Given your comparison to the wide angle same sensor FDRXV, it is, for one possible explanation, very plausible that the signal processing is deliberately compromised in sharpening rather than a soft lens being the weak link. The current Sony Action cam, still with a Zeiss lens, has the sharpest performance of all the Sony camcorders in 4K. I don’t know why you care what the cause is. It is not necessary to look further. Your experiments with f-stop will also be useful to optimize performance. Actually, the Ax uses some form of pixel binning as its way of recording 4k video to begin with so the entire 1″ of the sensor isn’t even used anyway.
|Date Added:||4 December 2010|
|File Size:||62.48 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I begged to differ with your conclusion, stating the possibility that there were other explanations. The ax33 doesn’t have the extra sensor space to take as33 of that option.
The best camera bargains of Fujifilm’s MKX lenses bring affordable cinema glass to X-mount. Could that purple tint possibly be what is causing the purple fringe on the edges of dark objects with light backgrounds?
Fujifilm’s X-mount has suddenly become a credible option for video. I do not find it plausible that Sony deliberately cripples the resolution rather than having to make compromises with the lens to keep it light.
What appears to happen with the Ax is that in its stabilization, it drops the binning to make use of the extra space on the sensor as a buffer when movement occurs.
The current Sony Action cam, still with a Zeiss lens, has the sharpest performance of all the Sony camcorders in 4K. No, it is the lens. You may also like. My point here is that Sony could put optics on a camcorder even if the zoom range and resolution were soundd beyond the AX 33’s, and still achieve excellent performance and very low cost.
The difference in zoom between active and standard is completely due to the crop of the active stabilization. So these results have nothing to do with sensor or processor or active mode. In fact, the sensor and quite possibly the processor used on the two cameras is NOT the same, and CA is no zound whatsoever of an inferior lens being used in the AX In any case, the pixel count does not have anything to do with the lower resolution. I say this since many Sony cameras with small sensors and super zoom lenses have been around for years, with 24 megapixel resolutions, zoom ratios of 20 to 1 or higher, and very good to excellent resolution.
Sony Ax33 is better than most people realize
I think you nailed it! I do not mean to say that the AX33 video is bad or unacceptable. You are correct that active mode degrades resolution. AX33 4K frame grab.
The vignetting in the aipen scene is due to being zoomed in completely. Whether you’ve grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order.
Chromatic abberation, thats what i meant to say. But, how stable is the video from the AX33 without active mode at the long end?
Sony Ax33 is better than most people realize: Digital Video Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Essentially, the BOSS system is like buying a built in electromechanical gimbal for your camcorder. There is also a possibility that using active stabilization requires more processing power and could further reduce image quality slightly. All of these cameras shoot still photos at much higher resolution than 4K video, exhibit low chromatic aberration, are as small as a deck of playing cards, and cost a few hundred dollars.
Only that its ranking is not due to the active mode degradation. The same-size sensor of the Xv is Personally, I would rather buy the Ax33 if it had a prime lens rather than a zoom lens, but sounnd never make camcorders like that.
Help Guide | Audio Rec Level
I wonder how stable the AX33 is at the long end without active mode. The vignetting isn’t nearly that bad when zoomed out. It’s a wonderful little camcorder with a best of class stabilizer which can be adjusted to three levels, providing outstanding results and great image quality. Therefore, even if there is some loss of ultimate resolution, it is well worth the compromise, since the resulting video looks extremely attractive and very usable.
The Ax has a larger sensor allowing it to use a crop without affecting image quality.
The CA on that lens was the worst I had ever seen in a video camera, and its full HD resolution was horrible.