Any Sony HDR-FX1 owners out there?

Serena wrote on 10/10/2008, 8:49 PM

I still have my FX1, retained as a B camera. Good camera to use. I would have thought that the US ebay price would be about $2K. Some people prefer CCDs because they don't exhibit the rolling shutter of CMOS sensors. The FX1 (and Z1) are not particularly good in low light and the FX1000 is much better. Resolution of the of the FX1 is natively 960 x 1080i (=1440 x 1080i).

corug7 wrote on 10/10/2008, 8:58 PM

Yes, the FX1000 is a direct replacement for the FX1. I purchased an FX1 about 8 months ago from a forum member who upgraded to an EX1 and I have been pretty happy with it. You can find one used for about the same price as a new FX7 if you look around. Recently, a new FX1 sold for the same price as the list price for the FX1000, so the 1000 is really a pretty solid deal, considering some of the expected improvements in low light ability and image quality.

tcbetka wrote on 10/10/2008, 9:33 PM

Well, I would agree with the $2K price for a used FX1. The ones that I see for $2500+ have no bids on them, although there is a bit of time left on the auctions yet. So maybe someone will swoop in for the $2650 "deal" at the last minute. It won't be me for that kind of money though.

But I wouldn't think that the FX1000 will sell for MSRP--none of Sony's other cameras seem to. So in that case, a person might get the FX1000 for around $2700-2800, which would then be the preferred route to go compared to the FX1. Of course if you could get a good used FX1 for $2000 or thereabouts...

TB

winrockpost wrote on 10/11/2008, 5:41 AM

I just recently sold a fx1 with a fried firewire output which the customer was aware for 2k , was used with z1 cams and in my opinion is a great little camera, lots of lowlight issues mentioned but never came into play on our shoots., thrown in a backback, banged around in the back of a golfcart, borrowed by friends and family,,,, just kept on rolling.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 6:23 AM

So you are saying that maybe a used unit in great shape would probably go for more than $2K then... OK, well that's good to know. There are several on ebay, and I'll just keep watching. Unless I find a great deal on one beforehand, I will certainly want to see what the FX1000 is going to sell for when things get rolling.

Thanks for the post.

TB

winrockpost wrote on 10/11/2008, 6:40 AM

I think mine was worth 2 grand,,, to me and the guy that bought it,, have no idea about an ebay unit,, if i were to buy a used cam it would be from B&H or from someone i could check out ,

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 7:54 AM

Well, according to B&H's site they charge $2500 for a used FX1. But they also mention that the unit is discontinued as well--I assume meaning that Sony has discontinued the unit. So I suppose a person would just have to check with hem to see what their used inventory is--but I think that $2500 might be a bit high for a used FX1...at least compared to what the ebay units seem to bring. I understand that buying from a store like B&H is worth something--but is it worth $500? $750? What...?

If a person selling on ebay has 100% feedback and I can buy via Paypal, then I don't think I would have a problem. At least with PP you have *some* degree of recourse, should you get a lemon. I have bought and sold $2000-4000 dollar items on ebay several times and have no problem with it--providing there's some degree of protection provided to BOTH parties.

TB

johnmeyer wrote on 10/11/2008, 8:01 AM

Buying a used camera on eBay is a pig-in-a-poke. I'd buy from a dealer, if I were to go that route.

Also, while I like my FX1, I have wished many times I had gotten the Z1 instead. I asked in these forums before I bought whether it was worth the extra money for the Z1. Unfortunately, all the responses centered on the pro audio connectors on the Z1, which I didn't need for my work. They neglected to mention the considerable difference in the menu controls, such as gamma, which are incredibly important.

I also much prefer the CCD to CMOS. I haven't shot with some of the newer cameras, so I don't know how much better they do in low light, but I have been reasonably happy with the low-light capability of the FX1. It certainly isn't a VX2000 or one of the other SD low-light stalwarts, but it is pretty good for an HDV cam.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 8:20 AM

Wow...just checked out the Z1 on some sites, and saw a feature on it on YouTube. Nice unit! It may be a bit out of my price range right now though--but I'll do some checking around. It may be that a person could pick up a used one for near the price of a new FX1000, but I haven't learned enough about the camera to know yet.

What did they sell for new?

As for the XLR inputs--although I don't need them for the work that I am doing right now, they may in fact be valuable down the road. I have SONAR and a whole slug of dynamic & condenser mics, along with a Mackie 1640 Onyx board. And I do enjoy audio processing. So buying a camera that has the ability to record in stereo may be something that is more important than I initially thought. Something ELSE to consider!

Hey, that's why I come to this forum--without a doubt one of the most help I have gotten on an internet forum.

Thanks a lot John (and everyone else who's posted). You folks are a huge help; if for no other reason than to point out the things that I should be finding important. I have said it a million times: if you don't know what you don't know...you're hosed. So I appreciate all the help.

TB

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 9:01 AM

Well, it appears that there are a variety of solutions for the XLR problem on the FX1. Beachtek makes several XLR adapters, and at least 4 of them will work with the camera. The best of them appears to be the DXA-6HD. While it sells for about $450, it looks to add a significant benefit to the unit; and the other Beachtek products are less. In fact there's a solution for the FX1 for less than $200. I didn't check out all the available options, but I saw on B&H's site that Beachtek was only one of the manufacturers offering these types of products. But the reviews I saw of the Beachtek units were pretty good...

TB

riredale wrote on 10/11/2008, 12:17 PM

Great camera, built like a tank. I bought mine on Ebay Mar 06 (I think) and have had ZERO issues. Never had a need for XLR in the kinds of shooting I do.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 1:05 PM

Well, I am watching a couple of them and have a feeling they'll go for under $2000. And if the FX1000 really is going to sell for close to the MSRP ($3199) like B&H has them for now, then the FX1 is probably the way to go. I have been reading reviews on them most of the day, and it seems that the lack of the XLR inputs and maybe it's low-light performance are some of the few real knocks on the unit. But even then, there are mixed reviews on the low light issue, and the lack of XLR inputs may not be a big deal. And it seems that no one here really has anything bad to say about them--so maybe it's a pretty good choice for a first prosumer-level camera.

So if a person could pick up a used unit in good/excellent condition for under $2K, then that's a tremendous savings. I've also noted where some folks say that they prefer the CCDs of the FX1 to the new CMOS technology. Honestly though, I don't know enough about the differences to be able to get that discriminant about it.

TB

Tim L wrote on 10/11/2008, 1:30 PM

Don't forget that you can search for completed auctions on ebay and see what FX1's have actually sold for.

Click the "Advanced Search" button, search for "sony fx1", set minimum price at $1000 (so your search doesn't return thousands of listings for batteries and filters, etc.), and tick the box that says "Show completed listings only".

"Completed listings" also includes listings where no sale was made. Items with green prices actually sold for that amount. Items with red prices did not sell (no bids or did not reach reserve amount, etc.)

Several FX1's have sold for between $1900 and $2100 in the last couple weeks. Others sold for more. A lot of times it depends on how many extras are included -- extra batteries, maybe a bag, wide-angle lens, etc.

Also, be careful in your search and bidding frenzy that you don't accidentally buy an FX1E -- the PAL version (assuming you are actually looking for NTSC).

Tim L wrote on 10/11/2008, 1:53 PM

By the way, I own an FX7 that I bought on ebay for $2000 back in February, but I really can't offer advice on choosing between the two. (I really don't feel qualified, and will defer to others here who can offer better advice.)

I will say that I am probably the target demographic for the FX7, especially now that it is returning to the market at a $2000 (new) price point. I'm basically a "dad with a camcorder" shooter: I'm not professional, this is not a business for me, but I was wanting to step up from the typical palmcorder units to a low end "handle cam" type of camera (big lens, built-in neutral density filters, etc.)

One thing you might also consider is the "reach" that you need from your camcorder: the FX1 has a 12x zoom, while the FX7 has 20x. That's could be a big issue for some people, or it could be a total non-issue. Also, the FX1 goes wider at the wide end than the FX7.

FX1: 35mm Equivalent : 32.5-390mm (Camera Mode), 40-480mm (4:3 TV Mode)

FX7: 35mm Equivalent : 37.4-748mm (16:9 Camera Mode), 45.7-914mm (4:3 Camera Mode)

FX1 is rated 3 lux, FX7 is rated 4 lux.

CMOS sensors are not subject to vertical smear (where bright lights leave big vertical streaks in the image), but CMOS are subject to rolling shutter issues.

I've always felt that the pros are probably more drawn to the FX1, and that the more casual shooters like me are drawn to the FX7, which (from reviews I've read) is lighter and better balanced -- probably easier for an amateur (me again) to use handheld on occasion.

Tim L

johnmeyer wrote on 10/11/2008, 2:11 PM

If you want a LOT more information on the FX1 (and Z1) than you will get in this forum, then click here:

Sony HDV Info

and then click on some of the FX1 links. You can spend all day learning about this camera. The information is VERY useful.

If you are particularly interested in the low-light capability of the FX1, then click here:

Sony FX1 vs VX2k in low light

This shows you how the FX1 compares to the camera that many consider one of the best low-light cameras ever made.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 2:15 PM

Thanks Tim. Yes, I looked at the completed listings a couple of hours ago--and agree with your assessment. If there are extras, then the camera tends to go for $2200-2400 or so. But otherwise it seems like $1900-2100 is the amount you're going to have to pay to get one. I also understand what you mentioned about the PAL version--but I don't think I have even seen one PAL unit on ebay yet.

One good thing is that there seems to be plenty of FX1 units out there...

TB

Serena wrote on 10/11/2008, 3:59 PM

The Beachtek devices do work well with the FX1, although the extra box can be a nuisance compared to having the XLR inputs on the camera. I presume you want phantom power for your existing mikes.

john-beale wrote on 10/11/2008, 4:38 PM

As I recall, Sony's "lux rating" for the FX1 was 3 lux, and the rating for the FX1000 is 1.5 lux with the note calling out 1/30 sec shutter. I don't recall the FX1 had that note, and 1080i is normally shot at 1/60 sec shutter which means the FX1 measurement was at a 1 stop disadvantage. If so, the lux ratings of the two cameras would actually be the same.

All this is handwaving, of course- all that matters is how the image actually looks. I'm sure examples will be posted as soon as the cameras are actually available for sale.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 5:40 PM

Yes Serena, I would need phantom power. But Beachtek has a unit with Phantom power for $190; and if you want LED input level meters, it would be $319. These prices were from their site, but I didn't check B&H's site...they may sell them for a bit less. I have a few Audix SCX1 mics which are incredible condenser mics, and would be great in a live situation--in fact two of them are a matched pair, ordered specially from Audix for that purpose. I use them as drum overheads. I can't wait to try them in a live situation with one of these cameras.

Also for jbeale, those are some good points about the lux ratings. A month ago I wouldn't have understood a word of what you said--but I really do think I follow you! I've only read about all-things videography for about 100 hours in the past month, so I am glad I picked something up after all that effort! But I have read the concerns about the low-light performance of the FX1 in several reviews; most of which didn't think it was a real *big* problem, but acknowledged the issue. But if you check the discussion thread under the FX1 review at camcorderinfo.com, the folks there didn't seem to think that the camera did a bad job at all; at least as far as I remember. I believe it was there that I read it anyway.

The bottom line is that I really haven't found anyone that had anything BAD to say about the camera--and most people seem to think it is a very good prosumer model for someone trying to enter the ranks of the "serious hobbyist." I like the looks of the FX1000 a lot--but B&H and Adorama are both selling them for MSRP, and I think that's just too much money for me too spend given my current skill level. And given that there's a solution for the lack of XLR inputs and the lack of a hard drive, I have no real issues with the FX1.

Thanks again for the input folks...

TB

johnmeyer wrote on 10/11/2008, 7:49 PM

Did you read the link I gave in my last post about lux test on the FX1?

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 8:09 PM

Yes, I just did. I got so hung up in looking at the material in the first link (man, there's a TON of stuff there) that I didn't get to the second link until just now. And from the pictures John included, it looks like the VX2000 does a better job than the FX1 does! At least it does to my eyes anyway.

I must confess that while I think I understood the stuff in John's last post, I did *not* understand all the material on that page. The terms "lux" and "ire," although not entirely new to me, are terms that I do not yet have an intimate understanding of by any means. But I think I'll get there.

The whole concept of HD videography is not necessarily intuitive, lol. That being said, I just downloaded "The HD Survival Guide" and have been reading some of it. While I think it's excellent, it does assume that the reader has a very strong background in SD videography...which I do not. So I find myself frequently flipping back and forth between the PDF and a Wikipedia page with various terms that I am unfamiliar with... Ah the joy of learning new things!

Thanks for the links though John--I especially enjoyed the first one, given the plethora of information on HD in general, and the FX1 in particular.

TB

Serena wrote on 10/11/2008, 8:19 PM

I judge the FX1 to be an excellent camera and have used it under a wide variety of ambient lighting conditions with good results. So I doubt that you would be less satisfied. It has good facilities for controlling the image quality, but deficient when compared to the Z1. The differences in XLR inputs between the FX1 and Z1 I consider a much more minor concern. I always found inconvenient the little knob controlling the iris because I was used to having an iris ring on the lens (as is now usual on later Sony cameras). I haven't looked up the specs for the FX1000, but you should make sure you understand the differences in imaging facilities. Note Jonny Roy's comment: "you won't ever regret buying the better camera". I suppose if you like buying and selling gear as your knowledge progresses then the graduated approach is sensible and you can always have the latest stuff.

farss wrote on 10/11/2008, 8:21 PM

"But Beachtek has a unit with Phantom power for $190; and if you want LED input level meters, it would be $319. "

That money would perhaps be better spent on a standalone audio recorder such as the Zoom H4. The compression system used for HDV audio is good enough for dialogue but doesn't sound too good for complex sounds like music. I don't have golden ears or expensive monitors and yet I can hear the murkiness.
The other advantage with something like the Zoom is you're bypassing that unreliable 3.5mm minipin plug and socket going into the camera.
On the downside it's another piece of kit to mount somewhere and it needs its own batteries but if you're planning on using good mics and stands, a trivial issue I'd think.

Bob.

tcbetka wrote on 10/11/2008, 9:02 PM

The thing about "buying the better camera" is that, if your interests change, then you've spent more money on something that you might not use. Interests change, especially when it's a hobby and a person isn't trying to make money doing it. So you could argue that, perhaps, it might be better to get a quality "entry-level" (for lack of a better term) prosumer camera. Not that I am trying to argue either side: buying the better camera to grow into versus the graduated approach; but I am just pointing out that there are arguments, and then there are counter-arguments.

But as far as remote sound recording goes--I already have that covered, really. It's a bit more involved, but I have both SONAR and Pro-Tools LE; and I have the hardware to go with them. I have both a M-audio MobilePre USB and an M-box 2--so I could easily record remotely into either of those applications. I would probably choose SONAR though, simply because I find it easier to use. I was just exploring the XLR adapter issue because it's a bit more tidy, as you can attach the unit right to the camera. And if you are using the laptop to record a video stream already, I doubt you'd want to record the audio stream on another application simultaneously. Although I do have more than one laptop....lol. But for that matter, I could bring the Mackie and record 16 channels into SONAR via firewire--if a person really wanted to get carried away. It's amazing, how well SONAR 4 works on my puny XP laptop with 1.25gb of ram and a 5400rpm hard drive. In fact I would say that it exceeds the performance of version 7 on my Vista machine with a Duo Core processor and 2GB ram. (I thought Vista was supposed to make things better?)

But that Zoom H4 unit is pretty nifty looking though! I have never used one however, and your points are well-taken about another unit with its own power source. But then again recording into a laptop is not the most trivial of tasks, either. Suffice it to say that there are several viable options to work around the lack of XLR inputs on the FX1.

TB