For some reason many broadcasters in Europe think that 720p50 is a better broadcast format than 1080i50, so the resolution race is on again...but for us sports people rather 720p than 1080i. And 1080p is just to bandwidth intense at the moment to be a real alternative.

What's best depends on your needs, one problem for Sony and the xdcam is that it's still long goop and the compression is a bit hard. Of course you have the xdcam ex that removes the point of xdcam being slower than p2 on the larger projects/eng work, but the P2 system is a system that is much more proven and tested than the ex. But again, "best" is a very relative word we're still shooting all SD for news and so on in Norway...and many European countries and will be for few years.

As far as I know, some European broadcasters haven't even decided on their HD format. And yes, 720p might be in some ways better than 1080i but certainly not 1080p. Also, we are comparing apples and oranges here; for broadcast the issue is bandwith vs. quality but for acquisition it's always quality first because in the real world you rarely deliver in the same format you shoot in.

The truth is that the EX system is not tested at all - yet. However, its 'brother' XDCAM HD has been in the production pipeline for a while and it works like a charm. I personally edited three episodes on Discovery-Times series almost two years ago and the process was flawless! Now Sony says that the EX is using the same codecs and even Avid moderators seem to agree that it's likely going to work the same way as disk-based XDCAM. You can even use the new upcoming USB XDCAM HD drive that will record the material from the card onto an XDCAM disk - essentially making it the same as if it originated in an XDCAM (disk) camera.

As for P2 being 'a proven format', that's a matter of opinion. In either case, the cards are proprietary, therefore, expensive but also limited in speed. Newer computers aren't even compatible with the P2 card format. In addition, the HVX200 camera uses an SD set of chips and upconverts the signal to HD through pixel shifting. There have been some tests published on-line that clearly indicate that while the footage looks very good, when compared to other cameras it is 'softer'.

Sony has proved that their 'long GOP' is not a problem, I am yet to see any compression artefacts.

Ultimately, Christian is right though, because in the end it's what works for the user's needs and what best integrates into their existing pipeline.

woe is me
 

Gee thanks Jiri, just as soon as I wittled down my list to two, you gotta throw a wrench in my decision making machine, heh heh. Yeah, I had heard the ooos and ahhhs all the way to Atlanta from Las Vegas about the new Sony.

I admit I agree with the ergonomics comment about the Panasonic. I shoot with a SONY VX2000 as well as my trusty XL1s. Though I dig the picture, I sure hate that handheld rig at times. When I am shooting some web ENG stuff I sometimes find myself standing next to a HVX200 shooter. Who will often look at me and my comfy shoulder held XL1s rig with almost with a tear in their eye as they stand there holding the hefty VX200 in their right hand, left hand trying to steady the quickly tiring right arm. Makes me think tewice. Yes, I know you can get a brace add-on, but still . . .

Looks as if I have more research to do. But since I plan to plop down $2,500 on a Mac this month, I will have to wait on the new camera for another month or two, so I have some time.

Thanks again, all.

Jim