New FX7 at DVinfo.net

Shadi Rayyan · January 28th, 2009, 07:50 PM

I've been looking at the FX7 for quite some time now and am going to buy one. I just had two questions...

1. I've been trying to decide between two fisheyes, the Century .3x 62mm fisheye or the Raynox MX3062. Now I know the Century is higher quality but it's much more expensive. Does anyone have a MX3062 lens that can tell me the pros/cons?

2. I don't really like the use of tapes. If you uses a non-tape way of storing your footage, could you please tell me how? I know about firestores and stuff, but I'm never sure which one would work best.

Thank you SO MUCH to anyone that can help...

Joe Busch · January 28th, 2009, 11:07 PM

Tapes are better imo, until you can get redundancy in your recording situation (The new Panasonic or JVC has dual CF card recording... which is awesome)

You got an instant archivable backup after you capture it... which came in very handy recently when my server holding all my raw footage (60+ hours) crashed... I still had all the tapes so I was able to re-capture everything.

Shadi Rayyan · January 29th, 2009, 12:24 AM

I would use tapes as a backup for important events. But mainly I want to be recording to something other than tape, as I need this camera to last a while. I want to keep the drum use to a minimal.

Greg Laves · January 29th, 2009, 12:21 PM

The Sony MRC1 Compact Flash recorder that is optional for Sony HDV camcorders, can be used to record video with your FX7.

Shadi Rayyan · February 6th, 2009, 12:40 AM

Any other ways of tapeless storage? The sony MRC1 is a little more than I would like to spend...

Michael Liebergot · February 6th, 2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadi Rayyan

Any other ways of tapeless storage? The sony MRC1 is a little more than I would like to spend...

Sorry, tapeless recording units are more of a professional feature right now. So the Sony MRC1 is about as inexpensive a solution that you're going to find at the moment.
Hard drive options will run you more and will have moving parts that could cause issues in the long run. So removable flash card formats are the best bet. And the Sony MRC1 CF recorder is one of the better low cost solutions out there.

Gordon Inkeles · February 22nd, 2009, 05:08 PM

Does the MRC 1 compress the signal further than simply recording to a mini dv tape?

I'm also looking for a way to improve workflow without degrading quality, when using an FX7. What are the options?

Gordon Inkeles · February 22nd, 2009, 05:21 PM

To clarify, can one simply record to a laptop and/or hard drive AND the minidv at the same time? The MRC 1 seems needlessly expensive.

Shadi Rayyan · February 22nd, 2009, 09:18 PM

I think you can record to a laptop, but not just a normal hard drive. Does anyone use firestore? I want to use one of those but I'm not sure which one works best.

Gordon Inkeles · February 22nd, 2009, 11:37 PM

That would be great! In other words, we could record to the minidv in the camera and to a laptop via firewire? Is that correct? Has anyone done this? If so, is the signal degraded or is it the same on both the laptop and tape? Also, does it slow things down?

Tom Hardwick · February 23rd, 2009, 03:13 AM

That's perfectly possible Gordon. Firewire feeds the computer and chips feed tape and Firewire simultaneously. I do it.

You don't say what type of filming you're doing, but fisheye footage can be hard on the viewer if overdone. On that score I'd say go for the Raynox unless you're shooting technical subjects such as the stars at night, say.

The Century may be sharper in the corners and exhibit less CA, but if your film's any good, who in the audience will be checking out the corner distortions?

tom.

Gordon Inkeles · February 23rd, 2009, 12:35 PM

I'm wondering if the 3 small chips in the Sony FX7 will produce an equally good HD program as the one larger chip in the Canon HV30, which sells for 1/3 the price!

I'm shooting a massage video in natural indoor light. Nothing super low like candle light. We want natural colors and some moody effects.

Tom Hardwick · February 26th, 2009, 04:12 AM

I'd be more concerned about the photographic differences between cameras using ¼" chips (the FX7) and cameras using bigger than 1"/3 chips (HV30).

Bigger chips mean longer focal lengths for the same field of view and therefore greater dof control. They also allow smaller apertures to be used before diffraction starts to rob you of sharpness.

I haven't put an FX7 up alongside the HV30, but I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light.

tom.

Gordon Inkeles · February 26th, 2009, 09:59 AM

"I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light."

I'm not sure what you mean, Tom. Could you amplify?

Tom Hardwick · February 26th, 2009, 10:36 AM

Amplify - good one Gordon.

OK, I'd expect the 3x more expensive Sony FX7 to have quieter amplifiers and more sophisticated noise control in its gain up mode. If my Z1 is anything to go by then the grain at +18dB in the FX7 should be remarkably controlled and the pictures very acceptable.

The sad thing is the very tiny ¼" chips in the Sony - the Canon's 1"/2.7 CMOS is in the region of 85% bigger in surface area, so allowing every pixel to be bigger and gather more light.

The Sony has beam-splitting prisims in front of the chips but this is probably more efficient than the multi-coloured filter in front of Canon's chip.

The Canon is a f/1.8 lens as against Sony's f/1.6 but a 10x zoom lets in more light that a 20x of the same aperture. You know about T stops? They both have very poor wide-angle coverage, but that's just one of those things.

So all in all I'd expect them to be equal in low light - the Sony's far great cost outweighing the Canon's big chip. I'm happy to be proved wrong though.

tom.

January 28th, 2009, 07:50 PM	#1
Shadi Rayyan New Boot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fremont Posts: 9	New FX7 I've been looking at the FX7 for quite some time now and am going to buy one. I just had two questions... 1. I've been trying to decide between two fisheyes, the Century .3x 62mm fisheye or the Raynox MX3062. Now I know the Century is higher quality but it's much more expensive. Does anyone have a MX3062 lens that can tell me the pros/cons? 2. I don't really like the use of tapes. If you uses a non-tape way of storing your footage, could you please tell me how? I know about firestores and stuff, but I'm never sure which one would work best. Thank you SO MUCH to anyone that can help...

February 22nd, 2009, 05:08 PM	#7
Gordon Inkeles New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bayside CA Posts: 10	MRC 1 compression? Does the MRC 1 compress the signal further than simply recording to a mini dv tape? I'm also looking for a way to improve workflow without degrading quality, when using an FX7. What are the options?

February 22nd, 2009, 05:21 PM	#8
Gordon Inkeles New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bayside CA Posts: 10	Mrc 1 To clarify, can one simply record to a laptop and/or hard drive AND the minidv at the same time? The MRC 1 seems needlessly expensive.

February 22nd, 2009, 11:37 PM	#10
Gordon Inkeles New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bayside CA Posts: 10	Laptop recording That would be great! In other words, we could record to the minidv in the camera and to a laptop via firewire? Is that correct? Has anyone done this? If so, is the signal degraded or is it the same on both the laptop and tape? Also, does it slow things down?

February 23rd, 2009, 12:35 PM	#12
Gordon Inkeles New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bayside CA Posts: 10	FX7 or HV30? I'm wondering if the 3 small chips in the Sony FX7 will produce an equally good HD program as the one larger chip in the Canon HV30, which sells for 1/3 the price! I'm shooting a massage video in natural indoor light. Nothing super low like candle light. We want natural colors and some moody effects.

January 28th, 2009, 11:07 PM	#2
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	Tapes are better imo, until you can get redundancy in your recording situation (The new Panasonic or JVC has dual CF card recording... which is awesome) You got an instant archivable backup after you capture it... which came in very handy recently when my server holding all my raw footage (60+ hours) crashed... I still had all the tapes so I was able to re-capture everything.

January 29th, 2009, 12:24 AM	#3
Shadi Rayyan New Boot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fremont Posts: 9	I would use tapes as a backup for important events. But mainly I want to be recording to something other than tape, as I need this camera to last a while. I want to keep the drum use to a minimal.

January 29th, 2009, 12:21 PM	#4
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	The Sony MRC1 Compact Flash recorder that is optional for Sony HDV camcorders, can be used to record video with your FX7.

February 6th, 2009, 12:40 AM	#5
Shadi Rayyan New Boot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fremont Posts: 9	Any other ways of tapeless storage? The sony MRC1 is a little more than I would like to spend...

February 22nd, 2009, 09:18 PM	#9
Shadi Rayyan New Boot Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Fremont Posts: 9	I think you can record to a laptop, but not just a normal hard drive. Does anyone use firestore? I want to use one of those but I'm not sure which one works best.

February 23rd, 2009, 03:13 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	That's perfectly possible Gordon. Firewire feeds the computer and chips feed tape and Firewire simultaneously. I do it. You don't say what type of filming you're doing, but fisheye footage can be hard on the viewer if overdone. On that score I'd say go for the Raynox unless you're shooting technical subjects such as the stars at night, say. The Century may be sharper in the corners and exhibit less CA, but if your film's any good, who in the audience will be checking out the corner distortions? tom.

February 26th, 2009, 04:12 AM	#13
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'd be more concerned about the photographic differences between cameras using ¼" chips (the FX7) and cameras using bigger than 1"/3 chips (HV30). Bigger chips mean longer focal lengths for the same field of view and therefore greater dof control. They also allow smaller apertures to be used before diffraction starts to rob you of sharpness. I haven't put an FX7 up alongside the HV30, but I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light. tom.

February 26th, 2009, 09:59 AM	#14
Gordon Inkeles New Boot Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Bayside CA Posts: 10	clarification request "I'm guessing they'd be much of a muchness in low light." I'm not sure what you mean, Tom. Could you amplify?

February 26th, 2009, 10:36 AM	#15
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Amplify - good one Gordon. OK, I'd expect the 3x more expensive Sony FX7 to have quieter amplifiers and more sophisticated noise control in its gain up mode. If my Z1 is anything to go by then the grain at +18dB in the FX7 should be remarkably controlled and the pictures very acceptable. The sad thing is the very tiny ¼" chips in the Sony - the Canon's 1"/2.7 CMOS is in the region of 85% bigger in surface area, so allowing every pixel to be bigger and gather more light. The Sony has beam-splitting prisims in front of the chips but this is probably more efficient than the multi-coloured filter in front of Canon's chip. The Canon is a f/1.8 lens as against Sony's f/1.6 but a 10x zoom lets in more light that a 20x of the same aperture. You know about T stops? They both have very poor wide-angle coverage, but that's just one of those things. So all in all I'd expect them to be equal in low light - the Sony's far great cost outweighing the Canon's big chip. I'm happy to be proved wrong though. tom.