I'm very happy with my AX100. I'm sorry I can't say much more than the specs already tell you. It does what I need. Editing 4K on my PC is difficult but that is not the fault of the camera.

Rich

Sony AXP33 here.
Really great finally to be able to afford 50 Mbps or even 100 Mbps recordings - what a difference - and have it stored directly on the SD-card.

No problems in my Vegas 12 - even the 100 Mbps clips are previewed at full speed - on a 6 core 4930.

Also Full HD 50 Fps at 50 Mbps is fine and crisp to work with - IMHO probably "better" than 4K.

No noticeable change in render times to final output.

I don't really participate on any other forum, so I thought I would follow up to my original post. I moved forward and bought the AX33. The purpose of the camera is to serve me as a B camera.

For the price, the camera is good and sadly Canon does not even have a camera that competes with it at the same price point. In my opinion the G30 is the closest option.

What do I like? I would say the Balanced Optical Stabilization is truly impressive. Ironically the focusing capabilities are not. This is one area that I think Canon excels at.

I don't think I will jump ship exclusively yet to Sony, but when price is the biggest consideration when choosing a camera. (Spend less and get more of a camera.) Canon is note even trying to be competitive. Just a few thoughts this morning.

Chad

Dach

You said you use it as a B roll camera? B roll to which camera? If your other camera is not 4K and you only record HD then I would have rather bought the CX900 or go all the way for the AX100. I had the AX33 for a week and sent it back. It was supposed to be a B roll to my AX100 but the image quality just isn't good enough. I found myself back to where I was with the HF-G30, soft image and low dynamic range. The sensor is just too small to expect great things from it.

I suppose I am learning from experience, returning the camera is not an option at this point.
I've been working with the G30 and XA20 from Canon. Having been frustrated of the XF200 price point, I started looking at other options. I was at a local camera store's "rep day".

I was introduced to the AX100 and AX33 and choose the later. I knew not expecingt the Sony to be a perfect match with the Canons (when used together). My intent was to become familiar with their cameras through application. I was not aware of the CX900 though.

I shot this short video with my AX100 in HD, 1080, 29.92p, XAVC-S, Cinematone. I haven't used Cinematone before and just wanted to give it a try. Also shooting at 29.97p is unusual for me. I usually shoot 59.94p for sports but I can see that 29.97p is sufficient for this kind of filming. The CX900 would be equally as good in HD.

I have the AX100 (thanks to you) and forgot all about Cinematone, I had to look it up, the manual is pretty vague about what the mode does. Technically, got any ideas what that camera is going in that mode?

When you shot the Garden video did you shoot MANUAL or AUTO exposure. I'm fairly new to video so pretty much use AUTO exclusively. Most of the video I shoot is similar to your Garden video. I shoot outdoor landscapes, nature, and wildlife in National Parks.

Thanks,

Rich

I used manual on all the shots including manual focus and peaking. Video isn't much different from stills, the basic principals still apply, iris does more then just exposure. I mostly used 1/60th shutter but also used 1/30 in the shady areas with a monopod. I find the lens works best between f4.0-f5.2. I try not to use active steady shot, only standard. Clear image zoom works well but there is a still a bit of quality loss at the far end with that feature; or maybe it's just my imagination.
The Cinematone is supposed to have richer colors and better highlights. It also shifts the WB towards red if I am not mistaken. This WB shift can actually be done manually. In the WB menu there is an option button and on the next screen you can offset the WB to your liking. One more thing. I set the AE-Sift to -0.7; I find that the AX100 and many other cameras tend to overexpose.

#Oldsmoke,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I'll take your advice.

I was surprised at the DoF you were able to get. I was trying out this cam at Best Buy and manually setting the f/2.8-4.5 lens aperture didn't get the effect you got in your shots.

Oldsmoke, thanks for sharing your video. In any case, might it be a Sony or a Canon its is great to see how far cameras have come in the last 10 years.

Byron K

If you only looked at the small screen while testing it at BestBuy then you couldn't see the DoF. I use a 7" on camera monitor and the DoF is actually very good for this kind of camera. Too bad there is no HDMI out during recording in 4K... well it isn't a pro camera.

"I had the AX33 for a week and sent it back. It was supposed to be a B roll to my AX100 but the image quality just isn't good enough. I found myself back to where I was with the HF-G30, soft image and low dynamic range. The sensor is just too small to expect great things from it."

Hey OldSmoke, did you find the AX33 significantly worse than the AX100, or not bad but not quite as good? I was thinking of getting an AX33 to compliment the AX100 that I often use because its smaller size and better stabilization would work better when I let the talent hold the camera and film themselves. The AX100 is a little large for that and not quite as stable in that scenario, but I don't want significantly degraded footage compared to the AX100 so I've been hesitant on the AX33.

I didn't like the AX33 footage not only because of the dynamic range issue, the footage had a lot of noise and not only in the dark areas. I would wait for the RX100iv to come out. I will have the same sensor size as the AX100 and will be even smaller then the AX33. In my opinion a 1" sensor is the smallest a 4K camera should have; also a reason why I am not keen on the current lower level 4K pro models from Sony, AX1, PWX-Z100.