Yikes! Bought PD170 - but the FX1?

Georg Herbet · April 2nd, 2005, 10:53 AM

>>I doubt that many clients will come back and spend more than a few bucks to reconvert weddings to HD. <<

Good post, Craig. I think you're right.

It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched!

Glen Elliott · April 2nd, 2005, 11:28 AM

<<<-- It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched! -->>>

Is that sarcasm? Sounds to me like you have your own mind made up. Honestly, the best advice is to go with the camera that will be the best balance of 1)Making you happy and...2) Making you profitable.

Leslie Wand · April 3rd, 2005, 01:18 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : >>is anyone asking for hd? do people have 16:9 sets? what's it being edited on?

i'm a bit out of the loop nowadays, but from what i can gather, it seems the only interest really being generated is hype.
<<

Leslie,

go into any electronics store these days. All the rage is HD and 16:9 tvs. They're expensive, and not everyone has one, but almost everyone wants one.

So, given that we all but know the future, the question filmers have to ask themselves is this: do we want to be ready for that future, future-proof our investments and the films we currently make, or do we want to wait till everyone has HD equipment and play catch-up? -->>>

ah, but i'm in outback australia where, on a good day, i can get the free to air channels!

after 30+ years in tv, i've learnt that it's easier to let others bleed, and then come to the party with the bandages. i have yet to meet any pro cameraman who bought 1st generation new technology and actually covered it's cost before the 2nd generation came out - along with the fixes for the bugs in the 1st.

that said, i've always maintained, and am still earning a living by the adage that; it really doesn't matter what it's shot on as long as the audience wants to see it. ie., content is king.

leslie

Bob Harotunian · April 3rd, 2005, 12:30 PM

What's on the cover of May's DV magazine and every other trade magazine or video show we see or attend these days is HD, HD and more HD. This barrage of media attention would make you think that if you didn't own an HD camera, you would be falling behind your competitors who were signing up brides left and right. That's called paranoia.

So, to control my paranoia, I try to keep a few fundamental considerations in mind. If you're in the wedding industry, it gets increasingly difficult to sign up customers after raising prices. To recover your HD investment, you'll have to raise your prices to stay profitable. In my opinion, there is no passionate demand from brides for HD technology now to justify an invetsment in HD gear. Maybe there will be in 2 or 3 years, but not now.

Some of you recommend buying Z1/FX1s today as a form of "future proofing" your investment. Shoot the wedding, deliver in SD and they'll come back later for the HD version? I just don't buy that thinking especially when you consider the unfortunate divorce rates and other challenges facing newlyweds. Are brides and their families really going to spend more money for the same movie of their wedding they've seen a dozen times just because it's HD? If you answer yes to that question, then order a Z1 today.

I recently bought 2 PD170s. The decision was easy when considering the camera's technical specs and Sony's rebate. One just has to look at the work being done by people on this forum with 170s and other cams and you should come to the conclusion that it is mostly skills that produce compelling video. And compelling video is what sells.

I figure I'll be in the market for a Z2 or 3 sometime in late 2007.
Bob

James Bremer · April 3rd, 2005, 09:37 PM

I was amazed at the PLASTIC Z1 HDV compared to the Robust PD 170.
If you are an outdoor shooter such as flyfishing/mountaineering etc., there is no way the Z1 will hold up very long (horsepacking into the back country).
The PD170 has been a heavy duty cam and will far out last any HDV at this point in time.
Stay with the 170 and wait a couple of years as suggested by others on this very interesting topic.
Stand by---the best is yet to come.
James

Georg Herbet · April 4th, 2005, 06:46 AM

I've enjoyed reading all of these responses. I'm definitely happy with the PD170 and will be giving HD some time to settle out. Indeed, that's what I've always done with pro still camera bodies.

Dennis Morgan · April 24th, 2005, 07:46 PM

I too was struggling with which to buy FX-1 or PD-170 both were the same price, but the PD-170 will suit my needs more than the FX-1. Audio is very important too me, more than the HDV capability. I just got the PD-170 with a $300.00 rebate from Sony.

PD-170 vs. FX-1

PD-170 PRO's
1. Audio XLR 2 Channel.
2. Memory Stick still camera capability.
3. DVCAM format.
4. Included the Wide angle lens.
5. Rebate $$$
6. Design is stabilized and mature.
7. Better resolution than previous models.
8. Low light down to 1 Lux.

FX-1 CON's
1. FX-1 CCD Chip is newer True 16:9 aspect.
2. Styling a bit more modern.
3. Monitor is moved to a better place.
4. New HD format not that mainstream Still cutting edge.
5. Low light down to 3 Lux.

These were my reasons for choosing PD-170.

D

Lou Bruno · April 25th, 2005, 06:52 PM

I own both the FX-1 and the SONY VX2100......the best of both worlds!
Outdoors and under proper lighting the FX-1 appears better to me-more punch in the SD mode. But under low light....out comes the VX everytime.

Now HDV on a Plasma is a different story....no comparision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maurice Ali

Low Light is a very big deal.....

You stated that you wanted it for weddings, that was the only one area you specifically mentioned.....

The choice is obvious, plus there are some ergonomic aspects of the Sony HD camcorders that I don't like. In the end the choice is yours - did I mention that low light is a very big deal.....

Kevin Walton · April 25th, 2005, 10:25 PM

Hi people.
I'm tossing up over whether I should buy the PD170 or the FX1 and I've read everything in this thread which has been helpful, but I've also read in reviews about certain problems with the FX1, mainly with audio.

Apparently, the specs on the FX1 say the audio output is 2.5V-3.0V but it's been tested and found that it's actually only 1.8V-2.0V, so the built in mic that is asking for 2.0V doesn't work properly and has clicks and distortions, etc, in the audio, especially when zooming, etc.
Also, the mic apparently picks up every little movement of the users hand on the outside casing of the camera, causing a lot of noise.

Is there anyone here who has bought the FX1 and is able to verify this information?

Can anyone also tell me how good the audio is with the mic that comes standard with the PD170?

I don't have a lot of money to spend on extra accessories such as Mic's, so I need the product that comes with the best accessories straight out of the box.

I was right on the verge of going with the FX1 until I read this stuff about the audio because I quite like the idea of being able to film in native widescreen HDV, even if the low-light performance isn't as good as the PD170, but I think good quality 4:3 video with good sound is probably preferable over excellent 16:9 video with crappy audio.

Boyd Ostroff · April 25th, 2005, 10:56 PM

I must have missed that review which called the FX-1's audio "crappy." But I did see Adam Wilt's review of the FX-1 in the March issue of DV. He said

Quote:

I'm no Jay Rose, but both voice and music recording sounded clean and artifact free. The built-in mike is par for the course, picking up handling and motor noises in quiet surroundings, but line-level inputs from a mixer were accurately recorded and reproduced.

Pete Wilie · April 25th, 2005, 11:01 PM

Kevin,

Almost everyone will tell you that the built-in mics of ALL cameras are very poor.

So, if you don't need the low light capablity of the PD170, then get the FX1, and buy a decent used mic for $100-$200. One that is often recommended by the pro audio guys is the AT897. If you want to go a little cheaper, the Azden SGM-1X or SGM-2X are decent.

For more info/opinions about these mic, search the forums.

Kevin Walton · April 26th, 2005, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Wilie

Kevin,

One that is often recommended by the pro audio guys is the AT897. If you want to go a little cheaper, the Azden SGM-1X or SGM-2X are decent.

Just to be sure; are you sure those Mic's are actually compatible with the FX1, baring in mind that the FX1 doesn't have XLR inputs. Or are they XLR Mic's?

Lou Bruno · April 26th, 2005, 06:23 AM

This may require tha additional expense of a break-out box. Ex: BeachTech DA-4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Walton

Just to be sure; are you sure those Mic's are actually compatible with the FX1, baring in mind that the FX1 doesn't have XLR inputs. Or are they XLR Mic's?

April 3rd, 2005, 09:37 PM	#35
James Bremer New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Omaha,Nebraska Posts: 5	Plastic HD Z1 I was amazed at the PLASTIC Z1 HDV compared to the Robust PD 170. If you are an outdoor shooter such as flyfishing/mountaineering etc., there is no way the Z1 will hold up very long (horsepacking into the back country). The PD170 has been a heavy duty cam and will far out last any HDV at this point in time. Stay with the 170 and wait a couple of years as suggested by others on this very interesting topic. Stand by---the best is yet to come. James __________________ Jimmy

April 24th, 2005, 07:46 PM	#37
Dennis Morgan New Boot Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 11	Just Purchased the DSR-PD170 DVCAM I too was struggling with which to buy FX-1 or PD-170 both were the same price, but the PD-170 will suit my needs more than the FX-1. Audio is very important too me, more than the HDV capability. I just got the PD-170 with a $300.00 rebate from Sony. PD-170 vs. FX-1 PD-170 PRO's 1. Audio XLR 2 Channel. 2. Memory Stick still camera capability. 3. DVCAM format. 4. Included the Wide angle lens. 5. Rebate $$$ 6. Design is stabilized and mature. 7. Better resolution than previous models. 8. Low light down to 1 Lux. FX-1 CON's 1. FX-1 CCD Chip is newer True 16:9 aspect. 2. Styling a bit more modern. 3. Monitor is moved to a better place. 4. New HD format not that mainstream Still cutting edge. 5. Low light down to 3 Lux. These were my reasons for choosing PD-170. D

April 25th, 2005, 10:25 PM	#39
Kevin Walton New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6	Problems with the FX1? Hi people. I'm tossing up over whether I should buy the PD170 or the FX1 and I've read everything in this thread which has been helpful, but I've also read in reviews about certain problems with the FX1, mainly with audio. Apparently, the specs on the FX1 say the audio output is 2.5V-3.0V but it's been tested and found that it's actually only 1.8V-2.0V, so the built in mic that is asking for 2.0V doesn't work properly and has clicks and distortions, etc, in the audio, especially when zooming, etc. Also, the mic apparently picks up every little movement of the users hand on the outside casing of the camera, causing a lot of noise. Is there anyone here who has bought the FX1 and is able to verify this information? Can anyone also tell me how good the audio is with the mic that comes standard with the PD170? I don't have a lot of money to spend on extra accessories such as Mic's, so I need the product that comes with the best accessories straight out of the box. I was right on the verge of going with the FX1 until I read this stuff about the audio because I quite like the idea of being able to film in native widescreen HDV, even if the low-light performance isn't as good as the PD170, but I think good quality 4:3 video with good sound is probably preferable over excellent 16:9 video with crappy audio.

April 2nd, 2005, 10:53 AM	#31
Georg Herbet Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Burbank Posts: 81	>>I doubt that many clients will come back and spend more than a few bucks to reconvert weddings to HD. << Good post, Craig. I think you're right. It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched!

April 2nd, 2005, 11:28 AM	#32
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	<<<-- It's funny. I was musing this morning that, with the way things are, archiving a wedding in HD may not make a lot of sense, given that so many of the marriages will be over before before HD is fully entrenched! -->>> Is that sarcasm? Sounds to me like you have your own mind made up. Honestly, the best advice is to go with the camera that will be the best balance of 1)Making you happy and...2) Making you profitable.

April 3rd, 2005, 01:18 AM	#33
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	<<<-- Originally posted by Georg Herbet : >>is anyone asking for hd? do people have 16:9 sets? what's it being edited on? i'm a bit out of the loop nowadays, but from what i can gather, it seems the only interest really being generated is hype. << Leslie, go into any electronics store these days. All the rage is HD and 16:9 tvs. They're expensive, and not everyone has one, but almost everyone wants one. So, given that we all but know the future, the question filmers have to ask themselves is this: do we want to be ready for that future, future-proof our investments and the films we currently make, or do we want to wait till everyone has HD equipment and play catch-up? -->>> ah, but i'm in outback australia where, on a good day, i can get the free to air channels! after 30+ years in tv, i've learnt that it's easier to let others bleed, and then come to the party with the bandages. i have yet to meet any pro cameraman who bought 1st generation new technology and actually covered it's cost before the 2nd generation came out - along with the fixes for the bugs in the 1st. that said, i've always maintained, and am still earning a living by the adage that; it really doesn't matter what it's shot on as long as the audience wants to see it. ie., content is king. leslie

April 3rd, 2005, 12:30 PM	#34
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	What's on the cover of May's DV magazine and every other trade magazine or video show we see or attend these days is HD, HD and more HD. This barrage of media attention would make you think that if you didn't own an HD camera, you would be falling behind your competitors who were signing up brides left and right. That's called paranoia. So, to control my paranoia, I try to keep a few fundamental considerations in mind. If you're in the wedding industry, it gets increasingly difficult to sign up customers after raising prices. To recover your HD investment, you'll have to raise your prices to stay profitable. In my opinion, there is no passionate demand from brides for HD technology now to justify an invetsment in HD gear. Maybe there will be in 2 or 3 years, but not now. Some of you recommend buying Z1/FX1s today as a form of "future proofing" your investment. Shoot the wedding, deliver in SD and they'll come back later for the HD version? I just don't buy that thinking especially when you consider the unfortunate divorce rates and other challenges facing newlyweds. Are brides and their families really going to spend more money for the same movie of their wedding they've seen a dozen times just because it's HD? If you answer yes to that question, then order a Z1 today. I recently bought 2 PD170s. The decision was easy when considering the camera's technical specs and Sony's rebate. One just has to look at the work being done by people on this forum with 170s and other cams and you should come to the conclusion that it is mostly skills that produce compelling video. And compelling video is what sells. I figure I'll be in the market for a Z2 or 3 sometime in late 2007. Bob

April 4th, 2005, 06:46 AM	#36
Georg Herbet Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Burbank Posts: 81	I've enjoyed reading all of these responses. I'm definitely happy with the PD170 and will be giving HD some time to settle out. Indeed, that's what I've always done with pro still camera bodies.

April 25th, 2005, 11:01 PM	#41
Pete Wilie Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 331	Kevin, Almost everyone will tell you that the built-in mics of ALL cameras are very poor. So, if you don't need the low light capablity of the PD170, then get the FX1, and buy a decent used mic for $100-$200. One that is often recommended by the pro audio guys is the AT897. If you want to go a little cheaper, the Azden SGM-1X or SGM-2X are decent. For more info/opinions about these mic, search the forums.