fx7 returning...lower price

[Greg Laves]

As for how much you can get, it might not be terrible. There were 2 completed auctions on Ebay last week for FX7's. On one, the only extra was a wide angle lens. It was a low mileage model with the original box and all originally suppled accessories. It sold for a little over $2000. Another one with a custom hard case, extra battery and some other minor accessories was even higher.

[Jeff Harper]

Actually Greg I have never used manual focus on the camera. I've only used it on auto from the back of the church in the balcony, so there was no need. Thanks for the heads up though, I appreciate it. Also thanks for the info about the ebay auctions. I'll check it out next week.

[Paulo Teixeira]

Amazon lists the reintroduction date to be November 2. Does anybody know if they’ll be any slight changes? Even if it’ll be exactly the same, that’s’ a perfect price considering it was first introduced for $3,500. That’s nearly half off! Now if only Sony would lower the price of the V1u as well.

[Jeff Harper]

Paulo, if you could live without the pro audio connections, the FX1000 would be a much better value than the V1U anyway.

As the hand on review by B and H says, "And while the lack of XLR inputs keeps this fixed-lens camera from full professional status, its street price of $3,199 is $500 less than the FX1 and less than half the price of the pro-level HVR-Z7U (which adds an interchangeable lens to an otherwise similar feature set). This makes the FX1000 an amazing package for independent videographers and filmmakers seeking broadcast-quality, 24p film-like imagery."

Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everthing from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U? Not me. Add to that the fact the CMOS chips are of the same tecnnology used on the EX1, and I think we have a winner.

[Dwain Elliott]

Jeff,

You said, "Who would want the 1/4 inch chips of the V1U when the 1/3" chips are available on a camera that includes everything from 24p to a viewfinder with 912K resolution and a lux rating nearly twice that of the V1U?"

The answer is, "Anyone who wants a pretty good "prosumer" HD camcorder w/a 20x lens for only $2000." Of course the FX1000 is a much better unit, but $2000 is an incredible bargain if you can deal with the (relative) low-light issue.

[Jeff Harper]

Dwain, I'm referring to the V1U that Paulo mentioned, not the FX7.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Marty, you said the FX7 is NOT too soft because "you read about it on [another site]". Try owning the camera, and then comparing it to a better camera.

After literally "writing the book" on the V1/FX7 -- I found Marty's statement not match my experience either.

I found it too lose detail in a non-linear way. Meaning, that in many situations it looks "HD." But, when faced with lots of tiny details -- tree leaves for example -- there is SENSE that they lack LESS than the expected amount of resolution. An odd sensation.

My only "explanation" was that the interpolation system needs a certain amount of information with which it fills in the best guess detail. Below, that critical amount -- it doesn't have enough information to make a guess.

On the other hand, I took a Sony V1 protype to Asia and really did not feel I was hindered shooting in night markets, etc. Of course, I wasn't comparing it to the VX2100.

Bottom-line, when you compare the FX7 to any of the "consumer" AVCHD camcorders at half the price -- it is a great choice! And, compared to AVCHD -- HDV on tape is IMHO the clear winner.

Sony would be smart to keep this camera available at under $2,000.

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Bottom-line, when you compare the FX7 to any of the "consumer" AVCHD camcorders at half the price -- it is a great choice! And, compared to AVCHD -- HDV on tape is IMHO the clear winner.

Steve, can you explain this last statement? Why is the FX7 "a great choice", compared to consumer AVCHD camcorders? How is its' PQ better, especially for shooting scenery and other like subjects? I am particularly interested in colors, detail, depth, handling contrasts (capturing darker foregrounds without blowing out the lighter sky), etc.
I find your statement interesting in that whenever I compare my footage shot with the SR11 to my friends footage shot with the FX7, somehow, someway, I like his PQ better. But I can't put my finger on why.

Mike

PS Also Steve, what is your opinion on the new FX1000, and how might that be a better cam for shooting scenery like distant mountains with that western sky, or a long lakeshore of Lake Michigan?

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

PS Also Steve, what is your opinion on the new FX1000, and how might that be a better cam for shooting scenery like distant mountains with that western sky, or a long lakeshore of Lake Michigan?

I am not Steve but I have a couple of opinions. The FX1000 and the FX7 both have a 20x lens. The FX1000 is a wider lens which I think will be advantagous to most users. However, if you are shooting really long shots, the FX7, with more telephoto might have an advantage. I don't know if anyone has had an opportunity to view picture detail of the 2 cameras but the FX1000 is touted to have "improved" image quality. But the FX7/V1 have pretty amazing image quality, already. One other obvious difference is the low light capabilty of the FX1000. But I don't know if the lower light capability is an advantage when shooting scenics. Saving $1200 on the camera and investing in better sticks for those long telephoto shots might be a good way to go.

[Jeff Harper]

The use of CMOS sensors based on the same technology as the EX1s sensors should make a significant difference in image quality.

It's weird, we seem to keep forgetting when discussing the differEnces between the two, the FX100 will have 1/3 inch sensors. The FX7 has 1/4 inch.

When comparing the two it's not even fair for the FX7, in all honesty.

To imagine the differences will be minor is ridiculous.

[Paulo Teixeira]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

When comparing the two it's not even fair for the FX7, in all honesty.

I actually was talking about the FX7 being a good value and that I would hope Sony lowers the price of the V1u as well.

Anyway, I’m glad we can both agree that it’s not fare at all comparing a camcorder that costs $2,000 to a camcorder that costs $3,200.

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

The use of CMOS sensors based on the same technology as the EX1s sensors should make a significant difference in image quality.

It's weird, we seem to keep forgetting when discussing the differEnces between the two, the FX100 will have 1/3 inch sensors. The FX7 has 1/4 inch.

When comparing the two it's not even fair for the FX7, in all honesty.

To imagine the differences will be minor is ridiculous.

Jeff, I have shot on a set where we used 2 V1's and 1 EX1. And guess what? I can tell you that the V1's 1/4" sensors did very well along side the EX1's 1/2" sensors. And they will undoubtedly do well when compared to the FX1000's 1/3" sensors. The differences will be minor, at best. Except in low light.

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

It's weird, we seem to keep forgetting when discussing the differEnces between the two, the FX100 will have 1/3 inch sensors. The FX7 has 1/4 inch.

When comparing the two it's not even fair for the FX7, in all honesty.

Hi Jeff. Comparing is not the same as equating. Never would I try to equate a $3k+ camcorder to a $2k camcorder. And knowing all the details of the specifications of the two camcorders really doesn't tell the whole story either. What will really count in my book will be the differences in actual performance; be it low light performance, motion capture, color accuracy, fine detail, clarity, etc., etc. Since most of my shooting is outdoors (80%), and my subjects are natural features and nature in scenic locations around the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes, those items such as fine detail, good colors, contrast, depth of field, and the clarity and quality of the picture itself, are essentail in capturing the best, cleanest, and most accurate picture I can afford.

Being on a limited budget, I always stretch what money I have to purchase the best possible. Value for what money I have is the bottom line. So sure the FX1000 is a better camcorder, but is it better enough to warrent the extra $1200? Time and actual testing will tell.

Thanks Greg for your response. I do like the FX7 and the results it can produce. I just don't want to be surprised (and disappointed) if I jump on the FX7 and then later find out that the FX1000 is capable of so much more than I or anyone else expected. I can always sell one of my kids if the FX1000 is that much better than the FX7 (joke). When you say that the FX7 did very well along side the EX1, can you elaborate?

Mike

[Jeff Harper]

Everyone knows (or should know) that in controlled lighting, a consumer cam can compare to a professional cam. In the right setting.

So is this a surprise that in a controlled evironment the FX7 compared favorably to any other cam? Of course not.

Have you ever seen the vacuum salesman method of demoing a sweeper? They pour rice crispies on the floor to show how "powerful" the vacuum is. Big whoop.

[Hans Ledel]

Jeff, you might want to read this "case study" from the real world.

Sony : All-action show shot on the HVR-V1E : Sweden