AX700 Camcorder Image Quality Comparison - A6400, A7III, AX53
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2022
- In this video I show sample clips from the AX700 camcorder along with clips from an A7III, an A6400 and an AX53 camcorder.
I thought it would be interesting to see how the image quality of the AX700 compares to some larger sensor, mirrorless cameras.
I forgot to note that in the low light tests, I had the lens aperture set at f/3.7 on the AX700, f/3.5 on both the A6400 and A7III, and auto on the AX53.
As requested by several viewers, I have set up a Patreon account. Any support is appreciated, but absolutely not required.
/ bigtb1717 - Навчання та стиль
I am a Sony Fan Boy, I have owned every single cameras you compared, also got A7RV and A9 II, But I still got my AX700, using regularly since 2018. Love it
I bought an AX700 in July 2019 to get into 4K within my strictly limited target on price and I prefer the long body design for video. The intent was for indoor short docs/interviews on and off the tripod and it's doing that task very comfortably. April 2022 I added an A7III with the kit lens and that fills my other concern which was to keep up image quality for photography of sculptures in the workshop, home, and galleries - with and without artificial light. Mission accomplished. I also use both for recreational shooting, mostly video of powersports and some of dancers/performers. The AX700 is a pleasure to operate compared to the A7III really in those circumstances. Get a proper video oriented bowl mount tripod with a true fluid head plus control arm and the results go up by magnitudes.
For your test, I lucked out and thought that first clip looked like what I get from my AX700 and I also correctly picked the following A7III clip, but could I detect them reliably every time? Probably not. I just know I like the results I am getting with each and those clips looked identical to what I produce in the levels of "vivid" and "clarity."
Thank you. Amazing video, terrific comparison. And I appreciate, that you stated “one inch CLASS sensor”
Thanks. Yup, funny that they aren't actually 1".
Exactly the info I needed. Thank you so much.
absolutely perfect presentation. thank you very much
You're a legend. nice work!
This was really helpful, thanks.
Thanks a lot for this detailed comparison 🌿
Thank you for this Comparison!
Thanks! I'm now a subscriber to your channel.
Estoy por decidir cuál cámara comprar. Éste tutorial me ha inspirado a tomar una buena decisión. Gracias, bigtb
Thanks for this comparison. I’ve been struggling with identifying the best 4K camera for tech instruction shoots where the dynamic range, contrast, etc.. are important but not to 700% :)
Leaning towards HC-VX1 and the Sony ZV-E10 as candidates. Obviously not included here but the aspects you picked on are helping me narrow down the questions I need to ask. Thanks
Great video, thank you so much...it was extremely helpful, low light performance it the most important factor for me since i usually shoot video on rural areas and poorly illuminated venues, I think the sony a6400 is the best option for me at this time, it's lightweight and less expensive than the ax700 or the a7III, thnak you again !
Imagine that Sony AX700 with the same sensor and recording capability of the A7s3. They could make even 2 versions one with removable and other with fixed 24-200 f4. But Sony and the rest of the companies wont do it, because someone has to buy lenses and useless mirrorles bodies.
The youtube gear reviews celebrities like to pretend to be film makers, because they like to blurry background and changing lenses. And many absolutely suck when they make diffent videos rather than gear review.
The camcoders are unbeatable in ergonomics, quik way to get exposure , focus, and how to frame a shot. The zoom lens is very useful tool in 99% of the situations. They are perfect for documentaries, weddings and commercial work.
JVC, Sony and I believe Panasonic (and possibly others) used to make large-sensor camcorders like that (both fixed and interchangeable lens versions even), but they must not have sold well because they were all discontinued. I wish they weren't, but it is what it is. I think it's a bit of a balancing act in terms of size, weight, price and functionality. I have a JVC camcorder with a super 35 size sensor. It's great in a lot of ways, but it has some drawbacks. I think it would be cool if JVC would make a new version of it and Sony would make a new NEX camcorder with APS-C sensor. But there must not be enough of a market for it.
There are still lots of "professional" camcorders. But they tend to have smaller sensors, many going for a 3 sensor setup. Different considerations for a different application.
Technically, if you want an A7SIII sensor in a more camcorder like form factor, there is the FX6. It has all the convenient, one-touch exposure controls of a camcorder, variable ND and can be fitted with a power zoom lens if you want. But it's also large and $6,000 for the body only.
@@bigtb1717 I think that Sony and others manufacturers don't want to make the perfect camera. Because the will lose money. For me and many others camcoder like the AX700 is the perfect size, because you can take it anywhere and in every condition. UA-cam guear reviews are so obsessed changing lenses, using gilmabs and external recorders that is total B.S. I'm so bored watching weddings, documentaries and small commercials using blurry background in 99% of the shots. And the time that you have to spend in post... It's like people like to complicate their lives on order to follow the policy of a company.
I hope that JVC is able to continue the LS300 but in a newer and better version. I don't want to spend 6000€ in something that has to cost 2000€, and to manufacturer they pay 100€ or less.
These mirrorless bodies constantly overheat and break down also, when used for long video recording sessions.
Still filming with AX700. So far so good
It's a great camera! I have a video just talking about how good it is.
Bought mine last year refurbished and love it!
Super Video ! Merci bien.
Thank you thank you thank you. I've been looking for a video like this for a long time! (translate Google)
Excellent
A very good comparison. I moved from a mid range Panasonic camcorder, which was excellent, to a Sony A6500 for video. The Sony is pretty good but still suffers from micro jitters and I really do miss the powerful and smooth zoom of the camcorder. I'm now thinking of going back to one again.
Remember the primary reason to buy the AX53 is BOSS. All the others need gimbals and will never be run and gun video cameras with out them. Ideally, if Sony could put BOSS into the AX700 I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Que es BOSS
@@nogeliocastro9331 It is Sony's built in gimbal. Great for keeps videos stabalized when moving or long distance shots.
You are right but the digital stabilization on the AX700 ain't bad. Have a 43 and 700 and you have to get pretty extreme for the 43 to top the 700
Stabe in the AX700 is fantastic. It’s perfect for run and gun imo
Interesting comparison. I much prefer small sensor camcorders, mostly due to the much bigger depth of field you get. I used to use my DSLR for video, but I found that I get on better with any early-2000s MiniDV camcorder than I do with the DSLR, despite the lower resolution. Its the opposite for still photos; I often prefer the depth of field I get from my 35mm film cameras to what I get on my APS-C DSLR. I am still yet to try a mirrorless camera for stills. They do seem like an appealing replacement for the DSLR.
Congratulations on using the term "Depth Of Field" correctly! 👍🏼
🤓 (So many pros (even) improperly use it when they actually mean Bokeh.)
This was very helpful. I thought that the video quality from the AX53 lacked detail and this is confirmed here. My choice is whether to spend double or four times as much for a better image or to live with the AX53's imperfections that are in general still better than a phone camera or any blogging/action camera can produce. The AX700 is not available where I live and since I have been burned before by the local subsidiary refusing to repair grey imports, for better or for worse it will have to be the AX53.
Very nice comparison of these 4 SONY "stars", thanks !
I had no idea the AX53 with it's nice inbuilt gimbal has poorer image quality than the AX-700.
Owning the AX-700 is a priviledge and I'm very impressed with it's image quailty and versatality when using it manually and with the ND filters to get depth of field. The digital stabilisation is also pretty good in conjunction with a mono-pod or glidecam. Handheld only with wide-angle settings.
In 2023 the AX-700 is still a cheap and great 4K alternative to a A7-III or A7-IV in my opinion. No hastle and ready to shoot in no time - it has a great stereo audio-mic also and many picture profiles!
Please for future comparisons, the initial film sequences were not done with the same scene and t lens angle ( all 4 on 50mm for example) making the comparison incomparable ! ; ) One should only modify one variable at a time in order to see the variation caused by the camera and not by the scene itself (a more "scientific" method) ! Thanks !
Yeah, the first section wasn't really meant to be a 1 to 1 comparison of the cameras. It supposed to be more of a random sample of stuff from each camera to show that if you weren't trying to do a careful comparison, any of them would look just fine. But I get your point. Cheers!
Videocameras in handycam models are better to handle filming, and I prefer the previous ax100 to the bulkier 700 . The 700 has a more reliable focus though, that I find more important. Then I use the A6400 with 18-200 zoom oss from my older Nex VG-30, but handling video is not as comfortable. I therefore tend to take mostly stills when using that one.
The other half of video filming is not mentioned here, sound quality. Microphones are better designed on on handycams, and you really will not hazzle with separate mikes on the go. Nex vg-30 have outstanding mikes. Whish it had been 4k.
Great video! Personally I think the AX 53 is in a way the winner…why? For two features you didn’t include; stabilization: its BOSS system is amazing for hand held and some movement and it’s zoom feature (20x) which combined with the BOSS is incredible for handheld work. Image quality is fine in good light and you can get by in lower light. It’s kind of a Swiss Army knife, works well in many situations, built like a tank, but only weighs roundly one pound and yet has an equivalent of roughly a 28- 560 mm lens. Autofocus gets it almost all of the time, others are better though. Certainly not the best, love all the other cameras used, but the general winner easily the AX53! For more documentary work (lectures etc) the 700 (wish it had better stab though) photos or light video work where not stab required either of the ‘cameras” plus an applicable lens.
The AX53 is definitely a very capable camera. I was mostly focused on image quality in this video, but the AX53 definitely has a lot going for it. Best stabilization of the bunch, and an overall convenient package. It's a great camera, for sure.
@@bigtb1717 I love the AX53, I wish sony put a similar optical stabilisation on the AX700 so we could have the best of both worlds. While I agree that it's quite robust, do not drop it while it's turned on, as that's how I messed up the stabilisation on my first AX53 and can only use it on a tripod now. But I got another AX53 after that because it's so versatile that another camera wouldn't have really been a suitable alternative for me
Mantap info nya
It's a good "image quality comparison" but it's not a representation of real-world camcorder usage. I have an AX53 and an A6400, the video quality on the A6400 is just not there in handheld situations. You have to use a tripod or mount to take useful footage. This is where the AX53 and I guess the AX700 provide the Camcorder benefit. The 53 especially with its multi axis lens stabilisation. Pickup and go and shoot on the go.
The AX53 is indeed great point and shoot camera. I use it for all video's on my channels
🤓 Thanks for this shot for shot (more or less) comparison of these cameras. I was considering the AX700 with it's built in ND filters, but because of the relatively poor low light performance, I think I may save another $500 for the FX30 and it's S-Cinetone profile. (I already have a few sony apsc lenses with variable ND's). It's sure to blow it away even more than the 2 apsc cameras here. For romantic smooth shots, it will need to be on a gimbal though, (which I also already have) or use the special sw which uses the gimbal info.
😅
But WAIT!
Will I ever be shooting a wedding in light that low?
I always bring off camera lights to enhance the scene.
And while the 2 35mm sized sensor cameras do perform well, I see you have them on f2.5 and f1.4 PRIME lenses. I prefer the dynamic look and flexibility of zooming while shooting.
Hmmm ... 🤔
Excellent comparison and the biggest thanks for that incredible video 🙌🏼🙌🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼.. In my opinion, I would choose a camcorder for event videography, and a mirroless camera for cinematography. Main reason being, camera movements! Seems that moving the camera during a shoot would be much more difficult, due to the larger size of the camcorder (In regards to cinematography). Interesting 🤔
Thanks for this! Any chance you've compared the 1080p modes against each other? I have an a6400 but the videography company I work for has me on the AX700 in 1080p30. The 1080p on the a6400 is pretty bad (a lot of aliasing) but wondering if it's better than the AX700 at 1080p.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), the 1080p on the AX700 is sharper than the 1080p on the A6400. The 1080 on the A6400 almost looks like every other line is shifted left or right a pixel or two. Like you said, almost like aliasing issues. It's not terrible, but the AX700 is definitely sharper in 1080p.
I used the AX700 for all my videos for a long time and always at 1080p, which was good enough. At one point I moved to the A6400, and frankly, I was a bit disappointed. The 1080p wasn't quite as sharp, forcing me to move to 4K in order to avoid a step back in image quality. Admittedly, the 4K out of the A6400 was better than anything from the AX700, but it meant my file sizes doubled, which my computer at the time didn't enjoy, lol. But ultimately it was battery life and occasional heat issues that led me to move away from the A6400 after not using it all that long.
@@bigtb1717 Thanks so much for the insight! Yeah I have my a6400 rigged with an ext. usb battery, so it can pretty much shoot all day without a swap. I haven't had any overheating issues thankfully. And it's possible I'm just used to the a6400 more, but I find toggling all the exposure controls, white balance, and focus modes much quicker than on the AX700, but perhaps I just need more time with the AX. Thanks again!
I can't remember if I've had the A6400 overheat and shut off since I set the temp to high, but before that I had it overheat and shut down several times, including once when just using it to send 1080p video out over HDMI to my computer for a half hour or so. Wasn't even recording. It was just something I didn't want to have in the back of my head, wondering if the camera would overheat. Something that never even entered my mind with the AX700.
Having used a DSLR for photography for years before I started getting more heavily into video, I'm with you. I'm quite comfortable using the controls on a modern mirrorless camera to control exposure and such. But there are circumstances where the AX700 shines for me. I still use it a lot.
does the aperture on the lens for the mirrorless not play a huge role on low light? If you used a lower aperture that the camcorders wouldn't they naturally be better?
A larger aperture (lower number) can definitely help in low light. However, I did try to match settings and exposure on the cameras as close as possible to give as fair a comparison as possible. Also, the lens I used on the A7III has a max aperture of F2.5, the AX53's lens has a max of F2 and the AX700 has a max aperture of F2.8. So they aren't terribly far apart, even at their max. The lens I used on the A6400 has a max of F1.4, which is a lot brighter than the others, but I stopped it down a bit for a closer comparison.
Still, that is one of the benefits of interchangeable lenses. You can swap to something that lets in more light.
Could you include the objectives used for the 6400?
Do you mean lens? The A6400 had a Sigma 30mm F1.4 for all the tests.
Interesting what people look for in these images. For me, looking at the quad split at 5:22, the AX53 wins hands down. the colors are more vibrant, and the contrast is stronger. By many people this is dismissed as having a small dynamic range but therein lies a subjective difference. The enormous dynamic range of modern cameras effectively renders pictures low contrast and generally "gray" looking. The image from the A6400 is positively dull and will require careful grading to lift it to a quality image. Of course, I'm biased having shot a lot of travel videos with my AX55 (the version of the AX53 with the additional internal memory).
Technically, all the cameras other than the AX53 have multiple in-camera picture profiles that can be picked from and adjusted. Any of them could be set to give a more saturated, higher contrast, "punchier" look out of camera. But I take your point. The AX53 is basically "point and shoot," in a good way. It has the most zoom, the best stabilization, and it has better battery life than the mirrorless. It's a great camera.
Can you please recommend me a wide angle lens for SOny A6400?
I would make videos of walking through nature, canyons, mountains, mostyl filming on a tripod?
Thanks, and great video btw.
I haven't used it, but the Sigma 16mm 1.4 gets a lot of good reviews. Just bear in mind, it doesn't have stabilization and neither does the A6400. If you will mostly be using a tripod, the 16mm should be fine. If you want to record handheld, especially while walking, you won't have any stabilization.
@@bigtb1717 the only thing am I afraid of is that I am constraint on 16mm.
As a beginner when I go there on the spot to film it, what if I dont like the 16mm? maybe in that situation its too wide or to narrow. Can you maybe recommend me a zoom lens better?
The 10-18mm f4, low light could be bad, anything else than that?
Stabilization is not that important for me.
I don't know that you'll need anything that wide for nature/mountains/canyons type stuff. But if you are looking for something that wide, there aren't a ton of options. Basically, the only other option in that range is the Tamron 11-20mm f/2.8. That lens would be better in low light, but it doesn't have stabilization. The Sony 10-18mm does.
What is your budget?
@@bigtb1717 1100$ for a lens
If stabilization isn't important for you, I'd probably pick the Tamron 11-20mm over the Sony for the wider aperture. If you don't need the ultra-wide capability of those lenses, something in the 16 or 18 to 70 or 105 range might be a good option as well.
Hmmm some of these videos look like the Toledo area. WW Knight? Side Cut?
Indeed!
Good presentation, pls advice me best camera for wedding videography under 1500$ used or new one.plz reply.
It will depend on your needs. Will you be recording audio separately? Do you need to be able to record audio directly into the camera? More than one audio channel/mic? What type of image quality are you expecting? Are you looking to record short clips or the entire ceremony?
Technically, you can probably make anything you get for that budget work. It's just going to be a matter of working with the limitations you have. Small sensor camcorder may have stabilization and zoom, but worse low light performance. A mirrorless camera and lens in that budget will likely have a much smaller zoom range (if any), so you may have to get more creative with camera placement in order to get the framing you want. It may have limitations as far as record times and battery life as well. There are trade-offs, pros and cons to everything.
Thank you so much for your reply, I have to record function completely and audio directly.
I want best camera without overheating issue under 1500$
Used or new one, plz reply.
Will you be using wireless lavs or some other mic/s to pick up the audio, or the internal mic only? Internal mic only won't pick up the audio very well, but in that case, even something like a Sony AX43 or 53 would probably work. If you want some additional features and XLR inputs, there are some deals right now on JVC and even Canon cameras with XLR inputs.
If the camera will be on a tripod and you don't need autofocus, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K might even be an option. It would be cutting it close with your budget, unless you could find one used, possibly with a lens. And the battery life is really poor without external add-ons, so you'd have to be able to power it while recording. But there's no record limit (no overheating), and the image quality is great. There are a lot of options out there. "Best" is going to be different for everyone. A camcorder is going to be a simple, all-in-one solution (except for any external audio you may use), but there are a ton of options out there. It just depends on what you are comfortable with, what you can find a good deal on, etc.
Thank you so much.
A6400 definitely wins, but apparently has no in-body Image Stabilization (A6500 does?) but way out of my price range (for now). Have an AX53, and works for me. Good comparisons.
Correct, no stabilization of any kind in the A6400. A6600 has stabilization. So does the A6500, but I think the A6400/6600 has newer processing.
IBIS is said to be not the best ... and there are some affordable OSS lenses out there for the 6400 (in particular compared to what you have to pay for full frame glas) ... but I'd say you can't compare to the stabilization camcorders come with ... IBIS and OSS may prevent some 'micro jitter' but I personally find it really hard to get some usable footage out of it when filming hand held ... however, in the end it depends on your use case, but I'm happy that I chose the 6400 over the 6500 ... color science, no overheating / no recording limit, face AF, etc. where some good reasons for me to go with the a6400 ... nice cam - but what I REALLY HATE is the Sony menus - it's a total garbage and pain to work with 😕
Atleast earlier, OSS will be used instead of IBIS if the objective has it. So the advantage of IBIS is not as big if you run with OSS and similar lenses. Dont think IBIS and OSS will be combined atleast it was not the case on A6500.
But the price of A6500 and A6600 is a bit high, the A7C is similary priced and is full frame - acctualy a "blend" of the A7-3 here and a A6600
The advantage to the camcorder is shot duration. You are quite limited when using a DSLR/Mirrorless camera for video.
Please try for arc welding which is better good quality?
The AX700 is what I use for all my welding arc shots. The zoom and ND filters make it ideal..
@@bigtb1717 thank you❤️
No problem. Be aware, I believe the AX700 was recently discontinued by Sony, so it has already started to become harder to find. Hopefully, they have a replacement in the works. Either way, you could use any of these other cameras (or many others) with a screw-on ND filter. You wouldn't have to use a zoom lens, but I prefer something at least a little telephoto, so I don't have to have the camera right in the path of spatter when I'm stick or MIG welding. I also recommend a cheap UV filter for the front to protect the lens (or to protect the ND filter), especially if you do get the camera pretty close, plus the UV filter blocks the UV from the arc.
It is now 3.11.24. The AX700 may be at the end of its production run as the price has dropped significantly in recent months. B&H $1,399. I hope the AX700 will have a successor. The A6700 hit the market last summer, and has many new bells and whistles including a newer menu format. It features a 26.0-megapixel Exmor R back-illuminated (BSI) CMOS sensor. But one needs to buy proper set of lenses to take advantage of the features. And that ain't cheap.
AX700 is $1798 on B&H today, 7/3/24
Great video, I personally tested my AX53 with A7III + Sony zoom FE4.5-5.6/100-400 GM OSS and AX 53 zoom is far better. I will sell my A7III + 100-400 zoom.
I'm glad you were able to get to the bottom of what works best for you. Cheers!
I regret that I did not watched your video before buying A7III with 100-400 zoom, but we all learn from mistakes that cost $$$$
keep in mind the zooooooom you get with video camera (ax700)
it's the good old camcorder or the cinema cameras like FX6 but never slr cameras!
I own both the 700 and 7111 do you give any classes
What kind of instruction are you looking for? Something specific to the cameras?
Trying to choose between A6400 and A6600 and Fujifilm XS10
I don't know much about the Fuji, but just in terms of the A6600 vs 6400, I'd go with the A6600. Stabilization, bigger battery (much better battery life) and possibly a few other small upgrades, probably minor.
@@bigtb1717 thanks
Which camera has the best digital stabilization..
The AX53 has by far the best image stabilization, with Sony's BOSS system (basically a small, internal gimbal). The AX700 has optical and digital image stabilization and is also pretty good, but not as good as the AX53. The A7III has in-body, sensor shift stabilization (no digital stabilization). It's better than nothing, but it's not as capable as the two camcorders. The A6400 has no image stabilization. If you wanted image stabilization on the A6400 you'd have to use a lens with optical stabilization built-in, because the camera body has none.
@@bigtb1717 - Thank you for the very quick response. I do not need perfect videos but absolutely need stabilization. Being retired and on limited funds, I think I'll get an AX53. I do a lot of photos of Special Olympics sports and my own nature photography. Video may be a more fun choice and it would be a lot less work when I create videos, so much to do on photos and creating slide show videos.
Is the AX700 really such a good camera? Judging by the price? It is clearly inferior to the A6400 and the A7III in image quality in terms of noise. The test also fails to mention that the Steady Shot is worse than that of the cheaper AX 53.
Personally, I think it is an excellent camera. I used it exclusively for my UA-cam channel for a couple years and I still use it extensively in all my welding videos for arc shots and more.
They are all good cameras in their own way. Out of the box, I think the AX700 is the most versatile. I actually have a whole video about it, lol. It's surely not for everyone, but I think the AX700 is a very good video camera.
Sony ax700 not have 4k 60 fps it very very bad