alternative to 320

[Ian Thomas]

I have a sony 320 and love it, I mostly do wildlife filming but i find it a bit of a lump when carrying it with added lens and a tripod, I just wondered if there was a camera out there on a par with the 320 but would be a bit more portable, I don't want to ask these so called experts that sell camera's because they can flob you off with anything as long as they get your money so iam asking here, sorry if its on the wrong forum

thankyou
Ian

[Doug Jensen]

That's an easy question to answer: PMW-EX3.
It's pretty much the same thing as a 320 but in a smaller package. Features a great viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, and the same workflow.

[Ian Thomas]

Thanks Doug

But i traded my ex3 for the 320 and i think the 320 give a slightly better picture but it just seems to be heavy or it could be me getting weak

The ex3 is abit long in the tooth now what do you think to the new single chip cameras from canon and sony would they fit the bill

Thanks
Ian

[Doug Jensen]

I still think the EX3 is the best bet for what you have described you will be shooting. There's no reason why the 320 should out-perform an EX3 that has been properly configured. I also think you would regret switching to a large sensor camera and spending the money necessary to outfit it with QUALITY lenses. Your zoom range will be limited, and the lenses are very heavy.

It is true the EX3 has been around for a few years, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a top performer. Just take a look at the brand new PMW-200. It is basically an EX1/EX3 with 50Mbps capability. The sensors, lens, and image processing is pretty much identical. My advice is to get a nice leather padded strap from Port-brace (http://www.portabrace.com/products/s...aps-compact-hd) and just get used to carrying a pro camera. I carry an F800 around all the time and I'll bet it weighs 2-3 times what your 320 weighs. Plus, don't forget MASS = STABILITY for wildlife shooting.

[Ian Thomas]

thanks Doug

That sounds good advice i do like the camera, thankyou very much

[Doug Jensen]

Ian, another option that just occurred to me is the PMW-160. Although is has 1/3" sensors, the picture quality is very good. Compared to the PMW-320 is has several advantages:

1) Smaller and lighter
2) Lower power consumption.
3) 14% better telephoto ability
4) 10% better wide angle coverage
5) HD422 50Mbps codec
6) Can use XQD cards
7) Smoother, faster, zoom control
8) Three ND filters for more precision
9) WiFi capability for remote control

[Glen Vandermolen]

Ian, I'm assuming you want to stay with SxS media.
Is your shooting mostly in the daytime? .
If so, Doug's recommendation of the PMW160 is spot on. It has one heck of a zoom range, and the 1/3" chips won't be a hindrance in daylight. Night shooting would be more problematic, of course.

[Ian Thomas]

thanks Glen and Doug

the only prob with 160 is that it has fixed lens, for wildlife filming to be able to change lenses is a must so i think i will stick with the 320 and just exept the weight and find ways around it, Many thanks for your help

[Doug Jensen]

Yes, it is a fixed lens, but is has a nice servo zoom, optical Steadyshot, a remote connector, smooth focusing, a real iris ring, and is the equivalent of a 18mm-360mm lens on super35mm camera. That's a pretty decent 20x zoom range -- plus it's a fast f/1.6 lens. It'd be real hard to beat those specifications with any another camera anywhere near the price of a PMW-160.

What lens(s) are you using on your PMW-320 now?

[Ian Thomas]

Thanks Doug

I have a old 300mm Nikon lens + a 2x converter which give me a good close ups I film birds and animals which on most times are a long way off

[Doug Jensen]

Ian, I understand. I just can't help myself from making the case for some alternatives. The 300mm on a 1/2" sensor gives you a lot of telephoto capability that you'd really miss if you went to a super-35mm single sensor camera.

[Ian Thomas]

thanks Doug

might be of post but is progressive the way to go now and what shutter and frame setting would you use iam in the UK

[Alister Chapman]

The PMW-320 has better noise reduction and image processing compared to the EX3 (I believe it uses the same DSP as the PMW-350/PMW-500) and this results in less noise and improved mid range image performance compared to the EX3. The new PMW-200/150/100 cameras also used a new DSP, which is why, despite having the same sensors as the EX1 and EX3, the PMW-200 produces a better image.

IMHO the EX3 would be a downgrade from the PMW-320. The PMW-150/160 is a nice camera, but if you shoot in low light it doesn't quite have the same noise performance as the PMW-320, especially if you have to add any gain. The large sensor cameras (FS100/700, F3 etc) are not ideal for wildlife, you will need much longer focal lengths than your using now and fast, long focal length lenses are expensive. You probably have the most appropriate camera for what your doing already, unless you would be prepared to take a very small image quality hit with the EX3.

[Ian Thomas]

Thankyou Alister

I had read some were that the 320 was slightly better than the Ex3 and i do like the 320 it gives me a very good picture with or without the nano which i use if i ever get any broadcast!!, It was just it is abit of a lump with added lenses and tripods to lug around but iam going to have to live with it

Many thanks

Ps Alister in the UK would you film in interlace or progressive just that in progressive flying birds look a bit jumpy
Ian

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

. . . despite having the same sensors as the EX1 and EX3, the PMW-200 produces a better image.

I challenge you to prove it by posting some examples. Have you actually done side-by-side testing? I have and I know that nobody can tell the difference between them in low-light or any other time.