FX1/Z1 vs. A1U

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

PeaceDog

Contributor
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
# of dives
Thoughts?

I'm looking to upgrade the rig this year to HDV, and only want Sony.

I've heard the low-light capability of the A1U is better than Sony wants to admit, but I know it's only working off of 1 chip vs. 3 in the bigger FX1.

If you're shooting for TV, can the A1U stand up?
 
Remember that for most of your shots you will be using lights anyway, so the low light issue is not as pertainent as many seem to be making it. Another point to consider is that the US doesn't have as strict an interpretation of lux standards as they do in Japan, thus the same cam in the US will be advertized with one lux standard and in Japan with another. The footage from the A1U stands up very well to that of the Z1U and the FX-1, are there differences? Yes, but subtle and to many, not even noticeable. The bottom line is often not on how good the cam may be but on the talent of the shooter.
Either cam will do you well
Steve:14:
 
A wise sage as always, Steve. Thank you very much.
 
Very few people shoot with lights during the daytime as long as you have decent visability and adequate sunlight. Here in South Florida, I usually have both in abundance. There is more than a subtle difference in video quality between the FX1/Z1 and the HC1/A1, especially in poor lighting. If you're shooting for TV, you will be much better off with an FX1 or a Z1, due to better low light ability, better manual controls, no "rolling shutter" issues, and the larger mass of the camera and housing help to steady your shots. Much more camera specific information available at SonyHDVInfo and DVInfoNet. Another consideration is the added cost of FX1/Z1 and housing, and having an extra large piece of checked luggage when you travel. Below is part of my reply to a related question on another forum.
Color correction filters are absolutely necessary for correct and vibrant colors in underwater video unless you are shooting either macro, at night, or in dark or murky water, all while using lights. The reason for manual white balancing is to tell the camera what is the value of white. Camera sensors do not see color, they only see the lumiance values of black to white, through either a Beyer Filter (1-chip), or through three discrete sensors (3-chip) each seeing only the red, blue or green parts of the image separated by a prism. The value of white varies dependant on depth, visability, distance, angle, color temperature of the light source, and other factors. Once the camera knows what is white, it will then be able to calculate accurate values for all of the colors. Color correction filters work by blocking a percentage of the short wavelength light (mostly blue then green) and allow the longer wavelength light (red then orange) to pass through. The deeper you go, the less color corrected light that your camera will see, so low lux performance is very important, especially the deeper you go. I shoot with a Sony FX1 in a Bluefin HD housing, and always shoot with a color correction filter during the day, and get outstanding color in my videos. I use lights only at night, or if in a dark overhead environment. Nothing beats the natural light of the sun, manually white balanced through a color correction filter for underwater video. Also, it is usually necessary to manually white balance often, due to changing conditions and depths
 
videodan:
There is more than a subtle difference in video quality between the FX1/Z1 and the HC1/A1, especially in poor lighting. If you're shooting for TV, you will be much better off with an FX1 or a Z1, due to better low light ability, better manual controls, no "rolling shutter" issues, and the larger mass of the camera and housing help to steady your shots.

Dan:

Thanks for your feedback. have you shot with the A1U? What did you not like about it in the water? What were the image quality issues you didn't think were up to snuff? You're the first u/w video pro I've seen speak seriously ill of the resolution as compared to the Z1, so I'm interested in more of what you have to say.

I still don't think it's going to affect my buying decision (my budget makes the ultimate choice), but i would like to know a lot more about what to expect and NOT to expect from the A1U.
 
There is no question that the larger mass equates with a steadier shot, the FX-1 or Z1-U is much easier to hold steady topside than is the A1-U/HC-1. However, for underwater work, once in the housing, there is plenty of mass via the housing itself that keeping a steady shot is not much different that it is for the larger Z1-U. I am a part of a sizable underwater video group that meets every month. Last month we lined up a Sony 2000, Z1-U, A1-U, 900 and FX-1 in a fairly dimmed back room at the Cocos restaurants. In low light, the HDV cams really outshown the SD but pretty much equalled themselves. Yes, there were differences but they were negligable. I use lights all the time, even in daylight, if there is lots of ambient light, the lights will not have much of an effect, if at all. However, they also do no harm either. If they help even in the slightest than that is fine by me. Despite all this, having the latest toys do not help the shooter who has not learned how to have a steady hand, it does not help the shooter/editor who has not the feel of a story or the craft of their chosen NLE. I'll take a skilled shooter with lesser equipment over the poor shooter with the very best any day of the week.--Steve:14:
 
This is one of the best threads we've had here in a while. Thanks, guys.

A lot of my digital mentors have noted that the three-chip vs. CMOS or one-chip debate should be viewed or argued differently than it has been in the past because the overall quality of the single chip is significantly better than it was even a year ago, and that this generation of CMOS sensors is very impressive.

It is also my understanding that most pro digital photographers are shooting on cameras that are 1 chip. The 1 vs. 3 thing means nothing to them. Granted, movement vs. still image is a wasted debate, but still...

I'm looking at 4-5 weeks in Galapagos next winter, with a sizable amount of on-location local stuff in between. If the difference to the typical human eye - not the tech guru - is limited to non-existent, then for travel's sake I know how I'm going to roll.

After all: who do we make these films for, anyway? The resolution geek who will nitpick the minute details of the picture but who has never seen a naked woman or the underwater enthusiast who will be enthralled by footage of nuclear feeding on the reef?

Let's keep the info coming. Thanks again.
 

Back
Top Bottom