FX1000 Sample Clips

[Steve Haasman]

Let's start a post with sample clips of the fx1000.

Here are a few of mine:
http://vimeo.com/2746361 - low light and focus tests
http://vimeo.com/2703850 - random tests, with good lighting

[Jeff Harper]

OK, I'm game.

Love the cats Steve! I'm a cat owner myself!

Clip below must be downloaded prior to viewing, it's 70MB wmv file.

http://jeffharpervideo.com/Videos/wmv/BrandyMisc

[Steve Haasman]

I figured the other camera sections have a 'sample clip' area...we need one too!

[Wolfgang Winne]

FX1000 vs. Canon XHA1
with my native sample clips.

Link: Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Januar 2009
in english: Wolf course video blog - January 2009

[Ken Ross]

So Wolfgang, which camera looked better overall?

[Martin Duffy]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

So Wolfgang, which camera looked better overall?

I have always thought the Canon's in good light have a nicer picture. Sony's a bit "plasticy" to me.

Plasticy - Is that a word?

[Jeff Harper]

From what I could see they look very similar. Martin it sounds like you think the Canon has a warmer image. I have always like the Canon's images. I personally don't see any significant difference.

[Jo Ouwejan]

In the last (5th) test the Sony had more trouble with the headlights of the car, than the Canon, I think. For the rest I believe they more or less level out. But let's wait for Wolfgangs reaction . . .

[Wolfgang Winne]

Which camera is now better? Let me because of my bad english first to german answer:

Zur Zeit habe ich drei Kameras getestet, FX1000, XHA1 und XHA1s. Alle Kameras können über Picture Profile oder Preset in Farbe und Kontrast optimiert werden, damit ist es sehr schwer die Kameras direkt zu vergleichen. Die Canon Kameras bieten hier feinere Einstellungen, deshalb lassen sich die Farben nach Testchart und Vectorscop genauer einstellen.
Schaut man sich meine gefilmten Bilder genauer an, kann ich in Detailauflösung keinen Unterschied feststellen, beide Kameras spielen in der selben Liga. Sogar die Farbfehler des Objektiv sind absolut gleich. Große Unterschiede gibt es jeweils in der Ausstattung, hier bietet die Canon einfach mehr, man müßte sie mit der Z5 vergleichen, aber auch da besitzt Canon mehr Halbautomatiken und den etwas besseren IF-A Autofokus.
Bei LowLight rauscht die Sony weniger ist aber keinesfalls Lichtempfindlicher. Bei der Canon kann zwar der Rauschfilter im Preset eingestellt werden und rauscht dann auch nicht mehr, aber es gibt dann bei bewegten Szenen schlieren. Welche Kamera ist nun besser? CCD oder CMOS?

Babelfish english:
This time I tested three cameras, FX1000, XHA1 and XHA1s. All cameras can be optimized over "Picture profiles" or "Preset" in color and contrast, thus are it very heavily the cameras to be compared directly. Canon cameras offer here finer attitudes, therefore the colors can be adjusted after colorchart and Vectorscop more exactly. If one looks at oneself my filmed pictures more exactly, I cannot determine a difference in detail resolution, both cameras play in the same league. Even the color defects (CA) objective are absolutely alike. Large differences there are in the handling, here offers in each case Canon simply more, one would have it with the Z5 to compare, in addition, Canon of more manuel possesses and the somewhat better IF-A autofocus there. With LowLight Sony does not rush, but they is not more photo-sensitive. At Canon the noise filter can be adjusted in the Preset and rushes then also not more, but there are then with moved scenes streaks. Which camera is now better? CCD or CMOS?

FX1000:
+ better LCD
+ smoother LowLight
+ no smear in lights
+ "better" wideangel
- rollin shutter
- no XLR

XHA1(s):
+ better IR Autofocus (LowLight)
+ better handling (automatic, manual mode TV+AV, XLR)
+ no rolling shutter
+ better Preset (+-50)
- smear in lights
- grain (Gain is +3dB or higher)
- no HDMI Out

[Ken Ross]

Thanks Wolfgang. So it looks to me that the Z5 would overcome some of the Canon advantages in your list (better handling & better presets) and might then be clearly better than the Canon. I'm out of town now and can't download your footage.

There is one thing that concerns me that maybe some owners here can address. My friend just bought the Z5 (which he'll bring over to my house later this week) and he noticed that the camera tends to significantly smear the image detail while panning. He was comparing it to his Sony SR12 and was surprised that the Sony held detail much better while panning.

I actually noticed this when I did my FX1000 test at the Sony store. I had my Canon AVCHD HG21 with me. I was really surprised that the Canon held the detail beautifully as I panned while the 1000 did smear the detail in the same kind of pan. The Canon was set at its highest bitrate of 24mbps. As most of you probably know, that's actually considerably higher than the HDV bitrate since the AVCHD codec is far more efficient. So the same bitrates between HDV & AVCHD will look better in AVCHD.

Are you guys seeing this smearing in your typical work and if so, how bad do you find it?

The strange thing is I used the Canon HV20 (HDV) for quite awhile as my own personal camera and never really noticed this issue to any great degree. Perhaps I'm just over-analyzing this?

[Jeff Harper]

The differences between these cams comes down to preference. They are not significantly different. If you like Canon, the Canon is the better choice. If you like Sony the Sony is the better choice. A teeny bit better one way or the other makes no difference, particlularly if you are a professional with an investment in a brand.

You look at the features, and pick one if you don't have a brand preference. Play with it, and if you don't like it send it back.

[Ken Ross]

Jeff, have you noticed the blurring on panning?

[Jeff Harper]

nope, Fx1000 pans beautifully. I am now rendering a clip with some pans, not whip pans, but pans, and I'll post it in a few minutes.

Wow, a 2 minuted clip with MB is taking 45 minutes. I guess the i7 is in my future.

[Ken Ross]

My friend brought his Z5 over today and after all was said and done, I was very impressed! The ability of this cam to extract large amounts of detail, color and sharpness in indoor lighting conditions is truly amazing. It just blows anything I've tried away. We conducted all our HD tests on my Pioneer 60" Kuro and for our SD tests we used both a 20" Sony CRT as well as my JVC 14" studio monitor.

For HD, we did an A/B with my Canon HG21 and the Z5. Surprisingly the Canon did quite well outdoors, even besting the Sony a tad in detail. But in terms of color, exposure latitude and noise, the Sony won out. The difference in wide angle was huge.

Indoors it was a slam dunk for the Sony in virtually any kind of indoor lighting. The Z5 actually beat out the Canon in detail as well as trounced it in color, exposure and noise. It's really interesting how when playing with the master black levels & knee adjustments, you can almost mimic many aspects of the Canon picture. You really begin to see how a company gives their consumer cams a certain 'look' with these 'behind the scenes adjustments'.

I then did an A/B with my VX2100 and found the Z5 to have both better color and detail than the VX2100. The gap was wider than I thought it would be. I know some have thought the 1000/Z5 to be a bit flatter than the 2100, but I surely didn't find that. For those that do, I'd bet touching up the black levels would bring things even. I just thought the overall SD picture was a step above the 2100.

At any rate my Z5 arrives tomorrow. I was sold.

[Wacharapong Chiowanich]

Ken, what mode (60i, 30p, 24p or 24p-in-60i) did you do the comparison shooting on?

Wacharapong