New Sony NXCAM 35mm affordable prosumer camera

[Guillaume Cottin]

Hello,

 

Today in New York during a SMPTE conference, a new camcorder in the NXCAM series was announced. His codename : "NXCAM 35".

Il will be more low-cost than the PMW-F3 since it is announced under $6000. Release is scheduled for the first semester of 2011.

Il will be a real prosumer model, between the $2000-consumer VEG-NX10 and the $10000-"professional" PMW-F3.

 

 

The spokesperson said it was only a prototype and the design can still change. We hope so !

 

This camera will have a E-mount (like the NEX cameras) and you will be able to use Sony Alpha still lenses with an adapter that will allow the autofocus.

 

- CMOS sensor, Super 35mm format

- E-Mount

- Records AVCHD up to 1080/p60

- Price : around 6000 $

 

The press release : Sony Global - News Releases - Sony to expand 35mm large format sensor camcorder lineup "NXCAM" HD camcorder under

 

Bye

[Gabe Spangler]

AVCHD – Blech!

E-mount – Blech!

Price $6,000 – Blech!

 

For $6,000 I would expect at least XDCAM.

 

Nothing I'd be interested in. For that price, I'd rather pay another couple grand and have a Scarlet s35 body when they come out. Shoot on a 5D or 7D until then.

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect a Scarlet S35mm basic shooting kit would be more expensive than the base price quoted by RED. This was the case with the RED One.

[Gabe Spangler]

I'm sure you're right. Still not too interested in this camera, though.

[Brian Drysdale]

I expect Scarlet and these cameras can coexist, not everyone wants RAW and with a video (same as the F3) rather than a stills sensor there should be some advantages over the DSLR cameras. The E mount does allow the use of adapters for other lens mounts. With a Nanoflash fitted, on paper, it should keep the broadcasters happy.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

Well, the F3 has a slightly faster sensor readout than 5D/7D and XLRs but that's about it.

Onboard codec of the F3 is far worse in comparison and Canons H264 has even more data rate.

4:2:0 is not even broadcast standard today for a $15000 camcorder and the NXCAM series is far below and their NDXDCAMEX whatever LONGGOP mpeg2/4 is a mess.

 

I was really excited about the F3. This would have been my weapon of choice but, hey Sony, it needs 4:2:2 and at least 50 MBit/sec onboard on $x$ card, I tell you.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think the F3's on board codec is intended as the serious production codec, but as Sony's take on a proxy or at best the grab B camera. The DSLRs have artefacts like moire patterning, which do cause problems and the resolution figures aren't out for these new cameras.

 

With an HD SDI output, you can achieve a broadcast codec using an external recording device. The question may be if the cheaper camera announced yesterday (fitted with say a Nanoflash) is good enough to do a lot of the requirements that the more expensive F3 seeks to address.

 

Here's some F3 material:

 

Edited November 18, 2010 by Brian Drysdale

[Brian Drysdale]

A F3 short film:

 

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

I had seen this F3 short projected 4K at a press event. All of it was recorded to the internal cards but to a HDCAM SR deck at least in 4:2:2 and then color graded. This looked excellent. On the other end the camera was there to test it and the images recorded there looked lousy. Hopefully the F3 has a firmware option to record 4:2:2 / 50 MBit/s to the internal cards. I really don't want to use an external recorder on this camera as it needs cables and batteries.

[John Sprung]

4:2:0 is not even broadcast standard today ..., hey Sony, it needs 4:2:2 ....

 

4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. Given the same bandwidth/storage constraints, it should actually look a little better, because it requires a little less compression. Unfortunately, 4:2:0 has become associated with low end implementations.

 

E-mount has a flange focal distance of only 18mm, so it'll be easy to make adapters to nearly anything. PL, for instance is 52mm, so you have 34mm to work with, about an inch and a third.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Gabe Spangler]

At least we're getting close to a interchangeable lens/s35 sensor @ 1920x1080 (not a DSLR sensor line skipped to HD)/ decent codec/full XLR audio camera at a decent price. Panasonic almost did it with their AF100/101, but like the dummies they are, they chose a 4/3 sensor. God, what a dumb move. I've been saying this for years. The industry is screaming for this:

 

– S35 sensor with 1920x1080 pixels (not 20MP line skipped to 1920x1080)

– Interchangeable lens ability, with option of adapters for PL, Canon, Nikon, whatever

– 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p and 60p frame rates

- Full manual control of iris, shutter

– Built-in ND filters

– Capture to compact flash cards

– Good, beefy codec (not AVCHD, HDV, etc...)

– HD-SDI out for the option to capture uncompressed RAW

– Dual XLR inputs with independent audio controls for channels 1 and 2

– Picture setting control

 

This should cost $5,000 for the body alone, not $28,000 like the new Sony F3 (god, what a joke). Panasonic gets the price point, they just missed with their sensor and their codec. Someone will get it right soon.

[Guillaume Cottin]

Yeah, either Red or Canon.

My guess.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I'd go with Sony to "get it right," first, but that's just me. It seems Canon has been behind a lot in video systems, RED will only do RAW me thinks, Panasonic, they're great but I never got them, buy Sony has so far been really pushing for "bigger sensors than anyone else!" it seems, starting with the EX series.

Personally, I'd not mind the XDCam codec on a camera, but that's primarily as I'm very used to it. I'd love ProRes onboard a camera, but for that you'd currently need to go pro-res or an external. Still, we're going in the right direction, says me and I'm not going to turn my nose up to any well made system that works for the job at hand.

[John Sprung]

I'd love ProRes onboard a camera,

 

Arri Alexa has it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Saul Rodgar]

4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. Given the same bandwidth/storage constraints, it should actually look a little better, because it requires a little less compression. Unfortunately, 4:2:0 has become associated with low end implementations.

 

-- J.S.

 

The issue for most low budget people here really is the codec itself, not necessarily the chroma subsampling of the footage. Yes 4:2:0 footage can look really good if the codec that it is being recorded as can be handled properly by the NLE. Apple's Final Cut Pro (FCP) has generally been absolutely lousy at handling (transcoding) AVC based codecs, and given FCP's ubiquity in low budget post processes, this creates a big problem. FCP handles the 4:2:2 codecs a lot better, mostly because FCP was never future-proofed by Apple. Avid and, surprisingly enough Premiere CS (who would have thunk?), can handle just about anything that one throws away at them natively. In my experience, therein lies the difference between good looking 4:2:0 footage and lousy looking 4:2:0 footage.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Saul Rodgar

[Brian Drysdale]

 

This should cost $5,000 for the body alone, not $28,000 like the new Sony F3 (god, what a joke). Panasonic gets the price point, they just missed with their sensor and their codec. Someone will get it right soon.

 

That's about the price of the Scarlet 2/3" with the fixed zoom, which is cheaper than the interchangeable lens version. Production volume has a lot to do with the final selling price.

[Brian Drysdale]

FD times quotes $16,000 for the F3

 

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/?p=3008

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. (...)

 

As long as you don't use chromakeying or excessive color correction, this may be right. It's just a fact that other camcorders half the price do a lot better than the F3 in terms of color sampling and, more important, the codec data rate which is exceptionally low (35 MBit) on the F3.

[Brian Drysdale]

The on board codec doesn't seem to be intended for the main production recording, rather a proxy or at the most grab type shots. Of course, the actual users may see it differently.

 

The above link to a FD times article, which goes into some more detail.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Arri Alexa has it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Ha John, i need not type when tired, as I meant to say you'd need to go to an Alexa or external recorder.

[Oliver Christoph Kochs]

The on board codec doesn't seem to be intended for the main production recording (..)

 

And this i don't get. The Panasonic AG-AF100 records a 25 MBit/sec. in 4:2:0 onboard. CRAP! The F3 records a 35 MBit/sec. in 4:2:0 onboard. CRAP! The F3 uses the same $x$ cards as the Alexa, that does even 4:4:4. Why doesn't the F3 record 4:2:2 in 50 MBit/sec.? Processing power? Nuh, the latest Canon XF305 does 4:2:2 with the 50M for $8000. I just don't get it, that's all...

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect the reason is that the on board codec is only really intended for editing and the master recording is being done on an even higher format eg HDCAM SR and so you're expected to use an external recorder. Sony may have misjudged how many people want to use the F3 and not having an on board 4:2:2 is surprising, although another model may come out in the future.

 

One reason for not having 4:2:2 could be problems with overheating with the extra processing power needed in a small package using a single 35mm sensor.

[Guillaume Cottin]

Well, my opinion is that all depends on what you are using you camera for.

Many prosumers or videographers will be very happy with 4:2:0 on a AF100.

4:2:2 is enough for most chroma-key scenes and also suitable for mid-range short film production and grading and can be obtained using an external recorder.

 

For higher-end users, given that the F3 is the same price as a Red One, the choice is obvious ! The F3 is by far overpriced. Bor for those who want to use the F3 : if they really want to shoot 4:4:4 then my guess is they have the budget for an external recorder. The F3 outputs uncompressed 4:4:4 via dual HD-SDI.

 

Now about AVCHD, I agree that Sony probably put this AVCHD codec for marketing reasons. But there are different implementations and versions of this codec. Just as MPEG-2 can be crappy or high-quality. The result can be surprising. DSLR's AVCHD codec is terrible, but everybody "loves the image of the 5D", right ??

 

Of course I want the perfect camera for under $4000. But let's face it, we live in wonderful times and the engineers and marketers finally understood what we want and are trying to provide it. The market for this NXCAM 35 is all the prosumers who want to keep the 35mm sensor size but can not afford an F3 and probably will not afford a Scarlett S35 either. Then for them, this will be the cheapest digital 35mm prosumer camera (as opposed to HDSLR). This codec will probably also allow to record on SD cards and not on SxS.

 

E-Mount is "Bleeech!", but the competitor's Micro 4/3 is not better. At least both of them have short flange distance and I bet a lot of ugly third-party adapters will be available soon.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Guillaume Cottin

[Brian Drysdale]

The RED One, now available only with the MX sensor, currently costs $25,000.