IBC: Sony announces HVR-V1e

[Beth Dill]

-Will be 4lux, same as FX7.-

Perhaps its low light capacity is a tad worse?

[Heath McKnight]

Giroud,

I disagree. Canon doesn't offer true progressive 1920x1080 like Sony does. As I've said before, cameras come and cameras go, but most of us like a specific brand and stand by and defend it. But it still comes down to the shooter.

And yes, there is HDMI output:

http://www.sonybiz.net/cgi-bin/bvisa...gcfkmcfjfdhk.0

Though it says, "HDMI Output For direct interface with HD ready consumer displays."

heath

[Dave Lammey]

Looks like Sony is turning its back on wedding and event videographers who need good lowlight sensitivity. The FX-1 and Z1 were already a step back from the PD-170/VX-2100, and now these new cams appear to be taking yet another step back. Granted, in practice, these new cams may perform better than the 4 lux rating would indicate, but I doubt it, I don't see how 1/4 sensors could perform better than 4 lux.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

Now you can tell "You dreamed it, Canon has done it"

Exactly - at the price point mentioned in one of the articles above (4,600 euros) it seems the Canon A1 should provide more (and more professional, at least with regards to image adjustment)features, with at least equivalent quality, at a lower price point.

I wonder if Sony has eliminated the rolling shutter CMOS issue? It really produces some weird visual artifacts when the camera is moving, and while it might be fine for a primarily consumer camera I wouldn't find it acceptable on something intended as a professional tool.

[Heath McKnight]

Evan and Giroud,

As we've said on this forum countless times, until someone (esp. you) can test it and write up a proper review of the camera, including pros and cons, one can't automatically declare a camera good or not.

No one knew the HD10 would have issues all around, nor did anyone know that Sony, JVC and Canon would put out better-than-expected HDV cameras. Not until we tested them.

heath

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

As we've said on this forum countless times, until someone (esp. you) can test it and write up a proper review of the camera, including pros and cons, one can't automatically declare a camera good or not.

Absolutely agree with Heath. You can only make preliminary judgments from basic specs. Its FAR too early to say its great or its bad. Sony know their markets, and within their own constraints on being careful to keep a balanced product line-up (technically speaking) i'm sure they'll make sure it delivers the goods. VX2100 etc was a special low-light machine for sure, and we may not see a 1lux rated low-light HDV machine EVER from any manufacturer. A lot of people to me do seem very entrenched in defending equipment they already own and part of that can be being rather negative about new equipment!

[Bob Zimmerman]

what is the usa price?

[Beth Dill]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

VX2100 etc was a special low-light machine for sure, and we may not see a 1lux rated low-light HDV machine EVER from any manufacturer. A lot of people to me do seem very entrenched in defending equipment they already own and part of that can be being rather negative about new equipment!

I, for one, own two FX1s and am very loyal to Sony. I am disappointed in the low-light ability as it is something that is very necessary for my work. And while we may not see a 1 lux rated HDV camera, there is certainly no need to for the lux rating to become WORSE. Even if CMOS chips are used, maybe if they utilized a bigger lens maybe the lux could atleast remained the same! I don't think that's too much to ask. I want this camera!

Just my 2 cents :-)

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Beth Dill

there is certainly no need to for the lux rating to become WORSE.

Fair points Beth, but remember these lux ratings are quote to the nearest integer, and 8 lux (Sony's own Japanese lux rating) by my calculations is equivalent to about 3.5lux rating. (as the 8lux could be anywhere from 7.6 to 8.4 in actuality etc, and also i don't know the exact'exchange-rate')
Another site has quoted 4lux so to an INTEGER it may be 4lux.

Remember that the FX1 may be actually 3.4lux and so that is quoted as "3 lux" to the nearest integer. Well, the FX7/V1 could(i.m not saying it IS, i'm saying COULD) actually be 3.6lux and this will therefore be quoted as "4 lux". basic maths. So to 1 decimal place, the lux ratings could be 0.2 lux apart or even closer.

So again, what this illustrates is that you cannot jump to conclusions based on integer lux ratings especially as Sony tend to quote only in the Japanese-scale lux, which they have done as they usually do in the spec sheet for this new cam. Plus it uses CMOS which has better dynamic range etc than CCD's.

All these factors mean that it really is too early to be disappointed, or happy, depending on your point of view.

[Beth Dill]

Originally Posted by Stu Holmes

Fair points Beth, but remember these lux ratings are quote to the nearest integer, and 8 luces (Sony's own Japanese lux rating) by my calculations is equivalent to about 3.5lux rating. Another site has quoted 4lux so to an INTEGER it may be 4lux.

Remember that the FX1 may be actually 3.4lux and so that is quoted as "3 lux" to the nearest integer. Well, the FX7/V1 could(i.m not saying it IS, i'm saying COULD) actually be 3.6lux and this will therefore be quoted as "4 lux". basic maths. So to 1 decimal place, the lux ratings could be 0.2 lux apart or even closer.

So again, what this illustrates is that you cannot jump to conclusions based on integer lux ratings especially as Sony tend to quote only in the Japanese-scale lux, which they have done as they usually do in the spec sheet for this new cam. Plus it uses CMOS which has better dynamci range etc than CCD's.

All these factors mean that it really is too early to be disappointed, or happy, depending on your point of view.

I wholeheartedly agree. And my stance has always been that I will wait and see. And regardless, if I can manipulate it so that the low-light abilities stay the same, I will be thrilled. I'm just debating ;-)

[Bob Zimmerman]

looks like the Sony A1 only bigger

[Heath McKnight]

Thanks Stu for the reply. And everyone, calm down. We're only in the know on European and Japanese versions. No word on USA versions, or the lux rating (I believe the numbers are different in Japan and Europe).

But remember, more light IS indeed needed for ALL brands of HDV cameras. I've done countless setups with the DVX100a and the HD10, FX1, Z1, HD100 and XL H1, and each time, I needed to open the iris more than the DVX (Open vs. F2.4). That's how it works with different types of formats (DV vs. HDV, etc.).

heath

[Heath McKnight]

It's basically like the Z1 and the PD170 mixed together, I think. Small-form. And the tape transport's on the left, still. Like the first VX1000, if I'm not mistaken (and the FX1/Z1).

hwm

[Stu Holmes]

Yes its about the size of a PD170, but more modern smoothed lines. I noticed that the XLR unit is different from the one on the A1 and PD170 etc. It look smaller, less bulky, obviously a new design, and it has rotary dials to change levels i think. Certainly rotary dials of some sort.

I think the XLR unit was due for an overhaul - it was definitely starting to look bulky and square-edged on the A1 etc.

At least visually, it looks very coherent.
It's also got some sort of "crash review" feature which replays the last segment filmed at one-touch.
OIS stabilisation has 4 user-selectable levels.

[Joe Carney]

Being the same size as the PD-170 will appeal to many over the FZ and Z1. Where did someone see the chips were 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080?