I'm referring to the reasons why such as the P2 store was ever considered necessary - it was seen as not feasible at the time of it's introduction to have enough memory to go for at least a day without downloading and then erasing cards for reuse. Use tape, disc, or cheaper memory and the neccessity for such devices as you mention goes away. Sony didn't introduce an "XDCAM store" for field use in 2004 - they didn't need to. The media was cheap enough to mean such an extra device wasn't necessary. So I don't think it's at all unfair to comment about some P2 peripherals only being needed because of P2 workflow.

Of all the stories I've heard, few concern P2 (or SxS) hardware failure - but I have heard many stories (some first hand) of accidental deletion. There's far more chance of that if you have to download and format in the field in less than ideal conditions.
I seem to recall having seen that comment in Panasonic literature, and it seems to be a classic case of selective use of statistics. Until the PMW350 launches soon, there has been little (if any) competition to P2 as regards the use of solid state for 2/3" pro cameras - it's nearly all been tape or disc. So it's pretty easy to be "by far the most successful" when you're the only runner on the field!

It's just as accurate to say that XDCAM disc is by far the most successful, globally recognized optical disc media and work flow. Meaningless, but accurate.
Only on a per GB basis - and Alister and myself have also pointed out previously that on a *PER MINUTE* basis SxS is far cheaper due to the bitrate differences. I consider that a far more relevant statistic.
But is it being moved around natively, or transcoded to a lower bitrate for linkage? That was the question I posed. I suspect the latter.

A big reason for higher bitrates is the argument that whilst you can't see much (if any) difference at first generation, they'll stand up to repeated transcoding better. But the question I'm posing is what if not having to transcode means you don't need the higher bitrate in the first place? Nett result means a saving in transcoding time.
Different horses for different courses. Is the material likely to need a lot of extensive post work? If yes, a more robust codec becomes increasingly worthwhile. If no, why spend a lot more, give yourself bigger filesizes, necessitate transcodes for linkage etc for no discernible difference in transmitted quality?

And (as has been said so many times) if anyone is really bothered by the codec, just use an external recorder - the front end is good enough. For such as a news or sport operation, use the camera as is and take full advantage of the lower bitrates.

I don't get it!

Jeff, you keep trying to convince us that AVC-I is so much better than XDCAM EX because of it's higher bit rate and 10 bit recording, then you start talking about how you like using 720P/24N which is only 40 Mb/s yet still recording 10 bit 4:2:2 in an I frame only codec. Do you really believe that an I frame only codec using essentially the same coding methods as Mpeg2 but without the benefits of a long GoP. Recording the extra 30% of data needed for 10 bit and the extra data needed for 4:2:2 is so much better than a highly efficient, mature well developed Mpeg2 running at 35Mb/s when recording 720P24?

As for 50 Mb/s AVC-I, well I'm sorry but that's not even close to XDCAM EX.

AVC-I is an acquisition codec it's no more suitable for mastering than XDCAM. My experience is that for programme delivery HDCAM SR is the norm with HDCAM as second choice. A mastering codec IMHO is one that does not degrade over many generations which cannot be said of AVC-I or XDCAM.

The 17" Macbook Pro still has an express card slot. I have a $200 Netbook with an express card slot and the majority of mid range laptops have express card slots.

One quick question for your guys who are nearly on the sony payroll! ( sorry couldn't resist and no offence intended)

If SXS cards have plenty of capacity and the codec required for broadcast needs to be at least 50mbs could sony update the software in the 350 to do this as part of a future firmware update?

I would buy a 350 tommorow if it ticked that box but as it doesnt I have to go for a 2700 or maybe a 3700 if my bank account can stand it.

I think that some of your guys are right and in time the 350 and the 301 will be accepted as HD Dvcam replacements, this may be to cost factors more than any other in the UK as news and smaller doco producers upgrade their kit. The scary think up here in the north east is that the government have put ITV regional news out to tender and the news print guys with their HDV cameras look likely to take over.

I have been told by people from within Sony that the EX1/EX3 cameras use a different encoder chip to the PDW cameras, so a firmware update to 50 Mb/s is not possible. Clearly the PMW-350 shares some of it's electronics with the EX1/EX3 but I have no idea what encoder chip is in there. The argument given for not having 50 Mb/s in the EX1/EX3 was that it would take too much power and generate too much heat.

Now we all know that the NanoFlash uses a Sony encoder and that draws around 6 watts, so I'm not convinced by the power consumption argument. The Nano does run quite warm, but I think that's down to the voltage regulators dropping the voltage from the common 12v feed down to whatever the internal voltages are, so again I'm not convinced.

I would like to think that the 350 has the same encoder as the NanoFlash or PDW cameras and that it could be unlocked to allow 50 Mb/s. Certainly looking at all the ventilation slots etc, cooling shouldn't be an issue and an extra few watts on an 18 watt camera with V-Lock certainly isn't a big deal. But I just can't see Sony doing it, if they did I doubt it would be a cost free option. I also think they would have told us so by now as it would clearly help them sell more cameras. What I think is more likely is another camera based on the PDW-700/F800 with CCD's and SxS slots, possibly recording at higher bit rates than 50 Mb/s. This is speculation, I have no idea of Sony's plans. The bottom line is that while at the moment 35 Mb/s is not approved by the BBC (Discovery, Nat Geo and others will accept it) the XDCAM EX codec is remarkably good, just look in the Convergent Design forum at all the posts where people do struggle to see any difference between 35 Mb/s and 100 Mb/s. There is a difference, the 50 and 100Mb/s is better and is more suited to multi-generation work, but it's not a night and day difference. I'm quite convinced that a PMW-350 at 35 Mb/s is more than adequate for low to mid range HD broadcast. The clean images will help make up for the lower bitrate.

With all cameras you have to consider the whole system from lens through to codec. A clean noise free image at a lower bit rate can outperform a noisy camera with a higher bit rate, not just at the first generation but all the way through the production chain. Noise is as important as compression ratio.
My point is that I am sure that the PMW-350 will eventually become a mainstream camera for news and low to mid range HD, just like the DSR500 did. The BBC were very against the use of DVCAM, but even though it was effectively "banned" more and more productions got made with various types of DVCAM's and now they probably outnumber all the other cameras in the BBC's inventory. This is the market that Sony are after with the PMW-350, it has been tailored to that market and I believe that it will do very well in it. It may take a while, but it will only need on news agency or national broadcaster to pick it up to start the ball rolling. And as has been said, you can stick a NanoFlash on it in the mean time. The NanoFlash is an excellent investment. It has many uses beyond it's on camera recording capabilities. It is a solid state VTR, an excellent SDI to HDMI (and back) converter. It can be used as a portable player to show material at events or for point of sale applications, you can get an ASI option for point to point links satellite links.

I remember reading sometime ago that the Nanoflash uses the same encoders as the PDW-700, and requires two chips to perform 4:2:2. Perhaps the EX uses the same, but likely only has one, and so limited to 4:2:0.

I doubt they would have me! If on anybodys payroll, you have to speak positive - no exceptions - and I've made no secret of the fact that whilst good, the 350 would be even better with the 50Mbs codec. On that subject........
Good question - I know Alister disagrees, but my bet is more likely on a second model to follow at some time. A "PMW370"? A bit more expensive, but 50Mbs and maybe a few more goodies such as proxies. The next question then becomes "when?", but if you are able to wait until NAB it may be worthwhile. Who knows but Panasonic may have something else by then as well.
If it's just the 50Mbs box to be ticked, what's your objection to the nanoFlash as a way of getting that? Yes, I'm the first to agree it's not as elegant as internally to SxS, but there doesn't seem to be any perfect solution at a mid price. The 2700 only offers 1 megapixel chips, and the 3700 doesn't offer a 720p mode or useful overcranking.

Incidentally, what are you hearing about a current cost for the 2700? This whole thread started with the thought that the price rebate on the 2700 was due to end on the 31st December - has that come to pass?

2700 deal is over for now. We still have a couple on back order I believe. The 3700 is back at a discounted rate with a trade-in.

I appreciate the nanoflash option but I want an integrated camera system and that is why I chose the 301's initially with the option to add a 2700 or 3700 or maybe the next camera the 601??? (cmos 2/3" and AVC intra 100???)

The 350 is also around £16k here in the Uk and with £3k for the nanoflash I got my two 301's for less than that and they do 75% of my work. I currently hire in 2700's for broadcast work but I think will hang fire on a purchase and see what panasonic brings out this year.

It is also about a system and the codecs for me and once again that is shy I chose P2 as all of my cameras use the same cards and shoot at the same codec.

£16K?? I've been offered a 350K with the lens for less than £14k from a couple of dealers. Body only its less than £12k.

350 is £15,802.58 from Prestons 301 is £7,988.83 inc VAT
No doubt deals are around but its still around double the price of a 301.

Sony PMW-350
 

I have just signed up with with dvinfo, I had a good chat with Alister Chapman following a seminar at the Picture House in Bristol last year, he explained that the PMW-350 was a pre-production model, what i would like to know is did he manage to get his hands on a full production model? I plan to buy one soon, i have had prices ranging from 11k - 14k with lens plus vat, i think one price may have been a non europe model.

Last year i purchased a Ex3 and sold it on after 3 weeks as I predicted Sony would release a 2/3 shoulder camera version, I also didn't want to start investing in 1/2 - 2/3 adaptor costing £1500 plus other bits to make it a shoulder camera.

David

The prices Gary quoted are accurate - at least from one major supplier in the UK - but the £15,802.58 is with lens and includes tax. Without VAT, the price listed is £13,506.48.

From the same site, the price for a body only 350 is £12,050.28 (£14,098.83 inclusive of VAT). This is not to say you won't be able to get it cheaper.

Compared to a 301, it's also worth noting that all these prices exclude any memory. Add two hours worth of media to a 301, and it's an extra £1,500 (2x64GB cards), add two hours to a 350 and it's more like £650-£750.

But in the rest of this thread, the comparison has been between a 350 and the 2700. Everything I've said has been on the basis of the price of the 2700 having been cut in line with the offer, and an assumption that they have been comparable in price. After hearing Andy say that the offer had ended I had a look to see what the UK price was now on the 2700 - and found that for body only a major dealer lists it for £24,845.96 + VAT.

Yes, £24,845.96 + VAT. Which compares with £12,050.28 + VAT for a body only PMW350. Over twice as much, before memory costs are even taken into account. If I thought the PMW350 offered better value than a 2700 before, it must now be a one horse race.

I have not been able to get my own 350 yet, I will have one for a couple of days next week and who knows mine might arrive soon. As soon as I get it I will be doing some tutorials and picture profiles.

Yes I understand all that but the 2700 is on the BBC HD camera list and the 350 isn't so it is not a like for like comparison.

There are many cameras not on the public BBC list that can be used for BBC HD productions. The NHU are in the process of certifying the EX1 with NanoFlash and Gates housing for underwater work. Generally speaking provided you meet the 1/2", 50Mb/s rule you will be OK.

Given the current non discounted price of the 2700, if that's the kind of budget you have to play with then the PDW-700 has to be considered. Full Raster 1920x1080, BBC list, low cost media, 720P50 or P60 if you need it. But if your budget won't stretch that far then a PMW-350K with NanoFlash coming in at around £15K is a steal. Remember that you also have to add a lens and viewfinder to a 2700, even if you already have a lens the true cost of the package is still double that of the 350.

You have to question what the 2700 is really worth? If it is really such a good camera, selling really well, why discount it by such an enormous amount? Sure Sony, JVC and others offer deals and discounts, but not anything quite like that. Too me it looks like a drastic measure to counter flagging sales.

But since the 350 is so recently released, would you really expect it to be on their list? (Yet.) I would assume that any camera included on their list has to undergo a fairly thorough evaluation, and it's not possible to do that before it's even available!

I appreciate you may have a valid reason for considering the 2700 as you already have two 301s - it's back again to legacy issues - but if you were about to start from scratch, would you still feel the same?

On the current pricings, the VAT free cost of two 350K's and an EX3 is about £32,500. For a 2700 and two 301s, reckon about £25,000 for the 2700, say £5,000 min (?) for a lens, and about £13,500 for two 301s - £43,500 in total roughly. By the time you've got 2 hours of memory for each camera, I make it about £48,000 for the 2700/301 package, about £35,000 for the 350/EX3.

And the 350/EX3 route gives you two 2/3" cameras instead of one, and in the EX3 a camera that can be used when a small camera is essential (such as in car work).

Or maybe get one 350 and two EX3s? I reckon that would be about £24,500, or about £26,500 with memory.

Good valid points guys and I may just wait to see if the 350 gets more adoption in broadcast, we have to bear in mind that Dvcam is 25mbs for SD so 35mbs may be acceptable in time due to the effects of the cost factor of the 350.

Broadcast is the declining part of the market for me here in the north and it may make sense to just keep hiring 2700 and 3700's at the moment until they sort themselves out.

As said 75% of my work is done on the two 301's and I am very happy with the results and the form factor.

David,

Funny how you and Alister go out of your way to denigrate Panasonic's pricing of the HPX2700 and 3700. If they have a trade-in deal going it must be, "because the 2700 is a native 720P camera", conveniently leaving out the native 1080P 3700 that had the same trade-in program. If the cameras go back to normal price(and NOBODY pays that price), they are overpriced.

So, where does that leave the Sony PDW-F800? That camera is over $40K with B&W viewfinder. Surely the PMW-350 will halt all sales of the 700 and 800?

Currently, in the U.S., the HPX3700 with color viewfinder lists for $36K with trade-in. This camera offers 4:4:4 10-bit output in addition to internal 4:2:2 10-bit recording. It has a proven track record on docs, commercials, features and episodics. Does that make the 800 a good value now? Or should the maximum price for a 2/3" camera with lens be $20K going forward? Panavision in LA offers the 3700 for rental--there must be a reason.

Alister,

A rental house competitor of mine who owns an F35, Phantom Gold, 3700, F900R's, Varicams, EX3's, etc, saw a pre-production 350 and said there was a whole lot of aliasing and moire in every image he looked at. He found it to be very unfilmlike. Hopefully, this will not be the case for the production versions. I will be seeing a 350 at a trade show this week, hopefully.

Regarding bit rate of AVC-Intra 100 in 720/24PN, what's different about that codec vs. XDCAM EX is that as the frame rate and resolution increases, so does the bit rate. The latter is normally under 35Mbps most of the time, it just does more compression when the resolution, frame rate and motion are higher.

So, while the PMW-350K may become the "new DVCAM DSR-500" in the UK, that is definitely not the market level that the P2 Varicams are aimed at. Those looking for a Varicam tend to be in the higher-end segments of production and appreciate the film like imagery of Varicams. From the perspective of clients used to shooting 10-bit, 4:2:2, the 350, or any XDCAM EX variant is not in the race, despite David's and your assertions.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

It's not a question of "denigrating the pricing policy", as much as simply stating what the prices currently are at UK main dealers, working out what it means for packages, and letting people make their own minds up. Or do you think any of the prices I've quoted are in any way inaccurate?

This entire thread has been on the basis of comparing the 2700 and 350 with the assumption of comparable cost. It was a valid assumption whilst the 2700 was slashed in price at the end of last year, and I'll confess I didn't expect the price to go back up again.

Gary brought up the subject of "B" cameras, which raises an interesting point. In his case, the 301 serves as the B camera, but for many people the reason for a B camera is for a small camera for reasons such as unobtrusiveness or in-car etc use. If anyone is going with a 350 as main camera, the B camera is obvious - an EX1 or 3. Same codec, same memory, same chip resolutions - I wouldn't expect it to be quite as good, but I would expect it to be a pretty good match.

But what do you go with if the 2700 is your main camera? A 171 is the obvious choice, but now we have a different codec (DVCProHD), different (and lower) chip resolutions, 1/3" chips (not even 1/2") - well, at least it uses the same memory cards.

Surely it's overdue for an updated 171? With full 1920x1080 chips and AVC-Intra 100, even if they can't manage 1/2"?

David,

I certainly agree that Panasonic won't be selling many 2700's or 3700's back at the original price point, that's why the 3700 is now on a trade-in deal with the $8K color viewfinder for $36K. This would normally cost $68K! I fully expect the 2700 to have some kind of special deal again prior to NAB. These cameras came out in 2008, at a time when the F900R and original Varicam were the price point targets. Much has changed since then--HDX900, RED One. I posted many months ago on other forums that the price premium of an HPX2700 over an HPX2000 or HPX3700 over an HPX3000 was excessive. I haven't changed my position and Pansonic's actions have proven me correct.

One can certainly make the point that a Sony 700 or 800 sport a pretty high price differential over an F355 or EX1 or 3. The 350 brings this into stark relief. The difference with Panasonic is that they put their best codec in cameras that cost as little as $8K, with Sony, if you want 4:2:2 and 50Mbps, (no 10-bit) you have to go with the 700 or 800, a long way from $8K. Which small B-camera do you choose for those cameras, certainly not one with 4:2:2 or disc based. So there really was no obvious B-camera option for XDCAM 422. I agree that a 350 as A camera and EX1 or 3 as a B-camera is a good combo.

The HPX170 was just released in late September, '08, about the same time as the 2700 and 3700. The 170 or 200A is still a decent B-camera if both shooting DVCPRO HD. A replacement with AVC-Intra and at least a 720P native imager would be nice, but I'm not sure I want it to be CMOS. I have no doubt that Panasonic will be showing new cameras at NAB, including a large sensor camera(which most likely means CMOS).

I very much look forward to seeing the 350 this week.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

You can put the best codec in the world on the back of a poor sensor and the camera will always be a poor performer and there will be nothing you can do about it. I don't like not having 50 Mb/s 4:2:2 on my EX1, but at least I can do something about it. Even on a B camera I would not want to go back to 1/3" or 1/4" sensors and all the restrictions they impose.

The pre-production PMW-350 did not have a correctly functioning detail correction circuit. Initially I too thought the camera had issues with aliasing and moire. Some of this was down to my monitor not coping terribly well with the high resolution images. So to be sure the camera was OK we had it on an optical test bench with a very expensive full HD CRT grade 1 monitor and it was fine with all detail disabled. None of the many users of the 350 that post on these forums are complaining about aliasing, and the one I picked up yesterday appears clean.

Alister,

I'm hoping somebody will review the production version of the 350 because there are some unanswered questions based upon issues seen with the pre-production units. This from Adam Wilt's review on ProVideoCoalition.com:

"To my eye, the 1080i performance is extremely good, and the 1080p only slightly less so, with a bit more vertical aliasing than I like"

'While the HyperGammas should offer the same or better latitude compared to the standard gammas, I only saw 3-3.3 stops of overexposure before grays clipped. Sony tells me that the HyperGammas weren’t yet dialed on in this prototype."

"Unfortunately, this prototype camera inherits the saturated-highlight knee cutout problem of the EX1 and EX3: if a bright area has a color, the knee “gives up” after its initial compression, and the bright area crashes hard into clipping, with the problem roughly proportional to the saturation of the highlight."

"Sony may fix this before the PMW-350 is released. I hope so, because it makes use of the standard gammas much more problematic. While I use Cine gammas on the EX1 exclusively, and HyperGammas on cameras that have ‘em, many folks prefer the standard gammas for their more saturated highlights on skin tones. Having a dodgy knee circuit on a $6400 EX1 or an $8300 EX3 is one thing; you get so much performance in those packages that you’re willing to put up with a problem or two. In a $20,000+ camcorder, though, that knee circuit had better work, or those who depend on a properly working knee will stay away in droves (yes, I’m talking primarily about news shooters, and they’re the biggest single market segment for a camera like this)."

"The EX1 and EX3 have an extended red response; under hot lights (those with a lot of red and IR energy, like tungsten lamps emit) they tend to see some black fabrics as shades of blue, purple, or brown, depending on the amount of far-red and near-infrared light they reflect. The PMW-350 reins in this tendency considerably, though it’s not entirely neutral:"

End quotes.

The first time I saw footage from a Canon 5D, the aliasing on some edges completely ruined the organic shallow DOF the camera had. I find both the 5D and 7D to be too video like, despite the selective focus. My EX1 out of the box looked like a typical news video camera and required custom scene files to look pleasing to me.

The question I would have of the 350 is can the image be made to look like what I expect from any Varicam I've seen out of the box? I know the camera will have the proper handles to tweak the image, but things like aliasing or chroma clipping on knees can be more difficult to get around. I have seen the latter with HPX500's and it screams low-end video camera to me.

The 350 has enough resolution to bring down the detail circuit or even turn it off, but aliasing is not necessarily due to detail, just exacerbated by it. I have seen(owned) certain Sony cameras that seem to have more diagonal stair stepping(aliasing), moire, overly sharp mid-blacks, big detail over-shoot on the edge of faces. Some of this can be reduced or removed, but not all of it, even with detail off. Interestingly, my experience with most Panasonic and Ikegami(this goes way back) cameras has shown their models to have a less "processed" look, with or without detail on.

Sony cameras tend to look more clinical to me(F35 being an exception), Panasonic cameras, even my HPX170 has a more pleasing, less video-like feel. Yes, it's soft compared to an EX1, and noisier and slower, but it has a very alluring quality to it, like almost all Panasonic cameras I've seen from the original Varicam and even the SDX900.

The kind of artifacts I'm talking about don't typically bother many corporate, news and sports shooters, but really look anything but film-like to my eye. This is what attracts me to Varicam series cameras, the tonality, fleshtones, highlight handling, colorimetry, edges that look more natural--with or without detail. A natural, alluring, less video-like look, IMO. My biggest complaint about Panasonic cameras is that they're noisier than I like. I typically shoot at -3db with my HDX900, HPX2700, although the latter is a bit quieter.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I haven't got much more to add to this, a lot of arguments are going over the same (relevant) ground, and I've given my thoughts.
Now the 350 is available I'll be interested to see who starts using it in the NHU. The new mega Africa series is in pre-production and when I spoke to them last they were certainly set on the 2700. Seems crazy they'd not ditch all that and just go with 350s doesn't it?
Anyone want to bet?
Steve

OK I bet that something called a 600/601 comes out soon!

P2 10 bit 1920x1080 AVC Intra 100 with 2/3" cmos chips at around £15k inc a fujinon lens!

Sorry I am dreaming again!

That actually sounds reasonable Gary and it's what they'll need to do to compete in that market. I still wouldn't buy it as CMOS still has big issues for wildlife (IMHO). Be interesting to see what the RED Scarlett CMOS is like. With 120fps, 2/3" and a tiny price it could be interesting - maybe!
Steve

Not really. It's what they know going from the original Vari. Most cameras including the Sony's can be set up to any look (though sometimes adjusting the matrix can be awkward and not go all the way it should). But I do perfectly understand the choice of the Panny. It does give a nice warm natural look. I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.

Where some of us are coming from is a technical.price capability standpoint. Though I fully understand that the emotional quality of the picture is primary to some decision makers. And from a cinematography point of view I'd go along with that absolutely.

I'd still rather have those qualities in 1080 though :-)

Simon,

I agree with you, except to me, the look of the camera is more important than the pixel count. If native 1080 is a must, the 3700 has a special trade-in deal through March 31 of $35,950 w/color viewfinder. It is the best looking color viewfinder I've seen, as it should be for $8K! Having said that, I would opt for a used HPX3000 if dollars were an issue. $20K or so for a used HPX3000 isn't a bad deal, IMO. You still get most of what a 3700 offers. As a rental house, I know I can rent a 3000 for a lot more than a 350.

If the 350 can be made to have the same fimlic look as a Varicam or P2 Varicam, then that is great. I still prefer CCD's and am a fan of Panasonic cameras out of the box look.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I'm certainly not disagreeing with that in principle, though it obviously doesn't have to be one or the other - wouldn't you like your particular "look" with the higher pixel count? Have your cake and eat it? Equally, a higher pixel count can actually help a lot towards some aspects of a "look", if it's a naturally more detailed picture, it means less detail needs to be used, and that can only be a good thing.
But what many of us are saying is that whilst the ability to have native 1080 chips can be a big step up in some situations, at other times a user may want to shoot 720p (because it's what the client uses), or use overcrank for slo-mo (and accept 720 as the price to pay.)

With the current Panasonic range it's one or the other - the 2700 has 1280x720 chips, the 3700 won't give a 720p output or overcrank more than a small amount. Surely it can only be a good thing to have the choices within a single camera?
Which nicely sums up this whole thread. I'm sure everybody would like the quality/versatility etc of a top end camera, with the price, size and convienience of a small consumer camera. It ain't going to happen.

Everybodys needs are different, but I know I speak for a lot of people when I say that there has been a large, up to now unsatisfied, need for something a step up from an EX (something HD, 2/3", shouldermount as minimum) but at a price far lower than most previous 2/3" HD cameras have been up until now. Hence the call for an "HD, solid-state, DSR500". And the PMW350 seems to answer that call very nicely at about £12,000 for body only.

As said before, I understood for the vast majority of this thread that the 350 and 2700 were comparable in price, so apples and apples were being compared. Now it seems that the 2700 is over twice the price of the 350 - we're comparing apples and oranges.

Combine that price differential with some of the features where the 350 is unarguably superior (1920x1080 chips, far lower power consumption, better media versatility, to name just three) and the difference in "look" of the 2700 is going to have to be pretty dramatic and obvious to convince the "next gen DSR500" crowd to fork out twice the money!

Yes, for some people, money is no object, and a slight improvement is worth a years salary for other people. But then we're into a completely different set of comparisons, the world of Reds, Arris etc. A lot of budgets are being squeezed, and £25,000 on a body is no longer sensible for a great many people, it's not financially viable. At the same time, something better than a £5,000 prosumer camera may be needed (and just affordable) - and that's why I understand the PMW350 is already selling extremely well.

Quote " the 350 is unarguably superior ("
I'll argue the unarguable. It's CMOS, it makes a difference. Ask yourself why it's so much cheaper if it's so much better - almost entirely because it's CMOS. There is a reason why CMOS is cheaper, because at the moment it's a bit of a workaround needing a rolling shutter to make it work.
Steve

Steve, I understand your point, but don't forget that some very high end cameras are using CMOS too.

It is a funny situation though summed up by something David said elsewhere. That tube cameras suffered from similar issues with skew and that when CCD's came along they were seen as being inferior.

Here is an alternate take on things.
Rolling shutter? – Pick the right tool for the job. I E B A Tech Thoughts

And I understand your points too Simon. What I'd say though is that the high end cameras using CMOS that you talk about tend to be specialist ones (ie Phantom) or even things like the RED whose main draw is not so much the quality but the quality relative to the price vs the competition - again in large part due to using CMOS. I think with RED too being aimed at cinema projects you can maybe get away with it more as you tend to have control over what you're shooting and can deal with issues. I don't see RED being used so much for docs or news gathering (or wildlife for that matter - when being able to hoot at 120fps it should be a magnet for wildlife film-makers, and it isn't).
Steve

I think the big problem with Red is it's weight. If a user didn't know any better it could have been made in an iron forge! ;-) It requires some pretty hefty mounting, which of course makes it more impractical for carting around the Amazon etc. The CMOS skew as I understand it isn't anywhere near as noticeable on Red (with the newer firmwares) as with other cameras. I'm also keeping my eye on the new digital Arri's.

I found that article interesting. It may explain a few things. After all a shutter on a motion film camera is also exposing the different parts of the frame at different points in time as it rotates. So perhaps the skew situation with CMOS is rather more complex than simply the row by row readout.

Yeah, I know that some rolling shutters do seem to be better than others - I suppose as always you get what you pay for, and cameras like the EX3 are ludicrously cheap for what they do.
I'll be interested to see how the Arri looks, although froma wildlife perspective no-one is that thrilled by 35mm sensors, you need to bolt on a 2000mm lens really!
Steve

Steve, if you look back again at my post you quote from, it says "Combine...... with some of the features where the 350 is unarguably superior........" - your missing out the first few words of that completely alters the meaning. The original comment is clearly intended to refer to specific features, not the camera per se.

Three features are then listed - "1920x1080 chips, far lower power consumption, better media versatility, to name just three" - so why do you bring up the subject of CMOS? I didn't. Would you care to argue that those three features are not better on the 350 than the 2700?

Since the subject of CMOS has come up, I wouldn't claim it to be "unarguably superior" at all. Rather I think it currently has benefits and drawbacks. For most people probably an overall benefit, for some it may be overall negative.

No David, I understood OK, but even with those other things I still don't think the 350 is unarguably superior, sorry I just don't. Maybe it is better, but you certainly can argue against it.
Steve

Yes. I'm wondering why they don't make a digital S16 sized camera. It could be cheaper than the 35mm sized camera, use less power, be used in situations where compactness is needed, and would also satisfy productions that are on a budget with lenses etc.

I'm sure that there would be a market out there. All those 16mm lenses in existence could do with somewhere to be used.

Not sure what the situation is with the Arri, but I think a lesson has been learned from RED, which is that any camera that has to debayer puts out less resolution than the figures might suggest - ie 4k is closer to 1920 HD and 2k is nearer 720 (I'm oversimplifying here).
I get the feeling a Super 16 CMOS would't cut it - only an assumption.
Steve

Steve - I don't think (and have never said) that I think the 350 is "unarguably superior" per se. If you think that's my view, you can't have understood. The reference was to certain specific important features, not the whole. I'll be the first to agree that AVC-Intra 100 should show better quality than 35Mbs XDCAM, for example.

The question becomes whether differences such as that are worth the large difference in price, especially when they can be negated relatively cheaply with a nanoFlash.

But in other very important factors the 350 does have undisputed advantages. You're not trying to argue you'd actually prefer 720 chips over 1080 (all else equal), or a camera with a far higher power consumption, are you? And what about weight?

I was able to see the 350 at a trade show today. It was shooting the same scene as a 3700, albeit on different monitors of different brands and not side by side. Without going into menus and seeing how each was setup, I could see a colorimetry difference with the strong primary colors in the scene. I found the 3700 to render more pleasing reds, but other than that, I was very impressed with the 350. Very good resolution, very clean and quiet, super fast--I panned the camera off of the lit set and went into gain boost and it has to be the fastest 2/3" camera I've seen, while still having very low noise.

I saw no obvious lens issues(it had the low cost Canon option), viewfinder looked good. I couldn't get it to show any CMOS skewing on fast pans, no artifacts with bright lights, not that CMOS normally has an issue with same.

I'd have to say the front end was impressive, no aliasing or moire issues, just sharp, clean images and great low light ability. The lack of more than one HD SDI output is a pain, but really, other than the weakness of the codec, the only possible issues would be those that Adam found in his pre-production review unit.

In the brief time I had to look at it, I saw nothing from the front end that was objectionable, on the contrary. I'm sure the colorimetry could be made more to my liking via matrix and color correction circuits. If there is more aliasing than with Panasonic 2/3" cameras, I didn't see it.

I did talk to a large dealer about 350 sales a week ago. I was told there was only one pre-order, but the problem was getting stock. They were sure once there was stock to be had, the camera would do well.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I wish Sony would pay more attention to the setup on their cameras "out of the box" It's one lesson they haven't learned from Panasonic.