HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

3D - HDR-TD10 (2011).
Professional models - HXR-NX70 (2011). HXR-MC2000, HXR-MC50 (2010).
Flash Memory / consumer - HDR-CX260V, HDR-CX580V, HDR-CX740VE, HDR-CX760V (2012). HDR-CX360V, HDR-CX560V, HDR-CX700V (2011). HDR-CX110, HDR-CX150, HDR-CX300, HDR-CX350V, HDR-CX550V (2010). HDR-CX100 (2009). HDR-CX12 (2008). HDR-CX7 (2007).
Hard Disk / consumer - HDR-XR260V (2012). HDR-XR150, HDR-XR350V, HDR-XR550V (2010). HDR-XR100, HDR-XR200, HDR-XR500, HDR-XR520 (2009). HDR-SR11, HDR-SR12 (2008). HDR-SR5, HDR-SR7 (2007).
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

Hi everyone,

Currently I own an FX7 which is fantastic in daylight, except in low light, its too noisy for my taste without having to go manual with a light, and horizontal pans are a pain due to a fuzzy sticky look in the video especially in slow motion.

I've been researching around on different models and the MC2000U got my attention because of the design and tapeless capability.
Realistically speaking there's more to a camera than just that, but those are decent features when it comes to convenience.
Mainly, the reason for this message is the comparison in image quality.

The general question that I have is, from your experience, opinion, etc.
are they comparable models or should I stick to the FX7?

Typically the FX7 is used to film indoor wedding like events and such, now and then the garden scenes, but outdoor filming is pretty much what makes the FX7 worth it, low light scenes are not so great especially when places are big and the fill in light isn't enough. Its either noisy video or dark video.

I've read that the MC2000U performs well in low light but is a bit soft in daylight, which isn't exactly what I'm looking for either.

can the MC2000U control the gain manually like the FX7?
is the "softness" too much a difference from the FX7?

What do you think?
it can be from your opinion, experience, etc. no problem. I'm just trying to make an good choice.
Thanks.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

I did a pretty extensive review of the MC2000 right here on the site. Take a look at it and if you have more questions we'd be happy to talk more. Excessively.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

I saw the post and I noticed that the colors in the MC2000U are a little bit on the unsaturated side compared to the rest and softer too. It looks like a VHS camera recording which isn't that great in today's technology advancements. Gaussian blur is sort of messy too on the MC2000U. Its like a camera that has a big enclosure to seem professional, include the tapeless capability for marketing, add the mechanism of a $300 camera with an overpriced tag. Certain features aren't so important when what really matters doesn't meet the minimum expectations.

Keeping in perspective that different lighting create different results, I wouldn't be sure how it would differ with the FX7 in daylight to a specific point because there's no sample on the FX7 with those specific tests on the post.

Although, I'm almost certain that the FX7 would be sharper and have more pleasant color representation if it were in the same test, I still wouldn't completely be sure because it would be judging without knowing.

I really couldn't tell much on the MC2000U efficiency with low light, which brings me to the conclusion that to an extent, the FX7 and the MC2000U are opposites in its benefits and shortcomings.

Another question would be if there's a camera that falls within these two models that can project sharp video with good saturated colors in daylight, decent lowlight, but most importantly, no blur during horizontal recordings.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

You're right in saying that the MC2000 is like a mid-priced HandyCam in a big body. I'm not so sure I'd compare it to VHS -- even the worst HD camcorder is ten or twenty times sharper -- but I get your point. The MC isn't bad but there are better cams out there.

In my opinion, the FX7 is in a different class, as it has three chips and far more manual controls. It isn't great in low light but it's not any worse than the MC2000. Any CMOS chip will give you the panning issues you describe -- it's endemic to the chip design, although they are making progress.

I don't personally think you will be gaining anything by dumping your FX7. I still have two of them and believe they are the best value in HDV out there for what they offer.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

I see.

The key here on the FX7 would be the CMOS chips for the horizontal problem, which is bad for the MC2000U too because it only has 1 chip and it's a CMOS.

On the other hand with the FX7, the sharpness and clarity of the 3 CMOS chips are the big advantage on its quality in well lit recordings, but is where the MC2000U is limited because it only has one chip.

I think it would be a better idea to get a different additional camera that doesn't have the CMOS chips to accomplish certain tasks while keeping the FX7 for the image clarity that it offers during the day.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

The three vs one chip has nothing to do with the sharpness, which is likely a function of the optics. Three chips potentially get you better color but no advantage with either sharpness or low light.

Nearly all new cams are CMOS. There are a few CCD cams still being made but none by Sony. A used FX1 or Z1, arguably a better cam, could be had, and they are CCD, but they are demonstrably softer than the FX7/V1. I had three FX1s and the FX7s blew them away in terms of sharpness and color. But the FX1s were better in low light. CMOS skew has never been an issue for me, on pans or otherwise.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

So if the factor that produces the sharpness is in the optics, that means that the lens in the MC2000U isn't as good as the one on the FX7 when light goes through it to produce the image, its like having certain glasses on a human that produce fuzzy results to the eye.

The MC2000U has only 1 chip which is the cause of the unsaturated color, and the quality of the lens is what causes the less sharp image regardless of the amount of chips.

On the FX7 when you say "has never been an issue for me"
do you mean, you don't have a problem with noticing the problem of skew on your particular FX7 recordings?
or your FX7 cameras don't produce the problem of skew in your horizontal pans?
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

I can't honestly tell you whether there isn't any skew or I just don't notice it. When I do a slow cinematic pan, there is no evidence of skewing that I can see, but I may just be missing it. When I do a whip pan for effect, the evidence of this is obviously buried in the blur of the shot and is not apparent. Either way it is invisible and not an issue.

There are whole books written on cinematic technique and shooters debate endlessly about pan speeds and such. There are even charts and tables which dictate how fast you are supposed to do this. But I think the best way is to experiment and get to know your equipment, as every camera (and every setting within) has its own personality and will give a different look. You might want to try playing with different shutter speeds.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

The shutter speed preset on the FX7 is 60.

I know for a fact that below 60 causes the frames to look like the ones produced by webcams.

If 60 is the preset that Sony considers normal,
about how much higher would it possibly help to reduce the skew?

In general, how much benefit is there on anything higher than 60?
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

The webcam look is caused not just by a slow shutter speed, but more by a low frame rate.

60 is the default shutter speed for 30 fps because the traditional shutter speed is always half (double) the frame rate, since the film days, because of the physics of the shutters on film cameras.

Faster shutter speeds will give you the "Saving Private Ryan" look. Slower ones will give you that dreamy motion blur look. Experiment and have fun. See if either has any effect on skew for you.
Adam
Post Reply