FX1000 has arrived - first impressions - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z5 / HDR-FX1000

Sony HVR-Z5 / HDR-FX1000
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CMOS HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 23rd, 2008, 03:52 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bendigo, australia
Posts: 204
I think the shots from the FX1000 at dusk were of excellent quality and Im sure the bride will be wrapped!

Im a bit of a 'film look' enthusiast and even with high definition, I personally like a softer look. On the FX1 (and Im sure the FX1000 has the same adjustments) I can easily up the sharp settings if I wanter a sharper look. I can also apply an 'unsharp mask' if i want to boost the sharpness a little in post.

I think that different people like different looks and Paul, if you dont think this cam will do it for you, then lash out and get yourself an EX1. If you can afford one (half your luck), then why wouldnt you get that model with its extra capabilities etc?? I would!

Cheers

Jamie
Jamie Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 04:59 PM   #32
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
I agree with you Jamie. I would buy an EX1 in a heartbeat if I could afford it. The FX1000 is fine for me, but the EX1 is still the one to beat.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 07:20 PM   #33
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Harper View Post
I must admit these images are a bit softer than I had expected or hoped for. On the other hand they are not quite as soft as the stills suggest. Unfortunately they will be soft in DV after downconverted.

Remember that it was nearly dark when these where shot and there was no lighting from my camera or otherwise.

Frustrating thing yesterday lighting everywhere was "soft". In the house all indirect lighting, no lights allowed. The church lights were all aimed straight down and created extremely harsh shadows on faces, absolutely terrible.

Anyway, I was slightly disappointed in low-light with the camera, but keep in mind I ran auto except for white balance all evening. No doubt the picture could have been tweaked. It was much too fast paced and rushed the entire day for me to play with anything and risk ruining a shot.

The FX1000 is close to the PD170 in low light, but I will know more after I look at some comparison footage later.

Overall, I am disappointed, but not so much that I will not keep the camera. If I could have afforded the EX1, that is what I would have gotten.

For the money and for what I do, I am, overall, satisfied with the camera so far. It is a huge step up for me.
Jeff, like any camera I think that yo will find that you wil get much better images when running in full manual over auto settings.

Also, if you go into your picture profiles an pay around a bit, I believe that you will get much crisper images. As it is, the picture profile settings on the FX1000 won't be much different from the FX1. So if you go into the profile and bump up the sharpness and maybe play with some of the skin details and max auto gain settings you will be very happy with the camera.

As it stands for me right now, i am intrigued by the FX1000, but only seeing what the results are in low light with someone running the camera in ALL manual, as I do with my FX1s.

I love my FX1's to death as they have been a real; workhorse for me and produce superior low light images over my old PD170. Yes I did say superior low light images as the color held up better and blacks stayed black when shooting in HDV. The picture in the PD170, although great in low light would turn to mud, in my opinion. I always use supplemental lighting of some kind, weather it's off camera or on camera. Images, weather it be photos or video need light. Granted there are times when we can't use lighting (like during a ceremony), but the majority of the time we can, so true low light for me is a misnomer.

So I'm very curious as to the results that you get when you have time to learn the cameras picture settings better and run some tests in pure manual.
__________________
Michael
www.lvpvideo.com
Michael Liebergot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 07:57 PM   #34
Trustee
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,498
The EX1 is great but is certainly not easy to handle. It doesnt work in auto mode really.. u have to shoot in manual all the time so that is quite tough. I'm looking towards the FX1000 as a B cam now. Hopefully we can see some clips on VIMEO soon and make some quick assessments. Thks for the efforts!
Sean Seah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2008, 09:22 PM   #35
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
Jeff, I find your screen grab images to have a very pleasing look to them. And like others have said, there are many adjustments that can be made to tweek the images in camera. But I find that your images have a very organic and beautiful look to them. Of course, the talent helps, as well.
Greg Laves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 04:20 AM   #36
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Regarding the images I put up, the photographer commented repeatedly how perfect the lighting was for the shoot. The look of the images had as much to do with the lighting as the camera did. The images turned out the way it actually looked out there on Erin's deck.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 05:01 AM   #37
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 421
Jeff,
Can you post some shots from reception; the real low light test
Marius Boruch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 01:00 PM   #38
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
My friend Jeff has been doing video since the 80s, and I respect his opinion immensely. He has 6 VX2100s, some FX1's and a FX7 as well, and knows the cameras inside out. He has been running Sony cams since when the VX2000's were new.

He was very anxious to see the FX1000 so I took it over this morning and we ran it side by side in nromal lighting as well in a darkened room room next to VX2100 and FX1.

Both of us came to the following conclusions:

1. It is NOT as quite as good as the VX2100 in low light, but it holds onto colors very well in low light. (I stated I thought the FX1000 was as good in low light in a previous post. I was wrong.)

It beats the FX1 hands down in low light. BTW, we didn't even bother to compare with the FX7. Comparing 1/4 inch chips to 1/3 inch is not fair and is would be a waste of time and we had limited time to spend on this comparison today.

2. Full wide the FX1000 is wider than the FX1, but just a tad. In DV mode the FX1000 is MUCH wider than the VX2100. The difference is extreme. This alone makes the FX1000 a great move from the PD or VX series. It's almost like having a wide angle lens attached.

3. The FX1 is somewhat cooler and less soft in overall in nromal light. The FX1000 footage resembles more closely the actual scene than the FX1 and is more accurate color wise.

4. Jeff regretted the FX1000 viewfinder is a tad smaller than the FX1, but the detail in the FX1000 is amazing.

5. The quality of the image of the FX1000 at full 20x zoom is exceptional, very good. But I saw that Saturday during the wedding I shot.

Bottom line as far as we are concerned, if you shoot in well lit environments most of the time, the FX1000 may not be worthy replacement for FX1. It would be a waste of money IMO, but that would be something you would have to decide yourself.

If you shoot events where low-light capability is important, this is a great move from the PD 170 and VX2100 if you want to move into 16:9.

Jeff is ordering at least one immediately based on what he saw with mine.

My time was limited with Jeff and his editing stations were tied up, so we didn't get stills to show everyone. This was a very quick and dirty comparison.

Marius, I will post some shots of the FX1000 at the reception next to stills from the VX2100 when I get time.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 02:15 PM   #39
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newbern, TN
Posts: 414
Jeff, thanks for all the info, very helpful.

Did you notice any delay after hitting the record button? I know this was a major complaint with the FX's back when everyone was moving from the VX's to the HD FX's.
Tim Akin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 02:47 PM   #40
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Yes, a big fat delay. As I recall this is worst after turning on but after initial recording it is not too bad.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 03:13 PM   #41
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: bendigo, australia
Posts: 204
Thanks for the info Jeff.

Does the FX1000 shoot in progressive scan by default?

Cheers

Jamie
Jamie Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 03:52 PM   #42
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
No it does not shoot in progressive mode by default. BTW, when I played with 24p, it looked really great through the viewfinder, but I had to pan VERY carefully. There are a number of nice preset modes. This camera has huge potential run manually or using presets.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 04:46 PM   #43
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Harper View Post
In DV mode the FX1000 is MUCH wider than the VX2100. The difference is extreme. This alone makes the FX1000 a great move from the PD or VX series. It's almost like having a wide angle lens attached.
Focal length starts from 6mm with the vx2100 and on the xh-a1 from 4,5mm and the fx1000 goes even wider. So the lens from a 2100 can't be compared at all, I had a vx2100 and own a xh-a1 now but have seen the difference and it's like you said quite big.

I realy would be curious about a side by side comparison with the xh-a1 and the fx1000, not in auto mode but by manually adjusting the camera's so they show their best image possible under the darkest situation. For the xh-a1 that would be 25f with 1/25th shutter and a max of 6db+ and no preset. Higher then 6db looks quite bad and many low light presets cause ghosting. If you could place your camera next to the canon and adjust it accordingly and point it to a badly lit room with lot of detail and color, now that would interest a lot of xh-a1 users. :)

I might find out soon as my father plans on buying a fx1000, ofcourse a camera is much more then what it can see in the dark but as a event and wedding videographer low light is what I deal with every time.

Coming from a vx2100 I must say that my xh-a1 performce quite well in darker rooms and I don't miss my vx2100. The biggest difference though is once you start zooming in, then the canon image turns black almost immediately while the vx2100 keeps the room lit. But that comes at a cost, the vx2100 needs a lot of gain to get that result which produces tons of noise and to be honest, the xh-a1 gives me a cleaner image at 6db gain, I will loose in light sensitivity against the vx2100 but the image of the xh-a1 looks so much better when the lens is wide.

About 24p and panning carefully, don't know how it looks with the sony but with the xh-a1 it looks a lot worse in the viewfinder and on the lcd then afterwards in your nle or on tv. It looks like that small viewfinder has more problems avoiding that typical stutter when you pan, even slow pans.
Noa Put is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 05:08 PM   #44
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,942
Looking at the difference to the Z5 things like the Flash unit attachment and XLR's are obvious. Looking at the FX1000 manual it does have black stretch etc which is nice and miss on my FX1. The Z5 mentions smooth gain and smooth WB switching. I presume this means that when switched the change is smooth so isn't noticed. IS this feature on the FX1000? It isn't mentioned in the manual.

Ron Evans
Ron Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2008, 06:40 PM   #45
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Ron, the WB switching on the FX1000 isn't smooth. There is a slight transition, but it's very short.

What is black stretch? I'll check it out in the manual, sounds interesting, whatever it is!
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-Z5 / HDR-FX1000

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network