Camera pondering...

Mike Rehmus · March 13th, 2004, 11:50 PM

Alfred.

The 390 is a current camera. So the body is about $10K give or take. Gotta add around $2K minimum for a minimum lens, $700 for a charger for Sony LiOn batteries in V-mount and between $500 & $1K each for the batteries.

The 300 costs about $3K for one in good shape with around 500 hours on the heads. A complete 300, minimum lens & batteries should run between $5K & $6K. The 300A just a little more.

Once you are in to a Sony 1/2" system, you can trade bits to upgrade. As you can with any camera system.

300 is sort of the basic camera of the family. The 300A added i-Link. The 370 added CCU capability. The 390 added better low-light capability.

Any of them take superb pictures. Privately Sony will tell you that if you stick to 4:3, the 300 series is a good as the 500 series in terms of image quality. And the 300 is a ton lighter than the 500.

Alfred Okocha · March 14th, 2004, 09:16 AM

Thanks Mike.

I just wanted to check if there was a big difference since you said that you'd probably upgrade yours?
Better low-light capability is something that you really can't get enough of!! (Didn't know of the 300a either..)

Sorry Andreas, didn't mean to hi-jack your thread.

Thanks again.

March 13th, 2004, 11:50 PM	#16
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Alfred. The 390 is a current camera. So the body is about $10K give or take. Gotta add around $2K minimum for a minimum lens, $700 for a charger for Sony LiOn batteries in V-mount and between $500 & $1K each for the batteries. The 300 costs about $3K for one in good shape with around 500 hours on the heads. A complete 300, minimum lens & batteries should run between $5K & $6K. The 300A just a little more. Once you are in to a Sony 1/2" system, you can trade bits to upgrade. As you can with any camera system. 300 is sort of the basic camera of the family. The 300A added i-Link. The 370 added CCU capability. The 390 added better low-light capability. Any of them take superb pictures. Privately Sony will tell you that if you stick to 4:3, the 300 series is a good as the 500 series in terms of image quality. And the 300 is a ton lighter than the 500. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

March 14th, 2004, 09:16 AM	#17
Alfred Okocha Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London Posts: 427	Thanks Mike. I just wanted to check if there was a big difference since you said that you'd probably upgrade yours? Better low-light capability is something that you really can't get enough of!! (Didn't know of the 300a either..) Sorry Andreas, didn't mean to hi-jack your thread. Thanks again.