The V1 and the Z1 - so close

[Tom Hardwick]

It's probably fair to say that the V1 is Sony's 'new PD170', and the FX7 is
the new VX2100.
If this is so then the V1 should be compared against the Z1 in my view, and
doing so it appears to stack up pretty well.

With the V1 Sony have squeezed a 20x zoom into a body smaller than the Z1, and they've done this by making the biggest compromise in my view. They've decided to use chips that are only 56% of the size of the Z1's chips
(they're now 1"/4) so enabling the use of a 20x zoom that still sports an
f/1.6 to f/2.8 aperture range.

Smaller chips have a big effect on dof control but little else. The fact that each individual pixel must be smaller is offset to some degree by the fact that the new chips are CMOS as against the CCDs of the older Z1. This
still doesn't claw back the light sensitivity though, and Sony's figures do
put the Z1 ahead in the gloom.

Must say I really do like the Z1's top screen position where it's out of the
way of all the control buttons. I went back to using a VX2000 as second
camera on a wedding shoot last Thursday and I hated the side screen
position.

Would love to get my hands on a V1 though. Moving from the VX to the Z1 has made me realise how much I miss the good long telephoto of the VX, and the V1 claws it all back, and then some.

tom.

[Bill Pryor]

You get the longer telephoto, but you lose at the other end. For most of what I do, I prefer a wider angle. I agree that depth of field and low light performance are the main losses with these chips over the Z1. On the plus side you have better latitude and 24p. If I had a Z1 I wouldn't dump it for the V1--Nattress, Magic Bullet and DVFilmmaker come to the rescue if you need 24p.

[Tony Tremble]

From the limited clips and pics I've seen from the V1 I'd say the resolution is higher than Z1. Which is another positive in the V1's favour.

Is there an embargo on posting clips from the V1 at the moment? If you have footage and have the time please post 'em... :)

TT