SONY V1E to FX1000 at DVinfo.net

Deniz Ahmet · September 16th, 2009, 09:47 AM

Dear folks,

Can anyone tell me how the V1 compares with the FX1000 in low light and in general picure quality?

Is it a noticable step up ?

Many thanks!

Adam Gold · September 16th, 2009, 11:34 AM

I have FX7s, which are the same, image-wise, as the V1s, and I can tell you the FX1000 is dramatically better in low light. I still love and use my FX7s, but the FX1000 blows away any other cam I've ever owned.

But if you are used to more of the pro settings of the V1, you may wish to consider the Z5, which isn't that much more expensive than the FX1000 -- especially if you think you will want to use the MRC tapeless unit at some point.

The only real advantage of the FX7/V1 -- and it's a big one for me -- is the much longer tele reach of the older cam compared to the newer one.

Tom Hardwick · September 16th, 2009, 01:56 PM

Adam's right - the tiny ¼" chips in the V1 limit it's low-light abilities alarmingly, whereas the 1"/3 chips in the FX1000 are a good 78% bigger in surface area.

Because of the small chips the V1 has more difficulty with obtaining differential focus, even though its tele f stop is f/2.8 (as against f/3.4 on the FX1000). I think this feature has relevance when you talk of 'picture quality'.

Not sure what Adam means when he talks of 'much longer reach' of the V1, as both cams have 20x zooms. FX1 in his mind maybe?

tom.

Adam Gold · September 16th, 2009, 02:07 PM

They're both 20x, but as the FX1000 starts wider it doesn't go as tight. That's why I was careful to say longer reach rather than longer zoom, because as you point out the zoom ratios are the same.

The FX7/V1 goes to a 35mm equivalent of 748mm, which is about 25% longer than the FX1000/Z5's 590mm equiv. The FX1 maxes out at 390mm.

Remember, zoom ratios are largely meaningless unless you know where they start and end.

Deniz Ahmet · September 17th, 2009, 04:00 AM

thanks guys...

The only thing going for the V1E for me currently is the compact size and weight - meaning it works great on a Steadicam Merlin.

Seems the HX1000 is a fair bit heavier.

Regarding the light issues - does anyone have a test shot showing the FX1000 in typical low indoor light? Does it still look HD - because the V1 just ends up looking like SD.

Thank you

Jo Ouwejan · September 17th, 2009, 11:22 AM

You might have a look at this:
Comparing Canon HV20 with Sony FX1000 under low light on Vimeo

Adam Gold · September 17th, 2009, 11:28 AM

In "typical low indoor light" the V1/FX7 shouldn't look like anything less than HD unless you let it gain up all the way. I shoot in low theatrical lighting all the time with the FX7 and it never looks like SD, but then I limit the gain to 9dB or less. It looks dark, but not like SD.

That being said, the FX1000 is at least two stops faster than the FX1/Z1 and even faster than that compared to the FX7/V1. I've gotten stuff with the FX1000 that I just simply couldn't get at all with the FX1, and I think that cam's pretty good in low light, all things considered. And yes, the tape from the FX1000 in low light is extremely HD.

Garry Moore · September 20th, 2009, 11:00 AM

I'm sure Jeff Harper and Stelios Christofides can give some valuable insight too, they have recently made this transition...

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/jeff-harper.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/...istofides.html

Stelios Christofides · September 20th, 2009, 11:39 AM

Having used the FX7 for several occasions (corporate videos, weddings, christenings, e.t.c.) and now the Z5, I can tell you that the picture quality if the 1/3" chips of the Z5 is superior to the FX7. Also I can shoot now with the Z5 with no lights in situations where as I had to use them for the FX7. Don't get me wrong though, the FX7 is an excellent camera and I am still using it as a second camera though and where illumination is no problem. Of Course the Z5 is a more "professional" camera than the FX7.

Stelios

Jeff Harper · September 28th, 2009, 09:46 AM

Deniz, re: the FX1000 in low light, even in HD the FX1000/Z5 can look no better than SD. If you are looking for great HD images, you must use light, with ANY camera, even a 1/2 chip camera like the EX1.

Great images in SD or HD must have light. The FX1000/z5 is not a miracle camera in low light; it is simply a 1/3" chip camera that shoots nice images if you have sufficient light, and because it has bigger chips it will blow away the V1 in low light.

The V1 does not come close, IMO. If you shoot weddings, I can guarantee you the v1 will do poorly during dimly lit ceremonies, not even close. In situations where you are using onboard light it would do fine, but in natural/ low light situations the V1 cannot compete.

I put great importance on my ceremony footage, and would never use less than a 1/3" chipped camera if I could help it. I find even that is too small, IMO, but it is workable.

September 16th, 2009, 09:47 AM	#1
Deniz Ahmet Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LONDON Posts: 178	SONY V1E to FX1000 Dear folks, Can anyone tell me how the V1 compares with the FX1000 in low light and in general picure quality? Is it a noticable step up ? Many thanks!

September 20th, 2009, 11:00 AM	#8
Garry Moore Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Aurora, IN Posts: 45	V1 to Fx1000 I'm sure Jeff Harper and Stelios Christofides can give some valuable insight too, they have recently made this transition... http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/jeff-harper.html http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/...istofides.html

September 20th, 2009, 11:39 AM	#9
Stelios Christofides Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS Posts: 1,080	Having used the FX7 for several occasions (corporate videos, weddings, christenings, e.t.c.) and now the Z5, I can tell you that the picture quality if the 1/3" chips of the Z5 is superior to the FX7. Also I can shoot now with the Z5 with no lights in situations where as I had to use them for the FX7. Don't get me wrong though, the FX7 is an excellent camera and I am still using it as a second camera though and where illumination is no problem. Of Course the Z5 is a more "professional" camera than the FX7. Stelios __________________ My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis

September 16th, 2009, 11:34 AM	#2
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	I have FX7s, which are the same, image-wise, as the V1s, and I can tell you the FX1000 is dramatically better in low light. I still love and use my FX7s, but the FX1000 blows away any other cam I've ever owned. But if you are used to more of the pro settings of the V1, you may wish to consider the Z5, which isn't that much more expensive than the FX1000 -- especially if you think you will want to use the MRC tapeless unit at some point. The only real advantage of the FX7/V1 -- and it's a big one for me -- is the much longer tele reach of the older cam compared to the newer one.

September 16th, 2009, 01:56 PM	#3
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Adam's right - the tiny ¼" chips in the V1 limit it's low-light abilities alarmingly, whereas the 1"/3 chips in the FX1000 are a good 78% bigger in surface area. Because of the small chips the V1 has more difficulty with obtaining differential focus, even though its tele f stop is f/2.8 (as against f/3.4 on the FX1000). I think this feature has relevance when you talk of 'picture quality'. Not sure what Adam means when he talks of 'much longer reach' of the V1, as both cams have 20x zooms. FX1 in his mind maybe? tom.

September 16th, 2009, 02:07 PM	#4
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	They're both 20x, but as the FX1000 starts wider it doesn't go as tight. That's why I was careful to say longer reach rather than longer zoom, because as you point out the zoom ratios are the same. The FX7/V1 goes to a 35mm equivalent of 748mm, which is about 25% longer than the FX1000/Z5's 590mm equiv. The FX1 maxes out at 390mm. Remember, zoom ratios are largely meaningless unless you know where they start and end.

September 17th, 2009, 04:00 AM	#5
Deniz Ahmet Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LONDON Posts: 178	thanks guys... The only thing going for the V1E for me currently is the compact size and weight - meaning it works great on a Steadicam Merlin. Seems the HX1000 is a fair bit heavier. Regarding the light issues - does anyone have a test shot showing the FX1000 in typical low indoor light? Does it still look HD - because the V1 just ends up looking like SD. Thank you

September 17th, 2009, 11:22 AM	#6
Jo Ouwejan Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Veenendaal, Holland Posts: 225	You might have a look at this: Comparing Canon HV20 with Sony FX1000 under low light on Vimeo

September 17th, 2009, 11:28 AM	#7
Adam Gold Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woodinville, WA USA Posts: 3,467	In "typical low indoor light" the V1/FX7 shouldn't look like anything less than HD unless you let it gain up all the way. I shoot in low theatrical lighting all the time with the FX7 and it never looks like SD, but then I limit the gain to 9dB or less. It looks dark, but not like SD. That being said, the FX1000 is at least two stops faster than the FX1/Z1 and even faster than that compared to the FX7/V1. I've gotten stuff with the FX1000 that I just simply couldn't get at all with the FX1, and I think that cam's pretty good in low light, all things considered. And yes, the tape from the FX1000 in low light is extremely HD.

September 28th, 2009, 09:46 AM	#10
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Deniz, re: the FX1000 in low light, even in HD the FX1000/Z5 can look no better than SD. If you are looking for great HD images, you must use light, with ANY camera, even a 1/2 chip camera like the EX1. Great images in SD or HD must have light. The FX1000/z5 is not a miracle camera in low light; it is simply a 1/3" chip camera that shoots nice images if you have sufficient light, and because it has bigger chips it will blow away the V1 in low light. The V1 does not come close, IMO. If you shoot weddings, I can guarantee you the v1 will do poorly during dimly lit ceremonies, not even close. In situations where you are using onboard light it would do fine, but in natural/ low light situations the V1 cannot compete. I put great importance on my ceremony footage, and would never use less than a 1/3" chipped camera if I could help it. I find even that is too small, IMO, but it is workable.