Well I can tell you I purchased the FX100 for nearly $4000 dollars and it is not worth the money. Also NEVER try to edit anything using a laptop.Always get a desktop for this purpose.
I purchased a brand new laptop just for editing. It was a CORE i7 and it has 8 GB of ram and still bogs down when I edit videos. The laptop simply can't run premier pro for some reason. But in regards to the FX100...my biggest complaint is that it is not a firewire product as I can't use it to stream and use it for live basic broadcasts since it uses USB and that can't handle it.
@jade5631 The question what type of filmmaker, documentary, feature film, web film. Basically al type of productions require there own type of camera. And not to forget what budget?
I rent my cameras so I can always use the newest and the one that fits the job I do best.
An overall answer is difficult to give but Sony, Canon, Panasonic are widely used in the low to midrange price market
@jade5631 for 1/3 chip not bad but new stuff with large sensors is on the market already Sony FS 100, Sony F3 and Canon C 300 ( end of Jan) but if that is to expensive most DSLR do well with low light
@jade5631 This is the wrong question and can't be answered. I do not regard HDSLR as a non professional camera. The question should be: large sensors against small sensors in low light. Large sensors win due to obvious reasons, they chatch more light. there are other reasons to make a choice between HDSLR and "video" cameras and that is ergonomics.
I just can't see how Canon can justify that $5,000 price tag for a camcorder that does so poorly in low-light. If the Mark lll gets rid of the moire and aliasing issues at a price under $3k it will be really interesting to see how many people abandon their expensive 1/3" chip camcorders.
@WastemanofOU This is a normal video (small sensor) camera, not a DSLR. Camera was pushed to its limits. It is much cheaper than 8000 US. I think for the money it is a very good camera. In spite of the fact there is some noice. Completely depends where you wil going to use it for. Remember no video camera in this price range has 50 Mbps and 4:2:3 colour space. Look for normal daylight shot if you are not able to judge shooting in the dark.
@theIDKer This is a normal video (small sensor) camera, not a DSLR. Camera was pushed to its limits. It is much cheaper than 8000 US. I think for the money it is a very good camera. In spite of the fact there is some noice. Completely depends where you wil going to use it for. Rememeber no video camera in this price range has 50 Mbps and 4:2:3 colour space. Look for normal daylight shot if you are not able to judge the difficult lighting that was chosen to what this camera can do in the dark.
Hi mate..strange question but how long do u think it would take to get used to this camera if you're a novice? (i.e low light settings, lenses etc) the reason i'm asking is that a friend of a friend is offering to borrow me this for 3-4 days for a short film before he moves abroad... i know im 'jumping in the deep end' but the opportunity is there so i though i'd take it..i've only had experience of the 7D. Thank you
@candidsniperdotcom only Sony's F3, FX 100 NEX and Pannas AF 100 but that chip is smaller.
Easy choice only 2 left. The first is the expensive one the second is the cheaper one hand but has less functionality and is conveniently smaller and more DSLR like. See Sony's website and Phillip Bloom's review or other reviews on YT
@candidsniperdotcom I don't think Phillip shoots with a pmw-350. besides it is a different league, small chip and way to expensive for what is available today for non broadcast users.
@candidsniperdotcom In a way yes. EX 3 might have a couple of options more but price wise absolutely.
XF 300 is the bigger brother and compares better to the EX3. Of course there are differences. But for extreme low light that I demonstrated inmy clip a large sensor camera would be better. As a professional I am happy with XF 300 as a cheap and small run and gun camera. Basically each job requires a different camera. Please see Philip Blooms review on his blog. He discusess all types cameras.
@candidsniperdotcom What is the priority? Low light requires large sensor and operating skills due to DOF. Sony's FX100 and F3 are the choices today. Smaller sensor ( less low light performance) Sony's EX1, EX3 but maybe better Canon's FX 100 and FX 300 ( favourable codec and datarate) for large sensor work you could have a Canon 600D (DSLR, same video as 7D) on the side. Latter has articulating LCD. All video cameras are camcorders that need a rig to hold. JVC GHY 700 does not Google all cams
@candidsniperdotcom No matter the price you should get an Arri Alexa. ($ 90 K) I only showed the extreme here under $7K. Sony's FX 100 ( large sensor) can beat Canon in latitude and noise. But Sony FX 100 is is 4:2:0 colorspace and a lower datarate (quality) than Canon's XF 100 and XF300 ( small sensor) those are 4:2:2 in colour space and have a datarate of 50Mbps. But large sensor and small sensor comparisson is like comparing appels with pears.
I see a very "filmic" look to this footage, great low light range, and with a little of post production "magic bullet's" or something like it, this camera is very likely to be able to be used in narrative as well as documentary work. I'm really impressed, and was not expecting to be. Given that this camera is 4:2:2 and it is "broadcast ready" I don't think it is too expensive. There are many ENG cameras that are not broadcast ready at about this price. A winner from Canon, is my vote.
@poederbach The codec is not AVCHD. It's a new codec, a version of MXF (by Sony). My guess is that they licensed much of it from Sony, and altered it. My Sony based editor, Vegas 10.c, recognizes the footage automatically as Sony MXF without a problem.
@SanJohnProductions - If you haven't made your purchase yet, I've got an AF100, and it does much better in low light situations than this, and for nearly four thousand dollars less. Check the specs and compare this footage to other AF100 clips on youtube, and I'm sure you'll most likely go with an AF100.
@SanJohnProductions - If you haven't made your purchase yet, I've got an AF100, and it does much better in low light situations than this, and for nearly four thousand dollars less. Check the specs and compare this footage to other AF100 clips on youtube, and I'm sure you'll most likely go with an AF100.
@poederbach For the price of the camera? errrm, this camera costs more than my car lol. 10 grand for a camera is a lot of money so you kind of expect exceptional video quality, whatever the environment and situation.
@dapoopta I would choose XF300/305 ( main reasons 1.2 lens, 45Mbs, 4:2:2) or if a larger sensor is desired AF100 ( Pannasonic) or Sony NXCAM al in the same price range and all "video cams"
This has been flagged as spam show
is it possible to take off the lens that is included with the camera and use a different lens? if so, where do u get them?
Hector95100 2 weeks ago
Was the sound that was taken from a built in microphone on the cam?
lilwave123 1 month ago
@lilwave123 No not build in but a mounted mic which is standard
poederbach 1 month ago
@poederbach Standard as in it comes with it? haha
lilwave123 1 month ago
Well I can tell you I purchased the FX100 for nearly $4000 dollars and it is not worth the money. Also NEVER try to edit anything using a laptop.Always get a desktop for this purpose.
ElectricalGuru 1 month ago
@ElectricalGuru Why? laptop can't handle it? Like, it will crash, because then I'd think you just need a laptop with a G processor.
lilwave123 1 month ago
@lilwave123
I purchased a brand new laptop just for editing. It was a CORE i7 and it has 8 GB of ram and still bogs down when I edit videos. The laptop simply can't run premier pro for some reason. But in regards to the FX100...my biggest complaint is that it is not a firewire product as I can't use it to stream and use it for live basic broadcasts since it uses USB and that can't handle it.
ElectricalGuru 1 month ago
using tape still better quality
milpalmbeach 1 month ago
what is the camera brand that is mostly used by film makers worldwide?
jade5631 1 month ago
@jade5631 The question what type of filmmaker, documentary, feature film, web film. Basically al type of productions require there own type of camera. And not to forget what budget?
I rent my cameras so I can always use the newest and the one that fits the job I do best.
An overall answer is difficult to give but Sony, Canon, Panasonic are widely used in the low to midrange price market
poederbach 1 month ago
@poederbach thanks
jade5631 1 month ago
@poederbach by the way this camera is great in low light compared to other brands
jade5631 1 month ago
@jade5631 for 1/3 chip not bad but new stuff with large sensors is on the market already Sony FS 100, Sony F3 and Canon C 300 ( end of Jan) but if that is to expensive most DSLR do well with low light
poederbach 1 month ago
@poederbach do you think DSLRs are better in low light compared to professional video camera?
jade5631 1 month ago
@jade5631 This is the wrong question and can't be answered. I do not regard HDSLR as a non professional camera. The question should be: large sensors against small sensors in low light. Large sensors win due to obvious reasons, they chatch more light. there are other reasons to make a choice between HDSLR and "video" cameras and that is ergonomics.
poederbach 1 month ago
@poederbach ok thanks for that bro
jade5631 1 month ago
One of the reasons why I like HDSLR's.
I just can't see how Canon can justify that $5,000 price tag for a camcorder that does so poorly in low-light. If the Mark lll gets rid of the moire and aliasing issues at a price under $3k it will be really interesting to see how many people abandon their expensive 1/3" chip camcorders.
charvelgtrs 2 months ago
The video quality depends of, 80% operator and 20% camera, that's the reason of this poor video
4mulas 2 months ago
@4mulas
The reason for that crappy low light video, is because of the camcorder using 1/3" chips, not the operator.
People just didn't realize how poorly camcorders did in low-light until HDSLR's came along.
charvelgtrs 2 months ago
terrible performance for an 8000 dollar camera.
WastemanofOU 2 months ago
@WastemanofOU This is a normal video (small sensor) camera, not a DSLR. Camera was pushed to its limits. It is much cheaper than 8000 US. I think for the money it is a very good camera. In spite of the fact there is some noice. Completely depends where you wil going to use it for. Remember no video camera in this price range has 50 Mbps and 4:2:3 colour space. Look for normal daylight shot if you are not able to judge shooting in the dark.
poederbach 2 months ago
not good for an $8000 camcorder
theIDKer 3 months ago
@theIDKer This is a normal video (small sensor) camera, not a DSLR. Camera was pushed to its limits. It is much cheaper than 8000 US. I think for the money it is a very good camera. In spite of the fact there is some noice. Completely depends where you wil going to use it for. Rememeber no video camera in this price range has 50 Mbps and 4:2:3 colour space. Look for normal daylight shot if you are not able to judge the difficult lighting that was chosen to what this camera can do in the dark.
poederbach 3 months ago
@poederbach
Thanks for the reply. I realized what you were saying is right when I started using mine.
theIDKer 3 months ago
@poederbach
Much cheaper than $8k ? It costs $7.5k in most places. I don't think it's good value for money.
CollectivePreference 2 months ago
The low light performance is poor in my opinion...There is much noise in this pictures
dafreeesubsman 5 months ago
how do you fix those grainy dark night skies on production or post-production?
esponert105 5 months ago
Hi mate..strange question but how long do u think it would take to get used to this camera if you're a novice? (i.e low light settings, lenses etc) the reason i'm asking is that a friend of a friend is offering to borrow me this for 3-4 days for a short film before he moves abroad... i know im 'jumping in the deep end' but the opportunity is there so i though i'd take it..i've only had experience of the 7D. Thank you
corleone0714 6 months ago
@corleone0714 Difficult to say. Setting up the camera is fairly intuitive. But that differs from person to person.
It is different form te DSLR's that is for sure but not that extreme. If you are not afraid of menus etc I would do it.
Good luck!
poederbach 6 months ago
@candidsniperdotcom only Sony's F3, FX 100 NEX and Pannas AF 100 but that chip is smaller.
Easy choice only 2 left. The first is the expensive one the second is the cheaper one hand but has less functionality and is conveniently smaller and more DSLR like. See Sony's website and Phillip Bloom's review or other reviews on YT
poederbach 7 months ago
@candidsniperdotcom I don't think Phillip shoots with a pmw-350. besides it is a different league, small chip and way to expensive for what is available today for non broadcast users.
poederbach 7 months ago
@candidsniperdotcom In a way yes. EX 3 might have a couple of options more but price wise absolutely.
XF 300 is the bigger brother and compares better to the EX3. Of course there are differences. But for extreme low light that I demonstrated inmy clip a large sensor camera would be better. As a professional I am happy with XF 300 as a cheap and small run and gun camera. Basically each job requires a different camera. Please see Philip Blooms review on his blog. He discusess all types cameras.
poederbach 7 months ago
@candidsniperdotcom What is the priority? Low light requires large sensor and operating skills due to DOF. Sony's FX100 and F3 are the choices today. Smaller sensor ( less low light performance) Sony's EX1, EX3 but maybe better Canon's FX 100 and FX 300 ( favourable codec and datarate) for large sensor work you could have a Canon 600D (DSLR, same video as 7D) on the side. Latter has articulating LCD. All video cameras are camcorders that need a rig to hold. JVC GHY 700 does not Google all cams
poederbach 7 months ago
@candidsniperdotcom No matter the price you should get an Arri Alexa. ($ 90 K) I only showed the extreme here under $7K. Sony's FX 100 ( large sensor) can beat Canon in latitude and noise. But Sony FX 100 is is 4:2:0 colorspace and a lower datarate (quality) than Canon's XF 100 and XF300 ( small sensor) those are 4:2:2 in colour space and have a datarate of 50Mbps. But large sensor and small sensor comparisson is like comparing appels with pears.
poederbach 7 months ago
Waar is dit in amsterdam?
NickZwanenburg 7 months ago
@NickZwanenburg Victorieplein kruising Rijnstraat
poederbach 7 months ago
Starting to consider selling my project car and buying one of these now.
NtrlizedPro 8 months ago
I see a very "filmic" look to this footage, great low light range, and with a little of post production "magic bullet's" or something like it, this camera is very likely to be able to be used in narrative as well as documentary work. I'm really impressed, and was not expecting to be. Given that this camera is 4:2:2 and it is "broadcast ready" I don't think it is too expensive. There are many ENG cameras that are not broadcast ready at about this price. A winner from Canon, is my vote.
8stringthing 9 months ago
@8stringthing I believe so. However you could not like the avchd codec and the not changable lens it is a good lens however opens up to 1.2
poederbach 9 months ago
@poederbach The codec is not AVCHD. It's a new codec, a version of MXF (by Sony). My guess is that they licensed much of it from Sony, and altered it. My Sony based editor, Vegas 10.c, recognizes the footage automatically as Sony MXF without a problem.
8stringthing 9 months ago
looks realy not clean
SanJohnProductions 10 months ago
@SanJohnProductions For the price of this video camera it is not bad. I went to the extreme. In normal circumstances this is a wonderfull camera.
poederbach 9 months ago
@poederbach how much cost this camera ? I'm thinking of buying an AF100 its better than the XF305
SanJohnProductions 9 months ago
@SanJohnProductions - If you haven't made your purchase yet, I've got an AF100, and it does much better in low light situations than this, and for nearly four thousand dollars less. Check the specs and compare this footage to other AF100 clips on youtube, and I'm sure you'll most likely go with an AF100.
BlareRuin 7 months ago
@SanJohnProductions - If you haven't made your purchase yet, I've got an AF100, and it does much better in low light situations than this, and for nearly four thousand dollars less. Check the specs and compare this footage to other AF100 clips on youtube, and I'm sure you'll most likely go with an AF100.
BlareRuin 7 months ago
@poederbach For the price of the camera? errrm, this camera costs more than my car lol. 10 grand for a camera is a lot of money so you kind of expect exceptional video quality, whatever the environment and situation.
malbert34 8 months ago
@malbert34 Camera is much less then you say. Camera 's that are realy high-end will cost up to 10 of your cars.
XF 300 and 305 are prosumer high end cameras and cost less then half of your car. Your expectation , sorry to say, is set wrong.
poederbach 8 months ago
Cool amsterdam.. But anyway i think that it is a bit expensive
bassiebe 11 months ago
Trying to decide between this and an Ex1... I have mark ii, but wanted a more 'video camera' to do different productions. What do you think?
dapoopta 1 year ago
@dapoopta I would choose XF300/305 ( main reasons 1.2 lens, 45Mbs, 4:2:2) or if a larger sensor is desired AF100 ( Pannasonic) or Sony NXCAM al in the same price range and all "video cams"
poederbach 1 year ago
@poederbach I've looked at the other 2, but the codecs suck. I am not a fan of avchd. I hate these choices :-)
dapoopta 1 year ago
@poederbach it's a 1.6-2.4 lens and 50Mbps
guywhosfly 11 months ago