Review: Sony HDR-CX900 camcorder 

Haha, thank you again. For the benefit of any other readers, I swear I did not pay Eric to write this comment :-)

Thanks!

No idea but it'll be documented on the Sony website.

Thank you! I'd love to do more but as I buy a fair bit of the kit myself, it's an expensive business! Having said that, are you aware of my other, more informal, channel: ru-vid.com? It's more video stuff but more ad-hoc.

Thanks!

Some Sony camcorders did have an issue with stabilisation being badly affected when on a tripod but I'm not sure this model was one of them. I would say try both ways and see what works best; you may find Standard mode works better because Active is more aimed at a moving (eg walking) camera

$400?!!! That still a lot of money

Thank you. I didn't know there was a firmware update, thanks for that. Great film you've made there, the images are very crisp!

The image is very crisp indeed, that impressed me too. I'm almost sure that this image is very crisp because it's 4K super-sampled to 1080p. That's why when we use the active stabilizer we lost the super-sampling capability and the sensor is cropped 1:1 and that's why the image gets less detailed and the 24X "clear" image is mandatory. I believe this because I think the CX900 and the AX100 are exactly the same camera regardless the 4K capability disable by the firmware.

I agree they're definitely the same cam, with probably just one setting in the firmware that changes it from CX900 to AX100! Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible to hack that setting..? :-)

It would be great!!! 4K 4Free! lol We need to talk to the Magic Lantern guys!

Thank you, after seeing your videos I will order a CX900 to raplace my panasonic AC90. I like the AC90 but I'm looking for a small size camera. I dont care about the 4K in the AX100 wich is $400 more than the cx900.

+alphaphotoandvideo With many apologies, please ignore my prior comment as I accidentally misread you as commenting on another Sony camcorder. To correct, I did NOT try a remote zoom on the CX900 because it doesn't have a LANC control socket; you have to make a complicated connection using two additional Sony cables. I apologise for this mistake.

TubeShooterMag Im aware about the adapters to use a lack controller. And thanks for confirm the zoom is smooth when using the zoom rocket

I've not tried the 770 but "good value" does not necessarily mean "better quality", it just means you get a lot for your money. I'm pretty sure the CX900 would have better picture and is certainly more configurable manually so you can ensure better results. That said the 770 will be more compact, the Sony is more bulky. So it depends what's best you you. In either case, the sound will be terrible in a storm - you need a proper furry windjammer on an external mic. In fact, for storm audio, I'd only ever use a full "Zeppelin" style windjammer but it'll be several times the size of the camcorder and then you'll need an audio interface etc etc

TubeShooterMag okay thanks for that advice. Not trying to bother you but just trying to learn... So setting aside wind I was wondering what would have best sound quality? But they prolly are all quite similar. Then I noticed the canon you used for the low light. It doesn't have a big sensor but almost compared to the Sony which has a 1inch but the canon and Panasonic has a similar sensor but the Panasonic did much worse. So I see the new canon has the next model hf g40. I guess I am curious about your thoughts on these and if one would be the better choice. Or your opinion on them at all. Thanks again

I've not used the G40 but always liked my G20. The Sony CX would have better image though and is more configurable. I'm not a huge fan of the CX as I found it a bit awkward but there's no doubting the nice image. Do you need / want 4K? Do you want manual controls or happy to leave it in auto? My favourite small camcorder at present is Sony's AX53 (see my review on my UKAirscape channel). It's got a small amount of manual control but does a great job in auto.

yeah to some extent i want manual options like manual focus and zoom and some other settings. in one of your reviews you mentioned that cx900 would over expose a sky like a bad HDR in the video. other than that and the fact that the cx900 max video stabilization reduces video quality it seems really good. but so does the canon g40. its a tough overall choice

You do have full manual control of exposure on both cams so you can override any poor auto exposure choices. The main thing is to buy one and get filming :-)

I haven't tested the NX30 but if I recall correctly it features Sony's "BOSS" (Balanced Optical Stabilisation System) which is legendarily excellent. Apart from that though, I regard the NX30 as really just a jumped-up consumer model made to look a bit flashier. Yes it's got the XLR adapter but it's a bit of a lamb in wolf's clothing. The XA20 is more ergonomic and better featured, I'd say.

Why do you say that which one you will buy, is the sony xlr not whort it?

It would depend what purpose I needed the camera for. If I wanted excellent stabilisation for a lot of handheld shots then the NX30 could be the best choice. For ergonomics and a more "pro"-oriented feature-set, I'd pick the Canon. I don't understand your query about "is the sony xlr not worth it"

Marcelo Daniel Haha, thank you - not so sure about being labelled "an authority" but that's very kind of you! The CX900 will have better quality than the Panasonic partly because of its 50Mbit XAVC mode and partly because of its better sensor. It's also much better in low light especially when you have to add gain (electronic amplification) due to the lack of light. However, as you will have seen from my review of the CX900 there are some issues I don't like about it, such as the tiny zoom rocker, the non-standard cold shoe, the very awkward placement of the zoom magnification button (for focusing). That's not to say the Panasonic doesn't have its own set of issues but I found it a more friendly camcorder to use. You'd really have to try the Sony to see if you like how it handles. As for pictures, do you mean still pictures? I don't know - didn't try either of them for that, I'd use a dedicated stills camera rather than a snap from a video camera.

No, as I recall it IS for the ND filters. Things like the exposure, Iris, gain, shutter etc go into auto by virtue of you selecting that using the buttons on the side of the camcorder. The auto/manual switch - which, I grant you, looks as if it ought to be for full auto controls - is actually for the ND. It's been a while since I reviewed so I might just go and download the manual to make sure but I'm pretty confident I wouldn't have said that at the time if I wasn't certain. I think a lot of reviewers simply say that it said auto/manual and assumed what it does rather than either trying it or reading the instructions!!

I've just double checked and I am correct in how I describe it in the video. It is an ND auto/manual switch not the full camcorder. So I'm right and everyone else is wrong ;-)

***** We've already had this discussion over on my UKAirscape channel. Sorry that my replies there were insufficient for you. I recommend settling down with the camcorder for a good couple of hours, reading the manual and just trying out what all the settings do so you get a feel for them. It's the best way to learn what a camcorder is capable of.

ok...one last question. What is the 60 i as opposed to 60p?? I went ahead and set it to highest quality under AVCHD 60 i

***** The 'i' means interlaced which is the standard format for broadcast TV. 'p' means progressive which is the standard format for computer playback. If you shoot 60p, you can easily generate a 60i file (eg to burn to a Blu-ray disc for TV playback). Whilst it's possible to convert a 60i file to 60p, it requires "deinterlacing" during editing or rendering and will have less resolution per frame than the 60p footage (because strictly, 60i is really 30 frames, interlaced into 60 fields, whereas 60p is 60 true full frames) Therefore in my opinion you are best served by filming in 60p as this gives you the most options for what to do with the footage later.

TubeShooterMag thanks so much...makes sense. I don't plan to make DVDs. I just download the video from SD card from camera to FINAL CUT PRO on my mac. I guess the 60P should work ok on Final Cut Pro. appreciate your help!

***** If you've got FCPX it should be fine with the 60p AVCHD (and even for the XAVC-S). Older versions of FCP require mucking about to convert the files, I believe.

They are exactly the same in functionality, jut different country variants. Pick the one that's for whichever country you'll be showing your footage (though, if for the Internet or computer playback, then it doesn't really matter which)

"E" is for PAL = 25/50 fps. In USA you use 30/60 fps. This is important if you shoot video indoors as the lights may flicker in the video. It has to do with the frequency of electricty (50Hz/60Hz). I think PAL is used in India so if you use a 30/60 fps camera just be aware of the indoor lights.

I'm not sure if it can be switched but if so, there'll be a menu option at the end of the settings which will reboot the camcorder to NTSC. But it may not have that option.

KEITH KUHN Thanks Keith!

As I understand and remember it - yes.

Awesome, thanks. I've been on the fence between this and the AX100, but the extra 5-600 dollars just for 4K wasn't justified for me.

With apologies, I don't recall what the stabilisation issue on the CX900 is..?

I was not exactly clear here. I referred to the better stabilization in active mode only, to the expense of image quality (switching CIZ on). I would hope a firmware update would have at least improved the matter. I lack in understanding the technicalities involved, and this switching on of CIZ in active mode might simply be a necessity.

Ah, right. The loss of clarity comes from cropping in on the pixels so apart from pseudo sharpening there's probably not a lot they can do. I'm unaware of any updates though.

Noemi Bendo It's not a huge deal because you can switch in the Sony's Clear Image Zoom which gets you 24x (albeit with a slight degrading of the image quality - it's quite slight though). They are both good camcorders. I think your decision would have to come down to personal preference regarding the ergonomics (how easy they are for you to operate) so I would suggest you try to find them both in a shop and hold them, press the buttons and see how comfortable you feel with them.

TubeShooterMag, thank you so much for your advise. My next question is, how important is the sensor size difference between the 2 camcorders, one being a 1 inch (sony) and the other one 1/2.84 (canon)? Again, thank you for taking your time to respond to my questions :)

Noemi Bendo Well in theory the Sony sensor should be a) better in low light and b) better able to create shallow depth of field. in practice, I found the Sony roughly on a par with the Canon as regards low light as the Canon has a faster lens. I did not try any shallow depth of field experiments on the Sony.

No idea really but for the first issue, do you mean you're deleting the clips in the camcorder but that they're then still showing up when you connect the phone? The second query sounds like a phone issue rather than the camcorder.

TubeShooterMag Yes for the first issue ... do you know the reason.

Miguel Hernandez No definitive answer but again I'd suspect the phone software is caching its record of the clips, rather than the camcorder not actually deleting them. If you delete clips then look at the memory card contents on a computer, do you still see the clips?

+hypnosiscenter nyc Glad it helped (even if it made things more awkward! :-)

Personally I would use the XA20 as it has XLR audio inputs into which you can plug professional microphones for optimum sound quality, which you would want in a documentary. The CX900 would require additional accessories to get the same benefit. Both are decent camcorders though. See my review at tubeshooter.co.uk/2014/05/14/review-sonys-hdr-cx900-hd-camcorder/ If you can afford it, the "pro" version of the CX900, Sony's PXW-X70 is much better and has XLR audio too, it would be ideal for your task.

TubeShooterMag Thank you! I will have to see if the X70 is too big for me to lug around when I use my wheelchair.

It's only a fraction bigger than the XA20 so shouldn't be too awkward. Good luck.

theuofc Gosh, thank you for the comment. Very pleased you like the videos and that they're useful. I'm making some inroads on the "review samples" front as Sony Pro are being very helpful in this regard - the new X70 and X180 camcorders should be coming my way for a week or so at the end of September for test! Both the CX900 and G30 are good camcorders (actually, most camcorders are reasonably decent these days); your choice comes down to budget and personal preference. I think the new X70 is what the CX900 should have been (see my comments at tubeshooter.co.uk/2014/07/30/pro-makeover-for-sony-handcam/)

TubeShooterMag I've since read your review of the Panasonic HC-X920 camcorder. You certainly made a compelling case for it. It's also cheaper, less obtrusive and more portable than some of the prosumer cams with changeable lens I was initially considering. The "fiddly controls" are a bit off putting. Still, your review has just about pushed me to the Panasonic vs. the CX900 and G30. You mention the new X70. I'll read your review. One could spend weeks comparing the best of the lot and deciphering the technical aspects of each one. So, thank you again for the clear, useful information that is a most helpful guide through the maze. Are you also linked to Amazon.com for purchases?

theuofc Ah, well now be careful. I do like the x920 because it packs a huge number of features into a low price BUT there are sacrifices for that capability as you have identified - fiddly controls, it's not as good as the G30 and CX900 in low light. The x920 is on a different comparison band to the G30 and CX900 really. Great value but not necessarily the best to own, if that makes sense. It also depends what you need. The x920 can do live streaming for example, the others can't so if that was important to you, your choice is made. For ease of use, I'd say the G30. For ultimate image quality (albeit with blown out highlights if you're not careful) then the CX900 grabs top spot. It is indeed a minefield!

TubeShooterMag To the rescue! Thank you again for cutting to the chase about the Sony CX900. I agree. If I might impose with this question: shelving the price difference, would I gain a lot in image quality and low-light shooting with a Sony NEX-VG30? My "pro" interest is in travel videos and portraits / for personal use, family events, low and bright light. I'd use Sony's 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 lens and for portraits, Sony's E50mm F1.8 lens. But these add-on lenses make for a heavy kit and a pricey one. If I can get roughly the same sharp image and low light quality in the CX900, it gets my vote. And my wallet says Yes too. You have my appreciation for the excellent help. Do you link to Amazon.com? Better yet, do you have a "donate" click on your website?

theuofc Crikey, again these are very different beasts really. But first of all, hands up, I must admit I don't know a lot about the NEX-VG30. Inevitably, as you suggest, systems with add-on lenses and suchlike are going to come in a lot more expensive than an all-in-one handycam but they're really aimed at different markets. There's a nice NEX-VG30 review I spotted at Sony NEX-VG30 Review. I have a hunch - and it is a hunch only - that you would not gain a lot in image quality and low light over the CX900. You would, however, gain a better ability to create shallow depth of field, provided that you have the time, inclination and situation where this is appropriate. The handycams are for easy portability and run-n-gun shooting on the go without fuss. The interchangeable lens cameras are typically more oriented towards an environment where you have the time to configure them and set up your shot. So if by "travel" videos you mean ones where you have the time to compose everything, then the NEX might look beautfiul. But if it's more a case of point and shoot whilst moving around, a handycam could be more sensible. The CX900 does do a nice image (except for its highlight handling which is terrible - all blown out, so mind your exposure) I link to Amazon UK as that's where I'm based but I don't think the links carry through to the other Amazons around the world. I've no donate button as such, though I hear RU-vid is trialling such a thing, sadly not over here yet :-( But thank you so much for suggesting it and considering it, it really is appreciated!

You'll have to focus manually. Provided he doesn't move closer to or further away from the camera during his sermon, and as long as you use as little zoom as possible, he should remain focused throughout. Now that said, it's going to look terrible anyway as you describe it, for two reasons: 1) because the camcorder will dial down its exposure due to thinking it's looking at a bright subject (the screen) therefore your pastor will be a silhouette. So you're going to need to set exposure manually too, so as to expose him correctly (which will in turn make the screen massively overexposed). This will still look horrible. And 2) because if he's dimly lit, the footage will be all grainy and horrid, this is just how light light footage looks when using camcorders. The upshot is, you need to light your pastor with one, ideally two (either side, at 45 degrees to him) REALLY BRIGHT LIGHTS!!!

Thank you! We shine lights on him, but it's still not as bright as the screen behind him. That being the case, is there a different camera in the same price range that might be better equipped for the task? Or is this our best bet? Thanks SO MUCH for the quick and thorough reply!

Not really because the task you're asking is beyond most camcorders. You want it both to focus on something that's dark (and therefore has no clearly defined edges for the camcorder to work with), and capture a dark subject against a bright light. Both are essentially "an impossible ask". The only solutions are per my prior answer really. Even if you bought a really costly pro camera, you'd still have the same issues.

Oh, and you could maybe move him to the side so he's against an equally dark background? Still light them as much as possible (camcorders like light). Also, forgive me adding advice where it wasn't asked for, but have you considered how you're going to capture the sound? A mic on the camcorder, if that camcorder is at the back of the room, is not going to pick up the pastor at all well (unless you've wired him up to a PA system and have one of the loudspeakers near to the camcorder. Or have someone technical who can wire up a feed from the PA direct to the camcorder - and it's not as simple as just a length of wire with the right-shaped plugs on the end)

TubeShooterMag Thanks again!! We connect him to a lavalier and run it through our sound system to record. I sync it up in the editing process. We do have some lighting on him, and are working on improving that. When it comes to lighting, the other question is because we adjust lighting in the building throughout the service (though not for what we want to capture on camera), right before we start recording, the lights will dim significantly. I don't want the camera to keep adjusting itself to the changing light once we have our settings in place.

Charles Thornton How do I cut? Sorry, I don't understand the question.

+Jesus Dominguez The HDR-CX900 is compatible with LANC remotes. You just need a couple of adapter cables. The first is a LANC to AV-R adapter cable. The second is an AV-R to Multi adapter cable. See www.aquatix.com/lanc_camcorders.htm for more information. I actually purchased the necessary adapter cables and took them my LANC controller and the cables to the store to test before I purchased. It worked. Also works on the FDR-AX100, but not the newer FDR-AX33.

+Jesus Dominguez Can I ask; How do you find the stabilization on the Canon G30 in comparison? > Cheers

Not as much as a DSLR but if you use a fair bit of zoom, and open up the iris as wide as possible, and put as much distance between the subject and the background as possible, then this will help to blur the background.

TubeShooterMag hmm Ok thanks, according to you which is better for indoor shooting DSLR or handycams??

It depends what you mean by "better" and the answer would be different for different people. If you just mean which is better at picking up a decent image in low light conditions then probably - depending on the exact make and model - a DSLR provided that it is equipped with a fast lens and is relatively modern with a good sensor. For example, Sony's A7Sii is ann absolute beast of a low-light device but it's not cheap.

***** Use the 50Mbps XAVC-S mode for best images.

***** is it worth buying vadim?

Top Corner Football well as you can see from my videos it is capable of doing sick quality video. For the price though you could get a really good DSLR and an amazing lens. Camcorder suits me better so I would recommend it :)

Tricky. AX53 is more compact, has BOSS stabiliser. This has bigger sensor, more manual controls. So it depends what you need and want.

Oh, and AX53 is 4K of course, CX900 is HD only. You could look at the AX100 for 4K

You mean you want to film me? Not sure how that's going to work...?

+TubeShooterMag hey I have the sony cx900 for the purpose of making music videos and documentaries and movies....So is the camera good to do those things I just said I'm using it for or not?

The camcorder is a very decent unit but frankly almost any camera could be used for those purposes as tou've pretty much just described most video making of any sort! You could even do it on an iPhone - and people have done so. Whether those videos are any good will really come down to the skill of the operator rather than the camcorder.

If you don't shoot 4K then it is identical to the AX100 - they're essentially the same camcorder except the CX900 doesn't do 4K.

You must be using an SDXC (not SDHC) memory card for XAVC-S recording and it must be class 10 (UHS1 or better) so perhaps that is the problem?

TubeShooterMag Yes that is it im using a SDHC. Will order the other soon. Thank You very much.Mike

blinko656 Format your sdhc card in exFat filesystem and it'll be ok

Eh? Why? (though if that's a compliment, I'll take it)

+TubeShooterMag you have a similar voice, I thought it was a old techmoan video.