Newbie, Must I buy the Sony HVR HD 1000 or the Sony FX7

[Juan Parmenides]

Hello everybody,
This my very first time in this forum comunity and I introduce myself as Juan Parmenides, my nick is my true name. Hope you have a little patient with me.
I am a freelance photographer and do weddings, events, social reunions, etc., etc,.I have photos in newspapers and governmental web pages and have a lot of Nikon gear. Well, I have a Canon HV20, happy with the quality and would like to begin with video in weddings and can be, something more.
I have read the post in this forum about the Sony HVR HD 1000, not too bad, not too god, and I have conclused the idea is more surface sensor better low light performance, then, 3 ccds have more surface than 1 Cmos. It is obvious.
But I have seen a lot of videos in vimeo and the extra quaility sometimes is only a little more, so sometimes doesn´t justify the extra money. So my question is, is the HD 1000 a good camcorder for weddings (I would use a 100 w halogen lamp) or would be better a Sony FX 7 for this.
Any information and knowledge from you would be very welcome.

Thanks in advance.

[Juan Parmenides]

Well, as nobody has written a line for this post, I have been investigating by myself and I have decided to get a Sony HVR HD 1000E for beginnig in this world. I know, really, that there is better cameras than this one, but I am sure it will serve for my purposes very well. I am not a NG videographer, ..... by now.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Hi Juan.

Well theoretically the HD1000 would have the same low light performance as the FX7.

The FX7 looks like is going to provide you better/quicker access to manual controls. Since the HD1000 makes you use a "multi-purpose ring", that just by its name looks complicated.

The FX7 is going to cost you a thousand bucks more, and that's something to consider.

If the HD1000 suits you well, if the "multi-purpose ring" is not a problem for you, maybe the HD1000 can do well for you.

I like my FX7, it's a nice camera. Not so good on low light but the HD1000 wouldn't do much better if any at all.

FX7 has a bigger LCD (I even find better for focusing than the FX1 LCD that has nominal higher res).

The FX7 is not shoulder mount, however some random shoulder mount should do it.

I don't have lots of videos on difficult situations, but you can check the FX7 quality on my Vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/impa/videos

This is my bit of help.

[Dave Blackhurst]

IF as I understand it the HD1000 is an HC7 in a big foo foo enclosure, it's going to be shy of the FX7 in low light. At the point where the HC7 shifts to auto slow shutter (30), the FX7 is still at 60 at least, leaving some room for manually slowing the shutter down and getting just that "little bit more" low light performance.

Not that the HC7 and it's bretheren are bad by ANY means, it's just that the FX7 is a lot more camera (for, of course, a lot more dinero).

[Ted Ramasola]

The HD1000 is a very entry level camcorder. For image and packaging purposes it will impress a consumer level client due to its "big casing" and shoulder mount form factor. We aquired one for our consumer event video department.

The FX7 has a bit more in features if you are after of more controls.

The FX7 is 3 chip. It will simply take better images than the HD1000.

I based my comments due to the fact that our corporate department has two DVXs, a JVC HD100, and several cameras thus allowing me to compare its performance objectively.

The HD1000 will shine if given proper illumination. Otherwise its grainy, just like any other consumer or industrial level cam.

Ted

[Juan Parmenides]

Hi, boys,
Thank you very much for your useful replys. I am in a dude now again, reading your posts I have delayed the buying of HD1K.
I have the chance to get a Sony FX1 brand new for 2.800 Euros in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Is this a better option than FX7? I suppose that is better than Sony Hd 1000. Could be the FX1 an old model, not adecuated for my purposes, weddings, etc.?

Thanks in advance

[Ted Ramasola]

Juan!!

You made a MUCH better choice.

Actually the FX1 -to show you that its still a popular camera is STILL being carried by Sony online sales. whereas the FX-7, tho a newer model, is NOT carried anymore. its still on there site but marked NO Longer in Production.

The fx1 is a robust camera thats better in low light and is a good all around camera that can allow you to break-into a better level of work than the hd1k or fx7 ever could.

Good luck.

Ted

[Robert M Wright]

An FX1 would be a much better choice than an HD1000 for weddings.

[Matt Bigwood]

I shot an instructional video yesterday using the FX1 and HD1000 simultaneously, and in the good light I had outdoors the image quality from the two is comparable.

Yes, the FX1 is better in low light and has more manual control, more easily accessed without going into menus, but don't write off the HD1000 as it can produce some good results when used sensibly.

[Juan Parmenides]

Thanks again, to all of you.
Really I appreciate your help. But there is some ideas I would like to discuss, if it is possible with you. In photography, my Nikon D3 and D300 uses CMOS technology and both are top pro cameras from Nikon. Canon uses CMOS tech in its top DSLR and consumer cameras too. Nikon uses CCDs in consumer cameras.
But, in the camcorder world, the things are different, maybe reverse?.
I have read many times that CCDs collects light better than CMOS, could be this nowadays an outdated statement?

I can shoot photos at 6.400 ISO with virtually no noise using CMOS tech.
Are image processing engines the responsible?

Is a 3 x 1/3 CMOS camcorder worst than a 3 x 1/3 CDDs camcorder? Same resolution, same lens.

Your info would be very appreciate.

[Robert M Wright]

CMOS technology has come a long way, and is advancing at a rapid rate. I don't think it would be correct to say that either CCD or CMOS technology is superior for video cameras anymore. They both have pros and cons.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Originally Posted by Juan Parmenides

Thanks again, to all of you.
Really I appreciate your help. But there is some ideas I would like to discuss, if it is possible with you. In photography, my Nikon D3 and D300 uses CMOS technology and both are top pro cameras from Nikon. Canon uses CMOS tech in its top DSLR and consumer cameras too. Nikon uses CCDs in consumer cameras.
But, in the camcorder world, the things are different, maybe reverse?.
I have read many times that CCDs collects light better than CMOS, could be this nowadays an outdated statement?

I can shoot photos at 6.400 ISO with virtually no noise using CMOS tech.
Are image processing engines the responsible?

Is a 3 x 1/3 CMOS camcorder worst than a 3 x 1/3 CDDs camcorder? Same resolution, same lens.

Your info would be very appreciate.

Shooting weddings?
Go for the FX1.

Why?
Well, basically the FX7 will give you headaches on low light situations. You'd have rolling shutter problems (with flashes, fluorescent lights flickering).

The FX1 also have Cineframe, if that suits your shooting style.

Funny thing, I've used both FX1 and FX7 and even if the FX1 LCD is theoretically higher res, I can pin point focus better on the FX7. Not a con you should worry, the LCD is stil pretty good on the FX1.

Now go get that FX1 before someone else does!

[Juan Parmenides]

Thanks, Pietro.
I´ll make a reservation to my seller to get the Sony FX1.
Most of the people in Canary Islands use TFT HD ready 32" TV and few Full HD TFT TV, but really the blue ray players are not established still here normally. So I must process for standar DVD (PAL in my case).
How can I get the maximum quality from the FX1? Recording, processing in HD and then compress in Sony Vegas to DVD widescreen PAL? Or record directly in DV with the FX 1?

Thanks again

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Record in HDV (always), because downconversion can be made in real time during capture (just set it up in the camera menu).

Recording DV may seem OK for now, but then some years later when you need those HD originals, you just don't have them, because you didn't shoot them in HD.

[Robert M Wright]

Not only will shooting HDV yield better quaility than shooting DV, for delivery in SD (if downsampled well in post), but it will also give you some flexibility to adjust framing when editing.