Sony HDR-CX11E... am I asking too much???

MadMac74 · 20-08-2008, 4:19 PM

Hi all,

I have recently purchased this camcorder and I must say, I am not very impressed with the picture quality. It seems very noisy and even in a quite well lit room it struggles.

The sound quality and build quality are fantastic though.

I have checked the settings and I am recording at Full HD so would expect the picture to blow me away. Even outside it's not great and the picture seems to wobble when I pan around.

To be honest, even the 10.2mp still images look about as good as the ones taken from my 5mp camera phone.

Is this common with camcorders?

Has anyone else experienced this or am I asking for too much?

thanks in advance,

Alex

performance6 · 21-08-2008, 10:02 AM

it is a 5mp camera read the specs better!

i have tested one and it seems fine, maybe yours is faulty?

MadMac74 · 21-08-2008, 11:07 AM

I think that you will find that it's a 10.2 mp camera. I can read the specs fine thanks as I have the manual here in front of me!!! maybe a trip to specsavers may help.

vib ribbon · 21-08-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by performance6

it is a 5mp camera read the specs better!

Why the comment? - even if the Op had got the specs wrong there was no need for such a comment - don't try and goad people!

Anyway, back on topic - not sure why you are expericing issues - even with my old Sony SR5 i was still impressed with the picture. Not seen any clips of the CX11/12 in action but its supposed to be pretty good.

As far as I know, the C11/12 uses optical image stabilisation, which is a damn site better than electonic )which my current cam has) - Can you post some clips so we can check out what you mean?

daveb975 · 21-08-2008, 11:48 AM

I have the previous model (CX6), and I sometime find the picture quality unacceptable in low light situations. In daylight and well lit rooms, I have found it consistently good. I do sometimes get the wobbling on panning, though. (I think this has something to do with the AVCHD codec)

It does sound as though there is something wrong if your stills are no better than a camera phone. My CX6 is a 6.1Mp (so is shooting 3Mp stills, I think), and it is as good as a low end compact camera - leagues ahead of a camera phone.

MadMac74 · 22-08-2008, 9:36 AM

thanks everyone.

I will try and post some clips, movie and still to see what you think.

cheers

Alex

newbie1980 · 22-08-2008, 9:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMac74

thanks everyone.

I will try and post some clips, movie and still to see what you think.

cheers

Alex

please do that

skaeley · 22-08-2008, 2:44 PM

Hi,
Myself and one of the other guys on the forum, SPANNA, have HDR-CX12E (same as the CX11E).

I have taken it on holiday to New York and come back with some fantastic footage....no problems with 'wobbling' while zooming out and some great footage played back via a ps3 on a Sony 46x3500.

The pictures I have taken with it were good, I have put a HD DVD together and when all compiled together the results were very good and all my footage was HD at 9MBps not at full HD.

Low light level footage can suffer, but I managed to improve footage quality by changing some settings in the menu, switching to one of the low light level modes.

I have taken some full HD footage in the garden and that looked great, still images as mentioned above have come out very clean, I actually use the 7M wide screen mode rather than the full 10.2 M.

I did find that if the TV isn't set up in the correct colour mode your footage will wash out, maybe the problem is on how your playing back the footage. This doesn't explain the wobbling of course......

Sanjay

MadMac74 · 24-08-2008, 9:37 AM

Thanks for all the advice everyone!

I took the camera back to the store yesterday and we compared it to the display model.

Turns out my unit seemed faulty. The other unit was smoother when panning and the all round picture quality was much better.

camcorder replaced and all seems well...

thanks again.

rmoo · 24-08-2008, 12:06 PM

Hi

I purchased a CX11 yesterday and I too am disappointed with the still quality although the HD quality is very good but not quite as good as I had hoped. Low light is much better than any other camcorder I have seen and almost perfect when you boost it up a notch with the AE overide. In a dark room with just a 60bulb there is minimal noise - this will cope with most Christmas's and childrens parties with ease !

Generally the focus also seems a little slow - even in bright daylight with no obstructions the focus occasionally trys to "hunt around" - this ruins what would normally be a very professional video.

The "smile technology" in principle sounds great and does work very well but the quality of the photographs is terrible (I would not even bother printing them !) .... the quality of the "10.1 Megapixel" stills are also rubbish ... very soft and generally a little blurred ... I have compared these to an old Sony DSC-P5 3.2 Megapixel camera and these are far superior - I appreciate this is not a still camera but surely the quality should be better than this ?

Could I have a faulty camera too or am I also expetcing too much of a (consumer) HD camcorder ?

.... or do I check out one of the new Panasonic/Canon models ?

The Sony is back in its box with the receipt while I contemplate what to do !

Regards

Rmoo

rmoo · 24-08-2008, 5:42 PM

I've been doing some further tesing with th CX11 today and it is possible to get acceptable still photographs as long as you hold it very steady (or use a tripod) and your subject is not moving at all ... I have taken some "landscape" type shots which are almost as good as my 5Megapixel Sony still camera when printed at 6" x 4" but if you subject is moving (even walking) don't bother .. get yourself a still camera !

Does anyone else have this camera and have the same issues ... every time I try and focus when taking a still photograph it also appears to focus twice - is this normal ?

If anyone is seriously looking at this camera and is worried about this, drop me an email and I'll send over some samples

Regards

Roy

performance6 · 27-08-2008, 9:16 AM

RICHRIBBON - im unsure of what your point is, but i was right he had a faulty camcorder, he has returned it and so obviously my point was helpful
In reagrds to both of you damning my help, as far as i am aware even though it says 10mp;
it acts as a 5mp camera in operation!!!!! that is what i meant,

**senu** · 27-08-2008, 9:51 AM

Mod comment: Pls avoid inflamatory posts and keep this forum as temparate as it usually is

I imagine You could have said exactly what you meant in your post regarding the 10Mp/5Mp issue rather than " read the specs better" which understandably prompted the subsequent responses

vib ribbon · 27-08-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by performance6

RICHRIBBON - im unsure of what your point is, but i was right he had a faulty camcorder, he has returned it and so obviously my point was helpful
In reagrds to both of you damning my help, as far as i am aware even though it says 10mp;
it acts as a 5mp camera in operation!!!!! that is what i meant,

My point was simple, as Senu said, perhaps you could have elaborated on your point a bit more - If you read the 'specs' the only mention of still imaging is '10.2 megapixels', so you are actually incorrect!

You could have explained this further by stating that the 10.2 megapixels refers to the interpolated resolution of the cam's still images (seeing as the sensor is only 5.6 megapixles).

performance6 · 01-09-2008, 6:24 AM

1. it was not meant that way, it does not necessarily read that way it is an instruction to use your time better in finding out something which you said to be wrong and they i had disclosed as being right!

2. I also mentioned that there was probably a fault there was i fixed his problem on both accounts
Richribbon - the specs are general to any means of literature that has those details,

*A n d r e w* · 01-09-2008, 7:11 AM

Thanks for a really interesting thread, guys.

**senu** · 01-09-2008, 7:23 AM

Can I pls ask ( again) that we keep this thread on course, relevant and avoid unhelpful contention
.
Maybe the thread has run its course and should be closed?

rhubarbe · 01-09-2008, 9:38 AM

You tell him, senu. I'll hold the towel.

stu.artd · 01-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by performance6

1. it was not meant that way, it does not necessarily read that way it is an instruction to use your time better in finding out something which you said to be wrong and they i had disclosed as being right!

2. I also mentioned that there was probably a fault there was i fixed his problem on both accounts
Richribbon - the specs are general to any means of literature that has those details,

All it takes is a little more time to explain something rather than a short, sharp response that's open to interpretation.

The OP took their time to post the question here, it's just as easy to give a helpful and pleasant response as it is to make a seemingly helpful comment that's ruined by a barb like "RTFM" on the end of it.

You claim to have fixed his problem, I could fix a problem someone had with a loose tooth by punching them in the face. Does that mean I did the right thing ? Of course not. Just being correct doesn't mean you did the right thing.

rhubarbe · 02-09-2008, 12:56 PM

You an NHS dentist, Stu?

stu.artd · 02-09-2008, 8:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhubarbe

You an NHS dentist, Stu?

lol, I've still got some places available

On topic - what do you think of the CX11E overall ? What's it like indoors, under normal lighting ? I'm considering a new camcorder and this is on my list.

rhubarbe · 02-09-2008, 10:19 PM

I always had the predecessor, the CX6 on my list but the price never dropped much, and the high price of MS put me off - I have loads of SDHC cards. I read about the converter for Micro SDHC but I have only one of those, in my phone.

The footage I saw from the CX6 looked good, better in low light than the Panas with the 3CCD (tiny CCDs) but overblown in the greens in bright light.

Top of my list this time around would have been the Pana HDC-SD100 but oh, those tiny sensors again, put me off.