My first thoughts on the Z5

William Ellwood · January 9th, 2009, 12:53 AM

I have ordered Adobe CS4, but haven't got it yet, so the test was confined to SD. The lighting was just domestic light, energy saving bulbs.
The sound came from the spinning silver thing - a wedding present as I remember.

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 04:41 AM

After shooting for several years on the VX2100 and now having just shot my third wedding with the FX1000, I have come to the following conclusion:

The FX1000 doesn't hold up to the VX2100 in low light.

When you get into decent lighting, the images are nice. After all, it is high-def.

The lens ramping is an issue if you are not used to it and greatly affects you if you are accustomed to doing extreme closeups as I am.

You have to learn a new shooting style with this camera. You will go through an adjustment. Initially I was very disappointed with the camera. I have come to accept it's limitations.

It is a great camera, but if you are considering a new cam you might consider holding off until pricing on the new JVC 700 is available. It shoots 60p, has 1/3" sensors and is supposed to be available in the near future.

Stelios Christofides · January 9th, 2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

...It is a great camera, but if you are considering a new cam you might consider holding off until pricing on the new JVC 700 is available. It shoots 60p, has 1/3" sensors and is supposed to be available in the near future.

Jeff
What JVC 700 are you talking about?

Stelios

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 05:22 AM

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...camcorder.html

Mind you I'm not endorsing or saying it will be better, but it is another option.

I have to say that after I learn better to shoot with my FX1000 it will give me great images and I'm sure I will get a couple of years of good video with it.

Ken Ross · January 9th, 2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris van der Zaan

Thanks for your work. At first glance i am not impressed at all by Z5. But as you said quick, rough etc. I will wait for further tests.

Chris, what specifically are you not impressed with regarding the Z5?

Ken Ross · January 9th, 2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...camcorder.html

Mind you I'm not endorsing or saying it will be better, but it is another option.

I have to say that after I learn better to shoot with my FX1000 it will give me great images and I'm sure I will get a couple of years of good video with it.

Yeah, tipping the scales at nearly 9 pounds and still retaining the same 1/3" chips, that puppy would be scratched off my list very quickly! :)

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 07:21 AM

I don't know what Chris is going to say as far as why he is not as impressed as he expected, but I know initially I was put off by the lower contrast of the images. I remember saying they didn't "pop", and I still maintain that. I expected, hoped for, a VX2100 level of brightness and sharpness. It is not there with the FX1000. The images are soft IMO. But I am starting to understand that a Hi-Def cam with an equivalent brightness of image to the VX2100 is going to have to be, at least for now, found only in a 1/2" sensor or greater.

I still maintain the FX1000 is a fine camera, but it was a let down. I'm editing a wedding this morning shot with my 2100 and I swear it looks broadcast quality. The images shot in similar lighting with my FX1000 are not even close in sharpness, but they have a beautiful look all of their own.

For my personal shooting style I now am using lights where I didn't need lights before. It takes time too get used to it, that is for sure.

Tim Akin · January 9th, 2009, 08:05 AM

Jeff, I have found that we agree on most things and are alike in many ways, but I always thought the VX's were to sharp, had that video look that I hated. I would almost always turn the sharpness all the way down on the VX's. I would also deinterlace in post to try and get away from that news cast look.

The 1000 has that look I always wanted from with the VX, without all the post work to get there, especially in 30p, haven't figured out 24p yet, but hope to.

Ken Ross · January 9th, 2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I don't know what Chris is going to say as far as why he is not as impressed as he expected, but I know initially I was put off by the lower contrast of the images. I remember saying they didn't "pop", and I still maintain that. I expected, hoped for, a VX2100 level of brightness and sharpness. It is not there with the FX1000. The images are soft IMO. But I am starting to understand that a Hi-Def cam with an equivalent brightness of image to the VX2100 is going to have to be, at least for now, found only in a 1/2" sensor or greater.

I still maintain the FX1000 is a fine camera, but it was a let down. I'm editing a wedding this morning shot with my 2100 and I swear it looks broadcast quality. The images shot in similar lighting with my FX1000 are not even close in sharpness, but they have a beautiful look all of their own.

For my personal shooting style I now am using lights where I didn't need lights before. It takes time too get used to it, that is for sure.

Jeff, I'm very familiar with HD and have had an HDTV since its inception in the U.S. One of the things with HD is that there is no need for 'hyped' sharpness as there is in SD. HD has so much detail to begin with, there is simply no need to hype the detail with artificial sharpening and hyped contrast.

If you read reviews on Blu Ray movies, you'll find reviewers VERY critical of studios that add edge enhancement to Blu Ray since it's simply not needed. EE used to be very common with normal SD DVD movies since the studios wanted the DVDs to 'pop' and to compensate for the lack of detail, EE was often used (though it's not liked by videophiles even in SD).

With that said, I think the VX2100 (which I own and use in my own work) does add that artificial pop. In fact, I bet my VX2100 has more of that 'pop' than my VX2000 which I still have. I would be disappointed if my HD cam did the same thing. So it just may be something you need to grow accustomed to and appreciate the far greater detail that's present in the FX1000 that just isn't there in the VX2100. In fact hyped contrast is very often a giveaway of a 'consumery' look that's not well appreciated in the professional realm. Sometimes real detail gets masked in that hyped contrast. I'm sure the average Joe would be very surprised by the look of very pricey broadcast studio monitors. Most would say they look 'drab' and lacking pop. That's because contrast is very tamed in professional broadcast studios so that all the detail can be seen.

Remember too that the 'broadcast quality' you see in the VX2100 is, in reality, far from broadcast quality these days since HD has become the norm.

Just my thoughts.

On a side note, have you tried adjusting the picture profile to up the contrast, color & sharpness to better suit your taste?

Khoi Pham · January 9th, 2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I don't know what Chris is going to say as far as why he is not as impressed as he expected, but I know initially I was put off by the lower contrast of the images. I remember saying they didn't "pop", and I still maintain that. I expected, hoped for, a VX2100 level of brightness and sharpness. It is not there with the FX1000. The images are soft IMO. But I am starting to understand that a Hi-Def cam with an equivalent brightness of image to the VX2100 is going to have to be, at least for now, found only in a 1/2" sensor or greater.

I still maintain the FX1000 is a fine camera, but it was a let down. I'm editing a wedding this morning shot with my 2100 and I swear it looks broadcast quality. The images shot in similar lighting with my FX1000 are not even close in sharpness, but they have a beautiful look all of their own.

For my personal shooting style I now am using lights where I didn't need lights before. It takes time too get used to it, that is for sure.

Your eyes are use to the noisy dv looks, it is noisier and so you think it is sharper but it is not, on the other hand if you want to get rid of it, I will be glad to buy it from you cheap. (-:

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 08:46 AM

I sold three of my old cams already, keeping the last one.

Noisier images appear sharper? That is an interesting concept.

Ken Ross · January 9th, 2009, 08:50 AM

It's actually very true Jeff. Most viewers will attribute 'sharpness' to a somewhat noisy picture. It's an interesting phenomena.

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 09:02 AM

Oh well, just because I don't understand it doen't mean it is not true!

Ken, I have adjusted the settings you mentioned a bit, and it looks OK. The remaining issues for me are the lens ramping and low light, but as I said the images are quite nice overall. In a well lit envioronment they really are beautiful. Some footage I shot in the dining room at my last wedding actually border on incredible.

Despite my love for the old camera which I no longer own, I would not go back. The 16:9 alone is a huge step up.

Greg Laves · January 9th, 2009, 09:35 AM

Jeff, it has been mentioned before that the "lens ramping" is much more obvious with the 20x lens of the FX1000/V5 than it is with the 12x lens of the VX2100. But the VX2100 does have lens-ramping also. If you stop your close up zoom short of the 20x position, the exposure change is much less obvious. Most of the change occurs in the last part of the zoom range. If you stop at 12x on the FX1000 the exposure change will be about the same as the VX2100. Very little.

If you just have to avoid lens ramping, get a Z7 and get the Fujinon TH16x5.5 lens. The Fujinon is a faster lens (f1.4) than FX1000 and it has no lens ramping at all. It will hold f1.4 through it's entire zoom range.

Jeff Harper · January 9th, 2009, 10:15 AM

Thanks Greg!

January 9th, 2009, 12:53 AM	#31
William Ellwood Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Consett UK Posts: 110	I have ordered Adobe CS4, but haven't got it yet, so the test was confined to SD. The lighting was just domestic light, energy saving bulbs. The sound came from the spinning silver thing - a wedding present as I remember. __________________ Billy Ellwood is on Vimeo. Film club www.newcastleaca.co.uk i7 7700k, Asus z270f, 32gb ram, Windows 10, Premiere CS6.

January 9th, 2009, 04:41 AM	#32
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	After shooting for several years on the VX2100 and now having just shot my third wedding with the FX1000, I have come to the following conclusion: The FX1000 doesn't hold up to the VX2100 in low light. When you get into decent lighting, the images are nice. After all, it is high-def. The lens ramping is an issue if you are not used to it and greatly affects you if you are accustomed to doing extreme closeups as I am. You have to learn a new shooting style with this camera. You will go through an adjustment. Initially I was very disappointed with the camera. I have come to accept it's limitations. It is a great camera, but if you are considering a new cam you might consider holding off until pricing on the new JVC 700 is available. It shoots 60p, has 1/3" sensors and is supposed to be available in the near future. Last edited by Jeff Harper; January 9th, 2009 at 05:18 AM.

January 9th, 2009, 08:05 AM	#38
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	Jeff, I have found that we agree on most things and are alike in many ways, but I always thought the VX's were to sharp, had that video look that I hated. I would almost always turn the sharpness all the way down on the VX's. I would also deinterlace in post to try and get away from that news cast look. The 1000 has that look I always wanted from with the VX, without all the post work to get there, especially in 30p, haven't figured out 24p yet, but hope to. __________________ Tim

January 9th, 2009, 05:22 AM	#34
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...camcorder.html Mind you I'm not endorsing or saying it will be better, but it is another option. I have to say that after I learn better to shoot with my FX1000 it will give me great images and I'm sure I will get a couple of years of good video with it.

January 9th, 2009, 07:21 AM	#37
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I don't know what Chris is going to say as far as why he is not as impressed as he expected, but I know initially I was put off by the lower contrast of the images. I remember saying they didn't "pop", and I still maintain that. I expected, hoped for, a VX2100 level of brightness and sharpness. It is not there with the FX1000. The images are soft IMO. But I am starting to understand that a Hi-Def cam with an equivalent brightness of image to the VX2100 is going to have to be, at least for now, found only in a 1/2" sensor or greater. I still maintain the FX1000 is a fine camera, but it was a let down. I'm editing a wedding this morning shot with my 2100 and I swear it looks broadcast quality. The images shot in similar lighting with my FX1000 are not even close in sharpness, but they have a beautiful look all of their own. For my personal shooting style I now am using lights where I didn't need lights before. It takes time too get used to it, that is for sure.

January 9th, 2009, 08:46 AM	#41
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I sold three of my old cams already, keeping the last one. Noisier images appear sharper? That is an interesting concept.

January 9th, 2009, 08:50 AM	#42
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	It's actually very true Jeff. Most viewers will attribute 'sharpness' to a somewhat noisy picture. It's an interesting phenomena.

January 9th, 2009, 09:02 AM	#43
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Oh well, just because I don't understand it doen't mean it is not true! Ken, I have adjusted the settings you mentioned a bit, and it looks OK. The remaining issues for me are the lens ramping and low light, but as I said the images are quite nice overall. In a well lit envioronment they really are beautiful. Some footage I shot in the dining room at my last wedding actually border on incredible. Despite my love for the old camera which I no longer own, I would not go back. The 16:9 alone is a huge step up.

January 9th, 2009, 09:35 AM	#44
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	Jeff, it has been mentioned before that the "lens ramping" is much more obvious with the 20x lens of the FX1000/V5 than it is with the 12x lens of the VX2100. But the VX2100 does have lens-ramping also. If you stop your close up zoom short of the 20x position, the exposure change is much less obvious. Most of the change occurs in the last part of the zoom range. If you stop at 12x on the FX1000 the exposure change will be about the same as the VX2100. Very little. If you just have to avoid lens ramping, get a Z7 and get the Fujinon TH16x5.5 lens. The Fujinon is a faster lens (f1.4) than FX1000 and it has no lens ramping at all. It will hold f1.4 through it's entire zoom range.

January 9th, 2009, 10:15 AM	#45
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks Greg!