PMW-350, How happy are you with the camera
 

I owned a PMW-350 last winter (#15) for a few months and then moved to a F800. Looking back I never really settled into the 350. So now that owners have been shooting for 10 months or more with the PMW-350, it would be interesting to know what you like and don't like about picture quality? Also and other aspects of the camera? Thanks for the input in advance this will be helpful for a decision on an upcoming project.

Well I received an email from Steve Phillipps:

PMW350 - I don't have one or have used one but I reckon the concensus seems to be that it's an amazing camera, really low price relatively, but could be let down by 2 things - rolling shutter if you shoot long lens stuff or high action which could be problematic, and this silly 35 mb/s codec that makes people buy Nanoflashes when the 50 mb/s codec should have been and could easily be put straight into the camera. That would be one of my worries - when will they bring out the 50 mb/s version?
Steve


My reply to Steve:

Thanks for the thoughts on the PMW-350. Let me tell you what I think of it and why I am asking.

When I had mine I did shoot four jobs with it and some stock. One job was inside a jewelry manufacture and the footage is excellent. The second was from the helicopter shooting ski resorts and again the footage was great. The problem I had on the ski resort shoot was too much light. I had all camera ND filters on and .6 on the front of the camera and it was not enough in a few bright situations. My mistake I should have had more ND options. Other two were aerial survey work and the client mentions the difference in the footage from the past shoots, since I did not tell them I changed cameras. The other cameras were EX1 and F350, they liked the PMW-350 better with more detail and sharpness.

I own a Nano and used it on the aerial shoots but not in the jewelry job and it stood up fine. Also the EX1 was B camera on the shoot. The difference with and with out the Nano is there but the 2/3” chip at 420 stands up well for a lot of shoots. But grading and broadcast the Nano is needed. I think they are going to keep the 50Mb/s 422 at the PMW-500 level or no one would buy that camera over the 350.

The depth of field is nice compared to the 1/2” chip.

My reason for selling was a contract UGRH, which has since been canceled that made me move to F800 to get the job. Now I sold the F800 to clear out funds and been using my EX1/Nano, my other small cameras and now a 5D coming next week. But another job is close to signed where I will need a 2/3” camera and this is back in my sights. Just thought I would explain my reason for bring this up with current owners.

Hi Paul,

Why not just get the PMW500. I think this may be a better option.

Cheers

Just happened upon this post and thought I would put my two cents in.

After checking the current asking price for the 500 at the B&H site, it would seem that a minimally configured PMW-500 would be upwards of twice the price of the PMW-350 once a lens, VF, shotgun mike, etc., are added. Granted, it has CCDs and 50mbs but the data rate can be achieved with an external device and, depending upon one's shooting style, the CCDs may not warrant the difference.

BTW, in re the foundation for this thread, I own a PMW-350 with the stock lens and love it.

Hi Paul, the other week I wrote up a blog post concerning this, because I got that question a lot. By the way, I have two 350K's, for the price of less then one full equipped 800.. ;-)

In-depth review: Sony PMW-350K | Vincent Rozenberg

The PMW-500 is very nice and produces a fantastic image, but it's expensive. The 350 produces an almost identical image to the 500 for half the money. Don't totally discount the PMW-320 either. It has a little less DoF and a little more noise but it's still a great image.

Many news agencies and news based TV stations are looking at the PMW-500 as it has CCD's, traditional CRT VF's (You can stick a DXF VF on a 350) and the ability to add SDi and composite inputs for pool feeds etc. That along with 50Mb/s makes this a good news camera.

The PMW-350 on the other hand lacks a pool feed option and is only 35Mb/s, but the pictures are still fantastic. IMHO the 350 offers the best bang for your bucks, but to do any serious broadcast work your going to want to add a NanoFlash, Ki-Pro Mini or Ninja.

The BBC are buying 200 Sony camcorders for News and Current Affairs. A mixture of PMW-500s and PMW-350s so they must be good.

Thanks Guys for the input.

Simon I don't think the 500 is worth it at twice the price. I would have to charge more and that did not work with my F800 except for the one failed contract. People say no go with the EX1/Nano. But for this job I would need to match a Sony 700 and I think the 350/Nano would be a better choice with the Nano. Also I own a Nano and the bracket for back of the Sony 2/3" camera from Olof.

Thanks Ron nice to know you are happy with the camera. There were problems early on when owners were trying to get the right picture profile. I spent a lot of time shooting with Doug Jensen side by side with the F800, PMW-350, and EX1. Me made progress but I am sure it is much further along now. I know Alister also has been very helpful and open with profile settings.

Thanks Vincent I will check that out. If I remember right you have owned the camera since spring?

Alister makes sense that some will go for the 320 but the contract says it has to be 2/3" to match the 700. It does not say CCD and I asked, they are fine with CMOS. Again the 500 is nice I was lucky enough to be at the launching in NYC and I was impressed. But cost is very high and with two lens (see below) out of control.

Bruce makes sense BBC would buy both CCD and CMOS and keep both 2/3". They just keep using more and more CMOS.

One other point is the stock lens on the 350 is nice. I did buy a Fujinon ZA17x7.6 and ended up using that all the time. But with this contract I would need a gyro stabilized lens and a interview lens. So the stock one covers half that and with a 500 that is a expensive proposition to buy two 2/3" lens.

Great help guys thank you, and keep it coming of you have more info.

Yes, since April/May, and shot over 3.6 Terabyte with them already ;-)

What lens are you thinking of?

Hi Vincent,

Thanks for the responses I thought you shot a lot with the PMW-350. A couple more questions if you don't mind?
Do you match it to other HD cameras?
How many 350's do you own?
What glass do you use?
Did you come up with your own profile setting where you don't have to grade? (We will be doing shoots daily that will be on HDTV and there is no time for grading)


The lens options we are discussing are the following:
Schwem SP (The other camera person has the XDCAM 700 and owns two of these)
He uses a Canon J lens for the interview work and when on shore.
I would use the stock lens for interview and shore work.
Also being told I would do the wide shots on the water so I would need a wide lens, my choice here would be the ZA 12x4.3, or something else I can find used that works well and is at least 4.5 wide.
Also we have looked at this: Canon U.S.A. : Broadcast & Communications : HJ15ex8.5B KRSE-V

AFAIK the BBC have ordered 200 PMW-350's for news and 50 PMW-500's for long form current affairs.
At the moment the 350's are being used in SD DVCAM mode, but BBC news is going switch to HD soon, so they must be planning on using the 350's for HD in the future. They have also ordered a large number of XF305's.

Absolutely delighted with the camera!!! Teamed with the nanoflash, it goes where it wants to! (Don't know what that means. Hmmmmm)

Seriously, it is fantastic, recording onto the sxs Pro or 422 onto nf. I'm not fussed. Sometimes I record only sxs (not too often though) and still stand back with a great big smile when I see the pics back. No problem with mine, tracks natural colours very well and records deep, saturated LED lights that are all the rage (and rightly so) at concerts & plays that I often record. Zero CA thanks to the CA circuitry. PMW-350, ZA lens & nanoflash - a great team.

What else can I say? For me, it's great.

Thanks Alister, that is a nice order for a business to get, unless they go direct. Do you still have your 700 or the 350, or both?

David nice to hear you are happy with the camera. And glad to hear the ZA is working so well, I was really impressed with that lens.

Overall I'm more than happy with my 350s (I bought two of them - for less than you'll get one 800)

There are some minor annoyances but the pluses far out way them. Although I have a NanoFlash, I'm finding that I'm using it far less than I thought I would - the pictures in the EX format are really good (far better than I thought 35Mbs would be).
The power consumption (or lack of) is great - I'm yet to flatten two 95 batts in a days shooting.

In real world shooting I haven't found skew to be apparent from the rolling shutter. There has been some flash banding at events from still flashes. It's something I've noticed but no client has noticed and that's before I've put it through the corrector.

The stock lens is fairly rubbish although the lack of focus breathing is amazing.

Some of the other (very) minor annoyances include only a single SDI output and a single headphone out.
Output is either HD or SD not both at the same time (a problem when using Steadicam)
You don't really know which picture profile is selected.
You can't put an ident over the bars.
The digital extender doesn't exist yet.

Thanks Rohan,

All good points and a few I noticed in the short time I use one.

I did find the stock lens pretty nice but not up to the ZA I used.

No need, but did it once with EX1/3, and it can hold up pretty good. I have a PDW 350 as well, but def. can not match those...
2. I think that when i need a third one, I would consider a 320 kit. Depends on how much I need it.
Only Stock lens the best bang for the buck IMO. Once had a $30K Canon on it. If you look good you can see it, but most of the times you have to tell it. Blind testing and picking is hard. Though, ergonomically the more expensive lenses are better.
I do TV shoots with it as well, a lot of shows no time for grading either. I use one of Allister's settings and are very pleased with it.

Wat's this? I can not find it with Google.

Can you give more arguments on this? In usability I can agree, but image wise it will do way better then the price would tell you. As stated in my post above, blind testing and picking it would be very hard.

I would not consider the stock lens for anything else than static work.
I use my older Canon broadcast lenses. Bought a Canon 22x7.6 HD lens, but this do not work as the camera cannot power up with this lens. Tried to contact Canon but got no reply - do not know if I should try Sony if they can come up with a solution.

Vincent are you saying the PDW 350 can't stand up to the PMW 350 with your test?

Nice to know you go right to HDTV with out grading.

The Schwem lens is an old gyro lens that has two options. FP (Fast Pan) and SP (Slow Pan). We would use slow pan. The edges of this lens are soft so we use it on tight shots only.

Bo,
There is something wrong with either the lens or your camera. I tried a HJ22x7.6 on my PMW-350 when I owned it and it worked fine. I was not very impressed with any of the Canon glass but ti worked.

And I agree with Vincent the stock lens does a much better job then most people give it credit. Sure the ergonomics are not like a nice Fujinon ZA or HA but the glass is fine.

my Sony PMW 350 video
 

no Tripod, no Nano, just shoulder mounted using the stock lens ... fitness competition:


I kept on switching to different color temperatures experimenting ... I'm still trying to get acquainted to it :)
(video info: the last guy in the posedown is 61 years of age... he won 2nd place hehehe...)
AND YES, I AM HAPPY WITH MY SONY PMW 350... next week I'll be getting my Nano..looking forward to it..

Visit my website at www.mabuhaybeauties.com
Sony PMW 350
Canon XL H1S
Canon 1Ds Mk3 for my photo galleries (except for those photos not mine)

As asked before: Please give arguments. Is this based on image or usage?

I consider PMW way better then PDW. Image wise, but also like the new viewfinder and EX menu structure for example.

Thanks Vincent appreciate the help and your input.

You're welcome, what you gonna do with it?

Vincent,

If I went for the PMW-350 (That has not been decided yet) it would be used on a big contract that shoots boats. That is all I can say at this time about the contract. I would be on the water chasing them, on board at times, helicopter at times, and of course the shore side work. This is the deal where they specified 2/3" HD. So I am looking at the 350 for its cost and hopefully the quality would be there. Having had an F800 as my last camera it is hard to beat, but that is a sad story.

Also it would fit into a few other contracts in the works and already singed along with my other cameras and gear.

I am happy with my PMW350k and picture profiles, I can no longer even say what the settings are without looking them up. The most significant improvement was to use a high quality circular polarizer for most outdoors work. As you've noted, the cam has so much sensitivity to light, it presents the right opportunity for the polarizer to provide an adjustable contrast detail on every shot. It's so ubiquitous, at times I forget its there, even on indoor shots. I shot a spot for a local BMW dealership, and a promo for a stunt rider, turned into more work, ironic because it's not my full time occupation. The color and sharpness just pop off the screen.

The only negative for me is to be careful using high zoom magnification on the tripod, any vibrations there will cause the skew/wobble.

The nanoflash 4:2:2 improves 1080/i60 interlace video appreciably, while being less noticeable at 24/30p.

I think the main thing about the 350 is the value, spending a lot on the extras is a judgment only you can make, but law of diminishing returns applies.

Hi Tom,

Nice to hear from you again. From my friend in Boulder sounds like the mountains have nice snow?

I know you spent a lot of time with your picture profile. If I do get another 350 I will pick your brain.

The light is an issue with some of my shooting and an ND living on the lens would be the case outside. On the water using a polarizer at anything but about 90 deg to the sun can cause some problems I have found in the past.

Great to hear your hobby is paying for your gear.

Agree the 350 value is hard to beat.

Happy Thanksgiving

Getting perfect exposure, or the preferred gamma etc., at times seem like a subjective judgment that we don't always agree on, or perhaps it's because we're working with different scenes. But it seemed to me that for many of my outdoor scenes the PMW350 exposure metering was a little bright. You can turn on Iris Override in Auto Iris submenu of the Operation Menu, allowing you to dial in some limited exposure compensation with the little wheel on the front, but there is quite a bit more control available in the Maintenance Menu, Auto Iris2 submenu. There, you can also control the mix ratio of peak to average value, and/or the size and location of the detection window. With these controls, you can basically create custom metering modes, your own spot metering or scene averaging metering scheme.

There's so much latitude available, for me it's more customization than I usually need, but I do set my Iris level to -10 (AutoIris2 submenu), so that the default picture is a little less bright. But again, this depends. I don't use the hyper gammas as much, I prefer the wide range full bodied look of the STD Gamma, ITU-R709, which sometimes means a little extra work to fit the scene range within the exposure range, sometimes adjusting the knee, the exposure as needed, and also the circular polarizer. As to the latter, even if the sun is not at right angles, it does double duty as a ND filter. I realize you have to be mindful with water and snow, as not to overdo the polarization effect. I would assume the 500 and 800 are capable of some additional gamma manipulations within the scene to manage highlights, but the polarizer gives adjustable control that you can make good judgments about from the viewfinder that work quite well.

But whatever scene settings we choose, they are USER settings, meaning that you can't just plug in my settings, or me plug in your settings, and expect the same satisfactory outcomes in all cases without also applying the other operator judgments unique to the scene.

Thanks Tom,

Understand the Iris control and how you are using it. An ND would be nice for a lot of my shooting which I did not use most of the time when I had the camera. The F800 has built in optical ND's which are excellent.

Makes sense you are using the STD to get max latitude and how detailed you are on your adjustments. There are just times I don't have the time so I need a bright day setting, cloudy days setting, interior setting, and night setting. Maybe I am just lazy.

If I do go this route it would still be nice to test your setting and try your method it sounds like you really like the results. Better yet your clients like the results.

I can't compare the 350's built in optical ND's to the 800, but I use screw-on ND (or polarizer) to supplement the built-in. Sometimes you need both, and it's really the only way (on the 350) to get the shutter speed slow enough for smooth motion and still use larger aperture openings, as you know. Not using supplemental ND could really handicap in bright scenes.

Tom the difference between the PMW-350 ND and F800 ND is the 350 is digital and the 800 is optical. It is a big difference and it should be for the money.

Agree you need both camera ND and screw on ND more on the 350 then the 800. The 350 is more light sensitive I think by 2 stops on one of our test into the dark. But the 800 handles the highlights better again it better for the price.

I made the mistake of not enough ND once and won't do that again.

I'm pretty sure the ND filters on the PMW350 are glass, not virtual.

Tom I re-read your last post. You don't really use auto iris do you?

I am wrong it is optical ND on the 350 and electronic CC to the filters.

I use manual iris with PUSH Auto.

That makes sense I misunderstood your post.

Again, the big appeal to the 350k package is the value of the kit. The 500 I don't quite understand the logic of not offering the kit lens, if to protect 700/800 sales, then why have the 500 at all?

As an aside, I would have bought your Fuji ZA if I had been aware at the time you were selling it. That said, the kit lens still does a good job.

And so it just puzzles me, the 500 would seem to be the one to hit all the bases with everyone, if Sony would just make it the same value bargain as they did for the 350k. It would seem that value would be its main reason for being, since capability wise it's taking up with the 800. I can only speculate the 500 is cheaper to make, and a higher profit margin.

The PMW500 with the 350's kit lens and VF would be an interesting package. I believe the 500 doesn't support auto focus though - not that I have ever used it in the 350.

I'd also like to see a higher bitrate option card for the 350 but it would need to cost significantly less than a Nanoflash in order to tempt me.

I tried autofocus once to test it out. Works way better then I was used to from the pro summer cameras. Though, I would never rely on it... Push iris on the other hand can come in quite handy when doing very quick following run and gun. And I really do like the option of fading color temp. switch. So when you walk from daylight into tungsten and you switch the color temp. You virtually can't see it.

I believe that Fujinon will be making a version of the PMW-350 lens available as a stand alone low cost HD lens.