Sony FDR AX100 UHD 4K

There is already an open 4K discussion, this thread is not why someone chooses the GH4 over the AX-100 or BMC. That is perfect for the 4K discussion. This thread was just to get review information on actual using the AX-100. Hopefully to help others make a good or better chose.

Absolutely no one is saying the AX-100 is a top line pro camera. Same really goes for the GH4. They really are not the same price. I bought the AX-100 with a zoom lens for almost the same price as the GH4 body. Then getting a 24-70 and 70-200 lens for the GH4 adds another $2400. So unless you already have lenses the GH4 is well over twice the cost.

Money was not the deciding factor. That is why I tried the Z-100 at just under $6,000. The quality just was not there. If it was $2,000 I would have kept it. I wanted a run and gun camera, small and light weight, auto focus, zoom capabilities. Indeed the REDs are better quality sensor but like the BMC is not a fast setup run and gun.

What made me go on this one is 4K is still in its infancy. For less than $2,000 I can really not worry too much about it. When Canon gets their head out of their butt and joins the competition I have a lot of great L glass.

The quality of any of the sub $5,000 4K cameras have not really been tested yet. The BMC is definitely a non-player for me. The GH4 was attractive but the lens issue is a problem. The AX-100 is a good stop gap for a year or so and see how things settle out. Heck yesterdays footage sales paid for a quarter of it ;)

It funny how there are a lot of reviews comparing the GH4 to BMC 4K and AX-100. Looks like as far as visible quality many think they are the ones to be looking at.

The big part is I think Ford makes a better truck than Dodge or Chevy!!!

I've heard that Sony camcorders have CA problems in the frame edges at full zoom. Check this out.

Last several days has been stormy and terrible strong winds, so not a good time to test. I don't notice any CA problems. The noise and grain is significantly less than the Z-100. Still working on how to fully control everything manually. The photo quality is not as good as the Canon 5D MK III but looks entirely acceptable for stock. Having the ability to zoom in and out is plus for a true video camera versus dslr. The size and weight is great. Smaller and lighter than the 5D MK III with a 70-200 lens. Does not stand out as a media or broadcast camera so easier access to places.

So far for less than $1900 it looks good in all aspects. More testing in the works.

The AX-100 is 60 mb/s. I still sell a lot of HD clips from my old Canon HV-20 and XH-A1 which have 24 and 25 mb/s. At this point in the 4K game I do not believe it is a problem. I also guess that most all of us buying into the 4K rush will upgrade within the next two years. This is just the start of the technology. Enter cheap and be ready to upgrade.

All I can say is just got home with mine and 10 minutes messing with it got 10 clips, all looks as I expected - no problems. Operates like a V1U in manual mode. Small, fast, light, rainbows in waterfall looks like I saw it. It will do me for now!

Now just gotta fix my computer which has a broken SSD C: drive. Limping now.

Great. Looks like it will be the battle of the GH4 and AX-100 for the new buyers.

I'm also uploading some rainbows from it ... mine in the mist of my irrigation sprinklers over my newly planted wheat field.

Shooting a super compressed codec, there are some gotchas, but having experience with HDV and AVCHD, I can say what I'm seeing I'm not surprised. Shooting waterfalls close is a great way to stress everything out - add twigs and rocks in splashes, plus a slow reverse zoom/pan, and any pixel peeper would freak out. Certainly breaks up. But then, that's part of the reason I tried it - I've seen ProRes HQ break up like this too - go figure. Not necessarily as bad, but at many times the data rate, it really should not.

Messed with the settings some more- first thing - turn off the stupid bleep, bloop, crap. Kinda like how the eyepiece pulled out operates as a power switch, liked walking around in the living room with the active steadishot on - better than me with a glidecam ...oh well. Biggest problem so far, as I suspected, there is no way I can find to turn down the sharpness/detail circuit or contrast/color. Since I expected it, I'm not too dismayed, but I would have been happier to find a flatter profile to shoot with, as all this stuff is verging on oversharpened. Not that it's not kinda pretty, and it is somewhat grade-able, to a point, but if it was my only camera I'd prefer to shoot with no sharpness/low contrast, as that helps the codec deal with things, which can then be augmented later in post, rather than having the codec freak out and offer soggy truths.

The dangly charge cord is likely to fail - the ONLY way to deal with this is use it sparingly, and get some Wasabi batteries and external charger. I do that anyway, but in this case only after I decide to keep the camera.

So far, as long as it doesn't screw me in the next few days, it's looking pretty good.

I would NOT say it's going to be a big contender against the GH4 - it's a totally different camera. For my purposes, it gives me most basic capability, with potentially very decent results on average scenarios, in a small package, for "cheap" for now. Portability/integrated lens is a huge factor. Might be interesting to see what happens when hooked up to a Shogun, but that defeats the porpoise.

Speaking of porpoises, should be seeing more soon, and from a boat, this camera might be the ticket.

Can you please suggest what is the file envelope (MOV, M2T etc) in which the camera saves the files?
Also, what is the zoom range in terms of 35mm?

Thanks.

mp4

29 to 348mm (less width if Steadishot activated)

Can definitely see compression artifacts/noise in still frames. Send me your email address if you want some samples. In motion it's actually fine, but pixel-peepers might be appalled. It's not a RED. Compare to HDV in terms of resolution/artifact relationship.

Neat Video smooths it considerably (and can be used to soften the harsher effects of the in-camera sharpening while still supplying plenty of detail).

Still thinking I acknowledge and accept the flaws for what it is. I can be picky pixel peeper, but I can also not be, and either way is OK, depending. No camera is perfect, this one isn't , but it is an very advance piece of gear - the tech is amazing. Is it what you want in lieu of all the other options? Will the money you spend to get those other options/levels of quality be worth it? Depends on what you shoot and how successful you are with determining the subject matter that sells best.

Are you only able to buy one camera and demand upgradability and a pristine codec, to hell with the cost of computer upgrades or hard drive space? Well this is not your camera. But if you can see that it is a compact, integrated-lens unit that basically can deliver great HD (I have yet to test the XAVC-S in HD) and useable "4K" (UHD) in moderate circumstances, and without too many settings to offer you choice (or drive you nuts), then by all means, this might do it for you.

If I had my choice, I'd have this AX100, a GH4, a 4K upgraded FS700/7Q, a GoPro4K, and the little RX100m2 in my pocket able to shoot 4K. At least then I'd have no excuses.....and too many choices.

But for now, the RX100m2 stays in my pocket for "just in case", the AX100 will be everywhere with me in its bag, and the FS700 will be at hand or at least within 50 feet in case the aliens land in slow motion and give me enough time to set up.

Thanks guys for your first impressions - really interesting.

I have never used a camcorder and "think I fancy one" - trying to justify both DSLR (I use 5D3) and camcorder shooting. I notice you experienced guys seem to use both.

Is it small enough to not look professional?
As the GH4 has autofocus - do you feel this camera is more run and gun than the GH4?
Just wondering why you both preferred this camcorder over the GH4?