Sony PMW-X70

Kinda fun - got my X70 last week, just now installed the 4K upgrade. Will do some tests between the AX100 100mbit/s, the X70 422HD and the 420 XAVC 4K tomorrow maybe. Main difference for me already is the Picture Profiles allowing for a flatter, more organic look.

Inconclusive but preliminary findings indicate one is MUCH better than the other ... yes, it is the 60mb/s 4K way better than the 100mb/s 4K

Hard to discern due to the AX100 "look" baked into the footage .. enhances blues, sharpening, BUT ... compared to X70 with no picture profile active, looks candy, and less detail, more, chunkier noise.

Gotta create a profile to match the AX100, and do my tests more scientifically, but what I'm seeing tells me that the reasons I paid for the X70 + the 4K upgrade were good ones.

This is basically comparing XAVC-S (AX100) to XAVC - the more pro "look" of the X70 makes comparing the footage more difficult - besides, of course, that it looks better.

Will attempt to make a comparison for motion/detail handling soon.

Only downsides to the camera (compared to the AX100)so far:

1. Battery life not as good (noticably) & does not sport the goofy USB charge dangly thing, which is a handy thing sometimes.
2. XAVC codec harder to deal with (mainly does not play in media players for reviewing "dailies") but transcodes easily and quickly
3. Slightly bigger body. Stealth mode still possible by taking off audio handle.

Gene, would have thought those files should play well in the free Sony Catalyst Browser software?

Hi Mark,

They do, but I have determined I do not like Catalyst. The color correction is sub-par (the controls are cool, but lack a few things, and the results are always less natural looking than Color Finesse). Other things about Catalyst are kinda dumb - it's clunky, and no batch output.

The files play as well in Vegas Pro 13, that is to say if one can tolerate hiccups, but they also play directly in AE CC, so I pretty much use Catalyst to find what I want, then import it directly to AE. I haven't rendered anything since the curation thing, so I haven't done too much but screw around.

The AX100 files are much easier to deal with, but so far I'm thinking it's worth a slower workflow for better quality. Actually, I was surprised by the difference.

I'll try to shoot some comparisons today.

Gene, yep Catalyst good for browsing files. I find I also use it for my 4k DJI files as Vegas struggles to put out a decent preview. I also have Catalyst Prepare that I use for batch converting the DJI files to XAVC Intra . . . .big files and probably overkill but I find they play well in Vegas then. Not free and probably overpriced for what it does(it is clunky like you said)but its also quite good on handling my cine/S-Log3 files. Hopefully they will expand its features in the future.

Haven't tried it with DJI files yet. 4K Footage Studio plays those well, and exports to ProRes, so I'll stick with that. I wonder if those guys at Acrovid would work on the XAVC codec? I'll ask. They are pretty responsive and helpful.

I just got in from a second test of the two cameras. I could not make them look the same, and really, it's unimportant. The AX100 is oversharpened and oversaturated with a tendency to exaggerate blue, from what I can tell. For all that there is less detail rendering and a little more "fuzz" in a halo around high contrast edges, like conifer branches.

Contrast rendering in a "real" way is very much better on the X70. (comparing XAVC-S AX100 100mb/s 4K to XAVC-L X70 60mb/s 4K).

I screwed up my test a bit since I did not have my quick release plates precisely aligned, but In general I have satisfied myself that the additional cost (yet another camera!) was worth it.

I typed up a few other thoughts earlier, I'll paste that in another post. All in all, I think this is a really cool camera for stock work.

Oh .. have I mentioned the "ClearImage Zoom"? It's cool. Very useful extender (using extra sensor resolution???) ... as opposed to Digital Zoom, which sucks, as it always has, CI Zoom is actually impressive. Don't try to crop into the 4K if using the CI zoom at full though ...

Compared to the AX100 the basic premise and handling with regard to function, lens, sensor, and size are very similar. The X70 is a tad bulkier, enough to make one curse Sony for not remembering how well-loved the rotating grip on the EX1-R was! The grip is still assuming one has their camcorder up to their eye, and if you are shooting from waist level, the grip is completely at the wrong angle. One other gripe is that while it is nice to have a dedicated menu button (I bet the menus, which are like the Z5U, the FS700, Z100 are much better than the consumerish AX100 menu), the menu button on the X70 is forward and below the LCD, while the joystick that navigates the menus is next to the thumb record button. Finally, three of the assignable buttons are underneath the LCD, so if you were shooting with LCD closed, and wanted to turn off your zebras, for instance, (I have button 1 and 2 mapped to zebras and peaking, with 3 still at the stock Picture Profile direct access) you have to flip open the LCD to access them.

Minor griping aside, the camera feels like a mini Z5U, Z100, though obviously missing the rings for iris and zoom in addition to focus. Another gripe is that I wish they made a mini version of the flip-open lens hood like those cams have, instead of a lens cap.

Unlike the AX100, which turns off the EVF when you open the LCD, the X70 automatically switches between them if you have the EVF pulled out. However, there is no way to automatically disable this ... sometimes distracting if you have both active, but move past the EVF, and looking at the LCD, it shuts off. A minor annoyance, this.

I have the handle off on mine ... seldom do I feel I need the audio from the short shotgun (included in my used kit, but NOT included with the new camera!) and as the handle adds bulk especially making it more front heavy, as well as less-subtle, more susceptible to wind, I keep it nearby "just in case".

So far, what I've seen in low light is very encouraging. VERY usable images at extremely high gain. While I won't call my attempt to shoot moonlit forest at 27db "pretty", if there was a man being chased by a bear the clip would have looked fine...better than your usual sasquatch, Nessie, or UFO quality shot, certainly. I'd say +9, maybe +12 .. then things start getting "chunky". On that note, I have been using Neat for Video v4, and it is excellent.

I find that the camera "can" look electronic ... it is important to tame that with the Picture Profiles. This is based on leaves and foliage, nature scenes. I've shot only a couple clips with people or vehicles, and the look is pretty nice for those.

One thing to know is that you must watch those highlights. Because of the fine/low noise, it is generally accepted that shooting dark and bringing it up in post is better than blowing the highs, which clip easily. They do not clip in a pretty fashion ... I was surprised, as I think the AX100 might actually do better, but it is possible that it is a relative thing ... I'll explain that better in later review, if I can. Pushing black gamma to +7 and raising the black levels helps bring the image in line, as well as setting the knee to Manual, lowering the knee point to about 77%, which softens the effect. I have shot like that mostly, and I do like it.

Unfortunately it's not weather sealed ... I've had my AX100 pretty wet, and it's fine (so far) which is a testament to build quality (or luck?). The X70 has the same build, so should survive the same amount of abuse.

Zoom rocker not as nice as the AX100 - I don't know why, but the AX100 stops and starts more gently, with better control in between. Setting the option in the X70 "Speed Zoom = ON" for some reason does help, even if you don't use the faster zoom speed.

Finally: I also remembered a pretty important caveat: While yes, the HD 422 is really cool, you must use that if you want 60P. No, sorry, "S&Q does NOT work at all for slow OR quick ... you must accept 30P if shooting 4K.

Bummer on that account!

For me, 60 P is the ONLY reason to shoot HD ... the 422 is not compelling enough reason, as you can deliver a 422 HD clip from a 420 4K clip, quite easily ...(correction welcome if I am wrong!) but frame rate is hard to fake.

At least from what I've seen, only previewed (and zoomed in to check) on HD monitors, the HD looks very robust, and could easily compare to the AX100 4K for general purposes and from a strict image quality standpoint.

In response to a fellow shooter's question, I did a test. Not the best test, but worth publishing, I guess.



X70 4K Render to HD vs HD test

Cold you add your opinion about the Clear Image Zoom both in HD an UHD, since the optical zoom is 12x only? Thank you.