Z5/1000 Autofocus-The Anti-Christ of Face Detection?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

The HMC-150 looks good, but it is only have 960X540 pixel count, offset pixel shift bring them to 1280X720, compared it to Sony or Canon on a good 1920X1080 display makes you wonder is the Panny out of focus, just because somebody is good with wedding doesn't mean that he can test camera, sure the camera has some exellent features, but doesn't mean that Sony and Canon are no good either, I almost got it until I did side by side with my A1, it is no where near the resolution of Canon A1, it is nice and smooth but don't have that wow factor when looking at it on a big 61 inch HDTV.

I have heard too that the Panasonic's picture quality is just not in the same league as the Sony. I also really doubt the low light of the Panny is as good. I'm finding the low light of the Z5/1000 is in a class by itself.

I'm not sure if you guys saw the CCI preliminary test on the FX1000, but they got resolution numbers that significantly outclassed even the Canon XHA1. In fact, it was not even close! CCI got the highest resolution numbers they've ever gotten with any camcorder they've tested.

[Greg Laves]

Ken, do you have a link to this resolution information?

[Jeff Harper]

These cams are all so close overall in image quality I don't see the difference as significant.

It comes down to personal preference, IMO. I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.

Those that make a living with the cams as I do simply choose based on how the tool works for them. In my case, for example, I would appreciate going back to a 12x zoom for a specific reason, but that does mean the camera I choose or exclude is better or worse, it means I selected a tool that does the best job for me.

[John Gayman]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

John
What you read here is the experience of only 4 !!! people with the " auto focus problem" but you might have 100s or many many more that are happy with this camera. What I would recommend is to try the camera yourself before you make any decision.
Stelios

I agree, however I've been reading quite a few threads on-line that all seem to suggest that the auto-focus on the FX-1000 can be problematic. Most threads also seem to suggest that anyone coming from a VX2000/VX2100 is likely to be disappointed.

I have no way to try before I buy and I am very hesitant to spend $3200 on a new camera only to discover it is sub-par. I've bought far too much equipment over the years and have learned that even when a particular piece of new gear gets rave reviews it is likely to still have some minor issues. But... when there are reports of issues with something as basic as focus or image quality it's good practice to proceed very cautiously - or look elsewhere.

Again, my uses are for fast moving subjects under challenging lighting conditions. If a wedding photographer is having focus issues it is very likely that I would experience total failure.

[Khoi Pham]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

These cams are all so close overall in image quality I don't see the difference as significant.

It comes down to personal preference, IMO. I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.

Those that make a living with the cams as I do simply choose based on how the tool works for them. In my case, for example, I would appreciate going back to a 12x zoom for a specific reason, but that does mean the camera I choose or exclude is better or worse, it means I selected a tool that does the best job for me.

You must have compared it on a small monitor, 45 inch or below it is even hard to tell the difference, compare them on 50 inch or more at a distance of about 7 feet or 60 inch at 10 feet and you will see the Pany lose the wow factor, or record a wide shot on both camera and you will see how soft the Pany is, this is between the XH A1 and 150, I don't know about the Z5 though.

[Jeff Harper]

Khoi, did you compare images shot at the same distance of the same subject taken at the same time?

John, the auto focus can be slow on the FX1000, but under normal lighting it is fine, IMO and is certainly not a huge issue for me. It is just a matter of learning the camera. It is something that can be overcome. On the other hand their may be other issues for you cannot be overcome with this camera, I don't know.

If you would like to read a review of a competing camera you might read Mark Von Lanken's review of the Panasonic. Mark, as you may know, is a three time WEVA hall of famer and a recent convert to the Panasonic. He has shot with the Z7, Z1, and many other cameras and has been all Sony till recently. I happen to own one of his instructional videos, and I have a high regard for his expertise.

Take a look at his review: EventDV.net: In the Field: Panasonic AG-HMC150

Is is a better camera? Who would say so? Not me. I like my FX1000 for the most part. On the other hand I am not afraid to look around at other brands nor am I loyal to Sony or any brand. To me they are tools no different than brands of hammers or screwdrivers.

Is the auto focus better on the Panasonic? I doubt it is much better, to be truthful, but I don't know and Mark's review may or may not address that issue, I didn't read it all the way through. I read somwhere yesterday, I think Tom H said the lens ramping on the Panny 150 is severe, and that would be a deal breaker for me.

As has been said, there is no perfect camera. Contrary to other opinions, I don't think the FX1000 is as bad as some say, nor as good as others say.

But I will tell you that when used by someone who knows how to use a camera, the images are fantastic, particularly in great lighting. They are not bad in less than perfect lighitng, but require more skill to achieve.

[Tim Akin]

Jeff, I wonder how the HMC-150 would cut in with the 1000's. If we were to get a 150 to work along side the 1000's, you could use the 150 for the hand held and steady-cam work (lighter, no rolling shutter) and then use it as the C-cam for the ceremony. The drawbacks would be working with AVCHD, trying to match the footage to the 1000 in post and of coarse learning two different cameras. If you end up liking the panny better and when NLE’s handle AVCHD as well as HDV, replace the 1000's with 150's. Just a thought.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

Ken, do you have a link to this resolution information?

Here you go Greg. You'll need to scroll down the page where you'll find the comparison of the Canon with the Sony. The Sony measures an amazing 900 lines of horizontal resolution. They were in the process of testing out the Sony at the time of the Canon review:

Canon XL H1A Camcorder Review - Canon HDV Camcorders

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I've seen the images of the Panasonic side by side with the FX1000 and there is virtually no difference of any importance. Panasonic users swear the cams have a much more film-like, organic look, but again, it comes down to preference.

Jeff, in my experience 'film-like' often translates to 'less sharp'. I'd be willing to bet that the Panny doesn't begin to have the resolution of the 1000/Z5 (900 lines). To some that's not a big deal, but if you're after the sharpest HDV picture, I believe the Sony will deliver that.

[Jeff Harper]

Ken for the absolute sharpest, it might be possible the Sony will deliver a sharper picuture, I don't know. I personally don't need the absolute sharpest or absolute best anything...I'm trying to do a job with my cams and I need a camera that will allow me to get the images I need and bring my product to life. As I mentioned I 've seen the images and they look fine from both cameras to me. The difference is mimimal. I think this can be beaten to death and over analyzed. I am not shooting feature films, I'm shooting wedding videos and corporate videos. I know people making much more money than me with much older technology than mine. I think some of this gets into hairsplitting.

People with more years more experience than me like both cameras, some like the Panasonic more. Some like the Sony more. I say the difference comes down to preference.

At least one person has posted in the Panny forum that they own both cameras and like the Panasonic more, but I forgot who it was.

Tim, I don't think they would cut well together, but I don't know. The look of the two cameras is reportedly different. I don't think I'd mix them, personally.

You should check out the Panasonic forum, I'm sure there is someone over there who has shot with both, I just can't think who it was.

[Jeff Harper]

BTW Tim, don't think I hadn't already thought of mixing these two cams! I guess great (or insane) minds think alike.

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.

[Tim Akin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

BTW Tim, don't think I hadn't already thought of mixing these two cams! I guess great (or insane) minds think alike.

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.

For me, 'INSANE' would be correct.

[Martin Duffy]

After I did my investigation on the idea, which was before I even received my first FX1000, I came to the conclusion the different look of the cams would be too much for me.[/QUOTE]



I can't agree more here. Last dance season my videos looked fantastic as we rean identical cameras (Panasonic DVC62 & DC30 - same lens)

This past Nov/Dec I mixed a Canon with Z1 and Z5's and it was much more difficult getting consistency.

We run a headset and what works well for us is to talk each other through the F stop settings. I run a monitor feed of the other camera so I can check the B cams framing and check out focus and F stop.

Its amazing and a bit of fun saying hey "Are we a bit hot" I am on 3.4 or no mate lets go 2.8. Between the two of you you end up getting it right.

[Ken Ross]

I don't know if you guys saw the completed review of the FX1000 on CCI, but it's up on their site.

On the positive side they felt the overall image quality was comparable to the twice as expensive Canon that they compared it to. They mentioned the resolution of the 1000 was simply unbelievable and soundly trounced the Canon. This provided better static and motion clarity with less blurring.

On the negative side, and something I can't begin to understand having seen the output of both cameras, they felt the low-light of the Canon was better!!! HUH? The Canon is clearly more laden with low-light noise than the much cleaner FX1000/Z5 in typical low-light conditions. Their conclusion was based on using NO gain in low light scenes and measuring the resulting brightness. In my opinion that's a totally unrealistic methodology to determine low-light capability, especially with a camera that produces so relatively little noise with gain levels up to +9 to +12db.

Once the cameras are used as they would be in normal situations (with gain), the Sony is clearly the better low-light performer...no contest. In fact most Canon owners acknowledge this fact.

They did criticize (and I would agree) the small buttons and rather difficult access to these buttons. However, most owners would adjust to these buttons and I would think this would become less of an issue with time. But the Canon is a bigger camera and therefore has more real estate for better button layout. It's a give and take.

With all this, they did conclude that they were surprised at how well the 1000 stood up to the much more expensive Canon, producing a comparable picture. It should also be mentioned that a number of their negative findings would be eliminated with the Z5 with its better manual adjustments and inputs/outputs.

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for pointing out the review, Ken.

I don't know about many of the specifics of the review, but much of it is muddied because the reviewer only compared it to the pro version of the Canon and to a higher end Panasonic AG-HVX200.

I agree with much of the review. The buttons and controls are terribly placed and awkward, but most everyone has acknowledged that already.

As said before, the camera is not as good as some say, and not as bad as others say.

To me the LCD is valuable, as it is pretty true and I find that feature alone can be a justification for the cam.

The review overall left me yawning.

If the review addressed the responsiveness of the auto focus, I missed it. That would not normally be overlooked in a professional review.

This was not as exhaustive of a review as I would have preferred to see. And comparison to the FX1000's closest priced competition, the Panasonic 150 is a glaring omission that IMO makes the review less relevant than it could have been.