Just editing footage filmed 4 weeks ago via a FX1000 and Z1.

I film dance concerts 2 cameras and have about 50 or so up my sleeve. It never ceases to amaze me how one can think he knows all the downfalls of a good production. There are rules that can't be broken and well in this case I have broken a golden rule and I am sure the client and the 80+ people who have purchased a DVD may say top me or to themselves "mmm that sort of doesn't look right".

All I can say is don't film dual cameras with different brands or even differnet model cameras.

In this case the FX1000 is making the Z1 look very average indeed and cutting between cameras makes me cringe!

I am simply amazed at the difference between the Z1 and FX1000 in low light especially as the light becomes really low.

I had held off going 16:9 and HD because of this and wow I would rather be looking at my old 4:3 TRV900 any day. The Z1 is nothing but a dud in this department!

If you film dance concerts then ditch the Z1 now!

I appreciate your post Martin. I was thinking about buying a Z1 to use as a third camera, for use in wedding ceremony only. While my third came purchase is not imminent yet, I'd probably be happiest with a Z5 anyway. Thanks for sharing.

Martin, I'm assuming you did this event in 16:9 HD? If you did it in 4:3 SD or 4:3 down-rez'd HD, how would you say the quality of the 1000 footage looked compared to your old TRV900?

I actually still have one of those little beasts too that I use for occasional playback. Of course the firewire port is dead as is common in Sony mini-DV cams.

So Martin are you saying that the FX1000 was that much better than the Z1?

Or was your comment just based on HDV and low light shooting?

Mike, when I was at Sony Style last week, I shot a test scene with the FX1000. I had previously shot the same scene with the FX1 about 2 weeks prior before they had the 1000 on display.

Comparing the two scenes, the FX1000 was significantly better. It had better sharpness, detail, color and a better ability to hold highlights before blowing out.

Mike, when I was at Sony Style last week, I shot a test scene with the FX1000. I had previously shot the same scene with the FX1 about 2 weeks prior before they had the 1000 on display.

Comparing the two scenes, the FX1000 was significantly better. It had better sharpness, detail, color and a better ability to hold highlights before blowing out.

Ken, thank you for the update.
I am in the process of obtaining a FX1000 to add to my crop of FX1's.
If I find that the FX1000 is that much improved over my FX1's then I will most likely sell one or all of my FX1's and replace them with FX1000's and maybe a Z5 in the mix.

This will sound stupid, but one of the things I am looking to see, is if I can modify the FX1000 to take a Z1 or Z5 mic mount. I was easily able to modify my FX1's to take a Z1 mic mount, and it has helped me to obtain much more mounting options for my shotgun mic, wireless and lights. It's not a deal breaker though as I was looking at picking up a Lightwave Minimount to place on the cameras coldshoe if desired.

If you film dance concerts then ditch the Z1 now!

Well I film 'dance concerts' at the end of every wedding, using an antiquated Z1 in 'romantic' (dim) lighting. There's simply nothing that Z1 can't handle, and certainly adding a stop to it's sensitivity levels (by chopping it in for a Z5, for instance) ain't going to change the way my films look in the slightest.

We have to put things in perspective chaps. Every new cam will move the goal posts forward a couple of metres, but will you or I (the videographers) keep up?

tom.

So Martin are you saying that the FX1000 was that much better than the Z1? Or was your comment just based on HDV and low light shooting?


The footage was shot in SD and 16:9. It blows the Z1 away when the lighting gets real dim.

In better light the Z1 is fine but for me I need two matching cameras and so I think another Z5 or FX1000 is on the way,

[QUOTE=Ken Ross;1001220]Martin, I'm assuming you did this event in 16:9 HD? If you did it in 4:3 SD or 4:3 down-rez'd HD, how would you say the quality of the 1000 footage looked compared to your old TRV900?



Ken I haven't compared footage to the 900 yet but will later today.

The dance concert ws filmed in 16:9 SD. I don't understand why you mention 4:3 SD. Why would I film 4:3 and not 16:9? Am I missing something here?


Martin.

Martin, only because I don't know what type of TVs your clients have. If 4:3 TVs were the rule where you are, I could see you shooting in 4:3. It's the very reason I shoot corporate videos in 4:3 where these displays are still dominant.

Of course if clients who had 4:3 TVs didn't mind letterboxing, then even there it would be a non-issue. But some people are still very funny about those 'black bars top & bottom'.

But some people are still very funny about those 'black bars top & bottom'.


I produce stacks of individual event/dance/football game on DVD & get very few people asking me about this.

They're either owners of 16:9 TVs or they're more 'enlightened'.

UPDATE TO ORIGINAL POST:

Since raising concerns a few days ago about the Z1 low light capability I have since discovered that the cameraman who used the Z1 on the night must have had the brightness on the LCD screen turned up very high.

This is very easy to do on the Z1 as the LCD brightness control buttons are next to the volume level buttons.

The very same thing happened to me a few weeks earlier using the same camera but I discovered the problem as I was referring back to "auto" iris which is always pretty close to being the correct F stop to use.

My friend is very experienced to a point. He simply started filming thinking he had the camera looking OK and yet didn't know the LCD was cranked high.

The result under exposed shots which I will have to tweak in post.

Sorry to raise the alarm. The Z1 is not that bad after all!!!!




Just editing footage filmed 4 weeks ago via a FX1000 and Z1.

I film dance concerts 2 cameras and have about 50 or so up my sleeve. It never ceases to amaze me how one can think he knows all the downfalls of a good production. There are rules that can't be broken and well in this case I have broken a golden rule and I am sure the client and the 80+ people who have purchased a DVD may say top me or to themselves "mmm that sort of doesn't look right".

All I can say is don't film dual cameras with different brands or even differnet model cameras.

In this case the FX1000 is making the Z1 look very average indeed and cutting between cameras makes me cringe!

I am simply amazed at the difference between the Z1 and FX1000 in low light especially as the light becomes really low.

I had held off going 16:9 and HD because of this and wow I would rather be looking at my old 4:3 TRV900 any day. The Z1 is nothing but a dud in this department!

If you film dance concerts then ditch the Z1 now!

Hallo,so u guys owner of the new z5 think that for me that i ve purchased few weeks ago a z1 is worth to sell it and go 4 a new z5?I was worried about the rolling shutter issue..What u can tell me about this?
Another question:When u push the auto gain-iris button on the z1 do u think the camera brings you the correct value for that kind of light situation?

thx

Another question:When u push the auto gain-iris button on the z1 do u think the camera brings you the correct value for that kind of light situation?

Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them.

Next. the Z1 will give you what it considers the correct auto exposure only if the relevant figure is invisible. In other words, if there's no aperture indication in the v'finder, then that can float. If there's no gain shown then likewise, and the shutter speed can float if the 'auto shutter' in on in the menu.

The answer is to always have everything shown as a symbol - the WB, s/speed, gain and iris. That way you know you're in full manual control.

tom.

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003043]Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them.



Tom, I sort of agree and disagree here. Firstly a 20X lens makes a huge difference to my sports videos. Often I will film from a 6 feet high platform and have to zoom into a subject 100 metres away. You see Aussie Rules football is played on a 160mX 130m ground so a long zoom is very important. This is why in earlier posts I was fishing for a 1.4/1.5 tele lens that DOES NOT give you the black ring on a full wide shot.

Anyway the Z1 is still a great camera and I was totally wrong for bagging it out regarding the low light performance. It is in my mind a little better than the TRV900 in low light without noise so pretty good then really.

a 20X lens makes a huge difference to my sports videos.Anyway the Z1 is still a great camera and I was totally wrong for bagging it out regarding the low light performance. It is in my mind a little better than the TRV900 in low light without noise so pretty good then really.

Take your point about the 20x zoom but when I show the difference to people between the Z1 at full tele and the Z5 at full tele (as a real screen image) there's often surprise at how little difference it makes. Of course the Z5 is starting off wider, but my point is that the words themselves (''20x zoom vs 12x zoom'') make you expect a whole lot more.

My last winter wedding was a gloomy affair, and I was reduced to shooting with the Z1 at +18db of gain up for whole swathes of it. Don't be tempted by the hyper gain setting folks - this is just a party-piece. Anyway, I sent the wedding DVD to a filmmaking colleague who has just replied that he 'loved the film look - the sharp, fine grain.'

tom.

Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them.

Tom, I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the Z1 & Z5 are essentially the same camera. One uses CCD and the other CMOS...a big difference right there. Secondly the Exmor technology really does help in low light situations. Not that the Z1 was bad in low light, it wasn't, it's just that the Z5 is better. Third the Z5 has a lens that starts wider and can ultimately get closer.

Granted my A/B between these two cams was only one scene taken within the Sony store, but in addition to better detail and sharpness with the Z5 (actually the FX1000), I also found the color of the 1000 to be more accurate.

You are correct in your ongoing assertion that the person behind the camera makes or breaks the video, but it doesn't hurt having the best equipment. ;)

Tom, I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the Z1 & Z5 are essentially the same camera.

I note the tiny differences you pick up on Ken, but I'm saying the DVX100B and the PD170 are the same camera. The TRV900 and the MX300 are the same camera. The HV40 and the HC9 are the same camera.

But we both agree on the one major difference - it's the person behind the camera that makes or breaks.

tom.

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed shooting w/ a Z1 a lot. First non-Betacam sized camera that I haven't wanted to smash into pieces.

It hurt a lot to go from DVC-Pro that could get good images under street lights, but that is the hit you take when you go to HD.

When I bought my Z7 I was amazed at the improvements.

The Z1 is still good for people who want CCDs & want a nicer built lens than the Canon XH-A1. (Yes the Canon is 20x, but zoom & focus run on the same servo motor & the focus isn't repeatable for follow focus.) But if you're one of the people who know that CMOS isn't the boogie man, then there are a lot of new cameras out there which will work in more lighting situations than the Z1.

I've said it before, don't judge a photog by the camera they're using. Judge them by how far they can push their camera.

The shooter is more important that what they shoot with.

One thing I have noticed in this forum is that certain "rules" and "tenets" arise out of threads like this. An example would be shooting with gain. Gain can be a good tool when used properly, yet many shooters refuse to employ it. In the case of the Z1 and the FX1, gains of 6/9/ and 12 can be perfectly acceptable. In some fora, the use of gain with these camera has been deemed acceptable and superior to other camera at 0 gain. The point is some make pronouncements without even clearly investigating it, and based on one single unscientific comparison. Now we have this thread with a clearly derisive title, that is now admitted to have been started based on a false premise. In a proper shoot, who would set exposure based merely on what is seen on an LCD screen, without checking zebra or other exposure aids ?

I have no doubt that a four year newer camera is going to make some improvement over the venerable Z1/FX1 line. But I am surprised from what footage I have seen so far, how little that improvement step is. For me, those improvement might come primarily in a better 24p set up. As many recall, Sony Cineframe24 took a big hit. Sometimes I even wonder about that "global accepted" pronouncement, as I have shot with Cineframe24 and removed pull down with Cineform on three successive films now, and never had anyone comment on problem with the 24 cadence.

Since this forum is widely read, I think it is important that posters live up to a responsibility of acccurately reporting their experiences without sensationalizing.

Chris, we are probably seeing close to the limit of the HDV format with the Z5 and this sized chip set. There's only so much you'll get out of HDV and only so much you'll get out of 1/3" chips. But from what I've seen, the gain in PQ from the Z1 to the Z5 is welcome and not trivial.

Chris, we are probably seeing close to the limit of the HDV format with the Z5 and this sized chip set.


Yeap, I have to agree with that... Next stop EX or Scarlet... The point is that if you are looking to make a big next step, we should be thinking along those lines.

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003055]Take your point about the 20x zoom but when I show the difference to people between the Z1 at full tele and the Z5 at full tele (as a real screen image) there's often surprise at how little difference it makes.


Tom. I had never thought about the fact that the z5/FX100 will be starting from a much wider range.

mmmmm, you have one-uped me again!!!!!!

I might do a test between the TRV900 and FX1000 at fully tele and see how close the 900 comes in. I think there will be a difference but not as far as I thought.

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Interesting all this hey.

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Quite correct. Both cameras utilise 1"/3 chip sets and the specifications show (claim) that the Canon has a longer focal length at full tele.

But don't forget that these focal lengths are 'nominal' figures, that is they're open to tolerances. All manufacturing is governed by tolerances both design and production, it's ultimately what makes equipment affordable.

My TRV900 tested out as having an 11.5x zoom (not the 12x as specified), but that's well within tolerance. It's max aperture of f/1.6 was only in the centre of the frame too - again, tolerances at play.

And Chris - I liked your post asking that posters live up to a responsibility. Good one. The Z5 does indeed come with improvements over the Z1, but the latter is still an amazingly capable workhorse. In the right hands I might add.

tom.

I seem to remember reading tests in a photo mag a few years back , that these tolerances with Canon still lenses in particular were very elastic... a 17-35mm f2.8 (an expensive piece of glass) was something like 19-28... Canon preferring to privilege the constant aperture over precise the focal length...

lenses like the excellent 28-105mm F3.5-f4.5 was even worse with focal lengths of 35 to 90 or there abouts...

It wouldn't be surprised at all if the actual differences in focal length over the stated differences by the manufacturers were far closer than they say...on these cameras... Tom has already said he can't see a massive difference.

cheers
Gareth

Great cams but i think you certainly need to be earning money with them.

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Interesting all this hey.

Actually Martin, I'd bet most videographers would place greater value on how wide the wide angle is as opposed to how close you can zoom. Doing sports I can see why you'd place a greater value on how close you can get.

The point is that if you are looking to make a big next step, we should be thinking along those lines.

The trouble with these is editing.

I am most upset today with the FX1000.

I filmed Rally driving yesterday and like any experienced filmer/editor I like to keep my filming as neat as possible, editor friendly and the like.

The 4 second delay one gets when going rec/pause/record straight away is absolutely beyond comprehension.

I can't believe this is acceptable and now I have to change the nature of the way I film.

A lot of the Aussie Rules football games I film rely on in camera editing. What I mean is that I film nice and neat, button off between goals or delays.

I then get a commentator in who sits in the studio and records audio. Its a proven formula, a simple product & I sell heaps of DVD's this way.

But now I can't do it anymore. I mean I can't hit record and then see another shot and go "bang" and I am back on.

Someone please tell me there is a function in the menu to fix this. I thought quick record did the trick.

Also, the zoom on this camera is sh.t. Compared to my Panasonic DVC62 which felt very professional, the zoom rocker on the FX1000 is too small and also seems to lack another speed or two especially when pulling out. Gee an ultra slow creep or pull back would seem to be a logical inclusion. Why is it not there?

I mean for me I enjoy the challenge of being in a bit to tight and then creatively pulling back out and making a poor frame result in a cool moment of video. Not possible on the FX1000.

For instance the rally car driving was hard to film, even harder with a camera with a lousy zoom. I think the Z1 may be better in this area. I have only used the FX a few times now but this is what I was saying to myself yesterday when filming.

Sony have done it again. Designed a camera where shooters like myself who are really into the nitty gritty will be disappointed.

A friend of mine is keen on the FX and I well may sell it to him and get with the real world and get an XD cam once and for all.

Well done Sony you have sucked me in along with the rest of us who are into good camera features.

I wonder from what experience you are coming from . . .
In camera aditing? In a tape-camera?

I wonder from what experience you are coming from . . .
In camera aditing? In a tape-camera?

I am a full-time professional. By "in camera editing" I mean filming neatly with little or no editing in mind.

But surely, you must have known that a tape cam needs to wind the tape around the drum before it can start the take. Or do you mean to say, that the FX1000 needs more time to do that, than other cameras? Even with Quick Record?

It take a lonnnngg time with this camera.

I am a full-time professional. Then you know that all tape cams do this. If it takes four seconds to begin recording from post-STBY mode, then it's faster than the FX1, which takes about six seconds. From STBY mode the FX1 is near instantaneous, but the heads will spin down after about three minutes, resulting in a longer start-up time next time you hit record. If you are seeing a long delay after you hit record when STBY is lit up if the LCD, then maybe you need o adjust for this. If STBY is not visible, you can keep the heads spinning and the tape wound by just shooting a few seconds every couple of minutes to keep it in STBY mode.

By the way, Q.REC doesn't affect this at all; it just starts shooting in the middle of a GOP to get you going a slight bit quicker, at the expense of a half-second of garbled footage.

Your problems are entirely self-inflicted. In-cam editing? Are you serious? Grade schoolers do this. There's a reason a real director waits to hear "speed" from his sound and camera guys before he yells "Action!" Do you seriously wait to push the record button until someone is about to score? Why not start a few seconds before the play starts? Just because you have chosen a somewhat idiosyncratic workflow does not mean it's a problem with the camera, which was designed for those with more normal, conventional workflows.

Maybe you need to learn more about how to use your equipment and the fundamentals of production before you start screaming about how crappy your equipment is and how you want to dump it after three minutes because it doesn't do exactly what you want at all times.

Martin, I think you need more time with the camera. I went through similar feelings when I first shot with mine.

I came from SD to this camera, so I was surprised with the long delay also. The camera is not perfect but it is capable of shooting great images. I am having to learn to shoot around the limitations imposed with the lens ramping. And while I know about this phenomena now, I didn't when I ordered it. My next camera will have 12x zoom, not 20x.

Everything about shooting with this camera is different than with my old cameras, and this is true with you as well.

I reacted very strongly in my initial post after shooting a wedding a few weeks ago, so I do understand. The VX2100 did not become legendary for it's ease of use for nothing, and I was truly spoiled with it.

The FX1000/Z5 is fine for what it does, and I suggest you give it more time. Cool off and accept the great support available here.

It is easy to overlook the pros of these cameras also. At full wide these are fantastic. The individual controls for the cam on the side are excellent, and I love the LCD, it is amazing.

You can sell the camera and get close to full price for it, so you are in a good position! However from what I've read with most HD cameras the tape delay when hitting record is pretty significant.

I don't know for a fact, but I would suspect when using the Z5 tapeless this would be a non-issue, so maybe that would be the answer for you. I can see why in a fast paced environment you wouldn't want to have to keep hitting the record button every so often to keep the camera ready to go.

Martin, consider cutting out your description of Sony, it was a bit too much.

You say you're a full time professional (FTP) Martin, but you bought the prosumer rather than the professional model of the camera? Your outburst brought a very measured response from Adam - himself an FTP. I wasn't even going to give you time of day as being a FTB myself I simply told myself you could have gone with the Z5 or the 151 and had instant start, stops and replay from the CF or SD card.

And I've never heard of a FTP who works with 'little or no editing in mind'. Imagine what a mess mess your local newspaper would be if its editor worked in the same way. National Geographic is the finest photographic magazine available for one very good reason - it's very heavily edited for content.

Just to put you right Jeff - your last 12x zoom camera had a ramping lens and so too will your next - even the Z7 has a ramping lens, as does the EX1. It's not a 'fault', it's a design requirement.

tom.

Tom, don't believe that in my post I labeled the f-drop in the cam a fault. And it has been pointed out before that lens ramping is present on the 2100. However it was minimal and never caused me significant issues with shooting closeups.

Lens ramping with the FX1000 is severe enough that it has. Just because there is a reason for it doesn't mean I have to like it. And just because I accept it doesn't mean I pretend it doesn't exist or that I am suddenly thrilled with it.

Not zooming in as far, as has been suggested eliminates the f-drop, but I cannot get the extreme closeups I like. Just experienced it again yesterday. When zooming in on the brides face, I have to stop short of where I want to be because the lens is wider to begin with.

While it won't bother many, it bothered me, as my extreme closeups were a hallmark of my shooting style.

I basically have had to eliminate them during the ceremony.

I have a friend who has the same issue with the cam (he hasn't bough it yet, only played with mine) for an alternative, like the Z7. Luckily for him he has the benefit of having my cam to play with.

I can't believe that every time I MENTION lens ramping the same things are pointed out to me. I am aware of it, I hate it, and I accept that I must work around it. I still like the camera, but do not plan to buy a camera with 20x zoom again, the compromise is too much for me, and the benefits to small.

Calm down everyone. Let me clarify.

What I meant by in camera editing was maybe the wrong term. What I meant was that I shoot very neat and its like I button on and off at the right times (like all shooters should). That sort of is editing in itself.

The sheer volume of what myself and my cameramen do requires very neat filming and no editing at all. We film about 170 Aussie rules games a season. Some have live commentary, some post commentary. We film alot of kids sport sometimes 10 games a Sunday and parents pay me $30 a DVD for a football game with commentary. There is no budget or time for editing.

As for questioning my professionalism I am not about to get into a war here on this front but I bought the FX because I was desperate at the time and always plan on getting a Z5 down the track. Its a money issue for me. If bucks wern't a problem I would have an EX3.

If anyone wants to view my many clips on line have a click around on my website Hobart Video Production and DVD Production, Online Video Specialists (http://www.dufftv.com.au) and I think that shows where it is all at for me. I am no expert but very passionate and call things as I see them at the time.

As for the 4 second delay I will reiterate that my TRV900 ( a 10yo cam) has almost instant rec/pause. My friend also used the FX yesterday and was also very frustrated by this delay. Its just a real downer. I wonder if other HD cams have the same problem.

As for my comments on the zoom well I think it is a B grade zoom rocker compared to other cams. As a critical feature that we use all the time surely they (Sony) could get this right.

I hope that makes sense and welcome any comments back as I value everyone's input and believe this forum is fantastic.

Martin, consider cutting out your description of Sony, it was a bit too much.[/QUOTE]



Jeff, I will cool off & thanks for the support but it really annoys me how the creators/develops miss features off here and there from model to model.

Its like you buy the new model knowing there is an improvement only to later realise that something is either missing or an issue.

Can't they just give us an XDCAM that is a bit lower in picture quality but has all the nice features?

I think I may be XDing it. I am going to hire one and see what its like.
]
Better talk to the wife and bank manger first!

A bit harsh Martin. Of all the users I've read, you are the only one that's commented on this. Longer synchs to get back into record are the nature of the HDV format as I've mentioned before, but it doesn't seem to be impacting others like you. It's also very unrealistic to think you can do 'in-camera editing' with HDV...it just won't work.

BTW, the Z5 would completely eliminate this issue if you got the digital card recorder which begins recording not only instantly, but also 'pre-records' 14 seconds BEFORE you hit record via its buffer.

I am not sure if this is same thing, but on the FX1 and presumably the Z1, after sitting stagnant for with tape wound in ready to go mode, for a specific period, the camera will eventually unthread, and go dormant, though still on. In that state it takes time to restart. Otherwise, the camera will start fairly quickly.

Yes, it is related Chris. You don't want that tape permanently wrapped around the head until it's next used. That's done by design and you wouldn't want a cam that doesn't do it.

But surely, you must have known that a tape cam needs to wind the tape around the drum before it can start the take. Or do you mean to say, that the FX1000 needs more time to do that, than other cameras? Even with Quick Record?



Jo, I tried the quick record and it didn't seem to make any difference.

Tom, were you saying in another post that via the Z5 the delay would not be a proble?

Also, can you record onto the CF card and not tape or do you need tape rolling?

Thanks


Martin.

Jeff, Martin- I have been shooting the HD1000U for close to a yr now and I don't know if it is the CMOS or something else but it also has that substantial delay issue on the record. This may not apply to your units but I have noticed a trend. When filming lots of motion the delay is extended, sometimes twice as much (or more) as when starting with a still frame. i have not been able to confirm this but i believe it is a combination of the rolling shutter nature of CMOS combined with the Long GOP HDV codec making it difficult to establish the reference frame with so many rapid changes. With the HD1000u, i have found that if my subject and i are in motion when i need to record i have to start with something still (to get a quick ref frame for the GOP I theorize) and then i can jump back in the action. In a pinch, i once even put my hand in front of the lens and it seemed to fire up much faster than if I just waited for it to get the recording started. I would be eager to hear if this method helps you at all, you might try throwing a portable WB card in front while trying to fire it up if this helps. i can only theorize about the science of why this works but with the HD1000u it does help. It still will delay but not nearly so much.

Jeff- I am looking to get FX1000 or Z5U in the next few months. I am in Lexington, if I came up to your neck of the woods, would you be willing to give me a tour of your FX1000?

Thanks!

Oh, also Martin, this may be silly, but I think you are referring to the style I have always heard called "shooting for the edit." in which you don't shoot shots you don't need. I worked with a long time shooter who lived by this method and while it's not for me, it's not unheard of.

Bryan, the delay has nothing to do with CCDs vs CMOS...absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with HDV and the FX1/Z1 is an example. Those were/are also HDV units and have the same long delay when in pause for a prolonged period despite having CCDs.

Martin, yes you can record to the CF card and not record to tape. In fact you don't even need to have tape in the camera. The CF reader has no idea if there's tape there or not...it doesn't care. For you, the 14 second buffer can be of absolutely immense value. Just imagine when you hit the record button you can have the recorder set up so that the recording would have actually started 14 seconds PRIOR to when you hit the record button!

For you the Z5 is the clear answer.

...the delay has nothing to do with CCDs vs CMOS...absolutely nothing. It has everything to do with HDV and the FX1/Z1 is an example. Those were/are also HDV units and have the same long delay when in pause for a prolonged period despite having CCDs.

Ken, Thanks for your input. I am familiar with the limited delay that the FX1/Z1 experience, however, with the hd1000U it can be substantially longer when shooting motion. I know of this also happening with the V1U with trying to start shooting in high motion which is where I wonder if the CMOS plays a role (even a small one) given that I am now hearing about it in reference to the FX1000 and Z5U. In my experience, it is most pronounced when run and gunning with a fast motion subject and had nothing to do with being on pause for a prolonged period (that delay is unavoidable as the tape has to thread.) Considering that Martin is a convert from the Z1 to the FX1000, I am extrapolating that his delay experience is similar to mine in that while you are waiting for the camera to start recording you have enough time to shout about 15 expletives as your subject flies on by. Not the delay you associate with waking up the heads but something else. After i stumbled across the idea of covering the lens with a stationary subject for a sec by accident, we tested it on a friend of mine who had a V1U that did the same thing and she says it works for her too. I think it might work for Martin as well but then again it might just be coincidence. No matter what the root cause, if it works then great, if it doesn't then great. The issue is this is a longer pause then associated with waking the camera up and threading tape and how to work around it.

And a patently agree with Ken on the recorder. Spot on.

Martin, if I'm not mistaken the shooting style you're describing is shoot to edit, which is the way to shoot when possible. I do the same thing. As to the remark that in camera edit is how grade school kids do it, in camera edit is a legitmate shooting technique described below along with shoot to edit.

Basic Training: Shoot to Show or to Edit (http://www.videomaker.com/article/11087/)

I do love the support here, but on the other hand it is unfortunate how personal and acidic comments can be from some when they don't like what they read. It becomes like a free for all.

I doubt that those who make insulting comments would speak to someone this way in person. If you do I would imagine you get into a lot of fights, or have no friends. Argue ideas, but back off with the insults and stop getting personal.

Bryan, come on by anytime, just shoot me an e-mail.

Will do Jeff, despite some of the concerns listed about these models, I still feel like a kid at Thanksgiving waiting for Xmas and can't wait to see this in action. It was actually your wedding short form on one of the other threads here that put the Fx1000 into top contention for me. Thanks for the invite!!!!

And Martin, when i mention that the shoot to edit is not for me it is because I don't feel comfortable doing it myself which is why my last bridal prep shoot i had 2 hrs of footage that i edited to about 6 minutes, definitely not the most efficient way for me to shoot but I am just not there yet to shoot for the edit.