Thanks Alister. I have to say that if no 1080p/50, then what's the point of the XAVC option now it's got a fully approved codec with XDCAM 50Mbs anyway?

AFAIK, what XAVC brings to the table that XDCAM can't is the ability to do higher resolutions (ie 4k), higher framerates (like 50p) and 10 bit. OK, nobody's expecting 4k here, but if the only benefit is 10bit acquisition, is the XAVC upgrade really going to be worth it?

Combine it with 1080p/50 and there's a lot more point.

Completely agree here. If a lower tier camera by that point has it and the 300 doesn't, it'd defeat the purpose of the XAVC upgrade.

How about a silent 2x or 3x zoom with a constant f/2 aperture? Sigma just put out a wide angle f/1.8 zoom for APC sensors. My Sigmas are kinda chatty on my Nikon D3, thought they all focus much faster than most of Nikons recent AF-S "G" offerings. The Sigmas are less chatty than Nikon AF-S "D" offerings.

Why should we stand for a Sony megazoom lens that only gets sharp at f/4 while losing sharpness around f/5.6 due to diffraction? While I understand the need for a 14x or 16x zoom, I don't want one. Why doesn't Sony offer other options that allow constant ape

I too agree that the key thing with XAVC would be 50/60p capability, although I do also like the idea of 10 bit 422 at 35Mb/s.

There will be a PMW-300 on the Sony Booth for the Broadcast Asia show next week.

Guess where I am right now... Singapore, shooting 4K demo footage for Broadcast Asia, so hopefully I'll be able to get you lots of pictures and more info. Don't know yet whether it will be a fully functioning camera or a mock-up.

Great! Look forward to reading/seeing what you find out Alister!

I too agree that the key thing with XAVC would be 50/60p capability, although I do also like the idea of 10 bit 422 at 35Mb/s.

There will be a PMW-300 on the Sony Booth for the Broadcast Asia show next week.

Guess where I am right now... Singapore, shooting 4K demo footage for Broadcast Asia, so hopefully I'll be able to get you lots of pictures and more info. Don't know yet whether it will be a fully functioning camera or a mock-up.

Availability is slated for Oct. this year, 4/5 months to go, imo it's probably a close mockup.

Still time for Canon and Pana et al to wind Sony up with some lower priced competition.

Cheers.

.......... although I do also like the idea of 10 bit 422 at 35Mb/s.

But will your computer like it......? ;-) Compared to XDCAM422, all it really offers is 10 bit, and a somewhat lower bitrate. But likely at the price of being far more difficult to natively edit?

Personally, it's the 50Mbs XDCAM aspect to the news that I think will be most relevant in the real world. I'm in little doubt that for the last couple of years the EX1/3 have had by far the better front end than their competitors such as the XF305 and HPX250 due to the 1/2" v 1/3" chips - but "it's not a full broadcast codec....." has been the sticking point.

As with the PMW200, with this announcement all that changes. The 1/2" front end of the Sonys is still superior to the 1/3" of the competition, and there is now parity with acceptability of recording format.

The XAVC, 50p, 10 bit aspects are all very nice and it's always good to know that what you buy has an element of future proofing as far as is possible - but my bet is that it's the XDCAM 422 aspect that will really sell this camera in the next year or two. And unless Canon and Panasonic can rival the 1/2" aspects, they stand to lose sales very quickly.

Investing in a new 16X lens for this camera seems to indicate Sony expects some years of profitability ahead.

Comparing XDCAM and XAVC bitrates is a bit like apples and oranges. XDCAM is MPEG-2, XAVC is H.264, so when it comes to compression efficiency, it's two different things...

Got some more info today, based on studying the pre-production mock-up here at Broadcast Asia. The VF is removable and the VF bracket can also be removed, the VF uses the same connector as the F5/F55. The extending shoulder pad extends far enough to actually sit on your shoulder, not just against your shoulder. There is a 1/4" thread on the rear of the shoulder pad so you can add a rear mounted accessory, maybe a V-Lock battery mount to help with balance. It has dual HDSDI outputs - reason - one to be used with the new Sony WiFi/Proxy device that can stream video over wifi for remote monitoring or live feeds as well as generating proxy files. This device can also control the camera remotely. 3G/4G capability will be added to the optional WiFi box later for remote live streaming and ftp uploads.
It has the same sensors as the EX1/EX3/PMW-200 but according to Sony the new 3D Noise reduction (also coming to PMW-400) uses inter-frame comparison and results in much lower noise and "better" image quality levels than current PMW-200.

All in all it's looking like a really nice upgrade to the EX3. Target price is the same as the EX3 for the 14x version, but that may mean that the street price may be a little higher than the EX3 at launch as dealers may not discount this new camera as they do an older model. No body only option at the moment.

Wonder if they talked with Teradek's OEM to make this new "Proxy/Wi-Fi" box.

The critical thing it has to support for livestreaming is bonded 3G/4G connections. A single antenna is not reliable enough for a consistent connection.

I'd be interested to see the OLED EVFs work with the 300 and how it would work ergonomics-wise.

Thanks for the info Alister

@Alister Chapman - Any hints or guesses as to how it compares to the XF300/305? I'd love a better low light capable camera that retains the same basic function as the XF.

It will almost certainly be better than the XF305 in low light. Like the PMW-200 it has larger 1/2" sensors and size matters when it comes to true sensitivity and low light performance. I suspect it will be quite a bit better than most 1/3" camcorders in low light, but we will have to wait and see. I'll try to get a 305 for some side by side tests when I get the 300.

Allister please more hi res pictures out of the box.

Thanks

It will almost certainly be better than the XF305 in low light. Like the PMW-200 it has larger 1/2" sensors and size matters when it comes to true sensitivity and low light performance. I suspect it will be quite a bit better than most 1/3" camcorders in low light, but we will have to wait and see. I'll try to get a 305 for some side by side tests when I get the 300.
If you could get any side by side tests that would be very appreciated. My dilemma is whether to get a C300 and keep my XF300, or to get a PMW-300 and trade in my XF300. The XF300 is almost the perfect camera for my uses but I'm just not that happy with it's low light performance on some projects I have done.

If you could get any side by side tests that would be very appreciated.
The trouble is, do they say more about the cameras intrinsically, or just how they're lined up? It's also possible to set up a camera to look good superficially, on one particular example, but it may be very different given different material. That's why I take most straightforward camera comparisons posted on websites with a pinch of salt, unless they are done very scientifically.

I note Sony are now saying they are using "3D noise reduction" which I understand to mean comparing over a number of frames, and using software to look for differences and give a cleaner effect. It can make results look better - but it can bring problems as well as solve them. It's what caused the "noise ghosts" with Panasonics HPX371 - in the original form it was unable to completely distinguish between (unwanted) differences caused by noise and (wanted) differences caused by moving objects. The result was moving objects leaving behind "noisy trails". What will Sony's implementation be like? Good question.

One thing that can be said is that no form of electronic noise reduction can ever be truly equal to achieving a really less noisy image in the first place. In that respect, the 1/2" chips of the PMW300 can only be a huge advantage compared to the 1/3" chips of it's competitors. There really shouldn't be any doubt about that - it's what Alister means by "true sensitivity". Additionally, the larger chip size means better dof control, and less problems with diffraction limiting as you stop the iris down. In the case of all of these factors, the advantage should be just over one f stop.

This is also assuming that we're talking about a lens with the same f stop in each case. Low light ability is a function not just of camera sensitivity, but max lens aperture as well.

things i would like to see changed with pmw-300

1. front 1/4x20 thread mount instead of hot shoe
2. a d-tap in front
3. get rid of composite video and audio outs
4. a sdi record in
5. 1080p 240 high speed

Thanks

It may be that the hot shoe can be removed and there might be a 1/4" thread underneath. The hotshoe plate fitted to the prototype looks like one of the removable ones, but I don't know for sure.

You do have firewire in for DV and HDV.

Setiawan,

Thank you for your post!!!

Steve

So the BBC claims, or at least JVC claims the BBC has purchased 500 GY-HM650U camcorders, probably because you can FTP video right from the camera.

How does that cam compare to the PMW-300?

HM650 - 3x1/3" CMOS
PMW300 - 3x1/2" CMOS

HM650 - SDHC cards
PMW300 - SxS cards

HM650 - 35mbps, 4:2:0 codec
PMW300 - 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec

The PMW300 should also get a Wifi transmitter. It can also upgrade to XVAC codec.

The 300 is more of a shoulder mount camera design.

The BBC purchase of HM650's is not to replace existing XF-305's or EX1's. The HM-650's are replacing older Sony Z1's that are still in use by journalists.

The HM650 is a fine camcorder, but it's not as sensitive as an EX1/EX3 and relies heavily on noise reduction to get a clean image. The 650's wifi and 3G/4G capabilities are it's big selling point and for the BBC this brings the possibility of live streaming of breaking news stories with no extra equipment, all be it at sub broadcast quality. In addition the use of SD cards and a small codec means that it works well for fast turnaround news.

The PMW-300 is very different. Assuming the new noise reduction process results in an image similar to that from the PMW-200 (which uses the same sensors) but with a little less noise it should be a good performer in low light. For image quality the 300 will be better than the HM650, but using the add on streaming adapter will most likely be more complex than the built-in streaming from the HM650.

The camera is strangely reminiscent of the ill fated and horribly expensive PMW TD-300 which was Sony's answer to stereographic 3D acquisition. I tested the camera and found the 2D and 3D imagery to be superb so I'm wondering if its the same chip array.

Probably the same sensor chips (there the same ones as used in the EX1/EX3), but all new processing so if anything it might be better than the TD300.

I'm amazed that anything other than press releases come out of Basingstoke having lived in Reading for a while(G). But honestly, owning both an xf305 and a C100 I can't see why I would be interested in this. (I bought the xf305 instead of an EX3 like 2 years ago). It seems like years late to the party. I've been shooting 50Mbps 4:2:2 Long GOP for over two years now with great results. My lower light shots with the xf305 have been pretty good. Having interchangeable lenses would be nice, but I already have that with the C100 and frankly, rarely take my 24-105 lens off it. I appreciate that if you have an EX3 that this is a replacement for that, but frankly, I'm not waiting on a replacement for the xf300. I've already got it in the C100, and the C300 if I want to break the bank and go to 4:2:2. But frankly I can mount a Atomos and still be less than the PMW-300. I have to tell you, I rarely shoot with the xf305 as the C100 is really a spectacular camera compared to a small sensor model. I didn't believe I could get as good a picture out of the 4:2:0 as the XF305 4:2:2 but I have to say it's damn close.

This isn't meant to be a slam of the PMW300, I'm sure that it will suit the folks doing broadcast just fine. Maybe it is really meant to compete against the Canon C300, since it's 4:2:2 but frankly, I like the layout of the C300 better, and I can use all my Canon glass that I have bought over the years for the 5D, C100 and on up.It just seems like this announcement is, "meh" meaning "really, you are getting worked up over this?" No harm meant, I love Sony too, she cares about professionals, but being independent she seems like a high maintenance date! Help me understand what I am missing. I frankly might have gotten more worked up over a real successor to the Panasonic AF100/100A. That was a great first effort a leader in the field and Panny just never really followed up on it. Finances likely. Or the Lumix division won out politically inside the company. I'm not really interested in going back to a DSLR now that there are real large format sensor options in a camcorder. This PMW300 doesn't seem like one.

Just sayin'.

No one is suggesting that this is designed to compete against the many large sensor cameras on the market. This is aimed at those that don't want shallow DoF. Those that need a camera that is easy to work with in run and gun as well as small multi camera shoots such as conferences or low cost studios. The EX3 was an incredibly successful camera, especially in emerging markets as it is a great all round camera. It's been used for everything from low budget corporate to high end BBC natural history. The PMW-300 will bring the EX3 up to date adding improved image quality including real 10 bit recording and output (something many of the large sensor cameras don't offer), better ergonomics and wifi streaming options. At the same time it retains the ability to use 1/2" and 2/3" Parfocal servo zoom lenses for normal applications or DSLR lenses for telephoto work such as natural history.
Much as I love using my F3 with it's interchangeable lens mount that allows me to use a B4 zoom, DSLR lenses or PL glass, there are still times where a 1/2" or 2/3" camera would be more appropriate and the PMW-300 is very attractive as it looks to offer good image quality and flexibility at a great price.

I have to tell you, I rarely shoot with the xf305 as the C100 is really a spectacular camera compared to a small sensor model. I didn't believe I could get as good a picture out of the 4:2:0 as the XF305 4:2:2 but I have to say it's damn close.

Help me understand what I am missing. I frankly might have gotten more worked up over a real successor to the Panasonic AF100/100A. ..........I'm not really interested in going back to a DSLR now that there are real large format sensor options in a camcorder. This PMW300 doesn't seem like one.
At the risk of repeating what Alister says, the PMW300 is aimed at a completely different market to the C100/AF100 et al. What may be seen as advantages of a camera like the C100 to one person may be seen as it's disadvantages to someone else - and vice versa.

For some types of work, shallow depth of field may be seen as desirable - for other types of work, it's a pain. For some types of work a long servo zoom is essential - try getting one that's affordable for such as a C100. And so on.

Obviously you're in the group who finds a large sensor format best suits your needs. Fine. The PMW300 isn't targeted at you. But there's another group who have very different needs, and that's who this camera is targeted at.

Whether it would be worth exchanging an XF305 that you've already got is up for debate. But if you need a new camera, and it's a choice of an XF305 or a PMW300, I'd go for the PMW300 any day due to the 1/2" chips, codec upgradability, form factor etc etc.

Yes, I'm really only posting because I am the type of customer I'm sure that Sony would love to have, as a small independent who does own a professional level camcorder like the PMW-300. I would agree that if I were going to consider replacing the xf305 today, and wanted the form factor of a camcorder I would be seriously considering the PMW-300 because of the larger sensor. But I guess my point was that I can shoot both an xf305 or a C100 any day that I shoot, and I find that I can get a pretty good DOF (shallow that is) with the C100 by using my NDs properly along with the choice of lenses. I'll not belabour the point further, I agree with the thread that it's a great update from Sony, especially for those who work with camcorders all the time. I do use my 305 when shooting performances and lectures style shooting, where a true zoom is useful. Don't you find it wild to hear people say that using a true parfocal zoom is so "70s" in it's look?

Yes, I'm really only posting because I am the type of customer I'm sure that Sony would love to have, as a small independent who does own a professional level camcorder like the PMW-300. .......... I find that I can get a pretty good DOF (shallow that is) with the C100 by using my NDs properly along with the choice of lenses.
But Sony's offering to try to appeal to such as yourself is the FS700, isn't it? Or go a bit more upmarket to the F5?

I don't dispute that you may have valid reasons for deciding a larger format camera is better for your particular needs, but in that case why even post about the PMW300? It's intended for people with different requirements and needs to you, and it's them who find it of interest.

Up to now it's been a choice of 1/2" chips OR a fully approved codec in this class of camera. With the PMW200 and PMW300 you can have your cake and eat it.

Reading these comments i'm reminded of a situation i found myself in 2 years ago. I was helping out a guy editing a doco he'd made about rappers in London. Most of the rushes were shot on the EX3, but some bits had a Canon 550d capturing the footage alongside the main camera.

The difference between the two cameras was night and day. Frankly, the EX3 looked like a 50p camcorder out of a box of Cornflakes next to the Canon. I got some colleagues to come and have a look too. All marvelled at the images the 550d produced, and commented how 3rd rate the Sony camera (costing vastly more) looked alongside it.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure Sony have produced another superb piece of kit, but i will be astonished if this camera can match a 2 year old 550d.

Having said that, i've no doubt the Sony is a more useful all round tool, which of course is what it's intended to do.

OTOH, when I got my 550D, then FS100, my two EX1Rs laid unused for ages. Then (around Olympics time) they came out of retirement, clients started asking for them again. Since then, they're used on all the run and gun jobs - great workflow, easy to shoot with, pictures that won't embarrass you. The Canon look is 'very Super16' and doesn't suit everything. It also sucks at chromakey and complex WB.

The EX1R? It's the camera you jump in the back of a taxi with when the producer says 'follow them!', or when you're diving into a job where nobody knows what's happening next. You can even get away with being an overenthusiastic amateur when you're shooting low key B-Roll (dodgy situations? Been there).

Because of what I shoot, I'm better served by owning a PMW-300 and an FS700 rather than a single F5, so let's celebrate what the 300 does best.

But my EX1Rs are still shooting well, so I'll have to wait....

Looks like another good camera for broadcast and will compliment the 400 as B-cameras very nicely.

Just need some some more work to justify changing from P2 to the sony platform.

Most of the rushes were shot on the EX3, but some bits had a Canon 550d capturing the footage alongside the main camera.

The difference between the two cameras was night and day. Frankly, the EX3 looked like a 50p camcorder out of a box of Cornflakes next to the Canon.
As an owner of a PMW320 and a Canon 550D I have to say I find that hard to believe, and it's not my experience.

For what it costs, I'm very pleased with the 550D, and frankly the quality is on a level that is hard to believe for the price. But compared side by side (and when DOF etc is not an issue) it's just not up to the PMW320, which is basically the same front end as the EX3. Not in basic image quality, though if you like shallow dof, then obviously it will give that. The 550D is much softer, and aliasing can be easily visible on moving edges, just for starters. I've even seen it alias quite badly on underwater footage, and that takes some doing owing to the softening effect of the water. (Or rather, everything suspended in the water. :-) )

I'm not doubting what you saw, but wonder if it was down to some factor not intrinsic to the camera.....?

Not viewing on full 1920x1080 screen?
Poor line up of EX3?
Errr, 550D just had a better cameraman than the EX3....?

OTOH, when I got my 550D, then FS100, my two EX1Rs laid unused for ages. Then (around Olympics time) they came out of retirement, clients started asking for them again. Since then, they're used on all the run and gun jobs - great workflow, easy to shoot with, pictures that won't embarrass you. The Canon look is 'very Super16' and doesn't suit everything. It also sucks at chromakey and complex WB.

The EX1R? It's the camera you jump in the back of a taxi with when the producer says 'follow them!', or when you're diving into a job where nobody knows what's happening next. You can even get away with being an overenthusiastic amateur when you're shooting low key B-Roll (dodgy situations? Been there).

Because of what I shoot, I'm better served by owning a PMW-300 and an FS700 rather than a single F5, so let's celebrate what the 300 does best.

But my EX1Rs are still shooting well, so I'll have to wait....

Couldn't agree more, EX1Rs are perfect run-and-gun cameras. I'm gonna be waiting for the XAVC variants to be coming out with improved sensors before I even consider selling my EX1R.

I have to agree with David.

I have a couple of 550D's. I got the first one following all the hype. Used it for a few shoots and then relegated it to the role of time-lapse camera (for which it is excellent). I find the 550D very soft, full of aliasing and moire and with terrible skew and jello. I guess at times the aliasing and dodgy edges make it look sharp. It does do shallow DoF well, which is just as well as it's only by having the majority of the frame out of focus that you hide all the problems. I only rarely use the 550D now, my pocket sized NEX5 is better but even that only gets used as a C camera or for shooting on holiday or where I shouldn't be shooting.

On a TV sized full HD monitor the 550D just looks soft and crude compared to an EX.

One thing I do see at the workshops I run is that those using large sensor cameras have to think much harder about their shots due to the critical focus issues. DSLR shooters in particular often have to work very hard due to the less than optimum viewfinder outputs. Because they are concentrating on their shots, they tend to be framed well and nicely composed. Meanwhile the EX (or similar) shooters can be lazy, focus is easy and they just "spray paint" shoot with the camera with little thought for composition just because getting an image is so easy. If the EX shooters took the same care to craft each shot their results would be so much better.

At the height of the DSLR craze we hired Philip Bloom to shoot some beauty shots to go in an air show video we were producing. He had free range to do what he wanted for 2 days. At the end of the two days we had enough footage for about 2 or 3 mins of the final 2 hour cut. Yes it looked good and was a nice contrast to the normal air show footage. But thank goodness we didn't try to cover the whole show that way, the final video would have only been 10 mins long.

thank goodness we didn't try to cover the whole show that way, the final video would have only been 10 mins long.
Hey Alister,
this is probably got nothing to do with the camera, ah?

Not the individual camera but the style of shooting with very shallow DoF. There is a place for big sensors as well as small sensors.

Just viewed "Ride the Divide" which was shot with an EX1 and an older tape-based Sony as backup. Looked super. These cameras are alive and well.

Might have been overlooked in our discussion, but the DC IN is outside the battery compartment again! Hot swapping BP-Us with the AC Adapter in or hot swapping V-Lock or Anton Bauer by means of a BP-U installed is possible again!

And unlike the EX1, EX3, and 200, there looks to be one extra ND slot. Less reaching for the shutter to open the iris up for certain interviews now!

can anyone explain what is meant as a place in the camera to hold sony wireless receiver?

Only let down seems to me that its the same old sensor, just tweaking of firmware. I thought they would have come up with a new one by now?

Otherwise nice upgrade, but it took a bit too long I think.
But as always, one have to wait until o e can see some footage coming from this new baby.

My EX-3 was the best camera buy I did financially as it has paid it self many times over, but I don't think I will get the new one as I'm in a different place in life from where I was when I bought my EX-3

The only let down? A MAJOR let down. Sensor or overall image quality improvement would be noted in the press release.

Since the EX1 in 2008, I've been waiting for an image quality upgrade EX1/EX3 upgrade to 1080p60 with a corresponding doubling of the recorded data rate. If delivering that quality requires a new lens, 2x/3x zoom or fixed focal length, bring that on as well. I'll buy.

.............. I've been waiting for an image quality upgrade EX1/EX3 upgrade to 1080p60 with a corresponding doubling of the recorded data rate.
I thought the expectation was that the PMW300 WILL do 1080p/60.......... with the XAVC upgrade? [EDIT - Looking back on this thread, I see Alister Chapman says to expect more information about XAVC at IBC, so hopefully the 50/60p issue may get clarified there. Currently, the expectation seems to be we may expect the higher framerates, but we'll see.)

(And doubling the frame rate does not necessarily mean doubling recorded data rate - IF it's using a long-GOP codec. Principle is that the time interval between I-frames is kept the same, it's the number of difference frames that gets bigger.)

As for quality improvements, I'd considered that a year or so back it was the codec that was seen as the limitation of such as the EX1/3, the 1/3" front end that was seen as the limitation of the corresponding Canon and Panasonic cameras. What people were asking for was either a better codec (such as XDCAM422) in the Sony cameras, or a better (1/2") front end in the others. Surely that's now been answered?

We could face the possibility that 4K in 1/2'' may be next in line. Remember the NX5 4K prototype?

Sony would be fools not include the Exmor R (BSI) tech in a 1/2'' or 1/3'' 4K sensor. Throw in Global Shutter and that's a winner.

In the very least, BSI has to make it into the next iteration of cameras.

(And doubling the frame rate does not necessarily mean doubling recorded data rate - IF it's using a long-GOP codec. Principle is that the time interval between I-frames is kept the same, it's the number of difference frames that gets bigger.)


I argue from the increase in image dimensions : 720p60 to 1080p60 entails a doubling of the number of pixels.

I argue from the increase in image dimensions : 720p60 to 1080p60 entails a doubling of the number of pixels.
Doesn't really relate directly - that's why if you compress to JPEG in (say) Photoshop, then for a given quality the file sizes don't scale in proportion to the size of the image. (Try it -save a high res image as JPEG, then try downrezzing to half the size - so a quarter the pixels - then save as JPEG with the same quality setting.)

For 1080p/60, you really have to refer to 1080p/30 for equivalence. For the same per frame compression you need to double the bitrate if it's an Intra frame codec, but not for inter frame. In the latter case you need a lot less than double for equivalence for the reasons I gave above. This is why it's possible to code 50/60p in AVC-HD using about 28Mbs - far less than double 24Mbs.

I argue AVCHD 2.0's choice of bitrate. In the very least, Canon's XA20 and XA25's MP4 recording has 35Mbps, and the GH3 has 50Mbps Long-GOP (which is optimal)

AVCHD 2.0 handles low motion well, but once it comes to complex stuff like crashing waves, it falls apart.

I argue AVCHD 2.0's choice of bitrate. In the very least, Canon's XA20 and XA25's MP4 recording has 35Mbps, and the GH3 has 50Mbps Long-GOP (which is optimal)

I won't disagree with you about the bitrate of AVCHD 2.0 in absolute terms, it was only meant as an example of the principle - that with an interframe codec, you don't need to double the bitrate when you double the framerate. In this case, it's nowhere near double and it may well be argued that it needs to be more. (Same point could be made for normal AVCHD!)

It's also worth saying again that specifying the codec and bitrate doesn't definitively specify the quality level. All coders are not equal, and with all else equal it's possible to get better quality with a lower bitrate if a better design of coder is used. That's why broadcast coders for transmission are able to get away with such low bitrates and preserve quality. they're able to use more of the possibilities built into the spec. (Of course, you pay for it - a broadcast H264 transmission encoder will cost probably as much as a complete decent pro video camcorder!)

Taking your example of the GH3, then it's worth asking why the 50Mbs? Since it's primarily a stills camera, then at the price it's unrealistic to expect a very sophisticated encoder. That's no problem from a design point of view. Make up for it by upping the bitrate.

We could face the possibility that 4K in 1/2'' may be next in line. Remember the NX5 4K prototype?
I wonder...... I wouldn't underestimate the engineering challenges involved. Currently, all decent 1/2" and 1/3" cameras are 3 chip. Move to 4k and how possible will it be to align 3 1/2" chips? (Even 3 2/3" chips for that matter, let alone 1/3"?)

The alternative is obviously to go to single chip designs - but that brings other issues. Smaller photosites will impact on sensitivity, and going single chip must knock down basic sensitivity by over a stop in it's own right. Never say never, and maybe we will get 4K in 1/2" eventually. Whether the inevitable compromises will outweigh the "it's 4K!" appeal remains to be seen.

There are good technical reasons why the first 4K designs to be seen are all via a large sensor.