A rough video comparison between the (2) new Sony cameras in various conditions. Note that in my motion test, I intentionally lowered the volumes to concentrate more on the image stabilizers for both cameras. Also, because YouTube limits video uploads to 30 fps, both cameras were set using the mp4 setting, not AVCHD at 60 fps. In conclusion, there is very little difference (in my own eyes and ears) between the cameras. It's more a matter of what feature set you need for a given situation. Still photos were also nearly indistinguishable at "Intelligent Auto" setting. One thing to note - As shown on the karaoke low light test, both cameras struggled to record low bass at relatively high volume levels without distortion. This can become a consideration if you plan on using either of these cameras for live concerts. I have found this to be a common characteristic of any video camera that uses mp4 or AVCHD format due to their aggressive compression standards even at the highest bit rate setting of the cameras. If you are into listening to your footage on a higher end audio system (ie home theater), you will be disappointed compared to the less compressed audio recording formats such as MPEG 2 and .mov.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Sony DSC-HX9V and DSC-TX10 Comparison
Sony DSC-HX9V and DSC-TX10 Comparison Video Clips. Duration : 5.15 Mins.
A rough video comparison between the (2) new Sony cameras in various conditions. Note that in my motion test, I intentionally lowered the volumes to concentrate more on the image stabilizers for both cameras. Also, because YouTube limits video uploads to 30 fps, both cameras were set using the mp4 setting, not AVCHD at 60 fps. In conclusion, there is very little difference (in my own eyes and ears) between the cameras. It's more a matter of what feature set you need for a given situation. Still photos were also nearly indistinguishable at "Intelligent Auto" setting. One thing to note - As shown on the karaoke low light test, both cameras struggled to record low bass at relatively high volume levels without distortion. This can become a consideration if you plan on using either of these cameras for live concerts. I have found this to be a common characteristic of any video camera that uses mp4 or AVCHD format due to their aggressive compression standards even at the highest bit rate setting of the cameras. If you are into listening to your footage on a higher end audio system (ie home theater), you will be disappointed compared to the less compressed audio recording formats such as MPEG 2 and .mov.
A rough video comparison between the (2) new Sony cameras in various conditions. Note that in my motion test, I intentionally lowered the volumes to concentrate more on the image stabilizers for both cameras. Also, because YouTube limits video uploads to 30 fps, both cameras were set using the mp4 setting, not AVCHD at 60 fps. In conclusion, there is very little difference (in my own eyes and ears) between the cameras. It's more a matter of what feature set you need for a given situation. Still photos were also nearly indistinguishable at "Intelligent Auto" setting. One thing to note - As shown on the karaoke low light test, both cameras struggled to record low bass at relatively high volume levels without distortion. This can become a consideration if you plan on using either of these cameras for live concerts. I have found this to be a common characteristic of any video camera that uses mp4 or AVCHD format due to their aggressive compression standards even at the highest bit rate setting of the cameras. If you are into listening to your footage on a higher end audio system (ie home theater), you will be disappointed compared to the less compressed audio recording formats such as MPEG 2 and .mov.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment