tom's FX1 review
 

As lots of us think the FX1 will replace the VX2k1, may I take up some bandwidth here to tell you my review of the FX1 is now on line?

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/Reviews/Camc...%20review.html

You're probably all sick of reading FX1 reviews, but there's a deliberate mistake in mine. And if you find more than one, I'm singing loudly with my fingers in my ears.

tom.

Thanks for the review, Tom. What are your thoughts/feelings on the 24 and 30 frame modes? Have you spent as much time with the DVX100A as you did the FX1? I'm considering getting a 24p camera with excellent audio later this year, and can still only think of one that's on the market. :-]

I've never been a big fan of the progressive and some-such modes - probably because I spent years with film and I rather like the 'real' look if 50i video.

Haven't spent much time with the DVX100A either I'm sorry to say, though I've much admired it. I always say that when you're in the GL2 and upwards ball park (VX / PD / DVX / XL etc) then all the cameras will bring home absolutely superb footage if you know what you're doing. If you get an FX1 or Z1, the camera s will bring home even better footage with the same level of care.

tom.

Great article. There is an illustration that says Leica instead of Carl Zeiss. Scary!

Well spotted Ignacio!! But there's yet another mistake I've found... How many times did I proof read it?

What do I win ?

I’m sure the BBC will be buying skip loads of them....

Ah-ha! It's already in the past tense. The BBC have already bought skip-loads of them.

Is this it:

"The image of the HDR-FX1 – even allowing for the advanced chip design and beautiful lens – could appear very slightly soft on an SD set, but only when compared with the incredible sharpness of the VX2100."

I hope not. I would very much like to believe that the HDR-FX1 looks soft compared to the "incredible sharpness" of my current VX2000 ;-)

Sleep easy Laurence, your 2100's lens is no different from the 2000's lens.

Sherlock Holmes clue: The other mistake is also in the text surrounding the picture. I must've been getting pretty tired when I did those in Photoshop.

tom.

Don't know much on the specs/features of this camera so I can't comment if any of those are mistakes. But, is it that analog was spelled wrong, (analogue).

Jim

Whoooh, it *you* guys who spell wrong!
:-)

Over here in PAL land it's colour and analogue and stabilise, thank you very much.

Flip out 3.5" top screen folds to hide tape transport?
Tape transport?
Ummm... no ;)

Tom

How much did the Aspheron set you back?

also how is the CA at the edges of the frame?

I've always wanted a Zeiss Aspheron but way too expensive , maybe a Bolex is a bit cheaper...

I thought I knew all the wide-angles John, but I've never heard of a Zeiss Aspheron. The Swiss firm of Kern makes them for Bolex, and Bolex call it the Aspheron. Basically it's a pretty big, 0,5x, single aspherical element, beautifully coated and has an 85mm attachment thread.

I bought mine second-hand for 125 GBP, but if you're rich they can be had new for close to 1000 GBP. That's a loot of loot.

The chromatic aberation is most certainly there and single elements are renowned for exhibiting this fault. If you look at the multi-element 0.65x Century you'll see it's better in this regard, but in my view the lack of barrel distortion when using the Aspheron is much more important, and I'll accept slight CA at the very edges of the image to keep straight lines straight.

tom.

125 !!!

you got a bargain , I'm jealous


yeah I suppose top of the tree is the Zeiss (rentable @ 40 per diem), but there are others like the Kinoptic and the double aspheron (which is as rare as rocking horse poo)

getting a bargain on these to buy is like queing in the Jan sales!