there are just certain things you can do with them as a team, having just one or the other is limiting, they each do their own...

having both on your set is a blessing....

my question is, what is the advantage of recording out of the hd sdi slot on the ex1? and how can i acheive that once i get an ex1?

also what about recording out of the hdmi on the ex1? if i am connecting the ex1 to a 12 ft hdmi cable to a monitor for the director to watch can i still see my lcd or viewfinder?

i wish there was a solution to this on the 7d....

Yeah, on the EX1 you can use one of those nanoflash gizmoids and get a high data rate 4.2.2 image. Great for keying. The Nano is about $4,000 I think.

The EX1 delivers an uncompressed HD signal out of the SDI port. If you're interested in the comparison of bit rates:

HDV = 25 Mbps
AVCHD = 17-24 Mbps
XDCamEX (EX1) = 35Mbps
SDI port = 1,500 Mbps.

It's a whole new world and it is SUPER clean.

The NanoFlash, made by Convergent Designs reads that high quality signal and allows you to record it at 50Mbps, 100Mbps, all the way to I believe 220 or 280Mbps. Much, much cleaner than recording it in the camera. The unit costs $2995.

There is no HDMI on the EX1. There is on the EX1r. This is also an uncompressed HD video signal. And you can connect an HDMI monitor, an HD-SDI recorder, and S-Video screen for the focus puller, and still see your LCD just fine. I believe the EX1r can drive 4 external displays or recorders while still giving you your LCD display.

an hdmi recorder would be the ideal quality way to record right? i am purchasing a ex1 really soon....so i was just wondering..

I don't think it would be because you'd be tethered. There has been talk of an hdmi recorder option, nothing on the radar yet however.

is there somewhere i can view a video sample of something recorded with the ex1 via the hd sdi port so i can see what it looks like?

I would guess there is probably not much to find online, since uncompressed 10-bit 1080p/24fps footage runs at 124MBps. Anything else would be recompressed anyway. But if you can find some SxS-recorded footage from an EX1 it will look nearly identical up until you heavily grade the footage, just imagine the same thing but with less chance of block artifacting, higher bit depth and more color resolution (you probably wont see the difference without viewing color channels separately or really pushing the image around or maybe pulling a chromakey). I would hardly call XDCAM EX footage from an EX1 not-clean, though.

I know the EX1 with external hd-sdi recording has been used for some major motion pictures for example public enemies where I understand it was used as a B-camera and was recorded to HDCAM SR. I'd be careful using that for evaluation of this recording method though since clearly it also had professional color grading etc.

I would probably say an external hd-sdi recorder is overkill unless you are shooting lots of greenscreens or lots of things that are really tough on your codec like snow storms or rippling water or if you have extra time and money you are dying to invest in more gear.

I'll disagree in one instance. And that is for broadcast. If you are trying to use the EX1(r) to meet HD Broadcast muster, then the external recorder becomes necessary in some instances. And honestly, for the $3k of the Nanoflash, if you're at this level of the game, it's a paltry sum to pay for the capability.

Yes it certainly does depend very much on the intended uses of the camera and on budget. Nanoflash is a steal for what it does if you need it, no question. I just assumed if the 7D was being talked about this was a professional but low budget circumstance, I didnt realize HDTV broadcast was the intended output in this case. In that case, an EX1 with nanoflash is probably a great alternative to a much more expensive broadcast camera, with a smaller size/price and more flexibility. However, compared to a 7D, an EX1 is already many times the price and a nanoflash by itself is an additional 2x the price of a 7D.

I don't know that broadcast is the target. But the OP mentioned weighing a 7D against an EX3. If an EX3 is in the budget, then and EX1 with Nano is going to be quite close as well and the capabilities, stunning.

All true from a pixel-peeping nerd's perspective (like myself), but from an artist's POV the EX1 is severely limited due to the lens.

The lens is the single most important component of any camera system, that's why the 7D and the 5D rock, despite their obvious failings.

"All true from a pixel-peeping nerd's perspective (like myself), but from an artist's POV the EX1 is severely limited due to the lens."

Sorry to disagree. Any camera is a system and a lens is just a part of that system. The same lens in front of a 35mm Arri, Red 1 or 7D, will produce totally different results.

EX1 has a very good sharp lens that will cover most of the shooting situations. Additional wide angle adapters are available. Furthermore, the original question was about 7D vs EX3 - not EX1. And EX3 is interchangeable lens, so...

Nanoflash is great if you intend to shoot a feature, but otherwise EX1 produces great images right out of the box (at 35mbps). Besides, when Canon finally comes out with it's 4:2:2 camera, Sony might just issue a firmware update to allow the EX cameras to shoot at 50mbps... (if Sony had any sense of humor, this is what they would do...)

Bottom line: as many have said, 7D and EX are very different tools. IMHO there's no doubt that EX is much more versatile and useful for the video. Figure out your needs or, if you can, just get the two.

There's no audio-out capability for headphones, though there is audio-in as a mic port. It's better to record to a second audio source and sync in post.

More generally, I own a HG20 and a 7D. The 7D is a pain in the butt to work with. If I don't have a lot of time to set-up the image and I don't have a lot of control with the environment, the HG20 produces the better picture. If I have time and control of the environment, the 7D produces the better picture.

Senad, if you are shooting with a 7D or 5D you are doing so to produce a certain look. That look is primarily governed by the size of the sensor and the characteristics of the lens being used.

The lens on the EX1, though very good for what it is designed for cannot do what lenses designed for the Canon system can do. There's a world of difference between having a good sharp lens that produces a nice clean image and being able to slap on an 800mm f/5.6 telephoto to shoot the moon, then swap it out for an 8mm fish-eye to shoot your buddy's contorted face.

Audiences don't care about data rate, but they do care about artistry and that's my point.

Also, your point that the same lens in front of an Arri, a RED1 or a 7D will produce different results is a misnomer. Film and RED will have more detail and more color depth, but optically they will look very similar. BTW, I shoot film, I shoot RED, I own an EX1 and a 7D. I agree with you that the EX1 is a great camera, more than good enough to accomplish what most people need.