Does anyone know the difference between this and Sony's FDR-AX100?
2051966
They use the same image sensor with the ax100 recording capability of 4k. There is a $600 difference plus you are going to need bigger and faster memory cards and more hard drive space with longer rendering times and a 4k monitor to really see the difference. As a professional, I would buy the pro version of this camera (pxwx70) before I'd spend the extra on 4k. It's a personal decision but I wouldn't bother with 4k now unless you are viewing it in 4k. I think they're are other factors that affect image quality more than resolution at this point in the technology world. Like a OLED HD tv set has better quality image than a non OLED 4k tv. That's my 2 cents worth anyway. They use the same image sensor with the ax100 recording capability of 4k. There is a $600 difference plus you are going to need bigger and faster memory cards and more hard drive space with longer rendering times and a 4k monitor to really see the difference. As a professional, I would buy the pro version of this camera (pxwx70) before I'd spend the extra on 4k. It's a personal decision but I wouldn't bother with 4k now unless you are viewing it in 4k. I think they're are other factors that affect image quality more than resolution at this point in the technology world. Like a OLED HD tv... » Read More They use the same image sensor with the ax100 recording capability of 4k. There is a $600 difference plus you are going to need bigger and faster memory cards and more hard drive space with longer rendering times and a 4k monitor to really see the difference. As a professional, I would buy the pro version of this camera (pxwx70) before I'd spend the extra on 4k. It's a personal decision but I wouldn't bother with 4k now unless you are viewing it in 4k. I think they're are other factors that affect image quality more than resolution at this point in the technology world. Like a OLED HD tv set has better quality image than a non OLED 4k tv. That's my 2 cents worth anyway. « Show Less
2051967
The big difference is that the AX100 is 4K and has 4 times greater resolution than the CX900s (3840 x 2160 vs. 1920x1080). Even if you don't have a 4K set, the down sampled 4k video is reported to be substantially better quality.
260401
This should be easy to answer but its not and perhaps that already tells you something. If the mp3 files are good quality (&gt;192 kbit/s) and the original recordings were well mastered then quite honestly it really tough to decide if the Sony audio effects make a real difference. They do change the sound and you may perceive the differences as an improvement (especially using the Equalizer). However, I run my files with all audio options off and using decent headphones, just enjoy the music for better or worse. Also, this results in better battery running time (also run player in plane mode). Its a great music player but if that's your priority you might to hold off for the NWZ-A17.
963848
I emailed Amazon and they didn't even know the difference. I, too, ordered one and it is to be delivered Monday afternoon. I figured out the number--I THINK. Amazon had run out of the 6187S. When they put some back on, they were cheaper for a couple of days (when I ordered mine), so they may have added the AX as an indicator of Amazon Xtra??????????????????? Don't really know, but thought it was plausible.
1180387
Sony discontinued so sellers have to pay crazy prices to get them. sonxtronic xdr-8000 and sonxtronic xdr-8001 are very comparable products, that (currently) have better supply and a much better price new.
722135
The DCR SR300 has a CMOS sensor, the DCR SR100 has the CCD. That could account for the difference. I doubt that quality is as bad as Frank seems to find it. I am waiting on a camcorderinfo.com review before I buy but with the Lux rating being better for the DCR SR300 there is no reason why it should be so disappointing.
583825
Dear Stephen, I gave your question serious thought. I even searched the web for a proper answer. Its best to contact Sony's technical dept. They will ask you for the type of recorder, model, speed etc. Regards, George Ejdaharian
1054608
I've not owned the x-100 but the x-t1 is supposed to be lots faster ....Look in dpreview.com
1548026
I have both models - the MDRZX300 has better sound - much richer and more bass. The mdrzx100s aren't terrible, and are fine for casual listening or movies. But if you really like music, you are better off getting this pair or the cheaper model.
427587
Hi, you can see the difference in this review...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4gd49nLqZY I guees there is a lot of difference between m-80s & m-100s in isolation.
2192289
Dear E. Thanks for your inquiry. The X series of Denon receivers offers and upgraded Audyssey setup, a longer warranty, and other features that are designed for more custom installations. The same is true for comparing the AVRS900 and the AVRX1100. The AVRS900 has a few more inputs but does not have the upgraded Audyssey, the longer warranty and the detachable power cord. Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance. Regards, Eric Cohen World Wide Stereo
1563217
Hello, i don't know about the SONY Ax100, but the product work very good in my Notebook Lenovo E430, with excellent data transfers speeds. I recommend the product.
757024
I don't have the Sony one, so I can't compare. I'm very, very happy with with the ones I bought, though. Very neutral sounding.
2023902
I'll be able to do a direct comparison soon, as I've got a PX312 coming in, after purchasing the VN-302PC. The specs and features are very nearly clones of each other, but I've found that the Olympus lacks some rather basic abilities that the Sony covers, such as a means of moving files between the 5 folders for organization. Also, the files recorded on the internal memory can't be moved over to the external memory card through the recorder; though it's easy enough to do when connected to a PC. It shows up as two separate drives on the PC, and the files remain uniquely named whether recorded on internal or external memory, so it's a simple matter to just copy them over. (If they reused file numbers on int vs ext memory then there would be an added complication of renaming before copying). I'd rather that the file names included the timestamp, like some other recorders do, but neither of these do that. Record quality of the Olympus is fine, so if the Sony does just as well, the Sony has more comprehensive features. The file erase process is better on the Sony as well, because it plays back the recording you're about to erase for confirmation before recording. With the Olympus you have to stop the playback on the target file first and be careful that it didn't advance to the next file, and watch the screen for the sequence of prompts to follow through with the delete process. I think the Sony method for deleting is better because it can be initiated while the target file is playing, and the playback of the recording as confirmation has less potential for inadvertently deleting the wrong recording. I believe the Sony also retains the time for at least a minute during battery changes, while the Olympus loses an hour or two and needs to be reset. It's not very significant since the batteries last so long, but so far, all the pros have been on the Sony side. When I get the Sony in hand I'll see if it actually performs as well as the Olympus
922119
Hello doug pace. Unfortunately no, the R10000s internal hardware is different from that of the SR10000. If you try to flash the firmware for one unit on to another, and that firmware is not meant for that unit, it will brick the unit.
1629039
Sony discontinued these, which caused a severe shortage of a popular design and sound. Simple supply and demand. Sellers are forced to pay super high prices and thus have to charge super high prices because they are so hard to find and so expensive. Sonxtronic xdr-8000 or xdr-8001 is a similar product that has more supply at this time.
2221316
I have a GF1 and GH1 and the XR520v and CX520v. Panasonic has better manual control for stills, but the Sony stabilization and AVCHD codec implementation are *much* stronger.
1649789
That significantly had an effect on the sound quality. The X-230 sounds a lot better in comparison. I get a more surround sound feel with the X-230, but I can't say the same about the X-240's. Easily X-230 &gt; X-240.