Got my FX1 from B&H today! [first impressions]

[John Gaspain]

Its friggen cool!

I need to get Service pack 2 on my pc so I can capture with connect HD, once I do that I'll post some footage.

Overall im pretty darn impressed with this cam. Heres some highlights of my playing around with it:

1-Yes CF24 sucks bad. But who cares- just do 24p in post if you want 24p.
2-CF30 is really cool and looks great.
3-I like all the cinegamma tones.
4-The body seems a bit fragile...i would be scared as hell to drop this cam- unlike my old DV953 with a magnesium body I could throw around all day, the FX1 is a beautiful cam but apears fragile.
5-She looks super professional, you would have no problem getting the right attention with this cam.
6-the integrated lens cover is awesome and fast.
7-I wish it shipped with some drivers and capture utility.
8-the extra contured eye piece was a nice suprise
9-the zoom is really nice- very smooth and accurate, the best ive seen in a cam
10-LCD and firmware are sharp and programmed intuitivly
11-at shutter speeds less than 60 some strobing may occor
12-the focus ring is great and has a good amount of DOF....mini35 may not be needed to get good DOF- [still experimenting]
13-HDV Life looks much much more vibrant and sharp than real life, its truly amazing in 60i

[Heath McKnight]

I felt the camera was solid.

heath

[Davi Dortas]

Why is their never a final impression?

[Bill Ravens]

I find it amusing that when DV first came out, everyone cried, "OH, it's too sharp, it doesn't look like film at all!!" Now that HDV is out, everyone praises the sharpness.
Guess I just don't get it.

[Heath McKnight]

Davi,

What are you asking, exactly? Are you trying to move this discussion forward?

hwm

[Davi Dortas]

I keep reading of conflicting reports of fx1 vs dvx100 vs vx2100 on low light performance, on build quality, on noise issue, etc, etc.

One guy says low light sucks, then another guy says its better than vx2100. then before I knows it, is low light performance better or worse? and if low light is rated at 3 lux vs 1 lux of vx2100, does it mean it is worse for fx1 or does it mean the vx2100 is worse for picture sharpness but not brightness. because i have a handycam can record in 0 lux, but it dont mean its any good, cause either the picture is really grainy or is totally green.

I'm just still trying to find good source of final impression because sometimes first impression dont always cover the wrong things of a camcorder, like for instance the dvx100, many problems of that camcorder when it first came out but first impression everyone says its the best camera, etc, etc. That is why panasonic came out with a DVX100a no less than a year later, which means something wrong with the first version. I bought it on hypes of first impression and was severally burned for listening to first impressions, so I am not saying John is an idiot or anything like that, I just was wondering about why there is no final impression of a camcorder like this that cost quite a few money.

[Heath McKnight]

I see what you're saying now, thanks for the clarification.

For me, I can only say that the FX1 is better than the HD10 mostly because of the single chip and the seemingly subpar and possibly rushed manufacturing and design of the HD10.

I didn't do much work with the DVX100A, but I do like the 24p option on the DVX100A, but you can "make" 24p with software and the FX1. But I do know that as crisp and clear as the DVX100A image is, the FX1 is better. The colors are better, less muted, but that might be because I might not have been using the DVX100A to its full extent (and maybe the colors won't be so muted).

heath

[Chris Hurd]

<< I just was wondering about why there is no final impression of a camcorder like this that cost quite a few money. >>

Everything is relative. There are many people, myself included, who would tell you that this camcorder is actually very inexpensive. For $3700 they're practically giving it away. If it seems like it costs too much, then you should not consider buying it. Any camcorder is always one of only two things: it is either a business tool or it is a luxury item. If it is a business tool then no matter what it costs, it will earn your money back quickly. If it is a luxury item, well, if it's too expensive then you should not buy it.

There is no "final impression" because this camera is still very new and people are lerarning it. There will be no "final impression" for a couple of years yet.

Davi: think very carefully about what you say here. This message board is for the exchange of technical information only. Negativity will not go very far in this community. In general terms, any piece of electronic recording equipment is only as good as its user. The popularity of the original Panasonic DVX100, with a large base of shooters who were very happy to have it, is an excellent example of this.

Finally, I'd like to thank John Gaspain for sharing his first impression, it's very much appreciated. That's what this place is all about.

[Davi Dortas]

Chris i understand, I only express negativity towards to the DVX100, like it was very troubling camcorder for me. I cannot express my negativity? Are we all suppose to be holding hands and sing and dancing on a grassy mountain top like they do in the movies?

I come here to enjoy posts of these technical nature. My first post on this board helped me with problems with my DVX100 and many people were helpful in those technical matters.

Yes that why I ask if there is never final impression, because it would be nice because I buy fx1, I can make final impression very quickly. I dont think you need years to come to "final impression". John post helpful info's yes.

[Heath McKnight]

Davi,

I think what Chris was saying is don't just out and out trash something without backing it up. I saw really nothing you said that backs up anything about the DVX100 or the 100A (the A came out with more cinegamma controls and more, so filmmakers would consider picking it up--sweetening the deal, ya know).

I have a friend who is a frequent DV Info contributor, Jon Fordham, and he loves both the 100 and the 100A and is very excited about the FX1. Not only that, but Jon didn't like the HD10 and backed up what he said based on HIS experiences with the camera, not speculation and what others may have said.

I will have a review of the FX1 up soon, based on around 20 hours of use, including an independent film I was a camera operator (and unofficial co-DoP) on.

heath

[Barry Green]

Another reason you're not likely to see a "final impression" is that these cameras are SO NEW. The DVX has been around for a couple of years, which is plenty enough time for people to have used them under a wide variety of circumstances, learned all about them, encountered limitations, been pleasantly surprised, shared info, read reviews, etc...

Very few people have an FX1 right now. And of those who do have them, how many have put them "to the test"? How many have shot a professional job on 'em? It's just too new. The opportunities haven't arisen yet.

Check back in a year for the "final impression", once people know it inside and out and have worked with it under all sorts of conditions -- that's when someone will be able to give their fully-informed, complete impression.

[Dylan Pank]

There are so many first impressions because I think as soon as people get the camera out of the box, they're pretty keen to tell people how they get on with it (and I think others are pretty keen to read that).

I'm only guessing so forgive me if I make a wrong assumption, but I think English is not Davi's first language (just a first impression you know ;-] ) so maybe you're not familiar with the expression.

Generally you can't give a "final impression" until the last time you ever use a camera. My "final impression" of the VX1000 was formed about the time I started using the PD150, and my "final impression" of the PD150 will probably be when I move on to some model of HDV camera.

I don;t think its' going to take a year, I think it'll come once someobne gets to use the think in anger, rather than just checking it out, and hopefully the information will be stronger than a mere impression. What we're waiting for in an authoritative review. I think when Heath is done with his shooting he'll be able to give us such.

[Dylan Pank]

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens :I find it amusing that when DV first came out, everyone cried, "OH, it's too sharp, it doesn't look like film at all!!" Now that HDV is out, everyone praises the sharpness.
Guess I just don't get it. -->>>

If I remember it - what people complained about in DV was the edge sharpening filter that seemed to be stuck on all the time in DV, though in some cameras it can be turned down. There's supposedly something similar that goes on in the HD1 that some have complained about. What people like in HDV is the resolution but even that can be a problem.

I heard something (and I'll cite my authoritative source: a guy in a bar) about some porn production company was shooting their first HD production. The director freaked out when he saw that, for a close up (of god knows what) the DoP was using a diffusion filter one the camera. "Take that filter out," demands the director. "This is HD - I don't want to lose any quality! what's the point of using HD if you're going to fuzz it up with filters"

So the DoP obligingly removes the offending filter then leads the director over to the HD monitor to see the shot, where suddenly every blemish, pore and hair is seen in horrifying, almost medical detail.

Needless to say, after that they put the filter back in.

(actually I think the story is bullshit, I think most porn directors like their stuff diffused to hell, but the story makes a point)

[Davi Dortas]

Somewheres in San Fernando valley, 30 productions are being shot right now with the FX1.

[Chris Hurd]

Well you've definitely got that right.