DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/)
-   -   Sony HDR FX-1000 better than A-1? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xh-series-hdv-camcorders/130640-sony-hdr-fx-1000-better-than-1-a.html)

Roger Lee September 11th, 2008 03:08 PM

Sony HDR FX-1000 better than A-1?
 
Hello All,

I just got this promo about the Sony HDR FX-1000...soon to come on the market.

The promo(from BH Photovideo) said the FX-1000 was 'more bang for the buck' than the A-1.

No XLR inputs on the FX-1000(XLR inputs..big deal to me), no presets as near as I can tell....

Anybody see where the advantage of the FX-1000 lies? ...other than it's the same price...for what appears to be less camera?

Take care all.

Rog Lee

Jonathan Shaw September 11th, 2008 05:22 PM

Maybe it will be slightly better in low light like the Z7, but no XLR's is an issue.
Also with the FX series Sony cams they are classed as consumer and hence any issues go through normal channels instead of the pro service centre for the Z's etc.
Z5 looks good but expensive compared to the A1, I still reckon bang for buck the A1 rules!!!

Bill Pryor September 11th, 2008 06:12 PM

I doubt it'll be better in low light; it has CMOS chips. It's a replacement for the FX1. Usually with Sony's high end consumer cameras the lack of XLRs is one of the more visible items missing, and usually there are some others. You'd have to compare it side by side with either the XH A1 or the Sony pro version, the Z5J (I think that's ne name, something like that). If you read that it was better than the A1, they probably were talking about the Sony A1, not the Canon XH A1.

Bill Busby September 11th, 2008 07:04 PM

Actually they did compare it to the XHA1, but still, there's nothing about this Sony cam that would make me want one. Plus, they've included the same single, manual/auto audio level switch, which that alone is a deal breaker. It's a stupid design. If I had paid attention that the A1 had this when I got mine, I may have reconsidered :-\

Seems there's going to be a "pro" version of the FX1000 soon. Probably includes a couple of XLR connectors... call it "pro" & charge $1500+ more :D

Jonathan Shaw September 11th, 2008 07:06 PM

Here's the link I read it from:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-v...0-hvr-z5j.html

Compared to Canon XHA1 not Sony A1... albeit speculation though as always. It'll be good to see a camera vs camera comparison of the Z5 to XHA1.

Jerome Cloninger September 11th, 2008 08:07 PM

Roger, it all depends on which camera you learn to use to its maximum capability and what you are comfortable with. Every camera has pros and cons to it. Paper specs don't always tell which is a better camera.

Which would look better??? A Sony EX1 in the hands of a rookie or any little consumer SD cam in the hands of a seasoned professional?

Kevin Shaw September 12th, 2008 12:44 AM

I suspect the FX1000 will be popular for event work based on good low-light performance, which has made the Z7U popular for the same reason. The high-res (921K) LCD on the FX1000 is also a nice touch, while the LCD on the XH-A1 is less than stellar. Overall the XH-A1 seems like a better design for the price, but the FX1000 will fill a slightly different niche.

Kevin Shaw September 12th, 2008 12:51 AM

P.S. Looking at the article, it describes the Z5U (not the FX1000) as a competitor to the XH-A1. That makes more sense.

Bill Grant September 12th, 2008 07:51 AM

Well,
I think the low-light capability alone will make this camera a killer. But, who's to say if it will actually be what it says it is. I have seen a little footage from the Z7 and am not very impressed. Now the EX1 I like. I'm looking strongly towards the HMC-150. Especially since VEgas just added more support for AVCHD... It's an interesting time for us...
Bill

Mark Fry September 12th, 2008 08:37 AM

FX1000 is a straight replacement for the old FX1. Likewise, the Z5 will replace the Z1. They use basically the same innards as the Z7 (3 x 1/3" CMOS chips, etc), but with fixed 20x zoom lens, so picture quality should be predictable from the Z7. Likewise, the claims of 1.5 lux low-light are probably with low-ish shutter speed and high-ish gain, as with the Z7. Looks like the zoom range is extended at the wide end, compared with existing 12x zoom on Z1 & FX1. So, they are strong rivals for the XH-A1, and one would expect them to be better than the existing Sony models for basically the same price, progress being what it is. Until someone gets them on test side-by-side with the Canon, it's all speculation...

How will Canon respond? Price cuts when the Sonys reach the shops and a Mk2 XH-A1 announced at NAB next spring???

Kevin Shaw September 12th, 2008 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Grant (Post 933715)
I think the low-light capability alone will make this camera a killer. But, who's to say if it will actually be what it says it is.

We won't know for sure until the new Sony cameras ship, but if they perform as well in low light as the Z7U that will be a big appeal for some users. When the Z7U came out some prominent event videographers picked it as the camera which convinced them to switch to HD, partly for the low-light response. If the FX1000 yields similar performance at a lower price, it could attract a lot of people who have been clinging to their VX2100s and PD170s for low-light use. And while many XH-A1 owners seem satisfied with the low-light performance from that camera, it hasn't been widely regarded as strong in that area.

Bill Pryor September 12th, 2008 09:16 AM

The Z5J would compare with the XH A1, I can see that. Still it's more expensive and I'm not seeing how it's worth the price difference. Unless the CMOS chips are a new design I think I still prefer CCDs. At a quick glance it looks like a nice upgrade to the Z1, putting a real aperture ring on the lens and providing 24p, like the XH A1.

Jeff Kellam September 12th, 2008 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Fry (Post 933747)
How will Canon respond? Price cuts when the Sonys reach the shops and a Mk2 XH-A1 announced at NAB next spring???

There will certainly be a price cut by Canon. They have done a good job milking the XH-A1 price level for so long.

I missed a MK2 XH-A1 announcement, can you point me to any info?

Thanks

Rick Steele September 12th, 2008 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Shaw (Post 933512)
but no XLR's is an issue.

What's up with you guys and your need for onboard XLR ports? :)

Just get a $150 adapter which does the same thing. Plus you can lose the half pound when you don't need it. If that camera with built in XLR has problems the whole thing will have to go in.

As far as the FX1000 being a better bargain than the A1... if the lux rating on the FX is anything near what they claim (using the same technology found in the EX series), that alone gets it a second look in my books.

Rick Steele September 12th, 2008 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Grant (Post 933715)
Well, I'm looking strongly towards the HMC-150. Especially since VEgas just added more support for AVCHD...
Bill

Yeah, I saw that in the Vegas improvement list Bill.

I am really trying to find a reason to go the HMC-150 route myself. I never thought I would have a chance to go both HD and tapeless at the same time. (I'm usually way behind in cams).

I'm going to wait and see what the Vegas 8.0c crowd finds about editing this crap without having to transcode it first.

Bill Grant September 12th, 2008 02:41 PM

Rick,
I updated to ver c today. In doing so, I downloaded some of Barry Green's MTS files from DVX user. They import right into the timeline, and play fine. AVCHD works. This might be my weapon of choice when it hits... Maybe...
Bill

Rick Steele September 12th, 2008 02:52 PM

Hey! I've been looking for that footage but that thread is longer than my last IRS tax audit.

Where the heck are they?

Jeff Harper September 29th, 2008 03:01 AM

I believe the FX1000 will blow the AH1 out of the water due to the use of the same type of cmos sensors used in the XDCAM cams. As b&H said,

"Aside from the XH-A1's XLR inputs, the FX1000 provides far more bang for the buck, its new specs giving it a substantial edge over arguably any sub-$4,000 camcorder out there.

"But even more significant for HD shooters, many of whom still miss the great low-light capabilities of standard-def workhorses like the VX2100 and PD170, is the FX1000's ability to accurately capture images down to 1.5 lux. This is twice the ability of the FX1, Z1U or Panasonic's HVX200 (all at 3 lux), and compares even more favorably to the FX7, VIU, and Canon's XH-A1 and GL2Śrated at 4 lux."

I view the FX1000 as the updated version of the VX2100. The FX1 never came close to filling that role, but seemed to me to be a transitional piece of hardware.

Mark Fry September 29th, 2008 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper (Post 944430)
"But even more significant for HD shooters, many of whom still miss the great low-light capabilities of standard-def workhorses like the VX2100 and PD170, is the FX1000's ability to accurately capture images down to 1.5 lux. This is twice the ability of the FX1, Z1U or Panasonic's HVX200 (all at 3 lux), and compares even more favorably to the FX7, VIU, and Canon's XH-A1 and GL2Śrated at 4 lux."

I find that the XH-A1 is not quite a sensitive as the XM1, so I'm suspcious of the B&H comparisson.

According to their web-site, Sony's 1.5 lux claim for the Z5/FX1000 applies with slower shutter speed and higher gain than you'd normally use when shooting. Were the other cameras also measured with the same settings? How well does the Z7 do, compared to the other cams mentioned here? There's no reason to suppose that the Z5/FX1000 will be much different.

I'm not saying that the new Sony will not be better than the XH-A1 in low light. However, I don't expect it to be in the same class as the VX2100/PD170, which is what B&H seem to imply.

Kevin Shaw September 29th, 2008 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Fry (Post 944483)
How well does the Z7 do, compared to the other cams mentioned here? There's no reason to suppose that the Z5/FX1000 will be much different.

The Z7U is popular with wedding videographers who had previously avoided HD due to low-light performance concerns, and found that camera to be sufficient for their needs. Assuming the FX1000 is equally sensitive, which it should be using the same sensor, it will likely be popular with those looking for an affordable low-light HD camera.

It's true that lux ratings are somewhat arbitrary because they may involve extreme camera settings, but in this case the 1.5 lux figure appears to be a fair assessment of what the Z7U (and hence FX1000) can handle to produce a usable image.

Rick Steele September 29th, 2008 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Fry (Post 944483)
According to their web-site, Sony's 1.5 lux claim for the Z5/FX1000 applies with slower shutter speed and higher gain than you'd normally use when shooting.

Where are you reading the "higher" gain stipulation? It says:

at 1/30 fixed shutter speed with auto iris and auto gain.

HDR-FX1000 | HDR-FX1000 High Definition MiniDV (HDV) Handycam« Camcorder | Sony | SonyStyle USA

I know lux ratings are jaded so please cite your source if different from mine as I'd like to know.

Jeff Harper September 29th, 2008 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Fry (Post 944483)
According to their web-site, Sony's 1.5 lux claim for the Z5/FX1000 applies with slower shutter speed and higher gain than you'd normally use when shooting.

Mark, I have looked at the specs on sony's website and it says min illumination: 1.5 lux. I don't see the qualification you mention.

Can you please point me to it?

Thanks

Jeff Harper September 29th, 2008 08:08 AM

I found it, Mark. It says "(at 1/30 fixed shutter speed with auto iris and auto gain)".

Hubert Duijzer September 29th, 2008 08:21 AM

I saw a brochure of the XHA1 recently.
It is rated at 0.4 lux (1/3 shutter and +36db gain....)
I think the Z5 is a little better, but they are also cheating a little.

Chris Hurd September 29th, 2008 08:28 AM

Please try to avoid quoting lux ratings on this site... the term is so incredibly meaningless these days because there's really no standardization for determining it. For example, "0.4 lux at 1/3rd shutter and +36db gain." In all honesty, who expects to shoot at a shutter speed of 1/3rd sec. and +36db gain, and get anything resembling clean, usable video? It's nonsense. The lux measurement may be accurate (it has to be or they couldn't print it) but what they're not telling you is how utterly unusable such a noisy image would be.

Lux ratings are worse than useless; they're downright misleading -- and that goes for most all the major camera manufacturers, unfortunately.

Hubert Duijzer September 29th, 2008 10:41 AM

My point exactly. That was what i was trying to say with cheating. Sometimes i have trouble with finding the right words, because it isn't my native langue.

Dave Blackhurst September 29th, 2008 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Steele (Post 933867)
Yeah, I saw that in the Vegas improvement list Bill.

I am really trying to find a reason to go the HMC-150 route myself. I never thought I would have a chance to go both HD and tapeless at the same time. (I'm usually way behind in cams).

I'm going to wait and see what the Vegas 8.0c crowd finds about editing this crap without having to transcode it first.

FWIW, I downloaded the clips another member posted from the HMC150, dropped into Vegas Pro 8c and looked quite good, fairly smooth playback, I'd expect editing to be decent if you have a basic quad core machine... doable if you're on a 2 core box, but render times would be long. The HMC150 has been on my "watch list" as well, although I'm typically a Sony shooter... but Sony isn't going tapeless in the "prosumer" lines, and since they got me hooked on tapeless with the SR/CX cameras, it just aint' fair, I'll strongly watch the competition!

Rick Steele September 29th, 2008 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd (Post 944531)
Please try to avoid quoting lux ratings on this site... the term is so incredibly meaningless these days because there's really no standardization for determining it.

I think most of us know this Chris. But when somebody further inflates the inaccuracy of lux ratings by citing something like "increased gain" to achieve it, I'd like to know the source - as it contradicts what Sony is saying. (Unless "Auto" gain means +12dB these days).

But if they're "fibbing" about this, then they (Sony) need to be called down on it. :)

Joel Peregrine September 29th, 2008 12:29 PM

Hi Chris,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd (Post 944531)
Please try to avoid quoting lux ratings on this site... the term is so incredibly meaningless these days

There must be a manufacturer who can take the lead and go back to the method of quoting sensitivity in terms of f-stop and lux rating, i.e. "F8 at 2000 lux". Or maybe independent testing can determine these ratings for the current batch of prosumer and low-end pro cameras?

Michael Kraus October 21st, 2008 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Lee (Post 933447)
Hello All,

Anybody see where the advantage of the FX-1000 lies? ...other than it's the same price...for what appears to be less camera?

Take care all.

Rog Lee

It may also be worth mentioning that the fx1000 has 1080p capabilities.

Pavel Sedlak October 21st, 2008 01:32 PM

about FX1000
 
3 Attachment(s)
I was testing FX1000 two weeks before, I found a problem with rolling shutter (sorry for my english).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network