Last edited by the Windcharger; 11-21-2012 at 02:55 PM.
Private....can't see a thing.
ok sorry now is ok
Thanks so much for posting that. A great selection of shots to show how it perfors in a variety of circumstances. Rather grainy in th poor light conditions as one might expect from 1/4" sensors, but not bad. The picture seemed a bit less contrasty and a bit less saturated than we have got used to with consumer cams and I wonder if this is deliberate in order to leave plenty of scope to tweak to taste in post. The colour seemed ratehr off indoors (open scenes).
I wonder if it might have been better with a preset white balance or doing a manual white balance rather than relying on auto.
Have you actually bought this or did you borrow to test. i hope you've bought it as I'll be very interested to see what you achieve with it once you've become more famliar with it.
Hai Tim, I had the possibility from Panasonic Netherlands to shoot one hour. Thats why I could test the manual settings. This came is very steady and go max. too 28 MBS. The body is terrible plastic feeling like plastic from a toyshop. The bottums too and the screen took 3 minutes to take out. Sensor is the same like Panasonic HC-X900. The image quality too. And i think it's not fear from Panasonic to use the same sensor from a consumentcam for 700,00 euro. But it's not only with Panasonic, Sony do the same. I think it's not worth to pay 2000,00 euro if you get the same image quality for 700,00 euro, the HC-X900. I have a bit more footage and tomorrow I will post it. Thanks for the comment.
I'd read it was basically an X900, but the fact it produces the same image quality isn't really the issue.
It's an X900 with XLRs, 3 rings and a bunch of manual controls on the body rather than tucked away in menus. That's a good idea, designed to satisfy the more serious hobbyists who can't afford the massive jump from something like an X900 to a "proper" camcorder with anual controls.
But the "problem"s are two-fold:
1. Physical controls (buttons and rings) cost money to add on
2. People who actually want these features are a much smaller market than those who want a small camera with all the controls hidden in menus.
Both of these result in the cost being disproportionately higher.
At more than 2x the cost of the X900 I think it's probably a miss. At 1.5x it would be more tempting. Shame too about the cheapo plastic feeling. i have a couple of X900s sitting in front of me (they're not mine) and whilst they're plastic, they don't feel too nasty. The AC90, of course, may be the same plastic, but it will feel cheaper on a bigger body.
I'll continue saving for an HMC151, I think.