Does the FX7 need a lot of light or what?

[Thomas Smet]

Spot this was not an attack on anybody. I just happen to never take the word from anybody about how good a camera is. Just like I never listen to somebody who tells me a certain car is better then another car. While I trust all of your opinions I realize that we all view quality from a different point of view. This is all I was trying to get at in my last post.

I understand first hand that footage cannot be shared due to copyright reasons. That however doesn't stop anybody from shooting a few clips when they are not working. I guess that is just how you and I are different. I would spend a little bit of time after hours to help back up the camera by sharing some of the amazing images.

It is not my aim to insult anybody and I'm not really sure why you view it that way. Your expertise is not in question here. Just because I don't take your word for it doesn't mean that I do not respect your opinion.

[Tony Tremble]

Thomas you are quite right about that night time clip. It's horrendous.

There is so much fringing that it leads me to believe there might be a problem with that camera. I might be completely wrong and might be a side effect of the shooting condition and the EIP working against each other.

I've seen quite a few clips from the FX7 and V1 and have not seen anything like that bad. CA appears to be very limited on the new Sonys.

Until more footage hits the internet we have to trust the likes of DSE and Steve as they seem to be the people with most hours hands on. So far neither has reported any major fault or limitations.

On the wider point of low light performance,

I've owned and used DV and DVCAM cameras for many years from the diminutive PC100 to the DSR-570WSP. In all my years of shooting both professionally and for my own enjoyment (with my own PD150) the proportion of low-light shots to well lit shots are about 1% as a rough guestimate. Shooting in available low light forms a tiny fraction of the amount of footage I've shot, the reason is, no matter what camera you use no matter how sensitive the camera is it never looks as good as taking pride in your work and lighting the scene/interviewee correctly. Of course there may be an ad hoc situation where one simply must get the interview not matter what cost to the image but those time as very few and far between. In those situations it would be appropriate to ride the gain or slow the shutter to make best of a bad job. The audience won't mind cause they can see the its an ad hoc situation that is being captured.

When I was shooting (albeit briefly) for a living I never went anywhere without additional lighting if I wanted to be employed again.

TT

[Peter Ferling]

Unfortunately this is life and the frustration of waiting. The only way to judge the cameras is to actually try them. Someone should close this thread as it's long winded and getting old and we're just rehashing the same issue.

[Thomas Smet]

I agree with you Tony. I have also used many cameras from the XL1 (which may be just as bad in low light as any of the current HDV cameras) all the way up to a DSR500. I always use light and no matter how good a camera is you will not get great looking video unless you light it. If I cannot set up lights I will use a on camera light and wear a 18 lb battery to run the thing.

This is why I hope in a month or two we will finally get to see a few more shots from the camera.

Other than Spot's great clips all the other clips I have seen so far have been sub par in my opinion. This contradicts what others have said about it which is why I think there is the confusion. I realize those bad shots may not be the best but right now it is what we have to go from.

I meant the throw us a bone as a friendly nudge.

The only reason I brought up any of this is because I do have faith in what this new camera can do and I want those who know how good it is to help show everybody else why it is good.

[Sebastion Meddings]

I have taken one back to my local store because of similar problems in Lowlight. My replacement is no different. I shoot Documentarys and need to use available light in many situations so am pretty gutted that this doesn't deliver as well as I had hoped (on a par with the Z1 or better.)

In good light this is up there with the best of them and I'm sure if you light your indoor scenes you can acheive results that will really hit the spot. It's just for my personal requirements, even in manual, it just doesn't quite stand up, So i have taken mine back and will wait for the (shame it's bigger) Canon.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

I am not bothered by the noise nearly as much as I am bothered by a camera losing it's color in low light. Even my very sensitive VX2000 would start losing color at 12db.

Marcus, I'm considering replacing my VX2000 with the FX7 but am concerned about the low light issue. I don't know if you've shot standard DV with the FX7 yet, but how would you compare the low light capability of the FX7 to the VX2000? Obviously I know the FX7 is worse in low light, but how much worse in regards to color, sharpness and overall noise? Thanks.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

Ken, I really can't help as I am commenting about the FX7 based on the clips I have seen. The best advice I can give, even if I was already an owner of the new cam, is to use the best camera for your conditions. If you are doing wedding video as your primary task, you would still find use of the VX2000 at dim receptions. If you are going to be doing short movies where you light the set yourself, the FX7 should be fine. If you are going to be shooting outdoors during the day, again the FX7 should be fine. Always base your decisions on your own work and find a camera that fits those needs.

Okay, my best guesstimate on the difference between the cameras would be 3 f-stops. That's a pretty big difference, but I still think the FX7 will work in artificially-lit night shots. I think the V1, with more image adjustments, will be a bit better. The progressive scan of the V1 should also allow 1/30th shutter speed with no resolution loss. If this works (I have yet to hear confirmation) the V1 will have at least one full f-stop of brightness over the FX7 and up to half an f-stop greater sensitivity than the Z1. Of course, this is only speculation until I can get my hands on a V1.

In this thread, I have mostly been commenting on the fact that the flaws of the FX7 can be dealt with and that they are probably a better set of flaws than CCD cameras due to good color and lack of smear across the whole exposure range of the camera. I also think the Chromatic Abberation is due to extrememly bright lights and is only visible because the CMOS didn't smear out the CA like a CCD. I did not see the CA on areas of the night driving clip that were not as strong as headlights or streetlights. The low-light clips of the FX7 have been extreme situations, so I am looking at the type of flaws more than the overall quantity. Both the FX7 and FX1 (I have used the FX1 extensively) are not great in low-light, but they both should work with a moderate amount of supplemental illumination.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

In this thread, I have mostly been commenting on the fact that the flaws of the FX7 can be dealt with and that they are probably a better set of flaws than CCD cameras due to good color and lack of smear across the whole exposure range of the camera. I also think the Chromatic Abberation is due to extrememly bright lights and is only visible because the CMOS didn't smear out the CA like a CCD. I did not see the CA on areas of the night driving clip that were not as strong as headlights or streetlights. The low-light clips of the FX7 have been extreme situations, so I am looking at the type of flaws more than the overall quantity. Both the FX7 and FX1 (I have used the FX1 extensively) are not great in low-light, but they both should work with a moderate amount of supplemental illumination.

Marcus, the irony of those night shots that were supposedly taken by the FX7, is that my tiny little Canon HV10 HDV cam looks markedly better at night than those FX7 shots! I've shot scenes with the HV10 in Vegas at night as well as traffic at night, and honestly, the HV10 looks cleaner, sharper and brighter with better colors! Go figure.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

The HV10 looks like a nifty little camera. It also uses a CMOS imager. Does it have low smear qualities like those proclaimed by the FX7/V1?

I'll bet I can get better night shots from the V1 than those seen so far from the FX7. I think the gain was turned up too much and I think I know why. I have noticed that the LCD monitor on the FX1 doesn't show the gain noise very much. I don't know if there just isn't enough resolution or if it crushes the blacks so the noise isn't as apparent to the camera operator. If the FX7 has a similar effect on the LCD, the operator may be fooled into thinking the noise is less than what is actually being recorded. Anyone who uses the camera extensively will know what the limit is in various lighting conditions.

I think a bit less gain and maybe a slower shutter speed will calm most people's nerves about the V1. I think the progressive scan, black stretch and knee adjustments make the V1 a better choice than the FX7. Nevermind that the V1 has XLR inputs and some other nifty enhancements like white balance controls and cinematone color.

Let's face it folks, we've lost low-light sensitivity by switching to HDV. I don't know when we will get back to the capabilities of the PD/VX cameras in low light, but for now we must face that the new HDV cameras are otherwise much better than SD cameras. The great news is that the Canon A1 looks great and the V1 seems very promising. The FX7 will probably take great outdoor images for it's price and the single CMOS HDV cameras like the HV10 provide amazing bang for the buck. Choose the camera that is right for you. Personally, I like the color and latitude of the V1. I also just happen to like Sony cameras in general. Which one of all these great choices is right for you has everything to do with you and not necessarily the greatest camera specifications. Read between the lines of the specs to see what is really going on and how it pertains to you.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

The HV10 looks like a nifty little camera. It also uses a CMOS imager. Does it have low smear qualities like those proclaimed by the FX7/V1?

Marcus, I've seen a couple of people post that the HV10 seems to produce much the same image quality as the A1. These folks have just been amazed at the picture quality...as have I. I'm sure it sacrifices something in low light, but it really isn't bad in low light and I've found it to be better than the HC1 & HC3 that I've owned. In fact, I found the HV10 to absolutely equal the low light performance of the FX1 which I also owned for awhile. But it's important to indicate what my definition of 'low light' is in this case. Here I'm talking about typical indoor home lighting at night. So that would just indicate a typical incadescent lighting scenario as is typically found in any home. Under those condtions the HV10 appears to have better color saturation and sharpness than the FX1 with the same low noise level.

As I mentioned before, my night shots in Vegas were simply amazing in their clarity and low noise. But sometimes I think there's more light in these cityscapes than many people think.