I am torn between the two.
At BH photo, it is 2500.00 + a 500 rebate from Sony which brings it to a grand total of $2000.00 for the A1U - but the FX1 is only about $3199.00 at BH photo, but it doesn't have a rebate or a discount (which would be great if it did!). I like the FX1, but in the end it is alot of money to be spending.
I wonder if you can buy the audio control box that the A1U comes with and hook it up to a HC1?
Anyones thoughts?

I wonder if you can buy the audio control box that the A1U comes with and hook it up to a HC1?
Anyones thoughts?No i'm afraid that won't work.
- First off the XLR module isn't available in stores, even places like B&H, - its only available as a 'spare part' from Sony themselves and i believe is around US$280. (ish)

But it won't work on an HC1 because the HC1 doesn't have the same firmware and menu items that the A1 has and so the HC1 won't be able to recognise it or use it. (plus you haven't got a cold-shoe on HC1 to mount it, but that's certainly a more minor 'issue'. If Sony made it as easy as that, then most of the world would just buy an HC1 + get hold of the XLR module and so they probably wouldn't sell many A1's ! And the A1's profit margin is undoubtedly much bigger than the HC1 so Sony are very happy in my opinion to, ah, force/encourage people to buy the A1.

FX1 is now priced at US$3179 at B&H which is a slight reduction recently and (most) of the 'out of stock' issues of recent months seem to have gone away. Not quite sure whats happening to FX1 (if anything).

I am torn between the two.
At BH photo, it is 2500.00 + a 500 rebate from Sony which brings it to a grand total of $2000.00 for the A1U - but the FX1 is only about $3199.00 at BH photo, but it doesn't have a rebate or a discount (which would be great if it did!). I like the FX1, but in the end it is alot of money to be spending.
I wonder if you can buy the audio control box that the A1U comes with and hook it up to a HC1?
Anyones thoughts?

FX1 is better all around, than A-1, and if money is no object, the extra $1,200 is worth it for a number of features, including menu access, low light capability, and three chip design.

Where you might want the A-1 is for the smaller and lighter form factor--and Pro level service (FX1 is serviced on consumer side. I haven't needed service yet, but some who have, indicate they would get better service from the pro side. ) FX-1 is definitely more camera featurewise, but that is not what you may want-- the weight and size that comes with it.

One thing to consider is that extra $1200 could get you a nice tripod, warranty, maybe even an inexpensive Lowell light kit, three lights, too (around $700, I bet). Think about that. Or even a computer to edit with.

Both are fantastic cameras, but if you need those items I mentioned, going for the A1 might be the better deal.

heath

The only thing I really like about the FX1 over the A1 is the FX1's low light ability compared to the pathetic A1's low light ability. Sure, the FX1 has other things and features that are better than the A1, but the FX1 is also missing things the A1 has, such as XLR inputs. The problems or lack of functions with the A1 is minimal compared to the FX1. Put it another way, if the A1 had equal low light ability as the FX1, the A1 would be a pretty easy pick for me.

Admittedly, I haven't shot with the A1U. But the exposure level control seems a bit contrived to me, and there appears to be a lack of exposure information provided. I also don't like the fact you access menu only by touchscreen. That means you have to have LCD open and touching the screen all the time to change a good portion of the settings. I love the Iris control/exposure knob control on the FX1, and the display relaying FStop information.

True, but people have already done the research about the f-stops, you can find that info here on DV Info. Someone even made a little f-stop chart you can paste on the A1.

The LCD doesn't bother me that much, I guess I got used to it. Obviously, I would prefer FX1 controls, but it's not big enough a factor for me to be a selling point.

I've had good luck with low light situations and the A1/HC1. The FX1/Z1 seem to excel, but I've never though the A1/HC1 performed poorly in low light.

One more thing to add to help with your decision: The A1 comes with Pro tech support, while the FX1 comes with Consumer tech support.

hwm

How did you get good low light, and what is your definition of low light? For me, when I try shooting past sunset, I can't get any acceptable footage without noticeable grain, huge loss of resolution, no details in shadows.

Alex,

Shooting at night with anything but an F900 seems to be difficult. I used to try shooting the night sky with an XL1, HD10, Z1, XL H1, A1, HD100 and HC1. No luck with any of those cameras, even with the gain all the way up.

For me, shooting at sunrise or sunset is great, and using black stretch helps out quite a bit, along with not crushing the blacks at all. Sony's algorithms for their Gain settings keep it clean, so some gain is fine.

Shooting when it's completely dark outside is pointless, as I always end up with unusuable video. But with shots, inside or out, where it's a bit dark weren't too bad with the A1. I felt it handled better than others.

heath

Hey Guys, don't get me wrong, I actually want A1U as my second HDV--- depending on what Sony does with new upcoming models, if any... but I'm just saying for a the first HDV, I would lean to the FX1. When I bought mine, though, there was no A1U, so I didn't have to weigh the issues...

Well, I'm not trying to shoot complete darkness. Some night time shots indoors with some room lighting (not bright, but not dark for human eyes), there is noticeable loss of resolution and noise in the image. When shooting outside at night, such as a bit past sunset on a mountain top, there is noticeable noise and loss of resolution too. That's why I don't like the low light capability of the A1.

I hear a lot of complaints about the A1U's low light performance but its the cleanest performer I've ever owned* in the compact handheld category.

For comparison sake, I preferred my VX2000 over my FX1 in less than acceptable lighting. Granted the VX2000 is SD but they're both 1/3" 3CCD.

It came down to a size issue for me so I sold the FX1 and got the A1U. So far its a decision I haven't regretted.


*
DSR-PDX10
NV-GS100
PV-DV953
Optura Xi
Optura Pi

But if you're comparing at the compact level, sure, the A1 low light is acceptable, but compared to the FX1 or VX2000, the A1 just completely pales.

Keep in mind, too, that HDV needs more light than DV. In the sense that if I'm shooting something with similar HDV and DV models, the HDV's iris may be open as far as possible, but the DV is at F 2.0 or so. I would add more light and then iris down to F 2.0 or so with the HDV.

That's my personal, unscientific observations.

heath

What about a Canon XH-A1 instead of the FX1? It has the A1's XLRs, and 3 higher resolution CCDs than the FX1. In a similar form factor as the FX1. For $4k.

When there is enough light, does the A1 have a better image than the FX1?

The A1 is good and matches the FX1 when you add a bit more color to the camera, about a +5 to +7 if you're using +1 to +3 color on the FX1.

heath

Wow. I only use +1 color on the A1. +5 or more seems huge. I guess that means the FX1 is pretty saturated at default.

I'd like to go for the Canon, but size is a big issue for me, and nothing can touch the A1's smallness and still get so many features.

There is a lot to be said for small size. If you are a casual shooter, the small size means you will be able to have the camera with you more often. However, if you were choosing a now 2 year old FX1 sized camera, the A1 is a similar size with higher resolution and more features. The A1 also has an attractive price, however its manual settings seem harder to get at.

At $2k, the difference in price could buy some very nice mics and filters...

I'd say the FX1/Z1 have better color capture than most other cameras.

heath

Sometimes it might be nice to have a small camera. You take off the mic pod and lens hood, and the A1 looks really small, which can be good in some situations (shooting on the grounds of our art gallery, for instance, where a professional camera gets your thrown out within about 2 minutes but if you look like a tourist you can shoot all day).

B&H's discount price on the A1 is $2500, and Sony has a $500 mail-in rebate if you buy before the end of Sept. At $2,000...well, this little beast is starting to look pretty good. I wonder how its image would compare to, say a PD170, under normal conditions?

I have two FX1s and an HC1: I use the former for any paid professional work and the latter for personal stuff and as a backup to the bigger cameras. The HC1/A1U are nice little cameras but their single-chip CMOS weaknesses show under extreme conditions. For general-purpose daytime use the little HDV cameras yield impressive HD images; beyond that I'd go with the FX1.

I was wondering how well the A1 compared to the PD170 too. I have no camera yet and have enrolled in documentary school, so I have to make a decision. Compared to the PD170 the A1 after rebate is $700 less, and has HDV, but I'll need low light.

So I called Sony customer service (pro division) and one of the techs shot some video on each camera and offered these comments: "The A1 DEFINITELY (my emphasis) doesn't provide as clean or clear an image at low light." He said the area was lit "like an average low light area". I'm not sure what that means, but I was VERY sorry to hear his comments.

So now what - do I spend $2700 for the PD170, realizing that the format may be nearing the end of its useful life, or is there another choice? How about a Panasonic GS-180 ($430), a 3 CCD camera that allows headphone monitoring (the GS-300 doesn't). For a very small investment I get to learn with a camera I can give to my kids when I move up, and in the meantime I still have a reasonable image (according to camcorderinfo.com).

Thoughts?

I was wondering how well the A1 compared to the PD170 too. I have no camera yet and have enrolled in documentary school, so I have to make a decision. Compared to the PD170 the A1 after rebate is $700 less, and has HDV, but I'll need low light.

So I called Sony customer service (pro division) and one of the techs shot some video on each camera and offered these comments: "The A1 DEFINITELY (my emphasis) doesn't provide as clean or clear an image at low light." He said the area was lit "like an average low light area". I'm not sure what that means, but I was VERY sorry to hear his comments.

So now what - do I spend $2700 for the PD170, realizing that the format may be nearing the end of its useful life, or is there another choice? How about a Panasonic GS-180 ($430), a 3 CCD camera that allows headphone monitoring (the GS-300 doesn't). For a very small investment I get to learn with a camera I can give to my kids when I move up, and in the meantime I still have a reasonable image (according to camcorderinfo.com).

Thoughts?

I have GS120, probably predecessor to GS180. Nice cheap 3 chip camera, but not near the quality picture as my VX2000, which is consumer version of PD150, predecessor of the PD170. Images didn't change a lot in those models, just a few features.

realizing that the format may be nearing the end of its useful life

Documentary school? Sounds like SD will suit you just fine and the low light performance of the PD170 or XL2 (if you're going widescreen SD) will be perfect for your projects.

I would only get one of the smaller cams A1U/GS180 if size is important. As for HDV.. Until there is a $49.99 Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player you need not worry about SD obsolescence.

Or you could invest in lights if you're pimarily dealing with talking heads.

If shooting under low light is your primary criterion, then you should stay away from any of the 1/3" chip HD cameras. The PD170 or the cheaper VX2100 would be your best bet.