This is a combined answer to John and Tom.

John, the JVC HM series is very much the "other" EX. Tom, the JVC HM is your CCD choice if that's what you want for now. I'm not sure where Canon is. It seems Canon's focus is on the 5D Mk II which is the DSLR with HD video and is probably what stalled RED's Scarlet to some extent.

Tom, CMOS will improve and I don't doubt within 2-3 years rolling shutter will be all but gone. Given CURRENT ADVANTAGES CMOS has, I think it's a big business mistake to wait. EX, RED, 5D, and now some of the Panasonic cameras are using CMOS. The only odd bird is that Panasonic, using 1/3" chips, doesn't seem to be taking advantage of the big gain CMOS offers. If really depends on your price point. If you have an Sony 950 or F23 maybe you don't need RED. If you have Sony 355 maybe you don't need EX. CMOS gives you as big or bigger chip in a smaller camera. Either that's important to you or not. CCD also has a set of problems but apparently that's acceptable to you but not many of us. Point a CCD camera at street lamps or car head lights and you'll see (any bright point of light) the problem. IMHO rolling shutter issues are less obvious.

A very interesting discussion.

However, IMHO it boils down to EX vs HPX300 - at least, in terms of the overall cost of use.

Still IMHO, I'd personally trade my EX1 for the HPX300 - the reason being the latter's form factor. Even if the HVX200 came with the same form factor, I'd prefer it over my EX1, too. I guess the same applies to the JVC (never had a chance to put my hands on it, though).

So it's clear that to me (still IMHO), it's not a CMOS vs CCD dispute. The so called "rolling shutter artifacts" are nothing compared to the practical importance of a camera's ergonomics.

But that's just me; with my terribly back neck spine after three unsuccessful surgeries, still loving my EX1.

I like that hm700. Sharp pics, beautiful form factor, nice colors but not so good in low light. The footage gets grainy quickly, atleast in 1080. I wonder if the manufacturers will revert back to single chip tech, since the dslrs and the red are doing very well.

In an earlier post you mentioned that you had 65 flashes in a 5 second period, and that the half quarter frame result was unacceptable.

I assumed you had shot using a EX1/3 on a wedding job, and were not happy with the results. From reading in between the lines you have made your mind up based on other people using the camera(s).

"Should I want this as a slo-mo snippet in my highlights (as I invariably do) then I don't want it made obvious that quarter and third frames are lit up with ugly (CMOS) monotony. I want the overall brightening of the entire frame as CCDs supply, as this looks far nicer and more natural. "


I will add my two-pence worth and say I do not find any problems with other flashes going off. Sure I get the odd half/quarter frame here and there, but it is no big deal on one frame in a 30fps shoot.

Vincent - you're shooting PAL at 25 fps, not 30 fps aren't you? I've shot two weddings with an EX1 and many more with a Z1. The EX1 images (as you'd expect) are far and away better than the Z1's, and if the whole film is 'real time' then the CMOS flash capture is no big deal, as you say.

It's only slo-mo that shows it up. The EX1 (unacceptably in my view) dictated the edit when it came to the slo-mo sequences, that's all I'm saying. The Z1's CCDs positively love flash, and I delight in the way slo-mo displays them.

It's all over now Baby Blue. CCDs have had their day.

tom.

Not always Tom, I am using 30fps for a lot of work these days, it opens up the North American market for my DVD sales and NTSC plays OK on a PAL system TV too. ( Call me old fashioned, but I still deliver all the work in SD)

Fair enough Tom, I am sure you know what is acceptable to you and what is not.

Getting back to the "hubub"of CMOS Rolling Shutter:

I have used the EX-1 to record many things including sporting events and weddings. I have noticed skew on fast pans in sports and I've noticed 1/2 flashed frames in wedding footage - but the clients NEVER have. And they always comment on how sharp the picture is.

Yes, the artifacts are there and we see them because we know to look for them, and you might want to avoid CMOS for special effects work as has been stated, but the typical wedding/corporate client won't notice and in filmmaking you get to control the shoot to avoid these shortcomings.

In short, the artifacts are there, but I wouldn't let it stop you from shooting on an EX.

It's really an awesome camera for the price.