Does anyone here own an FX7? at DVinfo.net

Joe Busch · June 20th, 2007, 01:19 PM

Seems like everyone has a V1... atleast thats what all the posts are about...

Just ordered my FX7 (Not a big budget haha) should be here Friday...

Audio isn't a huge concern for me, I don't usually use the audio from my footage (music overlays) so I'm wondering how the picture quality is... 3 Cmos compared to 3 CCD... 20x Zoom...

Picture quality compared to the V1?

I'll look for some sample footage, just curious to figure out more...

Chris Leong · June 20th, 2007, 04:10 PM

Hi there
Mostly the same.
CMOS is the same setup as the V1
Less options on tweaking the video
Picture looks great, easily up there with the best of them.

Finishing two pilots and an episode for E! and Style network with footage (HDV downrezzed) from the FX7 intercut with F900 footage. I letterboxed the interviews and tweaked the HDV footage a little to intercut, but not a lot. It's mainly fast cuts so it's hard to see the difference.

20x is great on the long end, slightly lacking on the wide, depending on what you're shooting.

There's a noticeable slanting of vertical lines during fast pans ("speed lean") that I actually find kinda cool looking. Not many other people would, though.

As far as low light performance is concerned, I'll post stills from a dinner party I shot outside in my front yard last night.

7 people around two tables, two 100W LTM peppers, two 650W Lowel Omnis, one severely throttled back with double scrims, NDs and full frost, and then barn doored away from the subjects, and the other on an umbrella with another full scrim attached. Lit that way because the tables had rose petals and candles on them and wanted to catch the details and not have the lighting overpower the rest.

The FX7 was first used to get all the master wide shots and reverses, then all the closeups of the food, etc (it was for a food show) and then passed around all seated for shots of everybody else. Most of the people were in the industry but two were not. They just couldn't believe a broadcast quality camera was being tossed around between people like salad, and they actually shot some very respectable closeups of their friends.

Then I shot the real insert and cutaway stuff, people chatting and eating, with the same camera. Now they'd got their camera curiosity out of the way, their lens fright and on-camera attitudes went away with it.

Can't say that I'd have tried to do anything like that with any other camera - maybe a PD150 or a DVX...

Everything loaded last night just fine. Looks just fine too. Grainy, sure, but that's what I'd expect anyway. Add music and laughter, and no problems.

The next morning I strapped a Beachtek DXa-8 onto the bottom of the FX7, a large diaphragm studio condenser mic with a high end tube mic pre into the Beachtek, and recorded voice overs for the show.

That too loaded just fine.

Joe Busch · June 20th, 2007, 05:46 PM

I don't do low light, or wide shots... nor a lot of on-camera audio... (atleast not for now)

I just care about the picture quality... I got about 30-40 hours on a Canon HV10... just not enough adjust ability... the HV10 was pretty amazing, if the FX7 is better I'm happy :)

I think that's called rolling shutter (the leaning effect) I guess it's just the way CMOS records images... faster shutter "helps" but doesn't solve it... Considering Fast Pans... there isn't much to look at anyways... I don't think the leaning wouldn't bug the viewer

Chris Leong · June 20th, 2007, 05:54 PM

Joe
From what I've read, (and see my previous posts on the FX7), most of the top reviewers here and elsewhere say that like HDV cameras (meaning single tube, 3-tube, etc) produce images that are pretty close to each other. So since the HV10 is a single 'tube" and the V1u/FX7 is a three "tube" (not tube at all but CMOS), that would mean that the FX7 should produce images at least as good as the HV10, and probably better.

Greg Clement · June 21st, 2007, 07:04 AM

I have the FX7. I bought it in Feb and I really like the camera. It has an excellent picture. I video mostly Amature Theartre. I have found the Audio to be fine for what need. I usually hook into the Theartre’s sound board and have not had any problems. In the Theartre there are a lot of low light scenes and scenes with contrasting lighting (Dark Background, Spotlight on main Characters). The camera handles it very well. Even the low lighting scenes. Interesting that HDV show everything when zoomed in. Blemishes stand out, so you need to be careful with Head shots. The one complaint I have with this camera, is that in low light conditions it will ‘Focus Hunt’ when Auto Focus is set. I have an older Sony Camera (TheTR520) that is always rock solid with its Auto Focus in the same lighting conditions.

I know that just about everyone says to stick with Manual focus and adjust as necessary. But I just can’t seem to get the Manual Focus right. I zoom in and use the extended focus feature and focus as sharp as I can. Of course everything looks focused in the LCD screen…. Then when I view the footage on the PC or TV afterwards, it is out of focus. I have tried to use the Peaking feature as well. I obviously don’t know what I am doing because I am still out of focus… Anyone have any suggestions on techniques to ensure proper focus and how to change focus on the fly while the camera is still rolling? I don’t want the video to look like I am trying to find the proper focus as I adjust.

Vaughan Wood · June 21st, 2007, 06:45 PM

yes I have an FX7 doing weddings and stage events.

Coming from VX 2000's, the camera certainly gives a wonderful picture during daylight, if you give it light it is superb, but as soon as you get to a reception it struggles.

I love the way it gives you latitude with not blowing out highlights as quick if you're in a bride's house and shooting against windows, (about two stops better than DV I reckon), but at the other end, you need 30 - 40 watts doing a reception when 10 watts used to be adequate.

My other complaint for wedding operators is with the CMOS chips for photographers flashes. For those who edit with a lot of slow motion, just forget about using CMOS. It can completely foul up some shots, as I put up once before.

Certainly doesn't apply to all weddings, but sometimes you get a photgrapher taking three shots with exposure bracketing right through the bride getting ready, and boy, you will get a lot of mixed up frames when you slow it down as she's having her jewellery put on etc!

Whether it's just HDV I don't know, but I often find that people's faces at receptions just behind the main subject often have a very "plasticy" look about them, much more than my subcontractor that uses a Z1.

I also agree with focus hunting in low light. It's really bad compared to the VX's.

For indies shooting with controlled environment, this camera could give excellent results, but if the HDCam EX is as good as we're hoping, I'm jumping ship.

Cheers Vaughan

Dave Blackhurst · June 21st, 2007, 11:34 PM

Joe -
Just scored an FX7 myself - made a very good first impression, will shoot a wedding this weekend with it. Shot some test video this afternoon against HC1, HC7, HV20 and Z1. Initial impression is that the HC7 and FX7 had the best color and overall look, but it was subtle at best - all looked pretty good! While the HV20 seemed cleaner when I got on top of the screen, the Sonys looked better from a distance - to myself and another non-video person...

You'll find the adjustability of the FX7 to be superb - reminds me of the old TRV900 - everything right there on the back to adjust.

Greg - a suggestion on focus - there's a function called focus assist you might want to turn on - basicaly it's auto focus, but with the manual able to override or "help" - as for peaking, set it to RED, white probably won't show up, red definitely does show you what focus is locked on - sort of looks like a cheap horror flick though - everything bleeds red!

Everything I like about the Z1 is there in the FX7, and it's far lighter, which was something which I was looking for - the Z1 has proved too heavy for my back. I'll give up the pro features I don't use often in exchange for a smaller package and less pain.

June 20th, 2007, 01:19 PM	#1
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	Does anyone here own an FX7? Seems like everyone has a V1... atleast thats what all the posts are about... Just ordered my FX7 (Not a big budget haha) should be here Friday... Audio isn't a huge concern for me, I don't usually use the audio from my footage (music overlays) so I'm wondering how the picture quality is... 3 Cmos compared to 3 CCD... 20x Zoom... Picture quality compared to the V1? I'll look for some sample footage, just curious to figure out more...

June 20th, 2007, 04:10 PM	#2
Chris Leong Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles CA USA Posts: 507	Hi there Mostly the same. CMOS is the same setup as the V1 Less options on tweaking the video Picture looks great, easily up there with the best of them. Finishing two pilots and an episode for E! and Style network with footage (HDV downrezzed) from the FX7 intercut with F900 footage. I letterboxed the interviews and tweaked the HDV footage a little to intercut, but not a lot. It's mainly fast cuts so it's hard to see the difference. 20x is great on the long end, slightly lacking on the wide, depending on what you're shooting. There's a noticeable slanting of vertical lines during fast pans ("speed lean") that I actually find kinda cool looking. Not many other people would, though. As far as low light performance is concerned, I'll post stills from a dinner party I shot outside in my front yard last night. 7 people around two tables, two 100W LTM peppers, two 650W Lowel Omnis, one severely throttled back with double scrims, NDs and full frost, and then barn doored away from the subjects, and the other on an umbrella with another full scrim attached. Lit that way because the tables had rose petals and candles on them and wanted to catch the details and not have the lighting overpower the rest. The FX7 was first used to get all the master wide shots and reverses, then all the closeups of the food, etc (it was for a food show) and then passed around all seated for shots of everybody else. Most of the people were in the industry but two were not. They just couldn't believe a broadcast quality camera was being tossed around between people like salad, and they actually shot some very respectable closeups of their friends. Then I shot the real insert and cutaway stuff, people chatting and eating, with the same camera. Now they'd got their camera curiosity out of the way, their lens fright and on-camera attitudes went away with it. Can't say that I'd have tried to do anything like that with any other camera - maybe a PD150 or a DVX... Everything loaded last night just fine. Looks just fine too. Grainy, sure, but that's what I'd expect anyway. Add music and laughter, and no problems. The next morning I strapped a Beachtek DXa-8 onto the bottom of the FX7, a large diaphragm studio condenser mic with a high end tube mic pre into the Beachtek, and recorded voice overs for the show. That too loaded just fine.

June 20th, 2007, 05:46 PM	#3
Joe Busch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 398	I don't do low light, or wide shots... nor a lot of on-camera audio... (atleast not for now) I just care about the picture quality... I got about 30-40 hours on a Canon HV10... just not enough adjust ability... the HV10 was pretty amazing, if the FX7 is better I'm happy :) I think that's called rolling shutter (the leaning effect) I guess it's just the way CMOS records images... faster shutter "helps" but doesn't solve it... Considering Fast Pans... there isn't much to look at anyways... I don't think the leaning wouldn't bug the viewer

June 20th, 2007, 05:54 PM	#4
Chris Leong Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Los Angeles CA USA Posts: 507	Joe From what I've read, (and see my previous posts on the FX7), most of the top reviewers here and elsewhere say that like HDV cameras (meaning single tube, 3-tube, etc) produce images that are pretty close to each other. So since the HV10 is a single 'tube" and the V1u/FX7 is a three "tube" (not tube at all but CMOS), that would mean that the FX7 should produce images at least as good as the HV10, and probably better.

June 21st, 2007, 07:04 AM	#5
Greg Clement New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: St Charles, Mo Posts: 9	I have the FX7. I bought it in Feb and I really like the camera. It has an excellent picture. I video mostly Amature Theartre. I have found the Audio to be fine for what need. I usually hook into the Theartre’s sound board and have not had any problems. In the Theartre there are a lot of low light scenes and scenes with contrasting lighting (Dark Background, Spotlight on main Characters). The camera handles it very well. Even the low lighting scenes. Interesting that HDV show everything when zoomed in. Blemishes stand out, so you need to be careful with Head shots. The one complaint I have with this camera, is that in low light conditions it will ‘Focus Hunt’ when Auto Focus is set. I have an older Sony Camera (TheTR520) that is always rock solid with its Auto Focus in the same lighting conditions. I know that just about everyone says to stick with Manual focus and adjust as necessary. But I just can’t seem to get the Manual Focus right. I zoom in and use the extended focus feature and focus as sharp as I can. Of course everything looks focused in the LCD screen…. Then when I view the footage on the PC or TV afterwards, it is out of focus. I have tried to use the Peaking feature as well. I obviously don’t know what I am doing because I am still out of focus… Anyone have any suggestions on techniques to ensure proper focus and how to change focus on the fly while the camera is still rolling? I don’t want the video to look like I am trying to find the proper focus as I adjust.

June 21st, 2007, 06:45 PM	#6
Vaughan Wood Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 278	yes I have an FX7 doing weddings and stage events. Coming from VX 2000's, the camera certainly gives a wonderful picture during daylight, if you give it light it is superb, but as soon as you get to a reception it struggles. I love the way it gives you latitude with not blowing out highlights as quick if you're in a bride's house and shooting against windows, (about two stops better than DV I reckon), but at the other end, you need 30 - 40 watts doing a reception when 10 watts used to be adequate. My other complaint for wedding operators is with the CMOS chips for photographers flashes. For those who edit with a lot of slow motion, just forget about using CMOS. It can completely foul up some shots, as I put up once before. Certainly doesn't apply to all weddings, but sometimes you get a photgrapher taking three shots with exposure bracketing right through the bride getting ready, and boy, you will get a lot of mixed up frames when you slow it down as she's having her jewellery put on etc! Whether it's just HDV I don't know, but I often find that people's faces at receptions just behind the main subject often have a very "plasticy" look about them, much more than my subcontractor that uses a Z1. I also agree with focus hunting in low light. It's really bad compared to the VX's. For indies shooting with controlled environment, this camera could give excellent results, but if the HDCam EX is as good as we're hoping, I'm jumping ship. Cheers Vaughan

June 21st, 2007, 11:34 PM	#7
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Joe - Just scored an FX7 myself - made a very good first impression, will shoot a wedding this weekend with it. Shot some test video this afternoon against HC1, HC7, HV20 and Z1. Initial impression is that the HC7 and FX7 had the best color and overall look, but it was subtle at best - all looked pretty good! While the HV20 seemed cleaner when I got on top of the screen, the Sonys looked better from a distance - to myself and another non-video person... You'll find the adjustability of the FX7 to be superb - reminds me of the old TRV900 - everything right there on the back to adjust. Greg - a suggestion on focus - there's a function called focus assist you might want to turn on - basicaly it's auto focus, but with the manual able to override or "help" - as for peaking, set it to RED, white probably won't show up, red definitely does show you what focus is locked on - sort of looks like a cheap horror flick though - everything bleeds red! Everything I like about the Z1 is there in the FX7, and it's far lighter, which was something which I was looking for - the Z1 has proved too heavy for my back. I'll give up the pro features I don't use often in exchange for a smaller package and less pain.