Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

3D - HDR-TD10 (2011).
Professional models - HXR-NX70 (2011). HXR-MC2000, HXR-MC50 (2010).
Flash Memory / consumer - HDR-CX260V, HDR-CX580V, HDR-CX740VE, HDR-CX760V (2012). HDR-CX360V, HDR-CX560V, HDR-CX700V (2011). HDR-CX110, HDR-CX150, HDR-CX300, HDR-CX350V, HDR-CX550V (2010). HDR-CX100 (2009). HDR-CX12 (2008). HDR-CX7 (2007).
Hard Disk / consumer - HDR-XR260V (2012). HDR-XR150, HDR-XR350V, HDR-XR550V (2010). HDR-XR100, HDR-XR200, HDR-XR500, HDR-XR520 (2009). HDR-SR11, HDR-SR12 (2008). HDR-SR5, HDR-SR7 (2007).
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 18:51
Location: Paris, France

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by Stephan »

Impressive line-up! You know what impresses me most when I see 4 cams next to each other? It's not the cams, it's the 4 tripods! Who owns 4 tripods, really!? Okay, just kidding - I counted only 2 Manfrotto fluid heads ;-)

Thanks a lot for all these tests and for your time. I like your low-light comparison test (HVR-Z5 > HDR-XR520V > HVR-HD1000 > HXR-MC2000). The HVR-Z5 performs beautifully, it's not just about sensitivity but also retaining colors that are realistic enough.

What do you mean - "On the MC2000, iAuto kicks down the recording quality one notch"? Do you mean it chooses to reduce bitrate for longer recording durations? I thought this wouldn't impact sharpness/softness or resolution on a fully static scene... But then, technology often works in mysterious ways.

And in addition to softness, I think the MC2000 also has lower optics performance - there's a stronger halo around the overblown highlights (lower resistance to high contrast = poorer MTF). The HD1000 seems to behave better in this department, even the XR520V too. Maybe it's about the lens.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by acgold7 »

Excellent question about the bit rates. In Auto, the cam records at the default mode of HD FH (17Mbps). The highest quality (and therefore largest file size) mode is HD FX at 24Mbps. After seeing how soft the MC2000 looked in iAuto mode, I though maybe this manifested itself in lower resolution, but as the clips show, this doesn't really affect the sharpness that much. On a higher motion scene, I'd expect compression artifacts and the like, but for this static scene, it didn't seem to make much difference.

And I think I know why: the manual notes that "“24M” of [HD FX] is the maximum bit-rate, and the value other than of [HD FX], such as “17M,” is an average bit-rate." So switching to HD FX doesn't mean it will record at 24 Mbps, only that it will record up to 24Mbps. I think.

I actually have six video tripods (plus a couple of older spares I used to use for still photography, one of which I use to mount my Zoom when we're recording sound). Not shown were the two Davis & Sanford rigs with fluid heads and dollies! They're not built like tanks but are a pretty good value at about $200.

I agree about the optics as well. I really thought this would be every bit as good as the HD1000, but this initial look seems to say it isn't so.

More to come this weekend.
Adam
ExpeditionSailor
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 18:56
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by ExpeditionSailor »

I too, am disappointed to see the downgraded performance of the HXR-MC2000. Considering that the MC2000 has the new Exmor-R sensor (albeit only a ¼" sensor), I would have expected the performance to be better, not worse. The drop in performance could be one reason why Sony seems to be distancing itself a bit from the MC-2000 - I can't find any references to it in the Sony Store website. Plus, here in Canada, when the MC2000 was introduced, it started off with a retail price of $1799, and now it's down to the nearly bargain-basement price of $1499. By comparison, the HD1000 is still selling for $1599!

It seems to be an OK camera for anyone doing corporate or educational videos where good low-light capability and absolutely sharp images aren't critical. The new Canon XA-10 looks like a better deal, but it's at least $600.00 more. Two other strikes are against it - namely its lack of a shoulder-mount form factor, and a touch-screen menu system.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by acgold7 »

The MC2000 is on their Pro website: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadc ... XRMC2000U/. Curiously, while the consumer Sonystyle website does list some Pro models, notably the Z5 and the HD1000, the MC2000 is indeed conspicuously absent.

Low-Light Shootout

Okay, so at the risk of beating a dead horse, here are the screen grabs from our low-light shoot-out, pitting the new Sony HXR-MC2000 against the HVR-HD1000. For benchmarking purposes, we also included the HDR-XR520V and the HVR-Z5U in the mix.

All cameras were allowed to set their own exposure levels, but we did not use the EASY or iAUTO modes on them. For those with variable bit recording rates, we set the cams to their maximum quality levels. We locked the White Balance on all the cams to OUTDOOR. And on the Z5, we at first arbitrarily set the maximum gain allowed to 9dB, and then released this limitation and let the cam add as much gain as it wanted to. We also engaged the LOW LUX mode on those cams that had it available as an additional test.

The shots were taken over a period of about fifteen minutes before to fifteen minutes after sunset in our area. And again, these are cropped stills of the screen grabs, to avoid any downscaling artifacts. Data under the shots is in the following order: Shutter, WB (O for Outdoor, A for Auto), Aperture, Gain in dB.

Ready? Here goes, at 5pm, fifteen minutes before the sun went down in deep shade:
60	O	3.4	15
60 O 3.4 15
Cropped MC2000 Manual 500pm.jpg (51.97 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	2.8	12
60 O 2.8 12
Cropped HD1000 Manual 500pm.jpg (60.06 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	3.4	15
60 O 3.4 15
Cropped XR520v Manual 500pm.jpg (59.85 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	3.4	3
60 O 3.4 3
Cropped Z5U Manual 500pm.jpg (60.56 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
Now, Sunset:
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped MC2000 Manual 515pm.jpg (42.49 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	2.8	18
60 O 2.8 18
Cropped HD1000 Manual 515pm.jpg (50.49 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped XR520v Manual 515pm.jpg (48.57 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
60	O	3.4	9
60 O 3.4 9
Cropped Z5U Manual 515pm 9DB.jpg (47.95 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
And then we released the gain limitation on the Z5, just to see what it would do. Here it is at max (18dB) gain):
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped Z5U Manual 515pm 18DB.jpg (58.15 KiB) Viewed 20406 times
As you can see, there appears to be no real benefit to letting the Z5 gain up as much as it wants, as the color, brightness and resolution do not improve and the additional gain noise is a killer.

Now, fifteen minutes after Sunset.
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped MC2000 Manual 530pm.jpg (29.06 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
60	O	2.8	18
60 O 2.8 18
Cropped HD1000 Manual 530pm.jpg (33.41 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped XR520v Manual 530pm.jpg (30.28 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
60	O	3.4	18
60 O 3.4 18
Cropped Z5U Manual 530pm.jpg (47.3 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
Then we engaged the LOW LUX mode on the MC2000 and the XR520:
30	O	3.4	24
30 O 3.4 24
Cropped MC2000 Manual 535LLpm.jpg (42.94 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
30	A	3.4	24
30 A 3.4 24
Cropped XR520v Manual 535LL.jpg (44.14 KiB) Viewed 20405 times
Interestingly, while the XR decided to go into Auto WB in Low Lux mode, the MC2000 stayed on Outdoor. You can see how the XR radically shifted its color in response to all that green.

My conclusions in this low-light test? In good lighting conditions, the older HD1000 seems to have the edge in color and resolution, but as the light fades, the MC appears to step up a bit and has a cleaner, less noisy gain structure. Even in better light and wih less gain, the HD seems to have more noise than the MC. I was impressed (and a little surprised, after our first tests) to see that in the Sunset and Post-Sunset pics, the MC held up better than the HD. The XR is, not surprisingly, better than both and the Z5 is in a class by itself, as long as you manually limit the gain -- otherwise it commits video suicide and completely falls apart. At 9 dB the picture is by far the best of the bunch, but at 18, it's arguably the worst (although I think the color holds up well).

And in LOW LUX mode, the MC does surprisingly well -- it holds onto its color better by virtue of not switching, against your will, to Auto WB.
Adam
User avatar
Doughie
Global Moderator
Posts: 452
Joined: 22 May 2010 16:57
Location: Mexico

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by Doughie »

Low-light on the XR520 does the following 2 things (at least these two, anyway. maybe some other stuff like gamma-curve changes too, not sure) :
1) Drops shutter-speed 1 stop from the default of 1/60th sec to 1/30th sec.
2) ramps gain up to +24dB

I find it a little annoying i cannot separate those two things. I would like gain to not go to the (arbitrary) value of +24dB, but i would like to use 1/30th sec but the only way to get 1/30th sec on XR520 is to use low-light mode.

CX550 and newer CX570 models of course allow you to set shutter speed or other parameters (but only one at a time i think...)
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by acgold7 »

Other Factors

The LCD screen is brilliantly sharp, but the icons are smaller than the HD1000's -- never a good thing for a touchscreen-menu-driven cam. The icons are, frankly, impossibly small, especially with the addition of a virtual scroll wheel on the touchscreen. There were many times when we had to back out of the menus and start over because while we were sure we'd pressed the right virtual button, we got something else. As annoying as those fiddly scroll-wheels are on the pro cams, this seems even worse. But I suppose once you'd used the cam for a while, most of your favorite settings would be locked in and there's be less messing around with the menus.
LCD MC2000.jpg
LCD MC2000.jpg (125.69 KiB) Viewed 20400 times
LCD HD1000.jpg
LCD HD1000.jpg (110.84 KiB) Viewed 20400 times
We lent one of our MC2000s to a friend, a pro ENG shooter and producer who has used many shoulder-mount Pro cams in her career. Her take? Surprisingly, she said she preferred the smaller XR for its handy size and inconspicuous nature. I thought she'd like the shoulder mount form of the MC, but it didn't turn out to be a huge Wow factor for her.

So overall, not a bad performer, but not up to the top of the line mini handycams or even its older predecessor, the HD1000. Does better in low light than you'd expect, but the overall softness of the image is problematic in my book -- but probably not an issue if you only output to SD delivery methods like DVD. Professional appearance and stability of the shoulder-mount form are pluses, but this cam isn't the slam-dunk I'd hoped it would be.
Adam
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 18:51
Location: Paris, France

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by Stephan »

The lower noise in the HXR-MC2000 is interesting. The HVR-HD1000 seemed to have better low-light performance in your previous test, but what it does actually is boosting gain in the darker parts of the picture. Ugly.

It's a difficult decision I guess - softer picture in day light compared to the HVR-HD1000, but cleaner in low light.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by acgold7 »

It is sort of an interesting trade-off. We also must consider the advantages of a tapeless workflow, and that's really a personal preference. (As you saw in the photos, I used the MRC1k on the HD1000 just to avoid having to capture from tape. I'm not a tape-phobe by any means but the quick capture is very nice. On the flip side, a card failure means utter disaster, while a tape failure generally means a second or two of dropout.)

I think we also need to consider that tests like these may not necessarily reflect every day use. Would the differences in sharpness be apparent shooting real moving video of sports, seminars, man-on-the-street interviews, and the like, especially if converted to DVD or Web delivery? Perhaps.

Overall, I think it's a good addition to the lineup and I'm going to keep the two I bought. Of course, if they upgrade it with a bigger chip.... there'll be another review, no doubt.
Adam
david lambursky
Posts: 6
Joined: 09 Apr 2011 16:02
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by david lambursky »

Went to test the camera a couple weeks ago. The picture quality wasn't bad, I mean for the money u r paying, u couldn't expect too much.

I was just cruious, Sony produces 1080p consumer camcorders now with the ability to switch from 1080/60i to 1080/30p or 1080/60p, y don't they implement this technology in the MC2000?

Second, I really want to know the internal layout of the MC2000... this camcorder incorporated the consumer camcorder technology, but it is now "bigger" in size, so does it mean there are plenty empty spaces within the camcorder? If so, does it run at a lower temperature (as there are more spaces for the heat to disperse)?

Lastly, do u guys think Sony will bring something new (at around this price range) and replace the current MC2000 with a few more options - such as 1080p - in the near future?
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 18:51
Location: Paris, France

Re: Sony HXR-MC2000 Hands-On Review

Post by Stephan »

david lambursky wrote:Lastly, do u guys think Sony will bring something new (at around this price range) and replace the current MC2000 with a few more options - such as 1080p - in the near future?
The 'pro' camcorders seem to have a lifecycle of several years, contrary to the yearly renewals of the consumer range. So I wouldn't expect a replacement for the MC2000 anytime soon. But well... anything can happen.
Post Reply