FX1 was one of the first HD cameras out there so it's not that great. It's not even true hd. If you're looking to spend a good amount of money you can't go wrong with the 21k. If you want the next step up it would probably be a dvx100. You won't notice a difference in picture quality and will also save a ton of room on your hd.
i am in the same perdicimate.... they both looks sick..... would the 21k be better for skiing or not? im not too smart about all the tech stuff on cameras but i know i want a good picture any condition of the snow...
bingo. that sums it up if those are the only 2 cameras you're looking into. I'd suggest looking into a dvx100b though, cause unless you have a really sick computer, editing HD is gunna be a real pain. So i'd say go with the dvx, it's in that price range and for that price range it cant be beat for SD(standard def)
yeah, its not quite true HD, but i hooked it up to my HD tv once, and played the tapes, and it looked better raw then most HD TV stations looked....so its quality is pretty high, yeah its not quite true HD, but its pretty close.
okay so correct me if i'm wrong, HDV is NOT HD basically it's not because it is being put onto a DV tape which cannot fit HD footage so it's compressed to a .mpg2 file instead of .avi like SD so when you burn it on a DVD it's being recoompressed to .mpg2 again, so basically double compression. the biggest difference between the two cameras is that the vx has a minimum illumination of 1 lux whereas the FX1 is 3 lux, they're both good cameras but the FX1 is pretty old, basically I would consider another camera, maybe the DVX100b or the Canon XHA1, a little more pricey but much better of cameras for the extra price.
dont get an fx-1 its kinda a waste of money, that dosent mean its bad though. i dont know what the differences are between the fx-1 and vx2100 but ive seen more footage that i liked from a 2100 than fx1.
id say get either a dvx or 2100 depending on what your into