Originally Posted by Doug Jensen (Post 1758463)

Yes. All Sony camcorders that have a fixed lens are parfocal.

Originally Posted by Mark Donnell (Post 1758470)

In working with the PMW-200, I have discovered an irritation that I haven't seen mentioned here. When using the handle zoom rocker (not the main rocker on the camera body), the zoom continues for about a half second after you release the switch. This occurs regardless of whether you are zooming in or out. For me, this makes the handle zoom relatively unusable. This should be corrected in the next model. Also, the record button on the main body of the camera is extremely stiff. Even on a tripod, its difficult not to move the camera forward when pushing this button. Fortunately, the record button on the handle is easy to use. This should also be corrected by Sony in the future.

Originally Posted by John M. Kim (Post 1780912)

Terence,

Since you asked for the Draconian response, here's my answer:

Buy the Sony PMW-200.

-- Because of the relatively larger sensor, it is easier to achieve a more "filmic" look and it is slightly better in low light.

Al says: That is likely true. The xf305 is harder to give the 'filmic' look to. However, recently on Vimeo an Italian filmmaker put up a wonderful short that is as close to a HDSLR look I've seen. He did a very nice job.
For a three minute look, this is worth a peek to see that often the camera in the hands of someone who knows it can do more than most might think. https://vimeo.com/32406825

-- As an ENG shooter, you will appreciate the controls of the PMW-200 more. Neither have fully mechanical controls, but the PMW-200 "breathes" less overall, and there is less perceived delay when using the zoom and iris. The hard stops on the controls of the PMW-200 are also better.

Al says: I agree there is a slight delay on the 300 zoom, but I really like it's crawl. I also reprogram the handle zoom to be fast, and the grip zoom to be only slow. If the Sony can do that, I would alter it, as I find sometimes I want to get in quick, but don't want to have the opportunity of doing it accidentally (G). And yes, the hard stops on the Sony seem to be better than the 300's though it is a slight advantage.

Al says: I do like that they have 4 channels of audio available. This can help a one man band eliminate carrying a field mixer for larger interviews.

-- Sony stands by the SxS Pro cards. It's unlikely that you'll suffer lost footage, but if you do, Sony will step in to try to recover it. You get what you pay for.

Al says: I've yet to have a Sandisk CF card fail on me in over two years of shooting, either on the 300 or my 5D's. I cannot say that about SD cards. Even the best tend to fail, having used a T2i for a few years. But the SxS are known entities that have a global company standing behind, and that could help in a pinch somewhere hard to reach. Then again, carrying 10 of them is quite a bit more expensive I would think than the CF cards. And I can easily buy CF cards on the road, most cities have a pro camera shop that has them. For me, that mattered.

-- I found that for handheld shooting the XF300 is terribly front heavy. The PMW-200, with a large battery pack, can be used in a pinch pressed against your right shoulder, and although it's no substitute for a shoulder mounted camera, it just feels better on the wrist than the XF300. Try them both out and see if you agree.

Al says: While I tend to agree that it is a bit front heavy, I can easily rest the xf305 on my shoulder for long minutes,and using the IS helps a great deal, but I agree that likely both cameras should be on a shoulder mount attachment for long shooting. I have a device that allows me to attach my external battery back to the back of the mount. So it is 'fixable' on both cameras. But still neither appears to be a 'shoulder mount'.

Both are good cameras and you'll find merits in each, but IMHO the advantage goes to Sony.

I'm located in New York and know of several colleagues who are in production with long lead documentaries. A few of them are using the PMW-200. I don't know of any that chose the XF300.

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver (Post 1780949)

Al you forgot to mention the wonderful display of yellow streaks on the XF300/305 viewfinder, especially once the sun has had a few split seconds to do its work.

Cameras are generally a matter of personal preference, both the Sony and Canon have their faults, as does most equipment but you find a workaround for most sooner or later.

"put up a wonderful short that is as close to a HDSLR look I've seen. He did a very nice job."

This must be a first on this forum, and I always thought the HDSLR was the runner up for video work.

Oh, and by the way, the close up and film look were created with the Redrock M3 lens adapter with Nikon lenses fitted to his XF300.

Originally Posted by Terence Morris (Post 1780886)

BEWILDERED. Having read this entire thread (a lot of it over my head) I think I just need someone to simply tell me what to buy - PMW 200 or XF300. Needs: Portability for ENG style documentary work. Want the most filmic look and good low light. Not a production company, just a keen amateur and both could fit the budget (although not keen on the Sony media outlay). Thank you.

Originally Posted by John M. Kim (Post 1781243)

The cost of SxS Pro cards is certainly a bitter pill to swallow. Luckily I was able to find used 32GB cards on the auction site for ~ $325 each. Expensive, but much cheaper than new.

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang (Post 1781335)

Don't forget the 200 can use XQD cards in 50mbps.

Originally Posted by Ed Arszyla (Post 1781313)

Not by much. B&H has a new 32GB Sony SxS card for $356.

Originally Posted by Terence Morris (Post 1785159)

The more I consider this, the more I think investing in an external recorder is the way to go. Quite a bullet to bite, but most economical per Mb and opens the door to 10bit if ever needed. The samurai is about the same outlay as a couple of 64Gb SxS.

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman (Post 1785549)

.........most compression systems break the image up into small blocks called macro blocks. In highly compressed systems, when you start to grade the image in post production these blocks start to become visible and more often than not it is these blocks that lead to banding in an image, not whether it's 8 bit or 10 bit.

Originally Posted by Terence Morris (Post 1785597)

I come from a still photography background and my interpretation at the time was purely in terms of having a limited bit depth to start with (as in raw vs. jpg).