Now the Z1 is revealed how does the FX1 compare?

mhbstevens wrote on 11/10/2004, 9:23 PM
Are the Z1 buyers getting any utilities not avaiilable to FX1 users or will all Vegas users have what's needed? Also am I right in thinking the VTR is not a necessity as the camera can perform the same function for an amateur user? I'm still considering one of the Sonys but my feeling is now to wait come the summer and see how the rumors pan out, maybe with a PD make-do.

Mike S


Spot|DSE wrote on 11/10/2004, 9:37 PM
The Z1U has 45 features not available on the FX1
There is a list, but I don't have the link and don't have an electronic version to copy/paste. (and don't want to type that much) :-)
Sunfox wrote on 11/10/2004, 9:58 PM
Here's a comparison table:

FX1 vs Z1

I've got an FX1 on order (although my dealer says I may have to wait until December - pooh!). There are 3 or 4 things I'd like from the Z1, but none of them really makes me want to spend another $1200.
Grazie wrote on 11/10/2004, 10:10 PM
Sunfox - interesting! It says that the FX1 hasn't PAL "support"? What does this mean - "support"? Is that correct? Will it film in PAL or not? If this is the case I'm gonna call my supplier and ASK the question . . hmmm...

Astronuts wrote on 11/10/2004, 10:21 PM
The Z-1 is both 'PAL' and 'NTSC' (more accurately 50Hz/60Hz) switchable. That particular table is referring to the 'NTSC'/60Hz model of the FX-1. The 50Hz (PAL) model does 50i and CF25 instead of 60i and CF24, CF30. So with the Z-1 you can switch between 50/60 Hz - 'PAL/NTSC' - with the FX-1 you have to buy one or the other model.

Hope that helps.

Grazie wrote on 11/10/2004, 10:27 PM
Thanks Astronuts! - So I wont "blast" my supplier then? ;)

farss wrote on 11/10/2004, 11:37 PM
A camera that shoots DV25 in both PAL and NSTC, and wait in 16:9 or 4:3, like I say the things worth the money just for that! And then add DVCAM and I'm wondering what's going to happen to the PD170?
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2004, 12:02 AM
. .and, Bob, what IS Canon not-up to? Canon XL2? Where does that fit in now? . . I'm starting to get up to speed with what all tese developments mean now .. hmmm .. Gum Smacking!

farss wrote on 11/11/2004, 12:56 AM
I really don't know the answer to that one Grazie, SPOTs probably going to disagree with me on this one but my feeling is stay with what you're comfortable with for the moment, I'm in the pretty fortunate position of not having to pay for one of these cameras just to try it out, come to think of it I'm being paid to try it out sort of.
On the other hand if you're up for a new camera then I'm hard pressed to imagine why you wouldn't be buying one, maybe for straight SD the XL2 has more to offer, haven't seen any footage from one so I'm just guessing.
I will say this, the 1080i from the camera with gear that can project the image onto a big screen is pretty awesome, maybe though if you don't have a need for that it might change the situation somewhat.
But the other thing of course is it's going to attract a lot of dollars that would have been spent with Panasonic / Cannon / JVC but that's fair enough, I think Sony have learnt a lot over the last 12 months and they deserve to have a winner on their hands.
Even if Cannon / Panasonic / JVC bring out something better I don't think Sony have left them much room to make any improvement unless they step outside the HDV spec, Panasonic could I guess pull a real rabbit out of the hat and goto 50 MB/sec using their DVCPRO 50 transport, which I think would be technically a good move but practically a really dumb one, there's already way too many formats to cope with.


Grazie wrote on 11/11/2004, 1:08 AM
Oh yeah! I saw my first HD at the beginning of the year - here at the Wembley Video Forum .. blew me away! But, I guess, Canon/Pana, would have known what Writing was on what Wall sometime back. I'm just intrigued to see what, if anything, will follow the XL2 - and how quickly?!? It seems like Sony have just pulled at least a FURTHER 8 furlongs in front of the rest of the pack . . yeah?

Stupid question here - I'm presuming that one could NOT do this anyway . . but what would HD look like on standard gear - TVs, monitors etc etc . . ? Would I notice anything? Point here is that if I should be in a discussion with a client, and I'm asked if I can "do" HD, would a/my response from be "Well, tell me how will you view the finished product? Do you have HD projection etc etc . . ?" . . . Is this a stupid question?

wcoxe1 wrote on 11/11/2004, 10:47 AM
Some of the things mentioned on the FX1:Z1 comparision table (Mentioned and linked, above) make no sense.

Why in the WORLD would they put an SMTPE Color Bar in the FX1 if it is NOT true. That sounds just plain stupid! Any answers as to WHY besides justifcation of the higher price on the Z1?
farss wrote on 11/11/2004, 12:30 PM
even if they don't have any HD kit they might have 16:9 SD and the FX1 is about the only camera that does 16:9 under $10K. Also someone has written the code that does a rather neat trick, shoot HD at 4:2:0 and downscale to SD at 4:2:2. All of that they'd certainly notice on SD gear.
Grazie wrote on 11/11/2004, 1:06 PM
You were supposed to give me a reason to save my money - BOB! OK, so there is even yet ANOTHER reason . . .. uggghhh.... I think it was the 16:9 that was turning my head.

Thanks anyways Bob,

mhbstevens wrote on 11/12/2004, 6:10 AM

I have the utmost admiration for your works though I feel after reading the specs referenced in this thread, your statement that "the Z1 has 45 features" not on the FZ1 gives an exagerated opinion of its benefits as most of the differences are minimal - such as color, buying the charger separately, or getting a few more assignable functions.

The only significant differeneces I see after readiing the detailed comparisons are:

Better Hyper Gain and Peaking levels
XLR and phantom power
PAL support with 25 cineframe

Until these cameras hit the street and are discounted we will not know the real price difference. The XLR is worth maybe $500 to avoid an adapter (but you may have one). Everyone I read says 30 cineform is as good or better than 30. I don'y know the importance of the higher gains.

Mike S

HPV wrote on 11/12/2004, 9:25 AM
Hey Mike, you missed two major things.
Audio limiter can be turned off and levels can be set for each audio channel.
Anyone care to comment on the quality of the mpeg 1 audio?
John_Cline wrote on 11/12/2004, 10:11 AM
Mpeg audio at 384 Kbits is going to sound very good. It's not uncompressed PCM, but at that bitrate I don't think anyone will be able to tell the difference. I'm not too concerned about it.

tnw2933 wrote on 11/12/2004, 11:10 AM
I have had an HDR-FX1 for about a week now, and the very first thing that I did (with all camera controls in full auto mode) was to start my Yamaha disklavier Grand piano playing and standing aobut 8 feet away from the pino in our living room film the piano while it played a piece. (Please note this is a Yamaha C3 acoustic grand piano with full reproducing capability.) I then took the footage downstairs to my home theater and played it back. In my home theater the audio from the FX1 was sent to my Lexicon MC-12 surround processor and then on to a 10 speaker surround system in which the front left and right speakers are Quad ESL 63s equipped with the Crosby modifications and the center, side and rear speakers are Aerial Acoutic speakers with two Vanderstein subwoofers. Amplification is via Audio Research tube amps.

I can tell you that I was very very favoralby impressed by the sound recorded in full auto mode by the FX1. There was not a trace of pumping or other artifacts. Sound levels were high without clipping, etc. All in all I was totally amazed at just how good the built in mics of the FX1 are.