| Author |
Message |
doc
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:42 am Post subject:
Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
please jump in one and all and shoot me ur insight. all comments (good and
bad) appreciated.
doc
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Moving Vision
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
In article <Fy4Ue.2116$0Q2.127@trndny01>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
| Quote: | anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
please jump in one and all and shoot me ur insight. all comments (good and
bad) appreciated.
doc
|
Have both. The Z1 has very worthwhile benefits over the FX1, including
balanced audio XLR and the ability to shoot 1080i HDV, 50i and 60i DV
and DVCAM for both PAL and NTSC.
Both serve capably as edit VCR's with firewire, component, Y/C and
composite interfaces.
Picture quality in HDV is astonishing, significantly better than any SD
format including Digi Beta. In DV or DVCAM mode the picture quality is
close to the DSR500/570. Only the fixed lens limits depth of field
options in comparison and even this can be worked around with the use of
adapters.
There's a good reason why the Z1 is currently the worlds bst selling
professional camera ever. (Don't let the Ludites in vested interest
denial, the ones, even if only for pragmatic business reasons)
--
John Lubran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 09, 2005 7:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
doc wrote:
| Quote: | anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
|
Yes, I have a Z1.
| Quote: | i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces
|
Good. Not as good as the footage I've seen from $100k HDCAMs, but
vastly superior to DV. Even when downconverted to DVD, it looks better
than any semi-pro DV camera I've ever used, and not much worse than the
footage I've edited from Digibeta cameras.
| Quote: | AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
|
The one problem with Firewire so far is that if I downconvert to DV,
Avid can't capture from a PAL camera (it seems to think it's reading
NTSC timecode). Hopefully that will work fine once they release the
upgrade for HDV support.
Either way, I'd say it's a bigger step up from cameras like the PD170
than the VX1000 was from Hi8.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony Lacey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:32 am Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
| Quote: | anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
|
I have the FX1(E) - Uk based, so using PAL.
| Quote: | i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
|
The picture quality is excellent, even down converted HDV -> DV is
better than the DV from any other camera I have.
I should point out I'm no professional, more a prosumer, hence the
reason I bought the FX1 rather than the Z1. For me this camera is just
right, I don't need SLR inputs, or some of the other features the Z1
has. Price was the main issue when I bought, and I was about to buy a
GL1 (second hand) when I went to a show where the FX1 was available for
a lower price. The camera had been used for demonstration only at the
show, but a couple of hundred pounds lower than it should have been.
If I'd had the money I probably would have gone for the Z1 though. THe
extra features make it the better of the two.
Firewire is fine here (on a G5 Mac and a Powerbook) - the only problem I
had was a software related one, soon fixed. After that it takes HDV or
down converted DV seamlessly.
And the HDV is great. I tend to film and edit (FCP Pro 5 here) in HDV
mainly, then change to standard DV for output. For the odd project that
uses footage from standard DV cameras I still film in HDV, then down
convert to DV for editing.
I'm quite happy with this, and it gets used quite a bit. It's sturdy,
reasonably light-weight, and I find it very easy to use. I used it
mainly on auto to begin with, which was fine, but am now using it almost
completely manually.
I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know, but it's the one thing they all seem to say - I
suppose I should try it to see for myself one day.
I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll stop there. But for me, the FX1 is just
the ticket.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
Antony Lacey wrote:
| Quote: | I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know,
|
Personally I suspect they're talking out of their backsides: I've tried
to break the compression with fast pans, but it works OK for me. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are some artifacts if you freeze-frame
in a pan, but I haven't seen anything significant while watching it as
video.
On the other hand, I _have_ seen awful compression artifacts in
broadcast HD when they've done a fast pan on a $100k HDCAM and then
compressed it to MPEG-2 for broadcast. So if the shot would break up
when shot on a Z1, all that effort and expense they're going to in
order to shoot on a format where it won't break up is totally wasted by
the time it gets to Joe Sixpack's TV screen.
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
hey thanks for the input. definately helps in the decision process. did i
read you to say you can fix the shortcoming of the fixed lense by use of
adapters to get a wide angle?
doc
"Moving Vision" <mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x1hXJsK9VXIDFwiP@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
| Quote: | In article <Fy4Ue.2116$0Q2.127@trndny01>, doc <doc@drdimento.net> writes
anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
please jump in one and all and shoot me ur insight. all comments (good
and
bad) appreciated.
doc
Have both. The Z1 has very worthwhile benefits over the FX1, including
balanced audio XLR and the ability to shoot 1080i HDV, 50i and 60i DV and
DVCAM for both PAL and NTSC.
Both serve capably as edit VCR's with firewire, component, Y/C and
composite interfaces.
Picture quality in HDV is astonishing, significantly better than any SD
format including Digi Beta. In DV or DVCAM mode the picture quality is
close to the DSR500/570. Only the fixed lens limits depth of field options
in comparison and even this can be worked around with the use of adapters.
There's a good reason why the Z1 is currently the worlds bst selling
professional camera ever. (Don't let the Ludites in vested interest
denial, the ones, even if only for pragmatic business reasons)
--
John Lubran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
thanks for the input. we've actually done some work on the sony cinealta
and now have about 50 hours of HDcam proprietary codec that we either have
to keep searching for a solution or buy sony's $20K package to edit. but
that's another story. for now, my work is going to be with the FX1 or Z1U
depending on how much i can spend at the time :o) your input really helped
answer for me what the "look" will be over a regular mini dv cam. sounds
like a world apart and that's what i need for commercials :o)
thanks
doc
<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126274757.626494.35250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | doc wrote:
anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
Yes, I have a Z1.
i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces
Good. Not as good as the footage I've seen from $100k HDCAMs, but
vastly superior to DV. Even when downconverted to DVD, it looks better
than any semi-pro DV camera I've ever used, and not much worse than the
footage I've edited from Digibeta cameras.
AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
The one problem with Firewire so far is that if I downconvert to DV,
Avid can't capture from a PAL camera (it seems to think it's reading
NTSC timecode). Hopefully that will work fine once they release the
upgrade for HDV support.
Either way, I'd say it's a bigger step up from cameras like the PD170
than the VX1000 was from Hi8.
Mark
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
thanks for the input. your description reveals that there's enough
improvement over a mini dv cam that it's worth spending the money.
regarding the panning issue, from what ive read that's an issue with all
digital cams cause the codec is challenged to "find" a color solution for a
pixel that is changing even as the capture is taking place, while with film
it's just a capture "whatever" you get issue. however, as indicated in the
thread attached to yours, Joe Sixpack will never notice in my minimal pan
commercials :o) i don't do NASCAR :o)
thanks,
doc
"Antony Lacey" <allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1h2n6lm.9xoewm5a7f7mN%allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk...
| Quote: | doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
anyone out there have any experience with the Sony FX1 or Z1U?
I have the FX1(E) - Uk based, so using PAL.
i am thinking of buying one or two of them and need to know what kind of
picture quality they/either produces AND how well they interface with
firewire inputs AND their HDV quality.
The picture quality is excellent, even down converted HDV -> DV is
better than the DV from any other camera I have.
I should point out I'm no professional, more a prosumer, hence the
reason I bought the FX1 rather than the Z1. For me this camera is just
right, I don't need SLR inputs, or some of the other features the Z1
has. Price was the main issue when I bought, and I was about to buy a
GL1 (second hand) when I went to a show where the FX1 was available for
a lower price. The camera had been used for demonstration only at the
show, but a couple of hundred pounds lower than it should have been.
If I'd had the money I probably would have gone for the Z1 though. THe
extra features make it the better of the two.
Firewire is fine here (on a G5 Mac and a Powerbook) - the only problem I
had was a software related one, soon fixed. After that it takes HDV or
down converted DV seamlessly.
And the HDV is great. I tend to film and edit (FCP Pro 5 here) in HDV
mainly, then change to standard DV for output. For the odd project that
uses footage from standard DV cameras I still film in HDV, then down
convert to DV for editing.
I'm quite happy with this, and it gets used quite a bit. It's sturdy,
reasonably light-weight, and I find it very easy to use. I used it
mainly on auto to begin with, which was fine, but am now using it almost
completely manually.
I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know, but it's the one thing they all seem to say - I
suppose I should try it to see for myself one day.
I'm beginning to ramble, so I'll stop there. But for me, the FX1 is just
the ticket.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
i agee on the backsides comment AND the $100K cam. we used a cinealta f900
and while it was fabulous, one look at the result of this $85,500 camera
says that while it is fabulous, is it work 1 Gb of data to handle every 8
seconds and the computer system that it will take to handle that? hmmmmm
thanks for the input.
doc
<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1126351722.189302.4470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Antony Lacey wrote:
I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know,
Personally I suspect they're talking out of their backsides: I've tried
to break the compression with fast pans, but it works OK for me. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are some artifacts if you freeze-frame
in a pan, but I haven't seen anything significant while watching it as
video.
On the other hand, I _have_ seen awful compression artifacts in
broadcast HD when they've done a fast pan on a $100k HDCAM and then
compressed it to MPEG-2 for broadcast. So if the shot would break up
when shot on a Z1, all that effort and expense they're going to in
order to shoot on a format where it won't break up is totally wasted by
the time it gets to Joe Sixpack's TV screen.
Mark
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony Lacey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:33 am Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
<mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know,
Personally I suspect they're talking out of their backsides: I've tried
to break the compression with fast pans, but it works OK for me. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are some artifacts if you freeze-frame
in a pan, but I haven't seen anything significant while watching it as
video.
|
Right-o, that makes me even more likely to go and try it to see if it's
real or imagined. I've been doing some comparison shots between my Canon
750i and the FX1E just to see the difference, I shall have to get round
to posting them somewhere.
| Quote: | On the other hand, I _have_ seen awful compression artifacts in
broadcast HD when they've done a fast pan on a $100k HDCAM and then
compressed it to MPEG-2 for broadcast. So if the shot would break up
when shot on a Z1, all that effort and expense they're going to in
order to shoot on a format where it won't break up is totally wasted by
the time it gets to Joe Sixpack's TV screen.
|
Thanks for that, I'm quite impressed by this little camera of mine, good
timing and good fortune led to the purchase, I'm glad I went for it.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony Lacey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:33 am Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
| Quote: | thanks for the input. your description reveals that there's enough
improvement over a mini dv cam that it's worth spending the money.
|
I think that's a fair comment yes.
| Quote: | regarding the panning issue, from what ive read that's an issue with all
digital cams cause the codec is challenged to "find" a color solution for a
pixel that is changing even as the capture is taking place, while with film
it's just a capture "whatever" you get issue. however, as indicated in the
thread attached to yours, Joe Sixpack will never notice in my minimal pan
commercials :o) i don't do NASCAR :o)
|
That makes that part of the equation redundant then!
If you can, get your hands on both the FX1 and Z1 and see which you
prefer - (you probably know this already of course).
It may be you could buy a mixture of them to suit your needs, the Z1 for
audio etc. and the FX1 as a second (or more) camera if you don't need
the extra features for the shots you will be using. Why spend money you
could put somewhere else ?
The benefit of having them all the same is that you don't have to
remember which features are on the camera of course - they look pretty
similar at a glance!
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
and the comparison to the canon, what was the outcome?
doc
"Antony Lacey" <allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1h2p4zd.m82w4hqtoo5cN%allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk...
| Quote: | mmaker@my-deja.com> wrote:
I can' think of any problems with it as such. Most professional
cameramen I have spoken to have said it's useless at fast panning, but
I
don't need (or plan to) do fast panning. Whether they've tried it or
read this I don't know,
Personally I suspect they're talking out of their backsides: I've tried
to break the compression with fast pans, but it works OK for me. I
wouldn't be surprised if there are some artifacts if you freeze-frame
in a pan, but I haven't seen anything significant while watching it as
video.
Right-o, that makes me even more likely to go and try it to see if it's
real or imagined. I've been doing some comparison shots between my Canon
750i and the FX1E just to see the difference, I shall have to get round
to posting them somewhere.
On the other hand, I _have_ seen awful compression artifacts in
broadcast HD when they've done a fast pan on a $100k HDCAM and then
compressed it to MPEG-2 for broadcast. So if the shot would break up
when shot on a Z1, all that effort and expense they're going to in
order to shoot on a format where it won't break up is totally wasted by
the time it gets to Joe Sixpack's TV screen.
Thanks for that, I'm quite impressed by this little camera of mine, good
timing and good fortune led to the purchase, I'm glad I went for it.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
sounds like a good solution and great idea of having both just from a mere
"assistant" idea that some inbound cameraman might have more experience with
one over the other. hmmmmm. good for consideration for sure.
is there at all a noticable difference in the output of the two cameras? or
is it so minor that not worth popping (if one even has it) for the Z1?
doc
"Antony Lacey" <allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1h2p58a.1mzb8t917zpouqN%allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk...
| Quote: | doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
thanks for the input. your description reveals that there's enough
improvement over a mini dv cam that it's worth spending the money.
I think that's a fair comment yes.
regarding the panning issue, from what ive read that's an issue with all
digital cams cause the codec is challenged to "find" a color solution for
a
pixel that is changing even as the capture is taking place, while with
film
it's just a capture "whatever" you get issue. however, as indicated in
the
thread attached to yours, Joe Sixpack will never notice in my minimal pan
commercials :o) i don't do NASCAR :o)
That makes that part of the equation redundant then!
If you can, get your hands on both the FX1 and Z1 and see which you
prefer - (you probably know this already of course).
It may be you could buy a mixture of them to suit your needs, the Z1 for
audio etc. and the FX1 as a second (or more) camera if you don't need
the extra features for the shots you will be using. Why spend money you
could put somewhere else ?
The benefit of having them all the same is that you don't have to
remember which features are on the camera of course - they look pretty
similar at a glance!
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony Lacey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Right-o, that makes me even more likely to go and try it to see if it's
real or imagined. I've been doing some comparison shots between my Canon
750i and the FX1E just to see the difference, I shall have to get round
to posting them somewhere.
and the comparison to the canon, what was the outcome?
|
I find the Sony picture is less grainy, the colours are certainly
improved (this is comparing a single CCD to a three CCD device though)
and the picture overall is just 'clearer' .... I haven't had the
opportunity to compare it wih another three CCD camera yet.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antony Lacey
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Sony FX1 (or Z1U)?? |
|
|
doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
| Quote: | It may be you could buy a mixture of them to suit your needs, the Z1 for
audio etc. and the FX1 as a second (or more) camera if you don't need
the extra features for the shots you will be using. Why spend money you
could put somewhere else ?
sounds like a good solution and great idea of having both just from a mere
"assistant" idea that some inbound cameraman might have more experience with
one over the other. hmmmmm. good for consideration for sure.
|
The money you save might go towards some audio equipment or lights etc.
| Quote: | is there at all a noticable difference in the output of the two cameras? or
is it so minor that not worth popping (if one even has it) for the Z1?
|
I don't know as I only have the FX1 myself, I wouldn't think so as they
are both based on the same lens/CCDs etc. - in fact I'd be surprised if
there was any difference.
It's the features in the Z1 that would make it worth buying - there is
somewhere a comparison chart of the two cameras, I think it's on the
Sony web site, but I can't find it now. There are about 40 extra
features on the Z1.
--
Antony
Pull the plug to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in