Panasonic HVX200 and the Sony HDR-FX1

Jamison

Jamison

Well-known member
Recently i was reading the specifications on the Panisonic AG-HVX200 and the Sony HDR-FX1. I was comparing their specs and it says that the HDR-FX! has 1120K CCD pixels and the HVX200 only 235K CCD pixels. Now i was thinkging, with such a drastic diffrence, how come the HDR-FX1 isn't priced higher. Does this mean that the picture quality on both cameras is almost the same diffrence as night and day!? Cause we are talking nearly a thousand pixel diffrence! Or am i somehow reading this all wrong? Dosn't this mean the picture quality on the Sony HDR-FX1 is superior to that of the HVX200, even when using perfect lighting with the HVX200?!
 
Your numbers are wrong, at least for the HVX. The HDR-FX1 is 1080x960 (1036800), the HVX200 960x540 (518400) with horizontal and vertical pixel shift.

So natively, the Sony has roughly twice as many pixels, but that doesn't consider pixels shift, nor does it consider the fact that the Sony doesn't scan progressively.

Numbers aren't everything.
 
I don't know where you got either of those number from. The FX1 1037k. The HVX200 is 518k pixel shifted to 1166k (roughly). Where di you get 235k from?
 
And the sony does have a fake progressive but it destorys the resolution.

Lets put it this way:

If you're trying to shoot an 1080i interlaced image for stuff like news or weddings, the Sony is going to give you a little bit more vertical resolution (not much but a bit). It'll also have crappier motion (HDV of which Sony does the worst), weaker color representation, and a whole lot of other issues (though less noise in low light). Anyway, we're talking about resolution.

In a progressive mode (once again Sony has a fake one) it's going to give you slightly less detail than the HVX200 in both horizontal and vertical and also will look really off if you're trying to do 24p (for stuff like narratives, commercials, ect).
 
But the FX1 has a cleaner, crisper image with much less noise. If you want a video image the FX1 is superior by quite a distance. If you want a filmic look, go for the Panasonic.

I won't knock the FX1 as it's a super camera for certain situations, where it flays the HVX into a cocked hat. Just not for indie film making though.
 
Something everyone should keep in mind when getting into pixel counting, is that there are tradeoffs in having a higher pixel count in relation to having larger pixels. One of the things that makes the HVX so capable in delivering a rich color depth in it's picture quality is the fact that the pixels are larger and more effective in a dynamic way because there are less of them on the surface of the CCD chip. If you were to raise the pixel count considerably on the chip, the pixels themselves would be smaller and less sensitive and dynamic.

In the end I think that Panasonic really worked to get the HVX more geared for great color reproduction as a priority over simple resolution. I am glad they did because great dynamic range in color reproduction can have a much more pleasing and quality effect than simply boosting a little more detail resolving power. The designers truly had the concept of making a film camera out of a video camera IMO.
 
That is not a good source.

Besides, picture quality/resolution does not have a 1:1 correspondence with CCD pixels.
 
Steve Shovlar said:
But the FX1 has a cleaner, crisper image with much less noise. If you want a video image the FX1 is superior by quite a distance.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. The HVX does 1080i just as crisp and sharp as the FX1, the only substantial difference being noise, but the HVX is faster so if you want comparable brightness the FX1 needs to be cranked up to at least 6dB anyway, which closes the gap in noise performance.
 
Well Barry as an owner of both the FX1 looks to me to be a much cleaner image. No discernable noise compared to the HVX.

IMO FX1 is great for weddings and corporate events, HVX is better for everything else.
 
Having owned both the Z1U and the HVX200, I concur with Steve.

We love our Panny, but the Z1U produced a cleaner image in our view.

Post created challenges, however.
 
Hey, Just to give you guys a heads up, there's an awesome website where you can buy the HVX200, FX1 and Z1U. It's called www.fotoconnection.com. I've seen a lot of unbelieveable prices there. If you're looking to buy one of these camcorders, I suggest checking them out.
 
Hey, just to give you a heads up, there's an awesome website where you can look up reseller ratings. It's called www.resellerratings.com. I've seen a lot of unbelievable buyer experiences there. If you are looking to buy one of these camcorders, I suggest checking them out.
 
TheGreatBatman said:
Hey, Just to give you guys a heads up, there's an awesome website where you can buy the HVX200, FX1 and Z1U. It's called www.fotoconnection.com. I've seen a lot of unbelieveable prices there. If you're looking to buy one of these camcorders, I suggest checking them out.
Click to expand...

This why I always bristle at the use of the word "awesome" to describe virtually anything.

Awesome, in this case, means a complete attempt to steal from you.

Do not buy the cam EXCEPT FROM A PANASONIC AUTHORIZED DEALER.

You are correct on one point.

These are "unbelieveable prices." Mostly because you won't get a cam for that price.

In other words, these prices are not to be believed.

Just read the feedback: http://www.resellerratings.com/store/1_Stop_Camera
 
Last edited:
And even if you do get the camera from them, manage not to get talked into buying accessories, don't allow them to convince you that the battery included with the camera is only good for 30 minutes etc., you still won't get the promotional 8GB P2 card from Panasonic because they are not an authorized dealer -- that effectively raises the price by another $800 or so.

There's a sticky thread on where to buy an HVX (and where not to), anyone considering buying an HVX really ought to read it and listen to the advice given there.
 
If your comparing pixels your barking up the wrong tree. Try comparing compression, and that is where the true difference is. That is why Sony is dumping HDV for AVCHD. (I cannot wait till NAB to see how that codec will measure up to DVCPROHD). The codec is the weakest link, not the pixels.
Ive used both and they look great while your shooting. BUT, look again after you're finnished editing the final product.
HDV files are smaller than DV. You do the math.
 
Last edited:
Go ahead and join the heartbroken suckers who purchased a camera from a non authorized dealer. Its your money to waste if you want to take that gamble with it. Just dont say that you were not warned.
Stop being so cheap, and think about it with your head not your wallet.
PS If you do buy from one of those other guys, Ive got a bridge I wanna sell you...
 
Last edited:
question : Is AVCHD in theory a better codec than DVCproHD or is AVCHD just better (less compressed) than HDV but still more compressed than DVCproHD.


Sunstream said:
If your comparing pixels your barking up the wrong tree. Try comparing compression, and that is where the true difference is. That is why Sony is dumping HDV for AVCHD. (I cannot wait till NAB to see how that codec will measure up to DVCPROHD). The codec is the weakest link, not the pixels.
Ive used both and they look great while your shooting. BUT, look again after you're finnished editing the final product.
HDV files are smaller than DV. You do the math.
Click to expand...
 
Steve Shovlar said:
Well Barry as an owner of both the FX1 looks to me to be a much cleaner image. No discernable noise compared to the HVX.
Click to expand...
Cleaner, yes, that I absolutely agree with -- I've got them both here as well. I take exception with "sharper" -- the FX1 and the HVX deliver about the same sharpness, and I think the HVX may be a tad sharper. The FX1 is definitely less noisy.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
question : Is AVCHD in theory a better codec than DVCproHD or is AVCHD just better (less compressed) than HDV but still more compressed than DVCproHD.
Click to expand...
AVC-HD isn't meant to compete against DVCPRO-HD, it's basically a next generation beyond HDV. It's still long-GOP compression, at 4:2:0 color sampling, but it's more efficent (Sony says over two and a half times as efficient) and it records the full raster, uncompressed audio (and up to 7.1 channels of audio!) and it has native 24p support from the beginning. It's everything HDV was, but better in just about every way except color sampling, where it's the same.

But, no filmmaking-style camera has been announced yet that uses the format. Only a few consumer-style cameras are announced or shipping for AVC-HD. Sooner or later someone will make a DVX-style AVC-HD camcorder and then I think it'll really catch on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top