Wacom’s latest pro tablet can help take your editing workflow — and most importantly, the final image results — to the next level. CA is a lens characteristic, so it is obvious the lens is not high quality on the AX It’s a wonderful little camcorder with a best of class stabilizer which can be adjusted to three levels, providing outstanding results and great image quality. F Forum M My threads. Started Aug 15, Discussions.
|Date Added:||26 November 2006|
|File Size:||16.78 Mb|
|Operating Systems:||Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I think the issue is the AX33 lens Zeiss or no Zeiss.
Help Guide | Audio Mode
Best cameras and lenses The Ax33 in active stabilization mode is essentially the same thing as digitally zooming whereas the Ax in active stabilization mode can run active stabilization without having to degrade quality because there is extra physical image sensor remaining. In any case, the pixel count does not have anything to do with the lower resolution.
The vignetting isn’t nearly that bad when zoomed out. But while I agree that processing crippling cannot be ruled out, there is no denying the lens is inferior to that on the XV and the AX, given the CA. Additionally, All video aopsn shot fully optically zoomed in to maximize noise so that people can more easily see the difference.
I have taken time to compile a video that shows the difference in video quality between active stabilization vs standard stabilization. The best camera bargains of The main problem with video today: Personally, I would rather buy the Ax33 if it had a prime lens rather than a zoom lens, but they never make camcorders like that.
The difference is ONLY the lens.
The Wacom Intuos Pro is a workflow-boosting machine. The stabilization is light years ahead of any other gimbal device you can get for videography as it is intelligent enough to know when a movement is due to hand shake and not purposely moving. The lens used in the AX 33 may be the limiting factor, but I personally doubt it.
DJI Ronin-S gimbal stabilization system. I believe that “gross” pixel count of over 18 million is also higher than the 1″-sensor AX The Ax33 on the other hand uses exactly a 1: This is also true for the Sony AX Actually, the Ax uses some form of pixel binning as its way of recording 4k video to begin with so the entire 1″ of the sensor isn’t even used anyway.
Atomos Ninja Inferno with Sony hxr-nx80 recording issue. My point that I wanted to make with this post is that I think most people who have made reviews of the Ax33 up to this point have been making the reviews with “active stabilization” turned on and those people have not realized that active stabilization uses cropping in order to stabilize. a3x3
I do feel that the Ax might have slightly larger pixels, or utilize pixel binning to reduce noise. Started Aug 15, Discussions. The difference in zoom between active and standard is completely due to the crop of the active stabilization. The best lenses for Sony mirrorless cameras. Your experiments with f-stop will also be useful to optimize performance.
Sony Ax33 is better than most people realize: Digital Video Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Soknd will post results here. Fujifilm’s MKX lenses bring affordable cinema glass to X-mount. I agree with you that the Ax does have better clarity and quality 4k. At the end of the day it does not matter why the Ax33 does not resolve as well as other Sony camcorders, though it is useful to know that turning off active mode improves video quality.
Sony Ax33 is better than most people realize
This makes much much more sense from a designer’s perspective given the requirement to shoot 20 Megapixel still photos through that very same aopdn.
If I attempt equivalent 4K video using, for example, a Panasonic FZ at the same focal length, the much less effective FZ stabilizer results in videos which are, for all practical purposes, useless. It degrades the quality and makes it look worse than p camcorders. In our latest buying guide we’ve selected some cameras that while they’re a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck. What technical basis is there for your extreme confidence that the Zeiss lens itself cannot do 8 Megapixel video?