Anybody have FX7 footage yet?
 

Well, the FX7 has been available for a few days now... is nobody buying it or is there just no footage available yet?

I think that there has been too much hype on the recent release of the new Canon's XHA1/G1 cameras, which has stolen Sony'e thunder right now, in a big way. Even though it may have better optics due to the new 3 CMOS sensors (no verticle smear and grreater picture latitude), jury's still oput, the new Canon's have beter pro manual controls for only a few hundred more than the FX7.
Unless Sony permanently reduces the price of the FX7 to B&H's temporary promo price for Photo Expo attendees (of $2800), then the FX7 may linger in obscurity.

The same won't be said of the V1U though, which has quite a buzz around it. It's only a few hundred more than the Canon A1. And if the CMOS sensors work great as what Sony has been reporting, then the V1U will battle it out with the Canons.

Which as I said, if the price of the FX7 again doesn't come down, then sales may remain slugish. Which would be a shame, because it looks like a great consumer camera.

Wow ... still looks like no one on this message board has bought an FX7 yet, whereas the Canon A1 forum is exploding with new users ... I'm guessing Sony loyalists are waiting for the V1 to appear.

If anyone has bought an FX7, I'd be highly interested in how its lowlight performance compares to the FX1/Z1 ... though we may have to wait until December when the V1 comes out to hear about that ...

Videomaker has some FX7 clips available.

http://www.videomaker.com/blog/2006/...dr-fx7-footage

as un-color corrected clips those look pretty great.

That is pretty nice footage. The coastline clips really have a nice feel to them. But I wonder why those clips and the fruit basket clip don't have the interlace artifacts like the last clip of the seagull? Is it because only the seagull clip was handheld?

Yes you don't notice the interlacing in the other clips because they are locked off and there is very minimal subject movement, where as in the seagull clip it is hand held and the subject is moving.

I'm very impressed with the raw clips.
I'll be interested to see 'if' theres any difference between the FX7 & V1U image.

HDV files should be played on the latest version of DIVX because unlike VLC, you don’t see any of those artifacts. VLC is very good for other video sources but it’s to jerky when playing back handheld HDV footage. Play the footage on DIVX and you’ll be amazed.

The clips look very nice but nothing that we hadn't seen the HC1 do. Check out Paulo's stuff in Azores and you'll see pretty much the same. I guess the difference will come from difficult shooting conditions, such as when there's high contrast areas and so on.

Paulo,

Thanks for the Divx suggestion. It works great on playing back the files at the proper speed on my older computer. No more VLC for me.

Regards,

Dave Ferdinand,
I appreciate your comments about my footage and that’s only a small sample of what I did last year. Pond5 still has to upload the rest of my footage and because I gave them about 170 something clips on 4 DVDs, it may take a while. My best shots are not online yet so look back next month and you’ll be amazed.

The problem with Videomaker’s clips is that it wasn’t taken in a proper day for example in the hdfx7_capture_04.m2t clip you can obviously see a lot of clouds. If there were much fewer clouds you would have seen a lot more contrast and saturation. Just give me an FX7 or a V1u and I’ll show you what the camcorders is capable of.

Mark Williams,
I’m glad you’re taking my advice about using DIVX because I hear all over the place that VLC should be used when it can't even play HDV files properly.

Nero Showtime is also a really good player for HDV files.

I’ve looked at the clips. Very nice, there is no problem with the cloud cover; I like the way that looks. Looks a bit like stuff I’ve seen off the new Canons. Not quite like the FX1, but might be near enough. I will probably get the V1U, for now. XDCAM soon!

And Paulo, old chap; when I get my hands on one of these cameras I’m not giving it to you! But I shall gladly recount my delights.

These images have a wonderful anti-aliased quality about them. The fine lines of the foreground grasses are very capably rendered. Clearly this camera has bags of resolution. Looking forward to see more clips.

On the VLC comments:

I use VLC and have no problems with interlacing. VLC has many different de-interlacing schemes to suite any taste. What can Divx be doing that VLC can't be setup to do? There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

TT

Tony Tremble,
Your right about VLC having deinterlace options that eliminates the interlacing artifacts but to me the video quality of DIVX is more fluid and you don’t have to change anything in the menu.

Divx does the same, but chooses the method for you. If you want optimal control, VLC works better.

How come DIVX won't play these .m2t files??? I went to www.divx.com and downloaded the player, but it won't recognize .m2t files...

John

I had the same problem. Divx didn't work for me either.

TT

Hi guys.
VLC plays these files just fine for me. as does media player. The only suggestion i have is that you download the windows media HD codec. Don't know? good luck guys.

P.S. was anyone else dissapointed with the color levels being so low. My brother bought his wife the single chip HD and the footage looks very similar frankly. Is the FX1 like this???

Justin

3-chip cameras generally major in color accuracy. If the color saturation as dialled-in by default is too low for your liking you simply increase the color saturation via the menu item on the cam. Or you could do it in a software editor.

Footage in good light will be fairly similar between most SonyHDV cams shooting 1080i. There will be differences, but you may have to view them 'side-by-side' to see them and of course, a large hi-res TV is probably going to be necessary. Single-chip HDV cams like HC1 are not going to match cameras like Fx7 and Fx1 in low-light (HC1's weakness) but in good light they will probably look fairly similar. Basic res (per spec) is the same of course.

I was very curious about the FX7, specially because of it's CMOS and compact size (I do a lot of street work and run and gun). But after seeing the footage and reading the user's guide I have no doubt about getting the Canon Xh-A1. It has SO MUCH more options when it comes to image control, pro audio, very decent pseudo progressive, very good latitude, amazing DOF. I think Sony will have to drop the price drastically if they want the FX7 to have any chance at all. The price difference is so little that it's very very hard to believe somebody would choose the FX7 over the A1...well, maybe skaters, backpackers and other people who ABSOLUTELY need a smaller camera.

You raise an interesting point about features, but you won't get the FX7's image with an A1. :)

Where did you find the FX7 manual?

Well price difference is US$1000 which isn't so little.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search


But really anyway the V1 is the XH-A1's direct competitor, and there the price difference is just US$200 at the same store.

Stu that FX7 price is a current promotional price to attendeed of Photo World (or something like that), the link has been passed around forums for a week now. Don't know how long this deal will be available.

The actual current price if you look the FX7 up on B&H's website is this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

Now the price may eventually drop to $2800 (which it should be), but right now it's not so.

From all the amazing A1 footage I've been seeing you should be saying "but you won't get the A1 image with the FX7"

The price difference in Spain is very little. The A1 is around 3300€ and the FX1 is like 3000€.

No doubt, the coastline footage just blew me away and made my jaw drop comparing the footage to UX1 and SR1 footage.

In the UK the price is £2200 for the FX7 and £2350 for the A1.

The XLR inputs alone make this a no brainer! But the wider field of view, the large lowlight advantage, the 1/3" chip size, the added depth of field, the proven Frame mode and the huge range of custom options blow the sony into the weeds.

My dealer has has a delivery of FX7's and there are going nowhere fast. Even he said I should wait for the A1 and he is one of Sony's top sellers!!!!!!

To me, the FX7 won't sell many here unless it's around £1600-£1750 which I bet it will be in the not to distant.....

I have been waiting for a camera like the A1 for a very long time and I can't believe after Sony's domination over the GL1/2 XM1/2 with the VX2000/2100 in the SD domain that Canon are the company bringing it to us, not the superpower of Sony. Good on you Canon and roll on the UK release!

Regarding the "lowlight advantage", are you speaking from experience with both of these cameras? Or some other information source?

I have seen the two side by side mate and believe me, there is no comparison in lowlight! The FX7 isn't terrbile like the HC1, but compared to the results you can achieve with the A1, it really isn't in the same class. If you look at the recent night footage clips posted on the Canon A1/G1 sections of these forums you will see what the A1 is capable of.

I kinda get the feeling sony tried so hard not to steal sales from their current HDV cameras (FX1/Z1) that they have shot themselves in the foot. I'm pretty sure they could have created something much more comparable, maybe even better with their resources and especially their history of class leading Lowlight camcorders. Canon simply threw caution to the wind and created the best camera they could at the time, without fear of whether people would stop buying the H1.

The proof really is in forums like these. The FX7 has been available for roughly the same amount of time as the A1, yet look at the lack of activity on this forum compared to the A1 forum which is a hive of activity.

I'm on the fence between XH-A1 and V1 and I think this sort of conclusion is premature. FX7 is mainly bought and used by people not usually participating in forums like this. Just wait and see the input of the V1 users, after it hits the shelves.

It will be very interesting as I know a few reviews are creeping out here in the UK and the reponse to the V1 so far has not been that great. As you say, people will start to post the V1 footage and responses fairly soon and we can see.

I've been across every forum going over the last few weeks and can't help feeling a lacklustre response towards sony's new boys and a sense of real excitement about the canon. The fact remains if the FX7/V1 were A1 beaters, we would all know about it by now as enough people have had their hands on them.

Steady on Shaun,

The V1 is not even released yet. It is way too early to be so pessimistic about the Sony cameras.

I would suggest you look at Steve Mullen's excellent articles HDV@Work in particular:

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...titude_111106/

Sony is offering something different. When people get hold of the new cameras you'll start hearing more buzz about the latitude.

The XH-A1 produces a very fine image but it still looks like any other video camera from the last decade only higher in resolution. The images from the Sony V1 don't.

I am amazed that low light is such an issue. How many of us are nocturnal and live and work in near pitch darkness? I realise a camera should have some capability in low light but is it the deal killer many would have you believe? Not to me.

When I was at university I was taught how to light a dark scene and I know this camera will not have a problem. For news and documentaries it would be quite appropriate to put a camera light on it as necessary.

I think you'll find the low light performance of the V1 is actually quite favourable compared to the XDCAM HD cameras. You won't find too many of those owners operators bitching about low light because they'll know how to light a scene correctly.

The V1 will be available in the first week of Dec in the UK. Wait to see more footage before making, frankly, ludicrous statements like, "Sony have dropped a ball and they know it!"

TT

THen how do you account for comments on this board in the last few days from long-term and highly-knowledgeable members that include (comparing XH-A1 and FX1 image in lowlight, for eg.) :

"Unless a Canon shooter wants really high shutter speeds in bright light, 12db of gain in low light will produce very grainy video- I've tried all sorts of settings for the last hour and the Sony is noticeably better."

"As far as my limited use of both cameras- I'll have to agree the FX-1 is better in low light video retaining a smooth video albeit darker as where the A1 video becomes noisy and grainy......I've tried 24F and 30F (on the Canon) and the Sony is definitely better at 0-3-6db of gain- at higher gain the FX shows it's advantge even more."

"As much as I like this new A1- the FX-1 seems better at equal settings to that of the A1. At room light and higher levels- they produce good video but the FX1 is noticeably smoother and noise-free as the light drops off. There's a switch on the Canon to turn off the AGC circuit and this easily reveals the FX-1's superior low-light shooting abilities (when comparing db levels)"

Here where I am, on the forums I visit, we use this to stop a situ like this from going too far:

"Stop feeding the troll".

So it's EOT from me.

Okay folks, I've just now removed some rather ugly comments that added nothing to the value of this technical discussion. Perhaps a reminder is once again needed here: personal flames -- and responses to personal flames -- have never been, nor never will be tolerated on this site. We want to keep the signal high and the noise low.

Do NOT respond to flames. INSTEAD you need to use the "report bad post" icon, the exclamation point in a triangle icon which is to the left of every post. That will bring the matter to our attention and we'll deal with it.

Some of you guys who have been here for awhile, I have to say, I'm disappointed in you for responding as you have. For a clueless newbie who has not done his bit to research how this forum works, I can expect them to make a stupid mistake which results in permanent ejection out of here. But the rest of you guys, you should know better that we simply don't tolerate that kind of nonsense so why do you participate in it. Use the cotton-pickin' Report Bad Post function next time. Or else!

This is a quality control issue. Do not flame. Do not respond to flames. Heck, do not respond to THIS message. I'm leaving this topic open for now -- but the first person who makes a comment here about something other than FX7 footage, will be next one to get booted. You'll know that's happened because the thread will then be closed.

This site ain't your typical internet free-for-all, gentlemen. This is a carefully pruned garden. This is a library. Please conduct yourselves accordingly -- and thanks in advance.

And now... back to FX7 footage.

Alright, so... FX7 footage. I went ahead and bought one for myself since nobody has had any solid answers yet from hands-on experience. I'm also an FX1/Z1U so I feel it appropriate to give a mini-review of sorts.

So I used the Z1U and the FX7 side by side on a shoot the other day and the following comments are just my observations on the FX7's comparative performance:

1) Low light - not as good as the Z1, but not that bad. About half an f-stop slower than the Z1.

2) Color reproduction was phenominal, both indoor and out. Colors were rich and accurate, even in low light conditions with gain boosted. Z1 lost it's colors and was mostly yellowish and dull in the same low light - Z1 loves the yellows!

3) Dynamic range on outdoor stuff seemed really impressive. I shot the side of a medium tone, brick church in the middle of the day. every detail on the building was perfect and the sky was not overexposed at all. I didn't shoot the same thing with the Z1, but I've used it enough to know that it couldn't perform quite that well. Also, glare is extremely minimized, even when shooting directly at a light source.

4) Resolution - noticeably sharper than the Z1. It's extremely sharp... however, the sharpness of the image makes it even more difficult for the camera's codec to keep up with the fast motion - I only noticed a problem on one particular frame, so maybe it was just some sort of weird error.

5) Digital zoom on the FX7 is actually pretty impressive. It actually doesn't look like digital zoom at all and seems to retain most of the resolution. Oh, and the 20x lens is awesome as well. Of course if you use that full 30x of the zoom plus digital extender, it's pretty difficult to do any sort of smooth camera movement, even on a good tripod.

6) I'm not sure why anybody would care about the on-board microphone, but I noticed people were asking, so here it goes - it sucks. Sound quality is actually good, but if you zoom, push a button, or basically touch the camera at all, the mic pics it up. It's very sensitive to body noise, although it didn't seem to pick up much transport noise... kind of weird actually.

7) The zoom ring is one thing that is definitely far superior on the Z1. The zoom ring on the FX7 feels laggy and is not at all repeatable.

8) Contrast Enhancer and Cine-Gamma - both super lame and unusable. The Contrast Enhancer is a cool concept but it seems to be all-auto all the time... it's supposed to pull down clipping highlights and, in turn, increase your latitude, but it's totally unusable since you can't lock it to a certain level (at least I couldn't get it to stay). The Cine-Gamma is another worthless tool that further minimizes your latitude by crushing your lows and pushing your highs. I guess it's usable if you are just doing point and shoot straight out to DVD, but if you plan on doing any sort of color correction/grading, then keep the Cine-Gamma off!

Well, I guess that's about all I can think of right now. Again, these are just my observations from one day of shooting. Hopefully this is helpful to somebody! In conclusion, it's a great little camera - whether or not it is a great camera for you simply depends on what you plan on using it for.

-Pasty

Thanks for the report, Pasty. I have a question about this:

"1) Low light - not as good as the Z1, but not that bad. About half an f-stop slower than the Z1.

2) Color reproduction was phenominal, both indoor and out. Colors were rich and accurate, even in low light conditions with gain boosted. Z1 lost it's colors and was mostly yellowish and dull in the same low light - Z1 loves the yellows!"

These seem to contradict each other. Is it that the Z1 can get an image better into lower overall light and that the V1 gets a better image but loses it earlier? For instance, is the V1 producing a nice image in fairly dim light but nothing at all in very dim? Does the FX1, in contrast to the V1, get a yellow image in fairly dim but still gets some useable image in very dim?

Has anyone compared the V1 in 1/30th shutter to the FX7 in it's native 1/60th shutter (due to interlaced only)? Has this same comparison with the V1 been done directly against the FX1? I'm wondering if the V1 may be superior to the FX7 in low light because it won't lose resolution at the slower shutter speed. I know motion blur at low shutter can be a problem, but I don't mind 1/30th shutter.

Thanks Pasty for that review. So based on your impressions so far, do you think you'll be getting the V1 to replace your Z1?