More FX vs. A1 comparison at DVinfo.net

Daniel Boswell · November 3rd, 2006, 01:04 AM

A couple of quick observations.

Size:

While they are both about the same size and weight, the Canon is slightly shorter and more compact. The weight is not as evenly distributed as the Sony and thus handheld may be a bit more difficult than the FX1.

LCD:

The Sony LCD is almost twice the size of the Canons and I prefer the way the Sony put it on top rather than how Canon tried to tuck it under the handle. While it looks more sleek than the Sony, it is a little awkward pulling it out and putting it back because you have to avoid the handle.

I like the look of the Canon much better than the Sony. It is all black..a bit more sleek and professional looking than the Sony. I actually love the battery compartment being tucked away...so far. Dont have the the high capacity battery yet though.

The zoom on this cam is very disappointing. Yes, its got a much wider range than the FX but I was hoping the zoom would take me farther in. I dont need a wider shot because I use my fisheye or WA if I want to go wide. I need to get closer to the action when i am shooting weddings or sports. To me, this was the major flaw of the FXs, the 12x zoom and the Canon is only marginally closer.

more footage:

Exact same time this footage was taken by both cameras at 18db (YES... AGC WAS TURNED OFF AS IT WAS WITH MY FIRST TEST!!!)

Once again Canon is much lighter but more grainy.

http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/canon18db.wmv

a tad bit darker..but MUCH more cleaner.

http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/sony18db.wmv

So far, in my limited testing, I am not liking the look of the Canon image. Maybe its because I have been using Sonys for so long and this is my first Canon. Maybe it will grow on me.

I wil ldefinitely gve it every chance to do so and if not, someone here can buy a slightly discounted A1 off me.

Stefan Scherperel · November 3rd, 2006, 02:30 AM

I can see for people that do run and gun situations in available light, this could be important, but at the same time, your test is flawed. The cameras should not be set up to the same settings, they should be set up to get the same image, therefore either stop down the canon, or open up the sony (one should not be darker than the other if you are comparing noise, they should have the same density, and then compare the noise). Now for me this is a non issue, as I don't shoot weddings or other situations with only available lighting, but if your going to be doing tests like this, set up the cameras to match density first, then your comparison will be accurate.

Dave Lammey · November 3rd, 2006, 05:41 AM

Daniel: many thanks for your impressions, appreciate it. Let us know if your opinion of the Canon changes.

Pete Bauer · November 3rd, 2006, 06:19 AM

Daniel, the links to your files don't seem to be working this morning.

Chris Hurd (the owner of this site) and I have both had to remove grossly inflammatory posts from this and Daniel's other thread about A1 vs FX low-light. Keep it polite.

For those who don't find Daniel's methodology satisfactory, so noted. Much, much more will soon be forthcoming from many excited new owners.

Tom Roper · November 3rd, 2006, 07:48 AM

Daniel,
I agree with many of your observations but you have only yourself to blame for the zoom range not having enough at the long end. Part of the due diligence process is to read the specs, zoom range has been published.

Doug Bennett · November 3rd, 2006, 08:26 AM

manufacturers gain settings are totally arbitrary. The canon image is brighter but noisier leaves open the question of whether the canon at +12db might be similar to the sony at +18db.

Ryan Paige · November 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM

Thanks, Daniel, for taking the time (and the abuse) to post your impressions and some examples.

Chris Barcellos · November 3rd, 2006, 12:41 PM

Daniel:

Thanks for the posts from here, too. I've read both threads, and appreciate the open manner in which you approached this.

I am an FX1 owner, and was curious about comparison. Your initial impressions give a lot of information, even if not scientific.

I do think it is one thing when a person makes observations based on speculation. It another think when someone puts up their own money on both cameras. Clearly, that gives you the ability present less biased comments on the pros and cons of each, and I consider your comments invaluable.

Ash Greyson · November 3rd, 2006, 12:47 PM

Having not messed with the A1 of G1 at all... I can only assume that the camera(s) is similar to the XLH and XL2 in that, the factory settings are very flat and set for max detail. This causes the colors to be a little washed out, noise in shadowy areas, etc. The Z1 and the FX1 look very good out of the box. To make a fair comparison you need a skilled tech or experienced user on the Canon.

ash =o)

Pete Bauer · November 3rd, 2006, 01:19 PM

Apparently Daniel pulled the files off his site, so at this writing they aren't available. Thread closed.

November 3rd, 2006, 01:04 AM	#1
Daniel Boswell Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Temecula, CA Posts: 189	More FX vs. A1 comparison A couple of quick observations. Size: While they are both about the same size and weight, the Canon is slightly shorter and more compact. The weight is not as evenly distributed as the Sony and thus handheld may be a bit more difficult than the FX1. LCD: The Sony LCD is almost twice the size of the Canons and I prefer the way the Sony put it on top rather than how Canon tried to tuck it under the handle. While it looks more sleek than the Sony, it is a little awkward pulling it out and putting it back because you have to avoid the handle. I like the look of the Canon much better than the Sony. It is all black..a bit more sleek and professional looking than the Sony. I actually love the battery compartment being tucked away...so far. Dont have the the high capacity battery yet though. The zoom on this cam is very disappointing. Yes, its got a much wider range than the FX but I was hoping the zoom would take me farther in. I dont need a wider shot because I use my fisheye or WA if I want to go wide. I need to get closer to the action when i am shooting weddings or sports. To me, this was the major flaw of the FXs, the 12x zoom and the Canon is only marginally closer. more footage: Exact same time this footage was taken by both cameras at 18db (YES... AGC WAS TURNED OFF AS IT WAS WITH MY FIRST TEST!!!) Once again Canon is much lighter but more grainy. http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/canon18db.wmv a tad bit darker..but MUCH more cleaner. http://homepage.mac.com/epiphany2002/sony18db.wmv So far, in my limited testing, I am not liking the look of the Canon image. Maybe its because I have been using Sonys for so long and this is my first Canon. Maybe it will grow on me. I wil ldefinitely gve it every chance to do so and if not, someone here can buy a slightly discounted A1 off me. __________________ DBoZ

November 3rd, 2006, 02:30 AM	#2
Stefan Scherperel Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Seattle WA Posts: 209	I can see for people that do run and gun situations in available light, this could be important, but at the same time, your test is flawed. The cameras should not be set up to the same settings, they should be set up to get the same image, therefore either stop down the canon, or open up the sony (one should not be darker than the other if you are comparing noise, they should have the same density, and then compare the noise). Now for me this is a non issue, as I don't shoot weddings or other situations with only available lighting, but if your going to be doing tests like this, set up the cameras to match density first, then your comparison will be accurate. __________________ Stefan Scherperel SSE Productions http://www.stefweb.net

November 3rd, 2006, 06:19 AM	#4
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Daniel, the links to your files don't seem to be working this morning. Chris Hurd (the owner of this site) and I have both had to remove grossly inflammatory posts from this and Daniel's other thread about A1 vs FX low-light. Keep it polite. For those who don't find Daniel's methodology satisfactory, so noted. Much, much more will soon be forthcoming from many excited new owners. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 3rd, 2006, 12:41 PM	#8
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Daniel: Thanks for the posts from here, too. I've read both threads, and appreciate the open manner in which you approached this. I am an FX1 owner, and was curious about comparison. Your initial impressions give a lot of information, even if not scientific. I do think it is one thing when a person makes observations based on speculation. It another think when someone puts up their own money on both cameras. Clearly, that gives you the ability present less biased comments on the pros and cons of each, and I consider your comments invaluable. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

November 3rd, 2006, 01:19 PM	#10
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Apparently Daniel pulled the files off his site, so at this writing they aren't available. Thread closed. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 3rd, 2006, 05:41 AM	#3
Dave Lammey Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Simsbury, CT Posts: 247	Daniel: many thanks for your impressions, appreciate it. Let us know if your opinion of the Canon changes.

November 3rd, 2006, 07:48 AM	#5
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Daniel, I agree with many of your observations but you have only yourself to blame for the zoom range not having enough at the long end. Part of the due diligence process is to read the specs, zoom range has been published.

November 3rd, 2006, 08:26 AM	#6
Doug Bennett Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 260	manufacturers gain settings are totally arbitrary. The canon image is brighter but noisier leaves open the question of whether the canon at +12db might be similar to the sony at +18db.

November 3rd, 2006, 11:05 AM	#7
Ryan Paige Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Plano, Texas Posts: 44	Thanks, Daniel, for taking the time (and the abuse) to post your impressions and some examples.

November 3rd, 2006, 12:47 PM	#9
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Having not messed with the A1 of G1 at all... I can only assume that the camera(s) is similar to the XLH and XL2 in that, the factory settings are very flat and set for max detail. This causes the colors to be a little washed out, noise in shadowy areas, etc. The Z1 and the FX1 look very good out of the box. To make a fair comparison you need a skilled tech or experienced user on the Canon. ash =o)