fx7 returning...lower price

[Matthew Harris]

fx1000 replacing fx1 ... $3199

fx7 is going to be reintroduced at lower price $1999

[Dwain Elliott]

Oh Man! What a bargain!

I'm drooling over the upcoming Panasonic AG-HMC150 and the newly-announced Sony HDR-FX1000 and HVR-Z5U. But I must add this new FX7 to my short-list!

The compromises are 1/4" CMOS devices instead of 1/3" ones, miniDV tapes instead of tapeless, and stereo mini instead of XLR.

But for only $2000 (with a 20x lens and HDMI), it'll be hard to pass it up!

[Chris Leffler]

I can't wait! I will deff look in to picking one of these up.

[Stelios Christofides]

Which one Chris? The FX7 or the FX1000??

Stelios

[Chris Leffler]

I am looking at an FX7.

[Jeff Harper]

For those who shoot weddings, the FX7 is virtually worthless, FWIW. I run three or four cameras at weddings almost weekly and the low light ability is very poor. I run the FX7 as a back up camera only, and I rarely use the footage. Outdoors it is fair, but way too soft. Keep in mind they dropped the price so low for a reason. Additionally they will be nearly impossible to sell for a decent price used.

If the lighting is not just right, the footage from the FX7 is definitely unsatifactory.

[Chris Leffler]

I mainly film paintball outdoors. In the few instances that I need to film indoors I might just try and pick up a used A1, instead of the FX7. I just don't trust buying used sometimes. O well.

[Jeff Harper]

You mean you would buy two cameras, for about $4500 or more, instead of one like the fx1000 that's better than both of them? The FX1000 is the direct HD replacement for the VX2100, and I don't even have to see the camera or use it to know it will totally rule for it's price range. This is the camera event videographers have been waiting for.

[Arkady Bolotin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

For those who shoot weddings, the FX7 is virtually worthless, FWIW. I run three or four cameras at weddings almost weekly and the low light ability is very poor. I run the FX7 as a back up camera only, and I rarely use the footage. Outdoors it is fair, but way too soft. Keep in mind they dropped the price so low for a reason. Additionally they will be nearly impossible to sell for a decent price used.

If the lighting is not just right, the footage from the FX7 is definitely unsatifactory.

Please do not generalize your unsatisfactory experience with the FX7. I know many people (myself including) who are more than happy using the camera in different situations (indoor including). Search for example this forum for “low light” OR "indoor” AND “the V1” key words (V1 is the virtual twin of the FX7 which has the same firmware) and you will find many tips how to make the best video with the FX7.

The FX7’s price has been lowered not because of its faulty quality. Look again at the V1 price tag -- it’s the same as before. Such low price is completely due to Sony's marketing strategy. They are clearing out the space for the new cameras...

[Martyn Hull]

One thing that can not be said of the FX-7 is that footage is soft, [another site] gave it more resolution than the canon A1.

[Colin Zhang]

Wow, this really is a bargain! Definitely a feasible option for the low-budget videographer.

[Jeff Harper]

Arkady, I will share my unbiased opinion if I choose, thank you. I am a professional videographer, and the opinions I hold on the FX7 are shared by vitually all professional videographers I know. The FX7 has 1/4 inch CMOS chips which I find to be worthless over 50% or more of the time. There are situations the camera can be fine, but it is so limited I find it to be the single biggest wasted of money I have ever spent.

[Colin Zhang]

What situations are you referring to here? This may be a good camera for those who do not need to film in low light. Also, do you share the same opinion about the V1? Just wondering...

[Jeff Harper]

The FX7 is a fine camera IF IT MEETS YOUR NEEDS. As a wedding and corporate videographer, it doesn't meet mine. I bought mine used from a company that shoots hundreds of events a year, they had three of them. They bought it strictly for the 20x Zoom, and because the Z1 seemed to expensive. They sold me one, and the other two they have are only used for interviews, and are only usable with the use of an onboard light. Other than that, their FX7s sit on the shelf. Same for their FX1.

Saying the FX7 has better resolution than the A1 is not saying much. I don't own the A1, but it doesn't even have a lux rating, so enough said.

Colin, FX7 and V1 have to small chips to be useful for me or my friends in the business.

The V1? Same chips, same poor low-light performance.

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.

If you are a hobbyist, the FX7 may be fine for you.

Please note while I cannot afford the EX1, that is what most of my competitors that can afford it are buying. So I am coming at this from the point of view who makes a living with his camera, and as someone whose competitors are shooting with Z1s and EX1s.

The Z1 is better by far in low light than the FX7 and A1 combined, and I still find it unsatisfactory. I cut my teeth shooting weddings with the VX2100 and until I find something that rivals that camera (I suspect the FX1000 is going to be that camera) other than the EX1 there just isn't much out there. But since it costs $9K to outfit an EX1, I'm waiting for the HD version of the VX2100.

The FX7 might be fine for shooting paintball, etc. The main thing is if you don't need detail shots, you should be fine.

[Greg Laves]

Jeff, I agree that all should be allowed to express their opinions. I am curious, what camera do you own? In case you are curious about me, I own a Sony BetaCamSP, a VX2100 and a Sony V1.