Picture quality between Z1u and A1?

Is there a major picture quality difference between the Z1u and the A1?

I have the Z1u (but no housing yet), but am pondering if I should get an A1 instead for underwater work...

It will be lighter and easier to travel with, but if there is a major quality difference picture wise, I might have to lug around the bigger housing the Z1u requires. :-)

Any input?

Cordially

Anders Jelvéus

In bright sunny conditions, the quality difference is minimal.

However, underwater where the lighting is less than optimal, you'll easily be able to see the difference.

The A1 will still look awesome, so whether or not the quality difference is enough to warrent lugging around heavier equipment is a personal choice. For me, the A1 fits the bill perfectly.

Well, I am planing to use Halcyons dual 50W HID setup for the camera so I will have enough light. I know the Z1u has a better lux reating (3), but if lighting is the only major draw-back I can see the benefit of the smaller setup.

Anders

I think that considering the Z has 3ccd and the A1 is a single ccd then there probably is a pretty big diff in colour if nothing else.

But, i haven't used the A1 so that is pure speculation on my part, but with DV cameras there sure is a big diff between something like a Vx2100 and a PC series camera

Are you saying that under the same light circumstance ( ie macro / close up and lit with proper lighting ) that FX1/Z1 vs HC1/AU1 will be similar in resolution ? huh:

Perhaps the only difference the trained eye may see would se would be in saturation of the reds ( a known trouble area for NTSC )

I have used a Z1 in ALL the currently available housings with HID lights, and found the results to be varied. The main difference seems to be in light quality rather than low light capabilty.

I have used a A1 as a control piece ( auto white balance ) in a variety of situations and found it to be the equal of a Z1 in the same lighting situations.

Just wondering if it is in fact worth lugging a monster about or not ?

What are the members thoughts ?

Peter

ps Merry Xmas to all

Peter

I'll have to respectfully disagree. Having compared clips from the A1 and Z1 shot head to head in HDV, I'd say there is a noticeable difference, esp in low light where the A1 has noticeable grain at the same light level. Doug Spotted Eagle has a website where he puts the HC1 (the A1's twin sister without peripheral steriods) and the Z1 (the steroided FX1):

HC1 vs Z1 clips

Those are pretty big downloads but worth the effort even if they weren't shot in manual. you also need to sign up.

Which brings me to the ergonomics of the units. The FX/Z1 can adjust exposure as aperture settings, the HC/A1 cannot, instead working on a lever with no feedback except what you see in the vf/monitor, which underwater may be more difficult. On the other hand, if you shot autoexposure then it's not an issue. I go manual very often for macro under lights, going with the zebra indicators at 100% or even 70% to dull that Sony overcontrast.

I personally think the HC/A1 is a great B camera to the FX/Z1 where it is at 90-95% picturewise (color in 3CCD is always going to be nicer) of the big boy. It's not quite there and both cameras when shot in manual, the clips are a lot better.

I'm going to get one for personal travel in places where the big housings and cameras don't make sense (like my upcoming trip to Indonesia on puddle jumpers). However if it's critical stuff, well the little one doesn't quite cut it against the big boys in pic color saturation, rendition and sensitivity. Just my 01 cents.

Yuletide greetings to all...and hannukah too

Are you saying that under the same light circumstance ( ie macro / close up  and lit with proper lighting ) that FX1/Z1 vs HC1/AU1 will be similar in resolution ?  huh: 

 

Perhaps the only difference the trained eye may see would se would be in saturation of the reds ( a known trouble area for  NTSC )

 

I have used a Z1 in ALL  the currently available housings with HID lights, and found the results to be varied.  The main difference seems to be in light quality rather than low light capabilty.

 

I have used a A1 as a control  piece ( auto white balance ) in a variety of situations and found it to be the equal of a Z1 in the same lighting situations.

 

Just wondering if it is in  fact worth lugging a monster about or not ?

 

What are the members thoughts ?  

 

Peter

 

ps  Merry Xmas to all       

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then again, I have noticed the difference between the TRV950 and the PD170..But I have cut that down to size through editing with filters..etc..sometimes you have to look at your budget...Then consider what world you live in. Like me: beginner / low budget / lives inland / normal day job..?? Buy what you can afford...!!! There will always be better..

Dive safe

DeanB

Mike, don't forget that the A1 is not a single CCD, but a single CMOS, and it has been very well recieved. Is it equal to a 3 CCD? Hell no, but again, it ideal lighting conditions it's VERY comparable, even in color and contrast saturation.

I do agree with Scubadru though, that underwater the Z1 is going to be the clear champion, no matter what type of lights you bring with you.

I've certainly run into all of the A1's limitations in low light, however I've found the grain to be acceptable, and not unpleasantly annoying. And while there is an obvious loss of color and contrast in low lighting, I haven't come across anything that isn't correctable in post. I use Sony Vegas for editing.

The A1 also has a black expander that attempts to equalize the histogram. I haven't done the research on it, but I suspect it does something similar to the way the Fuji S3 boasts it's High Dynamic Range feature. I do know that recording with that option on, and then adjust the curves in post provides for some truly amazing low light footage.

The A1 Black Stretch Mode is nice and gives a nicer look when the light level drops but still only up to decent levels of light (I didn't have a light meter with me). It reduces contrast by adjusting the bottom end of the picture curve so essential it turns blacks into greyish tones when the light level drops, while maintaining detail. The main function is actually for very strong contrasty scenes where the roll off will blunt the picture and creat a more balanced look. Don't know if I'd leave it on all the time but being that it's in the LCD menu system, it's an on or off thing on a dive. I'll have to explore once I get the camera myself for a more indepth look.

Another lowlight compensation mode, the nightshot, is similar to the Hypergain mode of the Z1. Turns everything greenish due to the high gain and there's a little more grain noise obviously. Might be great for effect at thresher shark cleaning stations or mandarin fish. In moderately low light, the pic still is very decent and the green cast can be removed.

Of course, I only spent 4-5 hours on the A1 testing the lowlight abilities with all the various modes. There might be ways and methods to boost performance that the bunch of us didn't think of.

My biggest pet peeve about the A1 isn't the lack of a independent WB button on the body (instead of using the assigned button) or the lack of aperture settings, it's the stupid bottom loading for the tape. That means it's a major hassle to change tape, esp on a boat in the field.

Kerr Cook at Sonyhdvinfo did some pretty detailed head to head with the FX1 and HC1. His conclusion was that, above water, some shots were better on the HC1 and others on the FX1. In low light the FX1 will walk away with that large lens but the HC1 is a mix of everything learned from the FX1 shrunk into an HC1000. Is the HC1 bad in low light? No, for the size camera it is it does very well. Some of the image processing appears to be different. Overall the FX1 is better but they are amazingly close.

I'm impressed how little red bleed HDV has compared to SD footage. I think Sony really worked on that.

I just read Kerr's comments on the HC1. He was shooting one still object with large object backgrounds. If you try do the HC/A1 with say leaves on trees, you'll see why 3 CCDs are better than 1 CMOS. The chroma is reduced a bit as does resolution on such backgrounds compared to the big boy. So to equate that to uw terms, bait fish and complicated backgrounds(soft coral fields etc) will suffer a bit due to the CMOS/Bayer. It can be bad but generally quite ok.

I'm glad I got mine and will put it through the paces tomorrow with the S&S HC1.

Great,

Please keep us informed about your experience with the HC-1.

Sincerely

Anders

Does the S&S HC1 housing have access to the "Assign Button"

I've been anxiously awaiting info on the Sea and Sea housing, since I loved my 2100 S&S housing.

Yes it does. Very fancy looking one too. I'll be getting some pics for a quick review on Friday and if I'm not too tired partying over the weekend, it'll pop out for the new year.

I don't really like this housing as much as the VX2100. It's better made than the VX950, with really good quality buttons etc, but the thing is still plastic and the handling may be terrible u/w like the VX950. But I can use my SWA100 on this housing and not have to buy a new one with another housing.

I just read Kerr's comments on the HC1. He was shooting one still object with large object backgrounds. If you try do the HC/A1 with say leaves on trees, you'll see why 3 CCDs are better than 1 CMOS. The chroma is reduced a bit as does resolution on such backgrounds compared to the big boy. So to equate that to uw terms, bait fish and complicated backgrounds(soft coral fields etc) will suffer a bit due to the CMOS/Bayer. It can be bad but generally quite ok.

I'm glad I got mine and will put it through the paces tomorrow with the S&S HC1.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't argue with you there. Having three color filters instead of 3 million is a better system but I'd be curious to see some like for like UW.

TV Technology's lates issue has an entire article comparing the A1U and the Z1U. Kind of interesting...