And the wideangle equivalent is 30mm I see, not 28mm.
Thank you Tom. The Sony A65 is on the back burner for the time being and now I'll explore the still capability of the Panny a bit more before deciding. John
John, I've no first hand experience, but I am starting to hear extremely good things about the new Sony RX10. Compared to a 1/2.3" chip the quality is going to be far better at high ISOs as it's about 5x bigger I believe, and back illuminated.
The camera seems relatively small size (especially considering the chip size), but still manages a decent zoom range - 8x, I think? Early reports make much of the fact that for the first time we're getting a camera which manages both stills and video very, very well, and it also seems to be the first that can mange to read the sensor fully at frame rate and properly process it. It's no longer necessary to pixel skip or window a stills sensor to get video. (If you are using a 1/2.3" sensor for stills, but only using a smaller portion for video, then apart from sensitivity issues, you will be losing a significant part of the wide angle ability.)
It apparently has features like a iris ring that can be "declicked" at the flick of a switch! So for stills use, you may want the "clicks" every 1/3 stop, for video you want smooth action - here you get the choice! Apparently a lot of other features which likewise go to make it a good video/still hybrid - not least an established video codec, and 50p ability.
Sony RX10 looks very interesting. Has anybody on the forum bought one ?John
Bear in mind it's only been available for a couple of weeks, and was only announced a few weeks before that! That's the trouble nowadays - by the time a few people have got a given camera and had it long enough to form an opinion it's been superseded by something else! :-) It's worth looking at the AP review - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/129455/1/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-review . Just bear in mind that they are primarily just looking at it as a stills camera, to them the video function is just an interesting extra. Since it seems that it's video side is better than you'll get from most other DSLRs etc, then it must mean that their already very good overall verdict can only be better still.
Use of the camera confirmed my worst fears, the worst dynamic range I have experienced on all the video cameras I ever owned. There is a large elephant in the room with RX10 talk on most forums, look at the videos on line taken by many people, spot the white chalky faces on people .......... and how all the good samples on line are either Sony creations in carefully chosen partially overcast skies or else the camera operator is highly skilled and has worked very hard to control exposure.
.
Since I could not find a more suitable creative style where the gamma curve was better suited to the conditions, (did not expect an adjustable knee for the money) I was left with nothing else to try so I sent it back and bought a Lumix GH3, the camera that NoaFilm uses that looks SO GOOD.. and I knew the moment I used it I was going to be happy with it's image and I am!
Infocus2, that video you linked to is simply the best I have seen so far using the RX10 and so it should because it's by NoaFilm whose work I admire. I downloaded the high quality version late last night and watched it in awe knowing what he was up against. Actually I have been following him around the net reading his comments on all sorts of cameras, a most interesting learning experience!Well I can tell that you think it's the user here that is the problem bit I assure you it's not simply an exposure issue. There are zebras and a histogram on the camera which ..................
".........at the shoot in Bruges I was expecting moire or aliasing but I really have to look to see anything that is bothering me and I deliberately panned most shots to see how the camera would deal with this fine detail. with my canon 550d that would have been a moire hell ..........It's also a very sharp image coming out of this camera and it deals very nicely with high contrast scenes after you dial back the contrast in camera. I found it very easy to set my exposure with the zebra's, ............ I will take the rx10 on a paid shoot soon with minimal experience and I will go with enough confidence it will perform as expected,.........."
I was left with nothing else to try so I sent it back and bought a Lumix GH3, the camera that NoaFilm uses that looks SO GOOD.. and I knew the moment I used it I was going to be happy with it's image and I am!
The irony seems to be that as far as I can see, in Noa's case, the RX10 is seen as the REPLACEMENT for his GH3, no? I've heard good things about the GH3, but from his remarks he certainly doesn't seem to be implying the RX10 is noticeably worse than the GH3, does he? Not with remarks like "I will take the rx10 on a paid shoot soon with minimal experience and I will go with enough confidence it will perform as expected,......"
I suppose it's always possible I did miss something vital in the settings or even had a faulty camera, but I don't really think so. Meanwhile I've been looking back at the footage from the RX10 and comparing it with my GH3. I already knew the RX10 records up to 109 IRE and that's ok but I didn't expect it to clip so early.. and so harshly.Some interesting things.. I now find the GH3 only records to 100 IRE and no more. That's with it set up similar to the RX10, using it's flattest profile with contrast, etc backed right off. .......
It's not my NLE to blame, Edius shows super blacks and super whites if present in the footage. The Vectorscope & Waveform display is always turned on when I edit, can't work happily without them, I would feel blind. Highlights exceeding 100 IRE cause to reach for a YUV curve filter, one of my custom curves made for this or else just make one on the fly to lower the super whites to legal levels, not just clip them off with some "broadcast safe" filter. So I am sorry to say that you lost your bet. Hmm... I even wondered recently if the viewfinder and LCD on the RX10 was on some extra dark hidden setting that caused me to overexpose but then the waveform meter showed otherwise.
I think I must just put this behind me now. Here is a thread which includes videos taken by everyone and their granny, all in one place, with comments that are interesting
quotes:
"
Is it me, or does it seem like the camera has limited DR, and highlights blow out harshly? While it has good detail the DR seems more like consumer camcorder, looks good until it fails catastrophicly. Also, some highlight lens flair.
The smooth aperture ring is great, but it isn't truely smooth in operation, if you do a slow ramp, you can see the steps in the aperture. it does do it smoothly, but it isn't exactly the same as one continuous ramp
The main disappointing find i've had is the manual focusing. The fly by wire is very 'disconnected' and you CANNOT do repeatable pulls, meaning setting markers is useless. i really really hope sony updates and refines this more, it seems very possible, but who knows if they'll address it.
I also read that the smooth aperture ring is NOT creating a smooth ramp, and i did verify this, the aperture isn't quite a smooth open/close even though the interface feels smooth. It's not as bad as click in step,s but it's not as smooth as a real stepless aperture. i found that a faster ramp will look smoother than a slower ramp. I don't ramp much at all, so not a biggie for me.
Level gauge is great but sometimes tough to see. Also use a flat hot-shoe bubble.
"
It's not my NLE to blame, Edius shows super blacks and super whites if present in the footage. The Vectorscope & Waveform display is always turned on when I edit, can't work happily without them, ........ So I am sorry to say that you lost your bet.
The big question has to be why there are many videos online which show very, very good results coming from the RX10 - yet you were so unhappy with it.
It doesn't make sense, on the face of it, does it? Now I've seen various examples (Noa's included) and whilst I am wary of drawing too many conclusions from online samples, I've now seen enough to satisfy me that it's performance in respect of dynamic range is well up to what I'd expect from such a camera. Your earliest post about "Use of the camera confirmed my worst fears, the worst dynamic range I have experienced on all the video cameras I ever owned" just does not correlate with samples I can see. There is even side by side footage posted comparing it to a C100 - and it's favourable.
I don't believe you're making it up - so the question is what were you doing differently to such as Noa? Superwhite clipping would have answered a lot - but if not that, what?
As far as the camera goes, then from what I read, the main settings which influence highlight/shadows are the DRO and contrast settings - can I ask what you had those set to?
As far as the criticisms you post go, then heck, it's a cheap(ish!) bridge camera - not even a DSLR. It's not perfect, but neither is a GH for video work!
Am I right in thinking that with most of the lenses, the GH3 doesn't normally come with a manual aperture ring at all, let alone one which is de-clickable?
Comparisons with the GH2/3 are interesting. The most obvious difference is that the latter is interchangeable lens, but that seems both a blessing and a curse. The "cinema" crowd still go for the GH for flexibility, but for general filming the money seems to be on the RX10 by a big margin. The 24-200 zoom range is good enough for most purposes - and (crucially) far greater than any of the lenses normally associated with 4/3.
Aside from lens considerations, advantages over the GH include zebras (and far easier exposure setting in a hurry), an inbuilt ND, better viewfinder - main advantage of the GH3 (but not the GH2) is codec more robust than AVC-HD.
So for the purposes of this thread - a general purpose stills/video camera - I'd go for the RX10, largely for lens convenience reasons. If I was getting something for staged filming, where dof and extreme lens angles were important, it would have to be a GH3.
Surely, what matters most to the average buyer of the RX10 is how it works straight out of the box. While there is no doubt that it is capable of very good videos in expert hands, if someone like Claire has problems, even with vastly more experience than the average camera user, then something is wrong somewhwere. The dynamic range problems are similar to the older Sony A65, and DRO settiings on that camera do not change this. Increasing the DRO setting just lifts the gamma curve, lightening the end result, but without extending the dynamic range to compensate for blown out whites and / or early loss of detail in shadows. Normal users shouldn't have to dig around technical specifications to try to work out why the camera fails in this way. Maybe a firmware update / revision is called for to get better results in the default settings.
Infocus, DRO was switched off from the beginning, I used creative style (Neutral) settings all on 0.
My original post to this thread was in response to John's question "Has anyone bought one yet?" I thought I should say how I had bought one but returned it because of it's weak dynamic range. I was clear that was the sole reason and did state that otherwise I found little to complain about. I also made it clear I did agree with the positive comments about this camera. Therefore I do not want to get into any more pros and cons about it.
We now have professionals and semi professionals who have put online nice results that have avoided this weakness showing up but that does not change the situation. In day to day shooting there is often not the time available to ensure each and every shot is carefully exposed. With no going back a shot can be lost with an unplanned camera movement bringing in extra bright light and in those situations one is caught out with all the RX10's creative style options, since there is very little difference between any of them as to the cameras response curve.
The sample videos online at the time I posted that showed bad highlight clipping, chalky faces, burnt out skies, super white hot spots are still out there and now others have brought up this shortcoming so it seems I am not the only one who found the camera has a tendency to blow out highlights early and without warning.
For anyone considering this camera I do hope you are careful and wish you the best outcome.
quotes:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/4050-exclusive-review-sony-rx10/
The shots look great until the contrast is too high or there's too much motion. Most of the mid-contrast shots looked better than what I've been seeing from the BMPCC. If Sony could improve how that sensor handles highlights we'd be in a lot better shape
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/4050-exclusive-review-sony-rx10/page-3
the video looks great and I was really impressed by most of your footage. But can you explain the over exposed shots?
Were the LCD or viewfinder not showing enough detail in the shadows that made it seem like you couldn't under expose anymore, or was it just a case that you were in a hurry to get the shot or were more concerned about getting the framing and focus right, than to be worrying about the exposure? Just curious, as it seems like a very capable camera otherwise.
Surely, what matters most to the average buyer of the RX10 is how it works straight out of the box. While there is no doubt that it is capable of very good videos in expert hands, .........something is wrong somewhwere. .......... Maybe a firmware update / revision is called for to get better results in the default settings.
But how it works out of the box will vary according to individual taste, and subject. The point is that there is no single "magic" setting that will be optimum for every condition and every user. It's conceivable that another user with different tastes could receive a GH3, try it out on an overcast day with default settings and return it with the comments of "uggh! the GH3 is far too flat - I've exchanged it for an RX10 which is far more vibrant!" And they'd be no more wrong than Claire is.
Increasing the DRO setting just lifts the gamma curve, lightening the end result, but without extending the dynamic range to compensate for blown out whites and / or early loss of detail in shadows.
From what I read, it's the DRO in connection with what the camera calls "contrast". And it's important to realise the inter relationship between such as these adjustments, ISO and exposure. By themselves, such adjustments may well just affect mid-tones - but then backing off exposure will stop the whites being blown out, and put the rest back where it was.
Yes, all this may be rather coarse compared to higher end dedicated video cameras, but as I said before "heck, it's a cheap(ish!) bridge camera - not even a DSLR" Such control is not much different from any camera in the class.
Infocus, DRO was switched off from the beginning, I used creative style (Neutral) settings all on 0.
Claire, I'm becoming very confused by what you are saying now. In post #21 you said:
"Furthermore, having done my homework beforehand, when the RX10 arrived I already knew to have it in the flattest of it's "creative style" presets, "portrait" with contrast, saturation and sharpness all dialed down. Unfortunately in the low winter sun there was simply too much contrast......"
Do the two statements not completely contradict each other? How can you have had "contrast, saturation and sharpness all dialed down", if you now say all the settings were on 0? I seem to remember the recommendations from such as Noa are to set the contrast to about -2, and the DRO to "On" and -1 (??), at the very least?
Or...... did you think "0" meant minimum, rather than "mid range"? Did you think by zero, that meant it was dialled down as far as possible?
I thought I should say how I had bought one but returned it because of it's weak dynamic range.
Let's be crystal clear about one thing. The fundamental camera does NOT have a "weak dynamic range". Off the sensor, it's exactly as good or bad as would be expected from any camera in the class.
We are talking about how that basic signal gets processed to the final viewable image. It would be possible to do it quite linearly - but the result would be very flat, very low contrast. (Albeit handling highlights etc very well! :-) ) Ideally, it would be suited to match each shot, but failing that a compromise has to struck between maintaining dynamic range and having an image with a certain punch - higher contrast in most of the image. You may be in a camp that feels Sony have put their default feet too strongly in the latter camp, and in that I may even agree - but that is NOT the same as describing the basic camera as having a "weak dynamic range" per se.
We now have professionals and semi professionals who have put online nice results that have avoided this weakness showing up but that does not change the situation. In day to day shooting there is often not the time available to ensure each and every shot is carefully exposed. With no going back a shot can be lost with an unplanned camera movement bringing in extra bright light and in those situations one is caught out with all the RX10's creative style options, since there is very little difference between any of them as to the cameras response curve.
It's only a "weakness" in your eyes, Claire! Others may consider it a strength. It's my understanding that people in different parts of the world are accustomed to different "looks", and what you consider better they may think looks washed out and insipid. Similar tastes have applied to matters such as aperture correction and matrix etc. But whereas in the past such "looks" were hardware matters, now they are largely a matter of default settings. Consequently it makes more sense to buy the hardware which best suits and spend a little time adjusting the defaults. From what such as Noa say, it seems in this case to be little more than adjusting 3 or 4 menu values to negative values.
And yes, obviously you can't be adjusting menu settings between shots on day to day shooting! But that's not the point, not what anyone is suggesting, isn't with any camera. It doesn't stop you adjusting the defaults for the day, though, does it? Maybe even settling for one setting for outside, another for inside? Or even for as long as you have the camera!
You say "there is very little difference between any of {the creative styles} as to the cameras response curve". I don't know what to make of this, since others who have gone into it have warned against making too drastic adjustments. Typically, use "Neutral" or "Portrait" as the basic Creative Style, then contrast, detail and sharpness all at about -2, with the DRO maybe at -1 or -2.
The camera was set to it's flattest possible settings, my memory fails me a little but when I think carefully I believe it was portrait, can still find the link to where I got this suggestion from someone also looking for a way out of the highlight clipping. Oh and I do believe it was minus whatever minimum and certainly not midway. In fact it'sthe same with the GH3 menu regarding minus, 0 and + numbers. This was a simple lapse of memory as I did not write them down as there was no way I was needing to up the levels again. It may look like like a contradiction, hey give me a break this is not a courtroom trial. In fact I do feel like I am on trial here so guess what? I'm out of this thread.
Claire,
Thank you for your valued contribution.
From my point of view It's been a fascinating journey into the expert world of video technology .
John
Hi!
Hope you don't mind me joining in, I got to this thread through my vimeo account which showed this site where my video was embedded and I got curious. :)
Anyways, thought I might share what I did shooting the Bruges video, when I saw the first rx10 footage I had the same feeling as Claire has described. You might ask why I bought the camera, well it was until I saw Dan Carter’s Video on vimeo I was sure other users must be doing something wrong because his footage didn't show these blown highlights like others did. So I took the risk and got it to replace my Sony nex-ea50 which I sold mainly because I wanted a much smaller camera, I mainly shoot weddings solo and benefit more from several smaller camera's in run and gun situations, the nex-ea50, eventhough a very fine camera proved to be too much of a burden dragging around all day.
I wanted to go to Bruges for a longer time to shoot just for fun and since I had a wedding coming up I decided to take it with me for some hands-on experience, I knew there was going to be many small bricks, roof tiles which would be a perfect moire test and especially the highlight handling would interest me the most, since it was a sunny cloudless day I was going to get plenty of shadows/sun where I could test how it would deal with these differences, the sun was not as strong as on a mid summers day but I still got some strong contrasts.
The only thing I actually did was to use the standard picture profile and dialed back saturation and contrast to -3 each and left sharpness at zero, I shot at 1080p avchd 50p and set the zebra's at 100% and also applied the ND filter, I exposed each time on the buildings that had sun on them assuring I didn't get any zebra's and through my viewfinder the shadow parts looked too underexposed, I was pleasantly surprised that in post (I use Edius 7) the differences between sun and shade was much more balanced and had much more detail then I expected.
In Edius I only used the yuv curve to keep it all somewhat within 0 - 100 IRE but I only had to adjust a few clips a bit, for the rest the footage is untouched.
Don't ask me why I don't get these hot spots in my images, I have no clue, I used the camera at a wedding this Saturday I also didn't have any real issues, a few shots displayed the start of some blown highlights but that was easily corrected with a YUV adjustment. I might post some more footage soon but I"m in the middle of a move to my new home so time is somewhat limited, if anyone has a question about the camera just shoot, if I can answer them I will.
Take care - Noa
Very helpful noa.
I've had a very quick look at the settings on the Sony A65, and winding down the contrast to -3 seems to bring out more detail in shadows without any other detrimental effects (DRO on auto). Saturation is more of a personal choice dependant on the subject, but comparisons between the A65 and a Pannasonic HMC151 in the past show the Sony to produce generally more saturated images in standard settings. Maybe DSLR's with video capability need to have different "standard" settings for each type of use, or a spare user defined choice of saturation / colour / sharpness ?
Hello Noa, and welcome to the forum!
You might ask why I bought the camera, well it was until I saw Dan Carter’s Video on vimeo I was sure other users must be doing something wrong because his footage didn't show these blown highlights like others did.
It didn't take long to find that with a bit of googling, and I think it's worth sharing here. (I hope it's not going to start a war between the Bruges and Grand Canyon tourist boards!! 
)
IMO, the bit between 1'30" and 2'00" is particularly impressive - even allowing for online compression issues it's hard to believe that was taken with what is primarily a stills camera. The way it copes with the fine detail in the landscape is a mile away from what DSLRs were capable of only a couple of years ago - and that includes my Canon 550D.
So I took the risk and got it to replace my Sony nex-ea50 which I sold mainly because I wanted a much smaller camera, I mainly shoot weddings solo......
In which case my apologies - earlier in this thread I said I thought you'd got the RX10 to replace a GH3, I now realise this is not the case. The fact you therefore must have both begs the question of how do you think they compare? It was interesting to note in the comments under Dan Carters video that he said "GH3 and RX10 color are near identical, and profiles on both are customizable. ....... So, I believe image quality and color are at least equal, but the RX10 wins for features and handling."
Reading down, I started to nod in agreement with comments saying ".... I have both as well like you said the rx10 wins hands down when it comes to built in features but one area where the rx10 can't compete at all is lens changeability. The fixed f2.8 zoom lens on the rx10 is a great all-rounder but ff1.4 lenses from wide to somewhat tele can create a look you can't get with the rx10"
Then I realised who had written them......
Nigel, I have seen this "dro" function mentioned before and had not even looked at it on my rx10, I see now it was on auto in my case, if I switch it to off or auto there doesn't seem to change anything, no matter if I point the camera to a bright or dark area, once I start dialing in dro levels the image starts to look a bit weird at the highest level (5), with my GH3 I use a standard picture profile outside and leave it all at 0, I get very nice punchy colors that way and good contrast, once I go inside I use a custom standard preset with the contrast turned down all the way, this gives me more details in the shadows, I can still decide in post if I want to crush the blacks or just leave it as-is to preserve more detail when it gets dark.
When I find teh time I must compare to my rx10 to see how and which preset settings match best with my gh3 settings.
earlier in this thread I said I thought you'd got the RX10 to replace a GH3, I now realise this is not the case. The fact you therefore must have both begs the question of how do you think they compare?
First thx for the welcome :) My current setup for weddings is a Panasonic gh3/g6 with a panasonic 12-35mm f2.8, panasonic 25mm f1.4, Olympus 12mm f2.0, Olympus 75mm f1.8 and Samyang 7,5mm f3.5 and then two Sony cx730's (which I only use to cover ceremonies). I mention my lens set up as that immediately explains what makes the biggest difference between the rx10 and the gh3. I can get much more creative with the panasonics, all these lenses (except the 12-35mm) can give a image that the rx10 cannot provide, I only hate the fact that the rx10 zoom is so slow, it takes 12 seconds from wide to tele which is ridiculous. I only zoom to reframe and cut the zoom out in post, but thx to Sony it has become impossible to do that now. I can only hope they will fix it in a firmware upgrade. The RX10 will only be used for all handheld run and gun work where I need to have clear enough sound and where content is more important then creative shallow dof shots done with a tripod/slider or steadicam.
Something I also like about the gh3 is that you can just add about any lens you like and I have a set of very old tamron adaptall II lenses that fit with a adapter, blacks have a blue tint and white has more grey in it, they make the image much less perfect and sterile looking like the new lumix lenses do and they are not as sharp, it is this imperfectness I much prefer for my personal films as they add more character to the image, my favorite one I shot with the gh3 during a short holiday is this one, dedicated to my dad who passed away this summer.
Weird, I replied to Nigel's question but can't see it appear anywhere.
I mention my lens set up as that immediately explains what makes the biggest difference between the rx10 and the gh3.
None of what you say surprises me at all. In terms of headline features, that's why I'd earlier thought:
Comparisons with the GH2/3 are interesting. The most obvious difference is that the latter is interchangeable lens, but that seems both a blessing and a curse. The "cinema" crowd still go for the GH for flexibility, but for general filming the money seems to be on the RX10 by a big margin........ So for the purposes of this thread - a general purpose stills/video camera - I'd go for the RX10, largely for lens convenience reasons. If I was getting something for staged filming, where dof and extreme lens angles were important, it would have to be a GH3.
And technically, the last item you link to looks great. In fact, it's great in all aspects!! I don't think there's a lot of point trying to make minute comparisons on Vimeo footage, but that said there doesn't look to be much to choose between the two cameras image quality wise - I'd be very happy with either. (I did think the France footage looked a little less sharp - even via Vimeo - but I've just noticed your comments about lenses used.) Hence my choice would definitely be made largely on "blessing or curse" aspects regarding the interchangeable lens.
Some funky stuff going on here, I replied to "Nigelp" yesterday but see that never got published, then I wrote another response saying the message doesn't appear and that also doesn't got published and then I got a lot of error messages. If I get a new response I get a email that I got a new "private" message. Like I see now "infocus2" replied and I got 3 email reminders send for one reply. Yesterday evening I could see my vimeo video displayed and now it's just a link. It seems this forum software is quite unstable? On my smartphone the forum also displays weird behavior like the text disappears when I scroll and I have to wait each time for it to reappear again. Never had this kind of issues over at dvinfo or dvxuser.
Hi Noa
Your posts were caught in the forum moderation queue, designed to catch spam, for some reason it caught your posts.
I check the queue four times a days but not at night, Sorry!
Re: the infocus posts, I often get three emails as well, this may be down to editing of the post as a new email is sent on each revison.
If you have forum issues, please post them in the Forum Issues post in my signature so our Admin can see your problems and check them out.
I often read the forum on a smart phone and I haven't had the issues you describe.
Cheers
Some funky stuff going on here, I replied to "Nigelp" yesterday but see that never got published, then I wrote another response saying the message doesn't appear and that also doesn't got published and then I got a lot of error messages. If I get a new response I get a email that I got a new "private" message. Like I see now "infocus2" replied and I got 3 email reminders send for one reply. Yesterday evening I could see my vimeo video displayed and now it's just a link. It seems this forum software is quite unstable? On my smartphone the forum also displays weird behavior like the text disappears when I scroll and I have to wait each time for it to reappear again. Never had this kind of issues over at dvinfo or dvxuser.
Hi Noa
Thanks for the bug report there are some ongoing issues with the site which i'm attempting to fix, the notifications via PM default is stupid and i've now changed it to default to email notifications.
if you have the time to report any display issues in the http://www.dvforums.com/forums/forum-suggestions thread - i'm interested if your having issues on a phone, i only have ios devices to test on so i'd like to know if other platforms have problems.
cheers
tom
Hi,
a long time ago I used to film with a Sony DRV-VX100E and a Manfrotto tripod. Today I carry my camera (iPod touch 5g) and my "tripod" in my pocket.
I watch my videos using an Apple-TV connected to a 55 inch Plasma TV. However I´m tempted to buy the new Panasonic LUMIX TZ60 with an electronic viewfinder. What do you think?
Example - iPod touch 5g
Herman,
I'm not sure if you are looking for a video camera or a compact digital camera.
The Panasonic TZ60 is a very good compact camera if its anything like my TZ40. If you are however looking for a video camera then I suggest you look at the Panasonic range of cameras in particular the X920.
To update on my original question, a few days ago, after looking at a large number of reviews I went ahead and bought the Sony RX10. At present I am trying to learn all the options in the Menu but I have taken a few photographs and shot a few video clips and I must say the lens quality is a standout feature. The stabilization aspect of the camera was a pleasant surprise particularly when filming hand held shots at maximum zoom. The built it microphone was also much better than I expected and will probably result in me not having to take my Rode mic and wireless mic with me on holidays where flight hand luggage limits are an issue.
Finally, has anybody else bought this camera and if so what problems have they encountered bearing in mind Clair's comments.
John
I just used the camera for a personal shoot a few days back, the more I use it the more I like it, only hate the ridiculous slow zoom while recording.
I bougt the Panasonic LUMIX TZ60 and I really like it. The only thing I don´t like is that when you press the video recordning button, the recordesd area will be more narrow.
For this reason Panasonic have a parameter so you can see what will be recorded. So here is my first video:
Noa,
Spring is definitely in the air in Belgium . I liked the tracking shots. What sort of kit did you use ?
John
Herman,
Nice video. Do you by any chance work for the Tourist Board !!
John
Thank you John! No, I don´t work for the Tourist board, but I have approved that the might link to my YouTube video clips - which the do. I have many hobbies, normally I play with ”La Parranda de Ron”.
To update my original posting, I eventually bought the Sony RX10. To my relief it has met all my expectations and now this week I have installed the Firmware2 which incorporates the XAVC-S codec. All I need now is a new memory card ( awaiting delivery) to test the codec upgrade.
Has any member followed the same step and has already tested then new codec.
John