Well I am rooting for Panasonic, but I wish they could give a little clue about what they have in store because my time frame for purchase might be soon.

I see the EX as a second or third generation camera in this prosumer HD market.

The HVX could almost be considered first generation even though it has obviously held its merit.

I feel confident that Panasonic's next generation will be a great tool as I have always felt they offer a lot of value with their products.

That's a serious beat down. Isn't the HVX being phased out?

What I find strikingly different is the shot that shows really fine detail, such as the hair on the bearded figurine (Santa?). With the EX1 you can see individual hairs. With the HVX it looks like it's not quite in focus.

How about comparing EX1 to HPX172 instead of HVX202?

Yes, it's an unfair comparison. The Sony shouldn't be compared to an old generation panny.

The EX1 was released to the market as the HVX's star was still rising.

They're contemporaries.

Still, it would be good to compare the EX1 with the HPX172.

I believe the HPX172 may be a bit less noisy than the 202, but the sensors of the 172 and the 202 still have the exact same resolution so I wouln't expect to see the 172 look any sharper.

At the time this thread was started (a year ago) both the EX and the 202 required a workflow of frequent downloading and backing up, probably in the field, unless you were prepared to spend thousands on memory.

Since then, it's been discovered that EX cameras can use cheap SDHC cards, and that has given the EX a massive workflow advantage over the 202 or the 172 - the cards are cheap enough to treat effectively like tape, without losing any of the solid state advantages. IMO, that change is far more significant than any 202 to 172 improvements, and is why I now believe the EX camera may be practical for me now, in a way the 172 is not.

Since we're talking recording to SD cards, have you checked the specs on the soon-to-be-released JVC cameras?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...camcorder.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/jvc-pro-h...camcorder.html

It sure sounds like they're using the EX format, although it doesn't actually say that. Not certain, but I understood the SD cards solution for the EX1 don't allow variable frame rate recording.

Not sure I would term it a "massive advantage", I think that the term, "cost advantage" is more apt. In tests I ran for my biggest client, we consistently were getting dropped frames from the EX1 at any frame rate including and faster than 36fps. For those of us who typically shoot a lot of slow motion, SxS cards are superior to SDHC cards by far.

It's a neat hack, but after showing it to my two biggest clients, they both told me, "thanks, but no thanks" and both went out and bought more SxS cards. If you do shoots where your living and your relationship depend on you getting the shot every time, (we do mostly work for all of the studios), P2 and SxS cards seem to easily be worth the money.

OTOH, if a camera was conceived and designed to shoot to SDHC cards as the new JVC and the HMC150, I would have no problem in using it in professional applications. The EX1 thing is definitely a hack (that works well for people who mainly need to shoot hours and hours of footage cheaply), but it is an inconsistent hack.

Dan

Well yes, there is no dispute that if you want to overcrank, you need an SxS card, there has never been any doubt about that, unless it's for a very small amount frame rate increase. But for the vast majority of people, surely overcrank work is the exception, only a very small percentage of total shooting?

Unless you are doing vast amounts of overcrank shooting, the best workround seems to be shoot to a true SxS card in one slot, then do a card-card transfer to an SDHC card/adaptor in the other slot. Advantage being that it still gets away from the need to have laptops on location - it all happens in camera.
How is it inconsistent? That implies that it would be unreliable - sometimes work, sometimes not - and all the evidence I've seen is to the contrary. As long as an approved adaptor is used (Kensington or MxR), a Sandisk or Transcend SDHC card, and overcrank isn't tried all the evidence seems to be that it's remarkably reliable and consistent

In my book Cheap=Massive!

Anyone know if Sony intended the EX to work off 3rd party cards? Was it some kind of viral marketing scheme? If it wasn't intentional, they sure don't seem too upset about it.

"Cost advantage" just implies a money saving, "massive advantage" implies a lot more, true.

And in this case we're not just talking about saving a few pounds on memory, but a complete change of workflow. Ever since the HVX200 came out, there have been seen to be advantages of a tapeless workflow and solid state in principle, but also drawbacks due to the need to download frequently, just to be able to format cards and continue shooting.

Using SDHC in an EX means an end to that. The cards are cheap enough to be their own backup, load into the NLE, and just leave the cards on the shelf until the project is finished. No more need to take laptops on location. No more worry about finger trouble during a download in less than ideal conditions.

They also make it feasible to shoot material, and hand over the card with rushes directly to a client immediately shooting, they keep all the advantages of tape/disc whilst getting the advantages of solid state.

That's why I think "massive advantage" is apt, we're talking not just about cheaper cards, but a change in workflow, and one which makes solid state working viable for many people in a way that P2 (or SxS) doesn't.

I can make out a viable case for getting Panasonics HMC151 (it's cheap) and another good case for the Sony EX cameras, but I can't make a valid one out for a 171, or any P2 camera in this class any more. Whereas with the Panasonic range you either have to buy P2 OR a 151 with SDHC, with an EX you get the choice within one camera - one minute use it SxS for maximum performance, the next with SDHC for maximum economy.

Oh it's DEFINITELY a massive advantage. Because quite frankly, I could call the difference between the HPX3000 and the HVX200 a "cost advantage" also. If you're dropping frames it's because you're overcranking, which is clearly not the intended use. Misusing a product does not make it inconsistent or unreliable.

I think all three of those quotes above are Dans, the last two seem to be down to me?

Sorry, botched it.