fx1 vs dvx100??? at DVinfo.net

Scot Anderson · June 24th, 2008, 05:20 PM

hey so im upgrading from a vx2100.
first of all i will be using it mostly to film skiing, im a huge fan of the film look, i know the dvx is amazing at getting the film look, and ive heard both that the fx1 looks extremely digital and nothing like film, and that is easy to get the look if you want to, im not sure what to believe.
the HD would be nice to have, but its not a huge deal, and i want plenty of manual control's because its sometimes very hard to get a good picture when its mostly snow.

Jesse Haycraft · July 7th, 2008, 10:07 AM

Aside from the obvious SD vs. HD question here, there are a few other things to consider.

1. DVX100B does not do native widescreen. It cuts off the top and bottom of the image to get it, so you lose image quality. The FX-1 does do native widescreen.

2. DVX100B has XLR inputs, which are very important. They allow you to use good microphones, which in a low noise environment like the mountains is very important.

3. DVX100B has better colors and manual control, from what I hear.

Look here for a much more in depth comparison than I could ever do:
http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Personally, at that general price range, I'd get the XL2. It is ~$500 more, though. Native widescreen, XLR, great color, sharp video, film look, bla bla bla. Also, the DVX100B may not be a huge jump over your VX2100.

In the end, its your decision. I don't own any of these camcorders, so all this comes from what I have read and seen over the years, not personal experience. So take it with a grain of salt. You should ask someone else as well.

Bill Pryor · July 7th, 2008, 10:32 AM

I'd tend to agree. If you don't want to go HD, then the XL2 is the best looking 1/3" chip camera available. While the DVX100b is very nice, it does not have 16:9 chips and for me shooting 16:9 is more important than shooting HD. You can shoot 16:9 with the DVX, but it distorts the image in the viewfinder, unlike Sony's SD cameras like the PD170. It's very annoying to shoot like that.

I would not go for the FX1. If you're going to spend that much money you could afford the Canon XH A1. It's about the same price these days.

Tom Hardwick · July 7th, 2008, 10:45 AM

Yes, the XH-A1's a good bet, because it's an FX1 but with a longer zoom and XLR inputs - but I'd expect it to be quite a bit dearer because of this, Forget anything 4:3 I'd say, however much you like the look of it.

June 24th, 2008, 05:20 PM	#1
Scot Anderson Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: fort collins, colorado Posts: 29	fx1 vs dvx100??? hey so im upgrading from a vx2100. first of all i will be using it mostly to film skiing, im a huge fan of the film look, i know the dvx is amazing at getting the film look, and ive heard both that the fx1 looks extremely digital and nothing like film, and that is easy to get the look if you want to, im not sure what to believe. the HD would be nice to have, but its not a huge deal, and i want plenty of manual control's because its sometimes very hard to get a good picture when its mostly snow.

July 7th, 2008, 10:07 AM	#2
Jesse Haycraft Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 57	Aside from the obvious SD vs. HD question here, there are a few other things to consider. 1. DVX100B does not do native widescreen. It cuts off the top and bottom of the image to get it, so you lose image quality. The FX-1 does do native widescreen. 2. DVX100B has XLR inputs, which are very important. They allow you to use good microphones, which in a low noise environment like the mountains is very important. 3. DVX100B has better colors and manual control, from what I hear. Look here for a much more in depth comparison than I could ever do: http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/ Personally, at that general price range, I'd get the XL2. It is ~$500 more, though. Native widescreen, XLR, great color, sharp video, film look, bla bla bla. Also, the DVX100B may not be a huge jump over your VX2100. In the end, its your decision. I don't own any of these camcorders, so all this comes from what I have read and seen over the years, not personal experience. So take it with a grain of salt. You should ask someone else as well.

July 7th, 2008, 10:32 AM	#3
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I'd tend to agree. If you don't want to go HD, then the XL2 is the best looking 1/3" chip camera available. While the DVX100b is very nice, it does not have 16:9 chips and for me shooting 16:9 is more important than shooting HD. You can shoot 16:9 with the DVX, but it distorts the image in the viewfinder, unlike Sony's SD cameras like the PD170. It's very annoying to shoot like that. I would not go for the FX1. If you're going to spend that much money you could afford the Canon XH A1. It's about the same price these days.

July 7th, 2008, 10:45 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, the XH-A1's a good bet, because it's an FX1 but with a longer zoom and XLR inputs - but I'd expect it to be quite a bit dearer because of this, Forget anything 4:3 I'd say, however much you like the look of it.