vx2000 vs vx2100 (Release Dates, and such...)

[Tyler Ellis]

I’ve been looking at getting a Sony FX7, but I keep hearing bad or just plan average reviews about it, Wail almost all the reviews about the vx2000 and 2100 are excellent.

For someone looking for a high-end consumer camcorder, is the FX7 just going to be an HD version of the vx2100…?

Also. Seeing as how the 2100 was launched about 2 years after the 2000, how much of a difference is there between them anyway?

Also… I’m wondering about 24p, and the lake there of, on the 2100 and the FX7? Is that true?

Thanks

[Boyd Ostroff]

The VX-2000 and VX-2100 are 4:3 native camcorders that shoot 60i and 15p. The 15p is only useful for some specialized things since 15 frames per second doesn't give smooth motion. They are totally different beasts from the FX1 and FX7. If you want to shoot 4:3 standard definition video than the VX is still a good choice, but it doesn't shoot high quality 16:9 and (obviously) doesn't do high definition. The VX is also very good in dark places.

But the FX series has far more image adjustments, better LCD screens and viewfinders, much better physical controls and the ability to shoot both high and standard definition.

I have a VX-2000 and haven't used it as anything but a deck for years now. Great camera in its day (I got mine in 2001) but it doesn't meet my needs for good quality 16:9.

There aren't any big differences between the VX-2000 and VX-2100. Off the top of my head, this is what I recall them changing with the 2100:

Color of the camera is dark grey instead of silver
New CCD block which delivers essentially the same image (same resolution)
New LCD panel - same resolution but transreflective (I think)
Cleaner gain boost
Something about a firewire cable strain relief

[Chris Barcellos]

You should consider the VX's as 4:3 cameras, that in a pinch, can be pushed to 16:9. Some will say don't bother with 16:9 in camera switch. They are probably still the best low light cameras in the handy cam 1/3" realm. But the reviews are old, and I am guessing if you put those cameras side to side with the FX7, and the other new HDV offerings, the reviews would not favor the VX's except in the low light area....

FX7 is dedicated 3 chip CMOS. I am not sure where you are getting bad press for it, but it has its place. It is 16:9, and though I don't have one, have seen decent footage from it. I have the VX 2000, and FX1, the 3 CCD chip camera that came before the FX7. I love it. Again, FX1 has plenty of adjustability, and there is a lot of good stuff that has come off of it.

Sony did not get into 24p until the V1, the pro version of the FX7. If you need 24p, then you take that, or Cannon A1 or HV20. Or you shoot in 60i, and then convert to 24p in post. I have the HV20, and it is cool, but has its little foibles too. If 24p was the answer to every shooting situation, then all cameras would be 24p. It is not, for various technical reasons. For instance, the more frames per second you shoot at, the better your slow motion attempts will be.

Point about all this is you can make damn decent video with just about any effect you want with any of these cameras, its just a matter of how to get there with a particular camera.


I've leaned to Sony's in past because of ruggedness. But the HV20 is a fun filled little camera and I have been shooting it in many situations, learning to work with 24p. It is an inexpensive training tool for that purpose, as compared to other 24p rigs.

And Steven Dempsey stuff posted in this forum with the Canon A1 is spectacular too...

Edit: Didn't mean to be repetitive of Boyds post, I guess we were drafting at the same time.

[Boyd Ostroff]

If you are satisfied with standard definition, like the VX series, and you want 24p then consider the FX1. When used in standard definition mode or downconverted I think you might find the Cineframe 24 acceptable. See Adam's notes here: http://www.adamwilt.com/HDV/cineframe.html

...if I'm just looking to do a quick, in-camera bit of "film look" fakery, and CF30 (or CF25) still looks a bit too smooth to hammer my point home, and I'm not too concerned that the motion isn't true 24p, CF24 is a nice tool to have in the toolkit.

[Tyler Ellis]

Lots of info, really nice to know.

I know the VX camcorders are in SD, but it is a higher quality than a non-HD cam that you’d pull of the shelf at a store today, right? Or am I at least on the right track here?

I guess what I’m looking for the most is, low light filming for concerts, and a few music videos for some buddies, which is were the 24p comes in, but from what I’m hearing you can get that “film like” feel other ways?

Other than that, price is a big thing, so a $3600 FX7 might be to much, wail a used vx2100 for $1100 is more in my budget.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Tyler Ellis

I know the VX camcorders are in SD, but it is a higher quality than a non-HD cam that you’d pull of the shelf at a store today, right?

Depends on what you want. If you are shooting in 4:3 and intend to continue doing so for awhile then it's a good choice. But if you want to work in 16:9 it really won't give you a very good image by today's standards.

[Tyler Ellis]

Couldn't I just crop the video to get it to 16:9?

[Chris Barcellos]

Tyler:

I have gone both ways. If you check my threads started, you will find one I started with some testing using various methods, and comparing the FX1 too. In fact, here it is...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=88405

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Tyler Ellis

Couldn't I just crop the video to get it to 16:9?

Sure, you can do that. But since 16:9 TV's are getting very common today I don't think that's very acceptable anymore. The difference is certainly noticeable. But it may be "good enough" for you.

Sounds like you really want to buy a VX. If so, then go for it. They are nice cameras and the image is very pretty in 4:3. However they are older technology, they don't have very many image adjustment controls like newer cameras, and you will only be using 720x360 pixels if you shoot 16:9. Personally I wouldn't buy one unless 4:3 video was my primary need.

Just be sure this will meet your needs for the next couple years, or otherwise it'll be money wasted when you decide to buy the camera you *really* want a short time later.

[Tom Hardwick]

I'd go along with all the views expressed here. The FX7 really is the next step up from the VX2100, and anyone moving from one to the other will feel very much at home.

Moving from the VX2k1 to the FX1 is a much bigger step in my view, with the camera layout and controls needing more adjustment on the user's part.

So yes, if 4:3 is what you want then the VX2k1 is an absolutely wonderful camera. As a very clear A/D demonstration of this I'm over-writing some of my VX2k tapes now with SD footage shot on the Z1. When I play this back on a TV and the screen changes from Z1 to VX pictures I'm often quite struck with how beautifully clear and detailed the VX images are.

But the way ahead is 16:9, no question about it. The VX's images may look gorgeous, but the 4:3 image in my 16:9 screen looks stupidly 'square' and old fashioned.

That's just the way it is. So much so that on re-editing some of my old movies I've had to bite the bullet and letterbox them. This 're-edit' effectively concentrates the eye by removing at a stroke 25% of what you originally shot, and in my view the quality hit is worth the 16:9 rejuvenation.

tom.

[Kim Swift]

Does the fx7 have 3CCD's?

[Tom Hardwick]

No. Three CMOS chips, all of them 1"/4.