|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/10/07 15:17
My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and closely
follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by John
Beale at:
http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html
as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published camcorder
tests.
Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle (at 11
lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000. I would agree
that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not enough
to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct
comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show very
little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed on
the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it.
Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only
under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex scenes,
when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, and
normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should reflect
this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms anyway,
so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown.
The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently discontinued
in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not substantially
worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light
performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor situations.
For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive
prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly to
much more expensive HD alternatives.
It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use today in
electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use
where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer
Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows.
I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and above
can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own notion
of what acceptable standards are. All considered, the old maxim that "It
isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad shots
are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce bad
results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies look
so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element IMHO.
Smarty
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than
>> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900
>> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a
>> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in
>> price than the FX1 currently.
>
> The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably
> more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement.
>
>>
>> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the
>> FX-1 with its' higher resolution.
>
> That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was
> unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my
> TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range
> that addresses these issues, I'll consider it.
>
>> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the
>> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise
>> level, resolution, and optical performance.
>
> That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light
> performance make the camera a non-starter for me.
>
>>
>> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks
>> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no
>> value in improving the ultimate picture quality.
>
> And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors.
>
>> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the
>> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV
>> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich
>> colors and superb detail.
>
> That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed,
> it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My
> TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong
> horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera.
>
>> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my
>> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video
>> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy
>> consumer machine with relatively poor video".
>
> I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines
> with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I
> like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm
> talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though
> it might turn out nice video, even stunning video
> _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. There's
> no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to,
> as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD.
>
>> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take
>> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on
>> vacation.
>
> I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra
> batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in
> order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've
> gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera,
> either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher
> form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does.
>
>>
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does
>>> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I
>>> also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who
>>> care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you
>>> a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid
>>> and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still
>>> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less,
>>> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's
>>> SD prosumer line.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>>>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a
>>>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is
>>>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in
>>>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the
>>>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining
>>>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the
>>>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other
>>>> pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance,
>>>> and features which make market sense by creating real differences which
>>>> separate these buyers / market segments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Smarty
>>>>
>>>> Smarty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales
>>>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur"
>>>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they
>>>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less
>>>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was
>>>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the
>>>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that
>>>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100
>>>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost
>>>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional
>>>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers, Jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|