Thanks for the test! I had assumed the Sony would blow the others out of the water, but I hadn't realized that the max aperture only went to f/2.8. The Canon and Sony were fairly close in my opinion. The Canon then has other features such as a better zoom range and Lanc port that the Sony doesn't, but the Sony has 720p @ 120fps and 50mbps codec options. Makes the decision much harder between the two!
Hi, i'like to see a low light test between the cx900 and the nx100. Both have the same sensor, but the cx900 is in the consumer market and the nx 100 in the profissional line !!!
Hi. Unfortunately I no longer have either camcorder so I can't do this test. The NX100 is like a CX100 in "pro" body, so you're really paying for the additional controls.
Hi, congratulations on the video. I would like to know which one they consider the best camera in low light .... Canon HF G50 or SONY CX900. Greetings from Lima, Peru.
I’ve not tried the Canon but it has a smaller sensor than the Sony so is likely to be worse in low light. However, the Canon is a 4K camcorder and the CX900 HD only.
uk aiscaper hi,a question.i have a option to purchase the panasonic HC-x920 for a gun and grab self doc in Boliver south America.a solo 1000 mile walk across a desert (salt flats ) uv rate excessive,surface light from white salt 10500 sq miles.so do you think the model will cope.Also any advice on type of uv filter.i have power sorted for a 3 month challenge,just the filters with zero vegnetting hopefully,sandisk class 10 -45 mbps should do the trick ..any advise will help lots.rob
Robert Dowling Hi. I think even more than a UV filter you're really going to need a heavy-duty ND filter because it will be so bright, the camcorder will end up stopping down the shutter speed perhaps too much to compensate. That sounds like an amazing journey! Yes, good quality Class 10 SDHC cards should be fine. Unfortunately I can't recommend a specific UV filter for you as I have not tested any, sorry.
Thank you for this! If only the CX900 could do F1.5 like the X920, I'd trade up for it! Ugh, why do cameras soak up their whole price point on virtually useless features rather than having an option for a featureless but high quality camera?
nice video compare....i am beetween new sony ax100 4k and panasonic x920...i will use the camcorder for night footage...whitch sould i get? tha price of sony is almost double
They're very different camcorders, I'm surprised you're comparing those ... one's HD, the other's 4K for a start. Huge price difference too. But the AX will have better low light performance than the x920. If you're shooting night footage, you might want to consider Canon's XA20 as it has an infra-red nightshot mode.
very helpful videos! I am considering a camcorder for long format interviews. I am looking for something with headphone monitoring, audio input and overall better picture quality below 1000 dollars! would you have any suggestions? thanks for your time and making these videos.
UKAirscape I meant to say best* 4k preferred. and 3.5mm would defenetly do it for me as long as there is headphone monitoring. Im just not sure what route to go at the moment. btw thanks for the quick response!
The number of pixels has little to do with image quality. Resolution is determined mostly by lens quality. Also, more pixels usually means smaller pixels, which usually means lower dynamic range. Not to mention, it takes 4x as much processing power to edit and most people can't even see the difference between 720 and 1080.
The Sony CX900 is darker at 18dB compared to the Panasonic, to the get to the same brightness of the Panasonic at 18bdB the Sony got to go way to 33dB... 33dB doesn't necessarily means better image quality than the 18dB from the Panasonic or the Canon... dB in a camera if needed should go only a 3rd part of the total gain that the camera delivers...
gotDesign Hi. I measured them on the scopes and the Sony reaches the same brightness level as the Panasonic at +30dB but yes, as explained in the video, the lenses do not open to the same f-stop (Panasonic is better than f1.7, Sony is only f2.8) plus they have different sensor constructions, so the levels won't match at any given dB rating. As you say, dB gain doesn't imply anything about "better image quality" - the Sony's trump card is that its gain is very "clean" of noise so that at 30dB, it's a better image than the Panasonic at +18. It is indeed generally optimal not to use the full amount of gain that a camera offers due to degradation of the image but sometimes you just have to get that shot (eg news) in which case I'll take the Sony at 30 over the Panasonic at 18.
gotDesign Not necessarily, it depends on the size of the individual pixels. A smaller sensor with fewer, larger pixels can have lower noise than a larger sensor with more, smaller pixels...
UKAirscape Agree with you on that one... but also individual pixels and larger sensor doesn't mean necessarily a better performance in low light if the IPE is not there to do the job... I have compared a 1/2.3” sensor size on professional camera that beats Canon DSLR APS-C sensor on low light test with f/2.8 lens... The meat here is the Image Processor Engine, in other words, the processor and the software that works together to reduce noise on a smaller sensor...
gotDesign Dangerous to rely on image processing to reduce noise because by definition that's just software interpolating - guessing - what the "real" image should be. Granted, some of it now is very clever indeed.
Given the increase in brightness it appears 18db of Panasonic gain is more then 18db of Canon gain which is still more then 18db of Sony gain. It makes me wonder if they just use arbitrary units or could this be the result of a difference in dynamic range of the sensors used? Anyway, very revealing and well designed comparison.
I don't think it can be arbitrary. A decibel is a fixed unit of measurement albeit that (at least in audio terms) it's usually quantified as to which scale it's being measured on eg dBu or dBV (and a value on one scale won't directly compare in dB to one on the other, if that makes sense). I am unsure if there's a similar variety of scales in light / gain measurement but I've certainly never heard of it, thus the dB gain ought to be directly comparable. Certainly the sensors could easily have different characteristics and the further image manipulation by the camcorder post-acquisition could easily make a difference. Thanks for the feedback; I reckon pointing things at the real world works best for me rather than charts and sensors and suchlike...
UKAirscape My understanding has always been (broadcast cameras) that 6db of gain equals 1 stop, or a DOUBLING of sensitivity. I compared my x920 to the CX900, as well as my work camera, a JVC GY-HM790. I found that the 0db settings wide open of the x920 and CX900 matched. I also found that the 18db of the x920 matched the 33db of the CX900. I further found that the 0db setting on the HM790 matched the 15db setting on the CX900, and the 18db setting on the HM790 matched the 33db of the CX900, maybe a slight variance. I believe the gain readings on the Sony are just make believe, they could of just added any letters after the number, as they are a relative to itself measurement. The 0-18db settings on the HM790 match those of every other broadcast camera I have ever used.
Yes I believe you are right; dB is not a "fixed" value as such, it's all relative, as you suggest, to some base point - in each case here the different camcorders at their widest iris. However, my reading of the x920 and CX900, both wide at 0dB was that the CX900 was reasonably brighter; and that the 18dB x920 was not either as bright or as noise-free as the CX900 at 33. I'm not convinced the Sony's dB measurement is "just any letters after the number" though (but am quite prepared to be shown to be wrong!)
UKAirscape It is impossible to asses the noise of a camcorder after youtube compression has been applied but from the raw footage I could find of the x920 I found the noise of it fairly "easy on the eyes". It appears very fine-grained, random, and didn't contain blotches of colour or other distracting features. I almost suspect the Panasonic engineers of adding "pink noise" to the signal to get a sort of dithering effect and hide imperfections. But from your comment I understand that the cx900 performs even better in this respect, showing less noise at similar brightness?
This review is misleading. He is comparing camcorders with substantially different sensor sizes. It's like comparing apple with orange. If you own a Panasonic X920, don't feel bad based on this review. Larger sensor has smaller depth of field. To get into the same depth of field coverage as the smaller sensor, you have to step down the aperture which makes your image darker. It all depends on your shooting styles. So forget about this review.
I disagree, of course. At the time of that review, the camcorders were likely rivals which a purchaser might be considering as options against each other. As such a comparison between them is entirely valid. And there is more to camcorders than their sensor size! The lens and any image enhancement also play a substantial role. I have no idea why you're bringing depth of field into it, this is a low light test to see how well the camcorders perform under dim conditions; it's got nothing to do with how shallow the DoF is.
One of the best budget camera/camcorder to this date is Pansonic GH4. I really like the video from it for the money. But I still need to get a less capable camcorder in the ranks of X920. Because in some shooting situations, GH4 won't cover the entire scene I would like to have sharp focus becuse of its larger sensor size (close to cx900) which has a shallower depth of field. To increase the depth of field, I have to close down the aperture. That means less light and more noise. Really you can not compare sensors of different format. They all exist for a reason.
There's no such single thing as "the best". Otherwise everyone would buy that and there wouldn't be any other models. It depends on what you want and what your budget is.
+UKAirscape as you can tell I'm not an expert lol. I'm going to New York and wanted a decent night time camcorder . my budget is 500 GBP. I just need an all around great camera. I have seen the ax33 for around 500 for example. any suggestions? thanks. love the channel! it's where I like to (try) educate myself :)
The trouble is, most consumer-grade (and price) camcorders are not good in low light because they're built down to a price and size. They have small sensors and cheap optics. This is inherently contradictory to "decent night time performance" and is why you'd spend thousands if you wanted a camera for broadcast - there's a reason they're so costly. That said, Sony's new AX53 does the best low light that I've seen in a camcorder but then it's out of your price range. But frankly. For tourism I think the AX53 and AX33 are a bit too big anyway. Not huge but just that bit bulky when you're wandering around seeing the sights. I'd want something pocketable. Panasonic have such models but they won't be great in low light at all. Canon has nothing to offer on this front either. I wonder - and you'll need to go and have a look as I don't know offhand - whether you'd be best suited by one of the recent pocketable stills cams that shoots video. For example, Sony's RX100 (mk iii version *might* now be within your budget) which takes excellent video and is very portable. Or perhaps Canon's G7X (I think that's the right model, it's their equivalent of the Sony) Have a look at the prices of those, check out some TH-cam reviews and see how you get on. Cheers
I have read lot,s off reviews on the Sony HDR CX900 has this camera the best buildquality over all other hd camera. I wouldn,t buy a 4k camera cause it takes to much space
gewooneerlijk The build quality of the CX900 is much the same as its peer camcorders of that price and size, no better, no worse. Have you had a bad experience with camcorder build quality..? By "space" I presume you mean the file sizes rather than the physical camcorder itself (as Sony's own AX100 4K camcorder is exactly the same size as the CX900). Sure, 4K files will need a substantial data rate in order to accurately record sufficient detail but that's always been the tradeoff for more resolution vs compression used.
UKAirscape Hi I am just thinking to much in my mind which camera should i buy The 4K camera cost let,s say 400 hundred dollars more than the CX900 My first full Hd camera I ever have was a Sony Hdr Fx7 3cmos sensor The CX900 has a new sensor so it,s new to me
gewooneerlijk Forgive me asking but why are you so concerned about build quality - it's an odd criteria for buying a camera unless you're planning on taking it into rough environments (in which case something like a Sony NX70 (which is waterproof and dustproof) might be relevant to you.
Hi, the youtube compression is crazy. All I can see is big block. I really want to see the original. As I just bought the cx900 today.. I feel the noise is crazy high. I wonder if I get a bad copy.
It shouldn't be *that* bad! It was uploaded at 1080p & displays OK on my PC at sufficient resolution and quality to see the images reasonably well. I wonder if your computer is suffering a slow Internet connection or something?
Thanks for the test! I had assumed the Sony would blow the others out of the water, but I hadn't realized that the max aperture only went to f/2.8. The Canon and Sony were fairly close in my opinion. The Canon then has other features such as a better zoom range and Lanc port that the Sony doesn't, but the Sony has 720p @ 120fps and 50mbps codec options. Makes the decision much harder between the two!
Indeed, tricky decision with pros and cons on both sides. The Sony, I think, can do LANC control but you need an adapter cable.
Hi, i'like to see a low light test between the cx900 and the nx100. Both have the same sensor, but the cx900 is in the consumer market and the nx 100 in the profissional line !!!
Hi. Unfortunately I no longer have either camcorder so I can't do this test. The NX100 is like a CX100 in "pro" body, so you're really paying for the additional controls.
Hi, congratulations on the video. I would like to know which one they consider the best camera in low light .... Canon HF G50 or SONY CX900. Greetings from Lima, Peru.
I’ve not tried the Canon but it has a smaller sensor than the Sony so is likely to be worse in low light. However, the Canon is a 4K camcorder and the CX900 HD only.
uk aiscaper hi,a question.i have a option to purchase the panasonic HC-x920 for a gun and grab self doc in Boliver south America.a solo 1000 mile walk across a desert (salt flats ) uv rate excessive,surface light from white salt 10500 sq miles.so do you think the model will cope.Also any advice on type of uv filter.i have power sorted for a 3 month challenge,just the filters with zero vegnetting hopefully,sandisk class 10 -45 mbps should do the trick ..any advise will help lots.rob
Robert Dowling Hi. I think even more than a UV filter you're really going to need a heavy-duty ND filter because it will be so bright, the camcorder will end up stopping down the shutter speed perhaps too much to compensate. That sounds like an amazing journey! Yes, good quality Class 10 SDHC cards should be fine. Unfortunately I can't recommend a specific UV filter for you as I have not tested any, sorry.
Thank you for this! If only the CX900 could do F1.5 like the X920, I'd trade up for it! Ugh, why do cameras soak up their whole price point on virtually useless features rather than having an option for a featureless but high quality camera?
The CX900 is nonetheless technically much superior to the x920 in many ways although I didn't like its ergonomics and returned it.
I myself am thinking about returning my X920 and getting a Canon G20. I have an objective review uploading as I write this reply.
The G20 is an excellent little camcorder!
many thanks.this has helped a lot...rob
nice video compare....i am beetween new sony ax100 4k and panasonic x920...i will use the camcorder for night footage...whitch sould i get? tha price of sony is almost double
They're very different camcorders, I'm surprised you're comparing those ... one's HD, the other's 4K for a start. Huge price difference too. But the AX will have better low light performance than the x920.
If you're shooting night footage, you might want to consider Canon's XA20 as it has an infra-red nightshot mode.
thank you,but i do not like canon products....
very helpful videos! I am considering a camcorder for long format interviews. I am looking for something with headphone monitoring, audio input and overall better picture quality below 1000 dollars! would you have any suggestions? thanks for your time and making these videos.
What do you mean by "better picture quality"? Better than what? And what sort of audio input - 3.5mm jack or proper XLR?
UKAirscape I meant to say best* 4k preferred. and 3.5mm would defenetly do it for me as long as there is headphone monitoring. Im just not sure what route to go at the moment. btw thanks for the quick response!
For your budget I'd say the AX53 is the best option.
thanks for the suggestion, I truly appreciate that!
The number of pixels has little to do with image quality. Resolution is determined mostly by lens quality. Also, more pixels usually means smaller pixels, which usually means lower dynamic range. Not to mention, it takes 4x as much processing power to edit and most people can't even see the difference between 720 and 1080.
The Sony CX900 is darker at 18dB compared to the Panasonic, to the get to the same brightness of the Panasonic at 18bdB the Sony got to go way to 33dB... 33dB doesn't necessarily means better image quality than the 18dB from the Panasonic or the Canon... dB in a camera if needed should go only a 3rd part of the total gain that the camera delivers...
gotDesign Hi. I measured them on the scopes and the Sony reaches the same brightness level as the Panasonic at +30dB but yes, as explained in the video, the lenses do not open to the same f-stop (Panasonic is better than f1.7, Sony is only f2.8) plus they have different sensor constructions, so the levels won't match at any given dB rating.
As you say, dB gain doesn't imply anything about "better image quality" - the Sony's trump card is that its gain is very "clean" of noise so that at 30dB, it's a better image than the Panasonic at +18.
It is indeed generally optimal not to use the full amount of gain that a camera offers due to degradation of the image but sometimes you just have to get that shot (eg news) in which case I'll take the Sony at 30 over the Panasonic at 18.
got to.... a larger sensor mean less noise
gotDesign Not necessarily, it depends on the size of the individual pixels. A smaller sensor with fewer, larger pixels can have lower noise than a larger sensor with more, smaller pixels...
UKAirscape Agree with you on that one... but also individual pixels and larger sensor doesn't mean necessarily a better performance in low light if the IPE is not there to do the job... I have compared a 1/2.3” sensor size on professional camera that beats Canon DSLR APS-C sensor on low light test with f/2.8 lens... The meat here is the Image Processor Engine, in other words, the processor and the software that works together to reduce noise on a smaller sensor...
gotDesign Dangerous to rely on image processing to reduce noise because by definition that's just software interpolating - guessing - what the "real" image should be. Granted, some of it now is very clever indeed.
Given the increase in brightness it appears 18db of Panasonic gain is more then 18db of Canon gain which is still more then 18db of Sony gain. It makes me wonder if they just use arbitrary units or could this be the result of a difference in dynamic range of the sensors used? Anyway, very revealing and well designed comparison.
I don't think it can be arbitrary. A decibel is a fixed unit of measurement albeit that (at least in audio terms) it's usually quantified as to which scale it's being measured on eg dBu or dBV (and a value on one scale won't directly compare in dB to one on the other, if that makes sense).
I am unsure if there's a similar variety of scales in light / gain measurement but I've certainly never heard of it, thus the dB gain ought to be directly comparable.
Certainly the sensors could easily have different characteristics and the further image manipulation by the camcorder post-acquisition could easily make a difference.
Thanks for the feedback; I reckon pointing things at the real world works best for me rather than charts and sensors and suchlike...
UKAirscape My understanding has always been (broadcast cameras) that 6db of gain equals 1 stop, or a DOUBLING of sensitivity. I compared my x920 to the CX900, as well as my work camera, a JVC GY-HM790. I found that the 0db settings wide open of the x920 and CX900 matched. I also found that the 18db of the x920 matched the 33db of the CX900. I further found that the 0db setting on the HM790 matched the 15db setting on the CX900, and the 18db setting on the HM790 matched the 33db of the CX900, maybe a slight variance. I believe the gain readings on the Sony are just make believe, they could of just added any letters after the number, as they are a relative to itself measurement. The 0-18db settings on the HM790 match those of every other broadcast camera I have ever used.
Yes I believe you are right; dB is not a "fixed" value as such, it's all relative, as you suggest, to some base point - in each case here the different camcorders at their widest iris.
However, my reading of the x920 and CX900, both wide at 0dB was that the CX900 was reasonably brighter; and that the 18dB x920 was not either as bright or as noise-free as the CX900 at 33.
I'm not convinced the Sony's dB measurement is "just any letters after the number" though (but am quite prepared to be shown to be wrong!)
UKAirscape
It is impossible to asses the noise of a camcorder after youtube compression has been applied but from the raw footage I could find of the x920 I found the noise of it fairly "easy on the eyes". It appears very fine-grained, random, and didn't contain blotches of colour or other distracting features. I almost suspect the Panasonic engineers of adding "pink noise" to the signal to get a sort of dithering effect and hide imperfections. But from your comment I understand that the cx900 performs even better in this respect, showing less noise at similar brightness?
The 18db step on the x920 looks really bad, it lowers the contrast, washes out, and loses a lot of resolution.
This review is misleading. He is comparing camcorders with substantially different sensor sizes. It's like comparing apple with orange. If you own a Panasonic X920, don't feel bad based on this review. Larger sensor has smaller depth of field. To get into the same depth of field coverage as the smaller sensor, you have to step down the aperture which makes your image darker. It all depends on your shooting styles. So forget about this review.
I disagree, of course. At the time of that review, the camcorders were likely rivals which a purchaser might be considering as options against each other. As such a comparison between them is entirely valid. And there is more to camcorders than their sensor size! The lens and any image enhancement also play a substantial role. I have no idea why you're bringing depth of field into it, this is a low light test to see how well the camcorders perform under dim conditions; it's got nothing to do with how shallow the DoF is.
One of the best budget camera/camcorder to this date is Pansonic GH4. I really like the video from it for the money. But I still need to get a less capable camcorder in the ranks of X920. Because in some shooting situations, GH4 won't cover the entire scene I would like to have sharp focus becuse of its larger sensor size (close to cx900) which has a shallower depth of field. To increase the depth of field, I have to close down the aperture. That means less light and more noise. Really you can not compare sensors of different format. They all exist for a reason.
Indeed they do. My point is that DoF will not be a primary concern if shooting low light, so the light light comparison IS a useful exercise.
what would be the best consumer camcorder for night shots and just in general?
There's no such single thing as "the best". Otherwise everyone would buy that and there wouldn't be any other models. It depends on what you want and what your budget is.
+UKAirscape as you can tell I'm not an expert lol. I'm going to New York and wanted a decent night time camcorder . my budget is 500 GBP. I just need an all around great camera. I have seen the ax33 for around 500 for example. any suggestions? thanks. love the channel! it's where I like to (try) educate myself :)
The trouble is, most consumer-grade (and price) camcorders are not good in low light because they're built down to a price and size. They have small sensors and cheap optics. This is inherently contradictory to "decent night time performance" and is why you'd spend thousands if you wanted a camera for broadcast - there's a reason they're so costly.
That said, Sony's new AX53 does the best low light that I've seen in a camcorder but then it's out of your price range. But frankly. For tourism I think the AX53 and AX33 are a bit too big anyway. Not huge but just that bit bulky when you're wandering around seeing the sights. I'd want something pocketable.
Panasonic have such models but they won't be great in low light at all. Canon has nothing to offer on this front either.
I wonder - and you'll need to go and have a look as I don't know offhand - whether you'd be best suited by one of the recent pocketable stills cams that shoots video. For example, Sony's RX100 (mk iii version *might* now be within your budget) which takes excellent video and is very portable. Or perhaps Canon's G7X (I think that's the right model, it's their equivalent of the Sony)
Have a look at the prices of those, check out some TH-cam reviews and see how you get on. Cheers
+UKAirscape thank you very much for that detailed and thorough response. it's much appreciated. take care and all the best
No worries, enjoy your trip.
Well... this video shows the XA20 vs the CX900 .... and the Canon beats Sony to little pieces:
Test Tag Nacht XA20 vs. CX900
I have read lot,s off reviews on the Sony HDR CX900 has this camera the best buildquality over all other hd camera. I wouldn,t buy a 4k camera cause it takes to much space
gewooneerlijk The build quality of the CX900 is much the same as its peer camcorders of that price and size, no better, no worse. Have you had a bad experience with camcorder build quality..?
By "space" I presume you mean the file sizes rather than the physical camcorder itself (as Sony's own AX100 4K camcorder is exactly the same size as the CX900).
Sure, 4K files will need a substantial data rate in order to accurately record sufficient detail but that's always been the tradeoff for more resolution vs compression used.
UKAirscape Hi I am just thinking to much in my mind which camera should i buy
The 4K camera cost let,s say 400 hundred dollars more than the CX900
My first full Hd camera I ever have was a Sony Hdr Fx7 3cmos sensor
The CX900 has a new sensor so it,s new to me
UKAirscape Are there cheaper camera that has the same build quality Thanks
gewooneerlijk Forgive me asking but why are you so concerned about build quality - it's an odd criteria for buying a camera unless you're planning on taking it into rough environments (in which case something like a Sony NX70 (which is waterproof and dustproof) might be relevant to you.
gewooneerlijk So, what's your budget and what type of filming do you want to do? Those answers will help to make the decision.
Hi, the youtube compression is crazy. All I can see is big block. I really want to see the original. As I just bought the cx900 today.. I feel the noise is crazy high. I wonder if I get a bad copy.
It shouldn't be *that* bad! It was uploaded at 1080p & displays OK on my PC at sufficient resolution and quality to see the images reasonably well. I wonder if your computer is suffering a slow Internet connection or something?
Yep thanks for that! Greetings LuBi
Cheers
very good tutorial and test
Sony have a slower lens, but the big sensor makes a wonderful job.
1º Sony
2ª canon
3º Pana.
I bought a Panasonic camcorder only because it was cheaper than the Sony. I regret that decision so much now.