Just not the same

[Bill Grant]

Jeff,
I am not a FX1000 user but as an ex VX2100 user i wanted to comment. I am using Canon A1s and am consitently blown away with this camera compared to the VX2100. I never liked the picture from the 2100. I thought it was dull and lifeless in low light. I thought in regular light, it was very videoish with overblown colors and too much contrast. I think the Canon has an incredible image and I love these cams in way I never loved the 2100. I am waiting for the Canon response to these new cameras (HMC-150, FX1000) this is a very interesting discussion to me. It does seem that every time a new camera comes out, there's this honeymoon period where you hear nothing but how the camera is going to solve all of the problems in the world, and it eventually doesn't. I do identify with you alot on how all of the new settings and switches present a real learning curve. I will be following your prgress, so post some footage as it comes up.
Bill

[Steve Wolla]

What he said!
Bill, I totally agree with your comments.

Jeff, I think as a VX2100 user at work, and Canon A1/Panny HMC150 user at home, the reason the VX 2100 seems idiot proof is because it cannot offer you anywheres near the control your new Sony does. I use a 2100 at work, and really wish bthat I could use my A1 there as well. Once you learn how to use it, it's just so powerful a cam.

Your cam is like the A1, too. In which there will be a steep learning curve, because its HD, and you have soooo many more options in image control.
Be patient, get to know your new tool and it will serve you very well indeed. Focus on the presets.

[Jeff Harper]

I greatly appreciate the comments and support in this thread.

I have come to see through watching my footage on DVD and through your comments that the cam is fine.

Began this thread before I had taken the time to render out footage and view it on DVD. It was clear upon watching the footage that it is OK. As far as personal preference, I still am not crazy bout the image. It does seem soft to me. I think it is my being accustomed to the hard image of my old cam.

Bill, while you found the VX2100 image dull and lifeless, I liked it. This comes down to personal taste, for which there is no explaining, of course.

Anyway, it is clear after playing with the settings on my FX1000 the last couple of days that I cannot run this camera as if it is a VX2100.

FWIW, I am about to order another one of these cameras and get an audio adapter for it. I have committed to learning the camera and working with it. I would like very much to buy a Z5 but can't see spending the extra $ks.

As an aside to Bill, I must say that your comments about your Canon, Bill, sound like most other users of your cam...they love it. When it first came out I wanted one more than anything. I absolutely love what I've seen of it's footage...I'd like to shoot with one for a day. I love the physical looks of the camera and the layout more than any other I've seen. And yes the image does appear to have the characteristics that I call soft, but it is soft in a good way. I can't explain it, I just like what I've seen of that camera.

As a Sony user, I decided that while I wanted that Canon, it wouldn't be prudent to switch over 4 cams to another brand, and I regretfully let go of the idea.

But at any rate I feel confident the FX1000 will work out well.

[Ken Ross]

Jeff, I too am considering the 1000 and I'm curious if you've viewed HD footage from it on an HDTV. I wasn't clear if you have an HDTV or if you're using the 1000 exclusively as an SD camera.

Although I haven't seen the 1000 personally, I'm confident you'll grow to love it as you learn its capabilities.

[Jon Goulden]

I'm in this section because I want to buy either a Z5U or FX1000 as a second camera to my Z7U (purchased last May). I too have found the transition from the VX2100/2000 to the Z7U to be 'interesting'.

I'm finding the low light capability to be about the same but the Z7U is more likely to lose focus in autofocus mode vs the old cameras. I am assuming that this will be the same with the Z5U and FX1000.

For the first few months I was mixing video from all 3 cameras (Z7U, VX2100, VX2000). On the monitor it seemed like the old cameras were 'better' overall but the Z7U seemed to have slightly more contrast. When I output to DVD however, the general viewer liked the Z7U footage much better than the VX2100/2000 footage. Mixing the footage together probably had some impact on thi BUT I also suspect that part of this is due to my own learning curve. After 7 years on the VX2000/2100, I had developed a sense of what translated well from the monitor to a TV. I have to 'relearn' this for the new cameras.

Portions of the Z7U footage turn out so well that I've decided to go all the way. I sold my old VX2100 and VX2000 to B&H 2 weeks ago and waiting for the Z5U to be available so that I can see what the street price will really be. It is hard to image that B&H will sell the Z7U (which includes the CF recorder) for less than the Z5U plus CF recorder (this is what the web site shows today).

[Ken Ross]

Jon, you mentioned that you preferred the footage of the 2100/2000, but yet you found the 'general viewer' like the Z7 footage better. What was it that they liked and you didn't?

[Tom Hardwick]

Another question fromme too - how on earth do you compare a 4:3 camera with a 16:9 one? By letterboxing one or pillarboxing the other?

[Ken Ross]

I was thinking he was shooting the Z7 in DV mode and not HDV.

[Bill Grant]

Jeff,
I sweat quite a bit over my decision to move to canon. When I got into the business a short 3 yrs ago canon was the GL2 or the Xl1s or whatever. Neither a great camera for weddings. The only obvious choice was the VX2100/PD170. When I decided to go HD, I discarded brand loyalty, and focussed on what I saw that impressed me out there(footage wise) what jumped out was the A1. The FX1 seemed to be sort of an HD VX2100, and I had used an HVX200 and knew that the low light was considerably worse. I have to say though that it has taken me almost a year to start getting 70% happy with the image I'm getting(i look at 70% as exstatic). I know now and knew then that it had to do with me as much as the camera, and that is why the payoff now is so sweet...
Bill

[Jeff Harper]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Jeff, I too am considering the 1000 and I'm curious if you've viewed HD footage from it on an HDTV.

Ken: My televisions are HD and I have viewed the images from the FX1000 on it. The 2 weddings I've shot I did use HD settings. However I rendered them out as NTSC widescreen, and so I have not seem them as blu-ray or HD.

Bill, your encouragement is appreciated.

Tom you are not the first to ask how one can compare an 4:3 image to a 16:9 image.

Looking at the situation from a purely technical point of view, you can't, of course.

But I can tell you this: I learned the 2100 well enough that when viewers watched my videos of hi-res professional wedding photos mixed with video from my 2100 they were pleased, and often stunned. They matched up surprisingly well. The SD video looked great on my screen. As long as I could get a prospect into my viewing room, they almost always bought my product. In the last year I've not booked two out of 40 or so customers. The rest booked strictly off of my website.

I made the move to the FX1000 not so much for HD but for 16:9. I am now glad I have joined the HD club though.

I look forward to the prospect of getting a blu-ray burner and trying it out, but since most of my customers are viewing with non-blu-ray players I'm not feeling pressed about it yet. With the price of blu-ray dropping now (saw one advertised for just under $200) that may change.

Anyway, the prospect of having a camera that shoots nicely in 16:9 is exciting, and I'm looking forward to ordering my second FX1000 this week (that is if my sale of my old PD150 and VX2100 goes through tomorrow).

[Tom Hardwick]

Good answer Jeff. You've not thought you should hold fire for the Z5? I bought an FX1 and a Z1 and can't believe how much nicer the Z1 is to use and customise. And of course you need to plug in XLRs in your game don't you?

[Jeff Harper]

Tom I would of course very much like a Z5, but I don't know that the extra $ are worth it to me. The FX1000 is stretching my budget as it is. I plan on buying an audio adapter for the second FX1000, the CX235. I think the price difference of around $2K is too much.

I will remove the adapter for the reception, as I am generally happy with the onboard mics for use at the reception and need the shoe for lighting. That lack of a second built in shoe is something I really don't care for, but I'm trying to work around it. I have an adpater for adding a second shoe for my VX2100 but it throws the balance of the camera off so much I don't use it.

With the 2100 I ran a Rode Videomic at the ceremony which I disconnected for the reception. I found the auto gain didn't seem to work with the Rode attached and the loudness at the reception was too much. Rear camera at the ceremony was the PD150 with the wireless attached which we took off for the reception.

Edit: I saw today that the Z5 is only $1K more than the the FX1000. Might spring for it.

[Martin Duffy]

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Jeff what audio XLR box do you think you will get.

This is must do for me as I got caught out on Saturday night.

I plugged an Australian made balun box in that I new was "sus" and yep it let me down.

I hear the Beachtec is really good.

Anything small and reliable that has line/XLR selector would be great.

On the FX1000 I do suggest running the LCD screen on high. I had it on the low setting and accidently overexpossed a lot of my shots.

This is a good camera but like all cameras in the range lacks here and there.

The zoom I find a bit disapointing. My Panasonic DVC30 is swear had 6-7 speeds and made it possible to do slow creeps and ultra fast zooms. The FX1000 has an "OK" zoom in this regard.

I tested it against my old trusted Sony TRV900 and its a tad faster in zoom speed so I am sure I will live with it.

On the LCD screen well it is nothing short of amazing. Well done to Sony here.

On Auto focus it really struggled when the lights went from a black out to fully on. Like it just wouldn't focus up for 4-5 seconds. Once in focus it was good.
Ok, OK just go manual but sometimes auto focus is handy on those nights when all is going wrong and auto focus is the go.

Overall I know I will be happy and I think we should all remember that we will never get a perfect cam for the bucks we are paying.

Fo an XLR box I will say only one box Juicedlink Juicedlink XLR Adapters

Do a search for info on Juicedlink on these forums as they have been reviewed in detail by myself and other on here.

in essense they are cheaper in price than the Beachtek boxes and by far superior in audio fidelity, ue to the built in low noise pre amps.

[Jon Goulden]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Jon, you mentioned that you preferred the footage of the 2100/2000, but yet you found the 'general viewer' like the Z7 footage better. What was it that they liked and you didn't?

I found that the VX2100/2000 footage looked better on my monitor, hence I thought it would be better in output. The Z7U footage didn't look as good on the monitor but , in the DVD output with mixed Z7U and VX2100/2000 footage, the 7U was brighter and crisper. So I agreed with the 'general viewer' of the output but I didn't expect this based on my previous experience with what I'd seen from the monitor.