Posted by doc on 12/23/20 11:26

sounds like a good solution and great idea of having both just from a mere
"assistant" idea that some inbound cameraman might have more experience with
one over the other. hmmmmm. good for consideration for sure.

is there at all a noticable difference in the output of the two cameras? or
is it so minor that not worth popping (if one even has it) for the Z1?

doc

"Antony Lacey" <allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1h2p58a.1mzb8t917zpouqN%allatsea@plug.drivers.org.uk...
> doc <doc@drdimento.net> wrote:
>
>> thanks for the input. your description reveals that there's enough
>> improvement over a mini dv cam that it's worth spending the money.
>
> I think that's a fair comment yes.
>
>> regarding the panning issue, from what ive read that's an issue with all
>> digital cams cause the codec is challenged to "find" a color solution for
>> a
>> pixel that is changing even as the capture is taking place, while with
>> film
>> it's just a capture "whatever" you get issue. however, as indicated in
>> the
>> thread attached to yours, Joe Sixpack will never notice in my minimal pan
>> commercials :o) i don't do NASCAR :o)
>
> That makes that part of the equation redundant then!
>
> If you can, get your hands on both the FX1 and Z1 and see which you
> prefer - (you probably know this already of course).
>
> It may be you could buy a mixture of them to suit your needs, the Z1 for
> audio etc. and the FX1 as a second (or more) camera if you don't need
> the extra features for the shots you will be using. Why spend money you
> could put somewhere else ?
>
> The benefit of having them all the same is that you don't have to
> remember which features are on the camera of course - they look pretty
> similar at a glance!
>
> --
> Antony
> Pull the plug to reply.

[Back to original message]