The new prosumer Sony cam
- Thread starter noloc45
- Start date
380k is for SD camera. 1.1 MP is actually on the low end for HD camera. The Canon A1 has 1.56 MP per chip. But that's not really how camera resolution is measured anyway. How many chips there are on the camera usually means nothing because you're not comparing apple to apple. Some chips are pixel-shifted for more resolution, some are processed so to give a sharper image. Pixel counts are just marketing ploys. Have to actually have the camera side-by-side and do a resolution chart test.
Kevin Shaw
Member
But resolution chart tests tend to align pretty well with the number of pixels on the sensors, so that's a useful thing to know in predicting image clarity. More important for the FX1000 will be its low-light capability compared to the FX1, using the newer Exmor sensor found in the Z7U.
Not always. One common example is the JVC HD110 vs. the HVX.
The HD110 has 1280 x 720 pixels per chip vs. the HVX's 960 x 540 pixels per chip. So you'd think the HD110 would win hands down in 720p mode, but both cameras actually offer similar resolution in 720p mode.
As to low light performance, it's hard to tell by the spec. Just because it's a new technology means nothing, we're not even guarantee that the physical size of the CMOS chips will be the same (remember the 1/3'' is only a classification, not a size). There could be more pixels on the chip that could affect low light performances.
you have canon coming out of your arse even the cheap fx-7 had more resolution than the a1 in camcorderinfos test of the 7
Camcorderinfo is a joke. That site is completely geared toward the uneducate consumers and no professionals take them seriously. Resolution charts aren't absolute; there can be broad disagreements even among professionals. There have been tests for example that shows the A1 achieving nearly 800 lines of resolution in 60i mode and slightly less when in 24F mode. There are so many factors from camera to camera that it's often difficult to get a subjective viewpoint just from the technical numbers; the camcorderinfo article would have you believe otherwise.
What matters is how it looks to you. If you think the FX7 is better, I really couldn't care less. I own an A1 and have played around with an FX7; IMO it's a toy compared to the A1 (or any other professional camcorder in the same price range). Before you start throwing fanboyism charges around, my previous camera was the Sony FX1 and I found it to be a good one, although the A1 is leagues ahead of that for many other reasons beside resolution. My next camera will probably be a Sony EX1, which is even sharper than the A1. I pick the camera that does what I need it to do, and so should you.
ecking
Veteran
If you think the fx7 has more res than the a1 you probably haven't test both side by side.
Camcorder info.com is the most pro canon place you can find so it would have cringed to have to give sony higher resolution,the new sonys will blow the a1 away [at least i will not argue about the ex3]
The v1 is the more pro version of the fx-7 and from reports i have read many prefer it to the a1 plus far less bulk.
Last edited:
Have you yourself tested either of these camera side by side? You do yourself a disservice by trusting a single review source and not bothering to do any real world testing. Corporate technical stats, from Sony or anybody, are usually marketing BS.
Again, why does it matter? "My camera is bigger than yours!" type arguments doesn't contribute anything. I really couldn't care less if you're camera is technically "better"; show me a better movie and I'll be impressed.
I did agree about the EX3 but watch for 1980/0180 24p judder 2/3 chips ,needs a pro lens like cinealtas [no chance though]
Last edited: