fx1000 replacing fx1 ... $3199

fx7 is going to be reintroduced at lower price $1999

Oh Man! What a bargain!

I'm drooling over the upcoming Panasonic AG-HMC150 and the newly-announced Sony HDR-FX1000 and HVR-Z5U. But I must add this new FX7 to my short-list!

The compromises are 1/4" CMOS devices instead of 1/3" ones, miniDV tapes instead of tapeless, and stereo mini instead of XLR.

But for only $2000 (with a 20x lens and HDMI), it'll be hard to pass it up!

I can't wait! I will deff look in to picking one of these up.

Which one Chris? The FX7 or the FX1000??

Stelios

I am looking at an FX7.

For those who shoot weddings, the FX7 is virtually worthless, FWIW. I run three or four cameras at weddings almost weekly and the low light ability is very poor. I run the FX7 as a back up camera only, and I rarely use the footage. Outdoors it is fair, but way too soft. Keep in mind they dropped the price so low for a reason. Additionally they will be nearly impossible to sell for a decent price used.

If the lighting is not just right, the footage from the FX7 is definitely unsatifactory.

I mainly film paintball outdoors. In the few instances that I need to film indoors I might just try and pick up a used A1, instead of the FX7. I just don't trust buying used sometimes. O well.

You mean you would buy two cameras, for about $4500 or more, instead of one like the fx1000 that's better than both of them? The FX1000 is the direct HD replacement for the VX2100, and I don't even have to see the camera or use it to know it will totally rule for it's price range. This is the camera event videographers have been waiting for.

For those who shoot weddings, the FX7 is virtually worthless, FWIW. I run three or four cameras at weddings almost weekly and the low light ability is very poor. I run the FX7 as a back up camera only, and I rarely use the footage. Outdoors it is fair, but way too soft. Keep in mind they dropped the price so low for a reason. Additionally they will be nearly impossible to sell for a decent price used.

If the lighting is not just right, the footage from the FX7 is definitely unsatifactory.

Please do not generalize your unsatisfactory experience with the FX7. I know many people (myself including) who are more than happy using the camera in different situations (indoor including). Search for example this forum for “low light” OR "indoor” AND “the V1” key words (V1 is the virtual twin of the FX7 which has the same firmware) and you will find many tips how to make the best video with the FX7.

The FX7’s price has been lowered not because of its faulty quality. Look again at the V1 price tag -- it’s the same as before. Such low price is completely due to Sony's marketing strategy. They are clearing out the space for the new cameras...

One thing that can not be said of the FX-7 is that footage is soft, [another site] gave it more resolution than the canon A1.

Wow, this really is a bargain! Definitely a feasible option for the low-budget videographer.

Arkady, I will share my unbiased opinion if I choose, thank you. I am a professional videographer, and the opinions I hold on the FX7 are shared by vitually all professional videographers I know. The FX7 has 1/4 inch CMOS chips which I find to be worthless over 50% or more of the time. There are situations the camera can be fine, but it is so limited I find it to be the single biggest wasted of money I have ever spent.

What situations are you referring to here? This may be a good camera for those who do not need to film in low light. Also, do you share the same opinion about the V1? Just wondering...

The FX7 is a fine camera IF IT MEETS YOUR NEEDS. As a wedding and corporate videographer, it doesn't meet mine. I bought mine used from a company that shoots hundreds of events a year, they had three of them. They bought it strictly for the 20x Zoom, and because the Z1 seemed to expensive. They sold me one, and the other two they have are only used for interviews, and are only usable with the use of an onboard light. Other than that, their FX7s sit on the shelf. Same for their FX1.

Saying the FX7 has better resolution than the A1 is not saying much. I don't own the A1, but it doesn't even have a lux rating, so enough said.

Colin, FX7 and V1 have to small chips to be useful for me or my friends in the business.

The V1? Same chips, same poor low-light performance.

Marty, you said the FX7 is NOT too soft because "you read about it on [another site]". Try owning the camera, and then comparing it to a better camera.

If you are a hobbyist, the FX7 may be fine for you.

Please note while I cannot afford the EX1, that is what most of my competitors that can afford it are buying. So I am coming at this from the point of view who makes a living with his camera, and as someone whose competitors are shooting with Z1s and EX1s.

The Z1 is better by far in low light than the FX7 and A1 combined, and I still find it unsatisfactory. I cut my teeth shooting weddings with the VX2100 and until I find something that rivals that camera (I suspect the FX1000 is going to be that camera) other than the EX1 there just isn't much out there. But since it costs $9K to outfit an EX1, I'm waiting for the HD version of the VX2100.

The FX7 might be fine for shooting paintball, etc. The main thing is if you don't need detail shots, you should be fine.

Jeff, I agree that all should be allowed to express their opinions. I am curious, what camera do you own? In case you are curious about me, I own a Sony BetaCamSP, a VX2100 and a Sony V1.

Common, Jeff, I’m not offended at all. You were talking about my camera not my girlfriend, right?

I respect your negative opinion of the FX7/V1, it’s very much possible that some people share it too. But it is also most likely that other people do not have similar feeling or experience regarding the FX7/V1. So, to make some sweeping statement like “the FX7 is virtually worthless” would be at least incorrect…

Having purchased the FX7 I can say it is much sharper than the FX1/Z1. As Jeff has stated once the lights go down the camera does not respond very nicely to it. It is a very good camera as long as you have adequate light. In fact there really is no difference between it and the Z1 in good lighting. Move up to the EX1 and it's a whole different ball game. You can make money off the FX7, a descent living as long as you can control the environment it's in. Once your asked for no HDV then you have only once choice and that's to start looking at the EX1, HVX200, or more expensive cameras.

The FX1000/Z5 is a very nice camera and should perform as well as the Z7. You know what's funny, even the Z7 has gotten mixed reviews as being a descent camcorder for event videography. Every single videographer I know that has upgraded to EX1's have been floored by the results and that has a lot to do with the 1/2" chips, and the lens. Neither the FX1000 or FX7 can come close to that, and neither the Z7 (but they have instant archive). So if your staying away from the dark the FX7 is more than enough for many hobbyist ad amateurs. It's at a really good price point now to.

You mean you would buy two cameras, for about $4500 or more, instead of one like the fx1000 that's better than both of them?Yeah, I might - as a business decision. One camera can't be in 2 different places at the same time. :)

The FX1000 is the direct HD replacement for the VX2100, and I don't even have to see the camera or use it to know it will totally rule for it's price range.I think this is absurd. Will it be the dominant low light cam in its price range? Certainly. But the days of VX/PD lux ratings are over.

And aren't you a wee bit curious to see if it stands up to the hype before buying it sight-unseen? So far all we've heard are Sony testimonials.

This is the camera event videographers have been waiting for.Could be Jeff. You go first. :)

I own one Vx2100, two PD150s, and one FX7. I routinely run at least three cameras and often four for weddings. Even with the poor picture of shooting with the VX2100 or PD150s in 16:9, they blow away the FX7 in low light. In bright light the FX7 looks much better, of course, because of its ability to shoot 16:9 natively, but still is too soft for my taste. Please keep in mind I shoot a LOT in low light, so that is why I am so adamant about the low light. In my job, it is critical. Wedding videography is extremely competitive here in Cincinnati, as it is everywhere. You cannot compensate for low light when you are getting a closeup of a bride's face during the vows. My footage from the VX2100 gives crystal clear SD images, and I rarely show a demo to any potential customer who doesn't sign on the dotted line after they see it.

I speak of Z1s, EX1s, etc., because I see the footage my friend's shoot. If I have an outdoor shoot, I will use the FX7 if the lighting is good. In the right light the picture is OK, but certainly not great.

My main point above is really meant to be that the new FX1000, as the direct replacement for the VX2100, will blow the FX1 and FX7 so far out of the water that, IMO it would be foolish to buy them. If you cannot afford the FX1000, and you are looking for a cheap camera, and quality of image is not that big of a deal, the FX7 might be fine for you.

I personally would rather scrimp and save and buy quality than to go cheap. I am selling my FX7 and at least one of my PD150s, and paying the difference for the FX1000, so I am putting my money where my mouth is.

There are those on bigger budgets that might criticize my buying an FX1000 instead of an EX1, giving me the same argument I use against the FX7. so I guess it all boils down to your budget and what you can get away with.

My main point above is really meant to be that the new FX1000, as the direct replacement for the VX2100, will blow the FX1 and FX7 so far out of the water that, IMO it would be foolish to buy them.

Jeff I agree with you that the FX7 is not adequate for lowlight performance. The new FX1000 will not and I guarantee you blow the FX1 out of the water. It will be a nice upgrade but it will not blow it out of the water. The EX1 blows all of them out of the water yes, but the FX1000 will be a good upgrade not one that will blow them out of the water, I am sorry. The Z7 does not blow the Z1 out of the water if so people would upgrade to those quickly, but they are not. Why are event videographers upgrading to EX1's if the Z7's blows the Z1's out of the water? I'm sorry but your argument was valid up to the FX7 not being adequate for lowlight work, the rest is just emotional.

Since your going from PD150 VX2100 to FX1000's I think that is a good move but for those who have been there with their trusty FX1's, Z1's going to the FX1000's Z5's will be a good upgrade but not substantial. I have an email from a videographer who has used his Z7 and said it was a ok upgrade from his FX1's. I really don't see the FX1000 being more sensitive than the Z7 or the Z5 being more sensitive than the Z7. What point am I making? The FX7 is a good camcorder for anyone interested in it. Now it's at a price point for many aspiring videogs to jump on it. (Film students, Schools, newbies, etc...) I see no problem with it. For people like you and I, yeah it's not the best camera for us to be looking at, but it's not a bad camera at all.

Jeff, where I use my cameras, I can almost always control the light. If I was a wedding videographer, I might choose another camcorder because you can't always control the light at weddings and having used the absolutely best low light camera (PD170/VX2100) anything else is going to suffer by comparison. But to say the V1/FX7 is a waste of money is very inaccurate. I find mine to be a very good tool. And I have succesfully shot in low light with the V1 and produced useful video that I was able to intercut with VX2100 footage. As for the soft images from your FX7, have you checked the back focus? If you have a back focus problem then it is very likely that you will have soft focus issues. I was on a recent 3 camera shoot with 2 V1's and 1 EX1 and the V1's performed great and there was no problems encountered when cutting between the 3 cameras. It is capable of produceing a razor sharp HD image. For HD acquistion at weddings or for shooting paparazzi video, the FX1000 will likely outperform the FX7 because of it's greater low light capabilty. But, from the specs I can find, it still looks like the PD170/VX2100 will have a slight edge in low light performance to the FX1000. There are still no perfect camcorders.

I obviously stumbled into the wrong forum. It should be obvious that I'm in a forum for folks that own and like this camera, but I wasn't thinking.

I own the FX7 and I don't like it. Period. To all of you who are happy with it, I'm happy for you! If you want to buy mine, it will be for sale in October just prior to the arrival of the newer cameras.

I have not seen nor held an FX1000 in my hands, I have nothing to back up my assertions on how great it will be (for the money). I could be completely wrong.

To me, the minimum lux of 4 for the FX7 and rating of 1.5 for the FX1000 are a significant difference.

If low light is not critical to you, than I suppose it makes no difference.

I still feel I wasted my money on the FX7, and that will not change. I should have waited. Now I'm saddled with a camera I paid $2000 used, rarely use, and will be lucky to get anything decent for it. By the way, what are used FX7 going for now?

By the way, what are used FX7 going for now?

I sold mine for $1700 4 months ago (bought for $2600) so with a new price of $1999 you maybe looking at around $1600. Jeff just so we understand and I make this clear, the fx7 is not a lowlight camcorder, and I know we both agree to that. I have had problems with that very reason which is why I sold it. The FX1 outperformed it in this area. When it came to everything else the camcorders were identical with the FX7 being sharper. No one is saying event videographers buy the FX7. I have a EX1 and XHA1. I wouldn't got around telling people that are interested in the FX7 to not buy it because of lowlight if they don't even shoot in lowlight at all. If event videographers were to ask my input I would say The FX1000, a used FX1, XHA1 or even the EX1 if they can afford it. The FX7 has a market now and I'm sorry you made a mistake purchasing it. Don't take that frustration on others when the camera is great for all other purposes than lowlight. I believe the people that will buy won't be using it at weddings and if they do I hope they use lights because it needs it.

I believe I said, more than once, that if low light is not critical than it makes no difference. Did you miss that part of my post? Thanks for the feedback on the used prices. If I'm lucky I should get $1600 as you say.

Thanks for the feedback on the use prices. If I'm lucky I should get $1600 as you say.

I wish you luck on that. It's going to be hard to get $1600 clean after shipping costs and fees. You're looking at $1500 in pocket at the most after Nov.

Yep. Without a doubt I made a poor choice, you are right about that. I knew it wasn't great in low light, but I was shocked at the low contrast outdoors. Again, I'll say it isn't a bad camera, but I'm not happy with it.

.... You can make money off the FX7, a descent living as long as you can control the environment it's in.... So if your staying away from the dark the FX7 is more than enough for many hobbyist ad amateurs. It's at a really good price point now to.

Monday and Jeff
I have the FX7 and sure I am making money out of it. Besides other events that I have filmed, I have done so far 4 weddings and charged top prices and my clients are very satisfied with the end result. If the area or subject to film is not illuminated properly then I use lights, that's it no problem. I am happy with the FX7 and soon I will get the FX1000 or maybe save some more and go for the HVR-Z5U.

Stelios

Monday and Jeff
I have the FX7 and sure I am making money out of it. Besides other events that I have filmed, I have done so far 4 weddings and charged top prices and my clients are very satisfied with the end result. If the area or subject to film is not illuminated properly then I use lights, that's it no problem. I am happy with the FX7 and soon I will get the FX1000 or maybe save some more and go for the HVR-Z5U.

Stelios

I have to agree with the adding light statement.
I shoot event video as well, and used to shoot with VX2100/PD170's. And now am shooting with Sony FX1's. The FX1 is satisfactory in low light for me, even better in my taste than the PD170 or VX2100. This is because it gains up much cleaner and the color is more vibrant in low light. this is because of the larger color space of HDV over Sd video.

Also in ow light my PD170 color would turn to mud. I do shot entirely in manual and pus as much out of my camera that I can.

However when needed I have always supplemented light for a better image in low light. Either with on camera or off camera lighting (Two self powered 50 watt lights on 11 foot light stand by dance floor), which add that extra pop that I need to get good low light footage with good color.

Video like photos needs light, end of story. It's great that the PD/VX series could almost see in the dark, but who in the world want a night vision wedding reception. Add ligh when needed and you can get good images with almost any prosumer camera.

Monday and Jeff
I have the FX7 and sure I am making money out of it.
Hey Stelios,
I actually made quite a bit of money with the FX7 in use for a entire year as the 2nd cam. I got my money's worth out of it and sold it for what I felt was a bargain price at the time. The cam needed lots of light at receptions and that's what I stated. If your going to use it for weddings you better have lights as you said.

I got my money's worth out of it and sold it for what I felt was a bargain price at the time.

I bought said camera at said bargain price and it's been worth every penny. I'd buy another at $2K any day of the week. Any day of the week that I had $2K just falling out of my pockets.

For the new price it might be the most camera for the money on the market today.

For a good idea of what the FX7 can and cannot do, watch this (http://vimeo.com/1751969) little video I made about a recent flood in my area of the country. You'll see wonderful images in decent light, and not so wonderful ones in low light. All in all I'd say it's still one heck of a camera, and it's prefect for flying on a hand held stedicam with it's smallish size.

Jeff i said the fx-7 has great resolution because i own one and have used a lot of other hd cams,for nature filming which i like the lens is great and its best for the price for sure.If i have to knock it for me the greens ie wild country type are not as good as my sr12.

I bought said camera at said bargain price and it's been worth every penny. I'd buy another at $2K any day of the week. Any day of the week that I had $2K just falling out of my pockets.


Mine just went up for sale for $1700 in classifieds.

I am in a very similat situatio to Jeff.

I shoot weddings full time using an FX7, PD150 VX2000 and a TRV 950 (small version on the VX2000)

IMHO, the FX7 is good for weddings, until you go indoors, especially if its in low light.

I much prefer the FX7 to the VX/PD for its colour, sharpness and adjutable picture settings (yes i know you can do the same on the PD/VX but I think you get better results with the FX7, as long as your outdoors or have decent, nay GOOD lighting)

Rigging up external lights isn't really an option for me. I have lights that i use for other gigs (interviews etc...), but brides and grooms just dont want that sort of 'intrusion' on their day. Other wedding videographers may disagree, it may be a geographical thing. But i'd put money on the fact that bride and grooms do not want big (or even small) lights set up at their wedding, its just too intrusive.

I tend to film everything except the dancing with the FX7, then I'll switch to the PD150 fof its low light greatness.

My plan is to sell my PD150, VX2000 and TRV 950 and get either an FX1000 and/or Z5 and a HC-1 or (Sony) A1 secong hand to use along with my FX7, as I want to be fully HD (well, HDV).

So if anyone in the UK is looking for a vX2000, a PD150 or a TRV 950 get in touch, I'll be posting in the classifieds once the new FX1000/Z5 comes out.

On that same note, if anyone in the UK has a sony HC1 of SOny A1 for sale get in touch :)


In conclusion, I agree with Jeff, I regret buying my FX7 soley for its poor low light capabilities.


I just hope the FX1000/Z5 really are as good as sony says they are. They (sony) even say the Z5 is the natural progression for PD170 users (cant find the link, its on Sony somewhere), I hope its not just Hype.

Theres a camera expo near me in a couple of weeks where I've been told they'll have a Z5, so if they do, I'll have a shot side by side with my FX7 and post some stills/shots.

James

I'll have a shot side by side with my FX7 and post some stills/shots.The difference won't be any surprise. They're really 2 different beasts (And priced accordingly).

But the one thing that FX7 does for you now is at least give you native 16:9 to work with (unlike your PD/VX cams).

I know a few videographers that use the FX7 for weddings and dark receptions. Sure, they might curse the tiny 1/4" sensors in these things but they're getting by.

I really don't see how people can compare the FX7 and the PD/VX cameras. They are only the same in form factor. The PD/VX are great for getting a decent image in varying conditions but they can not come CLOSE AT ALL to the quality color images the FX7/V1 produce in decent light. I include studio light and daylight in my assertions. The color of the older cameras is so far from ideal compared to the CMOS HD cameras that they are simply not the same type of camera. I used to own the VX2000 and it picks up great detail in low light but the color is pale. In bright light it is overwhelmed by contrast ranges and bleeds bright backgrounds into the foreground elements. I now have the V1 and it is vastly superior to the VX in all aspects but pulling workable images out of the darkness.

"For a good idea of what the FX7 can and cannot do, watch this little video I made about a recent flood in my area of the country."

Great video. I think it has a really great ending with the people walking down the flooded street. You might want to cut the last clip of the sign to keep the drama you established.

BTW, Ethan, levees are contributing to the problem instead of alleviating flooding. South LA is made of Mississippi silt and it will all melt away if natural rebuilding processes are not restored. Just like the beaches in Hawaii that disappear when illegal seawalls are put in and put all the homes in the area in jeopardy, the natural forces in LA can not be ignored. If the flood waters were allowed to seep slowly through over a larger area, they would deposit silt during every flood and rejuvenate the land. Levees force the water into fast-moving channels that cut through and destroy the land. It would be cheaper and probably much safer to put houses on stilts than to rely on a giant levee and pumps to keep the water out. Houses on stilts having a single failure won't wipe out thousands of homes like a single levee break. If one house goes, the problem is solved by going to the neighbor's. I would rather trust my own house and my neighbors as a backup instead of hoping for a region-wide solution. I haven't been impressed by evacuation efforts so far because of traffic jams and the high cost of fuel making people reluctant to leave every time a storm approaches. Regardless, your video shows that something must be done beautifully.

I view the image of the FX7 to be much softer and almost Panasonic like.

Because of my work, I view whites and blacks as the keystone for judging image quality (white wedding dresses and black tuxedos). And in that way, the 2100/PD cameras are fine. White wedding dresses rarely look as white and life-like on my FX7 as they do on the PD150 or 2100, not even close. Much softer.

Unfortunately on the older cams black can be are often washed out, but without a black balance there isn't much to be done when shooting on the run.

Regarding lights, bright lights at weddings in my area are usually used by concientious videographers who are more heavy-handed, less discreete.

My customers value no lights or low lights. And while we are not high-end videgraphers, my company tries to emulate the high-end videographers in a few different ways, and that includes using as little light as possible.

Bright lights are strongly associated with pre-digital era videographers, and we avoid them whenever possible.

Regarding lights, bright lights at weddings in my area are usually used by concientious videographers who are more heavy-handed, less discreete.

My customers value no lights or low lights. And while we are not high-end videgraphers, my company tries to emulate the high-end videographers in a few different ways, and that includes using as little light as possible.

Bright lights are strongly associated with pre-digital era videographers, and we avoid them whenever possible.
Jeff sorry I have to disagree with you with the comment on lights at a reception.
We use 2 small portable light setups, that we put together. This consists of a Bogen 11 foot tall light stand, Bescor light (with 50w bulb), Bescor Battery belt (wrapped around the base), and a remote control to turn the light on and off as needed.

We use 2 of these units by the dance floor, usually next to the DJ's table or stage.
These lights aren't overly bright, so they don't ruin the mood or are powerful enough to overpower the DJ's light setup (if he has one). They are raised 10-11 feet in the air so they are not in direct view of any guests, and add just enough light to the dance floor to get some nice added depth to the image, and enable us to gain our FX1's comfortably up to around 12db if needed. Setup time is only 10 minutes for both lights, and the battery belt keeps the light stand very stable. But it's light enough (and not cabled with any power cords) to move where ever I need at a a moments notice.

Guests usually think that our lights are part of the DJ or bands setup and pay no mind to it. And even photographers have thanked us for using these, as it makes their job easier.

We also use onboard lighting (Dimmable Sony HVL-LVP lights) on our cameras for fill light when needed (which isn't often). We only find ourselves using the onboard lighting (which is much more distracting to guests) for those situations where we are not on the dance floor, like for interviews, table greetings, and maybe cake cutting and such.

BTW, this is the site that gave me the idea to build the portable lighting setup.

It's called the reception light
The Wireless RECEPTION LIGHT by Darrell Boeck (http://receptionlight.com/)

I built the units at B&H and ordered two remote controls for the lighting from Darrel at Reception Light.

I don't want to sound like I'm preaching about lighting and my way being best. But I like to control the environment (lighting, audio which I mic accordingly and feed to various recorders etc.) as much as I can when needed, without having to ask the venue to turn the lights up so I can shoot.

It's not anywhere near as obnoxious a setup as what the stereotype of wedding video used to be.

You really have to see it to appreciate it.

Edit: just a quick note. I don't always use the lights at weddings, but do bring them to ALL of my shoots and set them up. I'll only use them if needed. And I have worked a few receptions lately, where if I didn't have the lights, then the guests wouldn't have been able to see who they were dancing with. No joke, they were that dark. I'm all for mood and ambiance, but come on, guests shouldn't need a miners helmet to see where they are going.

I view the image of the FX7 to be much softer and almost Panasonic like.

Because of my work, I view whites and blacks as the keystone for judging image quality (white wedding dresses and black tuxedos). And in that way, the 2100/PD cameras are fine. White wedding dresses rarely look as white and life-like on my FX7 as they do on the PD150 or 2100, not even close. Much softer.

Jeff, when you are saying that the image of the FX7 is softer than the PD170/FX2100 then your results are certainly not representitive of the whole FX7/V1 family of camcorders. Something is wrong somewhere. And there is no doubt that the white/black balance is much more tuneable on the FX7/V1 than the PD170/VX2100. But, in some cases, it might be fortunate that the PD170/VX2100 doesn't have all of that tuneablity. So if you can't get a good white balance and you have images that are really soft, I would conclude that either you have a defective camcorder or it is a situration of operator error.

BTW, I asked earlier if you had checked the back focus on your FX7 and you never answered. Have you?

I really don't see how people can compare the FX7 and the PD/VX cameras. They are only the same in form factor. The PD/VX are great for getting a decent image in varying conditions but they can not come CLOSE AT ALL to the quality color images the FX7/V1 produce in decent light.

I agree 100% i used to own a 2100 and outdoors the fx-7 is far superior, i think jeffs cam
was born disabled certainly in the sharpness department.ALso agree about the great video.

Michael, nice lighting setup. I do like the stands, and agree they would be perfect at any reception. I will definitely look into putting together a similar setup...very nice, and definitely would be plenty discreete for most any situation!

Have I checked the back focus? No. The footage on my camera looks the same as others I have seen. I don't care for it, unless lighting conditions are just right.

I think the true test of a camera is to see how easy it is to sell. I'm interested to see how low I'll have to go to get rid of it. I've seen PD170's sell used for barely less than the price of new...(though that has been awhile). So far at $1700 I've gotten not one inquiry. And that despite this camera is like brand new with less than 20 hours on it. I'll lower price and see what happens. I have a feeling I will nearly have to give it away to sell it.

Michael, nice lighting setup. I do like the stands, and agree they would be perfect at any reception. I will definitely look into putting together a similar setup...very nice, and definitely would be plenty discreete for most any situation!

Jeff, thanks it works well and is easy to setup and break down. I was even lookng into mounting my Sony HVL-LBP lights on a stand, but couldn't wire them up for a remote.

BTW, if you wanted to put together your own kit, then here's my list of items that I used to put together my kit from B&H. As I said I purchased the remote controls from Darrell at Reception Light.

https://secure.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=wishlisting&A=wishlistDetail&Q=&li=24793931C4

Thank you for the information, Michael. Actually, I own a Lowell ID light with variable dimmer, and a lead acid battery, so I would just need a stand to top it off! Then I would just assemble the second kit! Thanks again for your link to your wish list!

I think the true test of a camera is to see how easy it is to sell. I'm interested to see how low I'll have to go to get rid of it. I've seen PD170's sell used for barely less than the price of new...(though that has been awhile). So far at $1700 I've gotten not one inquiry. And that despite this camera is like brand new with less than 20 hours on it. I'll lower price and see what happens. I have a feeling I will nearly have to give it away to sell it.
I'm not sure the price it eventually sells at is purely a reflection of how much people value the camera's ability. I think it's more an economic supply and demand decision. When everyone thought these were discontinued they were going for obscene prices in relation to the original MSRP. But when a new one can be had for under $2K -- probably well under once a normal street price is established -- $1700 used is uncomfortably close to the new price and not, perhaps, perceived as a bargain.

I'm guessing if it wasn't being re-released, $1700 used would be seen as a great bargain and it would be snapped up fairly quickly -- what with Sony trying to sell refurbs at their outlet for almost $2600 (!).

For me, the strike price for a used one would be in the $1000-$1200 range, not because I don't think it's a great camera -- I do -- but because that represents the sort of margin between new and used prices that seems like a great deal.

You might be right, I don't know. If you can only get close to half price for a camera that is like brand new with low hours, I think it says something.

If a PD 170 with 20 hours on it appeared in the classifieds, how much do you reckon it would bring?

Unfair comparison? Maybe. The Panasonic GS400 still sells for close to $1000 (just saw one on EBay for $995) and it has been out of production for a long while. And no the GS400 isn't near the camera of the FX7, but it is still an interesting fact.

I dunno. I just want to sell it and place my order for a new cam. The FX1000 seems to be a great value, the viewfinder alone is amazing, 24p, 1.5 lux rating, 1/3 inch chips, shoots SD in HD natively, the list just goes on.

Actually, I might need to put my FX7 on Ebay. I avoid using ebay any more, but I might need to go there in this case.

Jeff, I think you probably do have a back focus problem with your FX7. If you use manual focus and you are in the habit of zooming all of the way in and focusing and then zooming back out to frame your shot, you will get soft focus if the back focus is out of adjustment. My big gripe with the V1/FX7 is that everyone of them that I have seen has the back focus screwed up from the factory. If you sell the camera before it is repaired then the second owner will not be able to get it covered under warranty (according to Sony). So even if you are determined to sell it, for your sake and the sake of the next owner, send it in and get it fixed under warranty before it is too late.

As for how much you can get, it might not be terrible. There were 2 completed auctions on Ebay last week for FX7's. On one, the only extra was a wide angle lens. It was a low mileage model with the original box and all originally suppled accessories. It sold for a little over $2000. Another one with a custom hard case, extra battery and some other minor accessories was even higher.

Actually Greg I have never used manual focus on the camera. I've only used it on auto from the back of the church in the balcony, so there was no need. Thanks for the heads up though, I appreciate it. Also thanks for the info about the ebay auctions. I'll check it out next week.

Amazon lists the reintroduction date to be November 2. Does anybody know if they’ll be any slight changes? Even if it’ll be exactly the same, that’s’ a perfect price considering it was first introduced for $3,500. That’s nearly half off! Now if only Sony would lower the price of the V1u as well.

Paulo, if you could live without the pro audio connections, the FX1000 would be a much better value than the V1U anyway.

As the hand on review by B and H says, "And while the lack of XLR inputs keeps this fixed-lens camera from full professional status, its street price of $3,199 is $500 less than the FX1 and less than half the price of the pro-level HVR-Z7U (which adds an interchangeable lens to an otherwise similar feature set). This makes the FX1000 an amazing package for independent videographers and filmmakers seeking broadcast-quality, 24p film-like imagery."

Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everthing from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U? Not me. Add to that the fact the CMOS chips are of the same tecnnology used on the EX1, and I think we have a winner.

Jeff,

You said, "Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everything from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U?"

The answer is, "Anyone who wants a pretty good "prosumer" HD camcorder w/a 20x lens for only $2000." Of course the FX1000 is a much better unit, but $2000 is an incredible bargain if you can deal with the (relative) low-light issue.