|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 9th, 2008, 03:15 AM | #91 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
Right. But it is still close enough for me. In this price range, for low-light performance, I think it will be the only game in town but there will always be those that don't need that level of low-light performance. I do.
And then there are those who routinely shoot wedding with the FX7 and are happy. I was not one of those. I used my FX7 for three hours and sold it. I was desperate for 16:9 but the picture was no good to me in most conditions, way too soft. The VX2100 really spoiled me. If I want soft I can make adjustments in post. |
October 9th, 2008, 06:59 AM | #92 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Posts: 309
|
Z5 and PD170 side by side
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 was CLEARLY BETTER in low light , no question. yes, you read right, the Z% is BETTER in low loght than the PD170 in my opnion, and I had thenm side by side, both set to DV, both on auto WB, both at 1/50, Also, the Z5 has an extra gain stop (it goes from -6db to 21db) whereas the PD series went from 0db - 18db. I'm not sure of the practical applications of the 2 stops of negative gain though, any thoughts on that one? Alas, i stupidly didnt shoot anything to tape, so no stills or footage to post (sorry) I have long been in love with the VX/PD series for their low light performance, and have waited and waited for the HDV equivelant (the V1/FX7 dont come close, the Z1/FX1 are better than the V1/FX7, but not good enough) Having the exposure control on the lens barrell as a ring behind the zoom ring (which itself is behind the focus ring) is a simple but VERY effective upgrade, its just makes sense! I'm trying to remember what else I thought of it, they didnt have MRC1K memory card unit, so cant comment on that. Audio wisde, didnt really notice any difference from the Z1, appart from the audio control dials seemed a bit more intuitive/sturdy. It felt heavier than my FX7, but lighter (and a bit smaller) than the Z1 The Z5 also seemed to have none of the 'soft' issue that the Fx7 seems to have (well at least mines and Jeff's has) The lens was MUCH wider than the PD170, I'm not sure of the math, but the Z5 zoomed all the way out could fitMCH more in than the PD170soomed all the way out. All I can say is, I'm sold. From what I saw, the Z5 simply IS the HDV version of the PD150/170. (So I can only assume the FX1000 will be the same to the VX series) I'm sure I've forgot loadsostuf s I play wit the Z5 (in a toaly innocent way) or a good hour or so. Any questions just ask and I'll try to remember CANT WAIT FOR THE Z5!!!!!! |
October 9th, 2008, 07:22 AM | #93 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
S270 & Z7 (interchangeable lenses) Z5 & FX1000 (1/3" CMOS) - replace Z1, FX1, PD170 and VX2100 V1 & FX7 (1/4" CMOS) Z1 & FX1 (1/3" CCD) A1 & HCx (small form factor) plus HD1000 (shoulder-mount) - 1/4" CMOS Last edited by Kevin Shaw; October 9th, 2008 at 09:13 AM. Reason: added HD1000 to list |
|
October 9th, 2008, 08:25 AM | #94 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Quote:
The 21 dB is half a stop more amplification over 18 dB, and the use of the -6dB makes for quieter footage as well as adding another stop of ND effectively. Really excellent idea and often a lot better than upping the shutter speed to 1/100th sec. No UK prices given? Kevin - maybe the HD1000 should be added to your list alongside the A1. tom. |
|
October 9th, 2008, 09:17 AM | #95 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
|
October 9th, 2008, 09:18 AM | #96 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
James, I can't believe you actually handled one, that is a really exciting review you posted.
I'm ordering the FX1000 tomorrow, and I had accepted that when it arrived I would find it's low light not quite as good as the PD series...your news is fantastic! Thank you! |
October 12th, 2008, 04:32 PM | #97 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kentish Town, London, UK
Posts: 157
|
Places like Creative Video are listing it at GBP 2995+ VAT. If you wanted to add in the CF recorder it brings the price up to the same GBP 3495 + VAT of the Z7....
So hopefully the GBP 2995 + VAT won't be the actual price when it hits the streets for real. |
December 14th, 2008, 05:50 PM | #98 | |
Go Cycle
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntington, NY
Posts: 815
|
This is also why the CANON XL-2 is being resurrected....true 16:9 chips. I know there is a debate if they are true 16:9 chips but the picture is outstanding.
Quote:
__________________
Lou Bruno |
|
December 14th, 2008, 05:57 PM | #99 | |
Go Cycle
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntington, NY
Posts: 815
|
Great reply. I give lectures on this subject all over the place. From Illinois to New York...soon Iowa. "Nobody asks for it" is just an excuse for: "I have to invest more in my business?" Next time you are in a car dealership, bet ya the salesperson is discussing extra paclages to enhance the vehicle. Same with the Video business.
"Nobody asks for it".......music to a competitors ears. Quote:
__________________
Lou Bruno |
|
January 14th, 2009, 07:35 AM | #100 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lebanon
Posts: 30
|
hi guys sorry if im posting this in wrong place but last week i shot a wedding with 4 cameras all were working DVCAM cause the 3 camcorders were PD170 but 1 of them was Z7 but shooting DVCAM but the problem is he was shooting 16.9, is there a way i can convert it to 4.3 by EDGE CROPING or something. i must convert it cause the other CAMS are all 4.3
i need help please Thank you
__________________
WWW.DMEDIUS.COM |
January 16th, 2009, 09:35 PM | #101 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lyndhurst, NJ, USA
Posts: 408
|
Quote:
|
|
January 17th, 2009, 12:10 PM | #102 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Note that it is FAR better than than the other way round - deriving 16:9 from 4:3 by cropping - that's nowhere near as simple a process because of the interlaced line structure. You need to de-interlace, scale, then reform the interlace structure, so there will be a far greater quality loss than cropping 16:9 to 4:3. If there's any doubt as to which to shoot in SD, or you may need both eventually, ALWAYS shoot 16:9 and derive the 4:3 from it, never the other way round. |
|
January 26th, 2009, 01:00 PM | #103 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Juneau, AK
Posts: 814
|
Quote:
Now I really REALLY REALLY want to buy an EX-1. I have come thisclosetobuyingone because I WANT it. Do I NEED it for my business? Nope. And I am doing this to make money to pay for things like groceries and my house payment, not to buy myself the newest and nicest toys. I have to constantly remind myself of this because I am a gadget freak. But if it's not going to make me money.....it doesn't matter how much I want it.....it just doesn't make business sense. So, I will plod along in SD until such time that I need to purchase an HD camera, because I have been able to convince enough clients that HD is something they need and will pay for, at which point I am betting that the same amount of money will buy me a much better HD camera than I could get today. Just saying, this is the other side to that coin. And lest you think that this is 'music to my competitors ears'......sorry, I no longer have any competitors. All my competitors have went out of business......because they were too busy buying the 'newest toys' and offering HD packages to people who had no interest in HD......and one size does not fit all. Not trying to be a jerk or anything and what you say is probably spot on in in a large majority of the markets. But it's not a cure all or something everyone can just follow and take to the bank. As a business person you have to evaluate your own market what it will bear, and make your business investment decisions based on those things....especially in the current economic climate. And by the way.......those car dealerships that have salesmen discussing extra addons to enhance the value of the car.....how are they doing these days anyways?? :-) |
|
January 26th, 2009, 02:04 PM | #104 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,425
|
I agree with John Cline's statement that one shouldn't wait to learn HD until clients ask for it.
On the other hand the reality of the market here in Cincinnati is such that the two largest videographers in the Cincinnati area do not offer HD. One of these companies shoots 200 weddings a year and dozens of corporate shoots. The other does about 150 wedding, maybe more. These owners know the market extremely well, obviously. And while they love HD (as we all do) they are not even thinking about shooting in HD. They are looking at cameras, but that is it. Despite the economy, as of now, their bookings are stronger this year than last. I have mentioned to several prospective brides and grooms that I have HD equipment now and they pretty much yawn. Will this change? Is it the wave of the future? Of course. Anyone can see that. Is there a demand for it? Very little. 4:3 is still very strong. And while it's demise is certainly coming, I believe it will be viable for at least one to two years for most videographers. I am shooting in HD, and hopefully as has been mentioned I can use it at some point as an additonal revenue stream, but I'm not holding my breath. I think it really does depend on who your clients are. Mine are average folks. Last edited by Jeff Harper; January 27th, 2009 at 03:34 AM. |
January 27th, 2009, 02:32 AM | #105 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Good point, good post, Gabe.
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|