The excitement of owning a new, long-awaited camera has quickly faded.

After shooting my second event with the FX1000, I must make a couple of points.

I come from a VX/PD background.

I have not learned to use the FX1000 properly yet.

I shoot primarily weddings, so I'm dealing with less than ideal lighting most of the time.

That being said: Out of the box the image of the FX1000 is so much softer than the VX/PD series. The images do no pop in less than perfect lighting.

Last night while shooting, the images looked great in the viewfinder, but I found myself on more than one occasion wishing I was shooting with my old cameras.

I must say, however the amount of area covered by the lens in full wide is fantastic, and this is especially evident during the dancing.

But while capturing the photo session, it was rough, to say the least. Images seemed to be washed out, bland, and too dark.

For those of you who are accustomed to the ease of use and almost idiot-proof older Sonys, these are a challenge.

I have a lot more shooting and learning ahead with this camera, but after last night I'm reconsidering my purchase of the second one. Problem is, in this price range, I don't see what my alternatives are other than a larger sensor, which translates into much bigger bucks.

Because of my infatuation with the images of the VX/PD series of cams, the FX1000 is just not as much fun to shoot with.

I imagine after getting the hang of framing shots properly in 16:9, which is still new and alien to me, I will feel better about it, but I also imagine I will long for the crisp, low-light ability of my old cams for a long time to come.

OK, I need to respond to myself.

I burned and played footage from the two weddings I've shot with the FX1000 and I must say they look better on the television than they do on my monitor.

The movie appears to be almost film-like, even though I didn't run 24p mode.

I feel much better about the cam than I did this morning.

It was true that the images don't pop as they did with my old cams, etc., but just because they don't jump out from the screen doesn't mean they won't look great on a widescreen set.

In fact I think after adjusting to things I may grow to like this camera more over time.

Don't mind me if I sound schizoid...

hello jeff I'm sorry to hear the way you feel about your new camera, I have owned a fx1 for about 3 years and I have been very happy with the way it shoots I have used the vx 2100 and I'll tell you that at first the transition from the vx to the fx is some how disapointing, but after learning how to use this new cameras you will see the difference,

1- you have the ability to record in high def wich is the must have now, also on dv you shoot in native 16:9. I do mostly weddings and quinceañeras and never heard of a customer complaining about their video been too dark.

2- one thing I love about new technology is the crisp image wich is way better than analog equipment. one camera that is in the same price range with the fx 1000 is the panasonic hmc150 is about $100.00 dlls more but you have a tapeless camera with ccds sensors instead of the cmos which a lot of people complaint about. the only problem with the panny is the format avchd files, if you don't have a pretty strong computer you will suffer in post.

in all and all I believe this camera fx 1000 is worth it the buck and in comparision with the vx 2100 I prefered the fx with all and the vx is better in low ligth. that is the only advantage that I can see other than that the fx1000 is a camera you will be able to work for many years........if you don't mind the tapless check the panasonic
hmc150 that is a great gear and is about same price..........

Hey what do you boys mean by the image does not "pop".

Also I have been using a Z1 recently. Gee its a bit of a dog really that cam. Having a slow zoom speed, short lens and iris on the bottom left front of camera made shooting really limiting.

Looking forward to these improvements in the FX1000. Of course no XLR's but I record audio for dance concerts in stereo via a DVD recorder and will use a ballen box to run stage mics to pick up singing.

I will get the cam today and post my first impressions.

Regarding recording formats I have been lugging along lap top and so record live that way as well as to Mini DV tape. It saves lost of download time.

Whats the go with recording to flash with the FX1000. Is it right that you can firewire out into the box/harddrive that mounts ontop of the camera? Hoping so.

Jeff said: "But while capturing the photo session, it was rough, to say the least. Images seemed to be washed out, bland, and too dark."

Jeff do you think you were underexposed here or as you said does it end up looking great on a TV?


Jeff said " I also imagine I will long for the crisp, low-light ability of my old cams for a long time to come."

Jeff I have been using a Z1 recently and OK its not like a VX on low light but to me its still pretty good. If the FX1000 is in between then it will be fine. I think 16:9 the more you look at it wins as the cinema look gives it all a tough of class.

On top of that things just look and are closer. For dance concerts that little dancer at the back of the screen can be seen a bit better and well shooting is incredibly easier.

16:9 > 4:3 well there is no comparison. It took me an extra 12 months to wait for the right cam. Hoping the FX will be OK as I pick it up today.

Well, as I said after burning a disc, I was somewhat pleased with the images. As far as the photo session footage, I didn't actually include it on the disc, should have.

I definitely could have opened up the iris, but didn't.

All in all, the 16:9 is very nice, you are absolutely correct.

I do beleive as I learn to use the camera I will be even happier with it.

Out of the box the image of the FX1000 is so much softer than the VX/PD series.

This is the bit I simply cannot get my head around. The FX has very nearly 4x the resolution per frame than the VX/PD, so where does the word 'softer' fit into this Jeff?

You're a long-term poster here, you know the score. I've used the Z1 for three years now and just 2 weeks ago went back to use the VX2000. Yikes! The camera's side-screen was horrible, the 4:3 aspect looked like the 1950s. No wide-angle to speak of. Low shots obsure the iris control wheel and button with the (low res) side screen.

Yes, you'll get to love the FX. OK, it's probably a stop slower than the VX, but its gain-up amps are a lot quieter and you can pump it by +6dB over the VX and it'll still look fine.

And Martin - I just love that beautifully damped, knurled aluminium knob that controls the Z1's iris. It falls perfectly under my left thumb as I support the camera and allows me fine tune of the aperture with delicate ease. So much so that I'm not looking forward to having to use my left hand on the lens ring of the Z5.

tom.

I am hoping the audio limiter that was so good on the Sony TRV900 is also on the FX.

on the TRV900 which I expect was similar with the VX2000 you could go into any mega loud situation and the camera just wouldn't distort when switched to "auto" on the audio.

I only which they would keep auto and manual but when in manual still allow you to have the limiter kicking in.

I mate of mine (that means pal or buddy in Australian) has a Sony dsr200 (the big 3 chip 10X zoom DVcam and yep it has the above feature allowing total control over levels but with a limiter in play. This is surely the best scenario.

Also what about the CF recorder. It this what takes the flash cards and so where and how does it mount on the FX?

I just love that beautifully damped, knurled aluminium knob that controls the Z1's iris. It falls perfectly under my left thumb as I support the camera and allows me fine tune of the aperture with delicate ease.
tom.

Tom, that's filth, you've got a dirty mind.
I like the Z1 too but you've gone too far, I'm getting all hot and bothered.

;-)

Jeff, did you use or try any of the Custom Picture Profile settings in the camera.
These can make a huge difference in how your overall image appears compared to straight out of the box settings.

If you push the sharpness, color, auto AGC and Iris limit, you can achieve some sweet looks without the need for much work in post.

Now I don't currently own a FX1000, but did come from VX/PD territory and have been working with FX1's for a couple of years now. And if you do some experimenting with the CP then you can get some stunning out of camera footage. I shoot manual everything all of the time and use the cameras controls as best I can. I don't trust the camera to adjust for me, except for reference.

The only thing that you have to remember if you use the Custom Profiles is to make sure that you have the right one selected before your shoot. Recently, I did a shoot for someone and forgot to change my Picture Profile settings. The profile that I set had a sharpness setting of only +6, which of course produced a soft overall image.

BTW, I hate the 3 position Gain switch and really prefer a smooth gain exposure like the old PD series cams. But a neat low light trick that I picked up from someone here is to set my 3 position switch as L-0, M-6, H-9, and then go into the menu and set my "Auto Gain" to 12-15 db. Now you have 4 gain settings, as for times that you need extra gain, simply switch your camera "Gain" to "Auto" and you have the extra boost that you may need.

This has helped me out in receptions where the lighting can be all over the place.
Of course on camera lighting or off camera supplemental lighting can help quite a bit as well. I have always used lighting, even for my VX/PD shoots. It as great that the PD could shoot in the dark, but the image generally turned to mud.

What I have taken away from early posts on the FX1000 is that the overall image isn't much brighter than the FX1 in very dark venues, but the color seems to hold up much better. Which is great to hear because the FX1 would produce a darker image than the PD series cams, but the overall color was superior in the FX cams.

I am looking forward to the FX1000 even more than my FX1's because of extra picture settings such as Black Stretch, Knee settings, histogram (I love this coming from a Photoshop background) which will give me even greater control over my overall image.

All in all I think if you delve deep into the cameras settings you will find that the FX1000 wil produce as stunning image in both great and low light.

so, be happy jeff 'cause you'll love your investment I asure you!!!!!

The movie appears to be almost film-like, even though I didn't run 24p mode.

i think this is a common thing. Things look great once you get new equipment and then once you start using it you start to have pangs about the old stuff.

Most often it is a case of having to get to know a new friend. Kind of like replacing a faithful old pet that died with a new one. The new pet isn't the same as the old one, but has new characteristics that are unfamiliar.

I find that quite often equipment needs at least a month to 'bed in' in terms of the mind and how it is used. Many times the things that you thought were restrictions turn out to be useful.

it is a shame most manufacturers don't allow a try before you buy scheme that gives ample time to become accustomed to equipment before purchasing.

Lots of great feedback and support. Michael, great tips.

As I mentioned I had not played with camera much before using, and I do regret it. I read up on the Iris ring AFTER the shoot, OMG I can't believe I shot without it.

With the VX2100 during photo sessions when faces were too dark in full wide, I simply zoomed in on the face and hit the Iris button and I was often set perfectly. I wasn't able to do that with the new camera, it was very frustrating.

Tom, the softness I am referring to is the lack of contrast in the images compared to the VX2100. Resolution and contrast are not the same. On my hi-def set when customer watch my videos, they are still consistently blown away by footage from my VX2100. Images are bright and clear and often stand up well against professional photos mixed in with my video. Running in semi-manual this is not happening with the FX1000.

The FX1000 has a setting to boost the contrast, so even sony is aware the the FX's image is soft, as they attempt to compensate for it.

When my wife watched the footage from the FX 1000, I asked her how she thought it looked, and she shrugged her shoulders. She said it look "regular". Pretty sad. She admitted it was nice in that the image fills the screen, but that was it.

It is pretty clear that I have a lot to learn about the operation of the camera to obtain the best footage. Unfortunately it is not as idiot proof as my older cameras, and will require more tweaking than I am accustomed to using.

Tom, that's filth, you've got a dirty mind.
I like the Z1 too but you've gone too far, I'm getting all hot and bothered.

;-)

LOL :) ..Very funny..

Jeff so true about the VX2100 being an idiot proof camera. It wasn't exactly an idiot proof camera but performed pretty well in all auto when needed.

However once I moved to the PD170 I realized the benefits of learning the camera settings and using them all of the time in full manual. After getting the PD170, I then started running my VX2100's in all manual as well. As a reult my images popped off of the screen much better than running in auto.

This of course helped me when I transitioned to the FX1, as the FX1 has much better manual controls over your image than the PD170 ever had. The only downside was the 3 position gain setting as opposed to smooth scrolling gain. But I already told you my slight workaround for this.

The only thing that I had to learn was how and when to use the picture profiles in the camera and what each setting did. Once I started to figure this out, the image really took off and as a result I spent much less time in post color grading or correcting my footage. I still do some color work, but not as much as I used to in post.

I look forward to using the FX1000 and even more picture profile settings that were once reserved for Sony Pro cameras only.

I'm certain that once you have time to learn the camera, you will love the image it produces.

Jeff,
I am not a FX1000 user but as an ex VX2100 user i wanted to comment. I am using Canon A1s and am consitently blown away with this camera compared to the VX2100. I never liked the picture from the 2100. I thought it was dull and lifeless in low light. I thought in regular light, it was very videoish with overblown colors and too much contrast. I think the Canon has an incredible image and I love these cams in way I never loved the 2100. I am waiting for the Canon response to these new cameras (HMC-150, FX1000) this is a very interesting discussion to me. It does seem that every time a new camera comes out, there's this honeymoon period where you hear nothing but how the camera is going to solve all of the problems in the world, and it eventually doesn't. I do identify with you alot on how all of the new settings and switches present a real learning curve. I will be following your prgress, so post some footage as it comes up.
Bill

What he said!
Bill, I totally agree with your comments.

Jeff, I think as a VX2100 user at work, and Canon A1/Panny HMC150 user at home, the reason the VX 2100 seems idiot proof is because it cannot offer you anywheres near the control your new Sony does. I use a 2100 at work, and really wish bthat I could use my A1 there as well. Once you learn how to use it, it's just so powerful a cam.

Your cam is like the A1, too. In which there will be a steep learning curve, because its HD, and you have soooo many more options in image control.
Be patient, get to know your new tool and it will serve you very well indeed. Focus on the presets.

I greatly appreciate the comments and support in this thread.

I have come to see through watching my footage on DVD and through your comments that the cam is fine.

Began this thread before I had taken the time to render out footage and view it on DVD. It was clear upon watching the footage that it is OK. As far as personal preference, I still am not crazy bout the image. It does seem soft to me. I think it is my being accustomed to the hard image of my old cam.

Bill, while you found the VX2100 image dull and lifeless, I liked it. This comes down to personal taste, for which there is no explaining, of course.

Anyway, it is clear after playing with the settings on my FX1000 the last couple of days that I cannot run this camera as if it is a VX2100.

FWIW, I am about to order another one of these cameras and get an audio adapter for it. I have committed to learning the camera and working with it. I would like very much to buy a Z5 but can't see spending the extra $ks.

As an aside to Bill, I must say that your comments about your Canon, Bill, sound like most other users of your cam...they love it. When it first came out I wanted one more than anything. I absolutely love what I've seen of it's footage...I'd like to shoot with one for a day. I love the physical looks of the camera and the layout more than any other I've seen. And yes the image does appear to have the characteristics that I call soft, but it is soft in a good way. I can't explain it, I just like what I've seen of that camera.

As a Sony user, I decided that while I wanted that Canon, it wouldn't be prudent to switch over 4 cams to another brand, and I regretfully let go of the idea.

But at any rate I feel confident the FX1000 will work out well.

Jeff, I too am considering the 1000 and I'm curious if you've viewed HD footage from it on an HDTV. I wasn't clear if you have an HDTV or if you're using the 1000 exclusively as an SD camera.

Although I haven't seen the 1000 personally, I'm confident you'll grow to love it as you learn its capabilities.

I'm in this section because I want to buy either a Z5U or FX1000 as a second camera to my Z7U (purchased last May). I too have found the transition from the VX2100/2000 to the Z7U to be 'interesting'.

I'm finding the low light capability to be about the same but the Z7U is more likely to lose focus in autofocus mode vs the old cameras. I am assuming that this will be the same with the Z5U and FX1000.

For the first few months I was mixing video from all 3 cameras (Z7U, VX2100, VX2000). On the monitor it seemed like the old cameras were 'better' overall but the Z7U seemed to have slightly more contrast. When I output to DVD however, the general viewer liked the Z7U footage much better than the VX2100/2000 footage. Mixing the footage together probably had some impact on thi BUT I also suspect that part of this is due to my own learning curve. After 7 years on the VX2000/2100, I had developed a sense of what translated well from the monitor to a TV. I have to 'relearn' this for the new cameras.

Portions of the Z7U footage turn out so well that I've decided to go all the way. I sold my old VX2100 and VX2000 to B&H 2 weeks ago and waiting for the Z5U to be available so that I can see what the street price will really be. It is hard to image that B&H will sell the Z7U (which includes the CF recorder) for less than the Z5U plus CF recorder (this is what the web site shows today).

Jon, you mentioned that you preferred the footage of the 2100/2000, but yet you found the 'general viewer' like the Z7 footage better. What was it that they liked and you didn't?

Another question fromme too - how on earth do you compare a 4:3 camera with a 16:9 one? By letterboxing one or pillarboxing the other?

I was thinking he was shooting the Z7 in DV mode and not HDV.

Jeff,
I sweat quite a bit over my decision to move to canon. When I got into the business a short 3 yrs ago canon was the GL2 or the Xl1s or whatever. Neither a great camera for weddings. The only obvious choice was the VX2100/PD170. When I decided to go HD, I discarded brand loyalty, and focussed on what I saw that impressed me out there(footage wise) what jumped out was the A1. The FX1 seemed to be sort of an HD VX2100, and I had used an HVX200 and knew that the low light was considerably worse. I have to say though that it has taken me almost a year to start getting 70% happy with the image I'm getting(i look at 70% as exstatic). I know now and knew then that it had to do with me as much as the camera, and that is why the payoff now is so sweet...
Bill

Jeff, I too am considering the 1000 and I'm curious if you've viewed HD footage from it on an HDTV.

Ken: My televisions are HD and I have viewed the images from the FX1000 on it. The 2 weddings I've shot I did use HD settings. However I rendered them out as NTSC widescreen, and so I have not seem them as blu-ray or HD.

Bill, your encouragement is appreciated.

Tom you are not the first to ask how one can compare an 4:3 image to a 16:9 image.

Looking at the situation from a purely technical point of view, you can't, of course.

But I can tell you this: I learned the 2100 well enough that when viewers watched my videos of hi-res professional wedding photos mixed with video from my 2100 they were pleased, and often stunned. They matched up surprisingly well. The SD video looked great on my screen. As long as I could get a prospect into my viewing room, they almost always bought my product. In the last year I've not booked two out of 40 or so customers. The rest booked strictly off of my website.

I made the move to the FX1000 not so much for HD but for 16:9. I am now glad I have joined the HD club though.

I look forward to the prospect of getting a blu-ray burner and trying it out, but since most of my customers are viewing with non-blu-ray players I'm not feeling pressed about it yet. With the price of blu-ray dropping now (saw one advertised for just under $200) that may change.

Anyway, the prospect of having a camera that shoots nicely in 16:9 is exciting, and I'm looking forward to ordering my second FX1000 this week (that is if my sale of my old PD150 and VX2100 goes through tomorrow).

Good answer Jeff. You've not thought you should hold fire for the Z5? I bought an FX1 and a Z1 and can't believe how much nicer the Z1 is to use and customise. And of course you need to plug in XLRs in your game don't you?

Tom I would of course very much like a Z5, but I don't know that the extra $ are worth it to me. The FX1000 is stretching my budget as it is. I plan on buying an audio adapter for the second FX1000, the CX235. I think the price difference of around $2K is too much.

I will remove the adapter for the reception, as I am generally happy with the onboard mics for use at the reception and need the shoe for lighting. That lack of a second built in shoe is something I really don't care for, but I'm trying to work around it. I have an adpater for adding a second shoe for my VX2100 but it throws the balance of the camera off so much I don't use it.

With the 2100 I ran a Rode Videomic at the ceremony which I disconnected for the reception. I found the auto gain didn't seem to work with the Rode attached and the loudness at the reception was too much. Rear camera at the ceremony was the PD150 with the wireless attached which we took off for the reception.

Edit: I saw today that the Z5 is only $1K more than the the FX1000. Might spring for it.

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

Fo an XLR box I will say only one box Juicedlink Juicedlink XLR Adapters (http://juicedlink.com/index_files/CX_camcorder_XLR_microphone_adapter_audio_mixers.htm)

Do a search for info on Juicedlink on these forums as they have been reviewed in detail by myself and other on here.

in essense they are cheaper in price than the Beachtek boxes and by far superior in audio fidelity, ue to the built in low noise pre amps.

Jon, you mentioned that you preferred the footage of the 2100/2000, but yet you found the 'general viewer' like the Z7 footage better. What was it that they liked and you didn't?

I found that the VX2100/2000 footage looked better on my monitor, hence I thought it would be better in output. The Z7U footage didn't look as good on the monitor but , in the DVD output with mixed Z7U and VX2100/2000 footage, the 7U was brighter and crisper. So I agreed with the 'general viewer' of the output but I didn't expect this based on my previous experience with what I'd seen from the monitor.

Another question fromme too - how on earth do you compare a 4:3 camera with a 16:9 one? By letterboxing one or pillarboxing the other?

I use Final Cut for multicamera editing. Frame sizes have to match for mutlicamera editing. I shoot the Z7U in HDV mode and the VX2100/2000 in SD (4x3 or anamorphic) mode. My output is 4x3 SD DVD or 16x9 SD DVD. To do multicamera I either had to downres the HDV or uprez the SD. I tried both but settled on uprezzing the SD since I wanted to be able to zoom/pan within the HDV footage (possible since the output is SD).

I was comparing the picture quality since I was switching from one camera to the other in the sequence with this method. Yes the VX2100/2000 uprezzing followed by compression to DVD affects its quality. But even accounting for this, the new camera is better in the final output.

Jeff,
for more contrast, blacker blacks, and possibly more of that elusive 'pop' --check out the CinemaTone Gamma and CinemaTone Color settings.

I don't have the FX1000, but I use similar settings almost exclusively on my V1U and HV20's, for a beautiful image unsurpassed by the ol' PD170. (Still miss the low light capability though.)

Ken: My televisions are HD and I have viewed the images from the FX1000 on it. The 2 weddings I've shot I did use HD settings. However I rendered them out as NTSC widescreen, and so I have not seem them as blu-ray or HD.

Bill, your encouragement is appreciated.

Tom you are not the first to ask how one can compare an 4:3 image to a 16:9 image.

Looking at the situation from a purely technical point of view, you can't, of course.

But I can tell you this: I learned the 2100 well enough that when viewers watched my videos of hi-res professional wedding photos mixed with video from my 2100 they were pleased, and often stunned. They matched up surprisingly well. The SD video looked great on my screen. As long as I could get a prospect into my viewing room, they almost always bought my product. In the last year I've not booked two out of 40 or so customers. The rest booked strictly off of my website.

I made the move to the FX1000 not so much for HD but for 16:9. I am now glad I have joined the HD club though.

I look forward to the prospect of getting a blu-ray burner and trying it out, but since most of my customers are viewing with non-blu-ray players I'm not feeling pressed about it yet. With the price of blu-ray dropping now (saw one advertised for just under $200) that may change.

Anyway, the prospect of having a camera that shoots nicely in 16:9 is exciting, and I'm looking forward to ordering my second FX1000 this week (that is if my sale of my old PD150 and VX2100 goes through tomorrow).


FYI, you should check out the licensing fees before producing any Blu-Ray output. You are supposed to pay an initial $3000.00 fee, then $1300.00 for every project. This is why the computer manufacturers have given up trying put an integrated blu-ray burner in their PCs.

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

I've used Beachtek adaptors for years and they work well (DX-6 and DX-8). I've used them with a variety of microphones with good results. For definitively better sound, you need to get a higher end mixer (good preamps, >$700) and good condenser mics (>$300). Below this and you'll find that your miking set-up has a bigger impact on your sound. FYI, I prefer the DX-6 over the DX-8, since the DX-8 shuts down if the battery gets too low.

Quote: "FYI, you should check out the licensing fees before producing any Blu-Ray output. You are supposed to pay an initial $3000.00 fee, then $1300.00 for every project. This is why the computer manufacturers have given up trying put an integrated blu-ray burner in their PCs."

From what I understand this is only if you plan on doing mass duplication in having them pressed from a glass master. If you are just burning a few BD-R discs then you will be just fine. At least some of the PC manufacturers are putting in Blu-ray players in their laptops. Not a big demand for burners, but you can buy one for under $300 now. I remember paying more for a DVD burner. Please, let's not scare away people from burning blu-ray discs because of the licensing fees when they only plan on burning a few discs for each project.

With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues:

Why the quoting of an entire post? And why especially do we need to quote the comment immediately before us?

This clutters things up to no end and is unnecessary. We've had a discussion on-going about this in the announcements section and it's driving more than a few of us crazy.

Anyway, regarding the audio box, the box I would use is the highly regarded Juiced Link that I referred to in my previous comment. Nothing against Beachtek at all, but the juiced link is supposedly quiter. I've never owned either, so I don't know. But the Juiced Link owners seem awfully happy with their boxes, many of them former Beachtek owners.

Jon, thank you for the heads up on the Blu-Ray (see how I did not need to quote you?).

Regarding the fees you mention, let me ask you a question: Do those fees sound realistic?

Does anyone actually believe this stuff? This is a ridiculous rumour being spread about...

Go here and you will see the fee you mention have nothing to do with small-time operators: http://www.blu-raydisc.info/faq.php but are intended for authoring houses and even then under specific conditions or volume.

Where do these rumours begin?

Good link Jeff. From what I read there, anyone can author bluray discs but if you want to use the logo, you have to pay them for the rights. I have a hard time reading legalize but that is what I get out of it. At least for us little people.

Jon, thank you for the heads up on the Blu-Ray (see how I did not need to quote you?).

Regarding the fees you mention, let me ask you a question: Do those fees sound realistic?

Does anyone actually believe this stuff? This is a ridiculous rumour being spread about...

Go here and you will see the fee you mention have nothing to do with small-time operators: Blu-ray Disc License Office -- FAQ (http://www.blu-raydisc.info/faq.php) but are intended for authoring houses and even then under specific conditions or volume.

Where do these rumours begin?

The purpose of quoting is so that the reader doesn't have to search through all the entries in order to find what the reply is referencing.

My info on the fees came from a pc company on the Blu-Ray board. The fees are ridiculous hence my caution. The entertainment industry has a history of ridiculous behavior. You'll note that there is still no way for a wedding video to use a public song other than a special waiver via a high level friend at the right label.

Here's a November 2008 article from the DVD Association on the topic.
http://www.discmakers.com/community/resources/Edge/2008/dvdvsbluray.asp

I'd appreciate a little more civility.

Good link Jeff. From what I read there, anyone can author bluray discs but if you want to use the logo, you have to pay them for the rights. I have a hard time reading legalize but that is what I get out of it. At least for us little people.

The link says that 'a little guy' can't use the BD Logo. They can use the term "Blu-ray". That's it. It doesn't say anything else about what can be done by 'the little guy'.

So I can put out a BluRay program and I don't have to pay any licensing fees. I just can't use the BluRay logo. Right? Sounds like a good deal to me. I can live without using the logo.

It would be great if we could get back to a discussion of these cameras as opposed to Blu Ray licensing fees.

Scott, thanks for the recommendations on the Cinema tone settings. I played with them for a church event a couple of days ago. Overall the default settings for Cinema 1 and Cinema two were nice, but seemed to darken the images overall a bit, makiing shooting in a darker environment a bit challenging.

I think that those settings would be much more effective and useful in a well-lit environment. Again, it did provide a pleasing look, just a tad too dark for a poorly lit church.

I'm having trouble with the iris ring. I push iris button, and even in manual iris mode the iris will not stay open, it wants to maintain some degree of the auto function. Very strange.

Edit, Iris issue seems to occur when in 24p mode. When I returned to normal settings it was fine, though it seems to me it occured same way before.

I'm having trouble with the iris ring. I push iris button, and even in manual iris mode the iris will not stay open, it wants to maintain some degree of the auto function. Very strange.

You sure you've locked down the shutter speed and the gain settings? On my Z1 locking the iris still lets the other two float to try and give you 'correct' exposure.

Or are you seeing lens ramping, where the max aperture varies as you zoom?

tom.

It seems to be it might be lens ramping, Tom. How can I know?

Your camera only has an f/1.6 maximum aperture at maximum wide-angle. As soon as you start to zoom towards telephoto (even a bit) your lens loses speed such that at full tele it's only got an f/3.5 maximum.

So put it another way. You're filming in the gloom using f/1.6 and +6dB say. If you zoom to telephoto you only have f/3.5 as a max apererture, so the gain has to go up to +18dB (two stops) to compensate. If you don't allow the gain to increase you'll greatly under-expose your shot.

tom.

Thanks Tom. Very good info. I'll play with the cam with these things in mind.