fx-7 a bit disappointed

[Chris Hull]

yes having used video cams and separates 27 or so years i can obviously not say the fx-7 is the worst cam i have had but it is one of the most disappointing.after my solid hc-1 that gives a brilliant picture i find the fx-7[my second] first replaced very plasticky,unless used with a brace or tripod handling creaks are very noticeable,unlike my previous now sold 2100 which was a solid well made machine the fx-7 does not seem well made.
the picture performance certainly is not great in my opinion,greens ie grass etc the most important thing to get right for me have a washed out look however the picture profile is altered.both the fx-7s i have had also show more jaggies than my hc-1.auto white balance is the best when it works ok outdoor and manual are too red.
it is a great shame as some things like the digital extender is a great benefit to me,i wish i could have some of the 2100 and hc-1 put into my fx-7.chris
www.chrishull-videos.co.uk

[Chris Barcellos]

Wow. Thats a bit disappointing. I had heard good thing about the "clearvid" technology, and the CMOS chip... So i should definite stick with my FX1 ?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Wow. Thats a bit disappointing. I had heard good thing about the "clearvid" technology, and the CMOS chip... So i should definite stick with my FX1 ?

You should check out the FX7 and make your own decisions, IMO.
I've only had limited experience with the FX7, but a lot of experience with the V1. I have limited experience with the FX1, but a lot of experience with the Z1.
On a recent shoot one of our crew dropped a V1 over the rim of the Grand Canyon. It fell/tumbled roughly 25 feet before coming to a rest against a rock. Other than a lot of snow and mud stuck in the lens hood, it was fine.
As far as image quality, a story I like to share is one where we were shooting a world record event with a prototype V1. I captured footage from two different cameras, one a very popular non-HDV cam and the other the V1. Upon giving footage from both cams to ESPN for broadcast, the engineers in Cincinatti called and wanted to know what cam shot the footage from the V1.
Matching the V1 to A1 (pro version of the HC1) is very easy, very little to do to match the two.
*most* of the issues experienced with a V1/FX7, IMO, are related to the display more than anything. The V1/FX7 are sharper (a bit too sharp) and both can benefit from having the sharpness turned down, and Sony recommends same.

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Wow. Thats a bit disappointing. I had heard good thing about the "clearvid" technology, and the CMOS chip... So i should definite stick with my FX1 ?

Chris you must never based your decisions on only one guy who might have used the wrong settings or might had a faulty camera or tape.

Stelios

[Chris Hull]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

Chris you must never based your decisions on only one guy who might have used the wrong settings or might had a faulty camera or tape.

Stelios

as i said i changed my first fx-7 as i was not happy with it,the replacement is the same.do you think i do not know how to change settings.as for tapes thats not a problem no drop outs yet touch wood.
one thing are the fx-7 and v-1 the same cameras picture wise in 1080i i think they are but not certain.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hull

Are the fx-7 and v-1 the same cameras picture wise in 1080i i think they are but not certain.

When I read camcorderinfo's FX7 review -- they said it had very high levels of noise. I'm sure the same CMOS chips are used, but Sony might reserve the chips that have the least noise for the V1. But I doubt it.

"FX7 has a washed out look. Both the fx-7s i have had also show more jaggies than my hc-1 ... manual are too red."

I think you are way too used to the 2100's DV contrasty image. The V1/FX7 wide lattitude looks very different -- far more "filmic." Yes, the V1/FX7 has a slight bit more aliasing but a huge amount more detail than your 2100. And, compared to the way too cool 2100, the V1/FX7 is far less cold and thus more natural.

The HC-1 was a nice unit, but the reds went magenta and so were never fully saturated. (Supposedly there was a firmware update.) So the V1/FX7 will have a lot more red.

[Chris Hull]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

When I read camcorderinfo's FX7 review -- they said it had very high levels of noise. I'm sure the same CMOS chips are used, but Sony might reserve the chips that have the least noise for the V1. But I doubt it.

"FX7 has a washed out look. Both the fx-7s i have had also show more jaggies than my hc-1 ... manual are too red."

I think you are way too used to the 2100's DV contrasty image. The V1/FX7 wide lattitude looks very different -- far more "filmic." Yes, the V1/FX7 has a slight bit more aliasing but a huge amount more detail than your 2100. And, compared to the way too cool 2100, the V1/FX7 is far less cold and thus more natural.

The HC-1 was a nice unit, but the reds went magenta and so were never fully saturated. (Supposedly there was a firmware update.) So the V1/FX7 will have a lot more red.

thanks steve,i do not follow quite all you say the second paragraph starting fx-7 are you agreeing with me or quoteing.

regarding the 2100 having a contrasty image should not the hd fx-7 have more contrast,i thought only the v1 with p recording gives a filmic image,correct me.please explain [compared to the way too cool 2100,the v1/fx-7 is far less cold and thus more natural]the 2100 i had was less cold but the only color i find realy poor with the fx-7 is natural green.
my hc-1 was not one of the early batch and i must say reds give no trouble, with my hc-1 i set manual wb as its best,with the fx-7 manual outdoor is too red,green the same as auto so overall auto is best but it can keep losing it but switching back to manual then strait back to auto puts it right again.
chris

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Wow. Thats a bit disappointing. I had heard good thing about the "clearvid" technology, and the CMOS chip... So i should definite stick with my FX1 ?

I surely haven't found that to be the case with my FX7, so checking out an FX7 yourself is the best bet. I find the colors very natural, very believable and nicely saturated.

I saw one post somewhere where the poster was comparing a digital still camera's shot with a grab from an FX7. He thought the FX7 had muted greens in a lawn compared to the same shot from his digital camera. I felt his digital camera had VERY garrish greens....totally over-saturated. Now if he used that picture as his basis for thinking the greens on the FX7 were 'muted', I'd agree. But in truth the frame grab from his FX7 was far far more realistic and believable. I posted that I've never seen grass in nature look like what was in his digital still camera's picture.

[Mike Burgess]

Hello. I am following this post due to the fact that I am considering the FX7 as my next purchase. I currently own an older Sony digital camcorder (TRV103) and am quite disappointed in the greens it produces. When I try to shoot the first green of spring, the greens do not look at all like the bright, fresh greens that are there, but rather a more yellowish/brownish light color green (emphasis on the golden browns rather than on the light greens). No matter what I do, I cannot get the right color greens to come up on the camcorder. In fact, the color green almost seems to be missing.

I was hoping that the FX 7 would do a better job by reproducing a correct color of whatever scene I am trying to capture, specifically the light greens of springtime. Overall color accuracy is very important to me. Unfortunately, I don't have thousands of dollars to throw at a more expensive camcorder, otherwise I would be considering a Canon XH, something along that line.

I wonder if this might be a Sony trait. Ken Ross, can you give me any insight?

Thanks.
Mike

[Chris Hull]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Hello. I am following this post due to the fact that I am considering the FX7 as my next purchase. I currently own an older Sony digital camcorder (TRV103) and am quite disappointed in the greens it produces. When I try to shoot the first green of spring, the greens do not look at all like the bright, fresh greens that are there, but rather a more yellowish/brownish light color green (emphasis on the golden browns rather than on the light greens). No matter what I do, I cannot get the right color greens to come up on the camcorder. In fact, the color green almost seems to be missing.

I was hoping that the FX 7 would do a better job by reproducing a correct color of whatever scene I am trying to capture, specifically the light greens of springtime. Overall color accuracy is very important to me. Unfortunately, I don't have thousands of dollars to throw at a more expensive camcorder, otherwise I would be considering a Canon XH, something along that line.

I wonder if this might be a Sony trait. Ken Ross, can you give me any insight?

Thanks.
Mike

i can only speak as i find,the green on my fx7 is not as good as my hc-1



http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...n-bucket-1.gif fx-7
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u...en-bucket2.gif hc-1

the hc-1 box is correct color

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

What tweaks, settings, or features are you using on the FX7? Shooting manual, auto, combination?

[Chris Hull]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

What tweaks, settings, or features are you using on the FX7? Shooting manual, auto, combination?

i have tried them all,manual makes red too red as does outdoor so i use awb as reds are better with that but green the same as manual and oudoor.
with color phase at -7 the greens have a unatural look worse than 0,i will try -3 or so.saturation is on o as it looks right for other colors.i have not touched wb shift as the manual says -7 makes whites bluer and +7 white parts reddish.chris

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Of course at color phase shifted to one side or the other, the colors will appear unnatural! That's exactly what it's supposed to do. Shifting the phase in one direction or another is exactly for the purpose of emphasizing or deemphasizing chroma information.
Your post suggests you've not learned the camcorder functions yet. White balance won't make a scene more reddish, for example, unless you're white balancing to a color not contained in the actual lighting of the subject, or you're white balancing to a color other than white. You can warm (red) or cool (blue) the frame via white balance if you want to, but the camera itself will not do this.

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Hello. I am following this post due to the fact that I am considering the FX7 as my next purchase. I currently own an older Sony digital camcorder (TRV103) and am quite disappointed in the greens it produces. When I try to shoot the first green of spring, the greens do not look at all like the bright, fresh greens that are there, but rather a more yellowish/brownish light color green (emphasis on the golden browns rather than on the light greens). No matter what I do, I cannot get the right color greens to come up on the camcorder. In fact, the color green almost seems to be missing.

I was hoping that the FX 7 would do a better job by reproducing a correct color of whatever scene I am trying to capture, specifically the light greens of springtime. Overall color accuracy is very important to me. Unfortunately, I don't have thousands of dollars to throw at a more expensive camcorder, otherwise I would be considering a Canon XH, something along that line.

I wonder if this might be a Sony trait. Ken Ross, can you give me any insight?

Thanks.
Mike

Mike the best thing to do is to try the camera your self. Don't take an advise from one guy only who is not happy with what he saw (maybe, I say maybe he is using the wrong settings). I have the FX7 on trial now and I can tell you that I am amazed at the colors of this camera for the price of it. I Have made my decision and I am going to keep this camera now, Value for money.

Stelios

[Ken Ross]

I'm with Doug on this, I don't think you've learned the camera yet. I have no issues with the realism of 'green'. Even the two shots you showed of the green basket are exposed differently and that alone could account for color differences. Exposure, white balance settings, white balance shift, color intensity, phase shift will all alter the color of green as well as other hues.

If the problem with green was as bad as you say, owners would be flooding the forums with this issue....they're not.