All I've got comes from twitter so far...

Sony Professional US (https://twitter.com/SonyProUSA) ‏@SonyProUSA

The newest entry to the #XDCAM line is the PMW-400 #SonyNAB pic.twitter.com/KdEXZWs67L

https://blog.sony.com/press/sony-expands-xdcam-hd-422-line-with-pmw-400-shoulder-camcorder/

Thanks Jim!

So still no PMW-300 to replace the EX3? Surely it must be the next one on Sony's list.

Good that XAVC is an option, bad that it's only up to 30p.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the next smaller form factor cam to include XAVC S and XDCAM HD422.

Hear any cost? Lens included? Could this be the upgrade to the PMW-350?

So still no PMW-300 to replace the EX3? Surely it must be the next one on Sony's list.

I would have thought so, too. It's been a long wait for a replacement to the EX3.

Considering how popular the EX3 has been & the release of all the 4:2:2 XDCams, I am surprised we don't have a 4:2:2 EX3 by now. The EX3 was announced 5 years ago at NAB.

The EX1 was replaced by the EX1R after 2 years. Then the EX1R was replaced by the PMW200 after another 3 years. Yes, the EX3 update is very overdue...

Does Sony knows something we don't & has given up on the EX3. Hell, Canon hasn't updated the XH-L1 with their XF codec. Think how popular the XL1 series was. Maybe the semi-shoulder mount market is dead?

Maybe the semi-shoulder mount market is dead?

Oh, I hope so! I've used the EX3 a lot, and it's one of the most uncomfortable hand-held cameras I've ever used. When I shoot with the EX3, I try to keep it on the tripod as much as possible.

Is there any difference between the PMW400 and the older PMW500?

If I remember right, then the PMW350 was followed by the PMW320 - basically the same, but the PMW320 had 1/2" chips, not 2/3". (And is a lot cheaper!)

So can we expect a 50Mbs (and XAVC?) version of the PMW320 before long? I'd like to think so, and maybe such could be the answer to both the EX3 and PMW320 upgrades?

If I remember right, then the PMW350 was followed by the PMW320 - basically the same, but the PMW320 had 1/2" chips, not 2/3". (And is a lot cheaper!)

So can we expect a 50Mbs (and XAVC?) version of the PMW320 before long? I'd like to think so, and maybe such could be the answer to both the EX3 and PMW320 upgrades?

David, if so, that may be the sweetest camera out there. 1/2" chips are fine with me, and with a broadcast codec in a true shoulder mount design, that would be a terrific little camera. And a lot cheaper than the PMW400.

My only doubt to this would be, why wouldn't they announce it for NAB?

A 1/2" interchangeable lens shoulder-mount 4:2:2 XDCam seems like such an easy decision & seems long overdue compared to the update history of the EX1. So I feel like Sony has some market research, or limited R&D resources, or something that is preventing this.

But still, look at the popularity of the EX3. Look at the popularity of 4:2:2 XDCam. Put the two together.

PMW200 uses the same chips & same lens, so Sony doesn't need to do something from the ground up, just a refresh on a good performer.

---

What is a little more of a stretch, but what I would love to see is an update to the Z7U. Either XDCam 4:2:2 or NXCam. It would be the only handheld 1/3" interchangeable lens tapeless camera on the market. And a nice compliment / competition to the JVC HM700 series & Panasonic HPX300 series cameras.

My only doubt to this would be, why wouldn't they announce it for NAB?
Good question - maybe to deliberately split the news, keep a drip, drip of new product news? You could ask why the PMW350 and 320 didn't come out together? Same situation? But I'm guessing.
And a nice compliment / competition to the JVC HM700 series & Panasonic HPX300 series cameras.
Yes, the PMW320 has had the undeniable advantage of 1/2" chips over the HPX300. But the HPX300 has the codec edge (full broadcast compliance, albeit at the cost of 3x the datarate). And both at similar prices, last I looked.

Match XDCAM422 with the PMW320 and the result then becomes the obvious choice in the budget true shouldermount range.

As for why it hasn't happened before, I can only guess that they were protecting their higher range. But with XDCAM422 in lower cameras (PMW100/150/200) AND in the PMW400, it seems inconceivable the same won't happen in a PMW320 revamp. I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier.....

Doug Jensen's video on the PMW400

PMW-400 on Vimeo

The PMW-400 is going to be pretty cheap. I heard a price of around $16k/£10k

PMW400 Could be the HD Version of DSR400

Rajiv

The PMW-400 is going to be pretty cheap. I heard a price of around $16k/£10k

What??
$16K - is that with a kit lens and EVF? If so, that is an amazing price point. That would be thousands less than the 350 it replaces.

$16K - is that with a kit lens and EVF? If so, that is an amazing price point. That would be thousands less than the 350 it replaces.

No way. A good 2/3 HD lens costs $16K & up. At that price you'll most likely get the VF, no lens and if you're lucky a mic.

No way. A good 2/3 HD lens costs $16K & up. At that price you'll most likely get the VF, no lens and if you're lucky a mic.

A really good HD lens, yes.
But an adequate lens comes with the PMW350 in a kit. Here's one for $18,400.

Sony PMW-350K XDCAM EX HD Camcorder w/16x Zoom Lens PMW-350K B&H


That's why I am wondering if the stated $16,000 price for the PMW400 includes the kit lens. I'm guessing it's body w/ EVF only.

In the UK, a 350L is about £9,800 at the moment, a 350K is about 10,850. So if Alister says "heard a price of around $16k/£10k" that is virtually exactly what the 350L is going for at the moment. One manufacturers website is already listing a PMW400L and a 400K, so it seems highly likely the K model will have the same lens and be a little under £11,000. Probably about $17,500 in the US, and yes, it does include a very good viewfinder.

I have a PMW320K, and a similar situation with kit lens. I can't dispute it's possible to get better 2/3" lenses - but pay huge amounts more for. The kit lens represents incredible value for money, and if far wider zooms, longer reach telephoto etc are called for, you can always rent or buy later

The messages I heard at NAB was that the 400 will cost roughly the same as the 350. The 400 is basically a 350 with a new codec chip, so there isn't really any reason why the price should be all that different. The other differences are the extra HDSDI port (which is a little add on on the side of the body) and a removable panel on the right hand side to allow you to dock the proxy/ftp box on the side. I think it's a hell of a lot of camera for the money and I'm going to be banging on the product managers door over the coming months to get one for testing and review.

The messages I heard at NAB was that the 400 will cost roughly the same as the 350.
Doesn't surprise me, but it begs the question whether the PMW350 will continue to be available at a reduced price, or whether it will just be replaced by the PMW400?

And have you heard anything about an upgrade to the PMW320/EX3, to give either/both of them the 50Mbs codec? Because after the PMW200 etc and now the 400, they're looking the odd ones out?

No whisperings of a 320 replacement. I think it's only a matter of time before we see a PMW-200 type camcorder with XAVC. My guess would be NAB next year.

No whisperings of a 320 replacement. I think it's only a matter of time before we see a PMW-200 type camcorder with XAVC. My guess would be NAB next year.

That means at least my EX1R has another useful year left before obsolescence catches up.

Alister
It would be good if you could review the new PMW 400 alongside a 500 to look at the images from the CMOS sensors in the 400 in comparison to the 3 CCD chips of the 500.
But I wonder whether Sony would let you do that as the 500 should be the superior image. But bang for buck, the 400 represents excellent value at the approximate prices being quoted.

That means at least my EX1R has another useful year left before obsolescence catches up.
:-) In all seriousness, I suspect XAVC has it's real point when you want to go to higher framerates and/or higher resolutions such as 4k. Likewise cameras with very low noise figures, when the 10 bit nature starts becoming relevant. That's why it's no surprise to see it's first appearance on high end, looking to the future, cameras such as the F5/55.

For the standard of images that the EX1R produces, and in one of the current broadcast TV standards (1080p/25, 720p/50 etc) it's not likely to offer that many quality benefits, but likely be more difficult to work with and require a higher datarate for recording. On the other hand, XDCAM at 35 or 50Mbs is a far more valid "here and now" matter. For broadcast, 35Mbs is only really recommended for news etc, 50 Mbs is fully accepted.

Putting XAVC options on to the PMW400 can only be welcomed in terms of future compatability, but I suspect that most of those sold will spend most of their lives switched to XDCAM - at 35Mbs for news, 50Mbs for other work.

But I wonder whether Sony would let you do that as the 500 should be the superior image. But bang for buck, the 400 represents excellent value at the approximate prices being quoted.
I suspect a big problem would be that there are so many variables it becomes difficult to reach a truly valid judgement. It's also quite possible that many of the differences may be subtle, and may be in terms of control via menu options - not just "in your face" quality of image factors. That may make them well worth it in terms of higher end use - less so in terms of news, documentary etc. (When lower power consumption is far more likely to be relevant.)

But yes, I agree that it's in "bang for buck" terms that the PMW400 really scores. The PMW350 has been pretty well received, but there's always been that niggling "if I do anything for full broadcast spec I'll need a separate recorder". With the PMW400, that caveat has gone away.

Alister do you maybe know if it indeed comes with a lens? And is that the same one as on the PMW-350? With this camcorder coming there would not onlu be no market left for the PMW-350, also the PDW-680 gets a hard time. The reason to buy this one for ENG to most freelance newsguys was the 50 Mbit.... Now it's only the disc-workflow which would be preferable to some people, though, not to me....

I believe you will be able to buy just the body only or with the same kit lens as the 350K. I'm not 100% sure on this though.

Re 500 vs 400. I always liked the image quality from the 350, there is something more organic about the 350 pictures that I prefer over the PMW-500. That's a personal choice and not everyone will agree. In terms of sensitivity, noise and dynamic range the 350 and 500 are very close and I suspect the 400 will be no different.

The PMW-400 will be offered with or without a lens. I predict the list price for the version with the lens will be around $20K with the body-only being about $18K.

I also predict there will be a replacement for the EX3 announced before the end of the year that will have the UDF HD422 codecs. Maybe even shipping before the end of the year. I'm calling it the PMW-300. However, it would not come as a total surprise if the PMW-320 got the HD422 facelift and the EX3 body style went away completely.

Doug, In prior posts, I recall you expressing the obvious diffidence between the PMW 350, and the PMW 500/ PDW-700/800. I also noticed the difference when comparing the images of Sony's 2/3 CMOS vs Sony's 2/3 CCD; not bad, but just different. In my opinion, I favor the CCD image, it looked more robust. Anyhow, do you know if Sony will be using a new generation of 2/3 CMOS chips for the PMW 400, or will they continue to use the chips developed for the PMW-350?

My wish is for affordable 2/3'' or 1/2'' Global Shutter CMOS sensors with good SNR and Dynamic Range. If the S35 sensors already are starting to have Global Shutter, it's a matter of time before smaller sensor sizes have it.

I've been waiting to make the change to HD for a while now, but, as an owner of a DSR450 (which is still a great camera by the way), I was looking at the PMW200 as a replacement. I'm glad I held off now as this PMW-400 camera looks like the perfect upgrade, with 2/3 chips and of course 4.2.2 50Mbs spec. Does anyone know the weight of the camera with viewfinder and supplied lens? I can't seem to find it on the spec supplied so far. August can't come soon enough for me!

Don't forget the PMW-F55 takes a serious sensitivity hit because of the frame image scan global shutter. I assume this suggests a memory pixel adjacent to the light sensitive pixel making the light gathering pixels smaller. This is acceptable on a larger sensor where you have more space for bigger pixels so start off with better sensitivity, but on a 2/3" sensor I'm not sure how many people would put up with a 50% reduction in sensitivity. Would people buy a PMW-450 which is only half as sensitive as the PMW-400 or a PMW-350? It would be less sensitive than an EX1, PMW-200.

It will be interesting to see how well the internal flash band compensation works. I almost never have a real world issue with skew on a proper video camera, but flash band is more of an issue.

Once technologies to compensate for the sensitivity (like BSI) can be perfected, the smaller sensors could get enough sensitivity to be usable.

Would people buy a PMW-450 which is only half as sensitive as the PMW-400 or a PMW-350? It would be less sensitive than an EX1, PMW-200.

I do think we've gotten spoiled. I wouldn't go back to the days of the BVW-507 dockable at f8 @2000 lux, that's for sure.

Is CCD technology seriously that unviable right now? CMOS always seemed like a stop-gap measure but it now looks like it is here to stay.

Unless I'm mistaken, the downside to CCD was heat and power consumption compared to CMOS. I remember a senior sales guy (it MAY have been Brian Young at Sony back in the day) telling me that CCDs were actually MORE light sensitive inherently.

Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

It will be interesting to see how well the internal flash band compensation works. I almost never have a real world issue with skew on a proper video camera, but flash band is more of an issue.
I'm not speaking from personal experience, but have heard tales that suggest it's most likely to work reasonably well most of the time - but on occasions get fooled by features of the image to give a false correction. (And look far worse than if no correction had been applied.)

The advice I'd heard (some Panasonic cameras have had an in-camera ability for a while) is for most work to normally leave the mode firmly switched "OFF" and do any flash-band correction in post and software - where any false detections can be ignored. Problem with doing it in-camera is that once done, that's it, the correction is burnt in and no going back.

OK, such as news may be different, with simply no possibility of doing it later (especially for a live camera! :-) ) and maybe it's considered that correction most of the time is worth the occasional mishap.

I also agree about the global shutter and sensitivity factors. For this type of camera, I strongly suspect that most users will prefer the sensitivity advantage over the global shutter. And if we ever start to see 2/3" 4k cameras, then photosite size may become even more of a factor, mean giving up sensor area to memory pixels becomes even more of an issue. But let's not look too far ahead!

I'm optimistic for smaller sensors that could retain sensitivity. In the pro world, my opinion states that 2/3'' 4K may be irrelevant if you could debayer a higher than 4K S35 or Full Frame sensor properly. 1/3'' 4K may soon be the realm of consumer cameras though.

In the pro world, my opinion states that 2/3'' 4K may be irrelevant if you could debayer a higher than 4K S35 or Full Frame sensor properly.

Hardly irrelevant until we can start making 133x parfocal zoom lenses for S35 cameras.

The whole indie cinema revolution has forgotten that you AREN'T the only players.

Broadcast television still exists and WILL exist for some time to come. Want to watch baseball, football, soccer?

Long zoom lens required.

Your Dancing With Celebrity Apprentices?

Long zoom lens required.

Sports television and entertainment television are among the drivers for high quality television programming.

And frankly, if you think you are going to find operators that can do tight follow on a ball receiver with a S35 sized sensor at full telephoto, you're kidding yourself.

Horses for courses.

2/3" is alive and well.

Well said Shaun. Often I miss my PMW500, now that I am using a C300.

And frankly, if you think you are going to find operators that can do tight follow on a ball receiver with a S35 sized sensor at full telephoto, you're kidding yourself.
As regards most of your post, you're spot on. Comparable lenses (zoom range, max w/a etc) for s35 will inevitably be bigger, heavier and more expensive than the equivalent for 2/3" - so yes, 2/3" is likely to remain the sweet spot for much television for a while to come.

But as regards following focus, then s35 need not be any worse than 2/3" *IF* such a camera is stopped down about three stops compared to a 2/3" camera. In such a case they'd have comparable depth of field.

You may be thinking "but what about the sensitivity, stupid!?", but remember that for comparable technologies the 8x area of s35 should predict a 3 stop sensitivity gain over 2/3". In practice, the single chip nature of any feasible s35 is likely to drop at least a stop, so all else equal I'd only expect the s35 camera to be about 2 stops more sensitive than a 2/3" one. But it would mean (in theory) it could be operated 2 f stops down compared to 2/3" for equivalent light - which would get back a lot of that dof.....

Hardly irrelevant until we can start making 133x parfocal zoom lenses for S35 cameras.

The whole indie cinema revolution has forgotten that you AREN'T the only players.

Broadcast television still exists and WILL exist for some time to come. Want to watch baseball, football, soccer?

Long zoom lens required.

Your Dancing With Celebrity Apprentices?

Long zoom lens required.

Sports television and entertainment television are among the drivers for high quality television programming.

And frankly, if you think you are going to find operators that can do tight follow on a ball receiver with a S35 sized sensor at full telephoto, you're kidding yourself.

Horses for courses.

2/3" is alive and well.

Then why have they not made CMOS global shutters the focus of the 2/3'' realm!?! High telephoto = Skew on CMOS sensors. This is why sports is mostly CCD based still.

This is why sports is mostly CCD based still.
I think Shaun may have been correct when he said "....the downside to CCD was heat and power consumption compared to CMOS".

Now power consumption is mainly an issue when the equipment is battery operated, especially if extras such as camera lights, radiocam transmitters need powering as well. Move onto Outside Broadcast and studio cameras being powered down the cable and power consumption becomes far less important, and hence likewise the need to move onto CMOS.

And is it true that high telephoto automatically means worse skew? I thought skew varies with the time taken to pan across a frame width. So with a long telephoto there won't automatically be worse skew - as long as the angular rate of pan decreases to keep period taken to pan across a frame width the same?

But as regards following focus, then s35 need not be any worse than 2/3" *IF* such a camera is stopped down about three stops compared to a 2/3" camera. In such a case they'd have comparable depth of field.


Of course, my bad... I'm just so used to S35 shooters forgetting there is anything BESIDES wide open...

Move onto Outside Broadcast and studio cameras being powered down the cable and power consumption becomes far less important, and hence likewise the need to move onto CMOS.

When I was at CBC-Radio Canada (the Canadian national public broadcaster), we used Camplex units for our OB news trucks (French had satellite and English had microwave in Winnipeg when I was there) that sent bi-directional video, 2 ch audio, duplex comms and 12v up to I BELIEVE 70 watts over RG-6 coax so I could power just about everything as long as I didn't use my "sungun".

If memory serves, the BetaSX cams used about 18w in standby, 27w with the transport engaged and we never rolled tape in-camera during live hits. The ODD time I HAD to use the sungun, I'd throw a BPL-90 on and disconnect the 4 pin XLR from the Camplex so I wouldn't trip the breaker at the truck.

Of course, our big OB stuff was either multicore or triax.

EDIT: Actually, the 9 series BetaSX used 31 watts transport engaged.

Back lit sensors only bring an advantage when the pixel size is smaller than those on most 1/3 and 1/2" HD sensors. Pixels are not going to suddenly get more sensitive. Decent modern sensors already achieve QE's of over 70%, that's to say that 70% of the photons of light that hit the sensor get turned into electrons. It would take a completely new sensor material to improve sensor sensitivity, and even then at best the most we would see would be a 20% - 30% sensitivity increase which is only 1/3 of a stop. That's just the laws of physics at play.Sensor and pixel size is everything!
There are likely to be further very small improvements in noise performance and noise reduction and these may help but noise reduction almost always comes at the expense of some other image artefacts.

CCD's biggest problem is the cost. A CCD sensor has to read out the signal by passing it down through a series of memory registers or pixels. The problem with this is that in a 1920 x 1080 CCD sensor the readout form pixels at the top line of the sensor have to pass down through 1079 of these pixels or memory registers. If there is even the smallest imperfection with one of the registers then it will effect the entire vertical column, get two of three registers in a column with even the minutest bit of signal loss and the signal form every pixel above those registers will be degraded and the quality loss is cumulative. As a result of this need for perfect quality registers the base silicon used has to be of the very best quality and the reject rate for finished sensors is very high. This makes CCD's significantly harder and more expensive to make than a CMOS sensor. CMOS sensors can directly access each pixel, so they don't have this issue. Heat and power are other factors, but in a large bodied shoulder mount camera the heat can be dissipated reasonably easily.

I shoot a lot of broadcast and its all 2/3 inch or even 1/3 inch. Love my PWM 500 and about to hit the road again shooting in some of the hardest part of our country, extreme heat, dust and loads of fishing. The 400 looks good.

With you all the way mate, PMW 500 is the best camera i have ever owned.

Hope you are well?

Here is a small promo that I shot and edited for an new show I'm putting together. Shot on the PMW 500 and no grading done at all, probably should have but looks great on my Flanders as is. Call me crazy but CCD's has a feel and look that I love.

Postcards From the bush - YouTube