The quality of SONY FDR-Ax700, lossless NVENC_HEVC capture with Camlink 4K

[Truthler]

Herllo guys!

Here is the short lossless original captured 4K video file (5GB)

https://sendgb.com/7fZNs4iED29

I recorded it in lossless NVENC_HEVC from the HDMI out with a laptop via Camlink 4K.

HEre is the longer 2min version, which was later transcoded into a LOSSSY Hevc

https://sendgb.com/O1nD0hIWqfv (4.2GB)

Pay attention to the veining of the leaves and every little detail!

What is your opinion about the video quality?

[poisondeathray]

Video quality is good. It's a good sensor for a consumer camera in well lit conditions

The re-encode removes some fine details and noise as expected, but it's still good considering the compression ratio is ~ 1:5 to 1:6

If you posted the default onboard compression recording, I suspect the foliage detail would be very mushy, especially in the shadow areas such as underneath the trees. That would show the difference between default, and if a user should spend extra on external recording

There is evidence that the camlink recording was quantized, as if some adjustments were made in 8bit - these don't negatively impact the image on this sample - but you can see gaps in a waveform. Maybe there are some settings you can adjust on the camlink or drivers

[Truthler]

Video quality is good. It's a good sensor for a consumer camera in well lit conditions

The re-encode removes some fine details and noise as expected, but it's still good considering the compression ratio is ~ 1:5 to 1:6

If you posted the default onboard compression recording, I suspect the foliage detail would be very mushy, especially in the shadow areas such as underneath the trees. That would show the difference between default, and if a user should spend extra on external recording

There is evidence that the camlink recording was quantized, as if some adjustments were made in 8bit - these don't negatively impact the image on this sample - but you can see gaps in a waveform. Maybe there are some settings you can adjust on the camlink or drivers

Sorry Posondeathray, I made a mistake, I compressed the original video with 8bit NVENC HEVC, here is the 10bit lossy compressed version:

https://sendgb.com/PENbJ9sRqpH

It preserved more details than the 8bit NVENC_HEVC

[poisondeathray]

Sorry Posondeathray, I made a mistake, I compressed the original video with 8bit NVENC HEVC, here is the 10bit lossy compressed version:

https://sendgb.com/GRcTA3WgsrC

It preserved more details than the 8bit NVENC_HEVC

I don't see a mistake - The 2nd link in the 1st post was already 10bit420 HEVC - "LOSSY HEVC.mkv"

Or did you mean original video, was the wrong original video ? ie . original recording was 8bit instead of 10bit ?

I bet either re-encode looks better than the default onboard recording

[Truthler]

Sorry Posondeathray, I made a mistake, I compressed the original video with 8bit NVENC HEVC, here is the 10bit lossy compressed version:

https://sendgb.com/GRcTA3WgsrC

It preserved more details than the 8bit NVENC_HEVC

I don't see a mistake - The 2nd link in the 1st post was already 10bit420 HEVC - "LOSSY HEVC.mkv"

Or did you mean original video, was the wrong original video ?

I bet either re-encode looks better than the default onboard recording

This second upload will be better, because there is no color shift.


The moment when I felt that I can touch the leaflets of the trees on my Monitor: Watch this photo in full screen!

http://users.atw.hu/educator/picture1.png

[poisondeathray]

Yes, external recorder makes big difference. You should post example of onboard compression, to highlight differences

Things like waving trees/leaves/foliage are very hard to compress and will turn to "mush" when using default onboard compression

[Truthler]

Yes, external recorder makes big difference. You should post example of onboard compression, to highlight differences

Things like waving trees/leaves/foliage are very hard to compress and will turn to "mush" when using default onboard compression

I think it is also the 1" sensor, the XMOR RS version.

Here is the development of XMOR sensors: https://www.framos.com/en/news/what-is-sony-s-exmor-technology-anyway

Other consumer camcorders have smaller sensors, with more noise and lower real (visible) resolution, even the newsest Canon & Panasonic models have smaller sensors, because they manufacture large sensors only for their big broadcast and cinema videocameras, Sony always gives bigger sensor even for high-end consumer models... That makes the difference!

[Truthler]

Yes, external recorder makes big difference. You should post example of onboard compression, to highlight differences

Things like waving trees/leaves/foliage are very hard to compress and will turn to "mush" when using default onboard compression

Did you play the files with Potplayer? Because the video was recorded in HLG format, and MPC and VLC play these videos with over saturization and over contrasting...

Does it mean that these players (VLC and MPC-HC) have serious deficiencies?

[poisondeathray]

If you recorded with specific settings, you have to use a LUT or tell the player what to use.

There is no metadata in the NVENC file that tells player what to do

e.g. if you record in slog2 or some other profile there is no way for player to know that so you get wrong playback

[Truthler]

If you recorded with specific settings, you have to use a LUT or tell the player what to use.

There is no metadata in the NVENC file that tells player what to do

e.g. if you record in slog2 or some other profile there is no way for player to know that so you get wrong playback

However Potplayer plays it correctly.... Other players can not handle the contrast and colors (over saturated) Is Potplayer more intelligent than other players?

[poisondeathray]

Do you think the screenshot you posted in post#5 is accurate ? Is that what you "see" in potplayer ? How about when you were there (if you can remember) ?

The main difference is just full vs. limited range. It's not actually using HLG to 709 mapping. So it's not really "smart" - it gets many camera footage wrong, because it simply cannot know what profile you shot with. You can se other player to use full range YCbCr to RGB , and it will look the same

In order to display camera footage correctly, you must use correct display LUT

[Truthler]

Do you think the screenshot you posted in post#5 is accurate ? Is that what you "see" in potplayer ? How about when you were there (if you can remember) ?

The main difference is just full vs. limited range. It's not actually using HLG to 709 mapping. So it's not really "smart" - it gets many camera footage wrong, because it simply cannot know what profile you shot with. You can se other player to use full range YCbCr to RGB , and it will look the same

In order to display camera footage correctly, you must use correct display LUT

Hello Poisondeathray!

What about this? (5GB lossless video)

https://sendgb.com/slKxfzNgZq7

Here is the snapshot: http://users.atw.hu/adatok1/bricks.png

Visible individual brick pieces from 200-250m distance!
Brutal, isn't it?

[Truthler]

Snapshots of video frames. Enlarge it to full screen, and press F11.

Do you see the tiny spokes of a motorcycle? Or the many small letters?



Can you see the individual bricks on that huge disctance on the building?




Can you see the small 1mm holes on the white sunshades of the windows? From such distance.

[lordsmurf]

What I see in those last few images is lack of contrast. Not stupid consumer ideas of "contrast", cranking the software/TV knob to 11. But optical contrast of lenses. That's to be expected of lower-end consumer camcorders. Colors here are not just blah, but downright odd in some places, and it's not HDR. This will always negate any possible advantages by better colorspaces. Your optics are first for quality.

The image is also completely flat, but that's a DOF issue (or choice?)

[Truthler]

What I see in those last few images is lack of contrast. Not stupid consumer ideas of "contrast", cranking the software/TV knob to 11. But optical contrast of lenses. That's to be expected of lower-end consumer camcorders. Colors here are not just blah, but downright odd in some places, and it's not HDR. This will always negate any possible advantages by better colorspaces. Your optics are first for quality.

The image is also completely flat, but that's a DOF issue (or choice?)

Why don't you use HDR Display? I optimalized the settings for HDR displays. You can not optimalize a video for both HDR and SDR. IT is a question of choice.

This represents my own taste, it is fully under manual controll, except the focus, which was auto.

[lordsmurf]

Are those straight from camera? Or processed. Because I'm still seeing some oddness that can't be attributed to HDR, but can to optical contrast. I guess if the camera shot HDR, and it's optimized only for an HDR with post process, maybe.

Is the choice due to limitations of the camera, either bokeh or aperture? Or just desire to shoot flat, sort of like a real-life cartoon?

Anyway, good luck with it all. It's mostly about matching settings, basic video.

I'm still acquiring my shoot setup,which can do 4Kp60, but I'll probably just stick to 1080p24/60 most times, no 4K TV, nor the desire to flood my HDDs with large video shoot files. I just cannot justify it yet.

[Truthler]

Are those straight from camera? Or processed. Because I'm still seeing some oddness that can't be attributed to HDR, but can to optical contrast. I guess if the camera shot HDR, and it's optimized only for an HDR with post process, maybe.

Is the choice due to limitations of the camera, either bokeh or aperture? Or just desire to shoot flat, sort of like a real-life cartoon?

Anyway, good luck with it all. It's mostly about matching settings, basic video.

I'm still acquiring my shoot setup,which can do 4Kp60, but I'll probably just stick to 1080p24/60 most times, no 4K TV, nor the desire to flood my HDDs with large video shoot files. I just cannot justify it yet.

Things changed greatly from the late 2010s. The problem with consumer level DSLRs is that even top category mobile phones (from Iphone Samsung) can shot equal or better videos. Only DSLRs over 3000 Dollar category are better than them. The latest Samsung mobile shot in 8K. It is not as good as 8K professionals, but easily beat any 4K DSLRs. So you must buy professional camera to make better quality video than top m.phones.


You watched the photos in SDR. When I turn on the HDR in Windows, the colors are too vivid and have too high contrast for HDR video. I had to adjust it to even flatter (by SDR standards). You don't need computer color grading, if you have experience with the internal settings of AX700.

[lordsmurf]

Things changed greatly from the late 2010s. The problem with consumer level DSLRs is that even top category mobile phones (from Iphone Samsung) can shot equal or better videos.

Not really. Price and age doesn't matter, the sensor does. You cannot compare a tiny cell phone sensor to a large dSLR sensor, even the cropped sub-35mm sensors (Nikon DX, etc). The SLR sensor is still 4x+ larger. As sensor size decreases, you lose DR and SNR. The crappy phone optics are super inferior in every way, and even a cheap SLR kit lens is better than the phone optics. Even pre-DSLR film lenses for SLRs (less fine resolve, not for mega MP era) are generally better.

The latest Samsung mobile shot in 8K.

You confuse the resolution palette with the actual resolve, which is itself separate from the other aspects of the image.

It is not as good as 8K professionals, but easily beat any 4K DSLRs. So you must buy professional camera to make better quality video than top m.phones.

My Z6 II will beat the crap out of a phone camera, hands down. And with a cheap kit lens. Put on some of my actual glass, and it's such a no-contest that it's LOL ridiculous. You cannot tell me a phone is going to shoot better than a good f/2.8 lens (or comparable f/4 or f/5.6 on much longer lenses). The sharpness alone does not exist on camera phone optics.

You watched the photos in SDR. When I turn on the HDR in Windows, the colors are too vivid and have too high contrast for HDR video. I had to adjust it to even flatter (by SDR standards). You don't need computer color grading, if you have experience

That's ... huh? You have HDR and SDR. If you have to tone down saturation of the HDR, then you have colorspace or shooting issues. Or it's a pre-processed image. You're not allowed to just randomly monkey with a monitor, in order to get color "just right". Never badly correct video to a non-calibrated viewing device. "Experience" absolutely does not preclude the need to calibrate, and in fact should reinforce that fact.

I think it's safe to assume most computers are not using HDR monitors. Niche.

[Cornucopia]

@Truthler, you uploaded SDR images (as all the allowed picture filetypes- jpg,png,gif - are SDR-only). Why would you expect ANYONE to evaluate them using HDR criteria?
If you expect to have HDR images/videos reviewed, you will need to upload as std. data file and link to it. E.g. OpenEXR.
or
You can tonemap (hopefully not just brute force "tone down") your HDR files to SDR and post them, understanding that they will be reviewed as SDR images at that point. And when doing so, it is better for tranparency of argument to divulge how you tonemapped.

BTW, Your rant about "smartphone=good/new, mirrorless=good/new, dslr=bad/old" is as ridiculous as it is tiresome. Not just opinionated, but counter to long accepted scientific facts. Why don't you just stop at "I like the look of smartphones better" and "I like the mirrorless camera that I bought" and be done with it? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, as that is totally personally subjective.
If you truly want to do equipment shootouts, there are plenty of other gear sites that do that (though take care, as most of them are filled with pros & gearheads who know volumes about the tech, and they do employ those scientific methods of peer review that I've previously talked about).


Scott

[Truthler]

Things changed greatly from the late 2010s. The problem with consumer level DSLRs is that even top category mobile phones (from Iphone Samsung) can shot equal or better videos.

Not really. Price and age doesn't matter, the sensor does. You cannot compare a tiny cell phone sensor to a large dSLR sensor, even the cropped sub-35mm sensors (Nikon DX, etc). The SLR sensor is still 4x+ larger. As sensor size decreases, you lose DR and SNR. The crappy phone optics are super inferior in every way, and even a cheap SLR kit lens is better than the phone optics. Even pre-DSLR film lenses for SLRs (less fine resolve, not for mega MP era) are generally better.

The latest Samsung mobile shot in 8K.

You confuse the resolution palette with the actual resolve, which is itself separate from the other aspects of the image.

It is not as good as 8K professionals, but easily beat any 4K DSLRs. So you must buy professional camera to make better quality video than top m.phones.

My Z6 II will beat the crap out of a phone camera, hands down. And with a cheap kit lens. Put on some of my actual glass, and it's such a no-contest that it's LOL ridiculous. You cannot tell me a phone is going to shoot better than a good f/2.8 lens (or comparable f/4 or f/5.6 on much longer lenses). The sharpness alone does not exist on camera phone optics.

You watched the photos in SDR. When I turn on the HDR in Windows, the colors are too vivid and have too high contrast for HDR video. I had to adjust it to even flatter (by SDR standards). You don't need computer color grading, if you have experience

That's ... huh? You have HDR and SDR. If you have to tone down saturation of the HDR, then you have colorspace or shooting issues. Or it's a pre-processed image. You're not allowed to just randomly monkey with a monitor, in order to get color "just right". Never badly correct video to a non-calibrated viewing device. "Experience" absolutely does not preclude the need to calibrate, and in fact should reinforce that fact.

I think it's safe to assume most computers are not using HDR monitors. Niche.

Large DSLR sensors in consumer category? Are you kidding?
The Non Zeiss manufactured lenses in consumer level DSLR or camcorders can not give good quality picture either. Lens torsion values of other lens manufacturers are worse than Zeiss. No wonder that Zeiss produces the best lenses sins the establish of the firm.

Think about the square grid booklet, take it, and shot some photos with consumer grade Canon JVC Panasonic etc camcorders or cameras...


[Attachment 61861 - Click to enlarge]

After the test shots, look the squares around the edges and corners of the picture. The pictures made by the Zeiss lens with Sony cameras looks like if somebody scanned them, they remain straight like if it would scanned by a traditional flat-bed scanner.... However other cameras and lenses produces more curved lines around the edges and corners...



Think about the fancy and horror priced lenses of the NASA space telescopes, it is always Zeiss who can fullfil the brutal strict requirements for space telescopes.

Second, Sony is the biggest innovator of imaging devices let it be CMOS CCD or anything since the 1970s, and he spend the most money for the CMOS/CCD innovation, and Sony bought up a lot of new licenses of other developers around the world.

The net true photo-sensitive area of other sensors are smaller than the Sony sensors of the same "size".

Neither of you can shot such quality videos with their consumer level DSLRs as I can with my two AX700 camcorers.

Proof: 4min 9.8 Gb video
http://sendanywhe.re/ZFICD1YZ

If it is necessary turn on the limited range value.

[Truthler]

@Truthler, you uploaded SDR images (as all the allowed picture filetypes- jpg,png,gif - are SDR-only). Why would you expect ANYONE to evaluate them using HDR criteria?
If you expect to have HDR images/videos reviewed, you will need to upload as std. data file and link to it. E.g. OpenEXR.
or
You can tonemap (hopefully not just brute force "tone down") your HDR files to SDR and post them, understanding that they will be reviewed as SDR images at that point. And when doing so, it is better for tranparency of argument to divulge how you tonemapped.

BTW, Your rant about "smartphone=good/new, mirrorless=good/new, dslr=bad/old" is as ridiculous as it is tiresome. Not just opinionated, but counter to long accepted scientific facts. Why don't you just stop at "I like the look of smartphones better" and "I like the mirrorless camera that I bought" and be done with it? I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, as that is totally personally subjective.
If you truly want to do equipment shootouts, there are plenty of other gear sites that do that (though take care, as most of them are filled with pros & gearheads who know volumes about the tech, and they do employ those scientific methods of peer review that I've previously talked about).


Scott

With all of my respect:
Theoretical concepts are good and smart things...but practical reality can be sometimes different.


A good example:

iPhone 12 vs Canon R5 vs RED

https://youtu.be/GQA1UpamBiM

[Cornucopia]

NOT a good example.

NOT a "shootout" (no direct A/B/C/X comparisons, no reference scenes or shooting methodologies).

But it is a good example of how OVERLY ABUNDANT outdoor light can give enough exposure to hide noise issues, to hide framerate issues, to flatten contrast curve ends, to run super-small shutter angles to hide rolling shutter issues. Of how slo-mo & fast-mo can hide issues with framerate consistency. Of how predominance of long shots can avoid comparisons between depth-of-field.

Scott

[lordsmurf]

Zeiss manufactured lenses

Zeiss is a brand.
Which exact lens is it that gives you these Zeiss-gasms?

in consumer level DSLR or camcorders can not give good quality picture either.

Eh, they work fine. The main issue is performance in low light, features like adding external mic. For example, I have a D3500, but it's limited. It is far better than the phone in my pocket, but I won't shoot epic movies with it.

Lens torsion values

Term does not exist. What are you referring to here?

. No wonder that Zeiss produces the best lenses

Zeiss makes both good and bad lenses, including tiny crappy plastic optics on cheap consumer items.

Think about the square grid booklet, take it, and shot some photos

To what extent? What is the point here?

After the test shots, look the squares around the edges and corners of the picture. The pictures made by the Zeiss lens with Sony cameras looks like if somebody scanned them, they remain straight like if it would scanned by a traditional flat-bed scanner.... However other cameras and lenses produces more curved lines around the edges and corners...

That's ridiculous. Part of this is determined by the angle of the glass. A good prime 85mm won't do that, be it Nikkor or Canon or whoever.

Think about the fancy and horror priced lenses of the NASA space telescopes, it is always Zeiss who can fullfil the brutal strict requirements for space telescopes.

Zeiss hasn't made a NASA lens in 50+ years, and it wasn't for a telescope. The current work-in-progress JWST isn't even finished, delayed for years. And the JWST doesn't even use the Zeiss as primary optics, merely instruments on board. JWST has taken so long to R&D that it's years obsolete image-wise. I still remember when it was called the Hubble 2 (then 2.0 -- yeah, it was in R&D before the term "2.0" was even in use).

Second, Sony is the biggest innovator of imaging devices

This part is very true. Or was. Nikon and Canon give Sony a run for its money these days. That new Z9 just handed Sony crow to eat.

The net true photo-sensitive area of other sensors are smaller than the Sony sensors of the same "size".

False. It fully depends on factors.

Neither of you can shot such quality videos with their consumer level DSLRs as I can with my two AX700 camcorers.

The AX700 is a "rich consumer" camcorder (not a camera) in the sub-$2k range. In terms of overall camera+mic+lens, that's essentially a mid-range camera at best. I have glass that costs more than that entire camera.

[Truthler]

Zeiss manufactured lenses

Zeiss is a brand.
Which exact lens is it that gives you these Zeiss-gasms?

in consumer level DSLR or camcorders can not give good quality picture either.

Eh, they work fine. The main issue is performance in low light, features like adding external mic. For example, I have a D3500, but it's limited. It is far better than the phone in my pocket, but I won't shoot epic movies with it.

Lens torsion values

Term does not exist. What are you referring to here?

. No wonder that Zeiss produces the best lenses

Zeiss makes both good and bad lenses, including tiny crappy plastic optics on cheap consumer items.

Think about the square grid booklet, take it, and shot some photos

To what extent? What is the point here?

After the test shots, look the squares around the edges and corners of the picture. The pictures made by the Zeiss lens with Sony cameras looks like if somebody scanned them, they remain straight like if it would scanned by a traditional flat-bed scanner.... However other cameras and lenses produces more curved lines around the edges and corners...

That's ridiculous. Part of this is determined by the angle of the glass. A good prime 85mm won't do that, be it Nikkor or Canon or whoever.

Think about the fancy and horror priced lenses of the NASA space telescopes, it is always Zeiss who can fullfil the brutal strict requirements for space telescopes.

Zeiss hasn't made a NASA lens in 50+ years, and it wasn't for a telescope. The current work-in-progress JWST isn't even finished, delayed for years. And the JWST doesn't even use the Zeiss as primary optics, merely instruments on board. JWST has taken so long to R&D that it's years obsolete image-wise. I still remember when it was called the Hubble 2 (then 2.0 -- yeah, it was in R&D before the term "2.0" was even in use).

Second, Sony is the biggest innovator of imaging devices

This part is very true. Or was. Nikon and Canon give Sony a run for its money these days. That new Z9 just handed Sony crow to eat.

The net true photo-sensitive area of other sensors are smaller than the Sony sensors of the same "size".

False. It fully depends on factors.

Neither of you can shot such quality videos with their consumer level DSLRs as I can with my two AX700 camcorers.

The AX700 is a "rich consumer" camcorder (not a camera) in the sub-$2k range. In terms of overall camera+mic+lens, that's essentially a mid-range camera at best. I have glass that costs more than that entire camera.

You selectively quoted some of my lines and your answer which was refuted countless times. Your repetition of your texts does not make your claims, which have long since been refuted, true.

Maybe you checked recent prices of late 2021.
When AX700 was released it was between 3000 and 3500$. I purchesed two Ax700 camcorders in 2018. You need prof dead-cat microphones for camcorders, because the built in mics are not WINDPROOF.

My AX700 can beat your D 3500 even in an overcast rainy day.

Proof video: https://sendgb.com/hpeingQXU48

[lordsmurf]

I consider my D3500 a toy of a camera. Light, small, actually quite decent with the right glass attached. Better than phones. (But I shoot video with a Z6 II, not D3500.)

Your AX700 has decent glass, but still inferior to my bag. Even if you think the D3500 is lesser of a camera (and it probably is), better glass in front will give a run for its money. Skill at shooting will be more important, and I probably would lose that contest, as I'm not a shooter (yet, or never, unsure).

Built-in mics do suck. I have a Deity.

AX700 wasn't anywhere near 3-4K. Nonsense. MSRP is still what it was. This is easily confirmed by reading archived reviews from several years ago. Maybe your exchange rate sucked in 2018, so you paid more for it? But USA MSRP is the same.

I'm not selectively quoting anything. You have an obsession with Zeiss, and falsely believe Zeiss is used by NASA. You think your consumer camcorder is a fancy movie industry camera. And you falsely think a mirrorless camera (with good mic, good glass) is going to be outdone by a consumer camcorder. No.

[Truthler]

I consider my D3500 a toy of a camera. Light, small, actually quite decent with the right glass attached. Better than phones. (But I shoot video with a Z6 II, not D3500.)

Your AX700 has decent glass, but still inferior to my bag. Even if you think the D3500 is lesser of a camera (and it probably is), better glass in front will give a run for its money. Skill at shooting will be more important, and I probably would lose that contest, as I'm not a shooter (yet, or never, unsure).

Built-in mics do suck. I have a Deity.

AX700 wasn't anywhere near 3-4K. Nonsense. MSRP is still what it was. This is easily confirmed by reading archived reviews from several years ago. Maybe your exchange rate sucked in 2018, so you paid more for it? But USA MSRP is the same.

I'm not selectively quoting anything. You have an obsession with Zeiss, and falsely believe Zeiss is used by NASA. You think your consumer camcorder is a fancy movie industry camera. And you falsely think a mirrorless camera (with good mic, good glass) is going to be outdone by a consumer camcorder. No.

AX700 is not a consumer product, but a prosumer product. Prosumer is a transition between consumer and professional level.
ALL Prosumer camcorders have parafocal objectives, which means that the picture remian sharp (in focus) even during zooming. Only prosumer camcorders and movie/broadcast cameras have parafocal lenses. You can't buy such parafocal lens system for your consumer level D3500.

LEARN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens

Moreover AX700 have built in ND filters too.

About audio. Deity is a good mic for the external outdoor street recording category, but it is not even close to the sound quality of built-in mics of pro-sumer camecorders during indoor (room) recordings.

Deity produces only dual mono sound instead of real stereo (My two AX700s have real stereo, my FDR Ax53 has dolby 5.1 mic set.

[Cornucopia]

Dude, you really shouldn't speak of which you do not know.

Cute quote, but you notice it actually does NOT say specifically which actual lenses are that way. But I checked out your lens (ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T*, as per the manual) and it is NOT parfocal, but vario-focal. Just like its NAME says. And - surprise - a simple google search of "parfocal lens for nikon dslr" will show you that, while nikon itself only has made 1, there are PLENTY of options out there, since those lenses are swappable. And you didn't even check to see which ones LS has.

Plus, parfocal is not such a game changer that you want to make it out to be. Any veteran cameraperson can and WOULD be able to pull focus if necessary while zooming. I can do it with my cameras (all of which are variofocus).
This argument reminds me of a driver that doesn't know how to break AND clutch at the same time so needs to brag about automatic transmission.

Also, for MOST applications, a Deity mic is a MUCH more appropriate tool for on-camera-viewpoint sound than a built-in mic. It has better directionality, better quality transducer with better sensitivity, and can be outfitted with deadcat to muffle wind noise - which built-in mics can never do. Yeah, it isn't stereo, but there ARE stereo attachable mics, and I would ALWAYS recommend those over ANY built-in camera mic. And speaking as a live sound recordist for 30+ years, doing binaural and ambisonic work, the "surround" audio from built-in mics is a bit of a gimmic.

Of course, if you were really into audio quality, you would be doing double system, with the mic(s) positioned optimally for audio, not for video.


Scott

[Truthler]

Dude, you really shouldn't speak of which you do not know.

Cute quote, but you notice it actually does NOT say specifically which actual lenses are that way. But I checked out your lens (ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar® T*, as per the manual) and it is NOT parfocal, but vario-focal. Just like its NAME says. And - surprise - a simple google search of "parfocal lens for nikon dslr" will show you that, while nikon itself only has made 1, there are PLENTY of options out there, since those lenses are swappable. And you didn't even check to see which ones LS has.

Plus, parfocal is not such a game changer that you want to make it out to be. Any veteran cameraperson can and WOULD be able to pull focus if necessary while zooming. I can do it with my cameras (all of which are variofocus).
This argument reminds me of a driver that doesn't know how to break AND clutch at the same time so needs to brag about automatic transmission.

Also, for MOST applications, a Deity mic is a MUCH more appropriate tool for on-camera-viewpoint sound than a built-in mic. It has better directionality, better quality transducer with better sensitivity, and can be outfitted with deadcat to muffle wind noise - which built-in mics can never do. Yeah, it isn't stereo, but there ARE stereo attachable mics, and I would ALWAYS recommend those over ANY built-in camera mic. And speaking as a live sound recordist for 30+ years, doing binaural and ambisonic work, the "surround" audio from built-in mics is a bit of a gimmic.

Of course, if you were really into audio quality, you would be doing double system, with the mic(s) positioned optimally for audio, not for video.


Scott

Scott, maybe you were/are a cameraman, who worked for TV or film industry (or both), and you had/have the opportunity to test and use a lot of cinema and broadcast cameras in your life. Maybe you did not even follow the consumer or prosumer market, because you simply don't care about them.

From a small ammount of money I tried out many many prosumer cameras, practically most of them. The tactics is very easy, I buy a product I try it and test them, and I can bring back the product. I have max. 16 days to test them. If I am not satified, and I will get back the 100% of the money within a week to my account.

This is a brutal big store, who did not even care if you try out even 100 cameras and you open their box, they simply Don't care, don't pay attention they pay back the money.




And it is full with electronics cameras camcorders , Audio erlectronics. professional and broadcast and cine cameras too...
So it is a brutal big one.


The Sony DFR-AX700 has a ZEISS a parafocal lens system. Read about it here: https://www.provideocoalition.com/traditional-camcorders-in-the-era-of-mirrorlesshdslr-cams/


HE can not buy parafocal lens for his consumer DSLR, except if he pay 6- 10 000 dollars for it.

Ax700 is considered prosumer, but his big systers already professionals, despite they have the same sensor optics and same buttons, except they have an audio box and professional xlr audio inputs. So only the audio is different in the professional brothers..

Deity is produced in USA, a country which is generally not trustable in the quality of its industrial products. That's why USA was ousted from global industrial export markets of the first world countries by Germany both in quantity and quality terms since the late 1980s . Especially in audio-visual electronics, the American products were superseded by Japan products since the 1970s.

[Truthler]

Scott

Scott?

[Cornucopia]

Not maybe. I WAS a TV/Film professional (still am to some degree).

And I, as do most pro media techs, have always paid attention to the consumer/prosumer arena, as there is often a lot of inter-category cross-breeding of technology and techniques. And it's always cool to find a cheaper and/or easier way to do something difficult, when possible.
I don't keep fully up-to-date about every model, but no one can, even yourself if you're being honest.
That doesn't in any way reduce the knowledge that I have about the overall state of the markets, or of the limits of certain kinds of technology based on science.

You mis-read your own link. That link does NOT show anywhere in it that your camera, the FX700 has a parfocal lens. The only 2 times that camera is directly mentioned, it is mentioned regarding use of timecode and in its ability to do firmware updates. You are conflating the fact that it was included in an article, and the teaser for the article had to do with parfocal lens capability, which is not the actual gist of the topic (which is more like "what different cool features are available to traditional camcorders vs other types"). In fact, I haven't seen ONE article or schematic from Sony yet that plainly states that your lens is such a lens. It isn't. If it were, you would have had to pay much more for it than you did.

I've already said this to you before, but you need to also stop believing in BS blanket statements coming from biased sources. Trolling and rumormongering is what that is.
For example, the USA still produces GREAT quality stuff, but it is likely more expensive. The vast majority of their former products, the big companies chose to move to other countries, or outsourced, or the competition wedged them out because of price undercutting (usually due to much cheaper labor) and they relenquished that title. This trend was not unique to the USA, just perhaps most acute. For example, with electronics: do you want a commodity high-quality amplifier that can be gotten from Germany, or Japan, or Korea, or perhaps even China now? or do you want a "gold standard" top quality amplifier, like a McIntosh (American), a choice which would cost a good deal more? Well, as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".

And yet, NONE of that diatribe had anything to do with the topic at hand. Not even going to touch that craziness with the "brutal" big box stores. (WTF?)

The truth is: your camera is a very decent, capable but pro-sumer camera. NBD, end of story. Certainly not something to need to brag about or diss other products, give false reference to, or misinform for.


Scott