New Sony NXCAM is more camcorder than you ever need, but still you covet
By Ross Miller 
posted November 21st 2009 4:33AM
posted November 21st 2009 4:33AM
posted November 21st 2009 4:33AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
if I did anything with video I would want this... hell I want it anyways.
Holy crap, UP TO 24 Mbps? Give us a break; this is garbage. DV tape has been recording 25 Mbps since what, 1995? Sure, AVCHD is more efficient, but also can't be edited without recompression.
These pathetic bitrates are just embarrassing at this point. Look, the Canon 7D does 35 Mbps H.264, and that's a STILL camera.
Sony, you're at least five years too late with this. Get your shit together, or Canon and Red are going to eat your lunch.
And drink your milkshake.
If the 7D is a STILL camera, how is it able to shoot video? /sarcasm
Seriously though, if I were to shoot video I'd choose this camera 9 times out of 10 over the 7D purely for the ergonomics. Even Engadget stated that the camera isn't suited for "run and gun" shooting. Not to mention the 12-minute recording limit. If Canon were to produce a EF-mount 35mm format lens designed for video with a smooth zoom movement and add proper in-camera audio recording support, I'd reconsider.
Also remember, this is a 3-chip (CMOS) camcorder. Overall color reproduction is better in this camera compared to the 7D and all other single sensor designs.
But let's face it, Canon deliberately hobbled their DSLR's movie modes to avoid competing directly with their own video cameras. Not to mention their competitor's.
This camera has a relatively small sensor, so will be useless for narrow depth-of-field and won't be able to achieve filmic bokeh. A Canon 7D in skilled hands would achieve better results in certain circumstances.
The world needs proper camcorders based around larger sensors, even Micro Four Thirds is pretty good for bokeh...
Don't need it. I've already got an iPhone with a video recorder. That's why SONY is bleeding cash building stuff that almost nobody needs.
Comparing the bit rate to the DV compressor, which is much less efficient, is pretty pointless. As you point out, it's over ten years old...
Though you use some technical terms, you definitely have no idea what professional video equipment is about.
For example, you compare Sony NXCAM (which is essentially a tapeless Sony HVR-Z5U) and Red camera and make a conclusion that Red will eat Sony for lunch. Apart from the fact that Sony HVR-Z5U and Red camera are in completely different price and specification range, you forget that most powerful, popular (and most expensive) cameras used in movie production are Sonys. Ever heard of CineAlta?
And speaking of bit rate... you think bit rate is everything? See, Canon Vixia (which is a very nice consumer camera) also has 24 Mbps bit rate... must definitely be as good as professional equipment, right?
Go drink your milkshake.
"Red camera and make a conclusion that Red will eat Sony for lunch. Apart from the fact that Sony HVR-Z5U and Red camera are in completely different price and specification range, you forget that most powerful, popular (and most expensive) cameras used in movie production are Sonys. Ever heard of CineAlta?"
HA HA HA. Who are you to lecture about "professional video equipment", when you don't even know the product lines that exist today? First of all, if you followed Red's product plans, you'd know that they plan to release a much less expensive series of cameras that do wavelet compression at 80 MBps or more. You'd also know that the CineAlta brand doesn't mean jack any more, since Sony has slapped it on consumer-grade cameras. Also, take a look at some of the crap churned out with the F35 (like Public Enemies).
And finallly, your reading comprehension could use some work. I said the 24 Mbps bitrate SUCKS. So no, your irrelevant Vixia comment doesn't make sense. If you're going to spar with image-processing professionals, you should probably read up a bit.
"Also remember, this is a 3-chip (CMOS) camcorder. Overall color reproduction is better in this camera compared to the 7D and all other single sensor designs."
That's only true when the sensors have an equal number of photosites, which is far from true in this case. The still cameras' single chips have far, far higher resolution that these puny-chip HD cameras. The realistic resolution (as determined by past research) of a single Bayer sensor is about 70 percent of its raw resolution. That gives the 7D 12.5 megapixels, compared to a "full HD" resolution of 2 megapixels.
Then you have to consider the sampling scheme of the codec, which typically encodes 1/2 or even 1/4 of the signal's black-&-white resolution in color.
I have no use for this whatsoever, but I have no doubt that it would keep me entertained for the better part of a week.
I find it surprising that they push their horrible memory stick standard even onto their professional gear. I wish it would just die.
Why the hate for a memory card format?
If MMC can still be around, Memory Stick will never die. I'm still surprised that Olympus is still hanging on to xD Picture Card; which is pretty much a dead-ended format with no card larger than 2GB and Fujifilm ditching it in favor of SD cards in their cameras a few years ago.
Plus, what would all those PSP-1000/2000/3000 owners use? It's not like they are magically sprouting a SDHC card slot...
Well manufacturers are just banking on the fact that most consumers aren't going to realize the importance of demanding a standardization. Most will buy their camera without even thinking about what memory card format it has. So why wouldn't Sony or Olympus get involved in proprietary formats, to make more money per camera purchase, based on those facts?
If you don't like Memory Stick, get the 128GB flash memory drive...or use the SD/HD-SDI port to record out to some other device and skip memory cards entirely.
Why doesn't it do HD ? Aren't all professional stuff supposed to phase out SD??
Price?
avchd = a form of HD (High Definition)
Depending on the price... I might be more interested in the Panasonic HMC150
Nice camcorder, but you would be surprised how close in image quality and features this is to camcorders like their consumer oriented models like the older HDR-HC1E. Noth thrilled with the low bit-rate, but glad to see the move away from HDV. That format needs to die a quick and painful death.
I have an HDR-HC1 and an FX1 (which is an HDV camera but with a body similar to this NXCAM) and the image quality is very different; particularly in low light. The HC1 was a great camera in it's day, but it is only one chip.
How are we supposed to know how much to steal to raise the money to buy it when you havnt said how much its gonna cost?!
It's been reported to be inline with the Z5U which is about $4,100 street price.
This is really disappointing actually. I have a Panasonic HMC150 which is a fantastic cam, but I'm a Sony fanboy and I was hoping that Sony would compete with Panny on the same level producing an AVCHD prosumer cam with variable frame rates for about $3,200.
I'll stick with my HMC150 until that point.
Seems to me that sony has always had better CCD's, they get better color and deeper more pleasing visuals. I always though of Panasonic as Sony's cheaper user friendly cousin.
Since this seems to replace the Z5U, if Sony follows it's current practice with the FX1000 semi-pro and the Z5U pro cameras, there will probably be a semi-pro model soon after that lacks the XLR audio, input and maybe a couple of other features, selling at around $3,000.
@SoundGuy4Film
Actually this uses CMOS sensors as opposed to the hmc's CCD's. The CMOS's will likely give better color rendition and low-light capabilities but at the expense of light shutter rolling and the (slightly) higher price. Its a shame the AVCHD codec is used as opposed to the excellent XDCAM EX Sony uses in it's higher line.
Both this and the HMC-150 are solid cams (at least in terms of these specs) but they are really limited to event and documentary videography.
The Panasonic HMC150 is the best bang for the buck semi-pro camera out there. Great pick!
Looks good...and pricey if that reported street price is correct...
Professional equipment can only be truely called professional if it has more than 20 buttons (ex. Keypads).
This seems to be 150% professional from this angle, so will it finally stop Disney from making what crap they call "Entertainment"?
God I hope so.
Its not the tools you use, its how you use them. If a piece of low end technology like this affects Disney's creative work flow then we might as well flush the whole film industry down the toilet.
It looks interesting as something for amateur film-makers, I guess the real proof will be when some sample footage comes out. No doubt it'll be good though.
Ok, tell me how this competes with an EX1/EX3...? Except on price? AVCHD is not impressive. I have yet to get good footage from an AVC-Cam that wasn't shot mid-day in sunlight. You shoot in low light situations and AVC shows its real colors, or better, noise.
Maybe Sony can do what Canon and Panny haven't been able to do, make AVCHD an acceptable format for a wide range of shooting conditions.. We'll see.
"3 x 1/3-inch Exmor CMOS sensor"
It doesn't compare to the EX1 whatsoever... The EX1/3 uses 3 x 1/2-inch Exmor CMOS sensor... Larger sensor = greater depth of field and better performance in lowlight...
"recording AVCHD up to 24Mbps and SD quality in MPEG-2 / 9Mbps"
EX records in XDCAM at 35Mbps VBR, much more info then AVCHDs 24... As is the quest for Megapixels in DSLRs, Mbps is the quest in HD. More info is always better!
And in case that's not convincing enough the EXs have a very fast Fujinon lens, this won't have anything near as nice I'm sure...
Apple to Oranges
My experience with EXMOR chips has been pretty good. I'm holding my judgement until I read about actual experiences with it.
The XDCAM EX codec allows 35Mbps in its HQ mode, but it's also MPEG-2, which tends to need 50% more data to encode the same image at the same quality. AVCHD with a good encoder might do pretty well with 24Mbps.
"how this competes with an EX1/EX3"
In the same way the Z5U competes with the EX1? That's what it appears to replace.
"EX records in XDCAM at 35Mbps VBR, much more info then AVCHDs 24... As is the quest for Megapixels in DSLRs, Mbps is the quest in HD. More info is always better!"
Maybe, but the EX uses MPEG2 and the NXCAM H.264. Different compressors. Both are 8-bit, 4:2:0, and comparing bitrates for different compressors doesn't always confirm that more info is better.
AVCHD gets a bum wrap because it's mostly been in consumer cameras, often at the lower bit rates (24 appears to be the maximum for the standard at the moment.) But it's also a more efficient compressor than MPEG2 (which can be a negative when editing.)
Some people argue that AVCHD (if given the same image) will do just as good a job as HDCAM EX (though not HDCAM HD.) The proof is in the pudding; it will be interesting to see how well the NXCAM stands up to the EX1 - but even then, the smaller chips in the NXCAM should give the edge to the EX1 in picture quality.
It doesn't ex1/3 are part of sony's cinealta line, more suited for film making. This, with its 1/3 in chip is more suited for doing ENG and documentary stuff.
I think you mean XDCAM EX/HD. there's no such thing as HDCAM EX or HDCAM HD. There is HDCAM and HDCAM SR.
Yeah, I meant XDCAM EX and XDCAM HD.
all those specs, but no upload to You Tube?
The specs are nice, sure to deliver for the needs of the owner. Though CMOS is somewhat of a deal killer. If I'm going to pay a lot of money, I think I can find a camcorder with CCD for a bit more.
Why do you say that CMOS is a killer? While you have to be careful to control skew due to the rolling shutter, CMOS delivers a higher MTF (sharper image) than CCDs, natively shoots progressive, and the low light performance is getting close to that of CCDs.
Take a look at these grabs from a JVC HM700 (CCD) vs. a Panasonic HPX300 (CMOS): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1809460&postcount=6
Okay the HM700 is really a 720p camera, but that's because it takes large amounts of power and not-completely-successful techniques such as "pixel shift" to get 1080p out of CCDs. And then you're still shooting interlaced.
It's really not a big deal anymore, there are plenty of decent CMOS cameras.
Red Epics will be going for $28,000 (I'd say going up to $35-40k to add all of the accessories needed to match the integrated EVF, lens, controls etc on this), Unless it's far less than that, no contest.
But I couldn't say I really know what these go for.
This isn't comparable to the RED. Current guesses are around $4,000. It should certainly be less than the EX1, which goes for $6,000.
Honestly, how many formats can Sony create?
This is no where near a professional camera.
HDCAM, HDCAMSR, XDCAMHD, and possibly XDCAMEX are professional.
Putting consumer a level codec (AVCHD) in a larger more complex camera does not make it professional.
This camera is aimed at the "pro-sumer" videographer market.
Only crappy small time tv stations would allow this footage go to air.
The fact that AVCHD is found primarily in consumer-level devices does not make it a consumer-level codec. At high bit-rates (not typically available on consumer devices) it produces an absolutely stunning HD picture, especially in environments where there is a lot of motion or sudden variance in luminosity. This is particularly important to entrepreneurial vidopgraphers, who are often called upon to shoot a lot of sports, party, and dance scenes.
"entrepreneurial" I guess that's your code for crappy!
Ha ha
And I guess you'd call 24Mbps a "high bitrate"?
Please.
Worse then DVCAM.
AVCHD 24Mbps as a delivery format, or final finished render might be O.K, but it would look bad captured live.
AVCHD might be fine for corporate videos or home movies,
but we won't see this used on any good shows.
Unless they slap a proper sensor and go upwards of 50 Mbps
somewhat disagree. this camera looks very promising and even with its not so great AVCHD format. It's no R3D, but definitely still useable for broadcast. Why I say this? Everything that gets aired still goes through some harsh compression, so at the end of it all, you won't have all the details you would want any way once the consumer views it on a tv station.
yes, this camera won't be used for high end shows as they are probably using digital cinema cameras or film itself to make those, but to use this camera to get b-roll type shots for a news station would be great.
Suggesting that distribution compression and acquisition compression can be similar just shows your intelligence.
24Mbps AVCHD isn't near broadcast acquisition specifications for any major television network in the US,
I live in New Zealand and our TV networks wouldn't even allow it.
And news stations need a quick editable format.
AVCHD 24Mbps is not i frame.
It would be a world of hurt for news.
@Maximus @Maximus
But you should know that avchd (mpeg4) is more efective codec so 24mbits of avchd could mean better quality than dvcpro25 dvcpro50 maybe not better qualitty but equal so AVCHD isn't bad compression for broadcast productions. I work In Polsih National TV and i can tell you that many times I worked with miniDV camcorders to produce some film or program and TV accepted it without any doubt. AVCHD isn't good codec still becaue of problem with edditing it.