Good point; I stand corrected.Then it isn't LANC. I didn't say they didn't have remote.

Don't get me wrong: I think this little beauty is a gem. I've seen screen grabs where it blows away the EX1. I just want Jeff to know more about it before he jumps.

It is indeed LANC. LANC doesn't only come on a 1/8" connector. LANC protocol started life on a 5 pin DIN connector( I still have an SVHS Sony with the 5 pin DIN and a 5 pin DIN to 1/8" adapter cable), then migrated to the 1/8" connector labeled remote or LANC depending on model. You are correct that if someone has a 1/8" LANC remote control it is not immediately usable. There are several adapter cables that will make this work though. So all that is needed is an adapter. Some of these adapter cables will also make audio and video available for monitoring.
You also mentioned issues with files in your response to Jeff. Could you reference that for me as I have not had any such problems with SR7, SR11 or XR500 and these were and are all used as fixed wide cameras unattended sometimes for up to 3 hours. This over a two year time frame and all these files have been transferred to the PC as one clip as expected. However one MUST use the Sony Browser software. It is also very easy to divide the clips in camera and delete unwanted video before transferring. Most of the response of problems are usually people trying to bypass using the manufacturers software and just bring the files over to the PC and then trying to join them together.

Ron Evans

Well, semantic bickering aside, you're right that my point was, if you have a LANC remote you can't use it with the XR as-is.

Here's one thread about the Sony software not doing a great job seamlessly joining clips. There are others.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-mrc1k-cf-card-recorder/145001-mrc1-malfunction-operator-error.html

Good to know you've had good luck with this, though. I know one of these is in my future at some point.

You will like them Adam for the price. I have no knowledge of the software that comes with the MRC1 and don't know if it is different from the Sony Motion Browser that comes with the Handycams. The reference to drag and drop in the post you referenced is certainly different as the Sony Motion Browser is one of selection ( check the boxes on the clips in the preview) and press the Import( think that's what its called , not in front of editing PC now) button to bring the clips into the PC. Drag and drop and then use a stitch utility doesn't sound like a Sony approach. I would expect the software even for the pro unit to present the clips in a preview, have the user select the clips and then the software would transfer to the PC. Still sounds like user error to me. The Motion Browser software allows you to select folder for the clips to go to and will log them for future reference. Excellent for family stuff as with the new XR series it even logs the GPS coordinates!!!!

Ron Evans

Ken, I've generally held the cameras are different, and that neither is better. I've said repeatedly that these are tools, nothing more. I mentioned that the Panasonic comes close to perfect but more accurately what I meant was is a nearly perfect value, not a nearly perfect camera as I said.

Sony vs Panasonic? CMOS VS CCD? I personally cannot decide which image I like better. Generally so far I like the Sony better still because the Panasonic has not been tested properly, and I've not learned to use the camera correctly yet to get decent images. I haven't even figured out the white balance, it's a bit weird to me.

Truth be told, 90% of the time the rolling shutter is really not a big deal. But when it is bad it is very bad. Those occasions are relatively rare, but they really stand out.

When you encourage me to sell my camera, you are actually saying "go away". You have asked me to go away a few times. How is that working out for you.

But is that what you really want? A group of mindless loyalists to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on your purchases?

I haven't even figured out the white balance, it's a bit weird to me.




I believe it should be similar to most other Panny cams. There is a button on the front of the camera just below the lens barrel on the left side which you need to press. Press once for white balance, press and hold for black balance. Extremely simple.

Thanks David.

It seems with this cam you are supposed to push the joy stick, but I was rushed and the results didn't look right, it diddn't seem to take, so I just went with auto for the last shoot. That was a mistake!

Thanks David.

It seems with this cam you are supposed to push the joy stick, but I was rushed and the results didn't look right, it diddn't seem to take, so I just went with auto for the last shoot. That was a mistake!

Thats not correct Jeff. I just checked the manual and its exactly as I said previously. The button is marked AWB located on the front bottom left of the camera.

Thanks David, I went into the manual and that is what is says.

When you encourage me to sell my camera, you are actually saying "go away". You have asked me to go away a few times. How is that working out for you.

But is that what you really want? A group of mindless loyalists to pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on your purchases?

Wow! We are a bit paranoid Jeff are we not? I meant nothing of the sort. I always try to help people out and telling them to go away is not the right way to do that. However, when I see someone that is always extolling the virtues of one camera and finding serious flaws with another, I think it's pretty reasonable to encourage that person to go for the unit he very obviously prefers.

Your only obstacle was AVCHD editing and now you've got that solved. You said on several occasions that if it weren't for you having issues with AVCHD editing, you'd 'sell the Sony in a heartbeat'. You said it Jeff, not me. So now, at least as of the last post that you mentioned AVCHD editing, you've got it solved.

So why would you not sell the Sony and get the Panasonic? If you interpret that as me telling you to 'go away', you are quite wrong.

And no Jeff, I don't want 'mindless loyalists', c'mon now, you really are getting a bit silly.

I have found flaws with the Sony and have mentioned it. I don't like the autofocus, I wish it were lighter, I have some issues with the MRC unit, etc. No camera is immune to flaws and discusing the flaws of THAT camera in THAT forum are very appropriate. What is not appropriate in my opinion, is constantly touting another camera in a different forum.

You are welcome.

Ken, you really are a great guy, so if I miscontrued anything you said I apologize.

You are very helpful and have helped me a few times.

Lets just drop this and move on, is that ok with you?

Jeff let me just say here that if I were you I would stick with the camera that I feel comfortable to shoot with; and when I say "comfortable" I mean, psychologically, comfortable.

Stelios

I think what really got all this started is when Jeff compared the 1000 to the 150 side by side when a flash went off. He prefered the way the 150 handled it, as most of us would, that is what were use to.

But Jeff, if you prefer the 1000's PQ over the 150, just remember, that's what your seeing 99% of the time when viewing your finished DVD's.

I agree Jeff, let's move on and apologies certainly accepted. I sincerely hope you wind up with the cam that does the job for you best.

Actually Stelios, I am very comfortable with the Sony. It is a fine camera. I slammed some of its quirks early on, but for the most part I like it.

On the other hand I haven't had time to really get to know the Panasonic. I bought it on the spur of the moment because it was an amazing deal and had only twenty minutes on it. It has huge potential. I'm shooting with it directly next to the Sony this weekend and it will be a very good test. The first time it was used it was placed in different locations all day and it was run by someone who went wild with the manual settings, so I can't use that as a good comparison.

Tim, your observation is correct in that the flash aspect is a minor annoyance MOST of the time. As you know it is during the most critical shots of the day that it happens. Cake cutting, when they leave the altar, first dance, etc.

That is one reason it is hard for those who don't shoot weddings often to understand. Even if you do weddings on occasion, but not every weekend it is not the same. If you do enough of them the RS will rear its head and there isn't much you can do about it.

For most weddings, the rolling shutter never makes much trouble. But I had a garter, bouquet and cake cutting at one wedding in particular that was in a very dark hall, almost pitch black, and the resulting video footage was bad, really bad, and I even had my light on. When it is really dark that is when the trouble occurs and the video looks abnormal, almost defective.

I can already tell you that I'm likely going to sell the Pansonic anyway, but for reasons I didn't know about before I purchased it.

I run three cameras. If I go with the Panasonic, I will have to buy two more. When I bought this one, I didn't know the price for new ones had gone up several hundred dollars. Ouch. If I stick with the Sony I would simply sell the Panasonic and get a Z5 or Z7 (for the pro audio and card thing) and I'd be set.

After buying the Panny and finding out about the price increase it almost immediately effected my plans.

At any rate, it is really great to have the luxury of having the Panasonic for testing. It is a very solidly built camera with many progressive shooting options and pro audio that make it a solid contender.

One very bad thing about the Sony that I find is it seems much more cheaply built than the VX2100s. Twice this past weekend I had to close and reopen the tape door because it wouln't eject the tape carrier. On my other FX1000 the mic jack is defective and I cannot use it. And that tape mechanism just feels cheap and flimsy. It seemed the VX2100 could be dropped on the floor and kicked around and it never missed a beat. It was truly a workhorse.

One very bad thing about the Sony that I find is it seems much more cheaply built than the VX2100s. Twice this past weekend I had to close and reopen the tape door because it wouln't eject the tape carrier. On my other FX1000 the mic jack is defective and I cannot use it. And that tape mechanism just feels cheap and flimsy. It seemed the VX2100 could be dropped on the floor and kicked around and it never missed a beat. It was truly a workhorse.

I wonder if the Z5 is built better. I still shoot quite often with my VX2100 and actually find the Z5 to be better built and more solid. The tape door is one example, more solid on the Z5 than the 2100.

On the other hand I've never had a problem with the 2100 and it's too early to tell with the Z5. But I've always found that Sonys are very well built and last quite awhile.

I doubt that the Z5 or Z7 tape mechanism is any different, but who knows. The metal parts of it seem thinner and flimsier to me, and the Sony's I had, all four of them, never had that thing happen with the tape mechanism, and I bought all of them used.

Other than the tape carrier it is very solid.

Jeff, one of my 1000's has a defective mic jack too. I guess I will send it in for repair when I get a break.

Well Tim, at least your not the only one!

I can't say the Z5 tape mechanism to me feels much different from my old, cheap Sony camcorders (the TRV series). Certainly I wouldn't describe the tape loading door as "solid", but it's not "flimsy" either.

It certainly doesn't feel "expensive" as you might otherwise expect it would...

Tim, be aware when you send it in it will cost you $250 for them to fix it. The warranty on these Sony cameras basically use a deductable system so even if you've had the camera for only one day; a warranty repair will cost you at least $250 no matter what.

This is a sucky warranty.

I'm not intending to bring up the debate again, but I did some interesting reading of trade type articles regarding CMOS vs CCDs.

It was just as I said earlier. The main advantage of CMOS is cost to the manufacturer, not image quality for the consumer.

Because technology is now being poured into CMOS the quality will gradually improve and eventually move past CCDS, but only because that is where the money and research is going, not because CMOS is inherently better.

High end cameras are light years from using CMOS, as the cost savings of CMOS are irrelvevant to the broadcast market and the accent there is quality.

When the FX1 came out my knowledgeable friends all complained that Sony had started using these "cheap" CMOS chips as a manufacturing cost control. Yes there is power savings on the camera, but so what? Will a CMOS chip give me an extra hour of battery life? I don't think so.

So anyone who is a fans of CMOS simply because it is CMOS, don't fall for the hype.
Case in point, has anyone ever heard of a manufacturer actually state that the CMOS sensors are superior? No, of course not.

Here's one article regarding CMOS vs CCD:

CMOS PRIMER (http://www.siliconimaging.com/ARTICLES/CMOS%20PRIMER.htm#cmosvsccd)

If you read articles whose target audience are manufacturers or manufacturers reps, salespeople, etc., you will get a more accurate idea of what CMOS is all about. It is about the integration of CMOS manufacturing in the same process as the supporting systems so that the cost saving for manufacturers is HUGE. The use of CCDs is much more expensive than CMOS.

Major manufacturing and design such as the switch to CMOS from CCDs are made by manufacturers for profit reasons, not quality.

Now, I'm currently downloading the footage from the Panasonic HMC 150 run in a controlled shoot (wedding) and I am anxious to see how it stacks up agains the FX1000. The LCD on the Panasonic is so poor I cannot believe it, by the way. Absolutely horrible. If I were to base my opinion on camera based on how the footage looks through the LCD alone, it would have been gone quickly. I'll keep you posted, I'm anxious to see how this turns out.

Thanks Jeff, I didn't know that about the warranty. I purchaced the extended warranty that B&H offered.

By the way I was wrong about the mic jack, it's the headphone jack that's bad. I may not even worry about that.

I rarely use headphones except on the camera with the wireless.

I find the onboard audio of the FX1000 so superior I rarely even run a shotgun at a reception; I am in love with the audio quality of these cameras.

Jeff,
you seem to have missed the main point in the article you referenced. I quote
"Pixel Addressibility - CCDs use of the bucket brigade to transfer pixel values means that individual pixels in a CCD cannot be read individually. CMOS imagers on the other hand have the pixels in an x-y grid allowing pixels to be read individually. This means that CMOS imagers will be able to do functions such as "windowing", where only a small sample of the imager is read, image stabilization to remove jitters from camcorders, motion tracking and other advanced imaging techniques internally that CCDs cannot do."
Bucket brigade format of CCD's leads to the streaking that we are all aware of with a bright light. This is non existent for CMOS. Individual pixel read out of CMOS is the main technology advantage of CMOS over CCD and with the current Sony CMOS in the XR500/520 they have improved even further. This allows the DSP in the camera to increase the latitude/dynamic range of the array to the point that is impossible with CCD's. Allows face recognition easily, black stretch and knee controls in consumer cameras etc etc. Yes they are lower cost because they can include other technology on the same piece of silicon( amplifiers and DSP processing etc)to change the way the pixels are read and processed that is advantages in every possible way. The manufacturing equipment is also the same as other computer technologies so there are further savings. I am sorry to present this but it is the same as vinyl/CD disc issue all again. CMOS is cheaper and better when processed and implemented to advantage. Just like audio it is possible to make a really cheap poor CMOS imager just like a really cheap poor CD of audio. In reality neither the cheap CMOS or the cheap audio CD is as bad as a cheap vinyl disc or cheap CCD imager. Technology has moved on.

Ron Evans

Ron, no one is disputing CMOS is here to say and the way it is going to be. It is and will be.

Anyway the main point of the article I read was different than the one you read.

They made three major points in comparison of the two devices and two of the three had to do with cost and manufacturing. One point addressed advanced features, etc, but it never claims the overall image is improved over CCD, only that CMOS can implement advanced features such as OIS and face recognition.

These advanced features that are used to sell consumer camcorders are of no interest to most professionals as I see it. I don't even use image stabilization, ever though many people do.

The article outlines three points of the CCD vs CMOS thing.

"1. Integration - Because CMOS Imagers are created in the same process as processors, memories and other major components, CMOS Imagers can integrated with these same components onto a single piece of silicon. In contrast, CCDs are made in a specialized process and require multiple clocks and inputs. This feature limits CCDs to discrete systems, which in the long run will put CMOS Imagers at a cost advantage, as well as limit what kinds of portable devices CCDs can be integrated into."

#1 Boils down to Cost Advantage.

"2. Pixel Addressibility - CCDs use of the bucket brigade to transfer pixel values means that individual pixels in a CCD cannot be read individually. CMOS imagers on the other hand have the pixels in an x-y grid allowing pixels to be read individually. This means that CMOS imagers will be able to do functions such as "windowing", where only a small sample of the imager is read, image stabilization to remove jitters from camcorders, motion tracking and other advanced imaging techniques internally that CCDs cannot do."

#2 Boils down to advantages such as images stabilization, motion tracking and advanced imaging techniques. Pixel addressibility does not seem to address picture quality per se, only the ability to offer improved peformance in advanced technicques such as OIS. that is what the article says.

"3. Manufacturing Cost - Since CMOS imagers are manufactured in the same process as memories, processors and other high-volume devices, CMOS imagers can take advantage of process improvements and cost reductions these devices drive throughout the industry."

#3 Boils down to Cost again, as did #1.

Of the three points made about CMOS vs CCD, two of the three were concerning cost and manufacturing processes.

Cost is the main advantage from the manufacturers point of view, and that is clear. There is much discussion in the article about the various types of noice of CMOS, but it is never stated that image quality is inherently better.

The primary advantage of CMOS from a consumer point of view are things like face recognition, etc. The day I need a camera to recognize a face for me will be a sad day! Now granted the possibilities are endless with CMOS, but those consumer features are for hobbyists as of now. Some of the possibilties of CMOS will translate eventually into cool things we can all use no doubt. As has been said they are the future.

But I ran my Sony today with my HMC150 and there was less noise in the Panny than the Sony. Also, I don't like the "interlace type" lines in my FX1000 footage. I get these lines that run across the screen, don't care for it, I don't know what they are.

The article does go into some detail about the noise issues of CMOS and there are plenty of them. This would explain why the HMC150 is less noisy at increased gain then the Sony FX1000. Of course comparing the two cameras is like comparing apples and oranges, and is really not relevant depending on how you see it. As you say a high end CCD will blow a cheap CMOS sensor away, and a high end CMOS sensor will best an equivalent CCD away, so it really is a pointless comparison especially in the case of these two cameras.

Pana and Sony have always been quite different anyway, and to compare CCD to CMOS between different brands is not fair to either. The CCD chips in the VX2100 was notoriously better then the CCDs in the Panasonic in the opinion of many videographers, but Panasonic still had a huge following, so go figure. It often came down to features and lenses, not just chips.

Anyway, CMOS is here to stay, it is the future of consumer and low end pro equipment without a doubt. I can't even imagine with the noise issues that broadcast equipment will use CMOS for a long while. CMOS has way too far to go for that to happen soon.

Ron, just want to be clear that I understand that this is truly a pointless debate.

No matter how anyone feels about CMOS vs CCDs, it won't make a lick of difference in the change in the market place and what the manufacturers do. And since consumers are clamoring for what I feel are stupid gadgets, the writing is on the wall, as CMOS features offer tons of potential for marketers.

In addition, CMOS is much better suited for Hi-definition and that is where it is really at, isn't it?

All discussions like these are subjective and depends on the likes and dislikes of the user. I personally use on a regualar basis a few Sony cams including the venerable VX2100 and a poor excuse for a CMOS camera the Sony FX7. I also use a few Panasonic cameras including A DVX and to me the Panasonic has a way better picture than the Sony and even in very low light I much prefer the Panasonic to the VX2100. To me Sony colors seem artficial while Panasonic seem more like real life. The clincher with Panasonic cameras is that they tend to give better manual control, less need to go into menus and they are all available even while recording.

Should I go around trying to convince everyone to ditch their Sony cam for Panasonic? Of course not, I would be wasting both my time and other peoples time. We should just buy the cameras that we can afford to like.

i never liked the low quality compression of the hmc pixel shift. If I were to go for a good low light ccd camera with pixel shift I would get the jvc hm100. All footage I've seen from that blows the hmc away in terms of pq. It's still not as sharp as the fx1000 though.

Also I wonder if the noise from the fx1000 is due to hdv compression. I had an h-fs100 canon cmos camera and it's avchd footage is cleaner that anything I've seen coming from the hmc or fx1000.

Jeff I too think this debate has gone on long enough. However the one point about CMOS you missed out is the most important and the one that makes all the others work. CMOS has individual pixel processing something that is technically impossible with CCD. In consumer cameras this allows fancy features but also will allow individual exposure control by pixel, technically. Cost and device speed of course limit this use but this will come and will allow better detail in dark areas and highlight control just not possible with CCD. In most current CMOS the pixels are read as blocks but technically they could be read and processed individually. With the technology used in the Sony XR500/520, using connections behind the sensors and immediate A/D( not possible with CCD), noise levels are very low. My XR500 at F1.8, 18db is a lot less noisy than my FX1 with CCD at 12db.
Anyway enough.
Ron Evans

Also I wonder if the noise from the fx1000 is due to hdv compression. I had an h-fs100 canon cmos camera and it's avchd footage is cleaner that anything I've seen coming from the hmc or fx1000.

I too wonder about this. I shoot with FX1 , SR11 and XR500. The two AVCHD cams are cleaner and sharper than the FX1. They don't have the manual controls of the FX1 so at times the FX1 does get the better picture. I would get an AVCHD version of the FX1000 if it came out. Having compared these three cameras now for the last few months the FX1 has to go but I am at a loss as to what to change to. I will likely get a FX1000 as I have so many Sony batteries, chargers, LANC controllers etc and maybe some nice small HDMI recorders will come in the future at a reasonable price.
Ron Evans

But I ran my Sony today with my HMC150 and there was less noise in the Panny than the Sony. Also, I don't like the "interlace type" lines in my FX1000 footage. I get these lines that run across the screen, don't care for it, I don't know what they are.



So after 'not wanting to bring up the CMOS vs CCD issue', you gave us a dissertation. :)

Jeff, all things you read in 'articles' are not the final word nor are they always 100% factual nor are they always written without a bias. The FACT is that CMOS imagers are used in some of the most expensive digital SLRs where cost saving is NOT an issue.

CMOS has undeniable quality advantages (color, power savings, pixel-level processing, immunity from overload etc.) that you did not mention (or was not mentioned in the article). That is the reason they are used in very expensive imaging devices where CCDs could easily be used. Also, when used in an effective 'total solution', you'll find that CMOS imagers will produce LESS noise than their CCD counterparts.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the Sony XR500/XR520. This camera incorporates several processing/imaging techniques, to produce as noise-free an image as you'll find anywhere at many times the cost.

Now, those 'interlaced type lines' you're getting on your FX1000 is a function of poor deinterlacing on part of your display. I've got two Pioneer Kuro displays and I've never seen anything remotely like 'interlaced lines' from my Z5 or XR500. Displays that don't do a good job of deinterlacing might well show the issue your describing, but it's not a function of the camera.

You might also look for some setting in your display that might give you a different form of processing in the deinterlacing process. My displays have several.

I too wonder about this. I shoot with FX1 , SR11 and XR500. The two AVCHD cams are cleaner and sharper than the FX1. They don't have the manual controls of the FX1 so at times the FX1 does get the better picture. I would get an AVCHD version of the FX1000 if it came out. Having compared these three cameras now for the last few months the FX1 has to go but I am at a loss as to what to change to. I will likely get a FX1000 as I have so many Sony batteries, chargers, LANC controllers etc and maybe some nice small HDMI recorders will come in the future at a reasonable price.
Ron Evans

The good thing about the fx1000 is that it's pretty sharp and the grain is very light. Therefor a de-noiser such as neatvideo cleans up the noise really well, to the point of not being able to see any loss in image resolution or quality. the only thing about neatvideo is that it will slow down rendering time.. but it's a much cheaper solution than an hdmi capture device.

Here are some images from the FX1000 and the HMC150 from yesterday, a fairly dark church.

Both cameras in auto settings.

See if you can choose which image is from which camera.

BTW, the bottom left image is from the same camera as the images above it, I moved it mid-ceremony.

Its easy to see in the first two shots the ones on the left are the HMC-150 as they have much better color than the strange warm look of the FX-1000.

The bottom two are difficult to tell for some reason.

Your master pedestal was a little too high for my taste and I would have used low knee or DRS2.

I prefer the images on the left. I'd assume the images on the right were not from an FX1000 (unless settings were significantly altered) since I've never seen such low contrast images from that cam.

Ron, I don't agree about the Sony being clean and sharp, at least not when the going gets tough. Overall the image from the camera, IMO is somewhat soft and noisy in low light. I have felt that way since I got my first one in October of last year.

I've shot apporoximately 15 weddings with the 2 FX1000s and as soon as the gain goes up the noise level is noticeable, very noticeable. Since I have spent dozens of hours with the cameras in dark reception halls I submit that I can make this observation safely.

I shot my first wedding with the FX1000 next to a VX2100 in a very dark reception and the footage was nearly identical, and the VX2100 was in 16:9 stretch mode, which is not saying much for the FX1000.

In my first review of the FX1000 I mentioned it was seemed flat and of low contrast and I still hold to that.

Now in perfect light, the Sony is VERY nice. It just doesn't hold up well with increased gain. That is why I'm always running lights whereas with my old Sony's it wasn't as necessary.

My primary reason for moving to the FX1000 was for 16:9, not HD. My customers love the widescreen look, as do I.

So I've gotten plenty of nice footage from the FX1000, but generally as the bride is coming down the aisle the footage is almost without fail noisy and flat.

The images below are typical.

Its easy to see in the first two shots the ones on the left are the HMC-150 as they have much better color than the strange warm look of the FX-1000.

The bottom two are difficult to tell for some reason.

Jeff, 'much better color' is in the eyes of the beholder and adjustments have everything in the world to do with the final results. Please let's not get into a pissing match regarding these two cams. That's not the purpose of this site.

Jeff
I would say that images 1,3,5 are with HMC150 and 2,4,6 are with FX1000
If this is the case then the images from the HMC150 are better. I might add though that my Z5 produces images like the 1,3 and 5.

Stelios

I just can't see how you could be getting consistently 'noisy' results with the FX1000 Jeff. Are you setting a gain limit or are you letting it run wild? These cams are so noise-free relative to the competition, it's just very odd that you are getting these results.

Even in corporate work I shoot in some low lit factory environments and would never classify the results as 'noisy'. In fact they're very comparable in terms of noise to my VX2100.

Jeff
I might add though that my Z5 produces images like the 1,3 and 5.

Stelios

Stelios, you and I agree 100% on this. I would find it very difficult to get such low contrast images out of my Z5. I'd need to really alter the settings intentionally to get that kind of image. Really really odd. But I'm glad it's not just me.

I just can't see how you could be getting consistently 'noisy' results with the FX1000 Jeff. Are you setting a gain limit or are you letting it run wild? These cams are so noise-free relative to the competition, it's just very odd that you are getting these results.

Even in corporate work I shoot in some low lit factory environments and would never classify the results as 'noisy'. In fact they're very comparable in terms of noise to my VX2100.

I think Jeff said they were both on auto & I would assume that means default menu settings too.

The HMC-150 kinda looks like it is on the F3 "SparK" scene file setting.

Tweaked, I guess both cameras would be very different. However, the Panasonic will always lean toward a cooler output unless the WB skew is used.

Actually Ken, I shoot under the conditions the video stills came from frequently and the results of the Sony here is quite typical. The photos on the right side of the page are from the Sony and on the left the 150.

I have to say I was shocked at the vibrancy of the colors and the blackness of the blacks of the 150, I never in a million years would've expected these results. I figured the Panasonic would have appeared much softer from what I have seen and read about it.

But this is in line with what Mark has said, under increased gain the 150 is cleaner.

I had been scheduled to sell the Panasonic today, and the buyer has put it off till Sunday, but I gotta tell you these results make me question things a bit. If the prices on the damned Pansonics had not gone up $400 each I would seriously consider jumping, but economics dicates otherwise.

For those that shoot in studio or under great lighting conditions, there is really not much to compare, but these results from a dimly lit church are interesting to say the least.

Ken I get noisy results because these are dimly lit envioronments. Do you shoot in dark/dim environments? If so you would know this, and I don't say that to be smart, but it is just the situation in dark enviroments. This is what happens in low light my friend. From what I gather Ken this is not the kind of shooting you do, so I can understand your confusion. Weddings are tough to shoot and they stretch a camera to the limit from overhead sun to dim reception halls.

Actually Jeff, I'm not sure what the spark setting is....I took the images directly off of the Vegas timeline untouched...

For those that shoot in studio or under great lighting conditions, there is really not much to compare, but these results from a dimly lit church are interesting to say the least.

That is a good point and I agree. In another thread I compared my HMC-150 recital stage performance footage to the same footage on an XH-A1. The HMC-150 was quite a bit better in that low light shooting scenario.

As the light goes down, the HMC-150s good reputation for low light handling is well deserved IMO.

Jeff: The HMC-150 scene file setting dial goes from F1 to F6. F3 is the factory spark scene file setting.

I think Jeff said they were both on auto & I would assume that means default menu settings too.

The HMC-150 kinda looks like it is on the F3 "SparK" scene file setting.

Tweaked, I guess both cameras would be very different. However, the Panasonic will always lean toward a cooler output unless the WB skew is used.

Neither was correct. The left side shots were too cool and the right too warm. This is why it's not wise to use automatic on any camera. MWB is your friend.

I had been scheduled to sell the Panasonic today, and the buyer has put it off till Sunday, but I gotta tell you these results make me question things a bit. If the prices on the damned Pansonics had not gone up $400 each I would seriously consider jumping, but economics dicates otherwise.



Well, as I said, I've never ever gotten such warm, low-contrast images out of my Z5...even in full auto. So that's why I'd never think it was the FX1000. It's hard to believe the Z5 & FX1000 are set up so differently.

But I'll tell you Jeff, $400 is a small price to pay to get rid of a camera that you are finding so annoying. Again, I'm trying to just give you some advice. If I felt the way you do about my Z5 (and I surely don't since I seem to have such different experiences), I'd sell it in a heatbeat and the extra $400 would be a tiny price to pay for less aggrevation...but that's me.

Ken, if you are a corporate videographer you have much control over your environment. You can take the time to change settings as needed. This is often not possible when shooting on the run.

You likely get great results in your relatively controlled envioroment, I wish I could take the time to tweak my cameras for every wedding but I can't.

Does anyone know of some general place to begin to tweak the FX1000 to get more vibrant color reproduction and blacker blacks such as with the images from the Panasonic?

Actually Jeff, I seldom work with lights. I try to be as non-obtrusive in corporate/industrial settings as I can.

I find that both my Z5 & VX2100 allow me to shoot in virtually any kind of dim lighting that I encounter. On occasion I'll go into dimly lit rooms that might be housing 55 gallon drums of hazardous materials.

I'll see gain go up to +18db, but noise is commendably low. If I'm shooting a CEO, that's a different story and lights might be prudent.