fx7 returning...lower price

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi Jeff. From my limited experience with an FX7 and my SR11 consumer cam, I agree with you that in a set setting, the two will perform very similar. However, when subjected to a variety of situations, there will be differences. My question is this: Will the differences between the FX1000 and the FX7, like the differences between the SR11 and the FX7, be enough to justify the extra money? So far I can tell you that the differences between the SR11 and the FX7 are very slight, but there are some. Especially with the type of scenes that I shoot, like the scenery of the Rocky Mountains, of Lake Michigan environments, and so on, with very little time spent indoors videoing family (thats my wifes job with the digital cam). Can't put my finger on it, but the picture from the FX7 "seems" slightly better, but I can't tell you how (which really bugs me). Will it be that close between the FX7 and the FX1000?
If so, then I would be content in spending my hard earned money on the FX7. But if the differences are greater than those between the SR11 and the FX7, then I will have to save for a greater period of time and get the FX1000. Time will tell, especially after it comes out and has been field tested.
So, thanks Jeff, for responding. I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Mike

[Monday Isa]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Will the differences between the FX1000 and the FX7, like the differences between the SR11 and the FX7, be enough to justify the extra money?....Will it be that close between the FX7 and the FX1000?....But if the differences are greater than those between the SR11 and the FX7, then I will have to save for a greater period of time and get the FX1000.
Mike

Hey Mike,

I do think that the fx1000 will be different in many ways to the fx7. Having the 1/3" chips vs the 1/4" you will get shallower depth of field, better lowlight, and a better dynamic range. In all fairness this was an argument another videographer was making with going with the ex1 vs the Z7. My suggestion Mike is if you can get the money together and go with the FX1000 that will be a good choice. If it's a little tight to do so right now then get the FX7 use it for a bit and when your ready to upgrade sell it off. You won't go wrong with either choice for the type of work you do.

Monday

[Mike Burgess]

Thanks Isa. Those are beginning to be my thoughts also.

Mike

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for pointing that out ISA.. Hopefully this post will be better than the better one.

[Erik Phairas]

I don't even make money on my videos and I scrapped together enough for an EX3. Although I have to admit, the FX1000, or the Sony pro version that will use CF cards.. either of those would be my second choice.

Actually I would like one of each. Maybe next year. :)

[Jeff Harper]

I said earlier in this thread that the FX1000 will blow the FX1 and Z1 out of the water not to mention the FX7, the topic of this thread.

Later, Mike Burgess asked "Will the differences between the FX1000 and the FX7, like the differences between the SR11 and the FX7, be enough to justify the extra money?".

James Strange posted an informal review of the FX1000 (actually his review is of the Z5, but that is merely the pro version of the FX1000) and here's an excerpt: "Yesterday I had the chance to play about with a demo version of the new Z5, and I compared it to a PD170. All I can say is.......W O W ! ! ! ! It was a simple little conference room, not much light, the Z5 (read FX1000) was CLEARLY BETTER in low light , no question. yes, you read right, the Z5 is BETTER in low light than the PD170 in my opnion, and I had them side by side, both set to DV, both on auto WB, both at 1/50z".

Sure, James' review is informal. However since his take on the cam falls in line with the stated specs on it, I trust it. The ONLY reason to buy an FX7 is because you cannot possibly raise the money for an FX1000. There will be NO COMPARISON between these cams.

This is the replacement for the famous VX2100. Actually to even compare the FX7 to the FX1000 is an insult to the FX1000.

I got $1800 for my FX7 last week on Ebay. I couldn't even sell it for $1650 on DVinfo net with virtually no hours on it, mint condition! Why? Because people who visit DVinfo.net classifieds know cameras. I got not one inquiry for a virtually brand new cam priced $350 off of the upcoming new list prices. Yet I saw a 2100 listed for $1700. That doesn't even make sense. Obviously the vx2100 will not sell at that price, but it shows the real value of the FX7.

BTW, Hans linked an article to some folks who used the FX7 in the Artic or some such thing and I made the ridiculous statement about how it changed my mind and how wrong I was...I was being sarcastic. The Artic is so bright ANY cam will work. And for night shooting they can use lights. Give me a break.

I was working just yesterday with footage that had been shot on the FX7 that I sold. It sucked. It was terrible. It was used alongside a PD150, and there was no comparison.

If the venue had been brighter, it would have been more fair for the FX7. But you cannot compare the two.

If someone were to have an FX7 for sale, I might consider giving $800 if it were lightly used. The FX7 has great audio, and I would love to have one to discreetly place as a backup cam and extra audio source.

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I got $1800 for my FX7 last week on Ebay. I couldn't even sell it for $1650 on DVinfo net with virtually no hours on it, mint condition! Why? Because people who visit DVinfo.net classifieds know cameras. I got not one inquiry for a virtually brand new cam priced $350 off of the upcoming new list prices.

Jeff, maybe no one on this forum was interested because you seemed to have so many problems with your FX7. You managed to convince me that you had a lemon. I have a V1 and a VX2100 and my experiences weren't anything like yours. But you won't get any argument from me that the VX2100/PD170 isn't a fantastic SD camcorder. I love mine. But I love my V1 even more. I am sorry you had so much trouble with your FX7 but it is gone now. No more grief.

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

You managed to convince me that you had a lemon. I have a V1 and a VX2100 and my experiences weren't anything like yours.

Since my footage was pretty much the same as others I've seen does that mean they are all lemons? I doubt it. I have a friend who shoots with the FX7 and he's shown me footage he's shot with it along side PD170 in church. He was trying to convince me how great the camera was. I looked at the footage and just shook my head. What he thinks is satifactory and what I see as acceptable are totally different, that's all. That is likely the case here.

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

Jeff, maybe no one on this forum was interested because you seemed to have so many problems with your FX7.

You seem interested enough. Thank you for your feedback, I appreciate it.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

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

The difference is the controls the cameras have. When I wrote my V1/FX7 book my goal was to show folks how to use their many controls.

When I wrote my SR12 book, my goal was how to get good video with a camera that had very few controls. That was no easy task given crazy triple level menu system. I had to work out HOW one could use this menu system in bright light when you can't see the LCD. I assume you know you can't see the menu through the VF.

And, no matter what you try -- there is no shutter control. None.

As far as pix quality -- if you are lucky in AUTO the SR12 shoots a very nice image. What Sony did with the SR12 is to increase saturation and add "red push." A very pretty pix. But, NOT accurate. I have to color correct every shot to get any accuracy.

The focus on low-light by posters reflect their needs -- not mine. I almost never shoot indoors. And, I've lived for several years with the 18lux JVC HD1 -- so the V1 worked fine anyplace I wanted to shoot. Other than wedding receptions -- what really happens in dark places? (And, LED light panels are simple solution.)

My only negative about the V1/FX7 was it didn't have the crisp look of the Z1. And, it is too big.

[Jeff Harper]

Steve, you said it. I have knocked this camera pretty hard, but the bottom line is if you don't have the need for bright, crisp footage, particlularly indoors, it might work just fine.

I shot an hour outdoors with it because I wanted 16:9, and the music video I created is one of my favorites, but it's too low contrast, too soft to use. Shots of the couple in the shade were particluarly poor and needed gain. In extremely well lit situations it was absolutely fine. It would also serve one well in a studio environment with controlled lighting.

The majority of users of this cam are not using it for weddings, as I tried. Those folks who do use it in churches and are happy with it have a different perception of what is acceptable than I do.

My mistake was I purchased the cam as a low cost way to get 16:9. But you get what you pay for. I have to say, though the onboard audio on the FX7 is outstanding, the best of any cam I've ever had. I hope the audio is as good on the FX1000.

[Martyn Hull]

For what its worth and i rarely film indoors my fx-f has better colour than a 2100 i had if awb stays working,manual and outdoor are too red for me,having said that my little sr12 is my favourite outdoor picture and its not bad indoors.The thing i love with the fx-7 is the lens 20x plus d extender ideal for nature.

[Greg Laves]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

My only negative about the V1/FX7 was it didn't have the crisp look of the Z1.

Before I bought my V1, I did a 2 camera shoot with a Z1 and a V1. We spent a great deal of time setting up the cameras to get the same look. And it worked. In post, no one could see any difference in the footage from the 2 different cameras. Neither one was "crisper" or more saturated or more anything. Actually, I was disappointed in that, since I expected the V1 to have a slightly better "look" to the footage. But I do think there is an inherent problem with EVERY V1 (and FX7) sold. The back focus seems to be improperly adjusted on every V1 I have seen. Getting critical focus is much more difficult and more obvious if it is wrong when shooting in HDV. The somewhat low res viewfinder and LCD do not really help the situation either. And if the backfocus is out, zooming in to focus and pulling back out to frame the shot is like shooting yourself in the foot. But when you get it right, I am continually amazed at how good the footage looks. BTW. My V1 is currently at Sony Service getting the backfocus set.

[Mike Burgess]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

The difference is the controls the cameras have. When I wrote my V1/FX7 book my goal was to show folks how to use their many controls.

When I wrote my SR12 book, my goal was how to get good video with a camera that had very few controls. That was no easy task given crazy triple level menu system. I had to work out HOW one could use this menu system in bright light when you can't see the LCD. I assume you know you can't see the menu through the VF.

And, no matter what you try -- there is no shutter control. None.

As far as pix quality -- if you are lucky in AUTO the SR12 shoots a very nice image. What Sony did with the SR12 is to increase saturation and add "red push." A very pretty pix. But, NOT accurate. I have to color correct every shot to get any accuracy.

The focus on low-light by posters reflect their needs -- not mine. I almost never shoot indoors. And, I've lived for several years with the 18lux JVC HD1 -- so the V1 worked fine anyplace I wanted to shoot. Other than wedding receptions -- what really happens in dark places? (And, LED light panels are simple solution.)

My only negative about the V1/FX7 was it didn't have the crisp look of the Z1. And, it is too big.

Thanks Steve.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

And if the backfocus is out, zooming in to focus and pulling back out to frame the shot is like shooting yourself in the foot. But when you get it right, I am continually amazed at how good the footage looks. BTW. My V1 is currently at Sony Service getting the backfocus set.

WOW. That's exactly how I felt. So good and then, suddenly, in a wide shot so bad.

Does Sony really admit to this problem?

How do you prove it to them?