"If there is a better alternative at this $3200 US, I'd like to know what it is."

The Panasonic HMC150. A cleaner image. XLR audio. Tapeless on cheap media. Better balance and lighter. Only $100 more (Amazon has it for $3299 at the moment). A far better warranty (3 years!). No rolling shutter. Independent control of the audio channels.

I recently bought both cams. If I had it to do all over again, I would forego the FX1000 and buy 2 HMCs. I may eventually sell the Sony and buy another Panny. For me, the only real advantage for the Sony is its zoom. 20x is great. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who's shot nothing but Sony since the mid-90's.

Hi Norman, which one has better low light? which one has more vertical smear when shooting into bright light? When you said cleaner picture, is this with no gain? if you put both on 6db gain does the Pany has cleaner picture or brighter picture? Do you mind posting some pict under low light at 0db, 6db and 12 db?
Thanks.

Yes Norman, how is the low light? I'm in dark areas a lot. How does your footage match up with the Sony? I do not see tapeless as an advantage, but would be glad to have the ability to record to both simultaneously would be great.

Never mind Norman, I found your post....Khoi, go here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-138345.html

The FX1000 is definitely brighter. At 6db gain, I can't tell much difference in the noise. When you bump it up to 12 db, the Sony is still brighter than the Panny but with slightly more noise. The FX has better detail. Here are a couple of stills from both cameras at 6 db. To make the comparison as fair as possible, the DRS (dynamic range stretch) on the Panny was turned off and black stretch was off on the Sony.

I pointed the Panny directly at 3 light bulbs on my office ceiling fan and couldn't get it to smear.

http://www.gaddisvideo.com/Pan6db.bmp

http://www.gaddisvideo.com/Sony6db.bmp

All things considered, I think the HMC is a better value.

Yeah thanks for the still, I would go with the Pany if it has 20X zoom and as low light but I shoot in alot of big church and 13X will not be enough, and I'm sure AVCHD even at 17Mbps is better than HDV at 25Mbps because it is twice as effecient, can't never get a perfect camera. )-:, We need something like Canon 3CCD 20X, with same low light as Sony FX1000, but shoot with AVCHD on the SD card.

I understand, Khoi. There will be situations where I'll opt for the FX1000 as my main camera as opposed to the HMC, especially when the longer lens is needed.

I think Sony made a huge mistake by not configuring the FX1000 for the CF recorder to mount on the back just like the Z5. I realize they did this to increase sales of the Z5. However, just think about the thousands of CF recorders they could sell if it were dockable to the FX1000 without having to use a firewire cable.

Norman, thank you very much for taking the time to post stills.

Very nice performance from the Panny. I am definitely jealous of the XLR, but not of the tapeless (that is just preference on my part).

The Panasonic is most definitely a ton of camera for the money.

I have a wedding Sunday and have not used my FX1000 hardly at all, and have played with it almost none.

Can you clue me in on usage of the black stretch feature?

When do you have it on and which setting do you use? (I seem to recall there were a couple of settings for it on the menu but I forgot what they are).

Do you turn it on a and just leave it? Or do you use it only in darker environments?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Norman, thank you very much for taking the time to post stills.

Very nice performance from the Panny. I am definitely jealous of the XLR, but not of the tapeless (that is just preference on my part).

The Panasonic is most definitely a ton of camera for the money.

I have a wedding Sunday and have not used my FX1000 hardly at all, and have played with it almost none.

Can you clue me in on usage of the black stretch feature?

When do you have it on and which setting do you use? (I seem to recall there were a couple of settings for it on the menu but I forgot what they are).

Do you turn it on a and just leave it? Or do you use it only in darker environments?

Thanks in advance for any input.

Bear in mind that I got my camera a week after you got your's, so I'm by no means an expert. I haven't shot any events with it yet, just played with it. The black stretch feature brightens dark areas of the image (reduces contrast). I'll only use it when shooting in low light. You'll find it in the "picture profile" menu. It also has a "compress" setting that crushes black (darkens black areas, increases contrast).

I plan to set up at least 3 picture profiles on both of my cameras:

1) for shooting in low light

2) shooting indoors with good light

3) for shooting outdoors in daylight

Norman, the brightness of the two images is closer than I would have expected. The FX1000 is slightly better with lower light, it seems, but I expected to see more difference.

But I noticed one other thing and it might not be that way on your video. It seemed like there was some sort of noise on the HMC150 frame grab where there is black lettering on a white back ground. I zoomed into the small Antacid printing on the Rolaids bottle and it looks like there is something abnormal there. Maybe it is a result of the codec. Or just the screen grab. I don't know. Is it my feeble eyeballs or is there really something there? It looks like what used to be called "black clip" back in the old NTSC 4 x 3 days where the equipment was reluctant to switch rapidly from black to white and back again and you would wind up with a funny pattern on the edges.

I believe the chips on the FX1000 would lead to a higher resolution image than the Panasonic. Blowing up the image might just reveal this difference. I agree that the FX1000 image seems to be higher resolution with less edge artifacts. The Panasonic is great value though since it really has to be compared to the Z5 so may be $1000 cheaper!!
I just wish Sony had an AVCHD version of the Z5/FX1000 with hard drive and flash memory recording.
Ron Evans

Norman, the brightness of the two images is closer than I would have expected. The FX1000 is slightly better with lower light, it seems, but I expected to see more difference.

But I noticed one other thing and it might not be that way on your video. It seemed like there was some sort of noise on the HMC150 frame grab where there is black lettering on a white back ground. I zoomed into the small Antacid printing on the Rolaids bottle and it looks like there is something abnormal there. Maybe it is a result of the codec. Or just the screen grab. I don't know. Is it my feeble eyeballs or is there really something there? It looks like what used to be called "black clip" back in the old NTSC 4 x 3 days where the equipment was reluctant to switch rapidly from black to white and back again and you would wind up with a funny pattern on the edges.

It could be the conversion to the Canopus HQ codec. I edit with Edius and my PC doesn't have the horsepower to edit AVCHD natively, so I converted the Panny's original .mts file to the Canopus HQ codec, then created the still from the Edius timeline.

Tomorrow, I will import the native .mts clip into Edius and make a still from that to see if there's any difference.

I believe the chips on the FX1000 would lead to a higher resolution image than the Panasonic. Blowing up the image might just reveal this difference. I agree that the FX1000 image seems to be higher resolution with less edge artifacts. The Panasonic is great value though since it really has to be compared to the Z5 so may be $1000 cheaper!!
I just wish Sony had an AVCHD version of the Z5/FX1000 with hard drive and flash memory recording.
Ron Evans

Bear in mind that even after spending a grand more for the Z5, it's still not tapeless. You have to pony up $850 more for the CF recorder.

I thought that it was included in the package.

Stelios

I thought that it was included in the package.

Stelios

It's included with the Z7 but not the Z5.

after watching the demo vids here

Sony | Micro Site - HDV (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-hdvsite/resource.demos.bbsccms-assets-micro-hdv-demos-hvrz5uvideos.shtml)

Am I correct in saying, it looks as though you don't need an 35mm adapter to acheive shallow depth of field?
After watching this it makes me want to switch from my XH-A1 to the Z5.... Incredible.

With the 20X lens, you can get shallow shallow depth of field if you are far enough to zoom in, but they said something about round shutter leaf in the camera that is doing it, don't know.

[QUOTE=Khoi Pham;976471]Yeah thanks for the still, I would go with the Pany if it has 20X zoom



Hey I am in the same boat. (THis is a post I posted on the Pansonic 150 discussion board)

I wonder if there is a 1.4 lens or similar for the new 150 Pana Camera. I am considering buying the Sony FX1000 mainly due to its 20X zoom which is great for me as I film a lot of sport. That camera also has a wonderful very fast zoom speed critical for "getting in" very fast".

I was appalled at the last Panasonic HD cam (whatever it was) as it had the slowest zoom on earth!

Obviously the new Panasonic is not tape based which sounds appealing but the 13X lens to me is very off putting.

My past experience with tele lens' is that anything past a 1.4 tele gives you the black ring when on a wide shot.

On my Panasonic DVC-62 (52mm i think) and Sony TRV900 (43mm) I have used a Sony 1.4 lens and don not get the black ring. The 1.4 just gets you in there and makes a big big difference to the impact of how gootage looks.

If I thought there was a 1.4 or 1.5 lens that did the job on the new Pana 150 then I might go for it as I can see its a great cam, very light and no TAPE!

What is the mm of the lens?

There seems to be a bit of paranoia about using the card system. Surely any professional video guy would be transferring to hard drive and then transferring to another drive as a further back up.

Hard Drives are cheap these days.

Khoi....I am with you on this matter. I can just hope for a Canon 3-Chip with the light sensitivity of the EX-1 and 3 Sony models. LOU

Yeah thanks for the still, I would go with the Pany if it has 20X zoom and as low light but I shoot in alot of big church and 13X will not be enough, and I'm sure AVCHD even at 17Mbps is better than HDV at 25Mbps because it is twice as effecient, can't never get a perfect camera. )-:, We need something like Canon 3CCD 20X, with same low light as Sony FX1000, but shoot with AVCHD on the SD card.

Khoi....I am with you on this matter. I can just hope for a Canon 3-Chip with the light sensitivity of the EX-1 and 3 Sony models. LOU

The best situation would be for Canon to use the best attributes of their current video-capable D-SLR chip and build a true video camera around it. Its my suspicion that that is what Canon is working on and why the XHA1 got a relatively mild makeover recently - the next camera in that price range will be drastically different and substantially better.

Update to my original post/sample clip 24p

As has been predicted by someone previously in this thread I am developing a fondness for the FX1000 more each day.

I am still editing weddings shot with my trusty VX-2100 and am still amazed at the quality of the footage, as I have always been each time I start a project.

But after only a couple of shoots with the FX1000 and having learned to play with the settings a bit, it is quite a camera.

It is the first camera I've used that produces video that looks better on my TV than on my monitor. It's easier to appreciate the benefits of a widescreen image on a HD television than in my preview window.

As I posted in another thread: below is a clip shot at church (strictly for experimentation) in 24p with the Cinema tone 1 setting. Looks great and the audio is great as well. Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect, and I don't know if I'd choose 24p next time, but overall it has a pleasing look to it that plays well on my television.

If you intend to view it is 150MB. Right click and save prior to viewing as file is too large to view otherwise unless you have some kind of crazy fast connection.

http://jeffharpervideo.com/Videos/wmv/ChurchDemo.wmv

Looked great Jeff, I noticed the "reds" were quite prominent, it became a bit distracting (those red flowers in the background) did you do some color correction or is this straight from the camera? Also the shot with only the candle light, did you shoot at 1/24 or 1/48 shutter?

Noa, no color correction, all shot 24p with 1/48. Couldn't help the red, that is pretty much as it was. Poinsettias are just like that...the cinema tone might have made them deeper red than they are.

Jeff - can you tell in post what settings the cam used for every part of the footage. For instance you know how much gain the final piece was done with, where the light is the lowest? Does the FX1000 have a gain limiter, so it doesn't use for instance more than 18db?

I compared your clip to some interlaced stuff that I shot with my VX2100, and on mine I can clearly see the interlaced lines on pause, though they are much harder to see whilst playing a movie (which is how we, er, play them..)

Noa, no color correction, all shot 24p with 1/48. Couldn't help the red, that is pretty much as it was. Poinsettias are just like that...the cinema tone might have made them deeper red than they are.

Have you tried 1/24th shutter in 24P yet, for such really dark shots it will make a difference, at least with my xh-a1. But must say even with 1/48 shutter the fx1000 did perform well, only the colors were somewhat dull but then again, with that little light every camera will struggle to show decent colors. (except the canon 5d mark II, but that's not a videocamera ;))

I also think the cinema tone is not a good setting for this type of recording, the very first images were a lot of people were wearing red as well did not look so nice, the red color was to saturated.

William, everything was auto except shutter speed. I've never shot progressive with 2100 so I can't comment on that.

Noa, haven't tried different shutter speeds yet in 24p. Wanted to run settings as was for entire hour to get a feel for the limitations of those settings. Keep in mind the only light was from the candles in the last shots. There was, I'm pretty certain absolutely no light coming from overhead, they were completely turned off. The colors were dull, I wouldn't expect it to look any differently with those settings. Thank you for the suggestion of using 1/24 in dark situations.

The red saturation you mention doesn't bother me, but I wish I had run for a few minutes without the cinema tone to have a comparison. If I can wake up and get there in the morning I might video tape tomorrow, but the lighting will be completely different so it won't be a fair comparison.

If I do, I will run half 30p and the rest 60i. I'll also run with and without the cinema tone feature activated. Since it is now 6am I should go to bed. I can't edit any more, everything is getting blurry.

Does the FX1000 have a gain limiter, so it doesn't use for instance more than 18db?



Bill, I can tell you from the manual that the FX1000 does have gain limiters. You have a choice of where to put the ceiling for gain in 3db increments. So there is a lot of flexibility.

Tim

Mate I am in Australia and just wanted to thank you for posting the still pics. I am really excited about getting my FX1000 that arrives here in Tasmania on Tuesday

Martin Duffy
Duff TV - Hobart Video and DVD Production, Online Video Specialists (http://www.dufftv.com.au)

You won't be disappointed Martin, the FX1000 is a great camera.

I've have learned something on another forum though, that I am disappointed about. When the FX1 and the FX1000 were compared side by side, with gain at 0db, the FX1000 had visible noise, where the FX1 did not. The poster noted that the FX1000 had to be turned down to -3db to get the grain out, which was equal to the FX1's 0db.

This is not a major concern because this small amount of noise can be easily removed, just disappointing. Looks like Sony may have screwed around with the gain readings.

EDIT: One other thing I would like to add about this camera, (coming from VX2100's) is the added size and weight actually made my handheld work much more steady. Hard on the arms and back though, I'm sore today after yesterday's wedding, 11 hours, way to long.

Tim, other than the gain differences, were there other comparisons made between the FX1 and 1000's picture quality?

Ken, the comments made were that the FX1000 is brighter than the FX1 if you have each camera on identical settings, but not much. As you go higher in gain the FX1 is much cleaner. The FX1000 would be useable at 15db but only in extreme situations, but 15db on the FX1 is VERY useable and clean.

He also went on to say: "If I had to pick another camera up right now, it more than likely would be the FX1000, but if you already own the FX1's, unless you are looking for a better screen or like the handling of the FX1000 better, switching isnt going to get you much".

Thanks Tim. No comments on sharpness, color & detail?

No Ken, but you might find this interesting.

Test! XH-A1, FX1, FX1000, and 5DMark II on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/2641694)

Thanks Tim. I know sometimes it's tough to tell on Vimeo, but judging from what I saw there (in HD), the FX1000 looked best to me. It seemed to hold the color and detail better than the A1 which seemed dark. Again, probably because of compression artifacts on Vimeo, I didn't see much difference at all in grain.

I can't quite figure out why he was rocking and swaying whenever the FX1000 shots came on, but the A1 shots were rock steady. That was pretty distracting and didn't help focus on the FX1000 clips.

I think your right, because the poster made a comment as to how he didn't notice the grain untill he watched it on his 50" Samsung. I agree the 1000 did look the best.

Tim, I just revised my post to mention the panning back & forth whenever the 1000 clips came on. That was bizarre and I'm not sure why he did that. It didn't help the 1000 in relation to the A1.

I don't know why he did that, weird.

I have just filmed with the FX1000 for the 2nd time and for the first time have shot in HDV using a blacked out mini DV tape (made black by also recording in HDV).

I have filmed Cricket (the Australian Baseball game) and and the client only needs footage uncut to DVD.

I am running it out to a realtime DVD recorder from the camera as I write this and are disappointed with the sharpness of the edges of picture.

Through the LCD screen the pics are amazing but through the CRT monitor the images just look a bit fuzzy. I am hoping this is a HDV>Standard Def issue because this is just a big letdown.

Thinking it through if one is only outputting to standard def is it better to record in standard def in the first place as apposed to HDV which is compressed.

Would it be true in saying that what you see through the LCD screen is really HD quality and that going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality than recording in Standard def in the first place.

I have compared the footage filmed at the same venue with my Panasonic DC-30 and the Panasonic is much sharper and looks as one would expect.

The FX1000 footage really looks like its already been transferred to DVD and that I am looking at 2nd generation footage.

One thing for certain is that if this is the quality of the camera in brightish sunlight well its going back to Sony and I will upgrade to XDCam as this is really below par.

Like many others on this forum Video is my life I spend 50+ hours a week filming and editing and no way will I put up with this! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Martin, not sure what happened, but if my client needed the finished product in SD, I would have put the FX1000 in SD mode. I've never liked downconversion and you generally have to deal with letterboxing that some clients just don't like.

If you try to get rid of the letterboxing by zooming...well, there goes your image quality even further. Need SD, shoot in SD. I really think that's your best bet.

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.[/QUOTE]



Ken, I will do the SD test. Always an issue with anything new hey.

As for the performance of the camera it is just fantastic.

Anyone else out there had the HDV>SD poor quality issue?

Martin, please let us know how your tests go, it might help others here (including myself!). :)

Martin, if you didn't tweak the picture profiles, you need to. Especially the sharpness. I ended up cranking it all the way up.

I have done many test with shooting in HDV, HDV downconverted and SD. To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.

Tim, how do you deal with letterboxing if that's not wanted?

I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.
That's an opinion many feel.
I have not used HDV yet (I'm about to!) but some good film-makers I know have found that shooting and editing in HDV and then outputting to SD produces the best looking results for them when they need to distribute in SD. There's a few opinions about this here IAC Discussion Forums • View topic - Anybody editing in HDV? (http://dialog.theiac.org.uk/dialog/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2148&sid=88d5919ea3ffd85f51f5daedfb841f44)

Tim I'm with you on the 16:9. 4:3 is over for me as well. People watch 16:9 movies on their sets all of the time and if they have a 4:3 TV they are used to black bars on the side.

I ordered a second FX1000 and will get a third as my season starts ramping up in March

Jeff, I used two FX1000's and a HV30 for the unmanned cam in the back. I was really impressed at how well that little cam held up to the 3-chippers. I bought it to use as a capture deck, but after yesterday's wedding, I may not be in such a hurry to purchase a third 1000 or add a Z5.

I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

Makes sense. The problem I have is doing mostly corporate work where 4:3 still rules.

Martin are you talking about DVC-30 when you mentioned the DC-30?

"going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality"
Definitely yes, because this is poorly done in the camera.
why ? because this must be done real time with very limited processing power.
If you want a good conversion, capture into a computer and do the conversion with a decent converter.
shot from a PDW-330 XDCAM HD and top picture converted by camera, bottom by computer
http://www.repaire.net/images/stories/images_news_tests_tutos_articles_faq/jcf/pdw330/grosplan.png

Tim it is almost scary how close we are on some things...I have been dying to order an HV-30. I just want one. I've thought on more than one occasion of getting one as a backup or discrete extra cam. I'd really want it as a personal cam, but I imagine there are all kinds of ways to utilize it in the field professionally as well. For example with a light and mic it could be a great interview cam. I would love to have a small camera that didn't intimidate people for use at the reception.

So you are saying that in decent lighting it matches your FX1000 pretty well?

Could I mount a Sony light with battery on top of the cam?

The FX7 would be a much better choice for backup at weddings, however it costs 4x price and is same size as what I already have.