I'm researching for another camera purchase. I want to move into the pro models more now that I'm shooting more Indie based features.

The lens interchangeability seems to be a big step up and major feature needed for controlling the desired depth of field. But first I need to know what my FX1000 is capable of.

What is the min depth of field I can achieve on the FX1000?

i would have thought testing it in practice would be more useful than theory - after all, there's so many variables...

and regarding interchangeable lenses - you do realise that 'good' lenses are going to cost much more than the camera itself?

Yeah, I noticed the cost of quality lenses, even the prim lenses are a considerable investment. This is one reason why I'm considering the DSLR route.

there's a huge amount of info regarding the dslr route, much of it seemingly dedicated to the 'filmic' qualities of the dslr.

however, if you're serious about shooting indies, then i would suggest hiring a 'proper' camera (which, after the combined costs of adapting a dslr to efp) might well work out both cheaper and decidedly more practical....

i agree that some of the material i've seen shot by dslr's is pretty fantastic, but i still believe the con's (audio, lack of functions while recording, external storage, ergonomics, etc.,) far outweigh the pro's.

then again, there's always film ;-)

What is the min depth of field I can achieve on the FX1000?

Probably about 1/8". Open up the iris & turn on macro.

But if you want to know what you're DOF is on the FX100, dig up an old dusty film book from the library w/ a DOF chart. The FX1000's lens is 4.1mm to 82mm. (Since it doesn't have markings on the side, you'd have to guess what what the length of the lens is when you're mid range.) Find the length of your lens & the f/ stop, then see how far away you're focused, & you can determine your DOF.

82mm lens at f4, focused at 10' has a DOF of 8".


If you really want to go the Indie route, then the current trend is DSLR. But since none of those have proper audio recording you'll have to go old school & have a separate soundie w/ gear, which then makes your crew that much larger (for the better I might add since audio is very often neglected).

Just keep in mind that shooting video with a DSLR is the newest fad. 5D Mark II was released two years ago, I predict in another 2 years no one will be talking about shooting video with still cameras. Sony, Panasonic & Canon will all come out with proper cameras that will kill the HD-DSLR craze.

i think the really narrow DOF is the only thing missing from the FX1000 and Z5 from making them the perfect cameras. I'm really torn weather to buy a couple of Z5's now or wait for something with decent interchangeable lenses and low DOF to come out... Read something about the RED Scarlett but I think it'll be something like triple the price of the Z5 with a couple of lenses

one has to say that it should be the project that dictates the camera, not the latest 'fad'.

as i wrote, i have seen some stunning footage from dslr's, none of which display any relationship to what is required in a normal doco (well, perhaps a talking head).

i see sony has just introduced a new camera based on a large chip, with interchangeable lenses (nex vg10?) - however, the cost of a decent lenses is probably twice the cost od the camera.....

at the end of the day, what's most important is the story, people will not watch pretty pictures for their own sake (even if we do!), and there's many memorable programs out there shot on everything from vhs to 8mm.....

Yeah, I'm trying not to buy into the latest DSLR fad. My fact finding mission is to understand the major features on HDV cameras that achieve the best film look without moving into film. I like the rational that the project should dictate the type of tools used, but I will most likely work on many different projects so I'll need to incorporate versatility in my selection.

It seems the the digital image industry is always trying to immolate the 35mm frame size, motion or stills. The Canon 5D MkII has one image sensor that is about equal to 35mm frame size. It's my understanding that this combination produces the 35mm film like minimum depth of field. Also when I read the focal length specs on video camera lenses, especially on 1/3" sensor size, they rate them in 35mm equivalency.

With this rational then I could expect to achieve a much shallower depth of field with video cameras that have larger image sensors like 1/2" and 2/3".