Hi. I am 98% convinced that I will be getting an FX7 within the next few months. I have tested one and like it for the following reasons:
1. Size. Big enough (heavy enough) to help smooth out pans on my fluid head tripod.
2. Nice PQ.
3. Some good manual controls.

My one concern may be the possibility of my being disappointed in the sound. But that can be fixed. (Right?)

My question is this: Since there are some who claim that the picture produced by the HV20 or the HC7 is equal to, or even slightly better than the FX7, what exactly is the difference? In what way are they better: Color accuracy? Depth of field? Sharpness?
To me, the advantage of the FX7 over those single chip cams, is the weight; not too much more but enough to stabilize it on the tripod. If PQ is very close, then the difference of PQ will not be enough to change my mind.

But I am curious about those claimed differences. Call it a nagging voice in the back of my mind (no its not my wife).

Thanks.
Mike

PS Sure hope Sony doesn't come out with an improved version of the FX7 any time soon.

I think the lens is better on the FX7... the 20x optical zoom is so nice...

Until they release a consumer cam with manual zoom and 20x optical... I wouldn't consider it...

I think the lens is better on the FX7... the 20x optical zoom is so nice...

Until they release a consumer cam with manual zoom and 20x optical... I wouldn't consider it...
Joe..R U saying don't consider the HV20? I thought you owned an HV10?

Because it was the cheapest HDV camera I could get my hands on... lack of manual zoom, rediculously small size, and 10x zoom were limiting for me.

The picture was great, FX7 is equal or better... and I think it's the lens more than anything... I doubt 3Cmos has any advantage over 1 Cmos...

The picture was great, FX7 is equal or better... and I think it's the lens more than anything... I doubt 3Cmos has any advantage over 1 Cmos...

It's all about size. Three 1/4 CMOS are going to be better than one 1/4 CMOS, and one 1" CMOS is going to be better than three 1/3 CMOS, so it's all relative. Chip size plays a huge role in sensitivity, not to mention other factors to consider as well.

Because it was the cheapest HDV camera I could get my hands on... lack of manual zoom, rediculously small size, and 10x zoom were limiting for me.

The picture was great, FX7 is equal or better... and I think it's the lens more than anything... I doubt 3Cmos has any advantage over 1 Cmos...
Well....you do a heck of a job with it anyways.

Well, if I read everyone right, then I feel relieved with my decision about purchasing an FX7 in the near future. Whether it be the 3 CMOS chips, or the lens itself, I gather that the FX7 produces a picture equal to or better than a single chip HD camcorder.

Thanks to you all who responded.

Mike

PS. And I feel reasonably sure that Sony will continue to concentrate on producing smaller and smaller HD camcorders, and not come out with a replacement for the FX7 within the next few months, and thereby put my plans in a tailspin.

Mike, my friend recently purchased a FX7, and has left it in my stead for the last few weeks. It is a great camera IMHO for an intermediate step up from the consumer models. It offers a full manual set of parameters, such as zoom, iris, shutter speed, gain, etc. It also offers guide frames, histogram, the longer zoom that has already been spoke of, and other features I have to be honest not even delved into as of yet. But even on the simple manual functions I have gotten into, I know that she and soon I, will have made the right decision with these models..

Its definately a step above the consumer cams. It also has audio level meters and other functions like assignable buttons and preset parameters. I really do like the larger form factor(more brickish in the feel and weight) and yes, you can definately add an external mic to the setup for improved audio.

But its a nice camera, and the colors look great(probably not compared to the over 3500-4K cameras such as the A1, but then again, look at the cost difference)! I literally love this camera to be honest with you.. It is great and a learning camera if your coming from the consumer level for sure..

Damon

Mike -
The FX7 is a great choice, I think it's highly under-rated. Lots of "pro" features already mentioned above that immediately made me take to the camera - my personal fave is the ability to leave the VF and the LCD on at the same time, or is it the focus assist so I can throw focus slightly out and let it drift nicely into focus..., or is it the setings readout right on the display... or... well, you get the idea! Size and weight are more manageable for me than the Z1, and I ran a test tape of every camera I happened to have, and the FX7 somehow just stood out in the "crowd" when played back on the big screen. There's a certain something that just makes it like being right there. Early reports described it as almost being 3D, which does somehow come across in the footage.

Don't get me wrong here, the smaller cams are great, and for what they pack in at the price, you've got great backup or B cams. But you won't get the control over the camera the FX7 offers. PQ is going to be "close", I think the HC7 is a pretty decent color match to the FX7 (the HV20 can be tweaked to be close too, but takes more work).

The FX7 is probably under-rated because some of the early reviews vs. the Canons, and I'm seeing them at under 2K on Ebay at the moment, so it's a heckuva bargain. I picked mine up at an insane price in a package deal I couldn't resist, and fell in love with it immediately - reminded me of the old TRV900 manual controls, the big 3.5 LCD, all the features I thought Sony left out of the FX1 and put in the Z1... it's a keeper in my book.

I bought the Sony HVR-v1e and I am highly impressed, my mate bought the FX7 and Im gutted because it was about £1100 cheaper than mine. I am having to change the boom mic on mine as it isnt loud enough. I like having the pro features on my camera but feel that there isnt £1100 worth of extras on my camera. The FX7 is a great camcorder and the picture quality is stunning.

Thanks guys, for your responses.
A friend of mine has the FX7, and while I have seen footage that he has shot and been very impressed, I have not been able to use the camera myself. All the footage he has shot has been with the cam set at automatic everything, so I am still in the dark about the full potential of this FX7. Nor am I experienced, (and have not experienced) any of the single chip consumer camcorders that are currently out. But then again, I am not all that interested in them. As for the Canon A1, it is beyond my reach at the present time ($), and besides, I probably don't have enough patience to learn all there would be to learn to bring out the full potential of that cam. The FX7 just seems perfect for me (with the possible exception of the mic), with just enough manual controls and options to keep me busy and provide for some tweeking of the PQ. I am definately going to have to work on my memory skills with this tired old retired teachers mind, in order to remember what settings I like for the different shooting situations I will find myself in (mostly outdoor broad scenery shots).
Am learning patience though in having to wait for 2-5 months until I have set aside enough money to purchase the FX7. Until then, I will be pestering you all about various things concerning this cam. Hope you all don't mind.

Thanks,
Mike

... And I feel reasonably sure that Sony will continue to concentrate on producing smaller and smaller HD camcorders, and not come out with a replacement for the FX7 within the next few months, and thereby put my plans in a tailspin.
I wouldn't worry about that. I've found that I'm the only one who has the following supernatural powers:

1. As soon as I decide on a cam, it will be discontinued and unavailable.

2. When I actually buy a cam, as soon as I open the box there will be a new version that does more and costs less.

Mr Brugess, Here's another way to look at it...

The FX7 and V1 are Sony's replacement or " HD upgrades" from the very popular (still today) Sony VX2100 and PD170 SD cams.

As good as the VX2100 and PD170 are in the SD arena the FX7 and V1
are just that much better, and not just because its an upgrade from SD to
HD... Sony added alot more control in the PQ adjustments available to the shooter... this just translates to PQ capability, its up to the shooter to work out the settings to acquire your desired results... its nice to be able to have some control over the process....

One of the areas that seperates a single chipper cam from a tripple chipper cam's is the fact that the tripple chipper cams have a better grasp of dynamic range and much more accurate color saturation.

Here's an example.... if you house a single chipper and a tripple chipper in a underwater housing for shooting those great underwater shots we all see on the Discovery Channel you will find that your shooting in some very extreme lighting.... a single chipper will have problems with the pure white sand against the darker corals and general lack of light... so what happens is the single chipper will try to expose the scene correctly but the contrast is just too much... so when you have the subject properly exposed the pure white sand will be blown out so badly that its imposible to recover in post editing....

The difference when you compare the tripple chipper is that it has a better handle on the dynamic range and can handle the pure whites and pure blacks
intermixed in the shoot and still expose the subject corrrectly.... an added benefit to the extra dynamic range is more saturated and correct rendered colors... so you end up with footage that you can work with in post editing
and the footage will actually respond to your adjustments.... and not just mush out on you...

Enjoy your new FX7........ :-)

I agree that the FX7 and V1 are HD replacements to the vx2100 and pd170, but they are not that much better. Sony could have put 1/3rd inch CMOS chips in the FX7 and V1 and at least get close to the low light performance of these popular SD cameras. They also could have made the audio better.

But that being said... The advantages of the FX7 and V1 over a single chip camera such as the HC7 or HV20 are the sharper colors of 3 chips vs. 1; gain control; longer lens; better manual focus. However, the HV20 and especially the HC7 have quite a bit of manual features that don't really give "prosumer" cameras such as the FX7 and V1 that big of an edge anymore. For instance, you have manual control of iris, shutter, and focus on the HC7. You can also modify the picture slightly with image adjustments. These cameras are also a tad more sensitive in low light due to their larger chip.

For me, the smaller chips in the FX7 and V1 was a deal breaker. So for now the HC7 is my work horse and has done well. 3 projects have paid for the purchase of the camera, and my clients were extremely happy with the picture quality. I do still consider my HC7 a "B" camera and will be looking for an "A" camera in the next year. Unfortunately the FX7 and V1 have made it off my list.

John -
Have you had hands on with an FX7? Might be worth renting for a day or something - it's not bad. I too consider the HC7 to be a real "workhorse" - but the FX7 was way more cam than I expected. Still getting used to it, but it immediately gives you a LOT more to work with.

John -
Have you had hands on with an FX7? Might be worth renting for a day or something - it's not bad. I too consider the HC7 to be a real "workhorse" - but the FX7 was way more cam than I expected. Still getting used to it, but it immediately gives you a LOT more to work with.

Yes. Tried out both the FX7 and V1. I was satisfied with the PQ when there was ample light, but low light performance was horrible in my opinion. Of course, I didn't like the Canon XHA1's low light performance either. Maybe, I'm being too picky. Also, I'm probably biased when it comes to small chips. I guess I'm mainly disappointed that Sony didn't put in their 1/3rd inch CMOS chips. I think that would have improved the low light performance by a 1/2 stop or so.

I would submit you're biased about numbers (chip size). The surface area of the 1/4 chip in it's diagonal mode isn't tremendously different than that of a 1/3 chip, which is why they did it.
No HDV camcorder (including the HC7) is worth much in low light, it becomes a question of whether you need the "moment" badly enough to deal with the tradeoffs.
FWIW, I have at least one of every HDV cam made in the last two years, and have found that while the Z1 and HC5 are my primary use cams (Z1 on the ground, HC5 on my helmet) I use the V1 heavily as well (over 400 hours on 4 V1U's).
The A1 is a great cam too, but the OIS can't be completely disabled, making it an aerial deal breaker.

I was satisfied with the PQ when there was ample light, but low light performance was horrible in my opinion. Of course, I didn't like the Canon XHA1's low light performance either. Maybe, I'm being too picky. Also, I'm probably biased when it comes to small chips.Sounds to me like you're too used to the VX2100 or PD170 or similar SD cams, and, maybe, as DSE suggested, a bit of an issue with anything that has smaller than 1/3in sensors. In my opinion that's a little bit too short-sighted but each to his own, as they say.

Reality is due to the nature of HDV, none of the HDV cams does anywhere near as good a job as far as pure lowlight performance (ignoring res etc) as cams like the VX and PD.

This is the way it is - the Canon XHA1 has the slightly larger 1/3in sensors and you still didnt even like that.

IMO you have to accept that there is "no such thing as a free lunch" (in life and video) & take on board the concept that there is a price to pay for HDV resolution which you have found I think.

Everybody sooner or later educates themselves on the pro's and cons of SD, HD etc and makes a choice about what is the best choice for their own current purposes, essentially.

It's all about size. Three 1/4 CMOS are going to be better than one 1/4 CMOS, and one 1" CMOS is going to be better than three 1/3 CMOS, so it's all relative. Chip size plays a huge role in sensitivity, not to mention other factors to consider as well.There is another advantage of the 3 CMOS that - I think - is unsufficiently spoken of... It seems to me that HDV camcorders are more prone to moiré than the DV generations, probably because of the higher sensor resolution that will more often match repeating patterns as on brick walls, stone, cliffs, stone churches... And I found that, with a single-CMOS like the HC3, the moiré effect shows itself with erratic colors like purple/green or blue/yellow that appear on those stone surfaces - *very* annoying when it happens. Whereas on the FX7, moiré is really the exception and when it happens, it is completely color-neutral. Barely visible in fact. That proved very important to me as I mostly shoot outdoors.
[...] PS. And I feel reasonably sure that Sony will continue to concentrate on producing smaller and smaller HD camcorders, and not come out with a replacement for the FX7 within the next few months, and thereby put my plans in a tailspin.I wouldn't worry that much about that, not because I would know anything about Sony's product plan (I don't), but because this is really a camcorder to grow and learn with. Before a camcorder such as the FX7/V1 proves itself the weakest link in anyone's production workflow (and therefore requires purchase of more sophisticated / expensive technology), it means that this person has assembled sufficient videographing experience that he/she is able to pull up attractive, interesting videos, that are able to capture the audience's attention and praise -- for the content I mean, not just how technologically good the video looks like. It really takes a long learning curve, before all that's left to improve is switching from the FX7/V1 to 'the next best thing'. Outdoors, FX7 video is *very* realistic.

Well, just got back home from family reunions (in-laws) and decided to check in with you all. It is nice to find that I can participate again in a subject that I am interested in (not about the current crops that are being harvested, nor who has died, etc.).

Ray. I noticed that very thing about how the FX7 that my friend just bought was able to handle those contrasting areas of light and dark, making them seem much more natural, with no overexposures, just the way my eyes would see it. My old single chip DV cam would always be having major troubles with that.

Stephan. As for me worrying about sony coming out with something new just as I receive my new FX7 (yes Adam, I many times have that same super natural power), only if that new product were to completely blow the FX7 out of the water for the same price, would I have any regrets. I am thinking that the FX7 will give me plenty of room to grow over the next few years as my skills increase and my knowledge of the camera improves.

It is nice to see some good discussion about this camcorder. From what I have observed on some of the other forums, little or nothing is ever mentioned concerning the FX7. It leads to the impression that the camcorder is not a good seller due to it maybe being an inferior cam (which is not necessarily true) and therefore no reason to be talked about. Seeing all of you chimming in on this thread is fantastic. It reinforces my decision on getting this camcorder. Thank you all very much. Am looking forward to when I finally have one in my hands, and am heading out to do a shoot.

Here is one question: Is a UV filter something that would be good to get? Suggestions as to which kind (if it is good to get one)?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike -
I know that I was curious about the FX7 - just as you note, it really didn't seem to show up much in reviews/discussion. Enough on the V1 to convince me that the technology was solid, but little on the FX7...

Finally stumbled upon one at a price I couldn't go resist, and I can only say that it was an instant favorite - as I went through the menus and fiddled with the settings, I probably had one silly grin on my face, as I was thrilled to find all the things that I liked about the Z1 in a cam that would be manageable in size and weight. I haven't had as much time to shoot with it as I'd like, but the footage I've shot really knocks me out.

Don't be afraid to pick one up - I think the "low profile" this cam has had so far makes it a bit of a "sleeper" best buy - as I mentioned I'm seeing someone selling on Ebay at 2K shipped... that's what the venerable HC1 went for new a couple years ago, and the FX7 is far more camera. I'm almost tempted to pick up a "B" cam at that price, but my HC7's work fine for that!

DB>)

Thanks Dave, for the encouragement. I have never shopped E-bay and don't know if I ever will. Just not at all that comfortable with the idea of it all. Besides, I don't have a pay pal account.
As for the camcorder, yes, I agree with you. The FX7 will undoubtedly give me enough to do with what it has, to occupy me for several months or more. My shooting has improved greatly over the past 2-3 years to where I will be ready to step up to the FX7. I am not quite ready for anything more complex....my level of smartness will probably be maxed with the FX7, so I am not considering the Canon A1 (although I read good things about it), nor am I ready for the V1. Besides, they cost much more.
So, the FX7 it is, and I do love the picture it produces. Hopefully, in a year or two, the debate between HD DVD and BR will have been settled, and prices will be down enough for me to begin completing what I need to produce my own discs in HD.
Right now all my programs are in SD. Need to move up as soon as possible, and the FX7 will be my first step. But even shooting in HD and then producing a DVD in SD is, right now, better than what I produce using my DV single chip cam. And I have seen it with what I was able to download and burn from my friends footage off of the FX7. So, I am really hyped to get the FX7 in my hands as soon as I can and do my own thing.

Mike