HVX200 vs. Z1 (FX1) for the simple guy

[Heath McKnight]

We're getting off topic, but doing a film-out is very cost prohibitive, which is why many like to shoot 24p natively or have it done in post. Besides, most film festivals prefer HDCAM or some other digital tape or DVD source, because it saves them a lot of money.

Anyway, I love the Z1, the DVX100a and, in the high end dept., the F900.

heath

[Kurth Bousman]

I don't understand why it's off topic. 24p is being used as the main difference between the z1 and hvx. I think the more important difference is variable frame rates. And even for film projects , most people edit on an nle so whatever delivery format is required is unconnected to the acquistion medium. What's great is the abundance of choices we have vs. what we had 10 years ago in terms of digital media. We had the vx1000 and the vx700 single chip. Then Panasonic followed with some , truthfully , mediocre models. Don't remember the name but it looked like a mini-bazooka. This year we'll probably see some more interesting hd cameras come down the line. The hvx is great and coupled with a 35mm adapter will probably fool some eyes into thinking it was 35mm film. That appears to be the holygrail, however it's just another look-tool. Use whatevers in the toolbox that works. For most of us , the z1 is enough for now. You have to remember that most video cameras in this price range are sold to broadcasters not to hollywood want-to-bees. However in a couple of years , when p2 prices drop and pany is offering rebates , I'll be looking seriously at the hvx , not because of 24p, but because it shoots frames at many different speeds. But by then we'll probably have HD consumer cameras with full frame sensors shooting variable framerates recording to internal hds , that are no bigger than a dslr. That's the (w)holygrail.Kurth

[Heath McKnight]

I got off topic talking film out, though they handle the 24p look.

Check out my thoughts on a "film look:"

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=58818

My students have learned shooting in 24p is just one part of the equation. BTW, I think Panny is offering $400 off for an HVX200 and two P2 cards.

heath

[John Benton]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

BTW, I think Panny is offering $400 off for an HVX200 and two P2 cards.

heath

Where?

Heath Thanks again,

Resurrecting this thread is very good for me,

I have been waiting for the HVX200 for a long time - it is perfect for my workflow (also, I will be using it with a 35mm adaptor)
but I am worried that the lower res/noise may make this a Transitional Camera.
I Know you can get good res and low noise from the HVX.
But
I will probably be getting my HVX a few weeks before Nab when something else wets my appitite (yeah I then wait a few more months)
Honestly
an HVX will run me 7k
and I am tempted to spend less than half that (3k) for an FX1 now
that will let me do the work I need to do for the next 6-9 months.

now I would Love an HVX200,
but
as I am not gonna be gettingg one soon - This is a very relevant thread

[Heath McKnight]

Test, test, test. After buying an HD10 before testing, I realized how much of a mistake I'd made. Oh, well...

Here's the link to the rebate:

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...odel=AG-HVX200

heath

[Bob Grant]

It might seem like Sony don't listen but I think the problem is Sony doesn't talk enough. I'm certain they realised everyone would have given their right arm to get a 24p HD camera with all the other features of the Z1 at around that price point. As we've seen with the HVX100 that isn't such an easy task, the things been cooking for a long time and it certainly has it's issues. Those issues aren't Panasonics fault either, they're just doing the best they can giving us what we asked for, too bad the laws of physics got in the way of a perfect outcome.
So now Sony has the F350, 24p, multiple frame rates and a complete end to end solution that's already tried and tested. Yes it costs more money although I'd suggest if you factor in all the ancillary costs of the HVX100 the difference might be less than we think. After all what really matters is the total cost of ownership.

[Patrick Fisher]

I know Sony uses funny proprietary technology that doesn't work for everyone, but I own an FX1 and a new 60" SXRD HDTV and the combination is absolutely amazing! The FX1 hooks up via Firewire (all digital) and the picture quality I'm getting is the same if not better than Discovery HD. Trust me I am very critical of picture quality (color, resolution, artifacts). I'm not sure what type of compression codec is used by the Discovery channel, but there are far less compression artifacts from the FX1's HDV codec. The connection via Firewire is flawless...the television reads the camera instantly. I am more than pleased with my investment in Sony.

[Jane Snijders]

i got lost in this pana thread.Just to check out how things are with the pana 200.....
I got myself a Z1 as soon as it wwas available.
ive been shooting corporates and commercials and docs with it for almost a year now. If I would have hesitated to buy the Z1 just to wait for someting newer and better and more sophisticated......come on.
its all about making films. Not about technology. My clients are not interested in the typre of camera I use. They do not do A B comparisons.
Believe me : if I suddenly come to a shoot with a pana hvx 200 without the chrosziel mattebox attached like I have with my Z1 , I think clients would worry about the less impressive looks of the hvx 200.....
Anyway: Looking forward to panasonic 200 content out here.
Yes . I also like progressive. Maybe this year?

[Scott Anderson]

I'm not slamming Sony for the XL/Z-1. If you want a 1080i 1/3" camcorder, it's a fine choice. I think that Barry Green's dvxuser.com shootout finally put the nail in the coffin for me, meaning that the cams from Sony, Canon, JVC and Panasonic all put out really good HD. They all put out "real" HD, whatever that means. All of them would be suitable for a wide variety of productions, maybe even for 35mm film-out or network production (I know there's argument about this, but we never thought that DV would be used for film-out or network, and look what's happened).

The problem I have is that Canon (somewhat), JVC and Panasonic have all listened to what the customers want: flexibility. They want the option to shoot in 24p, 30p or 60i. Sony was first to market with a really viable professional camera (I no longer count the first JVC camera - too hobbled to be truly pro). Sony had the opportunity to own the market in this price range, and they blew it.

It's a shame, really, because there are so many good design ideas in the Z-1: the stunning viewfinder, the left-loading tape, higher-bandwidth HDV, controls placed where you expect, etc.

If I had needed, really needed HD earlier last year, I might have bought the Z-1, earned my money back on it, and had no regrets. But if I had to buy a camera right now, it would be the HVX-200 without a doubt, with my eye on April and the nuclear bomb of a camera that might be Red.

[Steven White]

IMO Sony scored big time with the FX1/Z1U. At a time that I needed a camera, here came a 3CCD HD system. I downloaded the clips, I tested out workflows, I chose my tools wisely, and when I bought the first FX1 I could get my hands on in Nov. '04, it did exactly what I expected it too.

Was Sony ignoring the market? Consider all the cameras that are out now... none of them are perfect, and they've had a year to go at it! Progressive scanning has proved difficult - look at the SSE on the HD100, frame modes on the XLH1, and softness of the HVX200. Archiving and editing are a pain as well.

The FX1/Z1U has been out for a year, and yet still is directly comparible AND CHEAPER than the lot (save Sony's other offering the amazing HC1/A1U). And show me another camera that has NTSC/PAL switching out of the box.

Sure, I wanted true 24P... but it seems evident that at the time the FX1 was being developed, there were no viable 1/3" 1080p24 chipsets that existed - so Sony did what was reasonable to get a product out the door.

What's next? I don't know. If the successor to the FX1/Z1U doesn't have a proper 24P/F function then I'll be disappointed... but the industry is in a state of flux to HD, and Sony didn't do have bad with their first entry.

-Steve

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Scott Anderson

Sony had the opportunity to own the market in this price range, and they blew it.

On the contrary, I'd say that Sony does own most of the market for affordable HD videography, and there's still nothing to compete with the FX1 at that price over a year after it started shipping. The Z1U is a little harder choice at ~$4500, but you can still get two of them for the cost of one XL-H1 or an HVX200 with some recording storage. The HD100U has a unique niche as a shoulder-mounted HD camera, but I don't get the impression JVC is selling more than a small number of those compared to sales of the Sony cameras.

Personally I've pretty happy with what Sony gave us and continue to be impressed that a $3000 video camera can deliver 700 lines of recorded resolution. Their current models struggle in poor lighting, but a simple 15-30W on-camera light solves that problem for most of my purposes. These are good times for videographers in terms of equipment options.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Philip Williams

You did. When you bought it.

Not really. That argument would hold if there had been real alternatives when the Z1 was released. Sure, no one put a gun to Jim's head (at least in this case -- I don't know what he does in his off hours), but the JVC HD1 and HD10 are single-chip and virtually useless for 24-fps applications (you can't just drop the "extra" 6 frames). It was more a vote for low-cost HD (which at the time meant HDV and coincidentally 1080i) over high-end HD or SD. Had the HD100 or HVX been available when the Z1 was released, I'm sure the Z1 wouldn't have enjoyed the sales volume that it has.