I just cant understand why the newer models are listed as less expensive than the older ones. The FX-1 is listed at $200 more at Sonystyle.com than the newer FX-7. Do I upgrade to a less expensive unit? Or is it not considered an upgrade?

Help me out.

The FX1 and FX7 are two totally different cameras and are NOT aimed towards the same end-user. The FX7 is the more "consumer" of the 2 cameras with the FX1 geared towards "high-end enthusiasts."

Also realize that the FX7 has 1/4" CCD's and the FX1 has 1/3" CCD's. However the FX7's true progressive mode makes this an interesting trade-off.

However the FX7's true progressive mode makes this an interesting trade-off.Hi Boyd - i think its just the V1 with the progressive scan mode/feature but i could be wrong on that.

Hi Boyd - i think its just the V1 with the progressive scan mode/feature but i could be wrong on that.
You said right, only V1 can do progressive scan mode.

Hi Boyd - i think its just the V1 with the progressive scan mode/feature but i could be wrong on that.

Thanks Stu, I need to familiarize myself a little better with these new models. With a little luck, an opportunity to do that might materialize before long. :-)

The FX1 and FX7 are two totally different cameras and are NOT aimed towards the same end-user. The FX7 is the more "consumer" of the 2 cameras with the FX1 geared towards "high-end enthusiasts."
From what I’ve read, the FX7 is better than the FX1 in every category except for allegedly being worse in low light situations. During day shooting this camcorder should outshine the FX1 and its lens goes up to 20X.

I will say the same about comparing the Z1 to the V1 and having a progressive mode is a plus.

The new camera only has 1/4" chips--not in the same category as the FX1 at all.

From what I’ve read, the FX7 is better than the FX1 in every category except for allegedly being worse in low light situations. During day shooting this camcorder should outshine the FX1 and its lens goes up to 20X.

I can't see how the FX7 would be better if it has smaller sensors, but I suppose we'll hear more about that soon enough. Either way the new Canon XH-A1 sounds better at an aggressive price, so I'd be looking at those before the Sonys if I was shopping for a camera today. (Saying that as an owner of three Sony HDV cameras.)

The new FX7 has 3 CMOS chips while the FX1 has 3 CCD chips! CCD’s are more expensive which is one reason why the FX7 is less expensive.

~jr

John is right about that!

heath

The image quality of the HC1 and the HC3 is almost as good as a Z1u during day shooting and the HV10 may very well have an image that is arguably better than the Z1u during the same lighting conditions. In these comparisons you are comparing camcorders with a 1/3 of an inch CMOS chip against a camcorder that has 3 1/3 inch CCDs. So it wouldn’t be surprising to see a camcorder with 3 CMOS chips being only ¼ of an inch having a picture quality that is better than all of the HDV camcorders.

Basically the only thing that the FX1 and the Z1 has over the FX7 and V1 is being more sensitive to light because of the larger imagers which is a difference of 1 LUX or about 25% but when you consider a lens that is almost 2X to the FX1/Z1u, a 40% smaller body, HDMI output, progressive scan, and the potential to have an image quality that is better than all of the HDV camcorders that I mentioned earlier, the tradeoff is worth it.

Besides the Z1, I actually see the V1 as a much better value than even XH-G1.

B&H has the FX1 for $3,100 and you can find them for less than 3k on ebay.

If the FX7 is going to retail at $3,500 than it will be at least the same street price has the FX1.

I'm sure the FX1 will be discontinued early next year. Just speculating though.

The image quality of the HC1 and the HC3 is almost as good as a Z1u during day shooting and the HV10 may very well have an image that is arguably better than the Z1u during the same lighting conditions. In these comparisons you are comparing camcorders with a 1/3 of an inch CMOS chip against a camcorder that has 3 1/3 inch CCDs. So it wouldn’t be surprising to see a camcorder with 3 CMOS chips being only ¼ of an inch having a picture quality that is better than all of the HDV camcorders.

I agree... CMOS is the way of the future, look at RED. Manufacturers have just been controlling what we should buy and so far they decided CCD was the way.

I agree, too. CMOS is better than ever, and cheaper than ever. I think we're moving towards it. CMOS is in RED, SI's camera the 1920, the Origin (I think), the Genesis (I think), etc. But I don't think manufacturers have been controlling it; rather, I think it's the fact that CMOS used to be not-so-good for video, but now it's great. Technology has come a long way.

heath

The image quality of the HC1 and the HC3 is almost as good as a Z1u during day shooting and the HV10 may very well have an image that is arguably better than the Z1u during the same lighting conditions. In these comparisons you are comparing camcorders with a 1/3 of an inch CMOS chip against a camcorder that has 3 1/3 inch CCDs. So it wouldn’t be surprising to see a camcorder with 3 CMOS chips being only ¼ of an inch having a picture quality that is better than all of the HDV camcorders.

I'd say there are too many variables involved in those comparisons to conclude that three 1/4" CMOS chips will work better than three 1/3" CCDs, all else being equal. I definitely wouldn't bet on the FX7 outperforming the Canon HDV cameras with three 1440x1080 sensors and ~800 TV lines of recorded resolution. I'll be surprised if the FX7 image is as good as the FX1 under demanding conditions.

The HC1 and the pro version, the A1, use a single 1/3" CMOS chip, so there's really no comparison to the 1/4" chip camera. Smaller chip cameras can look pretty good on closeups and medium shots, but when you go to a wide shot, that's the giveaway that you are using a smaller chip camera.