EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Is the "upgrade" to a 10 bit recorder over the nanoflash worth it? I just bought a used nanoflash and have a limited time to return it. I like it, but wonder if I should have gone 10 bit. I have heard the noise level of the ex3 may not make the higher 10 bit recorders worth losing features such as over/undercranking, swappable cf cards, and the reported durability of the nanoflash. Has anyone done a good comparison of these two or perhaps the more expensive gemini? I am not finding much info on a true comparison of quality of these with the ex3 anywhere. And, now that they have been out for awhile, how are the samurais holding up in the field?

If it helps, I mainly produce wildlife dvd's and stock footage wildlife shots for tv production. Any help is appreciated.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Brad,
My personal feeling is that the nanoflash is an excellent match for the EX1 / EX3. The nano has numerous features that truly extend the functionality of the EX cameras, and in the last two years my ex1 hasn't gone anywhere without its companion nano. Obviously there are newer recorders with some interesting features, but when I look at what the nanoflash brings to the table, I'm not ready to jump to anything else for the EX. (I am thinking that a Gemini may be the appropriate companion for my F3, but that's another story.)

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

The EX3 and NanoFlash combo is a great one. I have a NanoFlash, Samurai and a Gemini. So I've used all three. Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses.

The EX3 is not the quietest of cameras, it does have a moderate amount of image noise. You will find that this will limit your ability to grade the images more than whether you are using 8 bit as opposed to 10 bit. The compact files from the NanoFlash make using CF cards practical and cost effective. When you move to the Samurai you are generating much bigger files and then you have to use delicate hard drives or costly SSD's and there is no hot-swap possibility. The NanoFlash can do time-lapse, over cranking and a very wide range of bit rates. Use it at 50Mb/s and the files are 100% compatible with the XDCAM HD optical disc system which broadcasters really like as it's very easy for them to handle and archive.

The Samurai does have a built in screen, which is very convenient, but the screen isn't really good enough for accurate exposure or focus, so it's not really a substitute for a decent monitor. ProRes is a great codec and if your Mac based it is nice to have everything in one codec.

The Gemini, despite being a fantastic device is overkill on the EX3. You would certainly be crazy shooting uncompressed with it. The new announcement about also being able to do DNxHD in the future is great, but that's not until later in the year.

Both are great units. The Samurai is now getting past it's initial firmware bugs (the NanoFlash had a few too), and is a great recorder for use on lower noise cameras but IMHO the NanoFlash hits the sweet spot with the EX3. Little things like the way it goes to sleep when you turn the camera off, the tally lights on every side, the way you can run both the camera and recorder from a Swit EX battery with D-Tap without the need for additional adapters and the very light weight make it nice to use.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Alister, how would the Blackmagic unit fit into this mix? The latest version seems nice and the price is hard to beat.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

The shuttle is interesting. Very compact and certainly cheap. I have not used one so my comments are based on arms length opinion. Like the Samurai your creating much larger files, so backup, transfers and archiving have to be considered, you will need a lot more hard drives for a big project than you would with a NanoFlash. There's no monitor or other LCD display to tell you what's going on, for example trying to diagnose a connection problem. The NanoFlash tells you if the connection is intermittent and exactly what the standard of the signal your sending it is and on the Samurai you'll see any issues on the monitor. Uncompressed is just not worth the data overhead with an EX1/EX3 so you'll use DNxHD.

Not sure about the shuttle, it appears to have the down sides of both the NanoFlash (no monitor) and Samurai (big files, SSD) without the plus points of either. It's own plus is cost.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Just a quick question.

I have my Nanoflash powered from the front D=Tap power socket on my 350. The Nano used to power off when the camera switched off but something has changed. It does not turn off unless I pull the power cable. I just cant see a setting to enable power down.

Simple answer I hope?

Tim.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Don't have mine in front of me right now but there should be a low power mode option in the system menu somewhere.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Dear Tim,

If you are running our latest firmware, 1.6.248, then there is a Power Save feature. It works very well.

When the HD-SDI input goes away, the nanoFlash powers down.

When the HD-SDI input returns, it powers on quickly.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Thanks for all your help guys. That makes me feel better. One more question: I plan to set the nanoflash at Long GOP 100 or 50 mb/s but wondering if 720p60 would still be my best setting? Again, I wish to make dvd's but also, now that I have the nanoflash, I want to be able to sell some footage for broadcast. Please keep in mind that I am shooting wildlife so there will be lots of motion involved. Thanks again for any advice, as these forums have so much info and are great, but I am still undecided on this point as well.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Well, no broadcaster is broadcasting at 60P as far as I know, so doubt there is a huge demand for 60P footage. As we go forwards I'm sure we will see 60P broadcasts but these are most likely going to be 1080p60. If it was me I'd shoot 1080i60 if your worried about motion or 1080p30.

I'd use at least 80Mbps (long GoP) if you can.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Hey Brad, I assume if you are in Gardner you'll be spending a lot of time shooting in Yellowstone. I love it there and try to stop by for at least a 2-3 days every year. I highly recommend shooting everyhting at 1080/30P. You'll have a tough time selling any 720P footage. It's only medium definition.

You should be just fine shooting straight to the SxS cards if you take the time to dial in the "look" you want in the camera with a picture profile and get the exposure and white balance correct. However, if you intend on shooting with a flat profile and doing a lot of grading, then I would recommend the 10 bit Samurai. Those files will be a lot bigger than the Nano or Sxs cards, but at least they'll be 10 bit instead of 8 bit. In my opinion, despite the higher bit rate, the Nano doesn't look any different than the SxS cards so I wouldn't waste my time or money on buying one. Do a test of your own if you can borrow one, and you'll be hard pressed to see any difference between the Nano @ 100Mbps and SxS at 35Mbps. It sounds like a big difference on paper, but it doesn't amount to much in the real world.

I'm not saying the difference is that great between the SxS can Samurai either, but at least your dealing a 10 bit file if you're going to be grading.

Here's some Yellowstone stuff I shot last fall and the year before. Can't wait to go back.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

If you are in the UK and the BBC mandates 50Mbps or above, both the Nanoflash and Samurai will help your footage to get accepted. For looser delivery guidelines such as Discovery Channel, you are more than welcome to stick to SxS.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I agree with part of Doug's response - there isn't much noticeable difference to the eye between the 35Mb SxS and the nanoFlash's higher bitrates when using an EX1/3. However, recording 10bits isn't going to increase the ability to grade because the image already has quite a lot of noise, which is the limiting factor, not 8bits. I have tested recording uncompressed thru a Blackmagic Decklink Extreme 3D and then reduced noise with Neat Video and then exported to Cineform 422 (Film Scan 2 - highest setting). I also recorded to the nanoFlash at 280Mb I-frame, reduced noise with NV and exported to Cineform with the same settings. I also did the conversions to Cineform without reducing noise and the file sizes were 3-4 times as large due to all of the noise. (with a 12-core PC, it took 12mins of rendering time per 1 minute of video to render from Premiere Pro CS5 using Neat Video)

So, I then brought these files into After Effects and graded in 32bpc mode and every time, the limiting factor was noise. However, the noise reduced images had far more ability to be pushed and altered than any of the 10bit & 8bit source files.

Personally, I only use my nanoFlash with my EX3 (or EX1) for a backup recording or for very long record times. Although, I am testing it with a FS100 where dual CF slots and MPEG2 format provide significant advantages to the single internal SD card & H264 recording.

Side note: just in case you are considering the IDX V-mount adapter plate for the EX3, be aware that it blocks the rear shoe and requires some modifications in order to un-block the rear shoe.

Attached are stills from an event last year of the SxS and 100Mb L-GOP nanoFlash as well as a jpeg from Photoshop where I layered the SxS over the nanoFlash and set the SxS image to Difference and then used Levels to make the difference easier to see. I also included JPEGs to make it easier to see the originals if you don't want to download the TIFFs. Btw, I just noticed that the SxS JPEG is only 823KB whereas the nanoFlash's JPEG is 1.00MB. This tells you that there is more information recorded in the nanoFlash's image.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I don't agree with Doug on this at all. There is a huge difference between a NanoFlash at 80Mb/s or higher and an EX at 35Mb/s. Like wise between the EX and a Samurai.

As Jack has already said if you want to sell your footage to broadcasters, 50Mb/s plus will widen your possible market no end. Also being able to offer "broadcast quality" may help you differentiate your clips from all the home video clips out there.

Going to 80Mb/s and above on the NanoFlash will lead to much reduced quantisation noise and less macro blocking. If you shoot a big wide static shot then I doubt you see this on a moderate sized TV. But if you have moving objects in your shot then the situation can change very quickly. Something like an erupting geyser with lots of random motion or rippling water can cause the 35Mb/s of the EX cameras to degrade noticeably. Initially the EX codec will deal with this by throwing away more data and the image will soften slightly, which might not be obvious to the viewer, but there comes a point where it just can't cope and as well as the softening you get a lot of additional mosquito/quantisation noise, which will limit how much you can grade the image. This usually shows up as banding on evenly illuminated parts of the image, things like the sky or wall and is often blamed on 8 bit recordings which is very often nothing to do with the problem.

Recording to an external recorder at a higher bit rate, whether a NanoFlash or Samurai will reduce or eliminate these issues. But, the EX3 is quite a noisy camera. The noise level is higher than the sample size of an 8 bit recorder, so an 8 bit recorder is capable of sampling all the real detail and brightness levels from the camera. All going to 10 bit does is create bigger files, it does not give you any significant grading advantage when the noise floor is as high as it is on an EX. This has been discussed on these boards many times and research by the EBU and others (European Broadcasting Union) bears this out. The EBU stating that with most current cameras there is no advantage to be gained from shooting 10 bit for the majority of productions. With a less noisy camera, then 10 bit becomes clearly advantageous and cameras like the F3 can really benefit from a 10 bit recorder, but that's not the case here. The EX's noise levels will limit how far you can push it in post long before any differences between a 10 bit or 8 bit recording become apparent.

For an idea of what can happen to the 35Mb/s EX codec take a look at the images here: This is why you want an external recorder! | XDCAM-USER.COM

Done with a Samurai, but a NanoFlash at 80Mb/s or higher will bring an almost identical reduction in the mosquito noise (all the fuzzy lines around the branches). It looks like a little swarm of mosquitos buzzing around in the branches in the video. I used to have a similar example comparing a Sony PDW-700 (at 50Mb/s) and a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s on my site, but lost that when I had a server drive failure last year.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Well, as expected, there is no shortage of opinions on this topic. But I stand by my statements because I have done my own testing under controlled conditions and looked at the results very carefully. I know what I have seen and not seen with my own eyes. I don't have to rely on theory or someone else's opinions. Take that for what is is worth, because it makes no difference at all to me what someone else decides to do with their money and time.

BTW, I actually own a Nanoflash and a Samurai, yet I don't use them for the type of shooting being discussed here because the supposed benefits just don't show up in the real world.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I would say that if you have to jump through that many hoops to prove there is a difference, then no viewer will ever notice the difference in a final edited production. And just because there is a difference, doesn't make one necessarily better than the other. All a test like this shows is that the EXPORTED still frame images are not precisely the same exact file.

A better test is to overlay both clips on a timeline (something with a lot of motion and fine detail is best) and then run a moving wipe between them and see if you can see the difference while the video plays. In my experience, not only can you not see a difference, you won't even be able to see the wipe moving unless you put a border on it. That's what I mean when I say there is no visible difference between 100Mbps Nano and 35Mbps SxS in the real world.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Just back from a four day shoot in FL where we shot 12 hrs days on the water with fast moving boats, stopped interview footage, and lots of b-roll. I used the EX3 with Fujinon HSs 18x5.5 lens recorded to 64GB SxS and Nano. I am sitting at my edit machine and just decided to use the SxS footage.

As Doug said, if you dial in your PP settings and do not have to grade (proper way to shoot as a one man show for a living), you are fine with the SxS footage. I can not see the difference between the footage with fast moving objects. An as with all footage this will now be compressed once edited.

And don't forget the great SxS workflow which is hard to beat.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I can vouch for that. Currently there is no easy way to join spanned clips on the nanoflash if you recorded in MXF and want to keep MXF. There is a joining utility for MOV to MOV and MXF to MOV, but nothing for MXF to MXF.

The Samurai uses exFAT, so it never divides clips thanks to a filesystem that doesn't have a 4GB limit.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

But they do show up in the real world. The frame grabs I provided are not a particularly extreme situation, just leaves fluttering in the wind. Perhaps some people won't notice it when the clip is viewed in isolation, but when you then view the same clip shot on the Samurai on a moderate sized screen the difference is clear to see. The samurai footage has a clarity that is absent on the 35 Mb/s footage. In addition you have to consider concatenation. If you have artefacts in your material, no matter how small, if that material then gets re-encoded you run the very real risk of getting artefacts on top of artefacts, keep going and the image can degrade rapidly. That's why the BBC and many, many others insist on a 50Mb/s minimum. Shoot at less than 50Mb/s and you restrict the saleability of your footage.

If your producing content for the web then 35Mb/s is fine. The super high compression used for the web (sub 20Mb/s) tends to soften and smooth out many small artefacts. Here in the UK we are blessed with a number of very high quality HD TV channels with very mild off air compression. When shows like Planet Earth or high end Drama's get shown you can see the quality in those shows, the images are beautiful to watch. Then you see a lesser show, shot with less attention to detail, less concern about IQ and you can see the difference. So you can't tell me that attention to detail and striving to get the very best possible image is not important. Sure, maybe "good enough" is OK for the web, TV news or low budget stuff, that's fine and of course there will be situations where "good enough" is all that's possible. But when you can do better, then you should, because frankly I don't want my images to be just "good enough" there's plenty of that out there already. I want my images to be the best that they can be.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Really? That statement is contradicted by many of your other posts!! But I'm happy to let you have the last word. I stand by what I've already posted and will leave it at that because you seem to be making a slam against my personal standards or the type of work I do. That's fine. I'm not going down that path with you. I stand by my posts and the quality of my footage. I'll leave it at that and you can have the last word.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I'm surprised to see two of my favourite video-gurus get into an argument like this. Could it be that it all boils down to European viewers being more critical, as far as image quality is concerned, than their American counterparts? Years ago, when I used to travel a lot to the US, I was always stunned by the poor image quality on tv, compared to what I was used to over here. I even remember a running gag that said that NTSC was the acronym for 'Never The Same Color'. I'm sure that gap has become smaller over the years and certainly with HD-broadcasting, but perhaps it still exists in a way? That would explain why Alister needs to be far more critical on image quality than Doug? Just a thought...

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Yeah, that's it. I have low standards and can't tell the difference between quality and crap. I'm just a dumb American. I guess a .009% difference in quality, that can't even be seen in normal viewing, is certainly worth all the hassle and expense of using an external recorder. I stand corrected.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

.....suddenly, a tense hush enveloped the room......

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Here in Europe 35Mb/s is not considered good enough for broadcast. That is a fact, that is not a rule or regulation made up by me but by the EBU, BBC, Sky and most other broadcasters. Around the world many other countries also consider anything less than 50Mb/s un-acceptable for broadcast. You can argue all you want that 35Mb/s is good enough, but this side of the Atlantic that argument won't get you anywhere. The footage will not be accepted within a productions 80% HD minimum. 35Mb/s is considered sub standard and so counts towards the 20% of sub standard material normally allowed within a programme (normally used for Go-Pros, handy cams and home video). I don't make the rules, but I do have to work to the them if I want to sell my footage. That's why in Europe right now the Canon C300 is hot property. I believe the F3 with an off board recorder can produce a better image than the C300, but the C300 meets that magic 50Mb/s rule.

I have not, Doug said that your work is sub standard, criticised your work or in fact passed any comment on your work. Merely pointed out that if I can, I choose to at least meet what is considered the minimum for broadcast in most of the world and where possible exceed that, because I can see the difference and I want to produce a top notch image, free of artefacts, visible or not. If you don't like that, then that's fine by me, each to his own. Your clearly very happy with your workflow and it's making you money, which is after all what we are in this business for.
But over here, 35Mb/s just won't cut it. Why? Because it's widely regarded as below the quality threshold needed for broadcast. A lot of time and research has gone in to testing all sorts of codecs at all sorts of bit rates by some very clever people with no agenda other than ensuring acceptable quality for the end viewer. I wish 35Mb/s was "good enough" there are many occasions where I have had no choice but to shoot at 35 and as a result had a devil of a job selling the material. 35Mb/s can and often does look very good, but I can do better and if I do better I sell more footage and make more money. It's no coincidence that in the global stock footage market, material shot using higher quality equipment sells for more money than similar footage shoot on lower quality equipment. Again, I don't control the market, these are just facts of life in broadcast TV.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Question for Doug... first of all I highly respect your opinion and your quality is top-notch so that's a silly non-issue for me. I've been torn for a while now whether I need an external recorder or not, and if I do, then the Samurai vs. Nanoflash is a tough one. I shoot a Sony EX1. I start shooting on a nature doc in May, multiple days out with no electricity, etc. (using solar panels for battery recharges). If my intended 'market' is Blu-ray and streaming on something like Netflix, film festivals and maybe Nat Geo or Discovery HD if so lucky, would bothering with an external recorder be worth it $$ and hassle-wise? Secondly, if you have external recorders, what critieria do you use on when to shoot with them vs. SxS? (I know you also have the Canon XF305 that already hits the 50 mbps specs). But with your EX1/3, when do you decide to use the external recorders, and the criteria needed whether you choose the NanoFlash vs. Samurai?

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Alister, same question to you (your work is fantastic and your blog is a go-to resource for me, gracias!). Most of us don't have multiple external recorders, if any. If you are shooting an EX1/3 and could buy only one external recorder, would you get the NanoFlash or the Samurai? The Samurai is nearly half the purchase price of the Nanoflash.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Hi Buck. I think I would go for the NanoFlash, her's why:

I can run both the EX and the nano flash of a Swit EX battery with D-tap, no need for any other adapters, so only one type of battery and charger required.

The NanoFlash is very low power.

The files will be smaller, so I would not need as much backup media.

The NanoFlash has 3 years of reliable in the field performance behind it. If I use 50Mb/s then it is 100% compatible with XDCAM HD422.

With any of the 35Mb/s EX cameras I use an external recorder whenever possible if I am doing a project for broadcast or large screen presentation. The only time I don't bother is when doing stuff for distribution solely on the web. For Blu-Ray I would want to use an external recorder as the compression ratio used for Blu-Ray is high enough to show up flaws in my footage, but low enough for concatenation to be a very real issue.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Doug, I never called you dumb or a maker of crap, just as I don't call Alister a pixelpeeper or a sharpness freak. I just suggested a possible explanation as to why two experts with a reputation can differ so much on the same subject.
Anyway, I'm gone, this discussion has dropped below my standards.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Doug's approach is to shoot with his look 'baked' in.
If you work this way, as I often do, then 35Mbps works really well.

What's not been mentioned here so far is that 50Mbps and above on a NanoFlash gives you 4:2:2 sampling.

Good chromakey and heavy grading needs 4:2:2.

Duncan.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Thank you for the straight up answer, Alister. That is what I'll do.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

One of the few problems with EX footage is the subtle but inherent noise at 35Mb/s, much of which is down to the chroma subsampling. Add in a Nano or similar and the problem is gone.

Grading native footage: try cutting the saturation of certain reds and you can be left with 'holes' in the image. As Duncan says, grading is where 4:2:2 and higher bit rates make a huge difference.

Buck, I'm after my own Nano right now, but NAB is looming large and Gemini has a very pretty screen....I'm waiting, just a bit.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Nick, the problem I've seen with NAB is new stuff might be announced, but these days it seems that it takes a year or more to get to the market. I'm guessing if something new is announced it would have already been leaked if it was ready to go. I've been waiting/hoping for the Nanoflash to take a pricing hit since all this other stuff has been announced and on the market, but they're holding fast on the price. I don't want uncompressed files such as the Gemini because most of my stuff is/will be shot in the backcountry. I don't need it until May for a project so I'll hold off until then, see what comes out and see if there's any break in pricing or a flux of used Nanoflashes on the market. I'm starting to see some used for sale here and there, a few months ago I couldn't find any.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I understand where you are coming from Buck. I have been swinging between buying a Nano and a Gemini, but I'm thinking it is worth a small wait now.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Noise has nothing to do with chroma sampling. The EX cameras have a fair amount of noise. This noise is seen by any video codec as picture detail, so the codec will try to encode it as accurately as possible. However on a bit starved codec like 35Mb/s trying to encode all that noise results in quantisation noise on top of the original camera noise. This is concatenation coming in to play, noise on noise. Raise the bit rate to 50Mb/s and there is more data to work with so some of the quantisation noise goes away with the result that the image is cleaner. It's not the extra chroma samples. If you don't believe me just look at the luma channel only.

Certainly going to 4:2:2 will reduce chroma artefacts (4:2:2 chroma is in effect every other pixel, every line), especially if you are shooting interlace where highly saturated areas of the image can suffer from banding in the chroma as interlace 4:2:0 is every other pixel, every other line of each individual interlace field, as each field is only sampled every other line, you get additional artefacts when both fields are viewed together as there are gaps in the sampling. If you shoot progressive 4:2:0 the banding artefact goes away as at 4:2:0 progressive the sampling is uniform, every other pixel, every other line of the entire frame.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

I had a feeling I'd regret this one; I believe you Alister and I stand corrected. The one area where I miss the XF is this low level noise on the EX3, even in good light. But it does clean up nicely when I shoot @ 100Mb/s to a Nano.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

You can't really go wrong with either one, but I would definitely choose the Samurai. In my opinion, the only benefit the Nano offers is that is records to XDCAM natively and the file sizes are relatively small compared to ProRes. I much prefer XDCAM over ProRes and I'd gladly pay hundreds of dollars extra if I could add XDCAM to the Samurai. But here's what I like better about the Samurai even with this limitation:

10 bit instead of 8 bit. And, as we have been told right here on this thread, we should always record the best quality we can. Even if you don't think 8 vs. 10 makes any difference with the EX1, I doubt that hurts. Is the EX1 going to be the last camera you ever own? If not, then buying a 10 bit recorder might be a better investment for the long run.

The Samurai has a better menu system and is much, much, much easier to use.

The Samurai has a built-in LCD monitor so you can see what you are recording. Granted the screen is not good enough to use as a substitute for a real monitor, but it's better than not having any screen at all. This is especially important if you want to play anything back in the field to "check tape".

The Samurai comes complete with cables, batteries, charger, Pelican-style hard carrying case, Firewire 800 dock, etc. Everything you need except for media.

I feel more comfortable shooting on SSD's than CF cards. And the prices of SSD is significantly lower than CF cards.

Do you already own Swit batteries? If not, then you have to figure out how you are going to power the Nano. How are you going to do it?

On the other hand, I can power the Samurai all day on the two batteries it comes with, and adding a couple of more for backup wouldn't cost much at all. Who cares if you have to charge the batteries at the end of the day? You have to power the EX1 batteries too, right? If you can run one charger at night, you can run two.

With my F3 or F800 I can trigger the Samurai from the camera even if I don't have memory card or disc in the camera, and I can use any type of timecode I want. Maybe the EX1R will get a firmware upgrade to allow that functionality as well.

The Nano costs: $3000
The Samurai costs: $1600

To me, it is a no-brainer as to which one is the better deal.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Thanks, Doug! Oh man, I keep going back and forth on this one! The price difference is significant enough to make me go Samurai, plus getting 10-bit in the process. Apparently the Samurai doesn't overcrank, which would be nice but is not a game stopper. I could use the internal EX1 codec onto SxS for those times I need it. I wish the Nanoflash would even be in the same ballpark with cost. I love my EX1 but it's been out a while and will probably be upgraded before too long, and the Nanoflash at 8-bit is not cutting edge compared to the latest external recorders on the market. So even as good as the Nanoflash is I'd still be investing in something that won't transition me into the next generation of camera capabilities.

I appreciate your valuable input. I've got 2 months to make a final decision.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Hi Dan.

This makes the Nano go into "Low Power Mode" Does not seem to actually turn off?

Tim.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

It doesn't turn off, it goes to sleep where it uses an incredibly low amount of power. When you restore the Sdi feed to the NanoFlash it wakes up again.

Re: EX3 nanoflash vs samurai?
 

Both the Samurai and the NanoFlash are good devices. Slightly different approaches and pros and cons to both. I'm sure whichever you go with, the end results will be good.