Frage von Drrichardfahrer:
I would like to see either soon or the FX1 and FX7 buy now knows not which is really better. Despite reading many test reports, which unfortunately often synonymous contradictory, I'm just as smart as before :-(
Is it synonymous with the FX1 set that you want to record in 4:3, or is it always in 16:9 on (no preference whether or not DV or HDV)?
Who has experience with both cameras and can give me detailed hints to why one or the other camera is better?
Thanks in advance and affectionate greetings,
Michael
Antwort von Udo Schröer:
After the first recording in HDV, the question arises as to the format 4:3 or 16:9 no more!
The image quality and will decide
ever since HDV is 16:9 and the picture quality is better at worlds .....
Antwort von Markus:
... and now knows not which is really better. The question seems to me to be very general. - Better in what respect?
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
Hi,
The FX1 has better wide area and is next due to the front display is ergonomic (subjectively). The image converter is larger (1 / 3 to 1 / 4 ") and the screen dissolves much better. Because there are more differences (for direct comparison is perhaps
this BG
Andreas
Antwort von Jan:
Hello,
Here 2 links of many others:
FX1-the-successor-sony-hdr-FX7 HDV camera-buying-please-to tips VG
Jan
Antwort von BjörnF:
Somehow you try it with a standard issue apples with pears to compare. The FX7 is not a successor to the FX1 and as already mentioned, there are a few differences that each of its area must weigh.
Björn
Antwort von Dattelaffe:
Hi,
The FX7 has only 1 / 4 inch chips, but the individual pigments sensor tilted by 45 degrees, so almost double Resolutionentsteht because twice as many segments drauf fit.
Dattelaffe
Antwort von Drrichardfahrer:
Thank you first for your first answer.
I can already imagine that I am not from HDV 4:3 wants anymore, but it is true that 4:3 with the FX1 is no longer possible?
Why is there still believe that the FX7 is better if the wide area in the FX1 is better, the chip size advantages, the luminous intensity (Lux) better, etc. ..?
And why some still argue for models such as the PD170, which is not 16:9 and HDV have not (but the same cost)?
All this for me is still quite confusing and I would like to hear personal opinions - the whole comparison links I already know :-)
What is now really the advantage of the FX1 and FX7 at what or why it used one of the two cameras, or why not synonymous (many say so synonymous that the images in pans with HDV are not good, others are re-satisfied) -- I hope that I have a lot of help!
Thank you!
Liebe Grüße, Michael
Antwort von r.p. television:
Clearly the FX1. Good wide-angle, bigger screen etc.
But:
Why not the Canon XH A1?
Synonymous'm actually more of a Sony-type, but the FX1 can not really with the XH A1 match. The Canon is much sharper, more custom controls, the same wide angle zoom, but higher, better stability, XLR inputs (here requires Sonydeutlich surcharge). Only the display on the FX1 is better.
Antwort von Oburs:
@ Drrichardfahrer:
because you sure the info on www.fxsupport.de
've read, do you know that the FX1 does not
makes the sharpest pictures ...
and there are canoncams a1, HV20, HV10 and the Sony FX7
clearly strongest in their class.
The FX1 has a great wide angle - how the s.doch without CA
The FX7 has a large zoom range (eg for animal shots)-like
the a1 -
The FX7 has a handy size and an HDMI output.
The settings correspond to audio level
FX1 which only has a 3 assignbuttons and more
has 3einstellungen for peaking, ie. the manual image adjustment
is very possible ...
which does not work is the bildzunen as for a1, which is only
in advance or in studio recordings can be useful.
because the manual focus, the biggest problem in
HDV (consumer / prosumer), this area is focusing aid (peaking)
and a good viewfinder / lcd indispensable ...
the lcd the FX7 is better than the s.and worse than the
the FX1 but anyway I am using 90% of the viewfinder ...
gruß cj
ps. with the picture quality of the FX7, I am very satisfied so far.
Antwort von BjörnF:
The FX1 is 4:3.
You need to be included but DV. What they can not do, is HDV tapes to 4:3 DV runterkonvertieren - and the cut edges. This may be just the Z1. The FX1 can tell you from HDV only DV 16:9 - anamorphic or letterbox it.
I personally can not synonymous benefits of PD170 converted to a Z1 see pictures. For my taste, the Z1 with the much better off - by the whole handling times except that I like better times apart.
That should not neglect synonymous. If the pictures in different shades, then I am the relatively no preference. Ultimately depends on the handling - and as with the V1 is much too close s.der PD170 and the Canon because I like not synonymous.
Björn
Antwort von Jan:
Why is there still believe that the FX7 is better if the wide area in the FX1 is better, the chip size advantages, the luminous intensity (Lux) better, etc. ..? The other contribution described:
7 Special FX The FX 1 is no (or reduced) such as:
The-meter course in Auto Mode
Peaking-extended (edges increase in red, yellow or white (white only FX 1))
In AutoFocus-regulate after with the focus ring
And LCD viewfinders simultaneously - of what I know of PD 170, unfortunately, is the only Color Viewfinder
- Zebra and Peaking at the same time
- FX 7 need significantly less power
- The slow motion and 1-megapixel photos (well)
- The fast HDV entry for a VX or PD filmmakers - Size and
Buttons (location) are very similar
- 6 assignable buttons vewendbar eg with infinite Focus, Peaking, Spotlight, markers (FX 1 would have to 3)
- HDMI
- The images of the FX CMOS 7 rushing significantly less than comparable CCD - they are synonymous more than 6 dB gain possible
- 20x optical zoom instead of 12x
- Almost smearfreie Pictures - vertical stripes of Lichquellen (by CMOS - thanks to technology other CCD readout (FX 1)
- The compact size of the FX 7
Cj has been synonymous things mentioned.
And why some still argue for models such as the PD170, which is not 16:9 and HDV have not (but the same cost)? Because the PD 170 is powerful bomb with its 3x 1 / 3 "CCD with fortunately only 450,000 pixels each, the larger pixels synonymous you get a higher dynamic range - that is a good representation of black and white (or rather the intermediate gray tones) in hard contrasts,
a large number of filmmakers I know say the PD 170 more synonymous in the Picture after drawing. DVCAM recording, XLR and are still a few sweets.
Who with very little light to work (bad can illuminate) and in the price of staying in class - knows only the model (or her little sister & predecessors - VX 2100, VX 2000, PD 150).
PD 170 is the number 1 concert camera itself, as long as no Digibetas & JVC DV 5000 in the vicinity are available.
Wolfgang (Chef Video Forum) said it many times, is Geruckel to 95% on the bad Anschaupanel due, or the SW or the calculator s.PC general. Wilde fast pans, but you should refrain.
As proof that I really with the 2 cameras already had to do, or 2 pictures.
VG
Jan
Antwort von PowerMac:
(...) To demonstrate that I really with the 2 cameras already had to do, or 2 pictures. (...) Na! Little more self-confidence! I trust you without two synonymous ridiculous images ...;)
Antwort von Johannes:
I never thought that the PD170 is so large. I thought it is the larger of her as the XM1, the contrast is really tiny.
Antwort von naturpfad:
Look at my website. However, HD WMV files of FX1 and FX7 and test photos on the website.
If you want to know something PECIFIC mail me.
Peter Gruss
www.naturpfad.ch
