Sony HDR-FX1 or Panasonic DVX100 ?

drew_hytt

drew_hytt

Member
Hi, Names Drew.

Our web design studio is getting into media production, and we are deciding on a camera.

We are going to get one of them….. Right now I love the Panasonic, but It’s a bit pricey around
$ 5500 here in Canada. I have seen plenty of clips from the Panasonic and it’s great, but is the Sony right up there? Doesn’t have 24p, but I have seen videos from it and it looks great, with 35mm adaptors on and stuff, I’m more a fan of the 24p look for sure, but for a studio on a budget wanting to get into commercials, internet videos, promo videos, nightclub videos, is there even a question with which one to go with?

Or is the Sony the way to go?

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Unless your studio is producing HD for a specific reason, or you really need HD for your productions, the DVX would be my choice of camera between the two. Mostly because of the 24p and generally stronger colors and contrast. You can always use the 35mm adapter with the DVX as well.
 
So for say mostly internet the dvx is the way to go? or.... say we get into commericals for television? is the dvx still the way to do it? or would upgrading to HD be better? Thanks
 
when your talking about buying a camera for a business, it changes things. For personal projects, hands down DVX no question. But a business has to cater to the desires of thier clients. And HD is a feature alot of un-educated clients feel they "need". They have an HD tv at home, so how come you cant shoot my spot in HD. Its a hard decision.

Keep in mind that the Sony FX1 realy isnt HD, its HDV a different format all together, with different color sampling, compression and so on. The picture is higher res than the DVX, but it still looks like very sharp video.

Im going this route- DVX for now, get the most I can for the next 2 years or so, then upgrade to a HVX, which should be lower in price with more extras.
 
ok Edweirdo, liked what you had to say, makes sence, umm but the only thing is, the Sony fx1 doesnt shoot 24p right?

Thanks.
 
the Sony FX1 does not shoot 24p. It does have a mode called Cineframe, which is a simulation of 24p. And let me just say, in my humble opinion, Cineframe looks absolutely horrible and jittery. The DVX100b looks to be a really nice camera with better audio handling than the FX1. And audio is, once again, in my opinion, more important than picture. But honestly, this is a really hard call. As soon as high definition dvds come out (BlueRay) and everyone moves to HD for all forms of television, then you'll really need an HD camera. Until then, you don't. But let's say HD only really catches on in five years--by then there will be a much better camera suited for this work.

Go to your rental house and rent a dvx100 and a sony hd camera for a day. Do a test shoot. If this is too expensive, go to a camera store that has both and just stay there and mess with it.

I think the Sony Z1 (the prosumer FX1 model) looks really fantastic shooting in HD mode, but I don't know if you can keep that look if you downconvert to the web and standard definition. Finally, supposively, Sony is releashing a camera with HD capabliities and so is Canon, though that one is rumored to be a clunker.

Drew, you opened up a really difficult decision.
We are at the beginning of a new era of filmmaking and making the right choice is a long, hard difficult decision.

With that said, I use my dvx100 to shoot for the History Channel, A&E, and HBO. I've seen the Sony camera used for USA TV and it looked really nice. I've seen the 24p mode totally abused as well as images from the Sony HD cameras.
 
I just sold my DVX100A to buy a Z1 mainly because the client that I use the camera for decided to move on to HDV. I can say that there are things that I like about both cameras and some subtle features that I will miss by not having the DVX any longer. However, this was a time that I could recover most of the cost of the DVX in this sale, so for me, it was the right time to move on. The HVX was either not ready or questions about small (and costly) HD storage along with clients dealing with that, has kept me from going in that direction. Although as a Varicam user it would have been a nice companion as far as the codec goes.

The Sony is not as flexible in manipulating the "look" of the camera. It is not as light sensitive as the DVX which I will miss since most of the stuff I shoot is "on the run" documentary style. I will miss the mic switches that allow me to individually switch each channel between int. mic, ch1 & ch2. The Sony has a this as menu function. The Sony's 1080i HDV looks fantastic. I love the native 16:9 and the safe markers for 4:3 & 16:9. The 24f is not great, but acceptable. The Z1 has an audio meter with real db scale reference numbers. The Sony has a heavier focus drag and overall a more durable built feel to it. I prefer the Z1's thumbwheel menu over the DVX's toggle stick. Resetting Z1's time code is easier than the cumbersome "yes or no" menu option on the DVX. The Z1's headphone amp needs a smidge more volume, but its not nearly as bad as the original DVX100 was. The DVX's larger LCD will be missed, but its nice to have a 16:9 screen w/4:3 safe lines now instead of letterbox. Sony's "expanded focus" aid is a great feature and its steadyshot stabilizer noticably works better. The DVX has clear scan, the Z1 has a work around. THe DVX has a better "macro" featrure on its lens. The iris wheel on the Z1 feels considerably more substantial and durable than the DVX. I like the way Panasonic put white balance button away from other function buttons on the DVX better.

There's good and bad to both cameras, you just have to decide what your client base would be happiest with. For me it was just the right time to move on to the HDV format & who knows where I'll be in a year. We are seriously looking at the HD-XDCam for a large camera purchase next year to replace Betacam SP. This is the 3rd small camera (DVX100, DVX100A, HVRZ1U) that I've bought in 3 yrs. So, I recoup my cost, make a modest profit on them and then evaluate what's new out there.
 
I'm in the same situation Drew. Would like to know which way you go on this one. So much choice, such amazing stuff available within my budget, but dagnabbit where to put my well earned pennies? I'm in the UK and am further sidetracked by the sony pd170, but for me it's between the fx1 and the dvx100... I edit on premiere and wonder, "If I upgrade to HDV will I have to upgrade other equipment and software as a result?" The knock on effect on my current gear is playing on my mind... I'll be following this thread with GREAT interest. What a fantastic forum...
 
drew_hytt said:
wanting to get into commercials, internet videos, promo videos, nightclub videos, is there even a question with which one to go with?
Click to expand...
You're likely to be very disappointed with the quality of your work from any camera without sufficient lighting and sound equipment. Video production requires a substantially higher investment than a PC and some Macromedia Apps... A good number of my friends (who are web, graphic, motion designers) would love to make videos, but can't afford the gear, which is on the order of 15K to 25K to get their foot in the door with a good tripod, small arri kit, a kino flo, field monitor, laptop, teleprompter, shotgun mic/boom pole, pair of wired lavs, software, cart to haul everything, etc. etc. It's a real doozy. I apologize in advance if I'm stating the obvious... :beer:

Still photography is much easier because you can use affordable strobe lighting; not so with video. Then, you add sound.

All that said, there are compelling reasons to go with an FX1 or a DVX. The FX1 has a horrible method of recording sound, tho. That could be a deal breaker, depending on how much value you place on sound quality...

As you may already be aware, the world is supposedly moving to the H.264/MPEG4 Standard. But, the new system doesn't understand interlaced. A Progressive Scan camera (DVX100, XL2, HD100, HVX200) puts you at a real advantage if shooting for the internet...
 
InvisionProductions said:
Unless your studio is producing HD for a specific reason, or you really need HD for your productions, the DVX would be my choice of camera between the two. Mostly because of the 24p and generally stronger colors and contrast. You can always use the 35mm adapter with the DVX as well.
Click to expand...

any color or contrast can be easily copied in post. You can use a 35mm adapter with the fx1 as well.
 
True, but the DVX does deal with contrasting color better than the fx1 and 24P + 35mm adapter as opposed to 24F + 35mm adapter will generally yeild a better result, in a good setup situation. On the other hand, Drew doesnt really sound like he wants to shoot shorts or feature films, based upon his clients and situation, I would choose upon that. I would still get the DVX if I were him.
 
InvisionProductions said:
True, but the DVX does deal with contrasting color better than the fx1 and 24P + 35mm adapter as opposed to 24F + 35mm adapter will generally yeild a better result, in a good setup situation. On the other hand, Drew doesnt really sound like he wants to shoot shorts or feature films, based upon his clients and situation, I would choose upon that. I would still get the DVX if I were him.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ. Look at any work Mcgregor as done with the Sony and the G35 adapter and it blows anything away from the DVX with that adapter. No question about it. Take a look at "Secret Garden" especially. Wicked.

http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/
 
Angrius said:
I beg to differ. Look at any work Mcgregor as done with the Sony and the G35 adapter and it blows anything away from the DVX with that adapter. No question about it. Take a look at "Secret Garden" especially. Wicked.

http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/
Click to expand...


I think that's because macgregor had the proper lighting required to get the scene within 5 stops worth of difference. If you properly lit a scene within 7 stops of lighting difference for the DVX, I think you'd get the same amazing results(granted the Sony footage would be sharper looking when downsized to DV resolution)
I could be wrong though.
 
lighting..nope. CC..ya.

lighting..nope. CC..ya.

I believe that according to Macgregor, the nudie clips are all lit naturally or with bare bones lighting. Macgregor..can you answer this for them if you are reading this post..thanks.
 
eddavid said:
And let me just say, in my humble opinion, Cineframe looks absolutely horrible and jittery.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the mode MacGregor used for his footage; and everyone loves it. So I don't know what's so bad about not having true 24p, when MacGregor has shown that it works amazingly well (I've read some people saying his footage is "better than Lucas".)
 
Hello.
But on the other hand, if shooting in DV i think you get better and more real accurate colors with the dvx. That´s the same difference that with the real HD cameras, for me, the varicam gives better colors, but the Cinealta gives quite a lot much more resolution, so choose what you like more.
 
Last edited:
macgregor said:
But you get much more color resolution. So i prefer shooting with the Sony than with the dvx.
Also, grain does not exist with the SonyHDV. DVX has a lot of noise for me.


But on the other hand, if shooting in DV i think you get better and more real accurate colors with the dvx.
Click to expand...

i agree. The dvx has a much more analog look, which some people prefer, and of course, looks more like film. BUT there is a lot of noise coming out of the dvx in comparison to the sony. Footage from the fx1/hvrz1u can be tweaked liked nobodies business. I was doing some tests with magic bullet v2 yesterday and was amazed at how far the footage could be manipulated without falling apart. Also, if youre trying to do greenscreen on a budget, there's no argument. HDV will slap the dvx around like it owes it money.

i'd say, if SD is your main output, and you're not doing greenscreen work, get a dvx. If you plan on doing anything else...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top