Canon 1ds are used by most of pro photo jurnalists I know and are constant winners
of world expo photo. If you don't like the camera/whatever just don't use/buy it.
It is all tools and not everybody can afford using f23/f35/d20/arri. Some people have enough tallent to produce works of art on home cameras others will not come with anything
interesting on a 70mm.

Sorry but no, that is quite incorrect. There are many more professional photographers shooting with Nikon and Canon than there are shooting Hasselblad or anything else. The Canon 1D, 1Ds, Nikon D3 and D700 are very much pro-level cameras.

Just a reminder to the person whose posts I am removing from public view: DV Info Net is a *flame-free* zone. You may challenge an idea but I will not allow personal attacks here. This policy is very strictly enforced, so please cease fire. No response required. And now, back to the topic...

My point being when image quality is of outmost importance CCD seem to still be the way to go. The Hasselblad and Sinar cameras are the absolute top-of-the-line. And the new SRW-9000 is 3-CCD and not 3-CMOS. And I happen to agree with these choices, however the new ARRI will be some new CMOS so thats interesting. The point is to make your own judgement, so if you're happy with the CMOS look, then good, I just disagree, and so do others - complaints about color-tone and weird skin tones is not that uncommon with regards to EX and RED cameras. Now I am seeing these same problems with the EX350 which is what we where discussing.

Then you must have a big problem with virtually all printed material in the world at present from top grade wildlife to fashion, portraits, landscape etc etc. all shots on CMOS DSLRs.
Sorry, but you're just plain plain wrong. It's not just that it's CMOS, there's much more to it than that.
Phantom HD is CMOS, nothing wrong with that either.
And I'm speaking as one who agrees with you, I prefer CCD too, you're just not seeing the whole picture and you're degrading some of the world's best photographers by calling them semi pro.
Steve

The whole pro/semi-pro was a poor choice of words and is a silly labelling. Let's just say that the ultra ultra high end is still CCD.

I still don't buy that I'm afraid.
Some of the pros using CMOS stills cameras will be among the most highly paid and with the largest audiences and on the most prestigious projects in the entire world. I don't see how much more high end than that.
Steve

If something is better than the other that purely up to taste, this was a scientific theory about accuracy. CCDs seem to be more accurate, perhaps because of the higher fill factor. But the CMOS look may be more artistic, this is what people love with the RED for example. CMOS sees light differently. CMOS has a more film-like rolloff in the highlights. Alister pointed that out in some EX350 test. And the somehow muted color palette is very *in* at the moment. I think the 3-CCD sony look offers something new, never before seen, hyper color definition, even better than super 35, perhaps because of it's accuracy.

Thing is a pixel is just a pixel. Any difference will be down to other factors like processing and bit depth.
And 3CCDs better than Super 35 film? I think you'll find yourself in an enormous minority in that view, that's up there with Canons and Nikons being semi pro!
Steve

Mistake, nevermind

Well Guys,
CCD or Cmos is a nice discussion, but to tell you the truth it doesn't matter to me. What I want is a camera that performs well, looks well with a reasonable price and meets my technical and creative possibilities. This 350 has a lot of these potentials.
The look is great; it will open doors for you
The picture looks better than the EX3
The low light performance is very good
The available buttons for div functions and manual operation is very professional and useful; power switch is what we need compared to the EX1 and EX3. The ND filters are now what they should be (4 positions)
The VF is good to excellent; no need for extra hood
The In/outs are on the right place imo with the right connection sockets
The weight is normal
The power consumption is good compared to other shoulder babies
The price is right
The use of "cheap" media(SD memory cards) next to the SxS cards to record to, makes it very attractive
The Stock lens is good and with autofocus(!?)
The shooting modes are for all trades; SD/HD Pal/NTSC
Still to consider are the Flash(light) problem with the Cmos(there we go again) and the IR problem if it still exists.
What I like to see in the package is: Battery/Charger/SxS card 32Gb/Quick release plate
To be short: great camera with reasonable price.

Here you go, 2 very short clips, a 35Mb/s MP4 from my PMW-350 and a 50Mb/s MXF from my PDW-700. Shot within minutes of each other, with the same lens. Other than the slight difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 and some small lighting and cameras setup differences you are hard pushed to tell which is which. If anything I prefer the way the blown out sky is handled by the 350. Both cameras were using Hypergamma 4 and the same lens.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/samples/350-700.zip (54mb)

350 vs. 700
 

Thanks, Alister!

I really appreciate you posting this comparison. It only solidifies my decision to eventually purchase the 350.

Very impressive handling of the bare branches in the blown out sky. A much more pleasing image overall. Have you posted your settings for this particular look?

Again, thanks for providing us the info that all of us are curious about, but few of us have the gear to actually compare.

Jac

Yes, thanks Alister, very useful to see an actual direct comparison.
Steve

Thanks very much for doing this test, this is extremely interesting. Toggling between the two as greyscale, and/or with some various gamma curves is also interesting.