I don't know, the focusing on mine seems OK, but I guess different people have different expectations. I think it's a bit better then my VX2100 was, if you consider one thing:

You are now shooting in widescreen, versus 4:3. The focus on both VX2100 and FX1000 seems (to me) to be center-weighted. Now that I'm using 16:9, there's less of a chance of my subject being always in the center. This prompted me to open a thread a while back on how to do use autofocus with such composition techniques. Jeff Harper's answer was right on: use AF ASSIST feature of FX1000. Using this feature gave me full control over the frame. I can focus on the upfront subject and then use the focus ring to snap to a person behind them without moving the camera. It's a very professional looking effect.

So far I'm very happy with the FX1000, but I have nothing to compare it to as far as HDV goes. I'm just saying that for me it was a worthy upgrade from VX2100.

You'll here me criticize it, but it is a nice camera and I feel lucky to have two of them. I'll feel luckier if I can replace one with a Z7 though.

The advertisements between every page are quite tedious, and one of the reasons I do not visit Camcorder Info any longer.

Same here Jeff. Quite pathetic actually.

Stelios

To anyone that's about to post along the lines of "professionals should always be in manual focus" well I say get up with it.

Auto focus has become a very useable function and seasoned cameramen from the old school are now seeing the benefits of it.

I hate to burst your bubble, but you do realize that most real pro cameras (Betacams, etc) don't even come with autofocus. Wonder why?

I don't know, the focusing on mine seems OK, but I guess different people have different expectations. I think it's a bit better then my VX2100 was, if you consider one thing:



Igor, it's interesting, but I've been having less trouble with the Z5 autofocus than I had been. I think that's because I'm learning the situations where the autofocus will go south and anticipating it. For those situations I choose manual focus or focus assist.

I've shot in HD for two days now in San Francisco, and I would say the autofocus has worked perfectly 95% of the time. It's that other 5% that threw me when I first got the camera since I don't recall my 2100 behaving that way. When I need to focus on a face and see anything with any detail in the background, I know the autofocus will probably go wonky.

As long as I have a reliable work-around, I'm OK.

I Jeff Harper's answer was right on: use AF ASSIST feature of FX1000. Using this feature gave me full control over the frame. I can focus on the upfront subject and then use the focus ring to snap to a person behind them without moving the camera. It's a very professional looking effect.


How do you use that technique when shooting fast moving action like a hockey game from ice level?

I hate to burst your bubble, but you do realize that most real pro cameras (Betacams, etc) don't even come with autofocus. Wonder why?


Roy, well I hate to burst your bubble but a very well respected TV cameraman of 25 yrs plus here in Australia is new to the smaller DV cameras and says he just loves the option of going AUTO focus.

In the heat of the moment when the battery is flashing FLAT, the bride is coming down the aisle and its all a mad situation auto can be great. Don't you agree?

I do understand your reservations about being "all auto".

In response to John's question about videotaping a hockey game, I would normally have thought a smaller f-stop would have taken care of depth of field issues, making focus less of a headache. But I've found the Z5 isn't particularly sharp at smaller f-stops and those should be avoided for maximum picture quality.

On the other hand, the jerseys that are worn by the players should provide something more substantial for the autofocus to lock on to rather than a nebulous face...something these autofocuses don't like. So for a hockey game, you might be fine.

I'm telling you, if Sony had provided 'face detection' for these cams, they would be nearly perfect in my opinion.

In response to John's question about videotaping a hockey game, I would normally have thought a smaller f-stop would have taken care of depth of field issues, making focus less of a headache. But I've found the Z5 isn't particularly sharp at smaller f-stops and those should be avoided for maximum picture quality.


I was using the hockey game example to illustrate a typical scenario with very fast moving subjects that requires AF. I've shot hockey at ice level through the glass (clean section) with my VX2100 and I am able to track a speeding hockey player as he skates towards me right to the point where he smashes against the glass in front of me.

Obviously shooting hockey from high above would require very little AF performance and could probably be shot with manual focus.

I've been holding off buying an HD camera until I can get something with similar AF peformance.

But John my thought was that the Z5 might well be able to focus on hockey players as a result of detail in their uniforms. You're not really focusing on the face per se, but rather the entire player, uniform and all.

I don't think the Z5 would have an issue with that, but you'd want to make sure prior to purchase.

I was using the hockey game example to illustrate a typical scenario with very fast moving subjects that requires AF. I've shot hockey at ice level through the glass (clean section) with my VX2100 and I am able to track a speeding hockey player as he skates towards me right to the point where he smashes against the glass in front of me.

Obviously shooting hockey from high above would require very little AF performance and could probably be shot with manual focus.

I've been holding off buying an HD camera until I can get something with similar AF peformance.

You could be holding off 4ever, I said before that focusing in SD is very forgiven, even if you are a litte out of focus it is very hard to see, but in HD a little out of focus and it is so obvious.

You could be holding off 4ever, I said before that focusing in SD is very forgiven, even if you are a litte out of focus it is very hard to see, but in HD a little out of focus and it is so obvious.

That thought has crossed my mind. Perhaps I should simply pick up another VX2100 and continue to shoot 4:3 SD the next 5-years. I'm assuming that razor sharp SD material will be preferred over out-of-focus HD material. Sure keeps the workflow fast and simple. :-)

You know John, I had a prospect in my studio last week. We were watching an older wedding video of mine shot outdoors with the 2100, and the footage was mixed with professional wedding photos.

The photos and my video matched almost perfectly, it was really stunning footage, IMO, as I often found with the VX2100.

The customer asked if it was HD.

It was 4:3, unstretched, bars on the side, but it looked THAT good. In perfect light, the HD of the FX1000 is fantastic, and it is HD, of course.

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

That thought has crossed my mind. Perhaps I should simply pick up another VX2100 and continue to shoot 4:3 SD the next 5-years. I'm assuming that razor sharp SD material will be preferred over out-of-focus HD material. Sure keeps the workflow fast and simple. :-)

I have a 1 year old 2100 that will be going up for sale soon. :-)

You know John, I had a prospect in my studio last week. We were watching an older wedding video of mine shot outdoors with the 2100, and the footage was mixed with professional wedding photos.

The photos and my video matched almost perfectly, it was really stunning footage, IMO, as I often found with the VX2100.

The customer asked if it was HD.

It was 4:3, unstretched, bars on the side, but it looked THAT good. In perfect light, the HD of the FX1000 is fantastic, and it is HD, of course.

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

That might be the way to go.

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

I'll tell you Jeff, I'll match the 4:3 SD video of the Z5 any single day against my VX2100. It is simply beter in every respect: Color-check, sharpness-check, resolution-check, exposure latitude-check, low-light-check. It is simply a more professional looking 4:3 SD image.

That may be well and good, but my comments are directed at Todd, who is looking for a camera. He does not seem enamored with CMOS or rolling shutter. I don't think he or anyone would buy a FX1000 or Z5 so that he can shoot great SD...it would be pointless.

And besides I said pound for pound. If I'm going to shoot SD I'm not going to spend $3.2K when I could buy a VX2100 for $1200.

He had mentioned getting another 2100, so that is the context my comment was made in.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

You should be able to find some good used broadcast style camcorders that shoot in DVCam and are 4x3/16x9 switchable. They are CCD cameras and will produce stunning SD 16x9 images. But, personally, I have had my fill of the Anton-Bauer batteries/chargers hassle and high dollar investment required. Plus heavier tripods. Etc. And I will absolutely guarantee that I can get better looking, more accurate, more appealing footage with your FX1000. With a whole lot less hassle. Now I will grant that the wedding/photog flash thing is a real issue for me, but I will work with it instead of putting up with the other option. Ironically, I was a photographer at a wedding where the videographer was using a V1. I have a pretty hot flash. I saw the footage. And all of the flash artifacts were driving me crazy. But believe it or not, as far as I have heard, no one but me and the videographer seemed to notice it. As a matter of fact, I edited his highlight video for him and I used quite a bit of slo-mo which makes the flashes more obvious. The feedback I got was that the Bride and Groom and the Groom's family really loved it. I don't think the Bride's family has seen it yet. But no one has complained about the flash artifacts at all. Except me and the videographer. But we aren't paying the bills for the wedding, so our vote doesn't count.

I agree in principle with you Greg. I hate the looks of the rolling shutter in a dark environment with flashes going off, and if someone asks my opinioin of this phenomenon, I'll tell them I think it looks dreadful.

But I am not going to ditch the camera because of it.

In my opinion the "look" of 16:9 wins out over any 4:3 footage.

It just looks right in my view.

Anyone shooting in 4:3 is surely not seeing it through the consumers eyes.

How can an image that is 25% narrower be as good?

No going back for me.

I agree Martin. I still rave about my old 2100, but when I see my new camera filling all of the real estate of my widescreen TV, I really like it.

And all of the flash artifacts were driving me crazy. But believe it or not, as far as I have heard, no one but me and the videographer seemed to notice it. As a matter of fact, I edited his highlight video for him and I used quite a bit of slo-mo which makes the flashes more obvious. The feedback I got was that the Bride and Groom and the Groom's family really loved it. I don't think the Bride's family has seen it yet. But no one has complained about the flash artifacts at all. Except me and the videographer. But we aren't paying the bills for the wedding, so our vote doesn't count.


And that's been my point precisely. I have yet to hear of any customer that complained about this. They simply don't notice it and think it's nothing more than the typical blown exposure that occurs with a CCD-based camera.

I agree Martin. I still rave about my old 2100, but when I see my new camera filling all of the real estate of my widescreen TV, I really like it.


Well Jeff On Sunday I was forced to use my old TRV900 for about 15 minutes (never lend your camera to a friend) and honestly the image looks the same as the FX1000 (although 4:3).

Later on in the day I filmed the award ceremony and mmmmm the back focus capability via the 20X lens is rather nice from the FX1000.

Wow Martin, I'm surprised!! I still have the TRV900 and always felt there was a 'pushed' look about its image. I found the VX2100 & 2000 to have a significantly better image than the 900 and the Z5 to have a better image still.

The color of these CMOS-based cameras seem to be invariably better than the older CCD-based Sonys. Add the additional detail, exposure latitude and sharpness, I find the image much superior to the 900 in 4:3 SD. I did many A/Bs with my 2100 & Z5 when I first got it to test the SD 4:3 image. I shot the same scenes, with the same framing and found the Z5 to be better in every shot. So I guess we see some of these things differently.

i just started editing 3 movies that i filmed with my new fx1000.
i found bed auto focus shots that i could not notice while i was filming since it was out door wedding and the sun was very harsh.
As well while filming the pre ceremony, i noticed that when ever i try to slightly zoom in the camera chose to focus on the background, even though the face takes 75 % of the total image(screen)
More then that, when ever i pan fast the camera stays blur until i change it to manual focus.
I was thinking to send it to repair but after reading this thread here it looks like a chronic problem with this camera.
Any solution for this problem?

The auto focus does not work well with fast pans sometimes, especially in low light. You need to slow your pans down or switch to manual focus.

As far as the zooming in on subject, lighting conditions can make auto focus problematic. In these cases: zoom in all the way with manual focus, focus your subject, then zoom out to where you want to be when auto focus is a problem.

Use the camera some more before sending back to Sony. Auto focus is not reliable in all situations, you might try my suggestions first, and see what others suggest also.

Dror, unfortunately it can be an issue with the FX1000/Z5. I too have noticed how a face can fill up a huge portion of the frame and yet the camera will focus on something else.

Your best bet is to use manual focus for critical shots like that. I really doubt there's anything wrong with your camera.

I am over it and going either Canon or Panasonic.

If you do you'll lose Sony's most excellent 'focus assist'. Oh I know Panasonic have 'focus assist' written all over the HMC151, but it's certainly not the same thing, and nowhere near as useful as Sony's.

OK, my Z1 uses a contrast based auto-focus system, but the focus assist feature is just magic in stressed and rushed conditions. I can spin the focus ring the 'focus closer!' direction and BANG, it has focused on the closer face / flower / trinket in frame. Wonderful.

I'm surprised Panasonic can get away with calling their expanded focus / peaking by the same words.

tom.

Hmmmm...I must give that a try Tom...

Give it a try? You don't use it on every single shoot? It was the one reason I implored folk not to buy the FX1, because it's inclusion on the Z1 was worth every extra penny, on every shoot.

The Z5 and FX1000 both have this feature though, don't they?

They sure do.

I haven't had difficulty using manual focus up to now when needed, pretty simple, but anything to make my life easier sounds good.