There are accessories for mic holders that can mount in place of the stock EX1 mic holder. Likewise, there are some shoe expansion products . I bought the 2nd one. In any case, I have two camera-mounted microphones, usually an omni and a cardioid but sometimes two of the same. One microphone is usually set 10 dB lower to avoid hitting the EX1's fixed limiter

"J-Rod Twin Shoe Mount"
Moving Still LLC J-Rod Twin Shoe Mount Hot Shoe Adapters at Markertek.com (http://www.markertek.com/Video-Equipment/Camera-Gear-Accessories/Hot-Shoe-Adapters/Moving-Still-LLC/ORIGINAL-J-ROD-TWIN-MOUNT.xhtml?J-ROD)

"J-Rod Super Strong Twin Mount for EX1/R EX3"
Moving Still LLC J-Rod Super Strong Twin Mount for EX1/R EX3 Hot Shoe Adapters at Markertek.com (http://www.markertek.com/Video-Equipment/Camera-Gear-Accessories/Hot-Shoe-Adapters/Moving-Still-LLC/SUPER-STRONG-TWIN-MOUNT-EX1-R-EX3.xhtml)

Does the PMW-200 have the same fixed limiter on input? I'd like a disable menu option.

The obvious competitors to the PMW200 are the Canon XF305 and the Panasonic HPX250. Compared to both of them the obvious advantage the PMW200 has is 1/2" chips versus 1/3" and that's a BIG point in the PMW200s favour. ...

I chose my words carefully. I said few not none. The 1/2" chips and the advantages that come with them are a given advantage over competitors (not sure it amounts to that much tho) but what used to be a powerful advantage is now a much weaker one. Especially against the $5600 pricepoint of HPX250. I am unimpressed with the +9db noise comparison to the EX1R.

The PMW-200 lost the EX camera's advantage of the unique rotating handle, compact form factor and 12v OEM power with D-TAP for running accessories. Even if there's an OEM power solution eventually, it requires a new battery without the economy of scale of using what's already been designed, developed and in the stores for the EX series. Then there's the subtraction of the PMW-200 LCD design that gets in the way of the shoe which is a design flaw the competitors don't share. Every single photo on the Sony Professional Europe's Facebook photo album of users using the EX1 with a wireless receiver could not do that on the PMW-200 design. The XF300 lacks the flaw and provides two sided viewing. So who's done the better engineering design there? How about that periscope for a shotgun mount? Sheesh.

The PMW-200 is a step backward for EX1/3 users from perspective of ergonomics, LCD, power and packaging. It's neutral for media, manual controls, and apparently firmware features like focus and exposure assist or whatever. So to move forward to HD422 from an EX, you have to give up quite a bit. If HD422 means nothing to you, then it's an even bigger step backward.

There are accessories for mic holders that can mount in place of the stock EX1 mic holder. ...

I have the DM-Accessories replacement mount but that's not the issue. The issue I raise is the PMW-200 riser protrudes quite high. If there were a thumb latch or something where the mic and it's holder could be removed, that would show Sony had put some design innovation into it. Instead, it appears to be a rather dull design that sticks up even more relative to the body than the EX1 making it (IMHO) a weaker design.

I read that you just about have to buy a special plate to mount the EX1R on a tripod to avoid the one on the camera from breaking. I assume the PMW-200 doesn't have this "design" flaw?

Les, It's not like the XF300/305 doesn't have flaws of it's own, like the inability to have manual zoom control and servo zoom at the same time, un calibrated non-repeatable iris control, focus position that changes when you go from manual to auto, the aperture ramping when you zoom, etc. No camera is perfect. You may not be that impressed by the lower noise of the PMW-200 over the EX1R, but compared to the XF305 that's a big difference. Bottom line is bigger pixels almost always give a better signal to noise ratio and that's vital for many production companies, especially those shooting observational docs where light levels are often poor. Most broadcast and professional production companies don't give a damn about 3rd party batteries, all that matters to them is will the camera deliver the picture picture quality they need with a workflow that fits within their production. With many productions mixing full size cameras and handheld cameras you cannot ignore the benefit for a production company of having just one common codec, media and workflow. In addition as the codec and metadata are 100% compatible with Sony's optical disc XDCAM system there is also a very good long term archive and storage solution.
Yes, I think Sony have lost ground by being slow to bring this to the market, but this does complete the line up. Using the same workflow you can shoot with a PMW-500 and PMW-200. Throw in a PDW-F800 or PDW-700 if you want optical disc. You can write the PMW-200 files directly to the PDW-F800/700 using a PC or Mac, no transcoding or processing needed. Store your footage longterm using one of the new XDCAM juke boxes or archive management systems and get the benefits of a proxy based workflow that works across even very slow networks. That's why the PMW-200 will sell and it will sell very well in my opinion. Production companies like to keep things simple, they don't want multiple codecs or different media for different cameras and they need handheld cameras that perform well in low light.

As for the wireless mic getting in the way? Simple, use the rear shoe. The PMW200 mic mount is no more of a periscope than the 305's.

Don't be confused by the dimensions given on the various web sites. The PMW-200 is overall slightly smaller than an EX1R. It's a little longer, but narrower and shorter. I'm not sure where the dimensions that say it's 4" longer come from, it certainly didn't appear that much longer to me, maybe 2".

The base of the camera is to a new design. The tripod threads are part of the base, which is plastic. It appears to be some form of glass reinforced plastic with some kind of thread insert. I did try to deliberately cross thread and damage the threads, but failed, they are very tough. Again the mounting surface area is fairly small, bigger than an EX1 but still not the entire camera base (for cooling reasons I was told) but as the mount is now integral to the camera base I suspect it will be stronger.

Have Sony addressed the IR problem?

I read that you just about have to buy a special plate to mount the EX1R on a tripod to avoid the one on the camera from breaking. I assume the PMW-200 doesn't have this "design" flaw?

What design flaw? My EX1 is coming up on on 5 years old now and I've never bought any special plate, nor do I personally know any fellow EX1 owners who have. You are misinformed about the camera.

Alister, respectfully, my first post on the PMW-200 in another thread was to the effect that Sony listened to the wrong people and I see that reinforced more and more. More precisely, the PMW-200 design seemingly reflects needs from a subset of the user base... specifically, IMHO the PMW-200 does not reflect the needs and use cases of it's non-broadcast user base. I'd argue those who've made their career in tripod mounted shoots and where handheld meant shoulder mounted aren't the only ones who have input... and in the case of the handycam PMW-200 arguably have the least amount of insight due to their traditional camera prejudice.

Case in point is the EX1R battery design that lets the broadcasters "not give a damn about OEM batteries" (your words) all day long while letting the rest of us enjoy the upgrade-ability, economical availability, ergonomic and flexibility benefits of the fly cable design. The PMW-200's redesign of the battery compartment reflects broadcaster needs only.

Case in point #2 is the idea to use the rear mount for wireless receivers and lights because anything mounted on the front gets in the way of the LCD flip out. Those that have experience actually using the EX1 rear handle mount would know the shoe scrapes one's hand when trying to use the camera's top handle and mounting anything back there makes anything handheld even more uncomfortable and difficult while a front mounted shoe works just dandy. The PMW-200's front shoe interfering with the LCD seemingly reflects a broadcast need.

As for the XF300, all cameras have deficits and I have been as vociferous as anyone espousing the benefits of the EX1R over the XF300 as someone who went through examining both and chose the EX1R. IMHO, the PMW-200 is much less of a superior camera system for non-broadcast users and anyone who values ergonomics in balance with IQ because we use the tool for something more than a small substitute for a full size camera or smaller package on a set of sticks/rig.

I believe he is referring to this plate:
Juice Designs — EX1 / EX1R Base Plate (http://www.juicedesigns.com/products/ex1-ex1r-base-plate)

I myself use this plate on the base of my EX1 for extra security and piece of mind. A high amount of EX1's I've come across have had the the small plastic "base plate" that the camera's 1/4-20 insert is attached to ripped out of the camera or precariously loose. A lot of this is prob due to operator error or abuse but I think we can agree that the 1/4-20 insert on the EX is not the most 'robust' of designs.

I disagree that Sony listened to the wrong people. Sony are running a business, they need to sell cameras to stay in business. The big market for this camera is the broadcast market.

Part of the reasoning behind the new LCD placement is to prevent the handle or LCD screen from extending beyond the end of the camera lens. This ensures that there won't be issues with matte boxes, autocues, 3D rigs and other things fouling the viewfinder, handle or microphone. There are quite a few of these that can't be used on the EX1 and XF305 because the microphone or viewfinder gets in the way. It's almost impossible to use any sort of graduated filter correctly on an EX1 or XF305. The XF305 is all but impossible to use on a 3D mirror rig. The protruding mic and viewfinder was a very big end user compliant with the EX1.
When you have a small form factor camera there is limited space for things like viewfinders. I prefer this design to the EX1. It doesn't foul my camera light or my radio mic, both of which can be mounted so they sit ahead of the LCD so I can open and close the LCD with them. Some radio mic receivers will prevent you from opening and closing the LCD, I agree, but a simple slide in $15 cold shoe extender that moves the shoe forwards will easily resolve that. Perhaps sony will include one with the camera, I believe canon supply one with the C300.

I don't agree with the design of the battery connector. I said that in my review, I think it is short sighted, but it really isn't a deal breaker. The placement of the connector has nothing to do with the needs of broadcasters or freelancers, it's purely to make it hard for 3rd parties to make batteries for the camera. Third party batteries will come, probably quite quickly and probably with D-Taps. Are you really suggesting you wouldn't invest $7,000 in a camera just because of the need to buy a couple of new batteries? Batteries don't last more than a couple of years anyway, so they will need to be replaced at some point anyway.

...The big market for this camera is the broadcast market....
I've heard this for decades in product development. It's usually spreadsheet toting MBA think by suits that have dulled many an innovative engineering team. I find it summarily one dimensional. Camera ergonomics and features can satisfy more than one customer segment. Sony isn't losing the sleep over by loss of battery sales. With innovation, they'd have put d-taps on their own batteries and had more of the market.

Are you really suggesting you wouldn't invest $7,000 in a camera just because of the need to buy a couple of new batteries? Batteries don't last more than a couple of years anyway, so they will need to be replaced at some point anyway.
I am not suggesting that. The battery issue is an example of several that have been discussed why the PMW-200 is a step backward and isn't worth $7700 (list) upgrade from the EX1(r) (save HD422) ... again, a non-broadcast user view where my $600 in 8u62 batteries are still going strong after 2 years and move freely between camera and $1600 in d-tap rigged LED lights.

Alister, Thanks for the review - most helpful!

Do you have a list of the frame rates and formats it records (i.e. 1080i, 720P, etc)? I can't find any info on this subject.

Are you really suggesting you wouldn't invest $7,000 in a camera just because of the need to buy a couple of new batteries?

Battery incompatibility designed solely to increase profit by increasing waste and costs for other manufacturers is bad. In the worst case, the inefficiency reaches a point that currencies and economies collapse. Then to protect the economy a government steps in with regulations ensuring all batteries are compatible. Let's not go there! Companies should act responsibly and decrease waste. Profit can be made more admirably by increasing quality and compatibility.

If a hack done by enthusiasts can raise the bitrates on the GH2 to over 50 mbit, then surely a firmware upgrade to the EX1R could do the same? Hopefully the PMW-200 offers more than that. Actually, I expect it does. In particular, I wonder if the IR problem is solved?

What design flaw? My EX1 is coming up on on 5 years old now and I've never bought any special plate, nor do I personally know any fellow EX1 owners who have. You are misinformed about the camera.

The base plate on both the EX1 and EX3 are a well documented weak point, I don't think you will disagree is saying that it is not the best feature of the camera. No doubt with rough handling, or carrying the camera whilst mounted on a tripod you may have a problem with the plate breaking.

What design flaw? My EX1 is coming up on on 5 years old now and I've never bought any special plate, nor do I personally know any fellow EX1 owners who have. You are misinformed about the camera.

Before saying someone is misinformed, maybe you should consider that you are uninformed?

Like Vincent said, this is a well documented issue. If there was NO need for strong baseplates, then why would Olof and many other companies be making them for the EX1 & EX3?

Personally, I have gone through 3 replacement tripod plates on my EX3 because they crack so easily.

If a hack done by enthusiasts can raise the bitrates on the GH2 to over 50 mbit, then surely a firmware upgrade to the EX1R could do the same? Hopefully the PMW-200 offers more than that. Actually, I expect it does. In particular, I wonder if the IR problem is solved?

I was told by Sony that to achieve 4:2:2 requires additional hardware. I believe that the Nanoflash uses Sony's 4:2:2 XDCAM HD encoding chip but ups the data rate. So maybe higher bitrates are theoretically possible on the 4:2:0 chip in the EX1 but as I understand it 4:2:2 (XDCAM HD) is not.

As has been said below, the EX1 and EX3's baseplates are totally under-engineered. They are prone to break and make it hard to mount the camera securely, especially the EX3.

I think the cooling vents all over the PMW-200 are testament to the fact that if you could hack an EX to do 50Mb/s you would possibly cook the electronics and destroy the camera in the process. Sony have always said that power and heat meant that it would not be possible to upgrade an EX1 to 50Mb/s. Seeing the PMW100 and PMW200 and the additional cooling requirements I'm inclined to believe them.

I always had one of the Juice Designs base plates on my EX1"s.

...When you have a small form factor camera there is limited space for things like viewfinders. I prefer this design to the EX1. It doesn't foul my camera light or my radio mic, both of which can be mounted so they sit ahead of the LCD so I can open and close the LCD with them. Some radio mic receivers will prevent you from opening and closing the LCD, I agree, but a simple slide in $15 cold shoe extender that moves the shoe forwards will easily resolve that. Perhaps sony will include one with the camera, ...

The front shoe is the best place for receivers. Those of us who use the EX1 heavily as a handheld know that moving things off center interferes with the shotgun on the right and line of site on the left. It also makes them wobbly when moving around. Sticking them fully forward also makes them wobbly and potentially put's the antenna into frame.... especially with a WA adapter. It's a hack and I'd rather a properly designed shoe/LCD subsystem. Being able to view the LCD from the right side is a tripod thing and the PMW-200 design forfeits a good design for the shoe for what? Being able to view the screen from the right (albeit at a 90 degree angle which is somewhat of a joke) is a tripod scenario easily handled with an external monitor. I can't imagine Sony hearing otherwise if they'd gotten input from non-broadcast users.

Below is the PMW-200 design from the review at xdcam-user and the Sony's own UWP wireless in action on an EX1 during the filming of a piece by Thierry Humeau which would most certainly be in the way in the PMW-200 design.

And another from Sony Professional Europe's Facebook page of clearly a non-broadcast user.

I feel your pain Les but a simple solution would be a $20 extension bar::
Rycote 037303 Hot Shoe Extension 037303 B&H Photo Video

Sony could have very very easily implemented the same design as the Z1's hot shoe. But for 50 422 I don't really care :)

I have no pain. The shoe/LCD on the PMW-200 is IMHO a poor design defended as enabling more matte boxes while everyone else suffers with antennas in view at wide angle, flopping on front diving boards, sticking up in the case and managing yet another fiddly Frankenstein accessory.... all for a few matte boxes?

Oh come on Les, antennas are not going to be in shot. You seem to be forgetting that with the EX1 the handle already extends beyond the end of the lens and the cold shoe is already forwards of the end of the lens, so any radio mic you attach to those cameras is already further forward than a mic fitted to the PMW-200. My radio mic has an adjustable bracket and if I use the rear mounting point I can open and close the LCD. A short extension, if you need it is no big deal whatsoever and would only place the shoe in roughly the same place relative to the lens as it is on an EX1. There are extensions like the Z1 extension that screw on, they do not flop about like diving boards, I really think you trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Not being able to use grads on the EX1 and 305 is an issue. Some matte boxes won't fit at all and those that do have to be either rotated or removed to change filters. Many prevent you from opening and closing the LCD. A lot of light rings can't be used. Trying to use a prompter is also a nightmare because the viewfinders either end up inside the hood or the fabric of the hood tends to flop down in front of the lens because you have to get it in under the protruding mic/handle/VF. These are very real issues that are hard or impossible to get around when the camera handle extends beyond the end of the lens. Using an inch long extension, if you need it, for the mic shoe is no big deal.

Sony have always said that power and heat meant that it would not be possible to upgrade an EX1 to 50Mb/s. Seeing the PMW100 and PMW200 and the additional cooling requirements I'm inclined to believe them.
I believe the Canon XF105 has a power consumption of 6 watts, the XF305 of 9 watts. The XF105 has the 50Mbs codec, so it begs the question of how many of those 6 watts are the difference between what the X105 would consume if limited to 35Mbs, and the version as sold. I suspect it would be a fraction of a watt.

I do not believe power consumption is the reason the EX1 is limited to 35Mbs. It should require little more power to encode 50Mb relative to 35Mbs.

I don't know how Canon get their power consumption so low and why Sony's is that bit higher. But I do know that the PMW100 and 200 feature a lot of cooling vents, while the EX1 does not. Both the EX1 and PMW-200 are around 13W, but there is obviously more of a heat issue somewhere in the PMW-200 than the EX1 as I don't think they would add all that ventilation for nothing. Although I suppose it may be because of the plastic body.

At 50Mb/s the PMW-200 draws more power and runs hotter than at 35Mb/s.
That's not what Sony say on the spec sheet for the PMW200:
Power Consumption
Approx. 12 W (while recording, EVF On, LCD monitor Off, IO Select Off)

Approx. 14 W (while recording, EVF On, LCD monitor On, IO Select HD SDI & HD HDMI)
(See Sony : PMW-200 (PMW200) : Technical Specifications : United Kingdom (http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/product/xdcamcamcorders/pmw-200/technicalspecs) )

Similar spec for the EX1 gives "Power consumption
Approx. 12.5 W (while recording, EVF On, LCD monitor Off)"

It doesn't surprise me that the Sony cameras are about 3 watts more than the XF305 - it reflects the 1/2" chips versus 1/3".

Oh come on Les, antennas are not going to be in shot. You seem to be forgetting that with the EX1 the handle already extends beyond the end of the lens and the cold shoe is already forwards of the end of the lens, so any radio mic you attach to those cameras is already further forward than a mic fitted to the PMW-200. My radio mic has an adjustable bracket and if I use the rear mounting point I can open and close the LCD. A short extension, if you need it is no big deal whatsoever and would only place the shoe in roughly the same place relative to the lens as it is on an EX1. There are extensions like the Z1 extension that screw on, they do not flop about like diving boards, I really think you trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill...

I found a profile picture of the PMW-200 and see what you mean about the EX1 sticking out further than the the PMW-200. But with an extender on the PMW-200, it looks like the shoe woudl end up beyond where the shoe is on the EX1R. My teleprompter works just fine on the EX1R and in both studio and handheld settings, a Zylight balances nicely on the EX1R shoe without interfering or in need of an extension. My Sennheiser sk100 receiver isn't adjustable and the antenna is barely off screen when the Sony WA adapter is on.

Actually, it's not a big deal, certainly not a mountain... just another annoyance. But it does lower the light output of the Z90 to move it 10 inches back to the rear mount. I might have considered putting up with the PMW-200 flip out screen problems if the camera had the EX1R improved rotating handgrip and d-tap batteries.

I did check the specs and edited my post while you were writing your reply David and I see the tech specs say the same power consumption. I felt the 200 ran hotter at 50Mb/s. It certainly feels hotter than an EX1. Why do bigger chips = more power. Same number of photosites to read out. Look at the FS100 with its s35mm sensor and less than 6 watts. I realise there is only one sensor in the FS100, but it is a big one and it has more photo sites. The extra power is probably in the 14 bit DSP and maybe also to drive the express card interface for the SxS cards.

I see the tech specs say the same power consumption. I felt the 200 ran hotter at 50Mb/s. It certainly feels hotter than an EX1.
Heat input to the camera corresponds to the power in, law of physics. Temperature is a function of power input and cooling. Hence if it felt hotter than an EX1 then either it must be consuming more power or is not dissipating heat as quickly.

If the former, then either Sonys specification is wrong, or the unit you had was faulty or it was a pre-production flaw. You’d need to measure the current being drawn with a meter.
Why do bigger chips = more power. Same number of photosites to read out.
I confess it is something I’ve been told and taken as read. It makes sense though. Bigger photosites means a bigger charge on each, so moving them around effectively means higher currents. And larger dimensions is likely to mean higher capacitances, so at the high frequencies involved that is also likely to mean more power consumed.
Look at the FS100 with its s35mm sensor and less than 6 watts. I realise there is only one sensor in the FS100, but it is a big one and it has more photo sites.
The idea of “bigger chips = more power” is likely to be the case with all else equal, but the readout is only one factor. Processing will also consume power, and here a case of the more number crunching to be done, the higher the power consumption – hardly surprising. That’s why the C300 power consumption is relatively low (around 11 watts) and the F3 is relatively high (around 24 watts). Debayering and downconversion in real time is power hungry - direct read out of R,G,B values is much less so.

You know that I don’t believe the F3 and FS100 share the same sensor. The far lower power consumption of the FS100 I see as strong evidence that the FS100 is using simple processing, which effectively means not conventional deBayering. That implies some sort of direct read, as used in the C300 and DSLRs. It’s so much lower that it must mean a completely different system, not just a simplification.

I did initially consider that the FS100 may be doing the same readout system as the C300, with the F3 chip. But the numbers don’t work out. The FS100 results are far better than would be predicted than that system applied to a 3.3 megapixel chip. Assuming a higher pixel count therefore is a logical next step.

"It certainly feels hotter than an EX1"

Hmm I wonder how these 200's will work in very hot humid conditions, where I do a lot of my work.

Speaking of heat. I have been told by several people that sensor heat significantly affects its noise output. An overheating sensor will have more noise than a cool one.

Can anybody confirm this?

It may be that it feels hotter because of the plastic body and vents system that means heat exits the camera at specific areas, one of which is around the handle and hand grip. The EX cameras must use the alloy body as a heat sink so the heat may be distributed evenly. I used the PMW-200 for a few days in Singapore where it was around 36c and very humid without any issues.

There's getting to be too much speculation on this thread for me. I'll continue to answer questions about my experiences with the camera but it's not good to speculate too much about other stuff.

Is the PMW-200 body plastic or alloy?

Plastic with an inner metal frame that can be seen through the cooling vents.

Viewed from an EX1R perspective:

Plus:
Beter codec & beter servozoom

Minus:
-Handgrip (a downgrade: making it like the EX1R's doesn't hurt any broadcast market: looks like they forgot it)
-The powerinput inside the batterycompartment (now you can't switch from Sony to cablebattery without powering down anymore. It makes some batteries useless. From an engineering point of view there must be a reason for it, but to me it seems like bad usability & silly engineering. Like said before: it seems to be about creating waste instead of providing durable solutions.
The motive seems to make no-Sony batteries more expensive to produce.
Saying batteries don't last very long anyway is a rather poor argument.

I'm curious about any improvements in noise or rolling shutter.

Moving away from speculation, to what a buyer like me would want, but adding one last speculative thought: I assume that an EX-3 replacement can't be all that far behind. Maybe next spring.

Now as to my future requirements, having chosen not to buy an EX-3 last year. I state the following as much for Sony's sake (I assume they are reading this thread), as a discussion point, as I bought the XF305 last year after nearly buying the EX-3. (I upgraded from a HMC150, a nice low cost camera).

Interchangeable lenses would be a big plus, especially if the low light capability is substantially better. While I like my HDSLR's for low light, I love using a fully equipped camcorder in the field and I'm not going to spend $15k for a CS300 nor the $5k(approx) FS100, who's build quality has been called into question by a number of pro shooters. This EX-1 replacement does not look like a shoulder rest camera, regardless of the PR from Sony (none of these cameras are shoulder mount IMHO, as for that you need an add on device). I haven't worked with the EX-3 as shoulder rest, I ended up buying an XF305 instead and I routinely shoot it off my shoulder without add ons), and wouldn't consider changing for a form factor like this. However, if the low light of a newly designed EX-3 gave me back 1 stop or more, and shoulder rest, along with interchangeable lenses, then I would be tempted next buying cycle.

I have loved a lot about the XF305, and haven't regretted the decision, *except in very low light* (about 5% of my shooting) and for creative uses of additional lenses. For that I switch to a 7D, which is no match for the 4:2:2 color space. If the next EX-3 (or this PMW-200) has an extra stop or two, that would be huge in my world.

I also worry about the resolution of this LCD. With the 305 I have abandoned my VF, and it appears that this won't have the resolution I've been used to lately. I would clearly need to compare the LCD of any future camera against Canon's ones.

Another nit is the discussion on the WA. I find that the Canon zoom is plenty long for most things, and Sony increasing the zoom range on the high end for reducing it on the WA is just not a good idea IMHO. I shoot far more WA than full zoom, and I even ended up buying a Schneider Century add on for both my 305 and 105s. They are essential, though fiddly. I suppose if I end up changing I'd have to buy one for the Sony, and they probably assume that. But I would much rather have the wide than longer. I know a lot of you wildlife guys like longer, but don't you buy a separate lens for that?

As for battery life, while I have an Anton Bauer for my kit, I only use it on my 7D. I find the higher capacity batteries from Canon hold up a long time. Two or three of them are about the same size as the AB. I rarely end up needing the Bauer, but would not mind changing horses to Sony if it had the ability to mount a Bauer on the back, like the EX3. Would give better shoulder balance too. For future purchases, I'd give this much more weight in the buying decision.

Hope this helps. I'm not a Sony guy at present, but when buying, I'm not wedded to any brand. They are all just tools to me.

Sony have not changed the focal length of the lens. It's the same as the EX1, f = 5.8 mm to 81.2 mm (equivalent to 31.4 mm to 439 mm on 35 mm lens) f1.9 lens.The same 0.85 zoom through adapter as for the EX1 fits the PMW-200. The XF305 is the equivalent to 29.3mm at the wide end so 7% wider, not a big difference.

You can add external batteries and external power, just not when there is a battery in the battery compartment. As it's a 12v camera an AB or V-lock battery could be used with some form of external mounting but without the need to reduce the voltage to 7.2v as required by many handycams.

The main LCD is higher resolution than on the EX1, it is now 852 (x3 RGB) x480 and has an incredibly wide viewing angle, so fewer issues with blacks not being black etc. The resolution is the same as the XF305 and C300 LCD. The rear EVF is the same as the EX1 and very slightly lower resolution than the XF305 EVF.

The difference in image quality between the XF305 and 7D has very little to do with colour space. The 7D is lower resolution, suffers form all kinds of image artefacts due to pixel skipping, and has a inferior encoding. the color space is the very least of the differences. Most people cannot tell the difference between 420 and 422 color space without pixel peeping.

The NX70 was build rain- and dustproof (without the XLR-unit). It would have been extremely lovely if Sony would have introduced that to other handheld camcorders as well. The PD-150, PD-170, Z1, EX1 and EX1R have (in line) been the standard workhorses for camjo's, news correspondents, travelling TV-crews and documentary filmmakers around the world. Sony presents this PMW-200 as the successor to these camcorders. They seem to have introduced 422 color sampling and 50 Mbps especially for broadcast purposes. Why didn't they take the chance to finally get rid of the irritating rain- and dustcovers? After releasing the NX70 they skipped this protection already on the NX30, PMW-100 and now this new PMW-200. WHy? Does it not seem to work as proposed on the NX70? Too expensive? At least in my opinion it would be excellent to have this rain- and dust-proof design on more professional camcorders, expecially for this PMW-200 regarding to the market it is intended for! A fail? Or was the NX70 a fail and will we never see rain- and dustproof professional handheld camcorders again?

The NX70 was build rain- and dustproof (without the XLR-unit). It would have been extremely lovely if Sony would have introduced that to other handheld camcorders as well. The PD-150, PD-170, Z1, EX1 and EX1R have (in line) been the standard workhorses for camjo's, news correspondents, travelling TV-crews and documentary filmmakers around the world. Sony presents this PMW-200 as the successor to these camcorders. They seem to have introduced 422 color sampling and 50 Mbps especially for broadcast purposes. Why didn't they take the chance to finally get rid of the irritating rain- and dustcovers? After releasing the NX70 they skipped this protection already on the NX30, PMW-100 and now this new PMW-200. WHy? Does it not seem to work as proposed on the NX70? Too expensive? At least in my opinion it would be excellent to have this rain- and dust-proof design on more professional camcorders, expecially for this PMW-200 regarding to the market it is intended for! A fail? Or was the NX70 a fail and will we never see rain- and dustproof professional handheld camcorders again?


This would make a ideal camera for me but I'm guessing the PMW200 has some heat issues and thus why can't fully seal it?

Alister wrote":Sony have not changed the focal length of the lens. It's the same as the EX1, f = 5.8 mm to 81.2 mm (equivalent to 31.4 mm to 439 mm on 35 mm lens) f1.9 lens.The same 0.85 zoom through adapter as for the EX1 fits the PMW-200. The XF305 is the equivalent to 29.3mm at the wide end so 7% wider, not a big difference... The resolution is the same as the XF305 and C300 LCD. The rear EVF is the same as the EX1 and very slightly lower resolution than the XF305 EVF."

Thanks for clearing that up Alister.

The difference in image quality between the XF305 and 7D has very little to do with colour space. The 7D is lower resolution, suffers form all kinds of image artefacts due to pixel skipping, and has a inferior encoding. the color space is the very least of the differences. Most people cannot tell the difference between 420 and 422 color space without pixel peeping.

I understand, perhaps I wasn't being clear. The difference in quality is dramatic, for all the reasons you mention. It just seems it in a simplistic way to be the difference in color space, when that's just one of many issues. I agree that all these issues exist with the 7D, despite the much larger sensor and the huge following for their 'look'.

As an aside, I was just hired by an agency to do some work and they wanted the footage shot on the 7D not the XF305. Funny eh? I think it was simply an issue of workflow for them and since it was only for the web, they didn't care. Oh well.

I agree that it would be great to get an environmentally sealed unit, as in the Pacific NW I encounter lots of rain days, and usually fall back to my 7D for those shoots.

I completely agree that rain and dust proofing is highly desirable. It would be great for my storm chasing trips. My guess is that cost is the main reason for not having it (oops, sorry speculating again) :-)

So they can do it within reasonable costs at a camcorder that's 1/3rd of the price of this PMW-200 but not on this one? Seems pretty strange to me.... I mean, if there is one type of cam to have it very useful it should be this PMW-200. A missed chance in my opinion. To me it also seems very unlogical they sealed the NX70 but didn't it with any released pro camcorder since than. Was there probably something wrong with the weather sealing in the NX70 design? Did you take a NX70 on one of your stormchasing trips Alister? If yes, how was it?

I completely agree that rain and dust proofing is highly desirable. It would be great for my storm chasing trips. My guess is that cost is the main reason for not having it (oops, sorry speculating again) :-)
And I believe that for that level of proofing you can't use external ports etc, just the basic camera which has to be "sealed down". That may be far less acceptable for the sort of use the PMW200 is likely to be put to than the NX70. Equally, the heat issues may make it more difficult for the PMW200.

There's been a lot of attention to detail in this thread. Interesting and valid though it may be, at the end of the day if you are required to buy a camera, and have about £5000 to do it, the choice now boils down in practice to three - the PMW200, XF305, HPX250 - or not buy anything.

Ergonomically, all three are not good. None of them match a good shouldermount, and whilst there may be differences and personal likes and dislikes, I wouldn't put any of them as a clear winner.

Codec wise, both the XF305 and the HPX250 had the advantage (on paper, if not very visible) over the EX1 of that magical "broadcast suitable" tag. With the PMW200 that lead has disappeared. Codec wise, they are all considered fully approved.

The main difference now is chip size. And here the PMW200 is the out and out winner. It puts it a stop ahead in terms of raw sensitivity, depth of field control, and diffraction limited aperture range. That's huge.

For various reasons I'm only too happy to agree that the PMW200 may not be perfect, and some details may have been done better, but the key point is that it's the best of the bunch. At some point you have to stop agonising over details and just put your money down - or do without a camera. At this price point, the PMW200 is simply the best available.

Didn't take a NX70 storm chasing because it doesn't meet broadcast specs and my clients are generally high end broadcasters, commercials producers or other high end users that insist on footage meeting certain minimum criteria and the NX70 just doesn't cut it. In addition a lot of storm chasing takes place in poor light and small chip cameras really struggle. For $150 I can get a good quality tailored rain cover for almost any camera so that's what I do. For storm chasing and my other natural extremes I use a range of cameras from PDW700s to EX1's and this year the F3 with S-log, but always with a NanoFlash running at least 50Mb/s, normally more or with the F3 a Samurai at ProRes HQ or uncompressed on a Gemini.

Alister, any chance of making available a short .mxf clip from the camera to play around with on my NLE system?

...For various reasons I'm only too happy to agree that the PMW200 may not be perfect, and some details may have been done better, but the key point is that it's the best of the bunch. At some point you have to stop agonising over details and just put your money down - or do without a camera. At this price point, the PMW200 is simply the best available.

I use my EX1R in studio, domestically and on international travel near and far; on sticks and run and gun. It's a remarkable camera reflecting marvelous innovative design worthy of the designation: Venerable. In contrast, I think the PMW-200 is a stripped down follow-on product principally tuned for a narrow set of requirements for a shrinking broadcast segment.

The functional shoe/LCD of the EX1R was compromised for matte boxes and presumably other lens attached rigs.
The shot transition feature is gone.
The improved EX1R rotating grip is gone.
The advantages of a 12v powered camera to power other professional 12v accessories replaced with an environmentally negative one that doesn't power accessories... ergo no advantage.
Shotgun mount is now even more obtrusive.
All of that and maybe more was sacrificed for a power hungry heat generating dust collecting HD422 image pipeline.

Shooters not needing HD422-50 are better off with the EX1R while they last. The Panasonic HPX-255 at a $1000 lower price (WITH a microphone), built-in AVCIntra frame 422-100MB and 50MB codecs, 28mm wide end and 4 position ND filter in a 5.5 lb package (apparently without the ventilation ports) indicates a manufacturer that IMHO better understands it's customers.

The technical minutia of the superiority of 1/2" chips with apparently miniscule to no noise improvement is entirely uninteresting in the face of the stripping down. The menu item to map a mono audio source to both channels of the headphone is nifty tho.

Sony Professional USA gets a nod for a Facebook "Like" on the criticism and forwarding it to the product group.

Shooters not needing HD422-50 are better off with the EX1R while they last.
Maybe. But Canon and Panasonic have previously made a big play about the advantages of "full broadcast codec", the PMW200 now puts the three equivalent in this respect. And you haven't really answered the point I put - we know you don't think the codec improvement is worth other changes against the EX1, but leaving that aside which would you go for in a straight race between the PMW200, XF305 and HPX250?
The Panasonic HPX-255 at a $1000 lower price (WITH a microphone), built-in AVCIntra frame 422-100MB and 50MB codecs, 28mm wide end and 4 position ND filter in a 5.5 lb package (apparently without the ventilation ports) indicates a manufacturer that IMHO better understands it's customers.
But don't forget the HPX255 price is without memory. To equip it with enough for (say) 3 hours recording adds quite a bit due to the P2 factor, and greatly narrows the gap between it and a PMW200 or XF305 equipped to the same recording time. Package price (with memory) of the three is very similar.

And on the debit side the HPX250 is 1/3" chips, and (unlike the X305), only servo for iris and focus. I expect true manual at this sort of price. It seems as though the 250 was primarily designed as an AVCCAM model, and a P2 version derived from it. It may be the one to get as B camera to a 2/3" P2 camera, but I'd go for the Canon or Sony otherwise.
The technical minutia of the superiority of 1/2" chips ....is entirely uninteresting in the face of the stripping down.
It's not just "technical minutia" though, it's a stop sensitivity advantage, and a stop better depth of field control. They make a big practical difference to any operator.

I felt I did address the question: HPX-255.

Panasonic can make a camera with a better feature set and offer 422-100MB built-in on the occasion you need it. And as you point out, there's an upward compatibility with higher end cameras in the Panasonic line.

I enjoy the advantages of the 1/2" chips on the EX1R but would look elsewhere for 422-50MB. The HPX-255 is $1000 less expensive which pays for 64GB of P2 with change enough for a second battery. The PMW-200 doesn't come with memory and at B&H, SXS is the same price as P2.

The HPX-255 has a lot of vents.

... Package price (with memory) of the three is very similar. And on the debit side the HPX250 is 1/3" chips, and (unlike the X305), only servo for iris and focus. ...

Don't know where you got that information but the HPX-255 is manual focus, zoom and iris. The base prices between PMW-200 and HPX-255 are at least $700 different (depending on street price of the Sony) and memory equivalent.