"The wide-angle doesn't look wide and isn't going to get Krubrick fans salivating."

I don't think so. :) I own both the VX2000 and FX1.

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/VXPD/fx1second.jpg
http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/VXPD/vx2000.jpg

Owning both GL2 and VX, the Z1 at wide angle is much wider than either of them. The FX1 has the same wide angle as the Z1.

In 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 is 32.5mm and the VX-2000 is 49mm. 32.5 / 49 = 0.663, so you would have to add a .66x wide adaptor to the VX-2000 to get the same field of view, as Young's photos graphically indicate.

So far in all the footage posted on this forum I am not seeing any stunning improvement of the H1 image over the Z1. I wish there was more footage posted and a thorough review and/or comparison. Based on the better lense and the possibility of better footage I am considering the H1, but at 9k, I need to see a little more!

Shannon has a good write up as to why he changed under the Cannon thread.

But, his reason goes back to the same issues we had with the DV cameras.
I believe Sony has gone after the 90% market. This means higher volume, and lower prices. So, in HDV, just like DV, if you want an interchangeable lens, get something else and pay more money. If you want "true" 24p, go somewhere else.

For me, I do not have the need for either of the above, and sure am not willing to spend more money when, for me, their is no improvement in quality.

So, if one had bought a Cannon DV camera, I can see why they would want the H1. But, in both cases, they cost you more money, and had a much larger footprint.

So, so far, just like in DV times, I see nothing shipping or coming that wants me to change from my Z1. But, am always looking.

Dave

Dave, yes, the more I shoot with the z1 the more I like it. Similarly I found that the pd150, despite all the hype of about the xl and dvx cameras, put out a better image, was easier to use, and transferred to film better in all of our tests (at least the PAL version.) But like you I am always looking for the very best image in a low profile and affordable camera. The more I use HDV the more I like it. Its not HDCAM but its way way better than DV.

Boyd, you said: ''In 35mm still camera terms, the wide end of the Z1 is 2.5mm and the VX-2000 is 49mm.''

In fact the 1/3" chips and 6 mm focal length of the VX2000 equate to 43.2 mm in 35 mm still camera terms. Your 49 mm equivalent relates to the TRV950. So you'd need a pretty mild 0.75x wide converter to match the VX with the FX.

But if we use a 0.5x wide-angle on each camera the VX looks so-so wide at 21.6 mm, whereas the FX/Z1 takes on The Shining look with its 16.2 mm focal length.

This looks wonderful to my eyes, but only as long as barrel distortion is kept at bay. And the front elements need to be kept absolutely-bloomin' spotless, because the depth of field when working at focal lengths of 2.25 mm can quite easily encompas both surfaces of the front element.

tom.

IIRC the Shining used 10mm lenses, which given the Academy gate would give a ~16mm-ish, (SLR FOV) but with 10mm embedded perspective

Ah you are so right Tom - mea culpa! Problem is, I have the PDX-10, VX-2000 and Z1 manuals all handy here.... but they look exactly the same (Sony's plain paper "digital video camera" booklet). So as you figured, I was looking at the specs in the PDX-10 manual!