My most recent camera is a Sony HDR-FX1. It still takes pretty good video however it's 9 years old and still uses hard to find tapes. Not to mention it's more of a pain to transfer video to
my computer. I also have a Sony Handy Cam that's two years old but the video quality is nowhere close to my HDR-FX1. It's really poor when it comes to 5-10 feet and nothing like my HDR-FX1.
For say under 2000 bucks I'm looking for something digital that records in 1080/60p. I need the wide angle ability of my old HDR-FX1 as I do a lot of video within 10 feet and I also
want to be able to record my kids hockey games which I couldn't do with the HDR-FX1 which is why I had the handy cam.
Can anyone suggest the best camera's out there that would be the newest baddest thing. The only other thing I would like to do is move away from the giant size of my HDR-FX1. It's fine
at home but I look at little silly at my kids hockey games. Something a bit smaller would be nice maybe between the two sizes as long as it does great in 5-10 feet and 50-100 feet.
thanks in advance
After poking around I'm liking what I see from the XA20..any thoughts. It seems like it does everything I need. I only wish the wifi had live streaming.
I suggest the Sony FDR-AX100 which is right on your budget or if you don't need the 4K feature the HDR-CX900 will save you US$500 while having all the features the AX100 has. Either model is much smaller and lighter than the FX1 but bigger than most true palm-sized camcorders in the market. They also retain much of the manual control your FX1 has and there is even improvement in some areas.
Image quality-wise they shoot far superior video in the progressive 1080/60p mode and noticeably better even in the interlaced 1080/60i mode which is all the FX1 can do. To me the only real downside is the skewing or wobbling of the image if the camera's movement is too fast or the subject's movement across the frame is too fast. However, this is true for most of CMOS-based video cameras on sale nowadays. If you feel you're too averse to this kind of image artifacts and your shooting often requires you to move the camera quickly to track fickle or fast moving subjects your choices of cameras are limited to a few, rather outdated, CCD-based models from Panasonic and JVC.
The AX100 would be a step up for you in terms of picture quality, but you would have to live with lack of physical control and fiddly menu access.
Another option would be to find an EX3 or EX1. A very good condition one is quite cheap now. And these would give a similar type of physical control as your present camera. With the advantage of card recording. You can even use SxS adapters that use mega cheap SD cards.
I went from the FX1 to the EX3, and never looked back. It is a better camera all round and produces full raster HD as opposed to the FX which does an electronic anamorphic 1440. Although, in the long run the EX1 would have been just as good and cheaper, as I never used interchangable glass.
I have gone from the EX3 to the AX100. Although this may seem like a step backwards, and it undoubtably is as far as form factor and proper physical features are concerned. The AX100 produces a better picture, for both resolution and noise. If you can live with the size of the AX and its lack of proper physical control. I would recommend you don't look any further, as its picture quality is absolutely fantastic.
Although I moan about the lack of physical control of the 100, I have started to take advantage of its physical size. I now have a full interview/doc shooting kit that all fits in a backpack, including lavs, shotgun and tripod. The shooting kit is so light, that I can get around town on public transport and be setup really quick with a client and out in a flash.