I was looking for a mid-sized camera with some manual controls and stumbled into a blow-out on a FX7 that was way too good to pass up.

I just decided to get Sony's extended warranty with accidental damage coverage for three years. I'm not a extended warranty fan but got one on my iMac which had three major repairs and then toasted, that warranty got me a brand new one -- newer model, even. Also, a buddy spending $750 for repairs to his 2-year old JVC pushed me over the edge. I figured I'd rather pay a little now and sleep at night than a lot later. Hoping I never need it but...like that I have it.

From my quick basic tests I really like this camera. I don't shoot in low light but ran a few tests in light darker than I'd want to shoot in for kicks. I was pleasantly surprised, footage looked great. From all I read I wasn't expecting much at all. This thing has a bunch of features that I need to learn but I was pleased that I could use most of it out of the box and prior to RTFM.

So, now I have one, someone teach me the secret handshake. :-)

I was looking for a mid-sized camera with some manual controls and stumbled into a blow-out on a FX7 that was way too good to pass up.

This thing has a bunch of features that I need to learn but I was pleased that I could use most of it out of the box and prior to RTFM.

So, now I have one, someone teach me the secret handshake. :-)

Congratulations on your find! My V1/FX7 Handbook has all the handshakes you'll need.

Dave
I have been using the FX7 for quite some time now especially for event videography and never led me down and ofcourse in dark environment there is always LIGHTS. Steve's Mullen book about the FX 7 is very good but mostly for the technical minded videographer.

Stelios

Hi,

I'm still running it through some tests and familiarization exercises and, so far, everything's working quite well. I'm impressed at how well the auto settings are working, didn't expect it to work as well as it does -- read too many negative posts. Seems pretty darn quick at AF and even changes in focus, light intensity, and color temperature are faster yet smoother (like a nice dissolve) than I'd expected. Very pleasantly surprised. I already feel at home with it.

Just put a 62-58mm step-down ring on it and was pleased that the bayonet hood fits with it in place. I have several 58mm accessories that I plan to use on it. Tried my Sony VCL-HG0758 (58mm 0.7x) on it and like the results.

One thing I LOVE about video is that you can experiment and get the results almost immediately. No sending the footage to the lab and waiting or paying or getting notes on how the chemicals were too hot, cold, over-replenished, new emulsion... :-)

...no camera is going to satisfy everyone but for the price i feel the fx7 is about as good as it gets ...

...no camera is going to satisfy everyone but for the price i feel the fx7 is about as good as it gets ...

I agree. I'm quite pleased that Sony chose to reintroduce the FX7 at under $2,000 price point as there's not really anything in that price range. Might get more people interested in getting one.

I thought maybe Canon would replace the GL2 with a HDV version in the same range, not yet. Don't see JVC or Panasonic coming out with one either.

I wish they would introduce the price cut in Aus as well - Here you will not find the FX7 for under $4300 from a reputable dealer. Even grey market imports on ebay are around $4000. I'm glad I picked mine up a few months ago for $3200 - the price has been steadily increasing since.

Hmmmm... If i sold my FX7 second hand at the moment I would probably make a $500 profit! But I love it way too much for that...

Hmmmm... If i sold my FX7 second hand at the moment I would probably make a $500 profit! But I love it way too much for that...

I stumbled into mine for less than half of the new U.S. price. Couldn't believe it and barely held in the jumping up and down in excitement. Got them to throw in a extra battery (tiny F330) and $60 HDMI cable. :-)

I can see why you love it.

...the fx7 shoots pretty well in sd as well ...i have a panasonic dvx100a and the fx7 sd footage just looks sharper and more vibrant than the dvx100a...

...the fx7 shoots pretty well in sd as well ...i have a panasonic dvx100a and the fx7 sd footage just looks sharper and more vibrant than the dvx100a...

Nice to know. I plan to pretty much shoot in HDV mode and convert to SD later as needed.

The built-in mic is better than I expected ran a PDQ test (not setting any levels) using it and three inexpensive Audio Technica mics I have laying around and the internal mic wasn't that bad.

YouTube - Sony HDR-FX7 & Audio-Technica ATR20, ATR35s & ATR55 Audio Test 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWY5kprwNfM&fmt=18)

Given a choice between the FX7 internal mic and a hotshoe mounted ATR-55 (I own one - a purchase I have since often regretted) I would go for the internal every time. I find the ATR-55 when mounted on the shoe picks up an extreme amount of continuous hum from the camera. I suspect the hum is coming through the mounting, mechanically, rather than through the front of the mic, a feeling supported by the inordinate amount of handling noise it features if tested that way. It's definitely a mic which needs to be off-camera or, preferably, away in a cupboard somewhere.

VideoGuys Australia | Rode SM3 Shock Mount (http://www.videoguys.com.au/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1847)

Given a choice between the FX7 internal mic and a hotshoe mounted ATR-55 (I own one - a purchase I have since often regretted) I would go for the internal every time. I find the ATR-55 when mounted on the shoe picks up an extreme amount of continuous hum from the camera. I suspect the hum is coming through the mounting, mechanically, rather than through the front of the mic, a feeling supported by the inordinate amount of handling noise it features if tested that way. It's definitely a mic which needs to be off-camera or, preferably, away in a cupboard somewhere.

I ran just noise tests with the ATR55 on both the FX7 and Canon HV30. The ATR55 is quieter on the Canon HV30 than it is on the FX7.

FX7: YouTube - Sony HDR-FX7 & Audio Technica ATR55 Motor Noise Check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nFaDJQA4vE&fmt=18)
HV30: YouTube - HV30 & ATR55 Motor Noise test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP6u2lymrzs&fmt=18)

The FX7's internal mic surprised me, didn't expect it to be as usable as it is. I ran a second set of tests using the ATR55 just slightly off the camera to the left and on a boom.

YouTube - Sony HDR-FX7 & Audio-Technica ATR20 ATR55 Audio Test 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHwwWotEfXY&fmt=18)

It's usable for my needs in normal mode, tele mode is another story. I plan to add a Zoom H4 to my kit and maybe a Azden SGM-1X.

VideoGuys Australia | Rode SM3 Shock Mount (http://www.videoguys.com.au/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1847)

The Rode SM3 shock mount is as much as the ATR55. I think I'd go with an off-camera bracket or off the camera entirely.

The Rode SM3 shock mount is as much as the ATR55. I think I'd go with an off-camera bracket or off the camera entirely.

mount around $50au / mic around $145us.

mount around $50au / mic around $145us.

Sorry, I was referring to where I am, U.S. I can find the Audio Technica ATR55 for $50 or so, and the Rode SM3 is also about $50. The SM3 will probably help with the camera noise but so does the Sima/Bescor flash bracket off to the left -- may have to test it on the right, too.

I just purchased a Zoom H4 and will be using the ATR55 in Normal off off-camera via the H4. May be adding a Azden SGM-1X to the mix.

A side bracket and a shock mount are two different things and have different purposes. While the bracket will get the mic off the cam and may reduce tape whine, it'll actually increase noise transmitted to the cam if you touch even a button or zoom rocker. The shock mount isolates from noise physically transmitted through the solid parts of the cam.

A side bracket and a shock mount are two different things and have different purposes. While the bracket will get the mic off the cam and may reduce tape whine, it'll actually increase noise transmitted to the cam if you touch even a button or zoom rocker. The shock mount isolates from noise physically transmitted through the solid parts of the cam.

It's a dampened bracket...just kidding. Point taken.

I was surfing around and found all sorts of DIY shock mounts, blimps, poles...

Wire Monkey - Shock Mount (http://wiremonkey.com/diy_shock_1.htm)

Make a Rubber Band Shock Mount for your Boom Mic for only $3! (http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-Rubber-Band-Shock-Mount-for-your-Boom-Mic-f/)

Microphone Suspension Mount (http://www.instructables.com/id/Microphone-Suspension-Mount/)

DIY Shockmount&Zeppelin Rode NT-4 (http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/DIY_NT4_3inchPVC_ShockZep/DIY_NT4_3inchPVC_ShockZep.html)

Blimp and shock mount:

DIY Mic Windscreen (Zeppelin) on the Cheap (http://www.joelandkaren.com/mic-zeppelin/)

Stereo Blimp:

rcrds DIY MS-stereo microphone blimp (http://www.mediumrecords.com/random/diy-ms-stereo-microphone-blimp/)

Paint Roller Blimp:

Microphone Blimp (http://www.instructables.com/id/Microphone-Blimp/)

Dual Zeppelins, no waiting:

DIY Shock-Mounts w/Zeppelins for Rode NT1-A Mics (http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/DIY_ShockZep_4_NT1A_ORTF/DIY_ShockZep_4_NT1A_ORTF.html)

Just found some time to experiment with the Sony HDR-FX7 and Zoom H4. The combo is working well in my tests; FX7 connected to the H4 (tried both line and headphone output), FX7 not connected to the H4 and sync'd in post by aligning a hand clap. The ATR55 actually works well, I have a SGM-1X on the way but the ATR55 will still be used as well.

The thing I find odd is that despite the excellent sound I heard in the headphones the audio waveforms in the H4 files are considerably lower (almost flat-lined) than the audio waveforms in the FX7 audio version of the same files -- H4 connected to the FX7 or not.

Saw someone "fix" this in an interesting H4 for podcast use Vimeo video IHR TV #3 - Podcast Audio Production on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1164269) using the free app Levelator (Mac, Windows, Linux) The Levelator from The Conversations Network (http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator). An associate said they get "fat and rich" audio waveforms from their H4 which is telling me I'm not doing something right.

On the H4 I have the Mic and Inputs 1&2 set to M and AGC and Compressor off with Input Level max'd at 127. Maybe they're using compressor and AGC, I'm not an audio guy but thought using those type of settings was a no-no.

While I can tweak the audio in post I'd really prefer to have things set properly to get the best audio files I can from this setup. Any advice, tips or helpful links would be appreciated. Thanks!

...The thing I find odd is that despite the excellent sound I heard in the headphones the audio waveforms in the H4 files are considerably lower (almost flat-lined) than the audio waveforms in the FX7 audio version of the same files -- H4 connected to the FX7 or not.

Saw someone "fix" this in an interesting H4 for podcast ... using the free app Levelator...

On the H4 I have the Mic and Inputs 1&2 set to M and AGC and Compressor off with Input Level max'd at 127. Maybe they're using compressor and AGC, I'm not an audio guy but thought using those type of settings was a no-no.

I've owned the H4 for a couple years now, and I like it.

The audio recording level controls are rather minimalist. As you've mentioned: L-M-H for the external inputs, and L-M-H for the internal mics; that's it.

There is also a level control in the input menu. After reading that it doesn't really trim what's coming into the preamp, I've not touched it in 2 years.

So, I set my sensitivity to M for music and H for voice and don't worry too much about the needed post work, 'cause I always post and it doesn't take much time. I use Ozone (http://izotope.com) (PC) as a mastering tool, it has a nice volume maximizer, among other features. I'd typically just touch a music recording, hit a voice/narrative recording a bit harder. Lots of detailed tweaking can be done with a tool like this.

That's what you're going to get with a $300 recorder. Still a great value for pretty good sound. Hmm... I just realized that Ozone costs almost as much as the recorder.

My advice: Test with mic sensitivity set on H, keep compressor and agc off, consider limiter on.

The Levelator - I hadn't heard of this before, but I recognize at least one of the names in the credits - I've seen some of Doug Kaye's other work related to doing near-studio-quality interviews over Skype. His techniques work. I'd be inclined to believe that Levelator is a decent one-step audio processing bundle for podcasts, as claimed. Whether it's gonna' be good for audio-for-video... well, as someone who's been working professionally in A for V for, um, decades I wouldn't trust any automagic processor. I like my Ozone just fine, thank you very much.

But if podcast-quality appeals to you and a one-step tools appeals to your level of expertise and motivation give it a try and see if the results satisfy.

My advice: Test with mic sensitivity set on H, keep compressor and agc off, consider limiter on.

Thanks, Seth, I was avoiding H for some reason. Ran a few more tests and think part of the problem is that the ATR55 I have isn't very hot, the internal mics fair much better. I use Final Cut Studio and have SoundTrack Pro so I'm set for audio editing. In my simple tests Levelator worked pretty well for speech. Since 99% of what I'll be recording is speech so I should be okay using it or normalizing, etc., in SoundTrack. I was just trying to figure out how others are getting fatter waveforms.

I was rather pleased at how well the FX7 worked when connected to the H4. No low volume problems (AGC off) and backup audio. I like it!

Hi,

I am new to this forum so I hope this is the right place to post. I am still having trouble posting messages.

I just got the FX7 which I like a lot. I have a couple of questions about HD. I have done a lot of standard Def recording but no HD. In the 1080i specs is the video recorded in Widescreen (16:9) or (4:3)? Is there anyway to tell the camera which format to record in or is this done in Premiere? I know that under SD recording I can specify 16:9 or 4:3. I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Thanks,

John Gerard

Hi,

I am new to this forum so I hope this is the right place to post. I am still having trouble posting messages.

I just got the FX7 which I like a lot. I have a couple of questions about HD. I have done a lot of standard Def recording but no HD. In the 1080i specs is the video recorded in Widescreen (16:9) or (4:3)? Is there anyway to tell the camera which format to record in or is this done in Premiere? I know that under SD recording I can specify 16:9 or 4:3. I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Thanks,

John Gerard
In hd mode it will always be 16:9 .i dont use Premier but take it your pc does not have a firewire[hdmi]slot so you use the capture card.The FX- is no different to any hdv cam regarding capture so it is not that your cam is not supported.

I have used my friends FX7 and with firewire, I have been able to download his tapes into my computer. I then used Pinnacle 12 to edit and produce an SD DVD. The next time I have his camcorder, I will be using Nero9 to edit and produce an HD DVD (Actually an AVCHD DVD).

Mike

I am using Premiere Pro CS3 and the Intensity Pro card. Is there anything in particular I need to do to get it to capture from the HDMI port through the capture card? I told the Intensity sotware to use the HDMI port on the capture card. Maybe the FX7 is not supported?

Don't capture via HDMI. There's no point to it and there's no reason to do so. HDMI does not transmit timecode so you will have a very hard time editing with footage captured this way.

HDMI capture is only for live recording direct to disk, as going straight out of the HDMI port avoids HDV compression. But once your picture is recorded to tape, it's heavily compressed and there is no reason to use the HDMI out except for display to a TV screen.

Just use Firewire. If your PC does not have a FW (i.Link) card, one can be had for $20 or so.

Don't capture via HDMI. There's no point to it and there's no reason to do so. HDMI does not transmit timecode so you will have a very hard time editing with footage captured this way..

I haven't tried this, however at Blackmagic Design's Intensity's website they say you can capture the video and audio via HDMI and use your camcorder or deck's firewire for device control. From their website:

Device Control None. Use FireWire if capturing from HDMI cameras.

Blackmagic Design: Intensity Tech Specs (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/techspecs/)

I've done this using my AJA I/O to capture down-converted analog component output from my V1U via the I/O and controlling the camcorder via Firewire device control. This allowed batch capturing with timecode.

Perhaps someone has tried this with Intensity.

Finally, the rationale for capturing from HDV via HDMI is to transcode to a more robust codec such as uncompressed or ProRes (I don't know if there is an equivalent for Premiere).

... the rationale for capturing from HDV via HDMI is to transcode to a more robust codec such as uncompressed or ProRes (I don't know if there is an equivalent for Premiere). Sure, Cineform, but there's no advantage to doing this via HDMI instead of FW. The signal is the same once it's been compressed to tape.

The signal is the same once it's been compressed to tape.

That's correct. You can't improve upon the original signal, but if you transcode to a better codec (ProRes or Cineform) then all of your renders and composting will look better. FCP has the option of rendering in ProRes for HDV or XDCam projects. In that case I agree that there would be no advantage to capturing to another format. Indeed I have edited many native HDV projects on my older dual G-5 and my new Mac Pro.

Also consider that capturing and editing in Native HDV requires more processor power due to HDV's Long GOP file structure. With each edit your computer must calculate a new I frame that did not exist prior to the edit. Cineform and ProRes are intraframe formats (each frame is unique) and therefore don't require as much computational muscle from the host computer.

You can't improve upon the original signal, but if you transcode to a better codec (ProRes or Cineform) then all of your renders and composting will look better.

that is if you're looking to do any heavy duty cc'ing or compositing, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to see any significant difference editing hdv on the t/l.

leslie

Right, but going back to the original post, there's no point in trying to do this via HDMI as there's no advantage over FW capture. No need for the extra HW and SW involved with HDMI capture.

You can't improve upon the original signal, but if you transcode to a better codec (ProRes or Cineform) then all of your renders and composting will look better.Don't need HDMI for that (unless that's live recording). Capture HDV over Firewire with device control, then the NLE converts to intermediate codec on the fly or batch - automatically. They will even upsample chroma to 4:2:2 for you.

Capture HDV over Firewire with device control, then the NLE converts to intermediate codec on the fly or batch - automatically. They will even upsample chroma to 4:2:2 for you.

Which NLE is that? Certainly not Final Cut Pro which can only capture HDV to HDV via FireWire with device control. Without device control you can capture HDV to ProRes or Apple Intermediate Codec via FireWire.

In hd mode it will always be 16:9 .i dont use Premier but take it your pc does not have a firewire[hdmi]slot so you use the capture card.The FX- is no different to any hdv cam regarding capture so it is not that your cam is not supported.

Sorry i did not mean hdmi but ilink 1394,other names for firewire.This is the only way i have ever captured from fx-7 and hc-1.

Which NLE is that? Certainly not Final Cut Pro which can only capture HDV to HDV via FireWire with device control. Without device control you can capture HDV to ProRes or Apple Intermediate Codec via FireWire.EDIUS has device control and batch capture, and captures HDV directly into Canopus HQ intermediate with timecode. Routine built-in workflow, that's the way the software was designed.

Regarding Adobe Premiere with Cineform, I recall from early tests that Cineform's HD Link utility has device control and works like a 2-step capture-then-transcode. I'm not sure they went to the point of implementing batch capture though, their FAQ says so (through Premiere's capture interface) but Adam might elaborate on this much better than I could.

Sorry about FCP / ProRes - I knew then forgot about that altogether, and I stand corrected.

EDIUS has device control and batch capture, and captures HDV directly into Canopus HQ intermediate with timecode.

That would be a nice feature on FCP. Thanks.

Regarding Adobe Premiere with Cineform, I recall from early tests that Cineform's HD Link utility has device control and works like a 2-step capture-then-transcode. I'm not sure they went to the point of implementing batch capture though, their FAQ says so (through Premiere's capture interface) but Adam might elaborate on this much better than I could.
I never use HDLink, but I always do batch capture using a Cineform preset through Premiere. Each clip is captured normally and then takes a couple of seconds to convert. If you're batch capturing, it takes longer to find the next clip than it does to decompress -- the processes occur simultaneously -- so there is no difference in total elapsed time. Full device control but no scene detect.

HDLink does scene detect, but for me it always seems to capture 15,000 clips of one frame each. There's probably a setting I'm missing somewhere.

Deleted post - repeated a point made previously.

EDIUS has device control and batch capture, and captures HDV directly into Canopus HQ intermediate with timecode.

so i can use an edl and simply type in a bunch of i/o's and it will batch capture via firewire!?

are you sure?

will it capture straight to m2t as well?

if it does, then i'd buy edius tomorrow for it batch capture which is the only problem i have with vegas pro.

leslie

I can't say about EDLs, I never needed to re-capture. And for some reason the batch list edit tool is awkward in EDIUS, so it only takes instead a simple Excel sheet to type In/Out capture points and generate a .csv file that EDIUS will use as the batch capture list. Press capture and go get a cup of coffee while the device control does its work.

About m2t, I don't know. The strength of EDIUS lies in its native intermediate codec editing which brings those real-time editing & CC capabilities. EDIUS also supports native HDV editing, but as it just defeated my purpose of avoiding native MPEG2 editing, I've never tried it. Get a trial maybe?

thanks stephan,

i'll download a trial and give it a whirl. be pretty good if it does....