Sony EX3 or Varicam 2700?
 

Hey guys,

Sorry this is one of those annoying apples/oranges types of comparos, but after reading and watching Philip Bloom's review of the EX3, I'm more seriously considering this camera instead of the Varicam 2700.

The main benefits I see with the Sony:

1. Much lower cost
2. Full raster 1080p
3. Smaller/lighter form factor (I do mostly doc work, and also some corporate. Would be great for the doc work, and as long as it looks good my corporate clients will be happy).
4. Technically, all EX cams are accepted by Discovery Channel, so I don't see a problem with the codec etc here for any broadcast outlet.

Benefits of Panny (for me):

1. I already have a large investment in P2 and I already own a Fujinon 13x4.5 BERM -- big investment.
2. Robustness of Varicam, AVC-Intra, more professional camera all around.
3. 4 discrete audio inputs

I could afford either camera, but the biggest thing pushing me to the EX3 is form factor. The Varicam is a big beast for shooting handheld doc all day, and a big shoulder-mount cam doesn't allow the intimacy of a smaller camera.

I know the Varicam will produce some stunning, film-like images, but the Sony's images are really great as well, and truthfully with documentary these days, just about anything flies aesthetically as long as the story is there.

I'd certainly be able to get more money renting the Varicam, but I'm not a rental house and my main clients probably wouldn't be able to pay full boat for it anyway.

So, a tough decision. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

Thanks!

Peter

Forgot to mention: there will be a 1/2" to 2/3" B4 adaptor, so I could still use my Fuji lens on this Sony, assuming it didn't totally throw off the ergonomics. There would be a magnification factor, as well.

Peter

This will sound cliche, but do you want a Corolla or do you want a Ferrari? Either will get you there but one will be much faster and more fun to drive.

Do you have all of the necessary lighting, grip, sound, killer tripod? If not, get the Sony and buy the RIGHT support gear. If you do already have a real tripod, grip, lighting and audio, buy the 2700, it is a better camera and will undoubtedly have a better image.

Best,

Dan

Thanks Dan! Yep, I've got all the necessary support gear (OConnor 1030HD, Kino and Arri Kits, etc). I think my biggest question mark right now is how much I would really gain in image quality by going with the Varicam over the EX3 weighed against how much I would lose in terms having a camera with a smaller form factor. I guess the only way to really know is get the two next two each other and check out image and ergonomics and make a determination. So looks like I'll be waiting till the fall for that. Thanks again,

Peter

I think you know my answer already, Peter, but for the sake of others considering the same...

I don't see the two being competitors at all; two completely different form factors (handheld with a proprietary lens adapter option vs. ENG shoulder-rig), two different chip sizes (1/2" inch vs. 2/3") and two different codecs/color spaces (XDCAM long-GOP 4:2:0 vs. I-frame DVCPRO 4:2:2 with AVC-I option). The EX's only have (2) cards slots - the 2700 has 5. Not to mention completely different price-point/markets - they're separated by more than $30k!. These two cams couldn't be further apart in all aspects.

As with so many of the "which is better" questions it's all about personal preferences, workflow and your own production needs.

The EX's are much more affordable but comparatively limited in options.

If money is the determining factor then go with the EX's; but if you want a system you can actually grow with and that won't be outmoded in 5 years get the 2700. Not to mention the "dog & pony show" factor of showing up with a full-size rig that has the "Varicam" label on it's casing. And if you need the perfect visual match-up for the handheld arena, get the 200A.

To me, that's one of the major selling points of the P2 system: Pick whatever camera you want and the same P2 card works in them all. Sony does not offer this cross-utilization (yet). You can't use the same media between the EX series and the PDW's - SxS cards for the EX's; XDCAM discs for PDW's. It's a no-brainer.

It is an interesting question, even though the price difference suggests that it shouldn't be! It's hard to imagine the two will have similar image quality, though the spec says they should - in fact maybe even that the EX3 should be better.
One HUGE thing I think, is the rolling shutter on the EX3. For moving subjects and even just pans I get the feeling you'll see jerkiness. I think this is the reason why a lot of these high-spec cameras are coming in at a hard to believe low price (EX1, RED, SI-2k, Infinity) - it's because they are cutting a corner to get there.
I must say if it was me I might go for the HPX2000, as it's basically the same as the Varicam except can only do 24/25/30/50/60 fps instead of the inbetween speeds (totally pointless for me), and costs £10k less.
Ready for the flak about the rolling shutter thing - not an expert at all, just been shooting tests with EX1 with a mind to getting an EX3 perhaps, and have done HPX2100 tests recently and that looked fabulous.
Steve

Thanks Robert! I did know where you'd weigh in, but it's always good to hear your analysis.

My biggest thing about discussions regarding chip size, codecs, form factors always come down to: but what does it look like on the viewer's TV? This is where I think the comparison between these two cameras MAY be valid. I say may because of course I haven't seen the new Varicam yet and maybe it just totally blows the EX away. But it's not going to look like a Red, so the comparison isn't totally apples and oranges, and the native res of the EX is actually higher! So I think the comparison, when we strictly talk about what ends out on-screen, may (and I emphasize MAY) be valid. Again, the proof will be lining the two up and comparing images.

The dog and pony of the Varicam will certainly be great for my corporate/commercial clients, but of course any of my doc subjects won't know if from adam, so there's no benefit on that end.

Maybe a Varicam and a Red scarlet is the solution. Horses for courses.

Anyway, thanks again for the input. Can't wait to line up the EX and Varicam next to one another in the fall!

Peter

My point exactly Steve: Even though it SHOULDN'T be a valid comparison, given price points, when it comes down to image quality, maybe it will be.

What has been your experience with the rolling shutter issue with the EX1? The one thing I love about Panasonic is that there is never a mystery about what you're going to get: no codec issues, no rolling shutter. Rock solid.

Peter

Just keep in mind, RED is a digital-film replacement workflow, not video, since RED does not record audio in-camera, so unless you're ready to hire an audio crew or double-up on your responsibilities then you shouldn't put a banana in your "apples to oranges" considerations.

Peter, as I said I've only just done a few tests the last few days so don't know that much - not even got FCP or anything so just viewing played straight from camera. But when filming flying birds for example, the background seems very jerky as you pan along. Same with scenic pans, though less so 'cos the move is slower. I really do think that this cut corner is why these cams can be so "cheap". Agree with you 100% that best thing about Varicam et al is you know exactly what you're gonna get - and so do your producers! The look of the images from the new Varicam shouldn't be an unknown quantity even though it's not out yet - it'll be just like the old one as nothing really important has changed (AVC codec maybe interesting but won't affect pic that much). HPX2100 worked really well, timleapse and loop record great benefit over original Varicam too.
Steve

From what I've heard, (correct me if wrong) the 2700 is a Varicam version of the 2100, and hence for straightforward shooting an EX3/2100 quality comparison is likely to tell you pretty much what an EX3/2700 comparison will.

My own suspicion is that there won't be much difference in quality between the two - one better in some respects, the other in others. I also feel a test is almost impossible to do fairly, put a different lens on one and get a different result. And it's not really possible to say same lens on each, one being 1/2", the other 2/3" - yes, adaptors are available, but with a big change in effective lens angles.

So, given how much more expensive the Varicam is over the EX, what does the money get you? Versatility and connectivity, maybe, but my vote would go for the ability to use the much more industry standard 2/3" lenses. In which case, as a third option, have you looked at Sonys new 700 with 50Mbs recording, which might be more of a 2100/2700 rival? Which will then (with adaptor) record to either disc OR SxS?

I'm not convinced by this statement that it's difficult to compare 'cos you can't get the same lenses etc. it comes up all the time. I think as long as you know you've a good lens on each (ideally the one that you'd likely be using if you bought one) and set them to an equivalent fov then it'll do fine. I think the sort of comparison that we're often talking about is finding out whether the two are close, not whether one might have a minute edge which could be attributed to the lens differences. We know that the Varicam/Sony 750 etc. are the defacto standards at present and accepted by all, so if the EX3 stands side-by-side with one of these and is fairly close in field conditions (which must include motion artefacts, codec problems on transmission, whether your editor can actually get it into his system, even things like whether you can focus the thing with the built in EVF -tricky on the EX1) and gets pretty close then that's goo enough. I'm yet to be convinced of this though.
Steve

if the ex3 were priced higher than the varicam what would people advise? "if you really want more resolution go with the ex3" "you get a heavy body with teh varicam, but if you pay more you can get everything miniaturized." etc.

when something costs more than something else, people generally believe it is better... probably because most of the time it is. sometimes that's not precisely true.

Hi Robert:

From what I was told at the first LA RED User Group meeting, the RED does record audio in camera, they were waiting for the latest software build and it delivered a few months ago so audio is up and recording.

Have you ever seen Mini XLR connections? Neither had I but that is what the RED One has on the body. Nobody I have seen on the web has reported back on the audio quality recorded by the RED though.

Dan

I was really citing the Red for the purpose of giving an example of a camera that will produce an image dramatically different to either the EX or the 2700 -- 4k, DOF, codec, etc. Obviously the EX and 2700 are much more similar to one another and therefore an image comparison will be more valid. The Red DOES record audio in-camera, BTW. I should know, I have one :)

Peter

Hmm as you stated when you wrote this, this isn't an apples to apples comparison...

Having been a varicam operator for a lot of work lately, I can say this... There is NO comparison about quality. I can tell you right now the picture will be completely different between the 2 cameras. You are talking about an extremely professional top of the line camera, to, well... a tinker toy of a camera.

The difference that will be seen here is this... YOUR ability to tell the difference between the two. An experienced eye will be able to tell the difference and know what to look for and the problem spots. If you cannot tell the difference between the two image wise, pick the cheap camera as for there would be no need for you to go any higher.

Just because it has a "1080" chip doesn't mean its quality, not by a LONG shot. There are so many differences between the sensors its not even something you could really compare. The dynamic range will be completely different, the clarity will be completely different, the visual noise will be completely different, the whole operation of the camera is different and not even close to each other.

Just to let you know the varicam doesn't capture and print 1280x720 its 960 x 720 luminance pixels, and it will absolutely blow away most other cameras with its image including some "full 1080p" cameras. Its not about "pixes" its about the quality of reproduction in the image. The sub-sampling done, the internal processing, all of these things will completely make or break a camera and its image.

The varicam will always be at the top, and is a trusted camera name, the new p2 feature is great.

I have seen footage from a lot of cameras out there, from native files from the RED camera, to "crappy" sony hand held cameras that produce 1080p there is such a difference in quality at this price point. Color reproduction, sensor build, lenses, the list can go on and on and on...

If you're having to think about the difference between the two, then I say go for the cheaper. No reason to waste money if you aren't going to use it for all its worth.

Lucky dog! I am envious. I like the RED but cannot afford one and do not have the clients that can support me financing one.

So how is the audio quality? I write a lot of audio articles and I have yet to hear of or read anything of substance about the RED's audio quality.

Dan

Giuseppe,
I disagree, I think it is an apples to apples comparison, after all what we're talking about are 2 cameras aimed at producing HD output for the broadcast and some cinema use - same market. And I think you'll have a lot of people disagree with you re image quality too - not me, I tend to share your thoughts to some extent there.
Also not true to say the Varicam is top of the pile, after all it's only a 720 camera so while the image looks very pleasant it does start to suffer a little when blown up big - that's why folks tend to use Sony 750/900 or F23 for cinema use. It's also favoured when you don't need off-speed shooting for its greater resolution.
Hmmmm.
Steve

(quote)"Giuseppe,
I disagree, I think it is an apples to apples comparison, after all what we're talking about are 2 cameras aimed at producing HD output for the broadcast and some cinema use - same market. And I think you'll have a lot of people disagree with you re image quality too - not me, I tend to share your thoughts to some extent there.
Also not true to say the Varicam is top of the pile, after all it's only a 720 camera so while the image looks very pleasant it does start to suffer a little when blown up big - that's why folks tend to use Sony 750/900 or F23 for cinema use. It's also favoured when you don't need off-speed shooting for its greater resolution.
Hmmmm.
Steve " (end quote)


The reason why I do not believe its apples is because you can say the same thing about a Ferrari and a Ford Pickup truck, sure they are both for driving, sure they both can get you from A to B, they both use gas... But they are completely different in what they are intended for. A Ferrari is built for speed, not for hauling things around, and a Pickup truck is made for the everyday abuse, not speeding around all over...

I am being truthful in the fact that the Sony is made as a "pro-sumer" camera. This inst a myth or a misconception, it inst made for the top end shooters, there is a lot of compromise in its design and build. This inst made for the top end of even its price range... It is made as a good camera for its price range, and good specs for what the build quality is.

The camera is a tool, and for each use of a tool there is the right and wrong tool... I can use my fingers to paint, but I sure cant paint with the same detail as a fine tip brush could... I really think it comes down to what are you really using the camera for. Pick the right tool for the right job, or majority of jobs. If you think you will have more high end clients and jobs that will need the quality of the varicam, then you will need it. If you think you are only going to get one or 2 high end clients a year, just the cost alone wouldn't be worth it. Just keep that as your savings for another day. We aren't talking about a few thousand dollars here, we are talking tens of thousands of dollars in difference.

and when I mean top of the pile, I mean in its range, sure the F900R and the 750 beat it out by a lot... but Ill tell you this much... My JVC 110 (native 1280x720p chips) compared to the varicam (960x720 chips) is a complete looser, You cant just compare them because of the numbers, its not about just ccd pixels its so much more technology that goes behind these cameras, and thats why they are 50,000 and up. My JVC footage will never look as good as the varicam even though if you based it on numbers alone, it should beat it.

So the same goes for the p2 varicam vs. the EX3 they are both 1080p cameras but projected... who do you think will win? I think the only camera that will ever negate this formula for "what you pay for is what you get", will be the RED one camera. That is the ONLY camera that beats out any other camera that costs 5-10 times as much in resolution, dynamic range, and tonal range.

In this world you still get what you pay for, its all a matter of what you need. If you need a higher end camera, get it, if you don't, save your money and invest into something else you need... or apple stock? damn I wish i didn't sell that stock! lol

You will most likely not see the difference on a tv screen as much as you will a calibrated hd monitor. I feel like im sticking up for the panny, but I guess I am, I respect the camera, and the engineering that went into it. And I guess its a little personal to me because I am a bit tired of the hand held pro-sumer cameras being made. Every few months a new one comes out, and its not every month a varicam comes out. It just makes me feel all warm and tingly inside... With that said, anyone want to sell me a used Varicam? or HPX? im in the market haha.

Go for what makes you happy.

Agree with a lot of what you say, and 100% with the philosophy behind it all.
I'm sure there is some reason why the EX1/3 cost a lot less then the Varicam, and sure that they won't but a match for it, but it doesn't come down to things like resolution, dynamic range etc. 'cos the EX1 matches or exceeds the Varicam in a lot of them. At the moment all I can see is the rolling shutter, it seems to be a common factor on all these cameras which seem to show great specs on paper for low cost (RED, Infinity, EX1). Even the RED that you quoted I think you'll find has issues (notably dynamic range, noise and rolling shutter artefacts) that I think will show why it's not quite the dream ticket for $17500 that it at first seems.
Both the EX1 and Varicam are meant to be Ferraris, just one is smaller, lighter and a lot cheaper than the other. Why is it inferior, someone please give me a definitive answer, 'cos like you Giuseppe I'm finding it hard to rationalise how a £3000 camera can be compared to a £30000 one!
Steve

Regardless how similar these two cams appear on the surface with tech specs in point of fact they are completely different form factors with different intended missions, albeit they both have areas they overlap each other.

Comparisons of this type eventually become moot and pointless. I think all the major points between the two cams have been made - and the overall point of "pick the right tool for the job" has also been highlighted.

The only way to know for certain which one fits the bill for your own needs is to get with one of the forum sponsors and test both out - when they become available. 'Nuf said.

They don't have different missions at all Robert, that's the point - both are aimed at HD TV broadcast use. And both are used for it. The form factor is similar too - they both have a lens and record an image, both can be put on a tripod, both can take long lenses - what's different? The main differences are size and price, and IF all other things (mainly picture quality) were equal I'd choose the cheaper and lighter one. On paper they look equal (ish), common sense tells you they won't be, but why not? I've used Varicam, HPX2100, HDCam etc. and now just testing stuff with the EX1, and it does have a nice sharp-looking picture, with no obvious problems with aliasing, CA etc. I think there is a problem, it's the rolling shutter, as panning seems juddery (as opposed to blurry on other 25P cams), but haven't used it enough to be sure. But look at stills from the two and I think they're pretty close.
Steve

One that hasn't been touched on is edit support for AVC-Intra. How usable is it with the major NLEs?

And a local supplier of FCP systems was giving a strong sales pitch for SxS on the basis of those cards being able to slot straight into a modern laptop - no adaptor - whilst P2 can't. Obviously adaptors can be used, but apparently this tends to slow down transfers and means that much of the P2 speed potential gets wasted.

One important consideration has to be the fact that Discovery and the BBC are phasing out ALL 720P HD production. Both will not allow the use of 720p as the primary standard for new productions according to their guidelines they must be 1080.

In terms of future proofing your investment I would be very nervous about buying any 720 camera (even if it can upscale internally to 1080). As transmission codecs improve there will be fewer and fewer 720 broadcasts. Even the EBU who for years have been pro 720P are now recommending that broadcasters should have a road map that includes the migration to 1080p as bandwidth/codecs permit.

My stock footage library contains a mix of 720p and 1080p material. I sell far more 1080p than 720p. A 1080p image can be down scaled to 720P with no quality loss. 720p upscaled to 1080p will always look softer than native 1080p.

That's not true Alister. BBC are still using 720, Varicam is still THE camera for wildlife productions. There are several big productions the NHU are making and in the pipeline, and Varicams are all over them. I've a job on one of them next month and the decision to use Varicam wasn't even discussed, it was assumed.
BUT, I agree with you in terms of being nervous about investing in a 720 cam, as you must think it'll only be a matter of time before they are phased out. How much time is hard to say though.
Steve

As I said New Commissions and Future Productions. Existing productions and commissions are allowed to use 720P.

See the BBC's own guidelines

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p...ery_v01_08.pdf

3. Video Standards

3.1. The BBC will accept High Definition programme acquired using either of the
following:

o 1920 x 1080 interlace at 25 frames a second (now called 1080i25) or
o 1920 x 1080 progressive at 25 frames a second (now called 1080p25)

Or the older producers guidelines

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p...Bookv01_02.pdf

Check page 13.

"For UK Transmission you would shoot 1080 50i or 25P"

and page 16

"For a UK BBC transmission with an International Delivery always shoot 1080 50i or 25P."


All through the document they stress that 720 must be up-converted if used and that the preferable production standard is 1080. Admittedly this particular document doesn't exclude the use of 720 but I think it is very clear that it is not the preferred format. I have seen other BBC documents that do state that all future productions must be 1080 and the use of 720 should be phased out as quickly as possible.

There are still plenty of new commissions going to shoot on 720, no question about that. There are a fair few on the go or ready to go in the NHU and for wildlife until there is some sort of slomo capability on 1080 cameras it won't even be an option. So it's Varicam, HPX2100, HDX900 and 2700 all the way for the time being.
Several productions have looked at RED, but it's just not there yet. Phantom HD is also finding favour, but it's very expensive in shooting and post.
Steve

Perhaps the BBC and others will continue to allow the use of 720P where slo-mo is required as a temporary solution. We all know the rules get bent and guidelines ignored. But the fact of the matter is that the BBC, Discovery and others want to phase out 720P as soon as possible. There is also a big difference between how the rules are applied to internal productions and external commissions. New cameras are coming out all the time with better and better performance. As more and more manufacturers bring out full 1080 TV's the difference in picture sharpness will become more apparent to viewers. With the majority of HD channels being premium subscription channels where the viewer expects to get the best I really don't see 720P production being acceptable for much longer.

Based on that would you invest large sums of money in a 720P camera? If you had a job that guaranteed you would re-coup your investment then go for it, but otherwise I would be very, very careful.

Agreed, I'd be very slow to buy a 720 camera for sure. As for viewers and quality, I'm not so sure. I assume the BBC are of the view that "Planet Earth" looked OK (to put it mildly) and the bulk of that was 720 Varicam, and they don't come much more high brow than that! Same goes for Ganges, Wild China, Earth's Great Events, Life, Yellowstone etc. all 720 Varicam (mostly). Also the "Natural World" strand, Varicam is the default choice at present.
I really do think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that you should not use 720 by viewing Planet Earth on a 1080 screen and deciding it looks a bit ropey!
Steve