z7 help

Greg Laves · November 9th, 2010, 08:39 PM

Dan, I am positive that neither camera was set to 480 output. And I completely agree that the EX-1 should have a significant edge over the Z7. Both are using EXMOR technology. The EX-1 has full 1920 x 1080 1/2" chips while the Z7 has pixel shifting 1/3" chips. Lenses are similar even though the Z7 lens is slightly faster, f1.6 to f1.9. The data rate is higher on the EX-1. Etc, etc. All indicators lean toward the EX-1 being able to produce a better image, No argument there, especially since they come from the same company.

I know this is kind of an apples and oranges point, but the raw output from digital still cameras can show that much larger chips with a significantly higher pixel count do not necessarily produce a better image than photos from cameras with much smaller chips and lower pixel counts.

Doug Jensen · November 10th, 2010, 06:16 PM

QUOTE "I know this is kind of an apples and oranges point, but the raw output from digital still cameras can show that much larger chips with a significantly higher pixel count do not necessarily produce a better image than photos from cameras with much smaller chips and lower pixel counts."

Greg,
I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation, but specifically, which models of digital cameras are you talking about? I have not seen any cameras with small chips and low pixel counts that will produce better images than cameras with bigger chips and pixel counts. Which one have you seen that do this? I'd honestly like to know the models.

Getting back on track, the Z7U is a great little camera, but it is wrong to believe that the picture quality can exceed, or even match, a properly setup EX1. I know because I've owned both and used them side by side. On a scale with the Z7U at one end and an F800 at the other end, the EX1 comes much closer to the F800 side of the scale. If someone wants to say that the Z7U looks better than an EX1, then they might as well say it looks as good as an F800, too. The Z7U is a great camera for the price, but it's not that good. :-)

Greg Laves · November 12th, 2010, 06:13 PM

Doug, obviously what various people think about which photo looks better can be very subjective and open to interpretation. This site takes an analytical approach to comparitive camera sensor rankings, which you may or may not agree with. And on this site you will see that often smaller sensors with less pixels are often ranked higher than larger, higher pixel count sensors. It is interesting reading.

DxOMark - Sensor rankings

Doug Jensen · November 13th, 2010, 07:36 AM

Greg,

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting idea for ranking the cameras.
But I don't see any examples that support your statement unless you are comparing cameras that came out years apart from each other. Sure, a 12MP camera from three years ago might not look as good as 10MP camera released in 2010 because of all the tchnological advancments that have gone into it. But that's not really what we are talking about when comparing the EX1 to the Z7U since they came out only a few months apart.

All the digital cameras that I'd expect to be ranked at the top are right there. Can you save me the trouble of sifting through all the models and point out a couple of examples where smaller sensors and few pixels were ranked higher than others on cameras that still current? If they exist, I assume you already know which ones they are. Thanks.

Look, I don't mean to be giving you a hard time, but I just think it is very misleading to imply that it's possible the Z7U can meet or exceed the EX1. It's not possible on paper and it doesn't hold up in real life comparisons either. That's just the point I'm trying to make so people trying to decide where to spend their money don't get the wrong idea. The Z7U is a fantastic camera, and there are many reasons why someone might want to buy it over an EX1, but picture quality shouldn't be one of them.

Greg Laves · November 13th, 2010, 04:47 PM

Hi Doug, actually there are some easy examples such as the Nikon D3x that beats numerous "medium" format digital still cameras with 40 or 50 Mpix sensors. The only camera it doesn't outperform is the Phase One P65 Plus which is a 60 Mpix camera that costs $40,000. Another good example would be the giant killer Pentax K-5 which is a 16 Mpix APS sized sensor camera that outperforms all of the Canons and most of the Nikons, even the full frame models. While DxO labs research does go back 5 or so years and those "old" models are still included, they have also compared all of the latest greatest new models on the market as well. Sometimes a bigger sensor just means you can make a bigger picture but not necessarily a better picture.

Like you said, "getting back on track" in an earlier post I noted that the all of the cards were stacked in the EX-1's favor and I think it should be able to produce a better image than the Z7.

Doug Jensen · November 14th, 2010, 06:14 AM

Hi Greg,

Thanks for pointing out that the D3X beats some of the medium format cameras. I hadn't noticed that as I looked through the chart. That is a very good example of the point you were making. Thanks. As much as I like the D3X, I'm skeptical of their results, but if that's the conclusion they came to, who am I to argue with it? :-) I've never used the other cameras, and they have.

Thanks.

Anthony Trotter · December 17th, 2010, 07:19 AM

Hey guys, I've not got much new to add. Used the EX1 and the Z7 cameras extensively and have done a side-by-side comparison of footage (I even included in the Z1 for a three-way comparison for good measure.) The images from the EX1 are sharper, that's for sure. But I'm amazed at how well the footage from the two cams cuts together. Nobody's complained yet. Of course, if you're gonna buy one of these the Vortex DVDs are a must-have.
As for Ollie's original post, I think the Z7 is a great camera. So far, it's been the most profitable of the cams I have. One drawback is that it doesn't display video-file thumbnails. But you do have the option of tape. I've found that it's easier to send tapes to clients overseas rather than sending the raw files on an external HD. Doug, do you have a method for sending raw footage files to clients that doesn't involve encoding, FTP, or sending on an external HD?

November 10th, 2010, 06:16 PM	#17
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	QUOTE "I know this is kind of an apples and oranges point, but the raw output from digital still cameras can show that much larger chips with a significantly higher pixel count do not necessarily produce a better image than photos from cameras with much smaller chips and lower pixel counts." Greg, I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation, but specifically, which models of digital cameras are you talking about? I have not seen any cameras with small chips and low pixel counts that will produce better images than cameras with bigger chips and pixel counts. Which one have you seen that do this? I'd honestly like to know the models. Getting back on track, the Z7U is a great little camera, but it is wrong to believe that the picture quality can exceed, or even match, a properly setup EX1. I know because I've owned both and used them side by side. On a scale with the Z7U at one end and an F800 at the other end, the EX1 comes much closer to the F800 side of the scale. If someone wants to say that the Z7U looks better than an EX1, then they might as well say it looks as good as an F800, too. The Z7U is a great camera for the price, but it's not that good. :-) __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

November 12th, 2010, 06:13 PM	#18
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Camera sensor rankings Doug, obviously what various people think about which photo looks better can be very subjective and open to interpretation. This site takes an analytical approach to comparitive camera sensor rankings, which you may or may not agree with. And on this site you will see that often smaller sensors with less pixels are often ranked higher than larger, higher pixel count sensors. It is interesting reading. DxOMark - Sensor rankings

November 13th, 2010, 07:36 AM	#19
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	Greg, Thanks for the link. It's an interesting idea for ranking the cameras. But I don't see any examples that support your statement unless you are comparing cameras that came out years apart from each other. Sure, a 12MP camera from three years ago might not look as good as 10MP camera released in 2010 because of all the tchnological advancments that have gone into it. But that's not really what we are talking about when comparing the EX1 to the Z7U since they came out only a few months apart. All the digital cameras that I'd expect to be ranked at the top are right there. Can you save me the trouble of sifting through all the models and point out a couple of examples where smaller sensors and few pixels were ranked higher than others on cameras that still current? If they exist, I assume you already know which ones they are. Thanks. Look, I don't mean to be giving you a hard time, but I just think it is very misleading to imply that it's possible the Z7U can meet or exceed the EX1. It's not possible on paper and it doesn't hold up in real life comparisons either. That's just the point I'm trying to make so people trying to decide where to spend their money don't get the wrong idea. The Z7U is a fantastic camera, and there are many reasons why someone might want to buy it over an EX1, but picture quality shouldn't be one of them. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

November 14th, 2010, 06:14 AM	#21
Doug Jensen Vortex Media Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 3,417	Hi Greg, Thanks for pointing out that the D3X beats some of the medium format cameras. I hadn't noticed that as I looked through the chart. That is a very good example of the point you were making. Thanks. As much as I like the D3X, I'm skeptical of their results, but if that's the conclusion they came to, who am I to argue with it? :-) I've never used the other cameras, and they have. Thanks. __________________ Vortex Media http://www.vortexmedia.com/ Sony FS7, F55, and XDCAM training videos, field guides, and other production tools

November 9th, 2010, 08:39 PM	#16
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Dan, I am positive that neither camera was set to 480 output. And I completely agree that the EX-1 should have a significant edge over the Z7. Both are using EXMOR technology. The EX-1 has full 1920 x 1080 1/2" chips while the Z7 has pixel shifting 1/3" chips. Lenses are similar even though the Z7 lens is slightly faster, f1.6 to f1.9. The data rate is higher on the EX-1. Etc, etc. All indicators lean toward the EX-1 being able to produce a better image, No argument there, especially since they come from the same company. I know this is kind of an apples and oranges point, but the raw output from digital still cameras can show that much larger chips with a significantly higher pixel count do not necessarily produce a better image than photos from cameras with much smaller chips and lower pixel counts.

November 13th, 2010, 04:47 PM	#20
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Hi Doug, actually there are some easy examples such as the Nikon D3x that beats numerous "medium" format digital still cameras with 40 or 50 Mpix sensors. The only camera it doesn't outperform is the Phase One P65 Plus which is a 60 Mpix camera that costs $40,000. Another good example would be the giant killer Pentax K-5 which is a 16 Mpix APS sized sensor camera that outperforms all of the Canons and most of the Nikons, even the full frame models. While DxO labs research does go back 5 or so years and those "old" models are still included, they have also compared all of the latest greatest new models on the market as well. Sometimes a bigger sensor just means you can make a bigger picture but not necessarily a better picture. Like you said, "getting back on track" in an earlier post I noted that the all of the cards were stacked in the EX-1's favor and I think it should be able to produce a better image than the Z7.

December 17th, 2010, 07:19 AM	#22
Anthony Trotter Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 51	Hey guys, I've not got much new to add. Used the EX1 and the Z7 cameras extensively and have done a side-by-side comparison of footage (I even included in the Z1 for a three-way comparison for good measure.) The images from the EX1 are sharper, that's for sure. But I'm amazed at how well the footage from the two cams cuts together. Nobody's complained yet. Of course, if you're gonna buy one of these the Vortex DVDs are a must-have. As for Ollie's original post, I think the Z7 is a great camera. So far, it's been the most profitable of the cams I have. One drawback is that it doesn't display video-file thumbnails. But you do have the option of tape. I've found that it's easier to send tapes to clients overseas rather than sending the raw files on an external HD. Doug, do you have a method for sending raw footage files to clients that doesn't involve encoding, FTP, or sending on an external HD?