FX1 or another PD170?
 

I am in the market for a second camera right now. I am a wedding videography and currently use a PD170 & TRV900.
The TRV900 isn't doing the job I want it to. The low light ability isn't the greatest and the gain noise isn't as nice as the PD170.
So I am in the market for either another PD170 or I have been thinking of getting the HDR-FX1, because it is the latest and greatest.

Can anybody tell me why I should get one over the other?
What is the low light ability of the FX1 in reality? I hear the gain is cleaner than the 170, but in reality how does it match up?

I need to decide on something quick, and any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Jeff: if you need to make a quick decision I'd say you're safer getting another PD170, because it's something you're familiar with and then you'll have two matching cameras. However, I just shot a wedding using two Sony HDV cameras and I'm very impressed with the resulting footage, including in all but the very dimmest low-light situations. I haven't used a PD170 so I can't make that comparison for you, but HDV is worth checking out before you spend too much more money on DV equipment. If there's a rental shop with an HDV camera near you, I'd suggest renting one for a day and test it in a variety of conditions running side by side with your PD170, then make a decision about what to buy. Make sure you have access to a good HDTV to display the resulting footage...

Thats the other thing! I don't even have an HDTV!!
But I just can't help but feeling like buying the PD170 is like buying something on the backend of the technology cycle.

Plus all the manual controls on the FX1 are very very nice.

I'd agree with that assessment and am working on doing a full conversion to HDV myself, but that's something you want to think through carefully before you make any buying decisions. Once you buy one HDV camera you may find yourself wanting another one, plus you'll need a fast dual-core or dual-processor editing system, some software upgrades, an HDTV display for viewing your output, and so on. By the time you're done you're looking at an investment of at least $10,000 or so, and for now it's a bit of a challenge to market HDV due to distribution limitations. Personally I think HDV is great and am wondering what to do with the DV camera I bought last year, which pales in comparison to the image quality from the FX1. But I wouldn't recommend making any quick decisions right now unless you're sure you know what you want.

Maybe you could simply rent a second PD170 for your next few events while you assess your options more carefully? In one sense that's money down the drain, but making a quick decision now might cost you more in the long run.

The Z1 is attractive because it also shoots DVCAM just as the PD170. So you don't need to use it in HDV mode until/if such time arrives that you need it. In a way, you'd be future-proofing yourself (assuming that HDV becomes a viable and widely accepted format).

From all I've read, it's not quite as good in low light as the PD170, and for weddings, that could be an issue.

One thing you might consider is to get a VX2100 as your second camera. It should match the PD170 fine and costs a lot less since it's not DVCAM and doesn't have XLRs, etc. I think the VX2100 isn't much over $2,000 these days.

I can't find any here in Canada though, everyplace I call says the VX2100 is discontinued.

Jeff:

Firstly I have it from reliable sources (thats always subjective) that Sony plan to stop production of the VX2100 and later to start scaling down the production of their earlier DV cameras due to the advent of the new HDV range currently (and shortly) available.

Bill made a valid comment in future-proofing yourself by having an HDV camera. I do believe that this will be a VERY popular choice for prosumers and proffessionals alike in the future - much the same when DV first arrived on the market a few years back.

You don't have a HDTV - me neither, yet I am working on that one if people will just allow me to test:). These are becoming more readily available and will be dropping in price - methinks that by year end come Christmas, the price war and competition will be on amongst the manufacturers to capture the high end market.

That was my reckoning (amongst others) when I first purchased a HDV camera (FX1).

To answer your question on the PD170 lowlight versus the FX1 - I have done enough events to satisfy myself that on a even comparison between the two cameras, there is nothing to choose from a low lighting point of view. In fact, the footage I have when comparing the two cameras in exactly the same lighting conditions - good, low and very low - the FX1 and Z1 comes out tops. For each situation, there will come a solution - just plan ahead.

Weddings are notoriously lit low making it a nightmare for videographers - I make sure that BOTH my cameras have lights on at eg. a reception where low lighting REALLY starts mattering - its not as though the lights will be on the entire night - just for your key shots.

Coupled with the greatly enhanced features and quality of the HDV cameras, this becomes a no brainer to me - but thats my personal viewpoint.

Good luck with your choice and as many have said before, if you doubt - hire one and test for yourself

Cheers

FWIW, I don't own an HDTV yet either. I do have a WUXGA projector and an 11' screen, plus my Sony 234 monitor, but that's not the same....:-)
I've been holding out for a "true" HDTV that supports 1920 x 1080, I've got the space for it, so waiting. However, we also own 3 Z1's, and just ordered an A1, so lack of monitor hasn't set me back from jumping into the HDV arena at all.
FWIW, we're selling our FW 750, and staying in the HDV arena for a while. Or at least that's the plan

Jeff,

If you already own a PD170 I think it's best if you get another to match. Unless you do what I did. I just sold my PD170 at a really great price of 2,800 and was about to purchase Tommy Haupfear FX1 but was no longer available. However, I got one at a better price of $2,450 and it's practically brand new. With the money left over I bought a brand new Beachtek DX6 for $160 on Ebay. Anyway, the ONLY reason I'm changing over is the true widescreen on the FX1 and the HD is just the icing on the cake. I'm looking for a buyer for my VX2100 and hoping to get another good deal on an FX1.

I don't have HDTV but I do own a 42" Plasma EDTV that does 720p. It didn't look as good on my plasma when I hooked up my FX1. But I will write another thread on this issue. Maybe DSE can tell me why.

It's really a tough choice.


Ray

I would be interested to know how you connected to your Plasma - DVI / Component??

Cheers

Please see this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48042

Thanks for all your help, I think I am just going to try and rent a 170 or 2100 for the next couple of months to get through this busy season and re-assess the situation next year.

Jeff, as a former PD150 user who now touts an FX1, I would urge you don't even consider the older camera.

The FX1 delivers more solid, accurate colour than the PD, which is not surprising considering it has a much newer and bigger res CCD. The 16:9 picture looks much more professional than the PD's 4:3 view. I am also sure you will find the HDV part useful at some point as well. The PD just does not give you these things.

As far as low light goes, a lot of people on this forum who appear (to me at least) to have no real experience of using a variety of cameras, have argued this point far to much. The FX1's picture looks better than the PD's in low light. The pd looks grainy and shallow in comparison. The FX1, even if it may be a stop and a half less sensitive (which is nothing) gives the better picture in these conditions.

It's a different camera altogether. When you get to know the FX, it's not even worth making a comparison to the old PD.

I would suggest refraining from these kind of remarks since you don't know for sure what each persons' background is.

Speak from your own experience and let the readers of the forum decide for themselves.

Cheers

Jeremy, you should read my post more carefully and you might realise it is my own opinion.

Anyway there are people here who have not had extensive/or any experience with both camera's and I am trying reflect my experience, and hopefully add something to the discussion going on here.

Standard definition is flat out obsolete. In this day and age all wedding videographers should shoot in high definition. A wedding video is an heirloom that lasts a lifetime and it needs the future proofing of high definition.

You can always rent to start out. I can get a FX1 in L.A. for 175.00 a day
Best,
Stephen

On the other side of the coin, shooting in HD now does not give you something to deliver the product on. You can downconvert it to SD but you're somewhat defeating the purpose. I would also argue that the majority of wedding clients would not come back in 2-3 years for their HD copy. For those who run a business the last thing you want to do is re-visit weddings from previous years.

Weddings Videos are heirlooms but to say that SD is obsolete is incorrect when the vast majority of people still own SD TV's.

When the HD delivery format finally arrives, the public adopts it and last but not least my customers start asking for it then will I adopt it.

[QUOTE=Mathew Evan] I would also argue that the majority of wedding clients would not come back in 2-3 years for their HD copy. For those who run a business the last thing you want to do is re-visit weddings from previous years.

Weddings Videos are heirlooms but to say that SD is obsolete is incorrect when the vast majority of people still own SD TV's.
QUOTE]

I would have to disagree here. Business is business, and part of that business is selling services that benefit your client at a profit to the business.
If you have the ability to shoot HD now, then you have the ability to:

a-deliver a MUCH better picture in SD, which is your responsibility to the client, IMO. Just because they're satisfied with a lesser quality doesn't mean you should be delivering it.

b-upsell them on the HD copy in 24-36 months. After all, you own the master. You may be right; the customer may not be coming to you. That's why I get phone calls, snail mail, and email in the form of *advertising.* These people are asking me to come to them. That's what businesses do.

Further, how many referrals will you get if you shoot SD today,and they ask for an HD copy in a couple years when the customer does have a hi-def monitor? Any business (as opposed to a part time hobbyist) that isn't future-looking all the time, is simply biding time until they close their doors, whether it's video or selling tires.

I won't offer an opinion about the marketability of HD to brides and grooms, but I do take issue with the statement above. With the FX1 and Z1 you can shoot in HDV 1080i mode and choose a menu option where the camera downconverts, sending a 480i SD signal over firewire. So no extra work is involved in maintaining HDV masters while capturing and editing SD. But the SD image you get using this process is noticeably cleaner than shooting in SD mode.

If you get a Z1 you also have the ability to shoot PAL which might come in handy someday.

I'm not so much commenting on marketing to brides/grooms either, but rather the statement about business, and people not coming to the production company looking for something. This is marketing 101....take your product to the people, rather than the other way around. HD is a nice bullet point in a marketing brochure, yellow page ad, or business card.
Same comment as Boyd made, and I made in the post above. Shoot HDV and downconverting offers a much better image than you'll get with even very high end SD cameras. For a quarter the cost.

>Shoot HDV and downconverting offers a much better image than you'll get with even very high end SD cameras. For a quarter the cost>

If a person has FCP5, which I understands edits HDV, are you saying that if you shoot HDV, edit HDV, then deliver SD masters or DVDs, the quality is better than if you used a bigger chip camera and stayed SD all the way?
The Sony demo DVD of the Z1 looks as if this would be true, but I'm assuming that was bumped to HD and edited full HD and then downconverted.

Or are you saying shoot HDV and downconvert when you capture?

I still use FCP 4.5, but have read that FCP 5 does a good job of downconverting. But I was suggesting shooting HDV and using the camera to downconvert. This is done from the IN/OUT menu (hmm, that reminds me of Clockwork Orange ;-) You would choose i.LINK CONV and set it for ON. Now all that data from the firewire port will be in SD DV format.

I've tried a quick test shooting the same thing in DV mode and then HDV with in-camera down-conversion. The downsampled footage was noticeably more detailed. Still frames looked a little better, but watching the video in motion showed even more improvement.

So unless you want to shoot DVCAM, or if you want to play the tapes in a regualr DV deck, it seems best to shoot everything in 1080i and downconvert with the camera if you need SD. You can also choose to output component video shot in HDV mode as 480p which looks really nice on my widescreen LCD. Unfortunately there is no way to send the 480p (or 576p in PAL mode) video out the firewire port.

[QUOTE=Bill Pryor]>Shoot HDV and downconverting offers a much better image than you'll get with even very high end SD cameras. For a quarter the cost>
The Sony demo DVD of the Z1 looks as if this would be true, but I'm assuming that was bumped to HD and edited full HD and then downconverted.
QUOTE]

HDV is a subset of the HD standard. It is HD. Just because it's compressed HD doesn't mean it's not HD. Most HD is either compressed, chroma subsampled, or both. No matter what cam at what price range. There is this ridiculous myth that if it's not 4:2:2 YUV from the cam, it's not HD, or not broadcastable, or not pro, or other such nonsense.

That said, the Sony footage was shot on a prototype Z1, captured via component in, edited as HD, and delivered as SD. That's not quite the workflow we use, and our images are actually better than what that was back then. Remember, that's technology that goes back nearly a year now, and in HDV-land, a year is ancient.

The place you do the downconversion is entirely dependent on what NLE you use. If you use FCP 5, I'd NEVER consider downsampling in the NLE. If you use Vegas, I'd ONLY consider downsampling there. Vegas does better downsamples than the camera hardware does, and FCP does worse downsamples than the camera hardware does. A lot of NLE's fall in between those places. For FCP for instance, I'll take the HD analog outs of the cam, capture as SD using a Convergent Design, BlueFish, or Aja box as either 8 or 10 bit. In Vegas, I capture the m2t stream, convert to either CineForm 4:2:2, 4:2:2 YUV, or 4:1:1 DV proxy, entirely depending on how the client wants the media delivered. In the case of the Sony DVD, they knew it was going to DVD, and I'm sure they wanted to stay in the 4:2:0 world, simply to avoid transcoding. However, when that DVD was made, there was nothing available that could capture a 1080i stream from the cam.

This raises a question I've been wondering about. If you set the component output to downconvert HDV to 480p you get a very nice looking progressive image. Is there some reasonably priced card which can capture 480p (and 576p) on the Mac as an alternative to working in HD?

Actually there is, but we don't yet have the mainstream delivery solutions we'll be getting next year. Plus HDV downsamples very nicely to true widescreen SD video, which only a handful of SD cameras can produce. So you can deliver excellent widescreen video to any customer and "pretty good" HD video to high-tech customers willing to work with current delivery options. Things are good now and will be much better in another 6-12 months.

Saying HDV isn't HD is like saying DV isn't real SD video just because it happens to be compressed more.

Boyd a SD decklink uncompressed card can be had for around $295.00. The problem is that the card is SDI only and all current HDV cameras only have firewire and component output. There is the Decklink Extreme that is the same as the card above except it has component inputs and outputs for SD. That card I think is $895.00. I haven't tried it but using that card with the component jacks on a HDV camera should give very nice quality for "live" shooting.

SD is not obselete
 

This one goes out to Tommy with the comment on SD being obsolete. I definitely do not agree. If you are primarily shooting for DVD, there is no discernable difference. I have edited a lot of footage downgraded from HDV to SD off of Z1's and Canon XLHD. The Canon does have a very nice picture, but essentially on DVD the difference is nothing. I have a nice screen to view the end product on and I have tested footage from my PD170P compared to footage from the Z1, there is no difference. In fact, the Z1 has very poor dynamic range and will not beat the PD170P in low light. I can get an excellent picture with little grain even at +15db, whereas the Z1 would lose it in the blacks and because of poor dynamic range be hard to pull anything out without severe mosquito noise. The Z1 is prone to overshooting and blowing out the highlights and HDV is unforgiving if you have the focus slightly out. Also if you get a dropout, it is pretty severe on HDV, DV standard def is hardly noticeable. Nobody is interested in HDDVD or Blu-Ray just yet, also the majority of TV's are not true high definition, so until it becomes mass market, standard definition is far from over. Once they start producing High Definition TV's (that are affordable) and networks broadcast in all HD, then we may see the shift occur. For now and especially for shooting weddings and live events, SD is great. I would rather shoot with the PD170P for any night event than the Z1. Actually, I am waiting until Sony bring out something better!

I'd disagree with that for delivery in widescreen format, which is what looks best on modern HDTVs. When I compared several HD and SD cameras side-by-side last year shooting the same test subjects, the SD footage deteriorated badly when converted to widescreen format. If you're delivering 4:3 output then that doesn't matter, but that probably means your customers are viewing your finished videos in "stretch" mode on their best HDTV.

No question the PD170 is a champ when it comes to low-light shooting, but the Z1U is serving many folks well in all but the worst lighting conditions. If you must shoot without additional lighting in a very dark room then the PD170 has an edge, but you can add light to a dark scene and you can't add resolution to an SD camera. Focus issues are similar unless you're planning to deliver in HD, in which case HDV clearly has an edge for image quality and you just have to learn how to focus accurately. Dropouts have been less of an issue for me shooting HDV than they were shooting DV (perhaps because the error correction is better), and even a 1-frame dropout in DV will ruin a shot just as much as a longer dropout would in HDV. For anything critical either run two cameras or attach a hard-drive recorder to a tape-based camera, then dropouts become a neglible issue.

I've had several customers inquire about HD delivery over the past year or so and recently sold a Blu-ray upgrade to someone who doesn't even own a Blu-ray player yet. Most TVs for sale in most electronics stores now are at least 720p resolution (which is by definition HD), and I recently picked up a 1080p set for about $1100. Networks are starting to brag about shooting in HD even on their SD broadcast channels, and there's a similar marketing opportunity for independent producers regardless of how the final output is delivered.

The Sony XDCAM EX may prove to be the answer for those who haven't been happy with current low-cost HD cameras, but it won't come cheap. Once that's available the main excuse for not shooting in HD will be if customers simply don't want to pay for it, and there's no arguing with that. But eventually HD will become standard and customers will come to expect it for professional work, so it's mainly a question of when to make the switch. Now that HD delivery is becoming a practical reality it's time to have a production process in mind if customers inquire about HD, and be prepared to implement that if someone's willing to pay enough to make it worthwhile.

First off, it's always a bit scary when a nearly 3 year old post gets dredged up. You have to read what you wrote years ago and it'll throw you for a loop. :-)
Second, I have to dispute the comment that "primarily shooting for DVD, there is no discernable difference." This simply isn't accurate. At all. Not only are these threads filled with hundreds of comments that the quality is easily seen, but it makes no sense. If it made no difference, why shoot Hollywood releases on 35mm, since *most* Hollywood films never make it to the big screen, they're for broadcast or DVD?
In my "weekend" job, I shoot between 5 and 12 scenes a day (skydiving). I'm the only guy using HDV. Every other person uses SD, most of them shooting PC109s. From editors to students, everyone comments on why my DVDs consistently look better.
The delivery format isn't the determining factor. The acquisition format is everything.

From shooting I've done and seen with a friend's Z1, the dynamic range is greater than the PD150, and I've done some low light shooting with the camera with no problem. No mosquito noise. I don't think SD is obsolete yet, but everyone I know is shooting 16:9, so having a camera with 16:9 chips is a definite advantage.

I'm on the board of a film festival and every year do TV spots as well as a trailer loop with interviews, etc., to run in 4 theaters in advance of the festival. This past year the friend with the Z1 shot the TV spots, which I included in my theater loop. I shot some interviews under very similar lighting setups with our DSR500ws, in 16:9, and his footage from the Z1 actually looked better than our $30K package. That sold me on the Z1,though I bought a Canon XH A1 instead because of the lens and 24 fps capability. I could have been equally happy with the Z1. I've seen none of the HDV artifacts, except in one overexposed shot, but you get that in DV also if you overexpose diagonal lines.

I know it's a strong statement to say a $5K camera looks better than a 2/3" chip camera with an expensive lens, but in this case it does; and I'm comparing downconverted footage on the final DVD. There are still some advantages of a 2/3" chip camera, and I'm not ready to give it up--but if I were on the market today, I wouldn't buy one. For the work I do--documentaries, corporate/training, some local TV spots, an occasional thing that goes to PBS or cable--HDV with any of the current crop of 1/3" chip cameras is good enough. Some things I've shot have been shown on Bravo and IFC and many festivals. I haven't done any feature work, but one of our best looking entries at last year's festival was "Mojave Phone Booth." It was shot with a couple of Z1s.These cameras, however, are not nearly as user friendly as a 2/3" chip camera. It takes longer to set up a shot, the controls aren't as fast or intuitive, and on a tripod a lanc controller is almost a must. For me this is true whether it's an SD or HD small camera.

I've been using a VX2000 and PD170 for a few years now, and last month I purchased an FX7. I can say that the FX7 wipes the floor with even the PD170. It's not really a fair fight. Honestly, how often do you shoot in the dark?
BUT...
I've used DSR-500's, Variacams, and HVX-200's pretty extensively, and let me stress the one thing I've learned; they're all just tools to get a job done. If your clients dont see the difference between SD from the PD170 and HD downconverted to SD with the (insert camera here) and you aren't comfortable with making the switch to HD, then do what's making you money.
Personally I'm never buying another SD camera again, but it's your money, your career, and your call.

I have edited tons of stuff including a feature film shot on a Z1, with even the slightest amount of highlights blown out, it was impossible to get exactly right. With the PD170P you can be slightly overblown and it can pull it back due to better dynamic range. I will agree that for widescreen and broadcast HD the Z1 is king, but with an anamorphic adapter the footage from the PD170P is just as good in widescreen. I have seen what happens with footage shot and downconverted for use on DVD, viewing it on a high definition 720P screen (samsung) and I couldn't notice any discernable difference, I have tested this a few times. There is no really great software for authoring Blu-Ray discs, so unfortunately it is out of my realm for now. I use a PowerMac Dual 2.3GHZ G5. The PD170P has saved my ass when I cannot use light, such as in dark receptions with nothing more than candlelight to light the scene, you can't use lighting because people hate it. The Z1 would be dead in that situation. Most Modern TV's can accomodate for the 3:4 ratio and have it look normal and not squashed. Otherwise I use the anamorphic adapter for true widescreen.

Which one
 

If you have a choice, which camcorder would you choose for weddings, live events, corporate productions and maybe the odd TVC or two. Between these cameras, the Sony Z1P, Canon XH-A1, Sony HVR-V1P, Pansonic AG-HVX200. Maybe if you want to do some progressive shooting, this might rule out the Z1. I know that JVC make a smaller handheld style camera with some professional stats, which I think comes within the range of these cameras. Any experience or info into any of these and what are some of the caveats and good points?

Ethan, quick question.

Are you downconverting in camera to capture 16:9 SD.
Or are you caprturing native HDV, editing HDV and downconverting to 16:9 SD DVD?
If teh later, what software are you using?

The big plus point for the Z1 has got to be the 16:9 aspect ratio straight out of the box. What couple that can afford to hire any one of us to film their wedding day comes back from honeymoon and watches their (SD) DVD on a 4:3 TV? In Europe: none.

OK, you can bolt on an anamorphic to the PD170, but you're then left with distorted viewfinders, differing DoFs vertically and horizontally, wierd elliptical out of focus highlights and the distinct possibility of vignetting at zoom ends. Not only that, but the ergonomics of the Z1 are miles in advance of the PD. The screen can be used in blazing sunlight, the aperture control wheel is pure delight and the zoom range is far more useful for those who dislike adding converter lenses.

Even if you film in the SD mode, the Z1 wins. It's video amplifier is far quieter than the PD's, so easily clawing back the stop lost in the gloom.

tom.

Michael,
I much prefer to capture the native HDV and work with that, but if you're working in SD, I don't see a problem with converting in camera. It's just a personal workflow prefrence of mine to work with formats natively if I can.
I use Final Cut Studio to do all my editing/sound/dvd's/whatever.

(I've written this before ...)

I don't regret my choice of the Z1/FX1 (have both) to supercede my VX2000. I was thinking about PD170 and started with the Z1. With the VX2000, I needed the wide angle adapter and thus shot at 4.8 for a sharper image. With the shorter focal length of the Z1/FX1 lens as well as the 19:9 format, I no longer need the wide angle lens for my purposes and shoot the Z1 at f/2.8 . Overall, the image is way cleaner with superior color, although I'm comparing HD to SD. I have yet to compare in-camera downconverted HD->SD to VegasVideo downconvered HD->SD. The only downside of the Z1 has been the loss of motion precision due to the MPEG2 video compression, be for fast action martial arts or that weird 1/2 second sticky-GOP thing on closeups. I'm not sure how to fix that problem.

Well Iam with you Jamie on this one

I have been using a XLH1 for weddings and yes if you see the picture on a HDTV vi the HDMI socket is fantastic, but as yet nobody has blue ray players so what s the point

I have been out filming my son at a forest park today and took along my 170, came back home played it on our big tv (not HD) and it looked stunning nobody could fault it, yes it is not as good as HD but its bloody good and very accessible you can play it on all tv's
but you can't with HD

Iam not knocking HD because it will come but at the moment the 170 looks good on widescreen or on 4:3 tv's and that will do me