January 19, 2012 - 16:28
Just wondered if anyone was using one of these & what they think?
January 19, 2012 - 23:49
#1
41 views & not one person apparantly using this cam! Bit dissapointed!!!
January 20, 2012 - 08:16
#2
Maybe it doesn't appeal to those who make serious video.
Steve
January 20, 2012 - 09:45
#3
Here`s one that I think does!
http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=231
January 20, 2012 - 09:53
#4
Sony HXR NX5E, not NEX5E
I think that this may be why you did not get any response.
I have the NX5E and love it. However, I'm only a hobbyist with all this and there are people on this forum far better qualified to talk about this camera than me. Tom? Where are you? Your comments on it have been a huge help to me.
Ken
January 20, 2012 - 09:55
#5
Yes the NEX5E is one of these and not really a pro video camera: http://www.sony-asia.com/product/nex-5d
NX5E looks like a nice camera although if it is based on the Z5 like the review says some of the buttons I found to be a tad small and not very strong for semi pro use, I always liked my Z7 as well and its a shame that the HDV codec was it's downfall as AVCHD is a lot nicer and full 1920x1080.
The canon XF105 looks very nice too as an option.
January 20, 2012 - 10:10
#6
Oops! Sorry guys :-)
January 20, 2012 - 16:51
#7
I'm here Ken and I have the NX5, not the NEX5, which is why I've remained stum.
January 20, 2012 - 16:56
#8
Tom,
I think that it is the NX5 that barry is interested in. The link in his third posting takes me to an NX5 review.
Sony really put a lot of thought into these model numbers!
Ken
March 3, 2012 - 19:14
#9
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Hi Barry,
You might be better with this:
It's always raining when I come down your way!
Ha ha!
I'm STILL using my EX1R's and STILL love them.
Might consider one of the above for rough enviroment stuff and for on the end of my K10 crane as the EX1 is a bit heavy for it.
March 6, 2012 - 14:41
#10
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
So, Barry, is it the NX5 you're interested in? If so I've had a multi-page write-up printed on the camera's good and bad points, and I pull no punches.
March 6, 2012 - 18:02
#11
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Just back from hols & just starting to catch up!
Can you send me a link to the report?
Cheers
March 13, 2012 - 23:37
#12
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Just got my HXR-NEX5E from H Prestons & first looks I`m pretty impressed!
March 14, 2012 - 10:17
#13
Spot the difference
NEX-5
or
HXR-NX5
I'm still unclear as to what this thread is about? There is no such thing as an HXR-NEX5
March 14, 2012 - 10:39
#14
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
I think it's about the NX5, but now I'm not so sure. The thread title still says NEX5 though.
March 14, 2012 - 11:34
#15
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Hey guys this could be a new game for the noo meediah grads,
Spot the difference 1: Cinematic film cameras wot will make you a DOP:
March 14, 2012 - 12:30
#16
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Gary Nattrass wrote:
Hey guys this could be a new game for the noo meediah grads,Spot the difference 1: Cinematic film cameras wot will make you a DOP:
Neither...
It's the brain behind the eye behind the lens that maketh the DoP. The camera is unimportant, it just defines how easy it is to make the film...
Steve
March 14, 2012 - 12:37
#17
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
StevenBagley wrote:
Gary Nattrass wrote:
Hey guys this could be a new game for the noo meediah grads,Spot the difference 1: Cinematic film cameras wot will make you a DOP:Neither...It's the brain behind the eye behind the lens that maketh the DoP. The camera is unimportant, it just defines how easy it is to make the film...Steve
Correct and you get a gold star.
Now at what point in time were secretaries and runners re-named self shoot producer/directors???
March 14, 2012 - 12:47
#18
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Think I'm right in saying the original Canon 5D didn't shoot movies, so you can discount that for starters.
March 14, 2012 - 12:57
#19
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Gary Nattrass wrote:
Now at what point in time were secretaries and runners re-named self shoot producer/directors???
Does it matter if they are producing acceptable images (both technically, and artistically)?
Steve
March 14, 2012 - 15:37
#20
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
they are not making acceptable images, neither technically nor artistically.
what's worse is you have to get your own coffee these days.
March 14, 2012 - 17:06
#21
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
StevenBagley wrote:
Gary Nattrass wrote:
Now at what point in time were secretaries and runners re-named self shoot producer/directors???
Does it matter if they are producing acceptable images (both technically, and artistically)?
Steve
Well if searching for focus and crash zooms along with wobbly cam are the new style then they certainly are doing the job well.
No doubt slapping a mic on top of the camera is the new way to do all your audio too as those clever bunnies in post can sort it out later, oh what do you mean we do the audio in the edit now, ah yes FCP X has autofix!
And they wonder why people are not watching anymore and the ratings are going down but I suppose it keeps Katie, Kerry and Peter et all in gainful employment and the unpaid interns can gain some real shooting experience.
March 14, 2012 - 17:12
#22
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
HXR-NX5 looks a nice little camera and is basically a Z5 with AVCHD codec at 24mbs, I think the weak link with the Z5/Z7 and S270 was the old HDV codec and the AVCHD one is a lot nicer and certainly looks very good on my little canon HF11.
March 14, 2012 - 17:12
#23
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
HXR-NX5 looks a nice little camera and is basically a Z5 with AVCHD codec at 24mbs, I think the weak link with the Z5/Z7 and S270 was the old HDV codec and the AVCHD one is a lot nicer and certainly looks very good on my little canon HF11.
March 17, 2012 - 19:24
#24
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
We're a 24 hour News channel and we tried out the NX5, the PD177, and the Panasonic P2 based HPX250 as a replacement for our ageing PD170 Cameras. It might surprise some on this forum that we still use the PD170, but when you start looking, there really is no replacement for that camera... it's only serious drawback being it is tape based. Manufacturers like SONY, Panasonic and Canon, have no clue as to what the ENG market really needs.
Anyway, here are a few things we came across in our tests; pardon me for using the PD 170 as a benchmark, and also the fact that that I will not use a whole lot of specs to make my points; those are available on the Sony/Panasonic website anyway.
1. Lens: The NX5's wide end goes as wide as a PD170 WITH a 0.8x adaptor, which gives superb depth and fantastic stability while doing hand-held camerawork. The tele end, very remarkably, zooms in as much as the PD lens without any adaptor. This is without doubt a huge advantage while doing News camerawork. Incidentally, the P2 has a similar lens and achieves just about the same focal lengths as the NX5. The PD 177 however falls short in comparison, particularly at the wide end.
2. The NX5 has an SDI output port, so if you need to plug it into a satellite truck to do lives from location, you already have a huge advantage over the usual RCA plugs that most small format cameras seem to love. The SDI port has a rock solid BNC connector which can take the push-and-shove of scrum situations much better too. in contrast, PD 177 has a flimsy, fragile port (just like the one on the Z7) which is prone to failure. The P2 is blessed with a BNC (SDI) port as well.
3. Weight: it's comparable to the PD 170 (which is actually heavier by about 200 grams) and very well balanced... a great advantage when doing news camerawork... An important factor if your enjoy handheld camerawork. not really an issue since all 3 cameras fall within the same weight category, the NX5 is balanced the best.
4. Tapeless/memory: the NX5 uses standard memory chips which are available off the shelf in just about any electronics stores.... this is important when you compare it to the Panasonic P2 Cameras, which use proprietary memory card that cost an arm and a leg.
Where the NX5 loses out:
1. Light sensitivity: the PD 170 camera requires less light to expose correctly. The NX5 is comparatively light guzzler... on an average you'd need to open the iris by about a stop or even a stop and a half to achieve the same picture brightness when compared to the PD 170. however, this light sensitivity factor is indeed the bane of these new fangled HD cameras which manufacturers seems determined to ram down our throats. The PD 177 and P2 also fall in the same category: light Hogs all!
2. Recording issues: The NX5 does not have the capability to record via firewire (or thru any other inputs either)... something which the PD 170 and a LOT of other cameras could do ages ago. So while the Nx5 can playout footage it has recorded through it's SDI or RCA ports, but is incapable of taking footage from say, another camera or VTR.
I hope this helps..
March 17, 2012 - 20:37
#25
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Quote:
The camera is unimportant, it just defines how easy it is to make the film...
Might I take this further? I would suggest that the camera used defines how pompous people can appear to be towards others who cannot afford more expensive models. The camera should be irrelevant, and a professional camera is whatever a professional has had to use in order to complete a piece of paid work. There's a very successful corporate producer in the Midlands who is using nothing more than a Sony V1 and an inexpensive DSLR of some sort. On the other side of the coin I know of a producer up t'north who owns his own Red kit, Steadicams and a lot of other equipment, and he is getting nowhere. Not to put too fine a point on it, but one is good at customer service and business. The other isn't.
March 18, 2012 - 12:29
#26
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Any camera will perform in differing ways dependant of what the user is capable of! What is being discussed here isn`t about the operator but what the camera is can achieve.
March 19, 2012 - 15:06
#27
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
FreeFlow wrote:
The camera should be irrelevant, and a professional camera is whatever a professional has had to use in order to complete a piece of paid work.
That makes the assumption that "a professional" will be capable of choosing the correct camera for the job and pricing accordingly to allow its use. The issue is these days there are a lot of nonprofessionals offering video services. Shooting out of focus interviews with terrible sound has become common practice in the low end corporate world, does that make the 5d a great documentary camera? Is someone who uses one for everything a professional?
The choice of camera is far from irrelevant - a professional will be willing to invest in the correct tools for the job. People who think this stuff is irrelevant are devaluing the whole industry and making life much harder for genuine professionals to offer high quality services.
March 26, 2012 - 10:12
#28
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Y'know, Sleepy, whether we like it or not, the notion of professional videographers being steps apart from ALL people who do filming for either pleasure or struggling enterprise is not anymore a particularly strong one for very many occasions. Apple have realised this with their cheaper 'professional' editing programme, so obviously aimed at the Mr. and Mrs of this world, supplying a capability that affords finished products in keeping with many professional results. Not just 'point and shoot' in automatic setting either!
The sheer simplicity of understanding attached to video cameras nowadays as opposed to not many years ago has caused the involvement through to the end of editing of far many more people in the pleasure, and it has to be admitted that a large number of the results are totally competitive with any so-called professional ones; so much so that the stage has been reached whereby the professional industry in some directions has diminished.
The edifying circumstances of today with most subjects has not kept away from filming. The reference to snootiness in the business, by one writer above, is not far from the truth with many film workers. There are courses for most subjects nowadays abounding in our society and I have children and grandchildren to easily prove the point; and they are at ease with whatever I speak or write of in the matter of videographer. I've been doing it for a long time and rely on experience gained. They have been educated over a much shorter period of time and in many ways are equally qualified.
I keep well away from any pretentious application in what is now my serious hobby as opposed to any longer it being a business, and would not wish to rely on any supposition of superiority in performance or production or in the case of equipment used. I can still look at some of the Amiga film editing I made and prior to that, the old 16mm stuff, then realise that matters have progressed so far that it honestly is possible for so called amateurs to produce as good as any professional - and with not too expensive equipment as well!
There's a young american who, through these forums, was able to have a Sanyo super eight film camera from me at cost of carriage. He's gone on to build telecine' and other equipment at his teenage stage. I still irregularly transfer old cine stuff to disc for a number of people, and the result for them is deemed marvelous. Nothing to do with a so-called professional result - but then none of those old transfers could be classed as high quality definition products; it's the content that matters. My argument therefore, is one of perception by others when viewing any film results, and often the type of equipment used is of no consequence.
Have ideals and opinions regarding equipment by all means - it adds to the flavour of interest with us all - but I'm far from sure that reliance on knowledge of equipment and how to use it always supersedes the products from intelligent people with whatever means they happen to use for their productions.
March 29, 2012 - 03:25
#29
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
I read that post repeatedly and I still can't understand the point your trying to make.
To me it seems like your saying that because cheap equipment is quite good these days that there is no difference between the skillset of a professional cameraman and someone who has just picked up a chap camera from jessops.
The point that I was making is that to produce excellent results requires a large amount of skills. These skills can be learnt via experience, and can be assisted by education. One of the primary skills to be in a position to get excellent results is a level of technical understanding which enables you to select the correct tools for the job. This is true for a cameraman as it is true for a carpenter. Selecting the wrong tool for the job will impact on the quality of workmanship and thus the ultimate quality of the end product. Using nails and glue makes for a worse joint than doing a proper dovetail. Doing the dovetail takes more skill and involves using tools which are comparatively difficult to use. Your argument translated into this analogy seems to consist of you saying "who cares? everyone buys their furniture from ikea these days!"
I care, I think that skilled cameramen with good tools create a far higher quality product than people who lack the skills or equipment.
March 29, 2012 - 08:57
#30
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
sleepytom wrote:
I care, I think that skilled cameramen with good tools create a far higher quality product than people who lack the skills or equipment.
That paragraph of yours portrays exactly what I also would say, Sleepy. However, the fact is that equipment producing good results in the hands of an intelligent being with average skill-sets cannot be denied. If you did read my comments more than once you'lll note that I did write "ALL" when querying what seemed to me to be your blanket covering comments. Also, what the average person perceives in a film as satisfactory is the required result.
March 30, 2012 - 12:53
#31
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
Ron Spicer wrote:
........., what the average person perceives in a film as satisfactory is the required result.
Surely that depends on the market you're in! It implies that "above average" people (at least as far as perception of video!!
) will therefore perceive it as "unsatisfactory" in terms of technical quality, doesn't it?
) will therefore perceive it as "unsatisfactory" in terms of technical quality, doesn't it?
That may be OK for some work, but adopt that approach for Downton Abbey or Planet Earth and you're not going to get very far.
It does bring in the whole subject of "good enough". Something like an EX1 may be overkill for a cheap corporate web video of a talking head - but be nowhere near good enough for a high budget drama. Earlier on freeflow said:
freeflow wrote:
I would suggest that the camera used defines how pompous people can appear to be towards others who cannot afford more expensive models. The camera should be irrelevant, and a professional camera is whatever a professional has had to use in order to complete a piece of paid work.
I think I see what he's getting at, but think his wording in the first sentence is a bit unfortunate. If he is criticizing anyone who thinks "a good camera makes me a good cameraman" then yes, absolutely. But I don't think DP's on Downton Abbey and the like use Alexa's just because they're pompous........
Likewise, camera A may be "better" than camera B for many reasons. They may indeed give similar results on an undemanding scene in good light - but in other conditions A may trounce the results from B. That's quite apart from issues apart from technical quality - ergonomics, controllability, connectivity, ease of use of accessories etc etc. A true professional will not find the choice of camera "irrelevant" - but will be well aware of different horses for different courses, and may deliberately choose a "worse" camera when appropriate.
That is not the same thing as when only cheap equipment can be afforded and inappropriate use attempts to be justified.
Ron Spicer wrote:
However, the fact is that equipment producing good results in the hands of an intelligent being with average skill-sets cannot be denied.
No, I wouldn't deny it, but it comes round to the question so often expressed of "which is more important - a good script or good technical quality?"
If forced to give an answer, then yes, it has to be the script. But (as said many times before) it's a stupid question, because the presupposition seems to be that it has to be a choice of one or the other. Which is silly - what we should be wanting is a good script with good technical quality AS WELL. They are two separate matters which shouldn't be confused.
March 30, 2012 - 13:23
#32
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
I think to a certain extent it's like the music industry in video and film these days, recording and ways of creating content have never been so cheap but at the end of the day it is down to two factors one being talented and the other market forces who may wish sell you and make people buy your product.
Real talent will create good quality product that people may wish to buy or enjoy but marketing will also allow average material to be sold to the masses.
There is also the "mrs cannybody in byker" syndrome that we always used at ITV Tyne Tees 30 odd years ago, people will in time take quality for granted and the mass market will find it's level whatever the relative quality is.
When CD's came out people knew they had good quiality audio but it was the convenience factor that drove sales more, now we live in the download age people are quite happy to receive their content at lower quality but it is also even more convenient and cheaper to buy it, the same goes for TV and film and if it is shot on XY or Z camera or made by XY or Zproducer with top flight DOP "mrs cannybody in byker really couldn't give a shite" !!!
There are also a lot of people who think that just having HD on the side of their camera or using a stills camera is a benchmark for quality these days but there is a big difference in making content for vimeo and for the mass market, although you tube etc can get more viewers than any broadcaster could ever hope for so it is a moving goalpost these days.
With content creation being made easier with new technology I think the quality element of creativity starts to go out the window and become dumbed down and I see this all the time now and I can't recall doing much work recently where people asked for creativity to any degree !
Yes an alexa in the hands of a great DOP will create great images but a RED a DSLR or even domestic handcam / i-fone in the hands of an average operator seems to be the acceptable norm of quality for the average punter these days and the screen in the corner of our living room is full of it!
March 30, 2012 - 17:50
#33
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
I don't think I could quarrel with the last two posts. We're on the same track - but in different carriages !
Oh, and apologies to you Barry for apparently causing the takeover of your thread.
March 31, 2012 - 09:15
#34
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
On a side note I recently did a promo for the CTBF and it was to thank them for all the assistance I got when our son Henry was very ill and then sadly passed away.
I shot the main interviews on my panasonic HPX371 but we also used some of the footage from my canon HF11 and my i-fone.
As this promo was to be show in the cinema before the premieres of war horse I was a bit concerned about how the handcam and i-fone footage would look on the big screen but it looked great with minmal artifacts and the colour balance was spot on with minimal grading.
None of the people who have viewed never make a comment regarding the quality of the pictures as I suppose it is the content that is king in this instance:
The final shot of Henry was done on the i-fone and I was very surprised at how good it looked on the big screen.
March 31, 2012 - 12:43
#35
Re: Sony HXR-NEX5E
A film produced with a mix of cameras, Gary, the whole to me being completely acceptable as it almost certainly was by anyone else who's viewed it. As I've previously tried to express . . .
So far as content goes, and that's despite any comment leaning on the side of definition and production, I can tell you that it is deemed much more than satisfactory. I've spent a working life noting tragic circumstances and obviously became slightly hardened but I still so easily noted the affect of such an upsetting period in a family life. My wife also had a tear. Nuff sed.