Okay, I'm at a crossroads. It's new camera time and I'm completely bewildered at the moment. You've got the HDV units, like the Sony Z1U. Then you've got miniDV stalwarts like the XL2. To be blunt, is there a reason to buy an XL2 instead of a Z1U, given that they are essentially priced in the same league? I don't have any Canon lenses, so the interchaneable lens advantage isn't really much of an advantage to me. But I'm open to all opinions. Thanks!

If you put aside HDV completely... The Z1 shoots standard DV and DVCAM and works in both PAL and NTSC modes. This is a big plus if you need the multi format capability. In its favor, it seems like the XL-2 is optimized to perform very well as an SD native 16:9 DV camera. It also features true 30p and 24p modes if these are important to you.

Simple... in my oppinion.

There is no true market or delivery method for HD yet. the Z1u isn't even true HD, it's HDV and there is alot of compression involved.

The XL2 offers 16:9 native ratio, 24p,3-p, or 60i rates, is shoulder mounted, has interchangeable lenses and the best all-round onboard audio system.

It comes down to a matter of preference. If you are shooting weddings sometimes appearance is important. The XL2 is definatly "cooler" lookin.

I think the XL2 is a better camera, and in 24p with cine settings and pressed blacks it equates film nicely. the Z1u has crystal clear, sharp, high res images, that look like a really expensive soap opera.

It's all down to choice.

Here's an even better question:

Why should I buy a new XL2 when I could buy a used DVX100a for half the price now and save the rest for when all 4 companies (Canon, Panasonic, JVC and Sony) have all their HD cards on the table?

The Sony has the fixed lens and HDV format issue.
The Panasonic also has the fixed lens issue, but now there's talks about the inferior quality of their DVCproHD codec.
The JVC is limited by the HDV format, but now there's talk about the posibility of streaming a much better quality signal to external storage devices.
Canon hasn't even weighed in, but no doubt they will compete with Panasonic head-on.

Right now seems to be a horrible time to get a new prosumer camera, but what about those of us who have to make a choice now?

John, not wanting to sound harsh, but there's nobody other than you that can answer those questions. Why? Because it depends. It depends what you value in a camera and what you'll be using the camera for. Some will prioritize high resolution while others will give more importance to 24p.

Regardless, I'll try to offer an opinion, based on my situation as an example. I'm an indie filmmaker. At the time of my purchase, I wanted the best resolution I could afford but most importantly, native 16:9 and 24p. I wasn't buying a camera without those two features. Period. That and of course various manual controls of all kinds. So I took a long hard look at both the DVX-100a and the XL2 and decided that despite the price margin, the XL2 won on all important fronts (native 16:9, resolution, interchangeable lenses and form factor). Most importantly, I could afford either one. I didn't make a decision based on paper mumbo jumbo, only on results, and the end results from the XL2 were, to me, more impressive than the DVX100. Some people see the mention "new and improved" and want to buy it right away. You should go a little deeper than that before settling for anything.

I also wanted to make money on the side with that camera. Well, nobody in the wedding and event videography cares about HD. They don't have HD. Most anyway. Everyone wants DVDs and tapes. So really, who cares about HDV here?

Also, as an anecdote, I can confirm that look counts in this business. I'm not very experienced, but prior to buying the XL2, I rented two PD150s to shoot a simple one-man conference. When the client saw me arrive with those quality but cheap looking cameras, I could see right away I had made my first mistake as a pro because he looked 1) concerned and 2) upset. He told me "what are these, your uncle's camcorders?" That and the look he gave me made me realize the hard way... Never, ever was I going to show up anywhere for a client again with a consumer form factor camera. Looks are very important here. It's important to trick your client into thinking he's getting his money's worth. Well you're not really tricking him, he is, but the client mentioned above was too with those two PD150, but all the technical explaining I could have come up with would not have had him convinced.

Still continuing on a personal level, I choose to let a technology mature a bit before taking the plunge because while early adopters might have bragging rights for the coolest cam in the neighborhood, it serves very little purpose other than that. HDV is so compressed that it isn't any more of a professional format than SD DV, quite the contrary. On top of it, like mentioned above, HD isn't a standard and won't be wide spread for years. I've got other issues with the HDV technology but won't get into those because it's irrelevant.

As a filmmaker, I'm now looking at Pana's new DVCProHD cam with curiosity, for the P2 cards and 100mb/s data rates, but this is fresh out of the gate. There's not even one single frame grab of it to judge from. There might be issues, and you'll likely see responses from other manufacturers shortly after its release, but the truth is, and I learned this while I was shopping for a digital photo camera, the technology is not stopping for you to enjoy your new purchase. Buy any electronic/computer related product and if your only worry is to have the very best and most recent technology on the market, you'll enjoy it for 6 months until there's a new winner. It will always be that way. So this is a very superficial way of choosing a camera. People that fail to realize this always fear making the wrong decision because it always seems there is a new breakthrough coming soon. Well news flash, those breakthroughs happen every year, and very rarely do they instantaniously change the way pros and amateurs operate.

A few years back it was affordable 24p. Everybody was saying this would turn the filmmaking world upside down (just like it is now with the new Pana). So? Has it? How many DVX-100 movies did you see last week at your nearest blockbuster? How many in your local theaters? I'd guestimate it at zero. You can make shorts and even low budget features that will see the screening rooms of a couple of festivals and that's about it. What's new? What kept you from doing this with a VX2000? Nothing. But people without ideas (I'm not saying you're one of those) expect technology to save them from their lack of creativity. Meanwhile, as techno obsessed pseudo filmmakers were waiting for their breakthrough technology, brilliant filmmakers went out and shot great movies like 28 days later, Time code and The Idiots on good ol' SD DV cams. Now you can wait for the PanaHD. You'll buy it only to realize an other manufacturer comes out a few months later with, oh, say, a new sparkling CMOS 4:4:4 24p cam at affordable prices. It never ends.

It comes down to personal preferences/needs and nothing more. I despise the video look and come from a film background, so 24p was important for me, and I wanted good widescreen resolution for digital screening, but I wasn't kidding myself into thinking I was going to transfer to 35mm and make millions out of it just because of those features either.

Determine what features are important for your specific needs, what you can and can't live with, and go from there. Don't wait for the next best thing, you'll wait all your life.

Wow, David!!! That was so well said, I feel embarrassed coming after you, and I'll try not to duplicate too much of what you said. I looked at three cam's before making my decision, the Z1, the DVX100, and the XL2. Quite frankly, the Z1 was the first to go.

Why? Simple really...Although I have been an early adopter, I have so many questions about HD, from delivery mechanisms, to general acceptance, to encoding, etc, that I felt it's still several years before it'll be prevalent. I've been waiting for HD since the '80's and it still hasn't come. It looks close, but there's still too many questions.
Additionally, you've gotta look at what you're intending to shoot and for whom. My target market is the industrial marketplace, with training and promotional videos of technical subjects. Quite frankly, 16X9, or HD doesn't really matter to them, but sharp, crisp and clear video does.
The clincher to me was the interchangeable lenses...What I do demands the capabilities of the 3X lens, and having that option was critical in my decision making.
But, now that I've got the camera, the fact that the XL2 LOOKS like a professinal camera is important. When you're on a job, shooting, people know that you're not just a home hobbyist doing this for fun and games. It sounds trite, but appearance matters. When a customer is paying thousands for a video, they expect you to look and act like you're in the game. First impressionms count, and the XL2 is an important first impression.

But, now that I've got the camera, the fact that the XL2 LOOKS like a professinal camera is important. When you're on a job, shooting, people know that you're not just a home hobbyist doing this for fun and games. It sounds trite, but appearance matters. When a customer is paying thousands for a video, they expect you to look and act like you're in the game. First impressionms count, and the XL2 is an important first impression.

This is kind of a shame really because I can obviously get a much better image out of an amateurish looking PD150 than an old professional looking full size VHS cam that is so outdated. But the client will not question a thing if you come and shoot with the VHS cam. But bring a small form factor cam and you might get an ear full. Something I never thought I'd need to consider before but it will definitelly be a point of concern with any new camera purchase.

Thank you David. I do know that it's up to me, but that's what makes the decision that much harder to make. I've already decided to go with an XL2 simply due to the fact that it offers so many features that the current cams at my job do not (24p, 16x9, time-lapse shooting, etc..). My decision was made a little easier since it looks as though the company I work for is purchasing the HVX200 when it is released.

You are absolutely right about the camera itself "looking" professional. We've run across that in the field as well. We have a GY-DV500 and a PD170 at work and have learned to only take the Sony out on shoots, because when we take both the client opts for us to use the DV500 since it just looks more professional.

Like I've said in a previous post on this forum, my head is just a wash of different ideas/questions right now. I am pretty much solid on my decision to purchase an XL2, but every day I start second guessing myself. It's going to be like this until the day I get it in hand, I guess.

David,

Great post. I assume you find the 24p quality of the XL2 to be satisfying? The only reason I ask is because I read that the 24p of the Panasonic VX100a was better (but that came off the dvxuser.com website, so perhaps there is a bit of a bias...).

Here are my concerns with the XL2: mediocre low light performance, poor autofocus (for those of us with aging eyes), "soft" viewfinder. Are these legitimate concerns, or just bad rumors?

I think more like bad rumors. (Sorry, I know your question was more pointed towards David, but hmm maybe I can give my opinion too )
Low light isn't magnificent on the XL2 as on the sony PD or VX cams, but I think it's on par with the DVX, same for the autofocus, altough maybe it's a little bit slow.

And 24p is just the same, I suppose on the DVX as the XL2, but some people stated they liked the playing with the gamma and filmlook with the DVX a little bit more then with the XL2. Some people said it was easier to get a 'filmlook out the box' with a DVX, but once you learn how to shoot with an XL2, it should give you better results.

I must warn you though: I haven't played with either cams, but I read a lot about them, and a lot opinions about them and comparisons on these boards, some maybe this is any help.

PS: Question for David: how did it end up with that client, for whom you shot with the PD150's? Could you convince hem?
Thanks,

Good responses.
It's true- there is a "big Lense" issue with clients. It always seems that the more a client iss spending, the more they want the camera to appear "professional" i.e. BIG, to console them. Time and demonstrated performance will help. Remember, the people are buying YOU, the videographer. As long as you treat the lighting and approach the shoot and the client professionally, the camera will be secondary.
I've been considering the JVC HD100. It will shoot HDV or DV, and has a number of frame rate recording options. It seems to be a good compromise in the no-holds-barred HD battle.

Of course, as soon as I buy it, the next week a newer/better/cheaper camera will come out. Sigh.

Jeff Patnaude

i was having huge anxiety over having purchased recently an XL2, using that Dell promo, but i just spent last night in a 4-night training series held here locally on the future of HD in the lab of this mad scientist GENIUS here in town. this fellow has the most amazing equipment and does the most amazing things and has a vast intellect and knowledge of broadcast standards and history. and he was trying to sell the idea that the future is here and HD is the future. and he did a terrific job, and i got to see all kinds of tests using all kinds of monitors and test patterns, and it was just a fantastic experience all around. highly informative, i learned a ton, and a treat to spend an evening in the presence of a pioneering genius.

and my take-away, oddly enough, was that i felt pretty good at the end about my purchase of the XL2. it eliminated my percolating anxiety and suppressed buyer's remorse...because interest in the HD images is so front-end loaded by the producers and the test labs and so focused on minutiae which are barely visible to average user and so much more about what we CAN do with video images instead of what we actually NEED to do. jane and joe six-pack don't even distinguish between video and film, period. let alone concerning themselves with the hair-splitting about whether the XL2 or the Z1 produce superior images. they are both excellent cameras. and i can easily make a film-like video, which jane and joe will not bother distinguishing from film, as long as it is interesting material competently produced--a standard which i am still not yet quite up to! but getting there!

for film transfers, the Z1 is not quite the uber-camera because it is cracked up to be, because the recommended shooting mode for film transfer is cineframe 25 (PAL), not the camera's odd cineframe 24p imposter. which introduces synch problems with the audio, which must be addressed. as good as the Z1 is, it is not an out-of-the-box solution yet, though we're inching closer.

meanwhile, my XL2 feels pretty safe. i can do everything i need with it and everything there currently is to do. even the panasonic breakthrough is six months away, and then there will be six months of shake-out in terms of whether it is as revolutionary as it intends to be.

i'd rather be bringing my ideas to life and moving on to the next, rather than conducting endless camera tests and engaging in the latest technical debate, as fun and interesting as that is.

David,

Great post. I assume you find the 24p quality of the XL2 to be satisfying? The only reason I ask is because I read that the 24p of the Panasonic VX100a was better (but that came off the dvxuser.com website, so perhaps there is a bit of a bias...).

Here are my concerns with the XL2: mediocre low light performance, poor autofocus (for those of us with aging eyes), "soft" viewfinder. Are these legitimate concerns, or just bad rumors?

Well, like Mathieu mentioned above, 24p is 24p. I'm not exactly sure what better 24p means really. If we were talking about the XL1's pseudo frame mode I'd agree, but here both cameras have progressive CCDs, so there's nothing wrong or odd about that mode on the XL2.

As for mediocre low light performance, here's an other thing that is user related. I personally think it's great. Why? Because it is virtually grain free across the whole tonal range, and I've used the gain up to +6db with acceptable results, a thing that could not be said for most other cams in this class. This, in other words, means you don't have to light your shadows if you don't want to, just because of grain issues. It will remain clean even in the dark areas of your image. As a filmmaker, this is all that matters to me. The fact it can't "see" in a dimmer lit environment is irrelevant because I only shoot controled lighting stuff, but it might be a problem for the one that wants to shoot at night or under household lighting without additional lights for proper exposure.

As for autofocus, I've never even tried it once. I never use that. I shoot everything in manual, including focus. But I've seen people complain that auto-focusing was low in 24p (which I assume is the same for all 24p modes on other cameras since the auto-focus has only 24 samples of info per second to work with instead of the usual 60 in interlaced mode).

The soft viewfinder is true. People were saying it was much improved over the previous XL1, but I didn't own an XL1 so couldn't compare. All that mattered to me was that it had not enough resolution for precise focusing in difficult conditions and as importantly, it did not show the whole frame (only TV frame). So I rented the FU-1000 viewfinder when conditions were bad and have done a few things with the stock viewfinder, but I'm definitelly in the process of permanantly upgrading to the FU-1000, which is a great viewfinder on all acounts.

PS: Question for David: how did it end up with that client, for whom you shot with the PD150's? Could you convince hem?
Thanks,

Well the client didn't fire me or anything. He was concerned but when he saw the final edited results he was happy. And I then had to refrain myself for giving him a big "I told you so!" ;)

Well the client didn't fire me or anything. He was concerned but when he saw the final edited results he was happy. And I then had to refrain myself for giving him a big "I told you so!" ;)

Great to hear :-)
BTW: if he shows up again, tell him David Lynch is working with them now :-p
(I'm just recycling a thread, Charles Papert has opened a very interesting thread here at the Open Dv discussion boards:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=44035
Give it a read, it may interest you :-))

All good points. I sold my XL1s and really kind of sorry I did,,but I had too. So right now thinking about a new camera is driving me nuts with the choice coming up. The Panasonic HVX200 sounds good. The XL2 with the 16:9 and 24p, 4:3, etc sounds good. If the DVX100a had true 16:9 I'd probably own one now.

Hi-def will be nice but at the moment the cost will be pretty high. It might take a while for it all the problems to shake out.

Maybe a GL3 soon. 16:9 and 24p would be nice on one.

But I've turned down another job because no camera, so waiting 6months might not be a good choice. I'm getting tired of sitting on the fence. Plus when you get calls and people ask "can you do this" and "how much?" it only makes it worse.

One interesting thing to ponder... Since its introduction the XL-2 has price has dropped 16% (from $5,000 to $4,200) but the Z-1 is still selling at the intro price of $4,900. Draw your own conclusions (if any) from this with regard to how well each of these models is doing on the open market.

Boyd,

Had an XL2 in my shopping cart at D*ll two weeks ago, with 20x lens for $3593. Just couldn't pull the trigger and now all the coupons are expired and their price is $4k+.

One interesting thing to ponder... Since its introduction the XL-2 has price has dropped 16% (from $5,000 to $4,200) but the Z-1 is still selling at the intro price of $4,900. Draw your own conclusions (if any) from this with regard to how well each of these models is doing on the open market.

Boyd, that's not a fair comparison. The XL2 has been available longer than the Z-1. Even if it weren't, the HDV is "new technology" which will have a impact, valid or not, on the pricing. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Jay

These comparisons remind me of the long-running Canon-vs-Nikon debates that have raged among still photographers for decades. I've been a still photographer and Nikon shooter for most of the past 40 years but switched to Canon equipment last year because the high-meagapixel, low-noise EOS 1D and 1Ds Mark IIs proved to be better tools for our work.

When we added video to our menu of services a few years back, we bought an XL1 and later replaced it with an XL1S and a GL-2 for backup and cutaways. Earlier this year, we upgraded to an XL2, keeping the XL1S as a backup. Again, the XL series proved to be the best tools for our expanding video and documentary work.

Last week, we added a Sony Z1 and its companion video deck to our gear. Not to replace the XL series cameras that provide the backbone of our video work but to enhance our offerings to clients who have expressed an interest in HD and to shoot a new documentary on the Blue Ridge Parkway where high-definition will be an asset.

In 40 years of shooting, I've yet to find a camera that fits all our needs for every job. Two months ago, I dug my old Speed Graphic 4x5 out of the closet, loaded it with Plus-X sheet film and shot landscapes for a client who needed wall-sized black and white images for a display. It's fitting the tool to the job.

We often get the question: "What should I buy?" Our answer is always another question: "What are your needs?" Different needs, different tools. Different goals, different cameras. Canon and Sony make good cameras that serve specific needs. Neither, unfortunately, makes one that does it all.

Thanks for this very informative thread.

I too have been "on the edge" for the past couple weeks on which camera to purchase, with all the ones discussed in this thread a contender at some point (XL2, DVX100A and FX1/Z1U). I was almost ready to pull the plug on an XL2 this week until I spend some time with a semi-successful indie filmmaker friend of mine on Saturday.

He recently completed a documentary which screened at the Toronto Film Fest, Rotterdam, and SXSW. He was explaining to me the intricacies of distribution, getting his film shown in theatres, and festival submissions. His general comment to me was that the original format he shot on (which was DV on an XL1) didn't seem to matter all that much because he had to do an online edit and eventually export to digi-beta for festivals, screens and networks.

If that is the case (and my primary intended use), doesn't that sort of curb many of the HDV compatibility issues in this sense (again with intent of an indie use or network distribution)? It would seem to me one approach is to simply focus on getting the highest resolution possible, and fix/convert everything else in post (including 24p). Now I seem to be leaning more towards a FX1/Z1U, although in my research and testing I agree the XL2 is the best all around SD-DV camera out there right now.

Thanks in advance.

- Stevan

I was almost ready to pull the plug on an XL2 this week until I spend some time with a semi-successful indie filmmaker friend of mine on Saturday. His general comment to me was that the original format he shot on (which was DV on an XL1) didn't seem to matter all that much because he had to do an online edit and eventually export to digi-beta for festivals, screens and networks. If that is the case (and my primary intended use), doesn't that sort of curb many of the HDV compatibility issues in this sense (again with intent of an indie use or network distribution)? It would seem to me one approach is to simply focus on getting the highest resolution possible, and fix/convert everything else in post (including 24p). Now I seem to be leaning more towards a FX1/Z1U, although in my research and testing I agree the XL2 is the best all around SD-DV camera out there right now.



Stevan:

If resolution is the only criteria, then shooting in HDV on a Z1 and downsizing to SD or DVCAM would be a consideration. We used the Z1 to shoot some sports footage in HDV over the weekend for a TV news client, loaded it into FCP as DVCAM and then output to BetaCam for delivery to the station. They had no problem with the footage and, in fact, complimented us on the sharpness. We have another TV client who uses DVCAM and we've delivered Z1 footage to them.

However, resolution is only part of the package. For some jobs we need extreme wide angle or longer telephoto capability and the interchangable lens feature of the XL series cameras pays off.

You should evaluate all your needs (resolution, lens availability, low light capability, cine vs. non-cini looks, etc.) and then find the camera that provides, on balance, the best feature set for those needs.

If I could only afford one camera at this point, I'd probably opt for the XL2. Fortunately, I'm not limited to that decision.

You mean MiniDV. It's pretty much a tie between the XL2 and the DVX100a. They're both great cameras. SD DV refers to Digital Video in general which is referring to all of the DV formats. I think we're mainly addressing MiniDV.

There's a lot more than resolution. Color space, work flows, what is your final product and distribution? There are a lot of things that need to be worked out. Ask your filmmaker friend.

If you can, rent a Panasonic SDX900 and shoot DVCPRO50, it's a much better format and is probably the best SD camera for EFP. It's worth the extra money to shoot on a better format if you are going to film out. Or go S16 if you can. There are a lot of different workflows and maybe you can get some deals if you work in film, or video, talk to people, negotiate. Do your homework when the time comes to do your project.

I don't think Sony really hit one out of the park with their two HDV cameras. The faux 24p of the Z1U isn't very good from what I've heard. I'm betting Panasonic's HVX200 will be better. You're just going to have to wait a bit for it's release. HDV is still pretty new, it'll be a year or three before things get settled.

Great responses. The folks on this board always provide input to make me look at things differently which is much appreciated.

I realize resolution is only one component/requirement, but it's easy to get wrapped up in it with some of the recent things I've read regarding image quality and film transfers from FX1/Z1U cameras. I've been spending more time with a group of cinematographers lately and seem near obsessed lately with image quality. I know that "image quality" is subjective in regards to film look, resolution, movement, 16x9, etc.. but what I can't get over is that the FX1/Z1U captures interlaced frames. I keep hearing good things about DVfilm maker and other FX1->24p options in post, and I also have to wonder how capturing in 50i then going 50p-24p on the Z1U would work as this problem/solution has been around in PAL-land for some time right?

My primary requirement is image quality - specifically color, native 16x9, resolution, and progressive frames. Can anyone provide input on the resolution difference between a XL2 capturing at 24p vs. a FX1 captured at 60i then fixed in post with AE or DVfilm maker? I'm trying to understand what the actual delta is in resolution when everything is said and done, and how 24p in post from an FX1 compares to native 24p from a XL2.

I guess part of my hesitation with the XL2 comes around cost. To get an XL2 outfitted the way I need with an external LCD, possibly a 3x lense (which seems to have mixed reviews regarding clarity), cases, etc.. it's getting above $5k pretty quick. I work in technology and know there is never a "good time" to buy, but right now seems very chaotic in the HDV/DV pro-sumer market. Unfortunately waiting another 6-9 months isn't an option for me either.

And yeah, I meant MiniDV ;)

- Stevan

HDV is so new that it's hard to find anything that can edit it, and even when it can, it's not completely functional. Take the FX1 and the PPro 1.5.1 update that Adobe put out for HDV. Wow, it was awesome to get a free upgrade so that I could natively edit in PPro. I was so happy!! Then I go to export to After Effects... and that's when the sh*t hit the fan. Ooopps.. sorry. HDV is too new and the codec that PPro supplied can't export to AE. I would have had to purchase the Cineform Aspect HD (somewhere around $500) in order to be able to export into AE.

Also, my main editing system Avid, doesn't even support HDV yet. I know that in a year or two these things will seem like small problems of the past, but at the moment, it's pretty tough to have this neat new technology and not be able to use it to it's full potential.

Also the fact that I want to make films and the FX1 that I owned didn't shoot progressive made me sell it.

I own a XL2 now. I was so happy to hit that order button on the XL2 because I can use any editing system I choose, PPro, Avid, whatever.. and it will go into any product Boris, AE, etc... I love it.

The FX1 shot some great stuff, but it wasn't for me. You really need to put your requirements down on paper, then take the cams that you are thinking about getting, and basically make a score card. Like what pretty much everyone above has said, it's what you need that makes the purchase. I needed film look, not HDV, so I sold the FX1 and bought the XL2. And that's the best thing I could have done for what I need.

HDV is so new that it's hard to find anything that can edit it, and even when it can, it's not completely functional.

Adam:

I think it's unfair to use the FX1 as an example. It's a consumer version of the Z1. The Z1 offers multiple formats (HDV, DV and DVCAM) as well as both NTSC and PAL. I find the Z1 useful when shooting in HDV and then down converting to DVCAM for editing. I get a sharper picture and the ability to edit in FCP and then output to DVCAM, DVD or ProBeta. FCP 5 s supposed to offer native HDV editing and the ability to output to DVD. As for the cost of Cineform, maybe I've been in this business too long and remember the days of $35,000 editing systems and $25,000 cameras. In that context, $500 seems like a bargain.

That said, I'm not about to sell either of my XL cameras. They still pay the bills around here.

yeah. hehe. you got me on that one. the Z1 does have a few really nice features over the FX1. HDV itself still stands though as being difficult to work with at this time however.

I agree though about the downconverting. That is a nice feature.

Well, here's an update: I bought the Z1. The jury is still out as to whether I made the right choice. While I love the camera's design, functionality, ability... the thing is a HUGE step back in terms of low light performance. My very first wedding with it was shot under very dim light and I almost had a heart attack! When zooming in past the half-way point, the image gets significantly darker. So much so, in fact, that I had to shoot the wedding at a wider setting than I would have liked just to keep the iris open. So I'm not sure whether to keep the unit, try to return it (at a return penalty fee) or sell it. Such are the foibles of jumping on the new tech bandwagon. Bummer.