Jeff, thanks it works well and is easy to setup and break down. I was even lookng into mounting my Sony HVL-LBP lights on a stand, but couldn't wire them up for a remote.

BTW, if you wanted to put together your own kit, then here's my list of items that I used to put together my kit from B&H. As I said I purchased the remote controls from Darrell at Reception Light.

https://secure.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/...&li=24793931C4

Thank you for the information, Michael. Actually, I own a Lowell ID light with variable dimmer, and a lead acid battery, so I would just need a stand to top it off! Then I would just assemble the second kit! Thanks again for your link to your wish list!

I'm not sure the price it eventually sells at is purely a reflection of how much people value the camera's ability. I think it's more an economic supply and demand decision. When everyone thought these were discontinued they were going for obscene prices in relation to the original MSRP. But when a new one can be had for under $2K -- probably well under once a normal street price is established -- $1700 used is uncomfortably close to the new price and not, perhaps, perceived as a bargain.

I'm guessing if it wasn't being re-released, $1700 used would be seen as a great bargain and it would be snapped up fairly quickly -- what with Sony trying to sell refurbs at their outlet for almost $2600 (!).

For me, the strike price for a used one would be in the $1000-$1200 range, not because I don't think it's a great camera -- I do -- but because that represents the sort of margin between new and used prices that seems like a great deal.

You might be right, I don't know. If you can only get close to half price for a camera that is like brand new with low hours, I think it says something.

If a PD 170 with 20 hours on it appeared in the classifieds, how much do you reckon it would bring?

Unfair comparison? Maybe. The Panasonic GS400 still sells for close to $1000 (just saw one on EBay for $995) and it has been out of production for a long while. And no the GS400 isn't near the camera of the FX7, but it is still an interesting fact.

I dunno. I just want to sell it and place my order for a new cam. The FX1000 seems to be a great value, the viewfinder alone is amazing, 24p, 1.5 lux rating, 1/3 inch chips, shoots SD in HD natively, the list just goes on.

Actually, I might need to put my FX7 on Ebay. I avoid using ebay any more, but I might need to go there in this case.

Jeff, I think you probably do have a back focus problem with your FX7. If you use manual focus and you are in the habit of zooming all of the way in and focusing and then zooming back out to frame your shot, you will get soft focus if the back focus is out of adjustment. My big gripe with the V1/FX7 is that everyone of them that I have seen has the back focus screwed up from the factory. If you sell the camera before it is repaired then the second owner will not be able to get it covered under warranty (according to Sony). So even if you are determined to sell it, for your sake and the sake of the next owner, send it in and get it fixed under warranty before it is too late.

As for how much you can get, it might not be terrible. There were 2 completed auctions on Ebay last week for FX7's. On one, the only extra was a wide angle lens. It was a low mileage model with the original box and all originally suppled accessories. It sold for a little over $2000. Another one with a custom hard case, extra battery and some other minor accessories was even higher.

Actually Greg I have never used manual focus on the camera. I've only used it on auto from the back of the church in the balcony, so there was no need. Thanks for the heads up though, I appreciate it. Also thanks for the info about the ebay auctions. I'll check it out next week.

Amazon lists the reintroduction date to be November 2. Does anybody know if they’ll be any slight changes? Even if it’ll be exactly the same, that’s’ a perfect price considering it was first introduced for $3,500. That’s nearly half off! Now if only Sony would lower the price of the V1u as well.

Paulo, if you could live without the pro audio connections, the FX1000 would be a much better value than the V1U anyway.

As the hand on review by B and H says, "And while the lack of XLR inputs keeps this fixed-lens camera from full professional status, its street price of $3,199 is $500 less than the FX1 and less than half the price of the pro-level HVR-Z7U (which adds an interchangeable lens to an otherwise similar feature set). This makes the FX1000 an amazing package for independent videographers and filmmakers seeking broadcast-quality, 24p film-like imagery."

Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everthing from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U? Not me. Add to that the fact the CMOS chips are of the same tecnnology used on the EX1, and I think we have a winner.

Jeff,

You said, "Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everything from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U?"

The answer is, "Anyone who wants a pretty good "prosumer" HD camcorder w/a 20x lens for only $2000." Of course the FX1000 is a much better unit, but $2000 is an incredible bargain if you can deal with the (relative) low-light issue.

Dwain, I'm referring to the V1U that Paulo mentioned, not the FX7.

After literally "writing the book" on the V1/FX7 -- I found Marty's statement not match my experience either.

I found it too lose detail in a non-linear way. Meaning, that in many situations it looks "HD." But, when faced with lots of tiny details -- tree leaves for example -- there is SENSE that they lack LESS than the expected amount of resolution. An odd sensation.

My only "explanation" was that the interpolation system needs a certain amount of information with which it fills in the best guess detail. Below, that critical amount -- it doesn't have enough information to make a guess.

On the other hand, I took a Sony V1 protype to Asia and really did not feel I was hindered shooting in night markets, etc. Of course, I wasn't comparing it to the VX2100.

Bottom-line, when you compare the FX7 to any of the "consumer" AVCHD camcorders at half the price -- it is a great choice! And, compared to AVCHD -- HDV on tape is IMHO the clear winner.

Sony would be smart to keep this camera available at under $2,000.

Steve, can you explain this last statement? Why is the FX7 "a great choice", compared to consumer AVCHD camcorders? How is its' PQ better, especially for shooting scenery and other like subjects? I am particularly interested in colors, detail, depth, handling contrasts (capturing darker foregrounds without blowing out the lighter sky), etc.
I find your statement interesting in that whenever I compare my footage shot with the SR11 to my friends footage shot with the FX7, somehow, someway, I like his PQ better. But I can't put my finger on why.

Mike

PS Also Steve, what is your opinion on the new FX1000, and how might that be a better cam for shooting scenery like distant mountains with that western sky, or a long lakeshore of Lake Michigan?

I am not Steve but I have a couple of opinions. The FX1000 and the FX7 both have a 20x lens. The FX1000 is a wider lens which I think will be advantagous to most users. However, if you are shooting really long shots, the FX7, with more telephoto might have an advantage. I don't know if anyone has had an opportunity to view picture detail of the 2 cameras but the FX1000 is touted to have "improved" image quality. But the FX7/V1 have pretty amazing image quality, already. One other obvious difference is the low light capabilty of the FX1000. But I don't know if the lower light capability is an advantage when shooting scenics. Saving $1200 on the camera and investing in better sticks for those long telephoto shots might be a good way to go.

The use of CMOS sensors based on the same technology as the EX1s sensors should make a significant difference in image quality.

It's weird, we seem to keep forgetting when discussing the differEnces between the two, the FX100 will have 1/3 inch sensors. The FX7 has 1/4 inch.

When comparing the two it's not even fair for the FX7, in all honesty.

To imagine the differences will be minor is ridiculous.

I actually was talking about the FX7 being a good value and that I would hope Sony lowers the price of the V1u as well.

Anyway, I’m glad we can both agree that it’s not fare at all comparing a camcorder that costs $2,000 to a camcorder that costs $3,200.

Jeff, I have shot on a set where we used 2 V1's and 1 EX1. And guess what? I can tell you that the V1's 1/4" sensors did very well along side the EX1's 1/2" sensors. And they will undoubtedly do well when compared to the FX1000's 1/3" sensors. The differences will be minor, at best. Except in low light.

Hi Jeff. Comparing is not the same as equating. Never would I try to equate a $3k+ camcorder to a $2k camcorder. And knowing all the details of the specifications of the two camcorders really doesn't tell the whole story either. What will really count in my book will be the differences in actual performance; be it low light performance, motion capture, color accuracy, fine detail, clarity, etc., etc. Since most of my shooting is outdoors (80%), and my subjects are natural features and nature in scenic locations around the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes, those items such as fine detail, good colors, contrast, depth of field, and the clarity and quality of the picture itself, are essentail in capturing the best, cleanest, and most accurate picture I can afford.

Being on a limited budget, I always stretch what money I have to purchase the best possible. Value for what money I have is the bottom line. So sure the FX1000 is a better camcorder, but is it better enough to warrent the extra $1200? Time and actual testing will tell.

Thanks Greg for your response. I do like the FX7 and the results it can produce. I just don't want to be surprised (and disappointed) if I jump on the FX7 and then later find out that the FX1000 is capable of so much more than I or anyone else expected. I can always sell one of my kids if the FX1000 is that much better than the FX7 (joke). When you say that the FX7 did very well along side the EX1, can you elaborate?

Mike

Everyone knows (or should know) that in controlled lighting, a consumer cam can compare to a professional cam. In the right setting.

So is this a surprise that in a controlled evironment the FX7 compared favorably to any other cam? Of course not.

Have you ever seen the vacuum salesman method of demoing a sweeper? They pour rice crispies on the floor to show how "powerful" the vacuum is. Big whoop.

Jeff, you might want to read this "case study" from the real world.

Sony : All-action show shot on the HVR-V1E : Sweden

Hi Jeff. From my limited experience with an FX7 and my SR11 consumer cam, I agree with you that in a set setting, the two will perform very similar. However, when subjected to a variety of situations, there will be differences. My question is this: Will the differences between the FX1000 and the FX7, like the differences between the SR11 and the FX7, be enough to justify the extra money? So far I can tell you that the differences between the SR11 and the FX7 are very slight, but there are some. Especially with the type of scenes that I shoot, like the scenery of the Rocky Mountains, of Lake Michigan environments, and so on, with very little time spent indoors videoing family (thats my wifes job with the digital cam). Can't put my finger on it, but the picture from the FX7 "seems" slightly better, but I can't tell you how (which really bugs me). Will it be that close between the FX7 and the FX1000?
If so, then I would be content in spending my hard earned money on the FX7. But if the differences are greater than those between the SR11 and the FX7, then I will have to save for a greater period of time and get the FX1000. Time will tell, especially after it comes out and has been field tested.
So, thanks Jeff, for responding. I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Mike

Hey Mike,

I do think that the fx1000 will be different in many ways to the fx7. Having the 1/3" chips vs the 1/4" you will get shallower depth of field, better lowlight, and a better dynamic range. In all fairness this was an argument another videographer was making with going with the ex1 vs the Z7. My suggestion Mike is if you can get the money together and go with the FX1000 that will be a good choice. If it's a little tight to do so right now then get the FX7 use it for a bit and when your ready to upgrade sell it off. You won't go wrong with either choice for the type of work you do.

Monday

Thanks Isa. Those are beginning to be my thoughts also.

Mike

Thanks for pointing that out ISA.. Hopefully this post will be better than the better one.

I don't even make money on my videos and I scrapped together enough for an EX3. Although I have to admit, the FX1000, or the Sony pro version that will use CF cards.. either of those would be my second choice.

Actually I would like one of each. Maybe next year. :)

I said earlier in this thread that the FX1000 will blow the FX1 and Z1 out of the water not to mention the FX7, the topic of this thread.

Later, Mike Burgess asked "Will the differences between the FX1000 and the FX7, like the differences between the SR11 and the FX7, be enough to justify the extra money?".

James Strange posted an informal review of the FX1000 (actually his review is of the Z5, but that is merely the pro version of the FX1000) and here's an excerpt: "Yesterday I had the chance to play about with a demo version of the new Z5, and I compared it to a PD170. All I can say is.......W O W ! ! ! ! It was a simple little conference room, not much light, the Z5 (read FX1000) was CLEARLY BETTER in low light , no question. yes, you read right, the Z5 is BETTER in low light than the PD170 in my opnion, and I had them side by side, both set to DV, both on auto WB, both at 1/50z".

Sure, James' review is informal. However since his take on the cam falls in line with the stated specs on it, I trust it. The ONLY reason to buy an FX7 is because you cannot possibly raise the money for an FX1000. There will be NO COMPARISON between these cams.

This is the replacement for the famous VX2100. Actually to even compare the FX7 to the FX1000 is an insult to the FX1000.

I got $1800 for my FX7 last week on Ebay. I couldn't even sell it for $1650 on DVinfo net with virtually no hours on it, mint condition! Why? Because people who visit DVinfo.net classifieds know cameras. I got not one inquiry for a virtually brand new cam priced $350 off of the upcoming new list prices. Yet I saw a 2100 listed for $1700. That doesn't even make sense. Obviously the vx2100 will not sell at that price, but it shows the real value of the FX7.

BTW, Hans linked an article to some folks who used the FX7 in the Artic or some such thing and I made the ridiculous statement about how it changed my mind and how wrong I was...I was being sarcastic. The Artic is so bright ANY cam will work. And for night shooting they can use lights. Give me a break.

I was working just yesterday with footage that had been shot on the FX7 that I sold. It sucked. It was terrible. It was used alongside a PD150, and there was no comparison.

If the venue had been brighter, it would have been more fair for the FX7. But you cannot compare the two.

If someone were to have an FX7 for sale, I might consider giving $800 if it were lightly used. The FX7 has great audio, and I would love to have one to discreetly place as a backup cam and extra audio source.

Jeff, maybe no one on this forum was interested because you seemed to have so many problems with your FX7. You managed to convince me that you had a lemon. I have a V1 and a VX2100 and my experiences weren't anything like yours. But you won't get any argument from me that the VX2100/PD170 isn't a fantastic SD camcorder. I love mine. But I love my V1 even more. I am sorry you had so much trouble with your FX7 but it is gone now. No more grief.

Since my footage was pretty much the same as others I've seen does that mean they are all lemons? I doubt it. I have a friend who shoots with the FX7 and he's shown me footage he's shot with it along side PD170 in church. He was trying to convince me how great the camera was. I looked at the footage and just shook my head. What he thinks is satifactory and what I see as acceptable are totally different, that's all. That is likely the case here.

You seem interested enough. Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it.

The difference is the controls the cameras have. When I wrote my V1/FX7 book my goal was to show folks how to use their many controls.

When I wrote my SR12 book, my goal was how to get good video with a camera that had very few controls. That was no easy task given crazy triple level menu system. I had to work out HOW one could use this menu system in bright light when you can't see the LCD. I assume you know you can't see the menu through the VF.

And, no matter what you try -- there is no shutter control. None.

As far as pix quality -- if you are lucky in AUTO the SR12 shoots a very nice image. What Sony did with the SR12 is to increase saturation and add "red push." A very pretty pix. But, NOT accurate. I have to color correct every shot to get any accuracy.

The focus on low-light by posters reflect their needs -- not mine. I almost never shoot indoors. And, I've lived for several years with the 18lux JVC HD1 -- so the V1 worked fine anyplace I wanted to shoot. Other than wedding receptions -- what really happens in dark places? (And, LED light panels are simple solution.)

My only negative about the V1/FX7 was it didn't have the crisp look of the Z1. And, it is too big.

Steve, you said it. I have knocked this camera pretty hard, but the bottom line is if you don't have the need for bright, crisp footage, particlularly indoors, it might work just fine.

I shot an hour outdoors with it because I wanted 16:9, and the music video I created is one of my favorites, but it's too low contrast, too soft to use. Shots of the couple in the shade were particluarly poor and needed gain. In extremely well lit situations it was absolutely fine. It would also serve one well in a studio environment with controlled lighting.

The majority of users of this cam are not using it for weddings, as I tried. Those folks who do use it in churches and are happy with it have a different perception of what is acceptable than I do.

My mistake was I purchased the cam as a low cost way to get 16:9. But you get what you pay for. I have to say, though the onboard audio on the FX7 is outstanding, the best of any cam I've ever had. I hope the audio is as good on the FX1000.

For what its worth and i rarely film indoors my fx-f has better colour than a 2100 i had if awb stays working,manual and outdoor are too red for me,having said that my little sr12 is my favourite outdoor picture and its not bad indoors.The thing i love with the fx-7 is the lens 20x plus d extender ideal for nature.

Before I bought my V1, I did a 2 camera shoot with a Z1 and a V1. We spent a great deal of time setting up the cameras to get the same look. And it worked. In post, no one could see any difference in the footage from the 2 different cameras. Neither one was "crisper" or more saturated or more anything. Actually, I was disappointed in that, since I expected the V1 to have a slightly better "look" to the footage. But I do think there is an inherent problem with EVERY V1 (and FX7) sold. The back focus seems to be improperly adjusted on every V1 I have seen. Getting critical focus is much more difficult and more obvious if it is wrong when shooting in HDV. The somewhat low res viewfinder and LCD do not really help the situation either. And if the backfocus is out, zooming in to focus and pulling back out to frame the shot is like shooting yourself in the foot. But when you get it right, I am continually amazed at how good the footage looks. BTW. My V1 is currently at Sony Service getting the backfocus set.

Thanks Steve.

WOW. That's exactly how I felt. So good and then, suddenly, in a wide shot so bad.

Does Sony really admit to this problem?

How do you prove it to them?

When I initially spoke to the lady who answered the phone at Sony she told me that they were familiar with the problem and she did state that they "fix them all the time". However, I have never gotten anyone at Sony to admit that it was a universal problem. I don't know what you would have to do to prove it to the point of forcing a factory recall. I have personally had my hands on 2 V1's and an FX7 and they all performed exactly the same. And the backfocus was out on all of them. Mine should be back today or tomorrow. I am anxious to get my hands on it and test it out.

I had my back focus fixed almost a year ago and it is still functioning properly. On shoots where I don't have a monitor I check with VF peaking to be sure.

Guys, consider yourselves lucky with the V1 and Sony's Pro division... I don't know how things work in the US for consumer retail channels, but over here I can't even hope to reach Sony for my FX7 - I bought it through a major retailer chain which ordinarily provide service and extended warranty themselves I believe. Those people can understand when something is plainly broken, but when it's below somebody's quality standards, it's just that: below that person's quality standards.

Luckily enough, there's the work-around Steve mentioned in another thread - only zoom as much as you will really need during the shot, and use Push Auto Focus. Frustrating still, esp. as the manual mentions "Tips for focusing manually: It is easier to focus on the subject when you use the zoom function. Move the power zoom lever towards T (telephoto) to adjust the focus, and then, towards W (wide angle) to adjust the zoom for recording". Haha!

That's like recommending a sniper get up close to the target for better accuracy!

One thing I discovered early on with my V1:

Macro focus is enabled by default from the factory, or whenever the factory reset is enabled.

Zoom in to manually focus and zoom out to the shot doesn't work with macro focus on, apparently macro changes the backfocus.

Turning off macro focus in the camera menus fixed this problem on my V1. I can now zoom in for manual focus, zoom out to the shot, and it all stays in focus. Probably the same on the FX7...