fx7

auggybendoggy wrote on 7/2/2007, 9:25 PM

guys,
can anyone say just how bad the fx7 performs in low light?

I'm on a tight budget and though I've read some lowly reviews on the camera I am REALLY tight on my expenses.

I'm probably looking at the z1u (our other cam is an fx1) so the z1u would match very well. However on such a tight budget I'm also worried that the fx7 may be as bad as some reviews say it is.

Aug

Comments

Serena wrote on 7/3/2007, 12:46 AM

The fx7 is less sensitive than the fx1 (and z1u) because it has smaller pixels, but here you need quantitative data rather than opinion. You need comparative ISO speeds for a standard setup and at least qualitative information about noise levels with increased gain. IMO the Z1 is has acceptable noise at 18dB gain in high key scenes where the noise is no worse than film grain (but will look less satisfactory in any dark areas of the scene). At 0dB the Z1 is rated at about ISO 250. Hopefully someone with an fx7 can fill in for that camera.

edit: if the budget can cope with the Z1 this is a more "professional" (i.e. more flexible) camera than the fx7. My knowledge of the fx7 is scant but looks to be quite limited compared to the V1U. Choosing between the Z1 and the V1 would be trickier because low light performance would have to be very important not to choose the V1.

UlfLaursen wrote on 7/3/2007, 1:07 AM

Hi Aug

I got the FX7 some month ago, basicly to try out HDV, and to have a cam that I could use with my PD170 and to replace an old VX1000.

I have not used it that much in low light yet, but a case where it lacks compared to my PD170 is backlight. I do a shoot every year the same place, and some of the performers stand infront of a window with no curtains. Last year I had my PD170 with me, but this year I took my FX7, and there was a huge difference in back light perform.

I would probably not choose the FX7 as my first cam, but as a second it is pretty good. I would go with serena too, if you can afford the Z1 it would be better.

/Ulf

JARiffe wrote on 7/3/2007, 7:03 AM

I just took delivery of an FX7 early in June as a replacement for my againg Canon GL-1. I, too, am on a tight budget.

The very same day the camera was delivered, I shot an elementary school talent show with it. It's important to note that the auditorium stage was poorly lit (no stage lighing, but rather flourescent celing lights on the stage). Whenever the MCs stood close to the edge of the stage, they were badly backlit. But I blame that on the newly-renovated school's poor design, not the camera. When singers and dancers performed under the light at center stage, they looked fairly good...at least for a home movie they did;

Then, for one act, the stage lights were turned off, and the camera (which at the time was in automatic mode) kicked the gain all the way up and opened the iris. The footage was somewhat grainy, as I expected.

Aside from that, I've had no complaints about my new FX7. For the type of work I'm doing now, it does fine.

But, as they say, "your mileage may vary."

James

auggybendoggy wrote on 7/4/2007, 7:32 PM

jariffe,
is any camera (under 5000) not grainy in low light?

Perhaps the non hd that I've seen like the vx2100 or GL's. But anything I've seen lately has high grain.

My little panny dv953 gets tons of grain but I actually like it's grain compared to sonys tv series. It's got a film like look to it. Perhaps a bit too much but tolerable. Just not for professional use is it acceptable.

I wish I could find links of the fx7 performing in low light.
even seeing it on the web is misleading as you see a small render which always looks CRYSTAL until you get it on your 50" samsung dlp : )

Aug

DGates wrote on 7/4/2007, 8:17 PM

I don't have experience with the FX7, but do remember that it's a 20x zoom, where as the VX series was always 12x. So the FX7 has a bit more glass for light to travel through, making the sensitivity less.

bsuratt wrote on 7/5/2007, 3:02 PM

I have had a FX7 for about 5 months now and have heard the myths about low light sensitivity. One must keep in mind that all of the cameras in this class are very close in specs and actual performance and I doubt that you will find much advantage in one over another. Profession video requires good light! Period! I have found the FX7 to perform very well in all levels of light, quite satisfactorily in fact.

A more important consideration for those skulking around taking pictures at night is the fact that CMOS sensors do not have the "starring" (white vertical line artifact) on bright lights (ie:streetlights) at night. I would not trade this feature for any amount of increase in sensitivity. This is a big plus over CCD cameras!

The FX7 has performed well for me and I chose it over the XAH1 for it's smaller size. It produces a spectacular picture!

DGates wrote on 8/16/2007, 5:53 PM

I was thinking of buying a VX2100 tomorrow, to go with my 3 VX2000's. But with the FX7 being just $250 more, I may decide to get one of those instead. Aside from the low-light issues, which many have said are overblown, the FX7 is an all-new camera, where as the VX2100 is at least a 3-4 year old design. Just seems like a smarter choice, plus it's HD, which I should finally get accustomed to anyway.