Obviously I'm being a bit flip with the title, but it does bring into 'focus' (sorry for the bad pun) an issue both I and a friend who also has the Z5 have been experiencing.

It seems these cams just don't like faces in the autofocus mode. In fact, I can't recall ever having a camera that had such a tough time with faces. More often than not the camera seems to prefer to focus on the background and ignore the face. In looking at the scenes where this occurs, it becomes obvious that any background that's 'busy' in the least way will take preference over a face in the foreground with the Z5 autofocus.

My friend and I were comparing notes last night and he mentioned that he was focusing on a face that filled up 70% of the frame and the cam still refused to focus on the face. I've had the same thing occur to me. Now give it some time and the autofocus will eventually catch up, but man, that can seem like an eternity.

Now yes, you can surely disengage autofocus, use the 'one push' autofocus or use the focus assist on the Z5, but what happens when you have a face in motion? What happens when you have a face moving toward the camera? For you event guys I can see this being a real issue.

Now for most other situations I see few issues with the autofocus and it seems pretty reliable. But when you think about the 'face detection' feature on consumer cams, it seems the Z5/1000 have 'anti-face detection'.

Since it's happening on both my Z5 and my friend's Z5, it's hard to believe this is an isolated camera issue. This is the only real disappointment I've had with the camera. So how are you guys dealing with this?

This is a normal problem with digital passive auto-focus systems. The AF systems look for high contrast areas of the image in order to focus. The higher the contrast the more likely it will focus on that area. Faces can be a problem if a busy background provides a lot more contrast, and as you've noticed, moving faces can be difficult as well as they can become a fast changing low contrast area. The normal work arounds are: 1. manual focus 2. zoom in, lock focus, then zoom out 3. turn the camera sideways to help it lock focus (many AF systems look for vertical contrast, turning it sideways, helps it see the eyebrows, mouth, nose as vertical contrast lines) this is a trick from still cameras, obviously it's not as useful on video cameras 4. if possible place your subject in lighting that casts a shadow across their face, once again to create a vertical high contrast area 5. use as a high a gain as you can in low light situations. These are all compromises, but then that's the nature of passive AF systems.

Some cameras have a dual active/passive system like the XH A1 which uses both to help it catch focus. I don't know enough about the Z5/1000 to know if it does that.

Hope that helps a little.

You guys are absolutely right about the autofocus, My FX1000 does it too. Its perfect outside but inside where the background is a bit overexposed compared to a face, it focus on the background . The thing that I dont like is that my FX1 wasnt giving me any problems. Its really annoying because Im trying to record my 8 months old son running towards me but struggling with the focus! Hope it wont be too much of a pain for my wedding days :s
Im also dissapointed with the huge iris difference from wide to telephoto. You zoom in to someone but lose so much light that the zooming option become almost obsolete. It becomes way too dark to be accceptable. Only use for it is to zoom in, adjust the exposure and then record. Or maybe if you put the iris to a smaller aperture from wide, then it stays at the same focal opening for the whole zooming distance.

I have to agree. My Z5 was used to shoot a ballroom dance. The lighting wasn't great but still exposed ok. But many times I found the camera losing focus and then struggling to get it back. Very unimpressive performance. My previous experience recording these dances at this same venue was with a TR900 and I don't recall any focus issues with that camera.

I have to agree. My Z5 was used to shoot a ballroom dance. The lighting wasn't great but still exposed ok. But many times I found the camera losing focus and then struggling to get it back. Very unimpressive performance. My previous experience recording these dances at this same venue was with a TR900 and I don't recall any focus issues with that camera.


And everyone just a few weeks ago bagged me out for giving Sony a hard time ago on such issues.

Guys this is absolutely terrible stuff that is happening here. They have brought out a camera with very basic flaws. 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. On cameras such as Sony's TRV900/VX2000/PD170's etc it were just brilliant. In even lowish light one could rely on auto focus. Auto focus can be great in the heat of the moment especially if you are like alot of us who are cameraman/ producers/directors/audio monitors all at the one time.

A camera with good Auto focus is one less thing to think about but now we have a camera that does not auto focus as good as a camera that is 10 years old like the TRV900.

I am over Sony and their two steps forward one step back and are seriously thinking of selling my FX1000 and looking around for something better.

Like many of us video is my life and passion but why should we be expected to just put up with this garbage and disappointments.

If I had known about the auto focus issue and 4 second rec/pause/rec issue then there is no way I would have purchased a FX1000/Z5.

But no its taken 2 months for everyone to shoot and edit and examine and well lets face it some of the results are pretty disappointing.

I am over it and going either Canon or Panasonic.

HD focus must be dead on, with SD you have some room, if a shot in SD is a litttle bit out of focus, it is still acceptable and hard to noticed, but with HD, a little out of focus then you can clearly see it, I don't think it is getting worse, it just that HD is different and required exact focus with no room for mistake.

I think the Canon AF systems are unquestionably better, but I also think the new 1000/Z5 picture is the best out there. I've got my first shoot with the Z5 this week, so I'll see how it goes in actual use.

I just read Igor's thread about auto focus assist. I tried it out and it seems to be a solution, albeit a little messy to the losing focus problem.

I think the Canon AF systems are unquestionably better, but I also think the new 1000/Z5 picture is the best out there. I've got my first shoot with the Z5 this week, so I'll see how it goes in actual use.

Don't think so, I have the Canon A1, and the auto focus sucks too, I hardly use it, similar to the Sony, the normal AF use vertical line/contrast to focus, the instant focus use infrared, you can combine the 2 system and it still sucks, it will hunt, and so best not to use them at all, you guys just need to get use to and good at manual focus in Hd world.

Wow Khoi, I didn't realize the Canon was just as bad! If the larger Canon couldn't get it right, I doubt that any of the larger prosumer cams can. My experience with the small consumer HD cams like the Canon HV20 and my newer HG21 is just superb. Those autofocus systems seem to always 'know' what to focus on...so much so that it's almost uncanny.

But I think something happens to these autofocus systems when mated to larger lenses. Even my Sony SR12 that I sold for the HG21 had a much better autofocus than my Z5. So there must be something about the larger lens and perhaps a narrower depth of field that adversely affects the autofocus.

[QUOTE=Khoi Pham;1013140]Don't think so, I have the Canon A1, and the auto focus sucks too,



Well I have a friend who has the Canon and says its auto focus is great.

All I know is that my Canon 1/6 CCD MD225 ($220US) has a better "snap" auto focus in good light than the FX1000.

It's a pretty sad situation.

Martin, if you think about it, your Canon is not only SD but it has small 1/6" chips which give it a huge depth of field. That's what I was alluding to when mentioning the smaller HD cams. Their smaller lens and sometimes smaller chips give them a larger depth of field which makes autofocus so much easier for the camera. It's hard to screw up focus when almost everything is in focus no matter what you do.

When you have a smaller depth of field, then focusing errors are much more possible. I'm just saying it might be an explanation.

I also realized that the focus seem to be more accurate on the edge of the face instead of the center. Same thing when shooting an object, looks like it focus on the edge instead of the middle. Its weird because my FX1 was focusing without problems. And about the longer lense, I agree BUT the problem occurs at wide angle too! That is not good at all!

I also realized that the focus seem to be more accurate on the edge of the face instead of the center. Same thing when shooting an object, looks like it focus on the edge instead of the middle. Its weird because my FX1 was focusing without problems. And about the longer lense, I agree BUT the problem occurs at wide angle too! That is not good at all!



A camera that has focus issues. My god!

It's like the bad old days of the Canon XL1. This is a joke. I am out of here Sony.

I remember reading in one of the threads in HV20-40 forum that auto focus does not work well (more focus hunting) when the optical image stabilization is ON. Do you usually shoot OIS on? You may try to turn it off and see whether auto-focus improves.

Wow Khoi, I didn't realize the Canon was just as bad! If the larger Canon couldn't get it right, I doubt that any of the larger prosumer cams can. My experience with the small consumer HD cams like the Canon HV20 and my newer HG21 is just superb. Those autofocus systems seem to always 'know' what to focus on...so much so that it's almost uncanny.

But I think something happens to these autofocus systems when mated to larger lenses. Even my Sony SR12 that I sold for the HG21 had a much better autofocus than my Z5. So there must be something about the larger lens and perhaps a narrower depth of field that adversely affects the autofocus.

Well....I have an XHA1 and its autofocus system has been very reliable, accurate for me. I never need to put it in manaul, for what it's worth.
I cannot compare it to a Z5, but can state its much better than my VX2100. Much more selective focus. But it should be its a newer design.
The "Instant Auto Focus" is a pretty cool feature, too.

But it is not perfect, no AF system is, and depending on the environment you are shooting in you may experience some focusing issues. There is still no replacement for your skill and judgement.

I have filmed yesterday a christening in a church with the lights of the chandeliers only using the Z5 and autofocus and I haven't experienced any autofocus problems. The pictures were amazing! and I also enjoyed the wide angle of the Z5 lens. In fact I deliberately left everything in auto mode just to see how the camera performs. It was amazing, no more manual settings for me. Even the white balance was great.

Stelios

I remember reading in one of the threads in HV20-40 forum that auto focus does not work well (more focus hunting) when the optical image stabilization is ON. Do you usually shoot OIS on? You may try to turn it off and see whether auto-focus improves.

No, I can attest to how great the HV20 autofocus is whether the OIS is on or off. The HG21 is no different. But again, these are small cameras.

Wow... this thread is pretty much busting any hopes that I had of purchasing the FX-1000. I primarily videotape figure skating shows and am currently using a VX-2100. Autofocus is my life. Not only must the AF be able to follow the skater around the entire rink but it must also not get fooled by the typical cluttered background of advertisement banners.

In this regard the VX-2100 is flawless.

It sounds like I'm back to putting an HD-version of the VX-2100 on my wish list.

John
What you read here is the experience of only 4 !!! people with the " auto focus problem" but you might have 100s or many many more that are happy with this camera. What I would recommend is to try the camera yourself before you make any decision.

Stelios

Has anyone made a comparision of the AF of a FX1/Z1 with the AF of the FX1000/Z5?

Compare a 16:9 camcorder with a 16:9 camcorder...(Not a 4:3 camcorder)

I have used my FX1 for 4 years now, mostly on AF. It probably missed the mark +- 10 times in 4 years.

If the AF on the FX1000/Z5 is worse than the FX1/Z1, I won't buy it.

The Z7 has had a bad rap because of AF problems with it's lens, I hope the Z5 doesn't have the same issues.

I can testify to the slow responding auto-focus on the FX1000. In my experience, particularly in less than ideal lighting it can be slow, and occasionally very slow.

Coming from VX2100 background I believe now that it is possible (POSSIBLE, not certain) that I might have been happier with a Panny.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the FX1000. It is a very nice camera. But

The Panny 150 has CMOS, 12x (ie less lens ramping), close to same low light, and does 60p. It also has built in pro audio. The FX1000 has a better LCD, is a much better looking camera, and the on board audio is superb, IMO.

An operator who has been regarded by some as one of the best in the wedding video business and who was formerly all Sony for years, has switched to the Panasonic 150, and I'm starting to see why.

Unfortunately I didn't have an open enough mind at the time of my purchase to look around at other options...I would have still skipped the Panasonic anyway because of the AVCHD, but as I read more and more, and as the i7 chips are not here, today that would be a moot point.

It is just important to remember none of the cams are perfect and all are quite capable.

I hear the auto focus mode on the EX1 is poor also, but look at the quality. Ya pays yer money and u takes ur chances.

The HMC-150 looks good, but it is only have 960X540 pixel count, offset pixel shift bring them to 1280X720, compared it to Sony or Canon on a good 1920X1080 display makes you wonder is the Panny out of focus, just because somebody is good with wedding doesn't mean that he can test camera, sure the camera has some exellent features, but doesn't mean that Sony and Canon are no good either, I almost got it until I did side by side with my A1, it is no where near the resolution of Canon A1, it is nice and smooth but don't have that wow factor when looking at it on a big 61 inch HDTV.

Some time ago I tested the Pana 151 (Europe, you see . .) and I rejected it because I did not like the colours. Recently tested the FX1000 and fell in love with it. From my frioend the vendor I learned, that he had someone else returning the Pana and switching it to the FX1000.
In the USA there seems to be a country wide rant against Sony products and their after sales service. I do not have that experience. Not after using the VX1000 and VX2000.

I'm just talking, and am not saying any cam is better or worse than the FX1000. I just wish I had looked at the Panasonic more closely.

Yeah what I want is the HMC-150 but with more resolution chips like the Sony but CCD and a big 20X zoom will make my day, for those that bought the Sony, the grass is always greener on the other side, just learn your camera so you can get the best out of it and you will be ok.

The Z7 has had a bad rap because of AF problems with it's lens, I hope the Z5 doesn't have the same issues.

I have a Z7 and a VX2100. ANY autofocus camcorder is more easily confused under low light. And sometimes they will get fooled with good light, as well. Many on here seem to put the VX2100/PD170 up on a pedistal, IMHO. But the truth is that my VX2100 focus gets "lost" occasionally. As does the Z7. In reality, I would say that the Z7 autofocus is at least as good as my VX2100. Certainly no worse. And the Z5/FX1000 is probably the same autofocus system. BUT the really big difference between the Z7 (and the FX1000/Z5) and many of the other camcorders that have been mentioned in this thread is that the LCD and EVF are so superior on the Z7, Z5 and FX1000, that I can now see when it is in focus or out of focus. I will never willingly go back to a camcorder that has 1/5th or 1/6th the resolution in the EVF and LCD.

The LCD alone is truly worth a lot...you are absolutely right about that.

Wow... this thread is pretty much busting any hopes that I had of purchasing the FX-1000. I primarily videotape figure skating shows and am currently using a VX-2100. Autofocus is my life. Not only must the AF be able to follow the skater around the entire rink but it must also not get fooled by the typical cluttered background of advertisement banners.


John, I was on my first 'official' shoot today with the Z5 and it actually performed much better than it did in my testing back home. I had two interviews during which I used manual focus (as you should anyway) and a bunch of shots of equipment, people moving objects etc., for which I used autofocus. It appeared the autofocus performed fine. I will have to wait until I return home and examine these shots critically, but based on both the LCD and viewfinder, it seemed fine.

I did try, just for fun, seeing how the autofocus would work during the first interview. My subject was examining some notes he made prior to us beginning the taping. The background behind him was somewhat busy and, predictably, the autofocus had some problems. It looked as if it was focused, but when I immediately switched to manual focus and moved in tight, it was obvious it was not perfectly focused. I'm actually not sure what it was deciding to focus on. As I said, I had intended on using manual focus anyway as I do with all interviews, but I was just curious what it would do here.

By the way, the video itself (as best as I can tell) looks outstanding! So I remain very hopeful about the potential of this camera!

Has anyone made a comparision of the AF of a FX1/Z1 with the AF of the FX1000/Z5?

Compare a 16:9 camcorder with a 16:9 camcorder...(Not a 4:3 camcorder)

I have used my FX1 for 4 years now, mostly on AF. It probably missed the mark +- 10 times in 4 years.



Marco, although I had the FX1 very briefly, I don't recall how its autofocus performed. However, about 2 weeks before I got the Z5, I was at a Sony store and they still had the FX1 there. My friend and I tried it and found precisely the same issues we've both had with the Z5...no better or worse. Each of us tried to focus on the other and each time the FX1 would refuse to focus on the face but instead focus on the background behind us.

The HMC-150 looks good, but it is only have 960X540 pixel count, offset pixel shift bring them to 1280X720, compared it to Sony or Canon on a good 1920X1080 display makes you wonder is the Panny out of focus, just because somebody is good with wedding doesn't mean that he can test camera, sure the camera has some exellent features, but doesn't mean that Sony and Canon are no good either, I almost got it until I did side by side with my A1, it is no where near the resolution of Canon A1, it is nice and smooth but don't have that wow factor when looking at it on a big 61 inch HDTV.

I have heard too that the Panasonic's picture quality is just not in the same league as the Sony. I also really doubt the low light of the Panny is as good. I'm finding the low light of the Z5/1000 is in a class by itself.

I'm not sure if you guys saw the CCI preliminary test on the FX1000, but they got resolution numbers that significantly outclassed even the Canon XHA1. In fact, it was not even close! CCI got the highest resolution numbers they've ever gotten with any camcorder they've tested.

Ken, do you have a link to this resolution information?

These cams are all so close overall in image quality I don't see the difference as significant.

It comes down to personal preference, IMO. I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.

Those that make a living with the cams as I do simply choose based on how the tool works for them. In my case, for example, I would appreciate going back to a 12x zoom for a specific reason, but that does mean the camera I choose or exclude is better or worse, it means I selected a tool that does the best job for me.

John
What you read here is the experience of only 4 !!! people with the " auto focus problem" but you might have 100s or many many more that are happy with this camera. What I would recommend is to try the camera yourself before you make any decision.
Stelios

I agree, however I've been reading quite a few threads on-line that all seem to suggest that the auto-focus on the FX-1000 can be problematic. Most threads also seem to suggest that anyone coming from a VX2000/VX2100 is likely to be disappointed.

I have no way to try before I buy and I am very hesitant to spend $3200 on a new camera only to discover it is sub-par. I've bought far too much equipment over the years and have learned that even when a particular piece of new gear gets rave reviews it is likely to still have some minor issues. But... when there are reports of issues with something as basic as focus or image quality it's good practice to proceed very cautiously - or look elsewhere.

Again, my uses are for fast moving subjects under challenging lighting conditions. If a wedding photographer is having focus issues it is very likely that I would experience total failure.

These cams are all so close overall in image quality I don't see the difference as significant.

It comes down to personal preference, IMO. I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.

Those that make a living with the cams as I do simply choose based on how the tool works for them. In my case, for example, I would appreciate going back to a 12x zoom for a specific reason, but that does mean the camera I choose or exclude is better or worse, it means I selected a tool that does the best job for me.

You must have compared it on a small monitor, 45 inch or below it is even hard to tell the difference, compare them on 50 inch or more at a distance of about 7 feet or 60 inch at 10 feet and you will see the Pany lose the wow factor, or record a wide shot on both camera and you will see how soft the Pany is, this is between the XH A1 and 150, I don't know about the Z5 though.

Khoi, did you compare images shot at the same distance of the same subject taken at the same time?

John, the auto focus can be slow on the FX1000, but under normal lighting it is fine, IMO and is certainly not a huge issue for me. It is just a matter of learning the camera. It is something that can be overcome. On the other hand their may be other issues for you cannot be overcome with this camera, I don't know.

If you would like to read a review of a competing camera you might read Mark Von Lanken's review of the Panasonic. Mark, as you may know, is a three time WEVA hall of famer and a recent convert to the Panasonic. He has shot with the Z7, Z1, and many other cameras and has been all Sony till recently. I happen to own one of his instructional videos, and I have a high regard for his expertise.

Take a look at his review: EventDV.net: In the Field: Panasonic AG-HMC150 (http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=52607)

Is is a better camera? Who would say so? Not me. I like my FX1000 for the most part. On the other hand I am not afraid to look around at other brands nor am I loyal to Sony or any brand. To me they are tools no different than brands of hammers or screwdrivers.

Is the auto focus better on the Panasonic? I doubt it is much better, to be truthful, but I don't know and Mark's review may or may not address that issue, I didn't read it all the way through. I read somwhere yesterday, I think Tom H said the lens ramping on the Panny 150 is severe, and that would be a deal breaker for me.

As has been said, there is no perfect camera. Contrary to other opinions, I don't think the FX1000 is as bad as some say, nor as good as others say.

But I will tell you that when used by someone who knows how to use a camera, the images are fantastic, particularly in great lighting. They are not bad in less than perfect lighitng, but require more skill to achieve.

Jeff, I wonder how the HMC-150 would cut in with the 1000's. If we were to get a 150 to work along side the 1000's, you could use the 150 for the hand held and steady-cam work (lighter, no rolling shutter) and then use it as the C-cam for the ceremony. The drawbacks would be working with AVCHD, trying to match the footage to the 1000 in post and of coarse learning two different cameras. If you end up liking the panny better and when NLE’s handle AVCHD as well as HDV, replace the 1000's with 150's. Just a thought.

Ken, do you have a link to this resolution information?

Here you go Greg. You'll need to scroll down the page where you'll find the comparison of the Canon with the Sony. The Sony measures an amazing 900 lines of horizontal resolution. They were in the process of testing out the Sony at the time of the Canon review:

Canon XL H1A Camcorder Review - Canon HDV Camcorders (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-XL-H1A-Camcorder-Review-36185/Performance.htm)

I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.



Jeff, in my experience 'film-like' often translates to 'less sharp'. I'd be willing to bet that the Panny doesn't begin to have the resolution of the 1000/Z5 (900 lines). To some that's not a big deal, but if you're after the sharpest HDV picture, I believe the Sony will deliver that.

Ken for the absolute sharpest, it might be possible the Sony will deliver a sharper picuture, I don't know. I personally don't need the absolute sharpest or absolute best anything...I'm trying to do a job with my cams and I need a camera that will allow me to get the images I need and bring my product to life. As I mentioned I 've seen the images and they look fine from both cameras to me. The difference is mimimal. I think this can be beaten to death and over analyzed. I am not shooting feature films, I'm shooting wedding videos and corporate videos. I know people making much more money than me with much older technology than mine. I think some of this gets into hairsplitting.

People with more years more experience than me like both cameras, some like the Panasonic more. Some like the Sony more. I say the difference comes down to preference.

At least one person has posted in the Panny forum that they own both cameras and like the Panasonic more, but I forgot who it was.

Tim, I don't think they would cut well together, but I don't know. The look of the two cameras is reportedly different. I don't think I'd mix them, personally.

You should check out the Panasonic forum, I'm sure there is someone over there who has shot with both, I just can't think who it was.

BTW Tim, don't think I hadn't already thought of mixing these two cams! I guess great (or insane) minds think alike.

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.

BTW Tim, don't think I hadn't already thought of mixing these two cams! I guess great (or insane) minds think alike.

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.


For me, 'INSANE' would be correct.

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.[/QUOTE]



I can't agree more here. Last dance season my videos looked fantastic as we rean identical cameras (Panasonic DVC62 & DC30 - same lens)

This past Nov/Dec I mixed a Canon with Z1 and Z5's and it was much more difficult getting consistency.

We run a headset and what works well for us is to talk each other through the F stop settings. I run a monitor feed of the other camera so I can check the B cams framing and check out focus and F stop.

Its amazing and a bit of fun saying hey "Are we a bit hot" I am on 3.4 or no mate lets go 2.8. Between the two of you you end up getting it right.

I don't know if you guys saw the completed review of the FX1000 on CCI, but it's up on their site.

On the positive side they felt the overall image quality was comparable to the twice as expensive Canon that they compared it to. They mentioned the resolution of the 1000 was simply unbelievable and soundly trounced the Canon. This provided better static and motion clarity with less blurring.

On the negative side, and something I can't begin to understand having seen the output of both cameras, they felt the low-light of the Canon was better!!! HUH? The Canon is clearly more laden with low-light noise than the much cleaner FX1000/Z5 in typical low-light conditions. Their conclusion was based on using NO gain in low light scenes and measuring the resulting brightness. In my opinion that's a totally unrealistic methodology to determine low-light capability, especially with a camera that produces so relatively little noise with gain levels up to +9 to +12db.

Once the cameras are used as they would be in normal situations (with gain), the Sony is clearly the better low-light performer...no contest. In fact most Canon owners acknowledge this fact.

They did criticize (and I would agree) the small buttons and rather difficult access to these buttons. However, most owners would adjust to these buttons and I would think this would become less of an issue with time. But the Canon is a bigger camera and therefore has more real estate for better button layout. It's a give and take.

With all this, they did conclude that they were surprised at how well the 1000 stood up to the much more expensive Canon, producing a comparable picture. It should also be mentioned that a number of their negative findings would be eliminated with the Z5 with its better manual adjustments and inputs/outputs.

Thanks for pointing out the review, Ken.

I don't know about many of the specifics of the review, but much of it is muddied because the reviewer only compared it to the pro version of the Canon and to a higher end Panasonic AG-HVX200.

I agree with much of the review. The buttons and controls are terribly placed and awkward, but most everyone has acknowledged that already.

As said before, the camera is not as good as some say, and not as bad as others say.

To me the LCD is valuable, as it is pretty true and I find that feature alone can be a justification for the cam.

The review overall left me yawning.

If the review addressed the responsiveness of the auto focus, I missed it. That would not normally be overlooked in a professional review.

This was not as exhaustive of a review as I would have preferred to see. And comparison to the FX1000's closest priced competition, the Panasonic 150 is a glaring omission that IMO makes the review less relevant than it could have been.

Ken,

re the Panasonic I would refer you to the Panasonic Avccam forum, check out Mark Von Lanken and others comments as to how they compare. It is quite competitive with the Sony and Canon.

With respect to the Canon XLH1A (not XHA1) vs. Sony FX1000....if you read the whole report they also say the Canon did better in low light (!!!), had less noise, etc...resolution of 900 lines vs 800 on the Canon notwithstanding. But so what.

The Sony FX1000 is a great cam in its own right. Very well balanced, great picture, very cost effective, etc. With all due respect, is it relevant how it compares to a $6000 Canon?

I absolutely agree Steve, so what?

Regarding Mark, he has said the Panasonic is the finest camera he's ever used. It is a serious contender no doubt. For the money, considering the pro audio, it is a great buy also, possibly a better buy.

I am shooting tomorrow with my FX1000s. And while I would love to have tried out the Pansonic before buying the Sony, and I know the FX1000 is not the VX2100 reincarnated as I had hoped it would be, I'm STILL looking forward to shooting with it. It does do some nice work. From the beginning I have alternated between liking the camera and finding it so-so.

If the review addressed the responsiveness of the auto focus, I missed it. That would not normally be overlooked in a professional review.



Jeff, there were several strange discussions in that review (pretty much par for the course for CCI). One was the autofocus...they did comment on it and they said it was wonderful! Huh??? I guess we must all have different cameras than the one they checked out. I had my first shoot with the Z5 and, for the most part, the autofocus worked fine. But oh baby, when there was a face to capture, I immediately switched over to manual. These cams just don't like faces and that's why I started this thread. I've already learned how to work around it, so I don't find it a big deal anymore, but to ignore this failing is pretty absurd. It seems to have little problems focusing on other things, but you need to exercise care with faces. So how they came to the conclusion that the autofocus was wonderful is beyond me. The Canon's all have 'wonderful' autofocus, but not the Sonys. In fact I've never owned a Sony cam whose autofocus I would say was 'wonderful'.

I agree with you Jeff, I don't know why they chose a cam that's 2X the price to compare. They should have chosen the similar, less expensive version of that Canon (without interchangeable lenses). But then again, I've heard the image on both is comparable, so that may have been their rationale.

The biggest gripe I had with that review though was how they characterized the low-light. To me it's utterly absurd to keep the camera on zero gain and see how bright the image is in poor light. If your gain is well-engineered as it is in the Sony, why in God's name wouldn't you use gain up to 9 or 12 db??? When you do that, the Sony just blows the Canon away. I'm certain that the vast majority of people using these cams does just that. The Canon shows significantly more noise at a similair gain setting than the Sony. So why handicap the Sony by not factoring this in? So for them to come to the conclusion that the low-light of the Canon was better than the Sony, was one of the worst conclusions I've seen in any review on any camera.

These are just some of the reasons I've always taken CCI reviews with more than a grain of salt.

Stelios go here

Sony Handycam HDR-FX1000 Camcorder Review - Sony HDV Camcorders (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-Handycam-HDR-FX1000-Camcorder-Review-36230/Conclusion.htm)

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

Jeff, you can click on the links at the top of each page and bypass the ads.

And while I would love to have tried out the Pansonic before buying the Sony, and I know the FX1000 is not the VX2100 reincarnated as I had hoped it would be, I'm STILL looking forward to shooting with it. It does do some nice work. From the beginning I have alternated between liking the camera and finding it so-so.

Jeff, I really disagree with you on this one. Having both the VX2100 (and a VX2000), I find the Z5 to be a far superior camera. It's puts out an unquestionably better SD image, with much better exposure latitude, better colors and an overall sharper image. I did many many A/Bs with my Z5 & 2100 and I was very happy to see how much better the image was. I will definitely prefer using it over the 2100 even for SD work. I'm still learning the cam, but I'm already getting a superior image. I'll be getting the digital card recorder next week, and that will make for a tremendous combo. You can have what is essentially a tapeless work flow if you so desire or a combination of both. You can't beat that.

Yes, the Z5 is a more difficult camera to operate than the 2100, but a much more sophisticated camcorder will be. You have tons more control over the image than the 2100 could ever hope to offer and you're rewarded with a better image. As you grow in this profession, you have to adjust to more controls as you change over to more sophisticated equipment.