Call me silly but... (long post - FX7!!)
 

Hey all.

After having sold my DVXs (jobs require moving up to HDV at least) I've been doing the HD shuffle with many of you others, a.k.a. the Canon Sony Panasonic JVC dance...

Well when the HX A1 came out I just had to take a look. Now, I've had a couple of HC1s already, and have shot stuff for work on Z1us, HD110s, and XH H1s. So last weekend I actually made a trip to a pro camera shop to get my own hands on an HVX just to see, and to tell myself that I'd not left that one out, and to talk with the guys, see what cameras are hot - or not.

Okay, so this is definitely HVX/H1/G1/A1/V1 land these days. The latest and the greatest.

However...

My main work is as an editor. I've done primetime network stuff in SD, docos in HD and HDV, drama in everything, especially film. In fact, I'm shooting a short drama piece on my Aaton S16 in the next three days., then cutting it afterwards.

I use Avids at work and FCP both at work and at home. Mainly, the HD stuff I cut for others has at least a little HDV originated footage, which I upconvert to DVCPro HD just as soon as I can, if the client doesn't ask for another mezzanine format. The lower budget stuff is around 80% HDV, 20% P2.

After looking at most of the wonderful articles and threads here and elsewhere, and all of the reviews, and cutting together a lot of programming from footage from all of these cameras, I can tell you - unless it's true HD and things are moving quickly across a screen, the cameras are all great, every one of them.

Even the FX1 and FX7, amateur though they may be.

I've not cut stuff from the HV10 or 20 yet, but I work in Hollywood so it's just a matter of time before that too comes across my desk.

Thing is, after you're done cutting and they get it all squished up into that narrow broadcast bandwidth (and getting narrower every day, so I hear), unless you're shooting high end HD, there really isn't much difference (after all the online guys are done sweating over it and swearing at the camera guys) in origination by the class of camera - i.e. most all HDV cameras will look somewhat similar, separated a bit by the 1 and 3 tube variety, and maybe a little bit more by the CCD/CMOS flavors.

And the other thing is, no matter what the networks and other distributors say, if a terrific enough program comes their way that they want to buy it, they don't care if it's shot on a cell phone. In fact, it would make for better publicity if it were.
So QC (quality control) people complain and we fix the footage up some and let's face it, HDV is all over the place and producers are handing in HDV footage. It won't go away anytime soon.

Sure, if I have time, or if the piece is short enough or demands a particular look, I'll take the 60i and de-interlace it, and process every frame to get it looking just right. I'm glad to have the tools to be able to do that.

Varicam or higher quality footage is another matter entirely. I'd have to put the HVX footage in with that, just because of the recording format. It's not an HDV camera.

When things start to move, especially quickly and sideways, is when the footage starts to tell which camera it came from.

So finally, call me silly, but I got an FX7. Why? 'cause it's around a grand less than the other cameras, and, thanks to us and the media, everybody's so A1 silly that some shops have started to panic and discount their FX7 stock more than the other cameras. Good for me.

Plenty of money left over for a Beachtek , wireless mics (okay, maybe just one wireless mic), and a couple of doodads before anything like the budgets of a V1 or an A1, let alone an HVX or above , are reached.

And I've got a ton of HDV tapes that sometimes need looking at and the HVX won't play them.

Moreover, I'm building a 35mm DOF unit for my 35mm Lomo lenses, and once you've gotten that lot out in front of a camera, with the studio matte box and follow focus and all of that, if you start out with something long to begin with, it becomes ridiculous (to me) to try and operate it. So better, for me, to start with a shorter camera.

Also, coming from an Arri cameras and a Nikon EL (vertical shutters) I kind of dig the slanted verticals that the FX7/V1 chipset produce when panned fast or when something fast goes by. Plus the reduced diagonal jaggies (actually, that's a major plus, for me).

Finally (and this was the most important factor, I feel, in my decision) I tried holding them. Myself. All of them. At least ten minutes each and every one. And just fooling around with them, running tape through them, playing back, ingesting, etc. etc.. Just getting a real feel for each camera instead of just reading about it. Sorry, as well as just reading about it, I should say.

Honestly? Being an DVX guy, only the HVX and the V1u/FX7 felt similar in the hand. All the others felt long in the front, very heavy, and left heavy (to me. YMMV, of course). Especially my fave up until then, the A1.

Now I do a lot of reality/doco style shooting, hand held, run and gun. Game show style, race to the next place style coverage, all on the fly. Quick reloads, long tape runs. Plus a lot of nature related backpacking stuff.

Yes, I do own a steadicam style stabilizer, but do I want to use one for that kind of job? All day long?

Plus I know me, a few hours into the next gig with an A1 hanging off the front of my hands, I'd be shaking all over the place and the footage would be technically superb but unusable due to operator error.

So I picked all of them up and hey, what can I say? the FX7 fit my hand the best.
I was able to bend my pinky down and around the front (lens end) of the grip and get a ton more fore- and-aft leverage, quite enough to shoot one handed, and get the shot.

And five minutes into holding it, I was still fine (thanks, all you patient shop guys, and gals) whereas with the others I felt like going to the gym and working out.

Ten minutes later it was the only hand held (i.e. not counting the HD110/200 series cameras, great but I can borrow a Varicam) camera left standing. Err.. holding. .

Don't know why that is, but the V1u lasted the second longest, and the HVX the shortest, followed by the G1, and then the A1. Maybe I should go work out after all...



So no, it's not the latest greatest camera on the planet, but it's great for what I want to use it for and besides, it's mine.

After a lifetime of handling cameras, the best ones I've ever owned, the most expensive and highly rated (yes, I still have Leicas in my vault) usually sat at home while the Pentaxes or other cheapo cameras were, ultimately, what I took around with me every day, got dinged, ripped off and replaced -- and got me the shots whereas the expensive ones were just not there, at the right time.

So I've learned my lessons, I hope.

The FX7's just sitting nearby, taking its charge. It will go into my soft bag tomorrow on the next shoot while I start to play with it and own it in my down time.

In fact, it's not been drooled over at all., not even once.

No, the HVX still gets the drool factor for me, and when I have the pennies saved up and/or a client requests one, then I'll get it and love it and use it like crazy. By then the P2 situation will be more reasonable as well, and Sony will have forced Panasonic to rethink its pricing structures some.

For me, for now, if I absolutely need a film look, I'll shoot my Aaton.

Do I regret not buying the absolute best that money can buy? Sure. Maybe. But I can just see the other side of it too. Would you take an Aaton out every day, everywhere you went, just to see what you could shoot? Or an HVX? Or an A1? Or would they just sit there, safe in the vault, until the job came or perfect time came to use them?

But you see, I've got this neat little unassuming 60i HDV camera that's just sitting there, ready to go and make movies. Not someone else's movies.

My movies.

And sure, I'll post them here when I get something worthwhile to share.

Best post i've seen in a while.

"The best camera is the one you've actually got with you".


- And we all know that, generally, for most people, the smaller & lighter the camera is, the more likely you are to actually have it with you.

Something to think about, rather than perhaps some people agonising endlessly over the last 3% of image quality.

Keep it Real people.

Chris:

My wife made me get an HV20 because I was lugging FX1 everywhere. I'm glad she did. Its quite a package in such a small space.

Chris,

Thanks for the insight on all your experiences as an editor with the many HDV cams out there. I am still reseraching the various cams to upgrade all of my current equipment. Anyway, its good to hear what you had to say, especially consdiering your tv credits and experience with the cameras in use today.

Cheers- Joe

Chris,

As I have made the decision to go hd in the next year I have lurked around here. this is a great post, just good sound thoughts!!

I have had the A1 and h1 in mind ( I am a gl2 xl2 user), but lurking about in the back of my mind was the FX 7. Mostly for the ability to shoot real slow motion, more frames per second like my old bolex movie camera did.
I shoot predominantly wild life and slow mo is a great attribute.

curiously, have you used that feature of your fx 7???

thanks for sharing your welath of knowledge!!!!

Thank you Chris

This was the most informative thread I´ve read in a long time about all the new cams out there

Once again Thank you

Cheers

Hans

Yes, thank you Chris.. I recently had the opportunity at a local Sony store to play with both the FX7 and FX1, and as soon as I am able to, I will be purchasing the 7. I agree completely with your output and the output of the poster after you that the last little bit of image quality most complain about, the average user and also viewer of that content will never notice. I know that my clients aren't that critical eyed.

And besides for the price and the video, it certainly felt good, was easy to get used to the button layout, and despite what others have said(of course I am no trained eye here, but just being extremely concsious of this), the low light performance on that camera was fantastic... So much so, that I only had to turn the gain up to +9 in a room only illuminated by a television, but otherwise completely pitch black, and I didn't notice any chroma noise at all. I was looking through the viewfinder and LCD, and this was to be honest the only thing I was concerned about with the camera because I read "low light this, and low light that, and that the FX7 supposedly sucks in low light compared to other HD cams".. But I will say at least for my purposes and jobs, it will be great to have.

And its very "brickish" feeling compared to the FX1, with the weight being dispursed over a smaller area, but nonetheless, not a handycam by any means..

Anyhow, thank you for your synopsis and review, and I hope your enjoying your cam and I can be one with you enjoying mine soon also!!!

D

Hey Chris, if you could have gotten a V1 for just a little more, and recorded to a VERY portable HDMI recorder (very small) at uncompressed 1920x1080i, would you have chosen the V1 instead?

Thanks for your kind replies, all!

Stephen, I ended up getting my FX7 for under $2500.
Actually, way under $2500.

So if I'd have been able go get a V1 for $2400 and a 160GB HDMI recorder for under $500?
Maybe. Why not?

But that's still $2900 and used HVX's are going for around just a few hundred dollars more than that, maybe $3600 and up, depending on what comes with it.

Thing is, with the balanced audio up front, the V1's balance is thrown forwards again. I'm pretty sure I can tell a V1u apart from an FX7 in a blind test, just by the balance in my hand.


And there's always "just a few hundred dollars more" for X or Y. That's when you know that the marketing people have you well in hand.

To my mind, you get the equipment you need to tell your stories.

The rest of the money you would have bought the best and latest gear with, you spend on your stories.
Buy your crew lunch. Heck, even pay the sound guy for a day of work.
You're not an equipment rental house or a commercials DP. You do not need to show the latest and best all the time unless you work for Canon or Sony.
You need to tell your stories.
You need your gear to work for you.
If you have money to spare, great. Plan your next production and tell your next story.

Google "Canon Scoopic" to see the philosophy behind where I'm coming from.
This is a 16mm news camera from the 70s (no sound), but look at the design and balance.
There's always a bunch of them on ebay. Just look at the pictures. Actually you can see the real design by flipping the pictures upside down. Look like an old time Bach Auricon, flipped upside down.

Or check Faye Dunaway using one in the original Thomas Crown Affair to shoot surveillance footage of Steve McQueen.

Look at the package. That's all the camera there is.
No wires hanging off, no matte boxes, just take the camera (auto loading, auto exposure, to my mind the sharpest ever production lens in the 16mm industry, the Canon, is on this lowly camera, macro down to zero feet, tack sharp lens and image resolution information down to the molecular level, not lines per inch or mm) and shoot.

Scoopics are now going for around $600. Film costs up to around $100 a minute finished (i.e. stock, processing, telecine)

So shoot your long running reality style dialog footage in HDV.
Then shoot your punchy montage wow! footage in 16mm and transfer to tape.
Say three or four minutes of 16mm footage every half hour or so of program, average.

So now you have the best of both worlds.
True film look montage-y stuff.
Long tape runs where dialog matters and multiple takes count.. (i.e. usually when people are talking)
Mix and match in post so people (real people, not technocrats) can't tell when you're using what.

I figure for that extra grand you saved, you can buy a Scoopic and also get four minutes of real film look done in your next film.
Now in the end you'll have less valuable equipment, sure.
But after time passes and equipment depreciates, it's all going to cost less later on anyway.
The Scoopic you'll still be able to sell for $600 or so.

No, really.
I'm just making a point.
With a simple, basic camera like the Scoopic, you are pretty much forced to be a good filmmaker.
There's so little to the thing that there's really only what you do with it that counts.

Imagine if painter's inks and brushes were all latest state of the art and had to be renewed/updated/uprezed every three years, or else the painter felt inadequate that he didn't have the latest technology paint, or was spending every other waking hour researching paints and brushes and solvents, and and and...

I really think a lot of this is simply keeping up with the technological Joneses, and not about what it's supposed to be about.

A camera's for shooting stuff.

You really can tell them apart so easily when blindfolded? The lack of a microphone acts as an offset to the XLR connectors in the V1. FX7 has a built in mic. V1 does not.
At approx 1.5kg and 1.6kg respectively, it's pretty difficult to feel much difference. Putting them both on a finger in each hand, they both balance at about the same point. But they do have slightly different weights.

Dale

Apparently the slow motion aspect of the FX7 involves reduced resolution. I'll shoot some when my 16mm shoot ends and let you know what I think. BTW I'd hang onto your Bolex if I were you - that's the Swiss Army knife of 16mm if ever there was one.

Check out FrenchQuarterFeatures.com and Jack Daniel Stanley's "18 seconds" for some awesome slomo footage of Jack walking just before the traffic light scene in that film. That's from the Swiss Army Knife of HD (IMHO), the HVX, with a little help from assorted 35mm DOF adapters and Nikon primes, I believe.

Love that little film!

Cheers
Chris

Douglas, I think I can. The balance is forward on the V1 for me. And the V1 is heavier. The mics aren't that heavy on the FX7 (there's not that much to them, truth be told)

Again this was from my experience of having one in my hand and up to my eye for over 5 minutes at a time. Just my take on it, and there was not a lot in it between the two cameras, just my pinkie got sore after awhile on the V1.

And, of course, there was the little matter of the price differential.

If I were only holding for a few seconds at a time, then heck, I'd go for an HX A1 too.


Oh, and another thing, the FX7 will end up by being heavier than the V1 when I get the Beachtek. I don't know by how much, but I do think that the weight should be at the bottom and central under the camera. Maybe I'll love it, maybe I'll hate it. But it's my hunch that it will end up with pretty much the same balance as the HVX when all's said and done, and so maybe I'll just end up by using my ECM 757 mid/side electret on the camera, which is another sleeper item of a mic, with an 1/8" stereo plug.

If you use a larger battery on the V1, the balance would be better for you, but then the weight would be more...plus, with a wide angle it gets a little worse again. But that's true with the FX7...

I guess that's the advantage of having two 23 year-olds do my camera work! Weight is not the same issue it was a while back...and I'm just getting too decrepit to carry those things around much longer!

I just can't honestly believe you'd trade the V1 for an FX7! To me it seems so much more cam, for not much more $.

Stephen
It's not that I would trade my V1 for an FX7.
It's that I didn't want to buy the V1 at all.
Didn't need all of the additional stuff.
The FX7 gets me in the ballpark of where I need to be.
It was around $600 cheaper than the V1.
It's not as "serious" a camera, requires less attention because maximum attention to less available functions is always less than maximum attention paid to more available functions, and therefore if you know where the items are on your menus and there are less items to check off, you're faster off the starting block and into the shot.

I pick up a Scoopic out of its box, load it, line it up and shoot it.

I pick up an Aaton out of its three boxes, build the camera, load it, line it all up, then shoot it.

Difference.

I pick up an FX7 out of its bag, adjust the four things there are to adjust, line it up and shoot it.

I pick up a V1, adjust the ??? things there are to adjust...

That kind of thing.

For me, simpler means less options and more attention on what it is that I'm shooting.

I don't even care if it's 24p or 60i, If I catch the moment, it's caught. If not, not.

Sure, it's what you're used to. I can outshoot my Nikon F3 any time, with my Leica M2. That's cause I've had my F3 only 15 years but my M2 over twenty five.

So when I get to using my FX7 a number of years, it'll be faster out of the bag as well.

Again, I say, this is just my cup of tea. You may prefer coffeee.

Wow Chris your first post was one of the most inspirational that I've seen in a long time. Thanks for keeping it real, and shouting out that content is king, I forget sometimes.

Obviously, to each his own, but the V1 is equally as fast, and can store those faster settings as well. It is just as auto, or equally manual. If you don't care about the settings on an FX7, then the exact same settings do or don't apply to a V1, especially if you don't care about picture profiles, 24p, etc.

While your post contains some very salient and well thought-out points, this particular statement makes no sense at all. The only point I can see worthy of debate is one that you didn't mention; the FX7 has a built in mic whereas the V1U requires an external mic (included in the box) connected. But the auto/manual settings on the two cameras are exactly identical. the V1 simply offers more options, none of which are mandatory to access if you prefer not to use them.

Wonderful post -- both about the FX7 and the Canon Scoopic. My thoughts: as I was writing the Chapter on exposure for the V1/FX7, I thought this is all nuts. In 1965 my Bolex H8 had 2 adjustments -- just like my Mamyia still camera: iris and shutter-speed. In 1974 my Bolex Rex 5 still had the same two adjustments. In 1982 my first JVC video camera had the same 2 adjustments, plus a WB selector.

In 2007 I'm explaining Auto/Hold, the menu-based Exposure dial (that has no feel), what each mode locks-out, and that there is yet another button to press. And, by the way, BackLight may not work depending on what you set in the menus.

All these functions on a camcorder designed, ironically, by Sony's CONSUMER group. Something seems backward. Both consumers and event video folks need, before all else, to get "acceptable" images without fatal blunders. This is not best accomplished with an AUTO mode. But, it is also not best accomplished by the dozens of menus and tiny buttons we have on camcorders today.

A computer can be used to give you dozens of menu choices that you have to learn about, or it can simplify often used processes. Examples:

1) Why do we have Stretch and Gamma adjustments. For some it is to create a "look." But looks can/should be done in post. In the field we need a more practical adjustments based upon current lighting conditions: NORMAL CONTRAST; HIGH CONTRAST (set Black Stretch & Low-knee); LOW CONTRAST (set Black Compress & High-knee).

2) The Sony A1 has an exposure control. As you dial a brighter pix it's smart enough -- with a locked shutter-speed -- to add gain when necessary. (You make the choice when noise is too much.) As you dial down exposure it's smart enough to prevent diffraction by introducing ND filters to keep the iris from going too small too soon.

If this system were controlled by a lens-ring and a shutter-speed up/down toggle -- we would be back to only 2 adjustments and NO menus. If you understand shutter-speed setting and watch for too much gain noise -- you only need monitor by histogram and your eye to get the exposure you want.

3) Add a Canon style PE dial: MANUAL; AUTO; MIN DOF; MAX DOF. In MANUAL -- the lens-ring only controls the iris so you can make smooth exposure changes; MIN DOF -- the computer can bias to keep iris ALMOST fully open as long as possible (start by incrementing your selected shutter-speed by 100%); MAX DOF -- bias to keep iris at f/8 as long as possible (start by decrementing shutter-speed by 50%).

4) Add a single FOCUS button to zoom to full tele, AF, and zoom back to where it was. No menu control needed. Only an MANUAL/ONE-TOUCH/AUTO switch. Depress this switch in AUTO mode to focus.

5) If you need a film look -- why not simply have a set of descriptions: 8mm, 16mm, PALE, NORMAL, VIVID, TO-FILM. These preset Sharpness, Saturation, Gamma, RGB balance. If you really need your own look -- do it in post after selecting one of these. (Here a menu can be used.)

PS: For the short connection from your MIC, you don't really need an unblanced connector -- but you should replace the plastic plug with a metal plug.

Chris,

Thank you for responding to my question.

I went to video because it was so affordable. I do miss the slo mo!!! That is why I am so interested in what the sonys can do in this regard.

Please feel free to email me any clips you might have to share in this regard, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am used to having almost full control with my xl2, but am willing to give some of that up if the slo mo was of value!!!

Of course there is the use of twixtor, buty I would rather natively produce the slo motion.

My bolex doesn't run like it did back in the 60's, even if it did how would I transpose it to digital?? At least in a manner a normal person could afford to do it?

Thank you again.

May I add my $0.03 to this excellent thread. Chris has presented us with a very sound and realistic philosophy that can be adopted when picking the "right" camera. And it's not important which camera he's picked and why; what makes his post outstanding is this philosophy itself. Thus, I take it Chris is not advocating for the FX7 as a "better" camera than the V1, or A1 - he simply is proving that the best camera is the one that we have and actually use to create video.

I also completely agree with what Steve is saying about the controls becoming more and more sophisticated, not always necessarily. Again, a 100% eligible opinion.

But just like Chris' and Steve's standpoints are absolutely right, they are not the only right ones. What they both seem to be forgetting is the fact that camcorders are not just devices for video creation. Well, they may be for professional ENG operators etc, but not for amateur enthusiasts. For many of us, they are much more than that - beautiful toys with lots of buttons and switches, that allow us to feel at control. I'm myself a control-freak, so I know what I'm talking about. This is why the Canon A1 has been such a huge success - lot's of buttons and switches outside, even more in the menu! I personally am positive that picture tweaking should be done in post, but must admit I was seduced by the multitude of tweaking controls of the XH-series custom presets!

Absolutely, gents!

This is just my own particular bias, as it were. What works for me, right now.
I'm into telling stories with pictures. The FX7, for me, is a means to an end.

Now, I love cameras as much as the next guy. It's just that I already did the camera-as-object-of-desire thing awhile ago.

So I suppose, over the years, that I simply went from a must-buy-a-Lexus guy to a just-get-the-car-to-get-from-A-to-B guy. At least, for this particular purchase, at this particular time.

I have the great fortune to be living in a time and a country where freedom of choice is available to me at prices I can (almost!) afford.

Some people love cars with all the trimmings. Others don't. Some people only get into their cars to go to work and back. Others (I can think of several Manhattan people immediately) only for pleasure.

And most of us who are here on this board have had more than one camera in their lifetimes.

Douglas, thank you for your excellent eye and input. Just goes to show you that what makes perfect sense for one person doesn't always make sense at all to another. And the difference is what stimulates us to broaden, expand, progress.

Piotr, I agree with you too. In your manner of speaking.

Now, I'll put this on the table. I'm going into the third day of a small dramatic shoot, in 16mm.

I'm going to talk about exposure, and film latitude, and light meters.

I have (you must have guessed by now) two very old light meters that I've used since dinosaurs ruled the earth. One is the first one degree Minolta spot meter, made of metal, mechanical action, with a lens that focuses and a 52mm front end so you can put your Nikon standard filter set and a lens hood on it. The other is a Spectra Combi that is still alive and very much kicking. I take it back to the factory every other year and they check it out for accuracy. I think they undercharge me these days for the service because if the readings off my meter disagree with theirs, they double check their meter, not mine... LOL!!!

Anyway, back when I was using those meters every day, film emulsions were just starting to get really good. Exposure latitude of color negative stock was coming into its own - five, maybe six stops of latitude. Wide, wide, knees both ends.

So I'm talking to my bright young cinematographer teammate and we're checking out each other's light meters (talk about gadget geeks, Piotr...) and I'm looking at his marvelous (plastic) Sekonic with the spot meter built in (sideways) and the 0.1 f stop exposure accuracy and I discover that he calls out "f 2 point eight" meaning 0.8 stops smaller than F2, which, if you're into exposure at all, and really persnickety about this, is in between f2.5 and f2.8, and not f2.8 at all.

So now we have an exposure meter, the most basic tool of cinematography, introducing confusion into a most critical part of photography where none existed before.

Next point.
I had some old (two year old) film stock that had been lying out (of the freezer) and before this shoot I ran a clip test through the camera to check that it was still working fine. I didn't know what had happened to the emulsion and the speed of this old stock, so I took no chances, and just shot a test chart with all of the iris stops I could, from T2 down to T16.

So guess what? The lab calls back and says the neg is good. I ask what part and they say "all of it".

Which means that my negative exposure latitude was around 10 stops.

Which means that I could have missed the blessed light reading by at least four stops and still have something on the negative I could have used. Which means that my dinosaur light meter, that only reads analog third stops, was roughly twelve times too good for the job. (I'll not go into the fine setting of the iris ring on the lens, nor T stops). And the latest Minolta? Overkill by three times as much as mine, roughly, since that meter reads in tenths of a stop.

However, like any good techno geek, I was thinking to myself, "self, sense be damned, isn't it time you got with the program and got yourself one of those new light meters?"

But it looks like, in this case, that technology and the state of the art has surpassed my own particular need for it. I'll pass on the latest and greatest in the exposure meter arena, thanks.

So no, I'm not saying that a Lexus is worse than a Toyota. And no, I'm not saying that my test chart, with its 8 stop exposure bracket, was all the best exposed negative it could have been and so I'm not saying that nobody needs a light meter at all.

What I am saying, though, is that there's a difference between the leading edge and the bleeding edge, where being the latest incurs a cost in addition to the very necessary one to improve one's standards, both technical and aesthetic. There can be such a thing as too much information, too many choices, too much (for me) diversion from my main task at hand, which is the capturing of great images to move the souls of other people.

For me, form still follows function, at least in the area of the FX7 vs the V1u. And because I have so much already invested in the post production aspect, getting to the tape is only a part of my particular journey.

So no, I (reluctantly) passed my new friend's (plastic) exposure meter back and told him I wouldn't be getting one anytime soon, no matter how many of the top pros use one nowadays (and apparently all of them do).

But guess who's the young guy who is all excited over a Scoopic MS on eBay?

My very long winded point?

Of course the people at Sekonic, Sony, Lexus etc are outdoing themselves and each other to give us the best of the best.
I totally applaud that. I'd rather have three light meters, even plastic ones, than none at all.

The V1u is the Lexus to the FX7's Toyota. Same plant, same chassis. Different amenities. Some say it's a totally different car.
It is, it is.
I say it's still got four wheels and it still drives on roads.

The old alone is outclassed by the new.
The new alone is incomplete without the old.
Pick and choose between the old and the new... now you have yourself some very heavy firepower.

Look at this thread, and the wonderful people who have weighed in and shared, just in a few days.

Very heavy firepower, gents.

Chris, your post and position indicates there are differences between the V1 and the FX7 straight out of the box. I submit there are not.
Take both out of the box, side by side, and turn them on.
Put iris, gain, white balance, shutter all in manual mode.
They behave identically.
Put them both in Easy mode/full auto (green selection switch) and they both behave identically.

If you prefer the FX7 over the V1, that's great, but I feel it is a mischaracterization to suggest that they behave differently at the initial level.
The V1 merely has deeper menus, if you'll allow such a shallow comparison. If those menus/functions are not necessary, or preferred for your particular workflow, that's fine. I use a landscaping rake to clean my barn while others use a thatching rake. Options/choices are what make the difference.
But at the end of the day, at the basic pull-it-out-of-the-bag-and-shoot level, the V1 and FX7 are identical outside of the audio options mentioned.

Douglas

I said that to me the two cameras are very different. To you they are not.

You're absolutely right. You get in a Lexus and a Toyota and drive them more or less the same way.

If I happen to say that a Toyota is a better car for me, can you then say "yes, but a Lexus is a better car?" Of course you can. It is a better car.

But I'm talking about a better car for me .

Big difference.

The V1 is a better camera, no doubt about it.

Like the A1 is a better camera, no doubt about that too.

But for me, the FX7 is better.

Or, of you'd like, I'll rephrase that to say that I feel it suits my tastes better, or that although the V1 is clearly a superior camera,
a guy like me prefers something not a little simpler (I don't use auto anything), but a little less technologically advanced for my present needs.

Better?

This is my subjective opinion, I am not representing anything I say as being factual or in any way representing an absolute for anybody else but myself.

That's for greater minds, such as yours, to do for us.

In fact, it was your own reviews that suggested the FX7 to me in the first place.
Almost the same machine to work with, almost (at that time) a grand cheaper.

Maybe it was the grand price difference that made me think the FX7 felt lighter.

I certainly can bring to the table my own experience with a Leica MP with a Summilux 35 and an MP Leicavit which together would cost quite a bit more than a V1 or an FX7. Or an HVX, come to think of it.

Having used that incredible gear, and having being scared silly that I'd be losing my investment should the stuff get scratched, I later picked up a user Leica M2, a Summicron 35 (Wetzlar, of course, I have my limits), and a third party rapid winder, and proceeded tho shoot the heck out of that camera., and get some great shots.

And I still have that one. The more expensive one sat in a vault and then was sold, at quite a handsome profit, to the highest collector bidder. And it's probably still as pristine and excellent. as the day it was made.

The shots that came from those cameras were technically almost the same.
If you didn't know from Leicas, Douglas, you couldn't have told them apart
However.
The shots that came from the cheaper camera were so much better than the ones that came from the expensive one it isn't funny.
Not because the cheaper camera was in any way superior in technical standard than the more expensive one.
That is definitely and definitively not what I am saying or representing here.

It's because the cheaper camera made me feel easier picking it up. It felt better in my hand. It too great shots.
And it was there at the time when the expensive one wasn't.

And I took it out more, thinking not "oh wow, what a cool camera I have here, I've drooled over this camera and aren't I the coolest kid in the block", but more" now what can I shoot? What's around that corner?"

Ultimately, for me,, the cheaper, lighter, less technologically advanced camera was the one that was out first and done shooting ,..

I don't care how great you are technologically, Douglas. If you have equal aptitude and speed going in to a camera with three parameters to set, and one with eighteen, the one with three will get set faster.
Period.

A Leica M2 fully manual camera in the hands of a sharp operator shoots faster than a Leica M8 with digital light metering. and a longer base rangefinder. in the hands of the same sharp operator, because the simpler camera requires less to consider, less knobs to adjust, less to fiddle with and get set just so.
And I'm not talking about "let's just pull it out and set it on auto". I say again, I'm not into auto anything on cameras. Never have been.

Most people can't tell the footage from a V1 and and FX7 apart, at least not when people like me are done with their footage in post.

If you can't tell one piano apart from another, or one violin apart from another, that's okay. They'd probably weigh the same to the nearest gram, or not.

If you do know from Leicas, of course you can tell the lenses apart. That's people like you and me, Douglas.
I used to choose my lenses from large batches and picked the exact one I wanted.
Maybe its MTF is identical, its factory specs certainly are the same.
But to me, that particular lens was different.
It was better.

Like a guitarist or a musician, my camera is my axe.
It's an emotional, non-rational relationship with an inanimate object that either inspires me to greater heights - or doesn't.

It's the one that makes me feel great when I pick it up, it's my security blanket when it's time for run-and-gun, it's the one that makes me a better shooter for having picked it up.

Look at Jaco's bass guitars. Don McCullen's Nikons. Ansel Adams's old 8x10. They're not pristine at all.

Or look at all the great film makers with their HVXs.
Pristine, unscratched, the lot of them, and out there every day shooting incredible stuff.
For them, the HVX was their "best camera". The one that made them feel like shooting more better.
For me, the lowly FX7. Sorry, but that's it.

Nonsense? Maybe. That's why I entitled this "call me silly, but" in the first place.

I know it's anathema to some people, but really, come the bottom line, for me, it's always been the boys, not the toys,

Great thots from some of the hoary heads here. Chris, you are soooo right about that last statement! Give 'em my first 8mm and they'd do a good job...

Let's get back to work, I've got grandkids to cover too, and I don't use the V1 for that...I use a 7 MP digital camera for still pics, 'cause it fits in a little case and is always fast and ready to go...and I sold all my fancy Nikon stuff 'cause it sat in the cases unused...

How did "pristine" enter the discussion? I'll leave you with this last thought...the above comparison is absurd from where I sit.
The electronics and lenses from the two camcorders come from the exact same line, manufactured by robots. To compare Pastorius' handmade, wooden basses to precision electronics made by robotics is silly. FWIW, I'm a professional musician have been so all my life. I certainly hear the differences between one piano and another, one guitar and another, and one flute and another. Like Pastorius' basses, they're all organic. A combination of woods, age, metals conspire to create a personality. Pristine doesn't enter into the argument. Like a fine wine, age is a good thing, and responsible for all of the references you make. Jaco's basses only got older with age, just like Michael Manring's guitars did, just as my flutes do. But these things are not plastic/metal/glass, and certainly not made by robots.
Conversely, I don't hear the difference between two out-of-the-box identical model microphones that come from the same assembly lines. As they age, some types of mics take on a personality, but again, we're talking about aging, not a 6 month old camcorder.

A V1 and an FX7 start life untouched by organics, never touched by human hands until they are sent to different factory locations. Their parts are interchangeable. There is no organic component to them.
All that said, if you feel a spiritual and artistic connection to your particular FX7, there is no reasonable response that can be made, as this would be a deeply personal connection to your camcorder.
Either way, it's great to hear that your inexpensive camcorder inspires you, because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about.

Exactly, Douglas.
Inspiration is what this is all about, for me.
Intellectually you're right, I know you're right. All FX7's are totally identical.

But if I really believe that emotionally, then, well, mine isn't that special.

And actually what makes it special is what I put into it myself.

Emotional belief is everything in what we do.
Personal connection.

Right?

In my long winded previous post, that's what I was trying to say. Once one loaded a roll of film -- and on a Bolex adjusted the shutter-angle (which typically was not altered except for an FX) there were only TWO things to think about: iris and focus. With 8mm/Super 8, and slow 16mm film -- one didn't even need a lightmeter: sunny day set to f/8. Which left only focus.

The instructions for exposure were on a tiny sheet of paper packed in the film box. No "instructional" DVD were needed. Both cameras and NLEs have become like MS WORD -- "bloatware." It would be nice if a company had the guts to saw "Few features, but NO bugs."

There is a thread in common here: Word, NLEs, and camcorders are more and more oriented to "cosmetics." If I read one more story about a DP creating HIS "look" -- I'll puke. We have LiveType, Motion, Color -- we have cameras with dozens of "adjustments" and Word with "animated" fonts. Despite the fact everyone is trying to create a different look, everything looks the same -- like a ransom note.

The time spent in the field, squinting to see menus on an LCD, would be better spent moving around and COMPOSING each shot.

The reality is that the FX7 could be simplified a great deal morel. Ideally to the point where nothing neccessary for shooting would use a menu.

Steve - I read both your posts with great satisfaction and much relish. How much time did we spend, back in the day, with that blessed Bolex shutter angle? And the gadget that did the fades? LOL!!!

BTW I had to tell my young film associate exactly how I realized his flashy exposure meter wasn't functioning correctly today.

It was outside in an overcast day and his meter read F2.8 with 125ASA/EI film at 1/50 sec (24fps) and I told him this didn't seem right at all, using the rule of 11's that I once read printed on the side of a film box.

(You know the one, right through the middle - a middle day, not bright, not dark, in the middle of the day, not sunny, not cloudy, ASA100, 1/100 shutter speed, should give you f/11. (i.e all 1's or 11's)).

Not very surprisingly, he'd never heard of it before. But he knows it now!

And of course, that isn't the entire answer either. The real answer was that I walked outside, noticed how bright it was under the overcast, then saw his lens set at 2.8 and went "that's not right."

The rule of 11 came in right after that thought, as an answer to the next question, which was "why is that not right?"


Now, if only I can get to the bottom of what makes those pesky FX7 Picture Profiles tick... :)

I would like so much to continue my participation in this mind-refreshing discussion, unfortunately my limited English makes it rather difficult. Let me only point out that - while it's quite right what Spot is saying about the difference between musical instruments and those robot-made, identical units of a given camera model - I disagree with his conclusion that we cannot be emotional about cameras, like we're about musical instruments!

If something is a tool in a creative process, I'm always treating it emotionally. And even if what I am doing with my camera (or my sports car, for instance) cannot be called "creative", I will always treat my camera, or my car differently than all the other, identical units. Once they become ours, those lifeless items almost get their own souls.

I'm not a professional musician like Spot (which is a pity, even though I enjoy my IT/mechanical engineering profession), but I've always been extremely sensitive to art, beauty and passion. And I dare say what is most appealing to me in life is when art marries technology, and they bring a fruit in the form of a sports car, extremely well performing injection mould (!!!), a super-fast computer, an ingenious piece of software... Or a camera!

I didn't say one cannot be emotional about a camera. These forums obviously demonstrate that many of us are, regardless of how irrational it may be. ;-)

What I've said, and will continue to say, is that the V1 and the FX7 are identical at the top levels, and shooting them out of the box, side by side, will yield an identical frame. That point seems to be getting lost somewhere in the translation.

The V1 has more menu options, but if one doesn't drill down to them, then the V1 remains the same camcorder as the FX7. Couple that with Chris' expressed lack of understanding of Picture Profiles brings yet another level of confusion to the conversation; the V1 and FX7 offer the same features in the Picture Profiles, excepting that the V1 offers more options in the Picture Profiles. If you're using PP, IMO you DEFINITELY want the V1. Black Stretch AND Compress is a significantly large diff, just as one example.

Douglas!


I'm a pro cinematographer, for goodness' sake! And an editor and a sound mixer to boot. Please, imdb.com or realitystaff.com my name, Chris Ross Leong, to see who I am before dismissing me as an ignoramus for expressing my views.

Please! I just got my camera three days ago and I was on a shoot all that time! I just cracked the camera manual open and started on the picture profile menus. Do you think I'll remain ignorant of their functions forever? I owned three DVXs, remember? And I was an Andromeda beta tester.

Doubtless I will, as you say find out all about black stretch and compress. Probably within a few days, as soon as this shoot ends.

I'm not a technophobe. Not at all.
It's just that I have a life other than my cameras. I use them to get to my life, which is making images.
Therefore, there only being 24 hours in a day, and a family as well, I need something with slightly lesser levels of technological depths to plumb to.
As you have said, both the V1 and the FX7 yield identical frames at the higher levels.
That's good enough for me.
I don't want to float on the surface of a camera whose depths I haven't plumbed fully - that gives me a nervous feeling in the back of my head that I've maybe missed something, some adjustment that I maybe needed to have covered but didn't due to lack of technological knowledge.

That's not me, Douglas.

I want to know the tool I'm using as well as anybody can.
So, given that I have a limited investment time in the camera, I choose to go with an FX7 precisely because I do have to go through every aspect of it before I feel fully confident that I know everything there is to know about it.

And I'm speaking from a position of knowledge and experience, Douglas. I know exactly what I'm talking about here.

As a professional musician, perhaps you know about the Kurzweil VAST music systhesis system? Well, guess who owns a K250, 1000, and a 2500 in his post studio? Care to tell us all how many parameters there are to adjust in the 2500 to model a sound?

Care to tell us how long you can spend sitting at a computer fiddling with those parameters to learn them all, let alone making a decent, beautiful, natural sounding sound?

And that's before we actually sit and get around to playing some music?

That's my point here. I picked this camera because it was more shallow, not less deep. Quicker to get to the bottom of and stand firm on, not float around with that uneasy feeling of something left unknown, something that could have been tweaked just a little better, or, in my line of business, something that could come back and bite me in the backside.

Do you get my point, Douglas?

I have chosen the V1 over the FX7 for exactly the reasons you mention (plus XLR audio), but rejected the Canon for the reasons more similar to Chris choosing the FX7. Yet, I never mentioned (or repeated) it here, cause it's irrelevant to the thread's topic.

yes, Chris, i get your point.
I only wish you'd see mine.
My concern is that someone will stumble across this thread, and with your credentials, purchase a camcorder that is lacking what the majority of shooters are asking for in their camcorder.
You yourself haven't scratched the surface of what the camcorder can do, yet you're confident that the FX7 is a superior camcorder, based on lacking features and 1/8 lb difference in the lens end.
You might not need both black stretch and compress, but many shooters need it. Not everyone has access to a 2/3 HDCAM or 1/2 XDCAM, or 16/35mm cameras for those times that light is lacking and you need a great shot.
A sound guy might always be available to you, but many here don't have the luxury, so the XLR/Phantom power component is fairly necessary. Or they can buy an add-on to give them phantom and XLR, but then the cost is nearly identical, plus the ergonomics of the camcorder are gone.
Most folks (present company not included) prefer 24p.
Not everyone has a light meter, or even knows how to use one, but will find the additional modes of the V1 to be exceptionally useful when determining exposure.

Chris, I'm sure you could pick up most any camcorder and make it sing. What I don't get is how you can find one to be superior to the other, simply because the other has more in-depth offerings that you might not ever touch.
On rare occasion, I fly with an Arricam Lite. Should the DP have chosen a different camera because the Arricam lite can load all Arri magazines, vs choosing an Arriflex 235, because it only offers a smaller magazines?

Believe me, I'm really thrilled to read that a person of your calibre is using the HDV format. I couldn't agree with you more on the salient points. It's the rest of it (mostly for the benefit of Google) for which I'm resistant to your point.

Douglas.
Good point. Didn't think of that. Many thanks -- and thank God for forums like this one!

Douglas has made a point that's well worth keeping in mind, people. Yes,, there are some of us who have been around awhile. Quite awhile.
And there are some of us who are just getting into this.

Okay. For the record. The V1 is a superior camera, clearly. Douglas and others have spent a lot of time and trouble informing us of that fact. Heck, if it weren't for his articles, I wouldn't have even thought of the FX7 as an alternative at all.

By telling you all of my tales as a beginning FX7 user (not a beginning videographer), I was hoping to share with a lot of you guys, , new and old, the incredible rush and joy I felt with the handling of a new tool (or toy, call it what you will) that I feel is very special. To me.

To all the new kids on the block:

Welcome!

The word 'superior' means better. The word better means "gooder", more good.
And the word good, as we all know, is open, wide open, to interpretation.
In the case of my FX7, well, you can see mine. I've laid it out for you.
In the light of my owning 35mm and 16mm film equipment, light meters, and, Douglas is quite correct, one of my good mates is a pro sound guy with wireless doodads hanging out the wazoo (who was very amused when I handed him an 1/8" extension cord, by the way - up until the time he heard the audio coming off the FX7... and then his mind started working on how he could get it to sound better... LOL!!! The human spirit, I tell ya...)

Read all you can. Spotted Eagle 's articles especially . No, I'm not kidding. You should read them all. I did.

Then you should talk to others who own the cameras you're considering, and then maybe take a leaf out of my book and go try them out. Hold one in your hand and figure out from looking at it up close and in person what people like Douglas are talking about. At least get an introduction to them all, make a passing acquaintance.

Then see which one grabs you and doesn't let go.

Naturally, you'll find that you should gravitate towards the winner of the technological polls, the most popular, the likeliest to succeed. . Especially since you are new on the block.

Cool. If you like how it feels.

If you don't then your camera will stay at home because it's too long, too small, too heavy, has too many menus, has not enough menus, has too many knobs, is the wrong color, whatever.

Then when you're out on the street thinking about how the camera could have been better, wham - opportunity knocks. The perfect shot appears. easy grabbing, just point it and shoot it.

Camera's at home. In the car. Lent to your nephew to make a school movie.
Oops.
Oh well.

Been there, done that.

And guess what?
The reason I wrote this thread in the first place is because I don't want that to happen to you.
I want to see the incredible stuff that walked by and knocked you on you ass so that you just HAD to get that shot.
And I want that camera in your hand so you can get it for me to see.
(not quite as selfless as I seem, am I?? LOL!)



Okay. Now to everybody, especially us older geezers who ought to know better.

The more we knock around with this stuff, the more it becomes familiar, a known quantity, a piece of cake.

In the beginning, it was a real struggle to get to grips with all the technology, to learn it, then learn it well, then master it.
And why did we learn to master it? So that the technology became transparent.
It didn't interfere with the creative process.

A musician practices endlessly so that when it's time to perform, or improvise, the skill set is so well learnt that technology (embrochure, stroke, parradiddle, come on, technology's been with us in one form or another ever since someone came up with a better rock) ceases to be a limiting factor, but becomes a part of the creative process.

What this means to us and the FX7 or like cameras is that we'd better know all about each and every parameter in the cameras we use, because when it comes time for that shot, and the subject is approaching the optimum background and it's time to line the camera up - now , or the crew's all waiting and the sun just went behind a cloud, that would not exactly be the best time on the planet to go poking around a menu or cracking open the manual. No, it's time for think about it, go, aha - turn the cinema gamma off (or on), and two seconds later, you're up and running.

Or, if you're like me, you'd be laying in bed going, "well? should I put this or that control onto my custom buttons, just in case?" and then you'd get out of bed, program the blessed button, try it out...

So it's a double edged sword, this technology stuff. If can reach out and cut the hardest things with ease - and it can cut your own hand off if you're not careful w.

You have to practice to get good.
So you spend your time practicing to get good.
And then you get really good, but now you're shooting for someone else who just spent the same amount of time thinking about what to shoot, not how to shoot it.

So many different roads to follow, so many trails to trails to blaze.

After a while, it all can get so... so... blah.

One more TV show to work on. One more movie that isn't mine.
One more shoot where I'm teaching a kid the ropes.

I tell you now, and I've shared with you now.
That little camera gets my heart rate up again.
'cause it got me looking out again, instead of looking in.

I can't think of a better conclusion for this thread than the post above, which comes from the originator of this discussion. Just to re-cap, for anyone who might be new to this and is looking at either the FX7 or V1:

Image "quality" is perfectly identical between the two.

The V1 has an expanded feature set over the FX7.

The V1 is supported by Sony Professional service; the FX7 is from the consumer group.

The right camera for you is the one which feels best in your hands and most comfortably fits your budget.

Currently there's something for everyone, whether it's an FX7, a V1, or something else entirely.

Thanks to all who participated,