Ah. Well, in pure resolution chart terms, the FX1 wins easily. It's high-def. It puts down about 775 lines of vertical resolution, versus a maximum of 480 to 540 (depending on whether you're talking "TV Lines" or actual scan lines) for the DVX and XL2.
In horizontal resolution the FX1 delivers somewhere between 800 and 900 lines, or about double what the DVX and XL2 can do.
Even in CF30 mode the FX1 is putting out about 550 lines, competitive with the DVX and XL2, but still having twice the horizontal res.
The thing is, the DVX and XL2 can shoot progressive-scan, and in progressive-scan mode they can deliver the full resolution of the frame without the row-pair summation and vertical blur that is employed in interlaced mode. In interlaced mode the DVX and XL2 do about 360 lines, and the FX1 does about 775 even though it has 1080 pixels to work with).
In any contest of resolution, when displayed on a high-def monitor, the FX1 will handily win. When displayed on a standard-def monitor is another story, and for DVD release they deliver about the same, resolution wise; on the downconversions I've been doing and comparing between the cameras the DVX and XL2 look sharper on DVD than the FX1 does.
As a DV camera, the FX1 does not excel -- it can come close to the others, but doesn't have nearly the image control, light sensitivity, frame rate or audio of the DVX and XL2. As a high-def camera, the FX1 is (currently) unparalleled, at this price point. If you like the look of interlaced HD, and can display it on an HDTV, the FX1 is clearly superior to any DV camera.
-----------------
The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available! See
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/dvxbook/
