Hi.
I was hoping someone could give me some input on buying a new Super 35 camera. I have almost decided on a Sony FS700R, but I am wondering if it is the right camera for me. I used to own a Sony FS100 which I sold mostly due to the lack of HD-SDI and ND- filters. I still have 3 NPF970 batteries and extra charger for them. My Swit 7" inch monitor also uses these batteries, so buying a Sony FS700 would be a good choice.

I mostly shoot documentaries now, both for corporate and national TV. I am leaning towards a more cinematic look in my current documentary which is why I am looking at the FS700. As I understand it, the AVCHD codec is not good enough or accepted by broadcast, but I cold bypass this with my Atomos Samurai, though ProRes is not an accepted codec for delivery either.

I am trying to protect my invest for the years to come and what attracts me with the FS700R is the ability to shoot 4K, either now via the Odessey or at a later stage. However I also have a lot of SxS cards from my current EX1Rs and have also been looking at the F3 and the F5. The F3 has a fantastic picture but will never be higher quality than HD. However these cameras are popular in Norway and the broadcasters have no problem accepting EX- codec, at least for now, although I think they are leaning towards a minimum of 50 mbps. This leads me towards the F5, but that camera somehow intimidates me. I am used to the EX1R so the transition to the F3 should be easy. The F5 seems different, but I haven`t seen one myself.

Also looking to buy either Samyang lenses or CP2 series from Carl Zeiss, but not sure if these comply with any 4K standards. Should I let 4K be a concern? Cameras and technology is changing so fast these days, it is hard to keep track.

4k shouldn't be a deciding factor if you are shooting for broadcast.

For cinema there is a stronger case but still not one where I would make 4k a must-have for a camera purchase.

What would suit your requirements above nicely would be a FS700 with a NanoFlash. That would give you 50mb XDCam for your broadcast customers and 4k for the future. That does assume you can find yourself a second hand NanoFlash since they are no longer in production.

Edit: I did find some new and used NanoFlashes on Ebay.

I see the FS700 as a very good investment at this time.

The big step up from the 100 is the ND's and easily relocated handle. And the slomo 2K RAW, I almost forgot.

And with the addition of the O7Q you are really future proofed. There are many times in my style of shooting even for HD that 4K acquisition makes sense. I actually still deliver most TV commercials as 720. That is how most of them are broadcast here in the NE USA anyway. And I often reframe or stabilize the 1080 for a better 720.

One very useful part of having lots of extra pixels is you can stabilize footage easily and for shooting interviews you can decide how to frame in post. I often shoot 2 cams by myself for interviews, it is nice to frame one wide and use the other for closeups. With 4K you can even shoot 2 people and crop to one if necessary.

It really comes down to your style of shooting and your clients. I also shoot stock footage for Getty and the 4K will future proof this for many years to come. Even if today 1080 is what you deliver.

Just a few thought while drinking coffee on a snowy Sunday morning her in northern NH.

Thanks Chris and Olof.

Both of your answers make sense. At the moment 720p50 is the standard alongside some 1080 on some of the minor channels.

My last documentary was shot at 720p50 XDCam EX and converted to MXF1080i. I have since noticed that this channel has changed from 1080i to 720p.

Chris, is XDCam at 50 mbps better than Pro Res? It is my understanding that ProRes LT is around 100mbps. Is ProRes an inferior codec or is the Nanoflash more of a broadcast standard? I am thinking I could always convert the finished product to whatever codec my broadcaster would like. Maybe not a good idea?

Olof. I never realized that you could zoom around so much with 4K. Sounds great to have that option. Using the Odessey, how large files would I have to work with? And also, what codec is RAW? Maybe a stupid question, but this is all new to me.

Do bot of you think that the F3 is old technology now? I have noticed it carries the CineAlta logo from Sony. Would the colours and image from an F3 be better than an FS700? Is the FS700 just as robust as an F3? I always treat my equipment with care but it gets lugged around quite a bit.

Thanks Chris and Olof.

Chris, is XDCam at 50 mbps better than Pro Res? It is my understanding that ProRes LT is around 100mbps. Is ProRes an inferior codec or is the Nanoflash more of a broadcast standard? I am thinking I could always convert the finished product to whatever codec my broadcaster would like. Maybe not a good idea?

50mb XDCam is a recognized format for broadcast. It may work better than ProRes will depending on what your clients can handle. Quality wise it will hold up very well with ProRes 145mb.


Olof. I never realized that you could zoom around so much with 4K. Sounds great to have that option. Using the Odessey, how large files would I have to work with? And also, what codec is RAW? Maybe a stupid question, but this is all new to me.

4k isn't a option yet with the 7q recorder. If you want to record 4k RAW with the FS700 that as of today will require the Sony AXS-R5 recorder. One hour of RAW footage will be about 650GB.


Do bot of you think that the F3 is old technology now? I have noticed it carries the CineAlta logo from Sony. Would the colours and image from an F3 be better than an FS700? Is the FS700 just as robust as an F3? I always treat my equipment with care but it gets lugged around quite a bit.

I own a FS700 and a F3. From an operators point of view I would rather use the F3. The image straight out of the camera as you would record for broadcast is better on the F3. The ergonomics while not great are better on the F3 than on the FS700.

This leads me towards the F5, but that camera somehow intimidates me. I am used to the EX1R so the transition to the F3 should be easy. The F5 seems different, but I haven`t seen one myself.
If you're OK with the money, I'd go for the F5, no question.

The reason has less to do with all the quality, codec etc etc reasons, more to do with ergonomics and usability. Compared to the other cameras you mention, you're looking at a s35 camera which handles far more like a traditional shouldermount camera. I'd strongly recommend going to a dealers and having one demoed before getting anything.

It also records HD internally with a full broadcast codec, so no need for separate recorders. And in the future, the 4K RAW option is there if you need it. "RAW" is not a codec as such - it simply means that the data is being recorded straight off the chip, before any in-camera processing. The disadvantages are mainly that it creates large file sizes with high data rates - the advantages are that it's in a class of it's own when it comes to grading and post. Because it's the data before processing, things like the colour balance are not burnt-in as they are with a coded signal - so you can effectively choose your white balance in the post stage, for example.

(That said, different manufacturers implement their RAW modes in different ways - Sony do apply a certain amount of compression to it, for example.)

Finally, I wouldn't really say that XDCAM422 or ProRes are one better than the other - the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other. What I would say about the F5 is that it also has the XAVC codec, and from your point of view that allows 1080p/50 mode recording. That can act as a master to get an optimum 1080i/25 *OR* 720p/50 conversion from. I'm aware that 720 is quite popular in some Scandiavian countries, but generally 1080i/25 is more common in most of Europe. From an acquisition point of view, 1080p/50 allows you to have your cake and eat it.

Thanks for all your inputs.

I have narrowed my choices down to 2 cameras after doing a lot of thinking and research and I am still looking at the FS700 or now a Canon C300.

My reason for looking at the Canon C300 is it`s 50 mbps codec accepted for broadcast. A relatively small camera for traveling and doesn`t need a rig or external recorder. I have also been given a very good price from my local dealer with a PL- mount. They have 1 in stock costing 3000USD less than the EF- version. I realize however that PL- glass is more expensive but it might give me the look I am after. As I understand it the CP2 series from Carl Zeiss are more than 4K ready making them a good investment.

The FS700 is obviously less expensive but I was surprised to see how big the external 4K recorder from Sony is. Surely when they can put 4K recording into a small package like the Sony PXW-Z100 maybe next year we will see a Sony FS800 with inbuilt 4K recording.

This is more confusing than I thought.

NRK used to primarily support both 720p50 and 1080i25, but that have recently started doing a lot more broadcast productions in 1080p25. NRK have been looking at the PMW-F5 and F55.

If you have the money the F5 is amazing. It's not really any more complicated than the FS700 if you stay in the standard gammas. Things only start getting a little more complex when you start shooting in SLog2 or Raw, but you'd soon get the hang of that. The F5 is a camera that you will enjoy shooting with. It's a real delight to use, a cameramans camera.

I don't think I'd want a PL C300. It may be 3K cheaper thanks to the special deal but that 3K will be swallowed up by the cost of PL lenses straight away. PL zooms are serious money. As for the "look". Well a well made 35mm lens is a 35mm lens, whether it's PL or EF or Nikon. I use the Samyang Cine Primes (EF Mount) on my F5 and get beautiful results that in most cases are as good as most of the low cost PL lenses. Then I can switch mounts in a few seconds and use PL lenses, or B4 2/3" lenses, Leica or back to EF or Nikon for low cost zoom lenses. The C300 is a good camera, but HD only, no slow motion and ties you in to a single lens mount type. Ergonomics are more DSLR than video camera, but if your a DSLR shooter that may be what you like.

Thank you Alister. I wasn`t aware NRK are doing productions in 1080p25. For the past years I have only shot 720p50.

I am not a fan of DSLR shooting as it feels awkward to me. I like a camera to feel like a camera.

I understand you own both the FS700 and F5. And I am looking forward to your more in depth article on the Odessey 7Q as noted on your website, which I often visit for information.

Is is possible to compare the FS700 and F5? When the FS100 came out it was often referred to as the baby F3.

I have several reasons for looking at the FS700. One is of course cost and the other is the ability to use the speed booster as I understand this will give more of a full frame look? I was thinking about going with the 24-105 L Canon lens as it seems like a good range. I have always liked great panoramic images, but then I maybe should be looking at anamorphic lenses? 4K is the most attractive feature.

On the other hand, the F5 looks more professional and it is good to hear you are describing it as a camera mans camera. Of course if the NRK are looking at it, that would be a good choice for me.

Do you think in the long term this would be a better investment? I don`t fully understand all the codecs and choices that are coming with it. How much extra would I have to calculate to get it up and running? I have the Alphatron viewfinder, lots of SxS cards and 2 Swit V- lock batteries and charger. Is it possible to use these items?

Thanks for your input,

I and a group of colleges have evaluated the PMW-F-series camcorders. All of us are using the EX3 today to make documentaries. Our conclusion is we have to choose between F5 and the F55. Future 4K is for us important.
Here are some of the questions. Is the rolling shutter acceptable? Is it OK to have no 4K SDI external outputs? Only one 4K ext recorder could be used on the F5, the Sony AXS-R5. No 7Q! Any other to interface the F5/55? Sooner or later we will need 4k RAW. Is S-Log2 shooting too complicated in documentaries? Is the flexibility between 2K and 4K impossible if one mount the optical low pass filter (the soft filter)? Is the mechanics OK and stable on F5/55? What about the viewer connector?
We also have a lot of questions around compatibility with 720 and 1080 footage, how to mix it with 4K footage. Most of us have large archives.
Some of us have old system cameras to trade in, 2000 Euros pay back until 31. dec. is nice.
Best Arild Pedersen

Is the flexibility between 2K and 4K impossible if one mount the optical low pass filter (the soft filter)?
Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but is that only an issue if you use the camera to shoot 2K RAW? (Not necessary if shooting 2K/1080 to an in-camera codec?) My gut feeling is that mode is much less useful than either shooting 2K XAVC, or if you want RAW, go for 4K RAW.

The Canon 1dc is in that budget range, a cinematic DSLR with a minimal 4k capability, C-log, has a decent selection of codecs, frame rates, frame sizes, optics, mounts, supports, goes anywhere and weather sealed. It's high initial price is mitigated somewhat by not having to purchase lens adapters, batteries and chargers, viewfinders etc.

The Sony RX10 and Panasonic GH3 are even cheaper cinematic options without 4k.

Based on your questions, I would not think 4k should be a deciding factor, there is plenty of time and many more cameras to appear.

Why would a 1Dc mean that you wouldn't have to purchase batteries, chargers and viewfinders? Not sure I understand that. As for the lens adapter, I'd rather have the option to use a variety of lenses, Canon EF mount, Nikon, PL mount, older FD mount or Minolta lenses and so on, then be stuck with ONLY Canon EF mount.....even if I had to buy a few lens adapters.....but that's just me.

I see your point about the lenses Gabe. When I said that, I was actually thinking the 1dc was available in a choice of mounts like the c500.

I'm one of the few I guess who think the 1dc makes a worthwhile Swiss Army knife, although I don't own it.

By the time you've outfitted a fs700 for 4k, it's more expensive, and more capable as well, but more time consuming to set up, and not all-weather ready, not as easy with a steadycam. I like the things you can do with a 1dc, or the fact that
you can do 4k internal, all you need is a lens and CF card, all it takes is to have it with you. You aren't connecting cables, power supplies, recorders. You're just wearing it around your neck. Adam Wilt made that point about the 1dc when he was trekking in the woods with Art Adams.

Certainly the AX1 and Z100 do all that and more at a much lower price point, but hardly cinematic or your go-to camera in low light, but the 1dc can.

I don't think you are the only one, I think Philip Bloom liked that camera......
It seems well suited to what you are talking about. Simple 4k without
external recorders. But really it's a DSLR isn't it? DSLRs seem to be
the poster children of 'dressing up'.....cause they aren't made to shoot video.
It's hard to shoot steady video with that form factor....which is why
there are so many DSLR 'rigs' out there. No NDs so you may need a
matte box? How's the screen in sunlight...would you need a external
viewfinder? I don't know a ton about it and I could very well be wrong
but I thought it may need to be 'dressed up' a lot. A FS700
would need a 7q or Sony recorder for 4k which does increase bulk,
but it has built in NDs so no matte box needed. If the stock viewfinder
is shortened, it's totally fine, even in direct sun (admittedly placement
sucks especially for high angle shots). I don't know a ton about the
1DC, maybe it is the ultimate 'low profile' 4k camera, I was assuming
it needed what a normal DSLR did to make it usable for video, but
I could totally be wrong, wouldn't be the first time :)

4k shouldn't be a deciding factor if you are shooting for broadcast.

I don't agree. In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

Outside of the reframing discussion which has its own merit, the resolution, regardless of being downres'd to 1080p will be of higher quality in the end. While the 4k sharpness might not be as drastic an increase over a quality 1080p cam (you would be hard pressed to find different between an FS700 @ 4k and F3 @1080p in the end if delivering 1080p), it will be in general a better source size to work with in post and would allow more flexibility.

If you are shooting for more high end productions and are passing off your footage to your post vendors for compositing/FX, the 4K res (and raw, if you have an O7Q) will be appreciated by individuals involved on that end. For quite a few projects recently, what I wouldnt have given to shoot a bit wider, turned up the shutter speed, and had 4K to stabilize and then comp FX down into 1080p.

As of now, 4K for broadcast is the new 1080p for broadcast at least in the US. Wont happen anytime soon. Japan has committed itself to UHD broadcast in what appears to be a very short timeline (primarily because the size of the country lends itself to rapid deployment such as this). Depending on the rate of uptake, 4K might become more relevant more quickly than we all think. When that time comes and everyone of your clients come back and go 'Hey, remember that shot you had, can we do it in that new fancy 4K stuff they are using now' you wont have to explain thats not how it works, but rather, 'Where should I send it'.

I don't agree. In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

Here in the US you won't find braodcast clients calling for 4k. That will continue for the next several years. By the time 4k becomes a broadcast must have other cameras will be on the scene and better suited for broadcast 4k.

Here in the US you won't find braodcast clients calling for 4k. That will continue for the next several years.

Evidently you did not read what I wrote -- here it is again: In post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p).

-- peer

Certainly not arguing what is beneficial in post.

What you may not be aware of is in the USA in most cases you turn over your RAW footage to the client in the broadcast world. You capture in the format they dictate. That will not be 4k. Guaranteed. The turnarounds will not allow for reframing or recompressing. You shoot what they want and hand it off to their DIT on the spot.

If you are producing a program you can capture in 4k and deliver in 1080. People that own cameras and shoot for broadcast are generally not doing that part of the producing. None of my broadcast clients are interested in 4k. The biggest call is for 50mb XDCam.

So here in the US there is no call for freelance shooters to provide 4k to broadcast clients. They want 50mb XDCam in 1080.

Certainly not arguing what is beneficial in post.

What I'm discussing is the issue at hand, i.e., "Should 4K be a deciding factor for buying a new Super 35 camera." To which you replied;
4k shouldn't be a deciding factor if you are shooting for broadcast.
Again, I don't agree with you, because in post, with 4k footage, you'll have more leverage to push in, pan across, and tweak it beyond any regular HD footage -- no matter if its final destination is only 1080p, (or even 720p). Hence, I believe 4K should be a deciding factor for buying a new Super 35 camera.

-- peer

One big thing I've not seen writ large here is 10 bit.

4K & Quad HD is essentially a 4:2:2 10 bit medium. Not 8 bit. Not 8 bit padded out to 10 bit. And that's interesting because it sort of pokes the Canon 1D-C being, at heart, an 8 bit machine. I note that the 1D-C is the only DSLR passed for BBC 'full use', but I'm still very aware that 4K acquisition is 10 bit and a wider colour gamut than Rec709.

An FS700 to own, and the interface/recorder to rent when 4K and/or 12 bit raw is required, would seem a quick fix. F55 has that wonderful Global Shutter and therefore ideal in match-move greenscreen shots, F5 does feel intimidating after the lovely Labrador feel of the F3, but within half an hour you'll be fine (assuming you'll go for the non OLED v/f and a V-lock power solution).

1D-C - looks good, but that 8 bit thing puts a bit of a downer on it for me. I think I've already bought my last 8 bit camera.

1D-C - looks good, but that 8 bit thing puts a bit of a downer on it for me.

I agree -- ever since the 1DC was announced I've had a love/hate feeling for it, and that solely for its 8-bit. But since I've now been on the fence for so long, I think I can stand waiting till next NAB and see if there might be a 10-bit version of it, or perhaps we'll again see some drastic price changes from RED ;^)

-- peer

People that own cameras and shoot for broadcast are generally not doing that part of the producing. None of my broadcast clients are interested in 4k. The biggest call is for 50mb XDCam.

So here in the US there is no call for freelance shooters to provide 4k to broadcast clients. They want 50mb XDCam in 1080.
Getting back to the main issue - what camera - then don't let's forget the F5 is a very good 1080, XDCAM422 50Mbs camera.

Quickly looking at (US) pricing on B&H, then a PMW500 body seems to be around $23,000, an F5 body around $16,500. Draw your own conclusions.

What we have here is a camera that should be highly acceptable to Chris's clients and their requests for XDCAM 50Mbs, but is also capable of being switched to 1080 XAVC if desired in the future and is capable of 4K RAW in the future with an add-on recorder.

It would be one thing if you had to pay a lot extra just to get a 4K capability you may never need - but that's not the case.

You might want to watch out for some very attractive F5 bundles coming from Sony. In Canada they are running a deal where you can get the F5 body, LCD viewfinder and Optitek EF mount for about $16K CDN.

Shooting in 4K results in HD with better contrast as the cameras Low Pass Filter is a 4K filter so it's not reducing contrast at HD in the same way as the low pass filter in an HD camera does. My footage from the F5 and FS700 when shot in 4K and down converted to HD looks so much nicer than anything I've shot in HD.

I have broadcast clients insisting on 4K already. The BBC Natural History Unit is using 4K for some productions as are Discovery and Nat Geo.

Don't forget "broadcasting" is now no longer just about traditional over the airwaves delivery. Almost everyone downloads video these days via the internet and streaming services such as Netflix, iPlayer etc will become more common and mainstream. HEVC will make it possible to stream a 4K production using similar bandwidth to a H264 HD production. 4K TV's are selling well and there is an appetite for 4K content.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

4 K would be nice. I can sure see the benefits of reframing shots. But then again I would prefer to get it right when actually shooting the scene. Is 4k that much better?

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. If the package deal would also be available to european customers that would sure be nice, but I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is. I have just bought the latest high specified iMac available and CS6 last year. I would prefer to not start over again. And would prefer to stay away from monthly paying Adobe. I already spent lots of money on the software package.

I am left with 2 choices. The FS700 and C300PL, because I could also afford some nice glass without breaking the bank or risking my economy. Which to me is the most important thing.

Is the FS700 professional enough? Just using the AVCHD codec? I am trying for a cinematic look and I think today I found the term I am looking for. Shooting anamorphic seems to be the way to go to shoot wide and big images. Which I like. Never done it, but it sure looks great. I could afford the Letus Anamorphic adapter and a nice CP2 glass. But would I get myself into a world of trouble?

The C300 would be the safer choice as the NRK here are using it and has that broadcast codec. And it is a relatively small camera.

Thanks everyone for taking your time to contribute to this thread and giving me more and more insight. I appreciate it.

For the price of a C300 you could buy the FS700 and an external recorder such as the Odyssey 7q and have high bit rate for your broadcast customers and 4k for the future. In my personal opinion the C300 is overpriced. Great camera for sure but not thousands better than a FS700.

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. .......... I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is.
Comparing the F5 to the C300, then as they stand, EITHER can be used with the XDCAM422 50Mbs codec out of the box. Which CS6 will have no problem with.

But ADDITIONALLY, the F5 is capable of XAVC (not sure if that is compatible with CS6) and 4K with the bolt on recorder. If you want to go the 4k route, it'll be extra money whatever you do. Both recorder and NLE.

The FS700 may be the cheapest initial option, and gives future options of 4K as the F5 - but out of the box only has AVC-HD as an in-built codec. Hence, the cost comparison in the here and now really needs to be an F5 body and v/f versus an FS700 with add-on recorder.

Think of the F5 first and foremost as a very good 1080 camera with XDCAM422 - but with 4K as a future option, likewise HD XAVC.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

4 K would be nice. I can sure see the benefits of reframing shots. But then again I would prefer to get it right when actually shooting the scene. Is 4k that much better?

The F5 looks like a great camera, but at this point it is out of my reach. If the package deal would also be available to european customers that would sure be nice, but I fear that the me buying the F5 would bring a lot of additional costs. I read a whitepaper by Sony today and my editing program, Premiere CS6, does not seem to be up to the task if I read correctly. Regarding 4K that is. I have just bought the latest high specified iMac available and CS6 last year. I would prefer to not start over again. And would prefer to stay away from monthly paying Adobe. I already spent lots of money on the software package.

I am left with 2 choices. The FS700 and C300PL, because I could also afford some nice glass without breaking the bank or risking my economy. Which to me is the most important thing.

Is the FS700 professional enough? Just using the AVCHD codec? I am trying for a cinematic look and I think today I found the term I am looking for. Shooting anamorphic seems to be the way to go to shoot wide and big images. Which I like. Never done it, but it sure looks great. I could afford the Letus Anamorphic adapter and a nice CP2 glass. But would I get myself into a world of trouble?

The C300 would be the safer choice as the NRK here are using it and has that broadcast codec. And it is a relatively small camera.

Thanks everyone for taking your time to contribute to this thread and giving me more and more insight. I appreciate it.

No idea about anamorphic. But I have some opinions about C300 vs. FS700. I've worked
as an AC on two large productions using a C300. I personally own a FS700.

C300 advantages
Better ergonomics
Better built in codec
Better 'branding'. What I mean is every 'big' production I have worked on has used a C300
either as an 'A' camera or a 'B' camera to an Epic. Producers will ask for it by name.

FS700 advantages
Cheaper!
More versatile. I know, this is vague but FS700 can do high frame rates, time lapse (with slow
shutter), more versatile with lenses (use Canon, Nikon, or Sony still lenses, old vintage still
lenses like cheap FD mount, use PL mount lenses, even get a 'full frame look' with a speed booster)
shoot 2k or 4k raw or 4k 10 or 12 bit 'popular codec' using either Sony recorder or Odyssey 7q,
auto focus on E mount lenses or A mount with adapter, tap on screen to focus with E mount
lenses, IS with E mount or Canon EF lenses, servo zooms available if wanted for R&G shooting,
and even shoot 8 megapixel stills. The C300 does a couple things very well. The FS700
does a lot of things fairly well.

I like the C300 image a lot. But the FS700 image is close. C300 has C Log, FS700 has
S Log2. When I worked with the C300, I never had a DP that did not 'build it up' which
kind of negated its ergonomic advantage over the FS700. If you do get the FS700, you
should shorten the loupe, which will help. For me, the extra cost of the C300 and the
lesser versatility made me buy FS700. I don't live in an area where the better 'name' of
the C300 would help me, and mostly work on 'one man production company' projects
where I do everything end to end and versatility is key. If I lived somewhere where I normally
was just a DP working for others, a C300 may help get jobs.

One more thing to consider. I like you am very much against 'paying rent' for edit software.
Consider that the FS700 will shoot 4k in 'popular codec' which should work with your existing
computer and software as the 'popular codec' is much more edit friendly than the long GOP
stuff. So you may need to upgrade to Adobe CC for XAVC but probably wouldn't have to for
4k 'popular codec'. Of course this isn't for sure until it is released but I think there is a good
chance that 4k 'popular codec' will work with your existing computer and NLE.

Just one persons rambling thoughts....

The Odyssey uses DPX for 2K raw and will use most likely ProRes for compressed 4K. The Sony R5 records Sony raw MXF's.

XAVC is already supported in Premiere CC, Edius, Vegas, Avid, Resolve, Assimilate, Quantel and Lightworks.

If we look at codecs, and not HD vs 4K at the moment. Does anyone know how AVCHD compares to XDCam EX and Canons MXF? How does the various codecs hold up in post and further compression before being broadcast or shown on any medium, web, DVD and Blu Ray?

I have been following a different thread on what camera is the most popular and I believe it was Alister who said it would be interesting to see how much the different investments would hold up long term, which is what I have been thinking about as well.

What I mean is I would like to actually make a decent income with my camera and an investment that would pay off in the end.

I've been using AVCHD and XDCAM (the 35 Mbit 4:2:0 version) alongside each other for a while now.

In most situations, AVCHD holds up very well, pretty much equal with XDCAM. Only when things get very intense on the motion does AVCHD get a little more ropey than XDCAM, but that tends to be on the shots that hit the cutting room floor.

One also needs to take into consideration that the XDCAM cameras I'm using are quite old - the EX1R has quite a 'texture' associated with it. Not objectionable, but it's very 'there'. The FS100 I had for a while was far less noisy and in the right conditions could boast better pictures than the EX1, but its highlights and skin tones, and its general lack of detail on comparison to the EX1 let it down overall. The FS700 was a very good match, and quite frankly for most work destined for the web, the internal AVCHD internal recordings were absolutely fine.

Yesterday I found a PDF from the NRK with their new specifications when delivering for broadcast. If I read correctly it now seems that what is considered HD is 1080 and no longer 720 as it used to be. And also that cameras in general would have to be 1/2 inch sensors or bigger and shooting at 50mbps or more. They seem to be following the same guidelines as the BBC.

I my rethink my decision and actually go with the F5. This should make me future proof and broadcast accepted. However, I want my new cam to replace my EX1R as I cannot afford both cameras. What in your opinion would be my best lens choice? I do not always have the opportunity to swap lenses fast or move from my position. This is especially true when working for corporate as sometimes for safety reasons we have to stand at a distance.

The other alternative, although locking myself into one system, would actually be the Canon C300 PL with a used Angenieux 25-250. I found it at:

Visual Products - Equipment For Sale - Lenses - Zoom Lenses - 35mm Zoom Lenses - Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 (http://visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail03.asp?productID=13&Cat=8&Cat2=20&Cat3=29)

It was supposedly the work horse back in the 70`s. Any advice appreciated as I have to make my decision soon.

Well. I just ordered the Angenieux 25-250 lens and having seen the C300 for myself now, I must say I was impressed by how small and compact it actually is.

The Sony FS700 is quite a bit larger and bulkier than I thought. Especially with the Odyssey mounted to it. It could make a nice shoulder mounted camera when you build it up, but I really don`t want to do that. It amazes me how much you could actually spend on accessories on a large sensor camera to overcome the sometimes awkward ergonomics. I wonder if some camera manufacturers forget to ask the users of their products or if this is business strategy to sell more.

Do I need 4K? Not sure. Do I want 4K? Sure. But not at any expense. I saw this rather interesting piece made by Rick Young from Moviemachine called: Rick Young: Why we need RAW, why we need Compressed (http://www.moviemachine.tv/video/rick-young-why-we-need-raw,-why-we-need-compressed/81264990/)

And it made me realize something he said. If you shoot 50 hours of raw material think about how much time you would spend in post. And for me shooting documentaries that would bring the costs up significantly. Also shooting 4K would bring up the question on what storage media to choose and how much. For the time being I would not be able to make more money with 4K equipment.

I need to work quickly and efficiently and I sure don`t want to spend a fortune on accessories. So I have bought a Blackmagic Cinema Camera for the times I want to shoot raw and in controlled setups. At the current price point it is a bargain. I will be buying a Canon C300 as well, unless there is something new at NAB. And even if there is I have to make a decision at some point anyway. There will always be something new. Now I have to decide whether to get the EF or PL model.

I my rethink my decision and actually go with the F5. This should make me future proof and broadcast accepted. However, I want my new cam to replace my EX1R as I cannot afford both cameras. What in your opinion would be my best lens choice?

The other alternative, although locking myself into one system, would actually be the Canon C300 PL with a used Angenieux 25-250.
The lens you mention is pretty slow by todays standards (T3.9), and does it have any power servo on the zoom?

Are you aware of the optical convertors which will let a 2/3" lens be used on a s35 camera? In that case, get a normal 2/3" lens (with good zoom range, power zoom etc) and use via the adaptor. Operationally, to the cameraman, there is no noticeable difference between using in such a way, and using on a 2/3" camera.

(Technically, it behaves as if the focal length is multiplied 2.7x, and the f stop is 2.7 stops less. But because (all else equal) the sensor is correspondingly larger, then for angle of view, depth of field, low light performance the factors all cancel out.)
Do I need 4K? Not sure. Do I want 4K? Sure. But not at any expense. I saw ........
And it made me realize something he said. If you shoot 50 hours of raw material think about how much time you would spend in post. And for me shooting documentaries that would bring the costs up significantly. Also
But get a 4K camera and you don't need to use it in 4K. Or at least - not all the time. But if it's 4K CAPABLE it's possible to think of using it normal HD mode for most of a project - but using it in 4K mode for certain scenes if you think they may have far more future value than most of the other material. Or if 4K may give you more post options for just those sequences.

Get (say) an F5 and you don't have to use it in 4K mode. You may use it HD for 95% of the time, 4K for 5% - but that 5% may be critical, and 95% HD the rest of the time is unaffected. Or maybe most projects are HD, but one may really benefit from 4K?

Get an HD only camera such as the C300, and those options are lost.

If we look at codecs, and not HD vs 4K at the moment. Does anyone know how AVCHD compares to XDCam EX and Canons MXF? How does the various codecs hold up in post and further compression before being broadcast or shown on any medium, web, DVD and Blu Ray?
Simplistically, AVCHD is not considered suitable for normal broadcast acquisition, XDCAM-EX is suitable for "journalism", and XDCAM 422 is cleared for all normal broadcast acquisition. That's not to say you can't get away with a lower tier on some occasions, and not to say better than XDCAM 422 may be desirable on other occasions, but as a general rule it's not too bad.

The other thing with AVC-HD is it needs more processing power to edit natively, so although you may not see too much quality difference between it and XDCAM EX, it may make your editing etc hardware perform worse. That's one of the prices to be paid for the lower filesizes.