Sell that Z1!

Martin Duffy · January 29th, 2009, 03:50 AM

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003043]Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them.

Tom, I sort of agree and disagree here. Firstly a 20X lens makes a huge difference to my sports videos. Often I will film from a 6 feet high platform and have to zoom into a subject 100 metres away. You see Aussie Rules football is played on a 160mX 130m ground so a long zoom is very important. This is why in earlier posts I was fishing for a 1.4/1.5 tele lens that DOES NOT give you the black ring on a full wide shot.

Anyway the Z1 is still a great camera and I was totally wrong for bagging it out regarding the low light performance. It is in my mind a little better than the TRV900 in low light without noise so pretty good then really.

Tom Hardwick · January 29th, 2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

a 20X lens makes a huge difference to my sports videos.Anyway the Z1 is still a great camera and I was totally wrong for bagging it out regarding the low light performance. It is in my mind a little better than the TRV900 in low light without noise so pretty good then really.

Take your point about the 20x zoom but when I show the difference to people between the Z1 at full tele and the Z5 at full tele (as a real screen image) there's often surprise at how little difference it makes. Of course the Z5 is starting off wider, but my point is that the words themselves (''20x zoom vs 12x zoom'') make you expect a whole lot more.

My last winter wedding was a gloomy affair, and I was reduced to shooting with the Z1 at +18db of gain up for whole swathes of it. Don't be tempted by the hyper gain setting folks - this is just a party-piece. Anyway, I sent the wedding DVD to a filmmaking colleague who has just replied that he 'loved the film look - the sharp, fine grain.'

tom.

Ken Ross · January 29th, 2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them.

Tom, I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the Z1 & Z5 are essentially the same camera. One uses CCD and the other CMOS...a big difference right there. Secondly the Exmor technology really does help in low light situations. Not that the Z1 was bad in low light, it wasn't, it's just that the Z5 is better. Third the Z5 has a lens that starts wider and can ultimately get closer.

Granted my A/B between these two cams was only one scene taken within the Sony store, but in addition to better detail and sharpness with the Z5 (actually the FX1000), I also found the color of the 1000 to be more accurate.

You are correct in your ongoing assertion that the person behind the camera makes or breaks the video, but it doesn't hurt having the best equipment. ;)

Tom Hardwick · January 29th, 2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Tom, I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the Z1 & Z5 are essentially the same camera.

I note the tiny differences you pick up on Ken, but I'm saying the DVX100B and the PD170 are the same camera. The TRV900 and the MX300 are the same camera. The HV40 and the HC9 are the same camera.

But we both agree on the one major difference - it's the person behind the camera that makes or breaks.

tom.

Zach Love · January 29th, 2009, 01:34 PM

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed shooting w/ a Z1 a lot. First non-Betacam sized camera that I haven't wanted to smash into pieces.

It hurt a lot to go from DVC-Pro that could get good images under street lights, but that is the hit you take when you go to HD.

When I bought my Z7 I was amazed at the improvements.

The Z1 is still good for people who want CCDs & want a nicer built lens than the Canon XH-A1. (Yes the Canon is 20x, but zoom & focus run on the same servo motor & the focus isn't repeatable for follow focus.) But if you're one of the people who know that CMOS isn't the boogie man, then there are a lot of new cameras out there which will work in more lighting situations than the Z1.

I've said it before, don't judge a photog by the camera they're using. Judge them by how far they can push their camera.

The shooter is more important that what they shoot with.

Chris Barcellos · January 29th, 2009, 05:04 PM

One thing I have noticed in this forum is that certain "rules" and "tenets" arise out of threads like this. An example would be shooting with gain. Gain can be a good tool when used properly, yet many shooters refuse to employ it. In the case of the Z1 and the FX1, gains of 6/9/ and 12 can be perfectly acceptable. In some fora, the use of gain with these camera has been deemed acceptable and superior to other camera at 0 gain. The point is some make pronouncements without even clearly investigating it, and based on one single unscientific comparison. Now we have this thread with a clearly derisive title, that is now admitted to have been started based on a false premise. In a proper shoot, who would set exposure based merely on what is seen on an LCD screen, without checking zebra or other exposure aids ?

I have no doubt that a four year newer camera is going to make some improvement over the venerable Z1/FX1 line. But I am surprised from what footage I have seen so far, how little that improvement step is. For me, those improvement might come primarily in a better 24p set up. As many recall, Sony Cineframe24 took a big hit. Sometimes I even wonder about that "global accepted" pronouncement, as I have shot with Cineframe24 and removed pull down with Cineform on three successive films now, and never had anyone comment on problem with the 24 cadence.

Since this forum is widely read, I think it is important that posters live up to a responsibility of acccurately reporting their experiences without sensationalizing.

Ken Ross · January 29th, 2009, 05:11 PM

Chris, we are probably seeing close to the limit of the HDV format with the Z5 and this sized chip set. There's only so much you'll get out of HDV and only so much you'll get out of 1/3" chips. But from what I've seen, the gain in PQ from the Z1 to the Z5 is welcome and not trivial.

Chris Barcellos · January 29th, 2009, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Chris, we are probably seeing close to the limit of the HDV format with the Z5 and this sized chip set.

Yeap, I have to agree with that... Next stop EX or Scarlet... The point is that if you are looking to make a big next step, we should be thinking along those lines.

Martin Duffy · January 29th, 2009, 08:32 PM

[QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003055]Take your point about the 20x zoom but when I show the difference to people between the Z1 at full tele and the Z5 at full tele (as a real screen image) there's often surprise at how little difference it makes.

Tom. I had never thought about the fact that the z5/FX100 will be starting from a much wider range.

mmmmm, you have one-uped me again!!!!!!

I might do a test between the TRV900 and FX1000 at fully tele and see how close the 900 comes in. I think there will be a difference but not as far as I thought.

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Interesting all this hey.

Tom Hardwick · January 30th, 2009, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Quite correct. Both cameras utilise 1"/3 chip sets and the specifications show (claim) that the Canon has a longer focal length at full tele.

But don't forget that these focal lengths are 'nominal' figures, that is they're open to tolerances. All manufacturing is governed by tolerances both design and production, it's ultimately what makes equipment affordable.

My TRV900 tested out as having an 11.5x zoom (not the 12x as specified), but that's well within tolerance. It's max aperture of f/1.6 was only in the centre of the frame too - again, tolerances at play.

And Chris - I liked your post asking that posters live up to a responsibility. Good one. The Z5 does indeed come with improvements over the Z1, but the latter is still an amazingly capable workhorse. In the right hands I might add.

tom.

Gareth Watkins · January 30th, 2009, 03:00 AM

I seem to remember reading tests in a photo mag a few years back , that these tolerances with Canon still lenses in particular were very elastic... a 17-35mm f2.8 (an expensive piece of glass) was something like 19-28... Canon preferring to privilege the constant aperture over precise the focal length...

lenses like the excellent 28-105mm F3.5-f4.5 was even worse with focal lengths of 35 to 90 or there abouts...

It wouldn't be surprised at all if the actual differences in focal length over the stated differences by the manufacturers were far closer than they say...on these cameras... Tom has already said he can't see a massive difference.

cheers
Gareth

Martyn Hull · January 30th, 2009, 04:14 AM

Great cams but i think you certainly need to be earning money with them.

Ken Ross · January 30th, 2009, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide.

Interesting all this hey.

Actually Martin, I'd bet most videographers would place greater value on how wide the wide angle is as opposed to how close you can zoom. Doing sports I can see why you'd place a greater value on how close you can get.

Ken Ross · January 30th, 2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

The point is that if you are looking to make a big next step, we should be thinking along those lines.

The trouble with these is editing.

Martin Duffy · February 1st, 2009, 08:48 AM

I am most upset today with the FX1000.

I filmed Rally driving yesterday and like any experienced filmer/editor I like to keep my filming as neat as possible, editor friendly and the like.

The 4 second delay one gets when going rec/pause/record straight away is absolutely beyond comprehension.

I can't believe this is acceptable and now I have to change the nature of the way I film.

A lot of the Aussie Rules football games I film rely on in camera editing. What I mean is that I film nice and neat, button off between goals or delays.

I then get a commentator in who sits in the studio and records audio. Its a proven formula, a simple product & I sell heaps of DVD's this way.

But now I can't do it anymore. I mean I can't hit record and then see another shot and go "bang" and I am back on.

Someone please tell me there is a function in the menu to fix this. I thought quick record did the trick.

Also, the zoom on this camera is sh.t. Compared to my Panasonic DVC62 which felt very professional, the zoom rocker on the FX1000 is too small and also seems to lack another speed or two especially when pulling out. Gee an ultra slow creep or pull back would seem to be a logical inclusion. Why is it not there?

I mean for me I enjoy the challenge of being in a bit to tight and then creatively pulling back out and making a poor frame result in a cool moment of video. Not possible on the FX1000.

For instance the rally car driving was hard to film, even harder with a camera with a lousy zoom. I think the Z1 may be better in this area. I have only used the FX a few times now but this is what I was saying to myself yesterday when filming.

Sony have done it again. Designed a camera where shooters like myself who are really into the nitty gritty will be disappointed.

A friend of mine is keen on the FX and I well may sell it to him and get with the real world and get an XD cam once and for all.

Well done Sony you have sucked me in along with the rest of us who are into good camera features.

January 29th, 2009, 03:50 AM	#16
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	Maybe don't sell the Z1 - ha ha [QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003043]Firstly, selling a Z1 and swapping it for a Z5 isn't going to make two hoots worth of difference to your films. The cameras are the same size, price, weight, and fit into exactly the same market segment. In fact it IS the same camera, with 4 years between them. Tom, I sort of agree and disagree here. Firstly a 20X lens makes a huge difference to my sports videos. Often I will film from a 6 feet high platform and have to zoom into a subject 100 metres away. You see Aussie Rules football is played on a 160mX 130m ground so a long zoom is very important. This is why in earlier posts I was fishing for a 1.4/1.5 tele lens that DOES NOT give you the black ring on a full wide shot. Anyway the Z1 is still a great camera and I was totally wrong for bagging it out regarding the low light performance. It is in my mind a little better than the TRV900 in low light without noise so pretty good then really.

January 29th, 2009, 05:04 PM	#21
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	One thing I have noticed in this forum is that certain "rules" and "tenets" arise out of threads like this. An example would be shooting with gain. Gain can be a good tool when used properly, yet many shooters refuse to employ it. In the case of the Z1 and the FX1, gains of 6/9/ and 12 can be perfectly acceptable. In some fora, the use of gain with these camera has been deemed acceptable and superior to other camera at 0 gain. The point is some make pronouncements without even clearly investigating it, and based on one single unscientific comparison. Now we have this thread with a clearly derisive title, that is now admitted to have been started based on a false premise. In a proper shoot, who would set exposure based merely on what is seen on an LCD screen, without checking zebra or other exposure aids ? I have no doubt that a four year newer camera is going to make some improvement over the venerable Z1/FX1 line. But I am surprised from what footage I have seen so far, how little that improvement step is. For me, those improvement might come primarily in a better 24p set up. As many recall, Sony Cineframe24 took a big hit. Sometimes I even wonder about that "global accepted" pronouncement, as I have shot with Cineframe24 and removed pull down with Cineform on three successive films now, and never had anyone comment on problem with the 24 cadence. Since this forum is widely read, I think it is important that posters live up to a responsibility of acccurately reporting their experiences without sensationalizing. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

January 29th, 2009, 08:32 PM	#24
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	range of Z5/FX1000 [QUOTE=Tom Hardwick;1003055]Take your point about the 20x zoom but when I show the difference to people between the Z1 at full tele and the Z5 at full tele (as a real screen image) there's often surprise at how little difference it makes. Tom. I had never thought about the fact that the z5/FX100 will be starting from a much wider range. mmmmm, you have one-uped me again!!!!!! I might do a test between the TRV900 and FX1000 at fully tele and see how close the 900 comes in. I think there will be a difference but not as far as I thought. Thinking it through does this mean that the Z5/FX1000 actually will not zoom in as far as say a Canon XH-A1 given the fact this camera does not have as wider view when on a full wide. Interesting all this hey.

February 1st, 2009, 08:48 AM	#30
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	Selling FX1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am most upset today with the FX1000. I filmed Rally driving yesterday and like any experienced filmer/editor I like to keep my filming as neat as possible, editor friendly and the like. The 4 second delay one gets when going rec/pause/record straight away is absolutely beyond comprehension. I can't believe this is acceptable and now I have to change the nature of the way I film. A lot of the Aussie Rules football games I film rely on in camera editing. What I mean is that I film nice and neat, button off between goals or delays. I then get a commentator in who sits in the studio and records audio. Its a proven formula, a simple product & I sell heaps of DVD's this way. But now I can't do it anymore. I mean I can't hit record and then see another shot and go "bang" and I am back on. Someone please tell me there is a function in the menu to fix this. I thought quick record did the trick. Also, the zoom on this camera is sh.t. Compared to my Panasonic DVC62 which felt very professional, the zoom rocker on the FX1000 is too small and also seems to lack another speed or two especially when pulling out. Gee an ultra slow creep or pull back would seem to be a logical inclusion. Why is it not there? I mean for me I enjoy the challenge of being in a bit to tight and then creatively pulling back out and making a poor frame result in a cool moment of video. Not possible on the FX1000. For instance the rally car driving was hard to film, even harder with a camera with a lousy zoom. I think the Z1 may be better in this area. I have only used the FX a few times now but this is what I was saying to myself yesterday when filming. Sony have done it again. Designed a camera where shooters like myself who are really into the nitty gritty will be disappointed. A friend of mine is keen on the FX and I well may sell it to him and get with the real world and get an XD cam once and for all. Well done Sony you have sucked me in along with the rest of us who are into good camera features.

January 29th, 2009, 01:34 PM	#20
Zach Love Major Player Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 944	I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed shooting w/ a Z1 a lot. First non-Betacam sized camera that I haven't wanted to smash into pieces. It hurt a lot to go from DVC-Pro that could get good images under street lights, but that is the hit you take when you go to HD. When I bought my Z7 I was amazed at the improvements. The Z1 is still good for people who want CCDs & want a nicer built lens than the Canon XH-A1. (Yes the Canon is 20x, but zoom & focus run on the same servo motor & the focus isn't repeatable for follow focus.) But if you're one of the people who know that CMOS isn't the boogie man, then there are a lot of new cameras out there which will work in more lighting situations than the Z1. I've said it before, don't judge a photog by the camera they're using. Judge them by how far they can push their camera. The shooter is more important that what they shoot with.

January 29th, 2009, 05:11 PM	#22
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Chris, we are probably seeing close to the limit of the HDV format with the Z5 and this sized chip set. There's only so much you'll get out of HDV and only so much you'll get out of 1/3" chips. But from what I've seen, the gain in PQ from the Z1 to the Z5 is welcome and not trivial.

January 30th, 2009, 03:00 AM	#26
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	I seem to remember reading tests in a photo mag a few years back , that these tolerances with Canon still lenses in particular were very elastic... a 17-35mm f2.8 (an expensive piece of glass) was something like 19-28... Canon preferring to privilege the constant aperture over precise the focal length... lenses like the excellent 28-105mm F3.5-f4.5 was even worse with focal lengths of 35 to 90 or there abouts... It wouldn't be surprised at all if the actual differences in focal length over the stated differences by the manufacturers were far closer than they say...on these cameras... Tom has already said he can't see a massive difference. cheers Gareth

January 30th, 2009, 04:14 AM	#27
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	Great cams but i think you certainly need to be earning money with them.