I've been looking at the FX7 for quite some time now and am going to buy one. I just had two questions...

1. I've been trying to decide between two fisheyes, the Century .3x 62mm fisheye or the Raynox MX3062. Now I know the Century is higher quality but it's much more expensive. Does anyone have a MX3062 lens that can tell me the pros/cons?

2. I don't really like the use of tapes. If you uses a non-tape way of storing your footage, could you please tell me how? I know about firestores and stuff, but I'm never sure which one would work best.

Thank you SO MUCH to anyone that can help...

Tapes are better imo, until you can get redundancy in your recording situation (The new Panasonic or JVC has dual CF card recording... which is awesome)

You got an instant archivable backup after you capture it... which came in very handy recently when my server holding all my raw footage (60+ hours) crashed... I still had all the tapes so I was able to re-capture everything.

I would use tapes as a backup for important events. But mainly I want to be recording to something other than tape, as I need this camera to last a while. I want to keep the drum use to a minimal.

The Sony MRC1 Compact Flash recorder that is optional for Sony HDV camcorders, can be used to record video with your FX7.

Any other ways of tapeless storage? The sony MRC1 is a little more than I would like to spend...

Any other ways of tapeless storage? The sony MRC1 is a little more than I would like to spend...

Sorry, tapeless recording units are more of a professional feature right now. So the Sony MRC1 is about as inexpensive a solution that you're going to find at the moment.
Hard drive options will run you more and will have moving parts that could cause issues in the long run. So removable flash card formats are the best bet. And the Sony MRC1 CF recorder is one of the better low cost solutions out there.

Does the MRC 1 compress the signal further than simply recording to a mini dv tape?

I'm also looking for a way to improve workflow without degrading quality, when using an FX7. What are the options?

To clarify, can one simply record to a laptop and/or hard drive AND the minidv at the same time? The MRC 1 seems needlessly expensive.

I think you can record to a laptop, but not just a normal hard drive. Does anyone use firestore? I want to use one of those but I'm not sure which one works best.

That would be great! In other words, we could record to the minidv in the camera and to a laptop via firewire? Is that correct? Has anyone done this? If so, is the signal degraded or is it the same on both the laptop and tape? Also, does it slow things down?

That's perfectly possible Gordon. Firewire feeds the computer and chips feed tape and Firewire simultaneously. I do it.

You don't say what type of filming you're doing, but fisheye footage can be hard on the viewer if overdone. On that score I'd say go for the Raynox unless you're shooting technical subjects such as the stars at night, say.

The Century may be sharper in the corners and exhibit less CA, but if your film's any good, who in the audience will be checking out the corner distortions?

tom.

I'm wondering if the 3 small chips in the Sony FX7 will produce an equally good HD program as the one larger chip in the Canon HV30, which sells for 1/3 the price!

I'm shooting a massage video in natural indoor light. Nothing super low like candle light. We want natural colors and some moody effects.

I'd be more concerned about the photographic differences between cameras using ¼" chips (the FX7) and cameras using bigger than 1"/3 chips (HV30).

Bigger chips mean longer focal lengths for the same field of view and therefore greater dof control. They also allow smaller apertures to be used before diffraction starts to rob you of sharpness.

I haven't put an FX7 up alongside the HV30, but I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light.

tom.

"I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light."

I'm not sure what you mean, Tom. Could you amplify?

Amplify - good one Gordon.

OK, I'd expect the 3x more expensive Sony FX7 to have quieter amplifiers and more sophisticated noise control in its gain up mode. If my Z1 is anything to go by then the grain at +18dB in the FX7 should be remarkably controlled and the pictures very acceptable.

The sad thing is the very tiny ¼" chips in the Sony - the Canon's 1"/2.7 CMOS is in the region of 85% bigger in surface area, so allowing every pixel to be bigger and gather more light.

The Sony has beam-splitting prisims in front of the chips but this is probably more efficient than the multi-coloured filter in front of Canon's chip.

The Canon is a f/1.8 lens as against Sony's f/1.6 but a 10x zoom lets in more light that a 20x of the same aperture. You know about T stops? They both have very poor wide-angle coverage, but that's just one of those things.

So all in all I'd expect them to be equal in low light - the Sony's far great cost outweighing the Canon's big chip. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

tom.

Tom,

Many thanks for that analysis. I'm still wondering if the FX7, even at the sale price, is worth the difference.

Has anyone used both cams and compared them? If so, I'd be grateful for your comments here.

I can see that the Sony has much better ergonomics, which could make a difference in a longer shoot.

Get the camera that works for you the best within your budget. The FX7 is less portable but it has better controls due to having room for all the buttons and wheels. Both cameras produce a nice image. Don't be fooled into thinking that the larger chip in the Canon has better low light because it is divided up into the three colors by its filter. Add up the area of all three FX7 chips to get the total size of the pixels. There is nothing wrong with single-chip cameras but you must do the right math regarding the size and sensitivity of each pixel.

If portability and cost are your primary considerations, get the Canon. If control and impressing the client with the bigger camera is important then get the Sony.

Having done multicam shoots with both the FX-7 and the HV20 I can tell you that in my opinion the image quality from the FX-7 is definitely superior. The FX-7 had a crispness and color definition that clearly surpassed the HV20. As I was editing a multicam shoot I was looking at a direct comparison of the two images with the same lighting/etc.

Just another opinion.

Image quality is somewhat subjective, and you need to keep that in mind. What is your expected delivery format (web video, for instance you won't probably be able to see any difference...).

The HV20/30/40 is several years old now, as is the FX7 - I did some tests with the HV20 and FX7 side by side and much preferred the FX7 - and of course the better control set is a big step up over the HV's. I didn't like the way Canon handled bright colors, esp. the reds, and the detail seemed worse in the blacks/shadows, although the video looked quite sharp and crisp. Unless you're particularly anal, you'd probably be quite satisfied unless you put the HV against a bigger camera.

Depending on your time line, you may want to wait for the reviews of the latest generation small cameras (HF-S and XR). The Sony XR500/520 in particular look to be stunners in low light conditions from samples I've seen. NO "real" manual controls to speak of, but in a controlled shoot with an experienced operator, you can make 'em work surprisingly well.

Dave,

I want a program that will work on HD TVs, as a DVD and later in Blueray. I don't want it to look dated in a year or two.

I'm not a pro, just an amateur who wants to do some video work. I'm experienced as a still photographer. Again, I need good skin tones in the final product. My upper budget for a camera would be in the current FX7 range, around 2K.

OK, then you definitely want to think higher end, while the HV series will probably be fine, my experience is that the newer AVCHD cameras are getting a better picture overall (you'll have to keep in mind the editing headaches, plan on a fast quad core computer).

I'd rate the FX7 better than the HV20, but the newer "pocket rockets" in the AVCHD category are giving larger more expensive cameras a serious run for the money, particularly if you can control your shooting conditions.

It sounded to me like you're really concerned with low/mood lighting. Keep in mind that typically in a "pro" shoot, they light it up big time, and post it to give the illusion of whatever mood they are after... BUT, you may want to keep an eye on the XR series, it looks to be pretty good in low light from the samples I've seen. Less noise and cleaner picture, which MIGHT be able to let you pull off a lower ambient light shoot - one night sample I saw looked quite good.

Since you're a still photog, have you considered the Canon 5D Mk2? Might be worth a look if your primary gear is due for an upgrade cycle, and the video results from that cam are pretty amazing.

Dave,

You make some tempting suggestions, but my budget won't permit anything more costly than the "sale priced" FX7 at $1,800. I'm wondering if the HV30, at 1/3 the price would give me what I want.

I'm also wondering if the larger chip in the HV30 would permit me to soften the background, while keeping the subject in focus.

Where are you finding an FX7 for $1800? I'd check the place out very, very carefully at resellerratings.com before I'd buy. My bet is you'll never get it at that price (and if you do, let us know).

You'll get better DoF control in the FX7 due to having more controls and larger glass.

You'll get better images out of the FX7 no doubt... I'm seeing it more and more often when I compare my footage out of the FX7 to another "HDV" camera.. HV10,20,30 or the HC3/5/7/9 series... the FX7 always looks sharper/more detail with better image quality overall...

the MSRP dropped to $2000 so $1800 isn't unreasonable, but yea be cautious either way.

I'm not so sure Adam. 'Larger glass' it may have in that it has a 20x zoom as against a 10x, but the Canon has a 1"/2.7 chip - i.e. bigger than 1"/3 whereas the FX7 is a lot smaller at ¼".

So the answer Gordon is yes, the HV30 does give you good differential focus effects but you have to be in manual because really you want to be shooting at maximum aperture for the least dof. Also it has a 61 mm focal length as against a not-much-more 78 mm on the FX7.

tom.

My SR-12 has a max zoom of 58.8 and my FX-7s zoom max 78 there is a huge difference in this,which is for wildlife close ups this cam is top notch.

Dave,

You make some tempting suggestions, but my budget won't permit anything more costly than the "sale priced" FX7 at $1,800. I'm wondering if the HV30, at 1/3 the price would give me what I want.

I'm also wondering if the larger chip in the HV30 would permit me to soften the background, while keeping the subject in focus.

The only reason I mentioned the 5D was because it might serve both sides (photo AND video), and is pretty stunning in low light with that huge sensor, but I understand the budget thing, as it keeps me from buying one too!

A 10% discount off MSRP doesn't sound unreasonable to me, most vendors SHOULD be able to offer that in this economy without batting an eye.

The minor difference in chip size isn't going to amount to much in changing your Depth of Focus (DoF), and if that's important (getting away from a "video look"), you probably won't be excited by either camera when coming from a photography background.

There are ways to "fake" DoF, but I'm presuming you're also shooting in what will be relatively cramped quarters, meaning you can't zoom in much (which can give you shallower DoF), and you're already fighting low light with a wide open aperture while trying to avoid noise (you lose stops as you zoom in).

Neither of these camera is going to be a knockout in low moody light. Perhaps the answer is to go with the HV30 and some lighting to bring up the ambient light to where almost any of the HD cameras will give great results?

As others have noted, the FX7 is going to give you a sharper picture, and while an experienced pixel peeper will spot it right away, if your content is compelling, properly lit, and well produced, 99.99% of viewers won't notice or care. The camera is a tool, the FX7 is a "better" tool commensurate with its price, and offers a lot for the $$, but the HV20/30/40 represents a compelling package for the price. $600 vs. $1800 won't result in 3x "better" image quality, and I think that's what you're trying to evaluate... and like many things, the improvements will be incremental, not linear with price. In my mind what you can shoot with a sub $1K camera is "close enough" to what a bigger more expensive cam can shoot that it's not worth the difference (I've seen footage that indicates my SR11 holds up well against an EX1... I'm not "seeing" $5K difference in image...)



Keep in mind also that you're probably going to have to augment the audio, especially with the HV, so budget should include that consideration. I guess what I'm getting at is you may want to do the budget with audio/light/camera/needed accessories, and see what is realistic - you can easliy end up spending as much in outboard gear as you would for a second camera...

Which brings up another angle, in theory you could get two HV30's for multi-angle shooting which can reduce takes and recording time... just to complicate your thought process!

I'm not so sure Adam. 'Larger glass' it may have in that it has a 20x zoom as against a 10x, but the Canon has a 1"/2.7 chip - i.e. bigger than 1"/3 whereas the FX7 is a lot smaller at ¼".

So the answer Gordon is yes, the HV30 does give you good differential focus effects but you have to be in manual because really you want to be shooting at maximum aperture for the least dof. Also it has a 61 mm focal length as against a not-much-more 78 mm on the FX7.

tom.You're probably right... you obviously know a lot more about lens physics than I do. But I was actually referring to the diameter -- the FX7 is about twice as wide across at the front element as the HV30 or similar compact cam -- and I seem to recall something from high school physics about larger diameters having better resolving power and light gathering abilities and all that stuff... none of which probably affects DoF, upon reflection.

Note that in 35mm terms, the max tele of the FX7 is 748mm, compared to the HV30's 436mm: a huge 72% difference. So that added Focal Length could help with DoF as well.

I can only tell you that using both HC3s (admittedly not the same as an HV30, but similar) and FX7s, the DoF is unquestionably more controllable on the latter.

'Probably right' Adam? I thought I was your hero. Yes, the FX7 has a much bigger front element but this has far more to do with its 20x zoom ratio than its resolving power or light gathering. The Canon has only a 10x zoom and it's f/1.8 at that - meaning the whole lens assembly can be made more compact, even though it's feeding a chip with twice the surface area.

And it's this latter point that influences dof greatly because the focal lengths are much longer for any given field of view. OK, the FX7 has far more zoom and at full tele you can indeed have a very limited dof, but the point is to get this short dof you have to zoom in very tightly. But you're right - the control afforded by ensuring you're filming wide open does indeed have great bearing on this issue.

I'm not so sure Adam. 'Larger glass' it may have in that it has a 20x zoom as against a 10x, but the Canon has a 1"/2.7 chip - i.e. bigger than 1"/3 whereas the FX7 is a lot smaller at ¼".


correct me if I'm wrong, but FX7 is a 3x1/4" CMOS and HV20/30 is a single 1/2.7" chip,
that would make a big difference, not in the day light though

For what it's worth, if you do the math (and if it's correct), the FX7 has about 52 square mm of chip area compared to 39 for the HV30.

I ordered a "demo" with a "cosmetic scratch" from B&H today. $1699 + 200 for a package with bag, tele, filters etc--things I can actually USE. And 15 days to change my mind, if problems arise with the demo. Full Sony warranty.

I want to thank you all for your carefully considered advice. I'm sure the HV30 would have worked too, but I like the ergonomics of the FX7 (which are similar to my old VX 1000) a lot more and I do feel the essential skin tones I want to capture will be better with a three chip camera. Also, I have a library of mini dv SD programs that were shot on the VX 1000 and I wouldn't want to lose quality on future transfers.

For our initial production, the camera will be on a tripod most of the time. We're experimenting with lights and reflectors--and probably some kind of soft box.

This is a very useful board. Thanks again--and a tip of the hat to those whose advice I may not have taken.

BTW: B&H claims their "demo" has NOT been used to demonstrate the camera in store (these, they say, are not sold to the public), but rather it is a unit that was returned by a customer. Again, they are offering me the full Sony warranty.

You're not wrong with your dimensions Buba, but the single chip vs the three chip configuration doesn't affect the dof situation at all. Same answer applies to you Victor. DoF is all about chip sizes and focal lengths needed to feed them - not about how many chips are employed.

Yeah, that's true, i should've read all posts in the thread, but it's just not practical to choose a camera based on native DOF specs, instead go with your budget, get the best you can afford, and get the 35MM adapter if you're crazy about shallow DOF

I agree Buba. I chip area is just another factor affecting low light performance. The FX7 doesn't have the performance of the FX1 or FX1000, but compared the A1U I was using, it's great for me... Keep shooting :-)