Steve it was with my ZA 17x7.6 BERM. I was looking at the results in Final Cut on a corrected monitor and on a HDTV. But they were both softer then with either extender off. For full light the optical seemed better but as the light went away and the optical went below F4 the digital seemed better so it was all light based results. I was shooting fast motion surfing in 2.5 meter waves.

A Fujinon 25x16.5 could be in my future.

If the comparison was EX3 versus the JVC, I'd be more sympathetic towards the JVC, (because of ergonomics) but if the opposition is the 320 I'd be inclined to go that way instead - if only because of low light. If the 320 has a disadvantage, it may be size/weight, but against that it should integrate with pro accessories like radio mic receivers much better.

You also have to think about media, and how the 790 files are biased towards .mov without the SxS adaptor. For broadcast news, there may be a lot to be said for using SxS rather than SDHC, if only it should download much quicker. And the 320 still has the SDHC via adaptor possibility.

AFAIK the EX3 and 320 have exactly the same chips - so low light performance should be identical. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve

I'm sorry to hijack but I must have been sleeping or something. What is the Sony 320 being talked about?
Was it at NAB or....? Are there any specs out anywhere?

I can't believe I missed this.

Thanks

Steve, I also was dead set against electronic zooming until I saw the Sony demonstration last December at a Vancouver retailer - it's not AS clean as a longer focal length lens but it is FAR better than I ever expected. Up to each individual to figure out if it works for them but it's pretty darned good. Never a best first call solution but before you disparage it TOO much, try it. And yes, maybe you'll decide it doesn't work for you but try it on something that isn't mission critical...

Don: 1/2" bayonet mount XDCam EX camcorder.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...mw-320k-l.html

Keep in mind that the pixel-based image with RGB/YUV values for a discrete pixels is actually derived from an array of sensors. Once you've recorded the image you no longer have access to the raw sensor data. Perhaps Sony is using the raw sensor data in a way that might enhance resolution over what you could do once the raw data is rendered out as an image.

That is correct Steve I ask the same this question to one of the Sony Reps at NAB when I was taking a look at the Cam.

Didn't Al say the 320 has slightly faster glass so it (320) has slightly better low light abilities than the EX1/3?

The soon to be released (late summer) PMW-320 will be the little brother to the PMW-350. Primary difference will be the use of 1/2inch sensors instead of the 350's 2/3inch sensors...otherwise pretty much the same camera. Oh, and about $3,500 cheaper (list at $14,800 with Fujinon lens). Sony built this to BE a news camera...That's why it's bigger and heavier. It will take a beating no JVC can match. On price/performance ratios, obviously the best bang for the buck is the EX1 and EX3, but those may be a little delicate in the rough & tumble news gathering world... and exactly why I would NEVER buy a JVC for that purpose.

That did occur to me Brett, that they could maybe benefit from doing the conversion before any compression is applied. I still can't see how it could be even half decent though, and if it is decent why everyone who needs long focal lengths haven't immediately dumped their cameras and bought an 800 - it would be completely invaluable and make all other broadcast cameras redundant for wildlife and sports filming.
Steve

Coming from news shooting BetaSX, I can say that the ONE failing that my JVC HD200's have compared to my old news cams is the viewfinder on the JVC is much more delicate. Other than that, I'm pleasantly surprised. Mind you, I've never dropped my JVC but I've never dropped a Betacam either... And I'm a BIG man so I tend not to get jostled in scrums all that much. Of course, your mileage may vary...

I think I was a little unclear in my previous post - which is what I assume the above refers to.

Assuming the same lens, then I'm sure you're right about the EX3 and 320 being at least extremely similar in low light, My intention was to say that if the choice was between the JVC and an EX3, I'd be minded to go for the JVC because of better ergonomics. But if the choice was the JVC or a 320, then because they both have decent ergonomics, I'd then go for the 320 - because of better low light than the JVC.

Does that make it clearer?

Yes, I misunderstood what you were saying, sorry.
Steve

If they did Iam sure of that, but did they take care of the rolling shutter problem in combination with all the flashes that a news getherer faces on a job? Correcting it in post is a little help for an important problem.