Unhappy with EX3

Steve Connor · March 22nd, 2009, 04:27 PM

Awful lot of broadcast professionals using this camera every day might disagree with some of your conclusions.

I use it almost every day and do not agree with your summary of the camera, however if the quality of the image doesn't meet your expectations then perhaps you should have tried the camera before buying, I know I did.

Brian Luce · March 22nd, 2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Hughes

Good enough they are used as a B camera on Dexter to hang with the F23. Great article/interview with the DP from the show in American Cinematographer this month. Thats less than 1% of the cost of an F23 and they run it on the show - pretty wild.

Not bad. F23 is top drawer. That's like being third leg on 4x100 Relay team with Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin.

Brian Barkley · March 23rd, 2009, 08:01 AM

A videographer friend paid $20,000 for his lense alone ... his camera package cost him almost $150,000.

You and I paid under $10,000 for a camera that included the lense. I do not see how we can complain about something as cheap as the EX-3 is.

I have zero complaints about my EX-3. It is truly an incredible camera for the price.

Jon Braeley · March 23rd, 2009, 08:44 PM

So you are only shooting your back yard clothes line and a pergola?

This is a stupid complaint. I just spent 10 weeks shooting four hours every day throughout India and China - I can hardly see one bad shot caused by the Ex3. The only bad shots are usually due to the camera operator not compensating for their equipment. I suggest you spend an extra $100,000 and get the camera you need to shoot your backyard clothes lines.

Jeremy Hughes · March 23rd, 2009, 08:58 PM

Gotta add how much this camera saved my butt today. Had a shoot where we needed to shoot luma keys full body. We had to do it onsite as well and it definitely should have been a studio shoot. Without the massive amount of control under picture profile I would have not been able to pull it off. What was wild is I was able to drop out almost all sat inside the screen while where I'll garbage matte (the walls) still had all their color. Pretty awesome!

Forrest Burger · March 23rd, 2009, 11:53 PM

I have an EX1, not an EX3...but I can tell you the video I've taken in my back yard has been incredible. Try shooting in your front yard and see if that works better for you.

Robert Young · March 24th, 2009, 02:00 AM

The photographer's art- his "trick" if you will, still or motion, is to get the viewer to look at what he wants you to see. Next time you're at a movie try looking where you're not supposed to- at the background, the edges of the frame, etc. It's hard to do, but you'll see all sorts of interesting junk- motion artifacts, distortion, and so forth. That's why it's called photography, not reality. You would seldom be filming clothes lines and poles without including a specific object of regard that advances your story. A little bowing goes without notice, because it is usually incidental to what the viewer is looking at. As has been stated, photography is an interpretive art, and the camera is just the tool. The Ex 1&3 are on a par with the best of these tools. I think that the more you use it, the more you will appreciate it.

Chris Hurd · March 24th, 2009, 08:39 AM

Michael has not re-visted the site since making his post, but the 20-odd replies you've all given will hopefully assist other folks who might share his opinion for some reason. Thanks for your input; I think we're pretty much finished here. If Michael Lyas wants to respond, he should contact me offline and I'll re-open the thread.

March 23rd, 2009, 08:44 PM	#19
Jon Braeley Major Player Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 528	My back yard consisted of a clothes line and a pergola. So you are only shooting your back yard clothes line and a pergola? This is a stupid complaint. I just spent 10 weeks shooting four hours every day throughout India and China - I can hardly see one bad shot caused by the Ex3. The only bad shots are usually due to the camera operator not compensating for their equipment. I suggest you spend an extra $100,000 and get the camera you need to shoot your backyard clothes lines.

March 23rd, 2009, 08:58 PM	#20
Jeremy Hughes Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 276 Images: 2	Gotta add how much this camera saved my butt today. Had a shoot where we needed to shoot luma keys full body. We had to do it onsite as well and it definitely should have been a studio shoot. Without the massive amount of control under picture profile I would have not been able to pull it off. What was wild is I was able to drop out almost all sat inside the screen while where I'll garbage matte (the walls) still had all their color. Pretty awesome! __________________ www.elevate-m.com filmvideostuff.blogspot.com

March 24th, 2009, 02:00 AM	#22
Robert Young Trustee Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Coronado Island Posts: 1,472	The photographer's art- his "trick" if you will, still or motion, is to get the viewer to look at what he wants you to see. Next time you're at a movie try looking where you're not supposed to- at the background, the edges of the frame, etc. It's hard to do, but you'll see all sorts of interesting junk- motion artifacts, distortion, and so forth. That's why it's called photography, not reality. You would seldom be filming clothes lines and poles without including a specific object of regard that advances your story. A little bowing goes without notice, because it is usually incidental to what the viewer is looking at. As has been stated, photography is an interpretive art, and the camera is just the tool. The Ex 1&3 are on a par with the best of these tools. I think that the more you use it, the more you will appreciate it. __________________ Bob

March 24th, 2009, 08:39 AM	#23
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Michael has not re-visted the site since making his post, but the 20-odd replies you've all given will hopefully assist other folks who might share his opinion for some reason. Thanks for your input; I think we're pretty much finished here. If Michael Lyas wants to respond, he should contact me offline and I'll re-open the thread. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 22nd, 2009, 04:27 PM	#16
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	Awful lot of broadcast professionals using this camera every day might disagree with some of your conclusions. I use it almost every day and do not agree with your summary of the camera, however if the quality of the image doesn't meet your expectations then perhaps you should have tried the camera before buying, I know I did.

March 23rd, 2009, 08:01 AM	#18
Brian Barkley Major Player Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Overland Park, KS Posts: 233	A videographer friend paid $20,000 for his lense alone ... his camera package cost him almost $150,000. You and I paid under $10,000 for a camera that included the lense. I do not see how we can complain about something as cheap as the EX-3 is. I have zero complaints about my EX-3. It is truly an incredible camera for the price.

March 23rd, 2009, 11:53 PM	#21
Forrest Burger Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver, WA Posts: 86	I have an EX1, not an EX3...but I can tell you the video I've taken in my back yard has been incredible. Try shooting in your front yard and see if that works better for you.