wrote on 1/30/2010, 1:00 PM
Yes, it uses the AVCHD codec, but it's just a matter of time until computer horsepower catches up with it. I remember the same complaints about HDV MPEG2 and I also remember even further back when editing regular standard-def DV required hardware acceleration.
Dreamline wrote on 1/30/2010, 1:11 PM
Looks like for the most part we are all in agreement. The MXF files play so well in Vegas I'm still in amazement. Who knew HD could be this easy to edit and render.

The clip browser flash band removal tool does not work at all for me so the only thing holding me back from buying is the flash band.

However, it's Canon time to strike back, so I'll keep waiting and let the Cosmic Ballot between Cams Continue before purchase.
John_Cline wrote on 1/30/2010, 1:14 PM
Sony MXF files are MPEG2 and modern CPUs have been able to handle MPEG2 for a while now.
objectcentral wrote on 2/10/2010, 11:37 AM
Just got a sony HXR-NX5 - the pro version of the AX2000.

And first thing I had to do was buy an new computer. Decided that was a better route than a bunch of transcoding to a faster format.

So far, really like the NX5.