I think the Z5/7 will render the V1 obsolete, bigger cmos chips, better lens on 5 why would sony even continue v1

why would sony even continue v1

Because that's what Sony do so well - they identify a niche market, then work hard to sub-divide the niche. They want the customer to take home one brochure and be able to find a camera in there that comes in at their very own price point.

You might as well ask why don't Sony discontinue the HC9, A1, HD1000, V1, Z5, Z7 or EX1. They're out to gather us all in Hugh - in the way that Canon, JVC and Panasonic (to take but 3 others) aren't.

tom.

transreflective screen on the z1. Even though sun is beming directly on them you can see image. MAGIC!

I could never really understand why the Z1 had a dedicated top-screen backlight switch. Not until I was outside under direct sunlight, that it. Under those conditions you can switch the baclkight on or off - it makes no difference to the screen image.

Does the Z5 or Z7 have this feature?

tom.

Hi Robin. Your name is familiar somehow, and I see you also live in Worcestershire!

Glad to hear you like the Z5. I too think that the rolling shutter issue is overplayed with many of the so-called issues being down to other factors in the majority of cases. When I tested the Z5 I was shooting footage of a mountain bike race and didn't notice anything untoward. I was quite impressed with it, though I wish that Sony would have included the CF recorder like they have with the Z7.

I could never really understand why the Z1 had a dedicated top-screen backlight switch. Not until I was outside under direct sunlight, that it. Under those conditions you can switch the baclkight on or off - it makes no difference to the screen image.

Does the Z5 or Z7 have this feature?

tom.

Tom, the Z5/FX1000 have both adjustable backlight capability in increments and a 'high/low' switch for bright conditions.

Tom

Bring on the TRV900 HD!

My trusty old TRV900 stills sits in my camera kit ready to go. The perfect (almost) back up.

Its onto its 3rd set of heads, 3rd zoom rocker, 2nd firewire port, a new lens inserted as the other had a scratch, a replaced CCD set up as the other one had that inheriant "green tinge" that some batches of the 900 had!

Also headphones output and RCA composite does not work. Other than that it still records fine and the mini Jack mic input works.

mmmm maybe not the best back up cam afterall but the pics are fine and here it is in full action only 2 months ago on a day my Panasonic DVC62 had an issue http://dufftv.com.au/?p=186

Yuk 4:3 though!

Well I took it away and have 12 tapes to look through.

I really like the ergonomics and functions plus there are some really good results I woudl use for ENG use but one thing is now nagging me.

The signal to noise ratio!!

Compared to underwater footage and surface footage in good sunlight from my PDX 10P the Z5 seems to have high noise levels in the shadows and average lighting conditions.

On a TV you dont really notice it but on the computer with test footage at gain settings of -3, 0, 3, 6 and 9dB I seem to get shimering worms on gloss black finishes of the canons around the castle which I dont get on the PDX10. Also any contrasting scenes the darker areas are noisy.
Its very clean don't get me wrong but I'm wondering if it could be better.
I want to look at video on a vector video analyser/scope and see what the levels are.
I would assume that in sunny conditions with gain at -3 or plus 3 it would be not noticeable.
I am using it for SD DVCAM output which would be my standard output for media. So maybe the down convertion is not up to scratch or the its compression artifacts.

I dont have it in all examples so it could be settings and I have found I can reduce it in the picture profile detail cripsness sharpening settings.


Other than this I love the camera. Its on par with the XH canons with plenty of scope for playing with settings, plenty of options good ergonomics and nice results. Its not as good as I had hoped in low light althoguh better than the competition and Im working on looking at the resulting pictures, film over the next week and maybe post some results somewhere. I have tried it in sunlight, overcast, stormy, night time, dusk and artificial lighting indoors, outdoors near the sea, on sand, rock, forests and marsh and have a lot to look at.
I have not looked at the HD footage yet.

Simon W, Yes I live in Malvern and went to School locally. I have emailed you once or twice. I work locally but are moving down south shortly unless I can find something good to do here. I submit film to news or other people occasionally and make the papers a lot with engineering or underwater stuff.

Anyone else have an opinion of the noise levels or the Z5 let me know. Looking at the EX1 this seems to have visible noise too but I have only played for 2 hours.

Saying this its all very useable and there are some big improvements over the Z1 but not what Im used to from the cheaper out of production PDXs or PD170s or shoulder mounts but the latter is to be expected!

A final comment, I have experienced no rolling shutter artifacts or effects what so ever during a week of testing for 4 hours every day. No noticeable Jello, skew or exposure artifacts. I think this is very good. Im sure most cases are of older cameras on cheap tripods or extreme conditions and its over stated. Filming on a boat in most conditions and in force 8 winds shaking the tripod showed no effects! I even tracked birds off the cliffs with wonderful effects.
The only issue I expected to have and did was trying to match shutter speed with aircraft propellers which if I got close they showed up bent but thats to be expected and I dont normally match prop speeds and multiples of their strobe resonance anyway. Its better to film the rotor discs with blur than a fixed strobed prop.
Robin

Robin, I'm wondering if that noise is more a function of your LCD computer monitor. I often see noise on my LCDs that's simply not there when the same footage is displayed on a Pioneer 60" Kuro plasma. If there was really noise, it would surely show up on a 60" plasma.

I think LCDs, especially when they're not the native resolution of your footage, introduce their own noise levels.

Simon W, Yes I live in Malvern and went to School locally. I have emailed you once or twice.

Ahh yes, now I remember. You design remotely operated subs and were involved in radar systems.

Anyone else have an opinion of the noise levels or the Z5 let me know. Looking at the EX1 this seems to have visible noise too but I have only played for 2 hours.

It seems to be the case with most HD cameras. One thing you could do is lower the master black level slightly. The Z5 has quite a few adjustments for such things. It won't get rid of the noise, but it will not be as visible in the blacks.

You could also lower the detail level slightly too since the camera comes set too highly out of the box. Don't forget also that the Z5 is capable of going to -6db gain. You will find though that HD cameras do not have as good a S/N ratio as SD cameras.

If you like we could meet up and I could take a look at it.

I have reduced the detail to 0 which helps and tried to calibrate it more in line with PDxx cameras.

I have made minor tweaks to one of the black levels but not much as I am unsure yet how much to go before I affect other settings.

Its a shame that there are not more SD cameras available to use underwater in this time of in between standards.

Id use a FW700 or 900 underwater if I needed HD and could afford th ehousing but unfortunately that's life. they dont make housings for DSR 2xx/4xx/5xx cameras

The PDXs although small are not great in low light and the PD170s are poor at widescreen. Its almost like they jumped too early and missed a step. I only wanted a widescreen pd170 and I would have been happy for about 8 years!

Its unfortunate I dont work in the industry full time or Id shell out on more kit but I just report on our findings. And test kit at work.

I wouldnt mind meeting up and having a chat about stuff its always good to make contacts and discuss. Im branching into making things now and working on archives for a few museums but my knowledge of production isnt like understanding and using kit! Underwater I just film what we are doing or what Im told to film.

I met up with a Norwegian film crew filming football for TV2 last week and they dont use HD at all in Norway but were filming everything on XDCAM EX1 or PDW series XDCAM shoulder cams. Funny if its only meant for SD. Its a lot more time and hassle than is needed.

Still pleased with it.
Regards
Robin

I met up with a Norwegian film crew filming football for TV2 last week and they dont use HD at all in Norway but were filming everything on XDCAM EX1 or PDW series XDCAM shoulder cams. Funny if its only meant for SD. Its a lot more time and hassle than is needed.

It depends on what they are filming. HD is useful for archive and future use, and it can also make much better downconverts to SD than a native DVCAM camera, even a shoulder mount. I had to intercut a couple of shots taken with my 510 with an EX, and the results were very, very noticeable even on the final SD DVD. The 510 is a really, really good camcorder too. If that thing was HD it would be perfect. I love the pictures that the EX produces, but I actually enjoy *using* the 510, which I don't with the EX cameras because they are so much more finicky and plasticky.

It also depends who they might sell the footage to as well. I'm sure they have their reasons.

I wouldnt mind meeting up and having a chat about stuff its always good to make contacts and discuss.

If you email me I can give you my phone number and we'll sort something out. It's always good to meet other people i the same field, especially if they are on my doorstep! :-)

Think of it this way..... you can shoot wide with hd or hdv then use the pan crop tool in Vegas ( or whichever editor of choice) and just pull out what you want!

Similar in thought of shooting wide at action sports with a really high megga pix still camera camera and great lens and cropping out what you want..


I bring the hdv into Vegas and then crop away

if it is just a record shot movie I down convert it before edit it but still... have that higher res tape.


It depends on what they are filming. HD is useful for archive and future use, and it can also make much better downconverts to SD than a native DVCAM camera, even a shoulder mount. I had to intercut a couple of shots taken with my 510 with an EX, and the results were very, very noticeable even on the final SD DVD. The 510 is a really, really good camcorder too. If that thing was HD it would be perfect. I love the pictures that the EX produces, but I actually enjoy *using* the 510, which I don't with the EX cameras because they are so much more finicky and plasticky.

It also depends who they might sell the footage to as well. I'm sure they have their reasons.



If you email me I can give you my phone number and we'll sort something out. It's always good to meet other people i the same field, especially if they are on my doorstep! :-)