I can't think of a good reason to buy the VX 2100, the PD 170 would seem a better choice if you wanted to stay in SD. If your choice is HDV then the Z1 is surely the go rather than the FX1.
Only today we had another 3 hours of footage to dub from HDV to DB but the interesting thing was this footage was ex USA but someone had the foresight to select 50i so this was a no brainer.
Bob.

I assume this will be a short thread because I can’t see any reason to spend $2500-$3000 on an SD camera when HDV cameras can be had for just a little more and have superior image quality when downconverted to DV as compared to any SD acquired DV camera. IMHO, the useful life on an SD camera is limited.

Did you real all the threads on DVInfo.net about this? Many claim the FX1 isn’t that far behind the VX2100 in low light. And they are testing them with equal gain settings when the FX1 can use more gain with less noise and get even closer to the VX2100.

I had the same decision to make. Last year I promised myself that this year I’d get a new DV camera. When I went to buy, SD just didn’t make any sense to me so I got the Z1. Best decision I ever made. I’d go for the FX1 over the VX2100 without even thinking about it. You could be shooting HiDef instead of agonizing over a decision to buy 2 year old technology or not. To me, it just doesn’t make sense.

~jr

I must say I agree. I have a VX-2000 but I just bought a HVR-A1U. The A1 is nowhere near as good in low light, but in anything from average interior lighting to outdoor shots, the picture is simply orders of magnitude better. If you already have a decent SD camera you can squeeze a year or two more out of it, but if you have the choice go HD from the get go.

I agree with JohnnyRoy. While I have no plans to do HD, I do need a third camera, I am looking for a good deal on a used PD-150 or VX2K, but if I buy new, it will be a Z1.

The FX1 has 3 lux minimum light requirement, while VX2100 needs 1 lux, so it is 3 times better in low light.
The VX2100 is about 700-1000 dollars cheaper. I own a VX2000, and plan to upgrade to VX2100, because it has the lowest light requirement. Afterwards, I plan to get either FX1 or Z1, but will keep VX2100 for low-light situations.

If I remember anything else, I will post it.

Thank you all. Special thanks to JohnnyRoy for the links to DVinfo.net. I hadn't been to that site for a long time. Really good discussions, and lots of answers to my questions, including things like auto-focus.

Geez, John...wish you were closer to Burbank, as we'll be bringing the "I Want My to the Burbank area.
We tried for San Jose, but it just doesn't work out with dates and travels this time around.

"while VX2100 needs 1 lux, so it is 3 times better in low light"

don't mean to get picky BUT 1lux vs 3 lux doesn't mean it is 3X better in low light ... these lux reading that manufacturers state in their spec's are misleading/useless ? what is their standard for that reading ? when they state 1 lux is that with or without gain ? does the 1 lux mean there's a good image that can be recorded to tape and you can use it ? or is there something there on tape but has so much noise it's useless to use ? in film they use a standard grey card (18% reflective) to rate ASA speed = when the gray card is reading 18% it will have a negative density of X = it's a standard to compare against other film stocks speeds ( also if your light meter says it's 18% but the negative density is not where it should be then your light meter is off and needs calabration) ....

so without a standard for manufacturers to state clearly what kind of image they have at 1lux or 3 lux ?? .... so the real question should be what is the light reading ( lux or footcandles) at 0 gain and then a standard for the image in front of the camera ( maybe a grey scale, or grey scale with color scale?? )
with a grey scale you now have something that is standard and the iamge can be compared to other camera's ...

from my test ( 0 gain) i find the 2100 to be approx 1 1/2 stops faster then Z1 ... i usually set key light at 50 footcandles = the Z1 has a much cleaner image then 2100 ...

Well, because they are from the same manufacturer, the lux rating would follow the same guidelines, don't you think?
VX2100 is made by Sony, and the FX1 is made by Sony. This looks like the same manufacturer to me, unless 2 different companies have the same name.
Anyways, I am not 100% sure, but it seems that all manufacturers like to boast their camcorder's sensitivity by specifying it at the highest gain possible.
For example, Panasonic specifies very low lux rating on its small camcorders where they are using "MagicPix", which seems to be low framerate, long exposure setting (plus high gain).
Sony, it seems, does the same thing, where you can have as long as 0.25 seconds exposure (4 frames per second) with 18dB gain (looks good, I have to admit).

And you tell me if it makes sense for Sony to rate their next generation camera with higher lux requirement, unless it's true!

I haven't compared VX2000 or VX2100 to FX1, but I will do that as soon as I have the chance. Then I will see if the difference between 1 lux and 3 lux is significant. And yes, I am aware that HD may look better then SD under low-light conditions because of more pixels captured, and that's something that real-world tests are required to find out.

I can't shake the feeling that Sony plans on coming out with an HD camcorder with lower lux rating, like 1, for example. Might be called FX2.

Well the f/stop difference between 1 lux and 3 is 1.5stops. Useful, but not dramatic.

I always get a good laugh out of these discussions, reminds me of "HiFi" systems back in the 70s, "Listen to how LOUD that mother is, and that's at 3!", I mean imagine what it'll be like at eleven.
What you need to look at is signal to noise ratios at a given stop and light level. From memory most of the high end camera quote their figures at around 200 lux and those cameras have WAY better low light performance thanks to 2/3" CCDs, anyone who thinks they can pull useable video out of 1/3" CCDs at 1 lux is I think being very optimistic.
What we're not factoring into this discussion is how content delivery has changed over the last few years, we're now delivering on DVD, not VHS and the one big problem with mpeg-2 is noise, I've seen video shot at probably around 100 lux on PD150s and it's still full of noise, so much so that the mpeg encoder runs out of bandwidth resulting in noise that stutters and looks absolutely horrid.
Things get even worse with HDV, we're now encoding a high resolution image first to mpeg-2 that's highly bandwidth constrained and then repeating the process again to deliver DVD content.
Just yesterday we transfered HDV from the A1, shot under fairly average indoor lighting and it look woefull, when you looked carefully at the image it was obvious why, it was full of noise. Next we did 3 hours of footage from a Z1, not much better, noise was lower but this time not static shots and the low light was clearly spinning the autofocus system out, yuck!
Yes, I'm playing devils advocate here. But I think we need to consider the whole process and all the things that affect image quality throughout the chain and in my humble opinion it all starts with light and the more of it the better. No matter what we shoot on I'm hard pressed to image any shooting scenario where you can have too much light and it's easier than ever to get more light. We spend $1000s on cameras and next to nothing on their food (light!).
Bob.

John,
Do you have an HD Flat Screen TV to view it on? If you don't, that will be an added cost to consider.

Also, focusing on an HD camera is much more critical than it is with a more forgiving DV camera. The LCD screen has a multiplyer to enlarge the image for focusing when you zoom in, but that is one extra step. When HD cameras are slightly out of focus, it really shows. Also, the rocker zoom and the zoom ring on the FX1 don't work together. They are independent of one another so you have to choose.

The low light difference may be a factor if you shoot in a lot of artificial light like in stage productions. That also complicates the focusing accuracy as well. For me I use a VX2000 which is essentially the same as the VX2100 so the choice would be obvious. The VX2000/2100 are impossible to beat in terms of low light performance (my primary consideration).

There is an interesting comparison between the two cameras by that strange guy at Supervideo. You might want to take a look at it.

I bought my camera from Vanns. At the time they not only had the lowest price, but they also had free shipping, were an authorized Sony dealer, and had a no questions asked 30 money back return policy. I think they have recently modified it to be 30 days unopened and 15 days if opened.

John

Geez, John...wish you were closer to Burbank, as we'll be bringing the "I Want My HDV" tour to the Burbank area.

I hope you make it to the Bay Area again. I'd like to see the show, and I could use the info at this point in time.

Do you have an HD Flat Screen TV to view it on? If you don't, that will be an added cost to consider.

Actually, there are huge costs to consider if I want to make the complete jump to HD. The camera cost is actually quite trivial compared to these other things. However, since HD delivery doesn't exist, and since computer horsepower is no longer following Moores Law, it will be a long time before the workflow and cost effectiveness for HD is anywhere near SD. Five years at least (probably longer). Thus, I doubt very much that I will be doing HD work anytime soon. However, the FX1 still seems to make sense as a much better capture vehicle for SD, and can be justified on that alone.

The low light difference may be a factor if you shoot in a lot of artificial light like in stage productions.

I tried to head off another of these debates by stating in my initial post that I didn't care about the minor differences in LUX ratings nor did I care much about the difference in price (compared to the VX2100). I have now read a LOT of posts here and at DVInfo.net, and it is pretty clear, when reading posts by people that have actually used both cameras, that with the gain settings properly adjusted, the output quality of low-light video from the FX1 compares quite favorably to the VX2100. While low-light capability is useful in my work, it certainly is not a dealbreaker spec, and the FX1 is better than almost any other camera other than the VX-series, so I'm going to be in fine shape.

OK John,
In addition to Vanns, I would also recommend Newegg although I don't think Newegg is an authorized Sony dealer like Vanns is. They ARE both honest though in addition to having among the lowest prices on the FX1.

John

Actually, B&H is cheaper than both Vanns and NewEgg and they are an awesome dealer. I’ve bought tons of equipment there and their customer service can’t be beat. Also the AES show is just around the corner and B&H usually runs sales during major shows. Not sure if they will have video equipment on sale during an audio show but it’s something to check for. They had an awesome sale on the FX1 & Z1 during the WEVA convention.

~jr

Farss makes very good points re low light and S/N and these are figures the manufacture's specification states at 100/200 lux (never at minimum-got-a-usable-image lux). The question of cost of getting a large screen HD TV isn't particularly relevant, because editing in HD and rendering to SD DVD produces a superior image. Editing in HDV isn't particularly testing of computing machinery, and any case Gearshift is there to overcome any such problems. We all have a tendancy to report that whatever buying decision we've made is the greatest, so on this basis my having bought an FX will have me saying "this is the best-value-best performing-absolutely-wonderful", and I am quite satisfied with the performance/cost tradeoff. I seriously considered the GL2 & VX2100 options (a friend producing corporate videos gave the GL2 a great wrap), but in the end decided to wait to see what developed out of the next-gen rumours (I was coming from a 16mm background). I was almost seduced by the too-expensive XL2 but decided that SD was being replaced and didn't cut it for me anyway. Should I have stretched the budget to the Z1? The 50i/60i option wasn't important for me, but there are some other internal software trimmings that are attractive, so as black stretch and extra zebra. Of course the FX lacks XLR inputs (so add the cost of a BeachTec if you need those) but mostly is identical to the Z1. Somebody has found that the Z1 software can be loaded into the FX (via the LANC), which isn't surprising because mostly such closely configured things have exactly the same hardware suite with less of it activated in the cheaper model. Incidentally DSE doesn't recommend such an upgrade (if you can locate the site talking about this) and I guess Sony would be displeased if you had to trot up saying that your camera doesn't work anymore!

Serena,

Very useful post. Thanks a bunch.

As for where to buy, I've dealt with NewEgg (just bought a disk drive there) and they are a good outfit. However, I buy all my cameras, video, and scanners at B&H. They have never let me down.

I'll look at the prices at Newegg, just to make sure ...

....

OK, I just checked.

B&H is $3,129.99, plus $33.45 for shipping.

NewEgg quotes $3,137.95, plus $20 for shipping. Pretty much a toss-up.

Don't know the limitations of budget vs. ambition, but remember that Panasonic's hi-def HVX200 will hit the market in two more months. About twice the price though.

I just did my first shoot with my new HVR-A1U today. We were looking at the footage this afternoon. Under three grand including case and four year warranty. You can see individual hairs on peoples heads! It's just amazing how good the footage looks!

...........You can see individual hairs on peoples heads! It's just amazing how good the footage looks!

not doubting it for a minute, but if its a client how ya going to give it to him where he is going to see that great clarity ?

Second B&H. Got my FX1 there, with the 4 year warranty.
Class operation.

Edit: "Flat Screen", not necessarily. I have a 65" Sony Rear Projection. Does 1080i sweet.

I guess I'm in the same position. WAS leaning towards teh VX-2100, though.

Don't know much about HD. If I were to record and edit in HD, how DO you deliver that? Does it burn to a regular DVD? If so, can it be played in regular DVD players? If so, if the TV isn't HDTV ready, does it still play fine?

Thanks,
Jeff