I wouldnt disparage the 1/3in Exmor sensors as "crippling" a camera until you've read/seen their performance. These are the same sensor types as the EX1, just a little smaller. They days of taking the attitude of "if it's not got a 2/3in or 1/2in sensor it must be hopeless" are over. Advances in sensor design, (particularly CMOS sensor design), signal-to-noise ratios, and digital signal processing have meant that sensors of a smaller size can now have amazing performance.

Well said. It's very likely the EXMOR 1/2-inch are "equal" to the last gen 2/3-in and this new gen 1/3-in EXMOR chips are "equal" to the last gen 1/2-in.

If you so you can't compare by chip size.

According to the Japan site:"Furthermore, the CMOS sensor in column A / D converter and a minimum subject illumination 1.5 lux." (The shutter speed of 1 / 30 second fixed, auto - iris, OTOGEIN time.) That means a sensitivity of 3lux at full gain, wide open, and at 1/60th second. This is a "good enough" for most all applications.

Realistically, it means one can drop gain in half -- to +9dB -- and be about a stop more sensitive than the V1. Maybe more.

Also, it's possible the EXMOR noise canceling technology will allow high gains be used -- perhaps +15dB.

...
Realistically, it means one can drop gain in half -- to +9dB -- and be about a stop more sensitive than the V1. Maybe more.

Also, it's possible the EXMOR noise canceling technology will allow high gains be used -- perhaps +15dB.

duing my completely non-scientific look, I played with the Z7's gain. (This is on their monitor in a completely uncontroled environment. The room had a slightly less that normal lighting level -- not as dark as to be a strenuous test, nor anywhere near bright enough to be where video is normally shot at. There were video projectors in use -- and the lighting level was perhaps adjusted in deference to them.)

It was tough to tell much difference in the picture at first gain boast (maybe +9, but don't know specifically how the camera was setup) The image was quiet and smooth, without much grain being introduced.

At high gain the picture could be usable -- but my recollection is that the picture had more contrast, and the colors lost saturation. There was noise -- but much less than I'd expect at max gain. But there is a very noticable image difference between high and low gain. But it would be very usable if you really needed it.

Whether or not the chip is as good or better than the EX1's is debatable until we see it, but I had hoped that companies would be trying to move away from HDV (a consumer-grade compromise technology) rather than moving HDV up into "pro" level equipment.

That's why it seems to me that they made a pro-featured, shoulder-mount camera and then saddled it with inferior technology compared to the handheld EX1.

Sony has more camera "lines" than other companies have individual cameras. At some point, there is such a thing as too much choice.

, but I had hoped that companies would be trying to move away from HDV (a consumer-grade compromise technology) rather than moving HDV up into "pro" level equipment.

That's why it seems to me that they made a pro-featured, shoulder-mount camera and then saddled it with inferior technology compared to the handheld EX1.

Sony has more camera "lines" than other companies have individual cameras. At some point, there is such a thing as too much choice.

Sony! The One and Only. What is your definition of pro? The EX1 uses MPEG Long GOP. Same as HDV. Sony is very commited to MPEG. What else are they going to do? These are under $10k cameras and a lot of professionals have been using HDV for a few years now. Even TV stations are using them.

BTW, if your definition of "Pro" is 4:2:2, go spend $75 to $100k or wait until NAB when Sony is slated to announce a 4:2:2 XDCAM HD camera. Those cameras won't be under $10k though.

There are many professionals using HDV. So to infer that HDV is for only "consumers" or even looks consumerish is not accurate. In fact, it is sort of insulting dude.

Cheers

No insult intended. We're talking about camera technologies, not each other's mothers. ;-)

We all know the genesis of HDV ... and it wasn't for quality! Just because HDV is insinuating itself into pro workflows doesn't mean that is a "good thing."

The EX1 does stick to long-GOP, MPEG-2, but at least it raises the bit rate by about a third. Coupled with bigger sensors, it should yield a noticeably cleaner image.

PS. I use an HDV camera right now, and I'm glad to have it, but its always kind of sad to compare the live monitored image versus what happens to it after being crushed into HDV.

Then I challenge you to a duel to defend my mother's honor. Just kidding.
I'm just a little sensitive when people use the word "consumer".

No doubt the Ex1 will most likely look better. As I understand it, EX1 (CineAlta branded) was developed and manufactured by a different section within Sony than the HDV offerings. So maybe you have a point.

I'm just a little sensitive when people use the word "consumer".

Me too David. I've reviewed every HDV camcorder from Sony and JVC. I firmly believe HDV suffers from the BELIEFS folks have about it. I've never seen an MPEG blocking artifact in JVC's 720p. And, why would I? The 19Mbps for 720p30 is TWICE the bit-rate offered by ATSC 720p60. And, there are zero artifacts on ESPN or ABC sports. When JVC introduced 720p60 there was much worry that it would show artifacts. It didn't because in the 2 years it took to get the chips to 60Hz, JVC improved the encoder.

The whole HDV artifacts rumors came from the Z1. This was the first HDV camcorder the vast majority of folks ever saw. In fact, safe to say many had no idea HD1 even existed. HD2 was assumed by a Sony biased world to BE HDV.

Unfortunately for Sony, the Z1's encoder was poor. And it's CineFrame terrible. For XDCAM HD and the V1 the coder(s) became far far better. As good as JVC's 720p60 encoder. And, the 25Mbps data-rate offered more bandwidth.

So despite the FACT that the V1 shows no artifacting, the anti-HDV crowd -- believing the anti-long GOP BS put-out by Panasonic -- continued to claim HDV was flawed. Too continue this claim into 2008 is to simply deny the facts. (Likewise the BS about being hard to edit.)

I seriously wonder if there is any real difference in the encoder chip used in the EX1 and the new HDV camcorders. Why would there be? We already see JVC EVERIO switching bit-rates on the same encoder.

Consider this: in HQ mode the EX1 must encode 1.33X more pixels than an HDV camcorder. Simplistically, that means the data-rate needs to increase to 33.33Mbps. Now add in the 1.5Mbps PCM audio and you get => 34.83Mbps. Bottom-line, the actual amount of video compression may be nearly identical between XDCAM EX and HDV.

That's not saying the EX1 won't look better as it has higher rez and uses VBR, but it's not going to be night and day.

For me the issue isn't quality, it's price. I can't image spending another $1,000 (or more) to get a CF box when the same money would buy SxS cards. The S720 simply would become too expensive at $12K -- or more.

The S270 needs to be priced about the same, or a $1000 more, as the DSR-250 which it replaces. Say about $6000 with HDMI and $7000 with HD-SDI. So there's a $3,500 premium that I just don't understand. It can't be in the lens, the chips, or the encoder. A DV transport is dirt cheap. Can Sony really charge $3,500 for a shoulder box?

Or, put another way, for $12K one likely can get an EX1, several cards, plus the coming XDCAM HD VTR. Something isn't right about the pricing.

I agree, but interchangable lenses is the only point I can offer as to why the HDV costs more. That is the one feature missing from the EX1, highlighted by these recent HDV releases.
You make a very good point about the 1.33 bitrate increase. Hopefully people will understand that.

Me too David. I've reviewed every HDV camcorder from Sony and JVC. I firmly believe HDV suffers from the BELIEFS folks have about it. I've never seen an MPEG blocking artifact in JVC's 720p. And, why would I? The 19Mbps for 720p30 is TWICE the bit-rate offered by ATSC 720p60. And, there are zero artifacts on ESPN or ABC sports. When JVC introduced 720p60 there was much worry that it would show artifacts. It didn't because in the 2 years it took to get the chips to 60Hz, JVC improved the encoder.

The whole HDV artifacts rumors came from the Z1. This was the first HDV camcorder the vast majority of folks ever saw. In fact, safe to say many had no idea HD1 even existed. HD2 was assumed by a Sony biased world to BE HDV.

Unfortunately for Sony, the Z1's encoder was poor. And it's CineFrame terrible. For XDCAM HD and the V1 the coder(s) became far far better. As good as JVC's 720p60 encoder. And, the 25Mbps data-rate offered more bandwidth.

So despite the FACT that the V1 shows no artifacting, the anti-HDV crowd -- believing the anti-long GOP BS put-out by Panasonic -- continued to claim HDV was flawed. Too continue this claim into 2008 is to simply deny the facts. (Likewise the BS about being hard to edit.)

I seriously wonder if there is any real difference in the encoder chip used in the EX1 and the new HDV camcorders. Why would there be? We already see JVC EVERIO switching bit-rates on the same encoder.

Consider this: in HQ mode the EX1 must encode 1.33X more pixels than an HDV camcorder. Simplistically, that means the data-rate needs to increase to 33.33Mbps. Now add in the 1.5Mbps PCM audio and you get => 34.83Mbps. Bottom-line, the actual amount of video compression may be nearly identical between XDCAM EX and HDV.

That's not saying the EX1 won't look better as it has higher rez and uses VBR, but it's not going to be night and day.

For me the issue isn't quality, it's price. I can't image spending another $1,000 (or more) to get a CF box when the same money would buy SxS cards. The S720 simply would become too expensive at $12K -- or more.

The S270 needs to be priced about the same, or a $1000 more, as the DSR-250 which it replaces. Say about $6000 with HDMI and $7000 with HD-SDI. So there's a $3,500 premium that I just don't understand. It can't be in the lens, the chips, or the encoder. A DV transport is dirt cheap. Can Sony really charge $3,500 for a shoulder box?

Or, put another way, for $12K one likely can get an EX1, several cards, plus the coming XDCAM HD VTR. Something isn't right about the pricing.

Very informative- i felt extremely nourished after reading this.

With regards to interchangable lens on the new line up, is it that great of a step especially on the z7 ? using a J9 lens on it, i am sure wold make it front heavy...

...With regards to interchangable lens on the new line up, is it that great of a step especially on the z7 ? using a J9 lens on it, i am sure wold make it front heavy...

from looking at it that would seem to be a reasonable assumption --

but read my earlier post about how balanced it felt in my hand and on my wrist.

I was holding it for minutes, not hours -- but nevertheless I was very surprised that I had almost no forward stress on my wrist.

Sony positioned the handhold/wrist strap so as to be in balance with that big lens. The Z7 felt better to me than my XHA1.

Sony has more camera "lines" than other companies have individual cameras. At some point, there is such a thing as too much choice.

I totally agree on this.

Im not sure about the exact price points, but Sony can certainly cover every price point between 1K and 10K.

We all know the genesis of HDV ... and it wasn't for quality! Just because HDV is insinuating itself into pro workflows doesn't mean that is a "good thing."

Its good and its bad.

Its good because people are getting a good looking HD image. I am not a fan of the codec, but so long as you are "just" looking at the images they are pretty good.

Its bad, because its hard to explain to a lot of people why better codecs and cameras are worth the expense. Too many clients and "producers" can't see or understand the difference between formats- and the limitations of HDV.

I've had HDV specified on jobs that really ought to have been HDCAM SR.

The EX1 does stick to long-GOP, MPEG-2, but at least it raises the bit rate by about a third. Coupled with bigger sensors, it should yield a noticeably cleaner image.

Well, being a nitpicker, it raises the data rate 40%.

PS. I use an HDV camera right now, and I'm glad to have it, but its always kind of sad to compare the live monitored image versus what happens to it after being crushed into HDV.

Well, that is why I've decided to skip owning an HDV camera.

I almost bit on the HD SDI Canon's- because of the HD SDI and the ability to bypass the HDV encoder.

I think I am going to bite on the XDCAM EX1... maybe twice, but I am still unhappy about 4:2:0 Long GOP encoding.

So, I am buying into Cineform SOLID or AJA ioHD to go with my EX1s.

So despite the FACT that the V1 shows no artifacting, the anti-HDV crowd -- believing the anti-long GOP BS put-out by Panasonic -- continued to claim HDV was flawed.

Uh... HDV is flawed. So is XDCAM, and DVCPRO HD... and HDCAM SR and every other codec- including uncompressed ones and even cineon/dpx.

Its just a question of what the tradeoffs are.

Staying in the ballpark for an example, DVCPRO HD handles color far better than HDV and XDCAM. Of course DVCPRO HD trades resolution versus the latest version of XDCAM at 35Mbps, and sucks up way more bandwidth than either.

Now that I've been pedantic, let me say this.

Panasonic has exaggerated the importance of intraframe codecs, but intra is an improvement over GoP- especially Long GoP codecs. That isn't an endorsement of their marketing, but I am saying that its a long way from "BS"

Reconstruction of Long GoP frames is imprecise, and can vary between NLE's. (More specifically, it varies between the codec implementation on various systems.) I've witnessed this moving between Avid Xpress and Media Composer.

Also, intra formats are more robust. If there is an error during recording intra formats only lose the frames directly affected. GoP formats suffer damage to the affected frames- and to every frame which references those frames.

Of course that's a trade off too. Proponents of long GoP formats value encoding efficiency more than image fidelity and reliability.

Now its up to you to choose where to balance your production amongst these choices.

For example, I like the EX1 camera. Best thing going anywhere near its price. The EX1 recorder leaves me underwhelmed- so I am considering outboard solutions, like Cineform SOLID and AJA ioHD.

I seriously wonder if there is any real difference in the encoder chip used in the EX1 and the new HDV camcorders. Why would there be?

Because they are different codecs?

There is about as much difference in the encoder chips as there is in the software codecs. That is to say, they are almost entirely different. You can't decode HDV with an XDCAM codec and vice versa.

If you are asking about relative performance of the two encoder chips, then I expect that the XDCAM is about 50% faster, and likely runs cooler as well. This isn't for codec reasons, but rather to help keep the imaging block cooler, increasing SNR and thus improving overall system performance.

Other than that, the hardware should be comparable.

Consider this: in HQ mode the EX1 must encode 1.33X more pixels than an HDV camcorder. Simplistically, that means the data-rate needs to increase to 33.33Mbps. Now add in the 1.5Mbps PCM audio and you get => 34.83Mbps. Bottom-line, the actual amount of video compression may be nearly identical between XDCAM EX and HDV.

That's not saying the EX1 won't look better as it has higher rez and uses VBR, but it's not going to be night and day.

Is this the right time to point out that XDCAM EX HQ mode allows 720p recording as well? That would be about half as many pixels as HDV at the same frame rates, but with 40% more data.

The XDCAM codec is just a more advanced version of HDV.

You are right that the codec won't be "night and day" under ideal circumstances for video. Indeed there may be no discernable difference in viewing the codecs under such circumstances.

If you are working in a situation that "breaks" the HDV codec (and they exist even for JVC's version) XDCAM HD should survive in its HQ mode. Then we have a night and day difference. The relevant question becomes how often you encounter situations that work in XDCAM, but not in HDV. (Or pick any two codecs.)

Does that matter? Depends on the shooter and the project. I think I'd choose XDCAM for storm chasing as an example. Not that I ever intend to be storm chasing.

It is an edge case- and you won't get an undeniably better codec until you spend a lot more on your camera system.

For me the issue isn't quality, it's price. I can't image spending another $1,000 (or more) to get a CF box when the same money would buy SxS cards. The S720 simply would become too expensive at $12K -- or more.

Well you are comparing the wrong things.

The HVR-S270 should MSRP (I think Sony calls it MAP) at ~$10500 USD. 4 audio inputs, HD SDI, component video and TC in/out. Oh... and don't forget full size DV cassettes.

You should expect it to retail at prices comparable to the XL-H1. If that was your choice of camera, then the S270 should make you reevaluate your choices.

The HVR-Z7U is priced against the Canon XH-G1 and the HVX-200. Even though the MSRP is projected at ~$6500 USD, I expect the retail to be closer to $5300.

I agree that for $1300 I'd rather have the EX1 instead of the Z7.

Of course the EX1 has better image controls, and 1/2" full raster 1080p sensors... that's what draws me to the camera.

I really want to love the EX1, but the media cost (reusable or not) and the cost and time involved in creating permanent archives of XDCAM-EX footage really gives me pause. Since I do this as a sideline, not as my major income generator, I have to be really careful about cameras that will have a lot of ongoing cost associated with them. When you add the cost of a XDCAM disk drive or a LTO tape backup system, the $30 archival tape or disk media (vs. $3 for HDV/DV tape) plus the $900 or so for enough SxS cards to shoot for 4-hours without interruption, the whole thing starts to creep out of my price range. I"m also concerned about the ergonomics of the EX1, as it looks a bit large and unwieldy for a handicam format.

I like the cheap media, instant archiving, modular design and compact size of the Z7. Do I wish it had 1/2" chips and a stronger codec? You bet. But pending some field reports on image quality, reliability, etc., I'm hoping it will be a better fit for me. I'm also intrigued by the idea of experimenting with some alternative optics, especially for a wildlife video I've been thinking about for a while.

Hopefully, if Cineform makes good on their promise of delivering an HDMI/compact flash recorder, I could add that on in a year or two and solve the codec issue.

Hopefully, if Cineform makes good on their promise of delivering an HDMI/compact flash recorder, I could add that on in a year or two and solve the codec issue.

Isn't that proposed recorder supposed to be priced in the $3000 - $5000 range? If your main concern is price then I don't see how adding a $3000 box to your camera would help you there.

Isn't that proposed recorder supposed to be priced in the $3000 - $5000 range? If your main concern is price then I don't see how adding a $3000 box to your camera would help you there.

The proposed CineForm HDMI recorder has been announced in the sub-$2000 range:

http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm

The Convergent Design SDI recorder is currently slated for $5000 or maybe less:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=106861

But your point is made; either solution is considerable more expensive than simply using SXS cards, plus neither recorder is available yet.

I really want to love the EX1, but the media cost (reusable or not) and the cost and time involved in creating permanent archives of XDCAM-EX footage really gives me pause. Since I do this as a sideline, not as my major income generator, I have to be really careful about cameras that will have a lot of ongoing cost associated with them. When you add the cost of a XDCAM disk drive or a LTO tape backup system, the $30 archival tape or disk media (vs. $3 for HDV/DV tape) plus the $900 or so for enough SxS cards to shoot for 4-hours without interruption, the whole thing starts to creep out of my price range. I"m also concerned about the ergonomics of the EX1, as it looks a bit large and unwieldy for a handicam format.

I like the cheap media, instant archiving, modular design and compact size of the Z7. Do I wish it had 1/2" chips and a stronger codec? You bet. But pending some field reports on image quality, reliability, etc., I'm hoping it will be a better fit for me. I'm also intrigued by the idea of experimenting with some alternative optics, especially for a wildlife video I've been thinking about for a while.

Hopefully, if Cineform makes good on their promise of delivering an HDMI/compact flash recorder, I could add that on in a year or two and solve the codec issue.
My thoughts exactly Brian - even down to the occasional wildlife video!

Will the Z7 have hdmi out. I think Cineform's first flash recorder was supposed to be just for hdmi only, with a more expensive HD-SDI out later and more $$$.

Will the Z7 have hdmi out ...?
yes -- I believe Juan said that it did

That would be great if the Cineform recorder comes in at a decent price. The Z7 and flash recorder would be the poor man's killer HD rig.

But your point is made; either solution is considerable more expensive than simply using SXS cards, plus neither recorder is available yet.

Well last I checked, the PMW-EX1 wasn't shipping, so, technically, NONE of these options are available yet.

PMW-EX1 = $6700
+ $3600 for 4 16gb SxS cards (4-hour recording time)
+ $2800 PDWU1 XDCAM deck for archiving (+ $30/hour for XDCAM disks for archival)
= $13,200


HVR-S7 = $5300 (just a guess at street price)
+ $960 for 8 8gb CF drives (if I want 4-hours of CF recording)
+ $12 for 4 HDV tapes (4-hour record time)
= $6272
No archiving necessary.
Let's assume in a year or two I want to upgrade the codec and the Cineform device is available, we could add $2000.
= $8272.

So, for $4920 LESS, the Z7 gives me an interchangeable lens, more compact form factor and instant archiving. The major tradeoff is 1/3" chips vs. 1/2". Sounds like a compromise I'd be willing to make.

Given the media and archival cost for the XDCAM-EX, I think it makes the PDW-335 at $15000 look like an even better deal than the PMW-EX1.

Actually the EX1 is indeed shipping at this time: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=108508

But I agree with you, Brian, and that's definitely a huge advantage of HDV on tape -- the cassette is its own archive.

Z7=HDMI, the shoulder mount=SD HDI.

heath

Actually the EX1 is indeed shipping at this time: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=108508

Ah, didn't see that, thanks for the update. I was going off the B&H site which still says "taking orders."

But I agree with you, Brian, and that's definitely a huge advantage of HDV on tape -- the cassette is its own archive.

Or, for that matter, of XDCAM disk vs. XDCAM-EX.

Or, for that matter, of XDCAM disk vs. XDCAM-EX.
I suspect what Chris was referring to is that the 270 gives you the advantages of solid state working AND the archival advantages of tape - both recordings made at the same time.

Be nice to see a camera which recorded to XDCAM disc and SxS at the same time, for all the same reasons.

Aside from having redundant backups, I'm not sure I understand what the real benefit of recording simultaneously to XDCAM disc and to SxS memory would be.

For tape and flash, the dual hybrid system makes sense to me, since tape is archival, but can only be captured in a linear fashion, while the flash memory is nonlinear, random access, but essentially ephemeral. So the two media complement each other nicely. You dump the flash card onto your hard drive, re-use the card for the next shoot, and put the tape in the vault.

However, XDCAM disc is both random-access AND long-lived enough to be considered archival, so I don't see the advantage of a dual disc/flash system.

Am I missing something?

Am I missing something?

You'd get faster offloading from SxS than XDCAM discs.

You'd get faster offloading from SxS than XDCAM discs.
Thanks Mike, exactly, AND no need for any separate reader - just plug the card into a suitable laptop. It would also open the door for instant editing - just plug card in and edit without actual downloading - which may be useful for rush, fairly simple edits.

The argument in the past has always been that solid state is best for getting to an "edit ready" state - but you then have to actively backup/archive. This now allows a certain amount of having cake AND eating it.

This might sound silly, but has anyone heard of a possibility to copy any type of files to a miniDV tape? I'm buying the EX1, but keeping my V1E - now, it'd be nice to be able to use the miniDV tapes as archives for BOTH! But of course the only obvious way of printing to such tape is what the NLE/V1E allows, and this is just the 1080/50i format... Any way of storing other format as raw files?

a possibility to copy any type of files to a miniDV tape? Yes. There is a program called DV Backup:

http://www.coolatoola.com/

http://www.jakeludington.com/project_studio/20050828_backup_files_to_dv_camera.html

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/DVB/DVB.HTM

The primary drawback is the time requirement; your camcorder's tape transport can't operate in record mode any faster than it was designed to run, so it'll take one hour to fill a standard Mini DV cassette with appx. 15 GB of data. But it certainly is a viable option.

Thanks Chris! Not very practical it seems, but good to know about it...

This might sound silly, but has anyone heard of a possibility to copy any type of files to a miniDV tape? I'm buying the EX1, but keeping my V1E - now, it'd be nice to be able to use the miniDV tapes as archives for BOTH! But of course the only obvious way of printing to such tape is what the NLE/V1E allows, and this is just the 1080/50i format... Any way of storing other format as raw files?

Well, you already have Chris's response.

Might I suggest archiving to DVD-DL.

Those 8GB SxS cards fit nicely on a DVD-DL, the DVD-DL's are portable to any system with a DVD reader, and anyone can view the media, on Windows or Mac, with the freely downloadable XDCAM software from Sony.

Later when they are affordable blue ray or HD-DVD recorders will work rather well for larger capacity devices.

Well said. It's very likely the EXMOR 1/2-inch are "equal" to the last gen 2/3-in and this new gen 1/3-in EXMOR chips are "equal" to the last gen 1/2-in.

If you so you can't compare by chip size.

No they can't be compared by chip size.

1/2" sensors have a different depth of field than 2/3" or 1/3" sensors, so they are never directly comparable.

The EXMOR sensors in the EX1 are very sensitive. They are rated at ASA 800 by DPs I trust. My tests lent credence to their rating, although I did not rate it myself. I will also say that they outperform the other XDCAM sensors in light sensitivity. The camera was impressive and a "game changer."

In fact, I'd say that the EX1 had much better sensitivity than the F900R, although it had somewhat poorer latitude, and of course deeper depth of field. (The F900 is an HDCAM with a 2/3" sensor if you don't know.) I didn't meter so I can't be definitive, just an impression.

The Z7 and S270 were significantly less sensitive than the EX1. I found their performance to be an evolutionary improvement over the earlier 1/3" cameras, not a giant leap.

Also, it's possible the EXMOR noise canceling technology will allow high gains be used -- perhaps +15dB.

Nope.

First off the gain options on the EX1 are: -3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 dB. I think they are the same on the S270.

I tested the EX1 rather more than the HDV cameras, but I can tell you this: +9db is the most gain any of us not shooting news will want to use. +9 had clearly visible noise but it would work for some shots and would definitely be acceptable at many events.

I heard comments that +9 was clean. I know at least some people will be using it routinely, although I wouldn't.

The higher gain settings were just too noisy- unless your scene specifically calls for that type of image degradation you just don't want to use it.

That's just my opinion- your standards and working conditions may vary. In other words, my opinion may be useless to your way of working. For reference, on most cameras I never use more than +3dB gain.

Its better to say that the EX1 sensors will allow you to get a better image at lower gain settings.

I think with this camera I can shoot at -3dB gain in places where I would have to shoot at +9 or +12 with other cameras.

I think with this camera I can shoot at -3dB gain in places where I would have to shoot at +9 or +12 with other cameras.

Which means that if I can live with a V1 between +9 and +15dB -- a 1.5-stop (or 2-stops) increase of real sensitivity will keep gain under +9dB. This is a very significant improvement.

In fact, since HDCAM/Varicam docs routinely show noise in night shots I have no problem with a bit of noise. One now has the choice to shoot clean or not. So with the new camcorders I could shoot it situations that demand +18dB with the V1.

Therefore, part of the new higher price is the XMOR CMOS chips. Another part is the better manual controls. Plus the higher rez. LCD. So we are looking at a camera that is better much than the Z1 and HVX200 and any Canon.

Which means that if I can live with a V1 between +9 and +15dB -- a 1.5-stop (or 2-stops) increase of real sensitivity will keep gain under +9dB. This is a very significant improvement.
I posted quite a bit on this subject in another thread, and do feel it important to point out that on cameras the 0dB setting can be a somewhat arbitrary affair. AFAIK it doesn't correspond to any standard S/N figure, for example.

Hence to compare like for like, camera A may need 6dB of gain switched in to be comparable with camera B at 0dB. Giving a video camera an ASA rating may enable comparisons with film, but to form a basis for comparison with other video cameras, noise figures are needed. With some cameras I'd accept working with 12dB of gain, with others I wouldn't consider any gain at all acceptable.

In practice, the first reports of the EX tend to suggest it has a very low noise figure at 0dB, and hence the use of gain is less a problem than other 1/3" cameras. In which case, the 800ASA at 0dB measurement may actually understate it's fundamental sensitivity.

Which means that if I can live with a V1 between +9 and +15dB -- a 1.5-stop (or 2-stops) increase of real sensitivity will keep gain under +9dB. This is a very significant improvement.

In fact, since HDCAM/Varicam docs routinely show noise in night shots I have no problem with a bit of noise. One now has the choice to shoot clean or not. So with the new camcorders I could shoot it situations that demand +18dB with the V1.

Therefore, part of the new higher price is the XMOR CMOS chips. Another part is the better manual controls. Plus the higher rez. LCD. So we are looking at a camera that is better much than the Z1 and HVX200 and any Canon.

I have posted previously that I thought the V7 looked very good -- both at 0 and +9. I clearly had a more favorable impression of how it performed in low light than Alexander (who has a more critical eye than me).

But its hard to be too certain of any of this until the Z7 can be compared A/B on the same monitor against other cameras.

Nevertheless, I'm comfortable repeating that it looked significantly better in low light than the HDV cameras that I'm familiar with: Z1, XHA1 ...

I posted quite a bit on this subject in another thread, ...
In which case, the 800ASA at 0dB measurement may actually understate it's fundamental sensitivity.

I did not test the noise levels myself. Based on observation the camera has very very little noise. ("very very little" is an SI unit it turns out.)

The manual states that it is 54dB "Typical."

Now in typical manufacturer speak, I'd estimate that they "really meant" 54dB at -3dB gain. In other words peak SNR.

I think this camera may measure 54dB at +6dB... which is the median of the cameras gain settings.

To address your concern more completely- you should establish a separate ASA rating for each gain setting on the camera.

Then you treat switching the gain as though you are switching film speeds within a given stock. (Like a 5218 to a 5212)

Your gamma curves and other picture controls are like changing stocks (say Portra to Ultra, or Kodak to Fuji)

It isn't relevant to these cameras, but shooting RAW would be like shooting all possible stocks at all the available speeds. You decide later which particular stock you want.

I have posted previously that I thought the V7 looked very good -- both at 0 and +9. I clearly had a more favorable impression of how it performed in low light than Alexander (who has a more critical eye than me).

Stop it... you're making me blush.

Wait... that was the good kind of critical right?

Why is it so quiet?

But its hard to be too certain of any of this until the Z7 can be compared A/B on the same monitor against other cameras.

Nevertheless, I'm comfortable repeating that it looked significantly better in low light than the HDV cameras that I'm familiar with: Z1, XHA1 ...

I may have overstated my case... the Z7 and S270 are both improvements over every other HDV camera I've handled. That includes overall sensitivity.

I stated my opinion of EX gain... which I meant to use as a basis for comparison.

The short version is that I agree with Barry, 0dB and +9dB are both usable on the S270 and Z7. They were noisier to my eye than the EX1 by a clear margin, but both of them were improvements compared to earlier 1/3" HDV cameras.

My point is just that they are the "normal" sorts of improvements that you'd expect with new cameras.

I am contrasting that with the EX1 which is an impressive leap over anything in this price range, and a major improvement over the sensors in the F350/355 XDCAM HD.

As far as A/B goes I thought you were there Barry when I brought in the EX1 from the other 'room' and hooked it up to the LUMA with the S270 and did some A/B. The room was uncontrolled and lit for a projector (I think), but the LUMA series monitors include waveform monitors so you have some basis for comparison.

Finally for what its worth... the Z7 and S270 were hooked to the same model monitor with the same calibration setup so any judgements you made about those cameras are worth sharing.

Given that both models were pre production prototypes the very minor differences I noted in picture are probably going to be gone in the shipping units.

The Z7 and S270 are going to be really nice together in the field. If only the Z7 had TC IN or some such.

To address your concern more completely- you should establish a separate ASA rating for each gain setting on the camera.

Then you treat switching the gain as though you are switching film speeds within a given stock. (Like a 5218 to a 5212)
Yes, exactly, and comparisons between cameras then made for settings which seem to have similar amounts of noise - which will not necessarily be at comparable settings of their gain switches.

Might I suggest archiving to DVD-DL.

Those 8GB SxS cards fit nicely on a DVD-DL, the DVD-DL's are portable to any system with a DVD reader, and anyone can view the media, on Windows or Mac, with the freely downloadable XDCAM software from Sony.

You're right, that's a perfectly serviceable storage option, although I am a little concerned about the stability of DVD-DL media. For me, the real killer is the $3600 cost for 4 16gb SxS cards in order to shoot continuously for 4 hours. That and the time it will take to backup flash footage onto DVD-DL.

- The backup time will suck, hard to get around that. But drives will keep getting faster.
- With even a very cheap, small laptop you can keep two cards going for as long as you want, as long as you have the time to swap, or have a willing assistant.

Those 8GB SxS cards fit nicely on a DVD-DL, the DVD-DL's are portable to any system with a DVD reader, and anyone can view the media, on Windows or Mac, with the freely downloadable XDCAM software from Sony.

There's a big advantage to matching card size and optical disc size.

1) it allows unattended backup. Nothing's worse than having to babysit a backup.

2) tracking is very EZ. You shoot ONE 8GB card at a date and time and it's contents are stored on ONE 8GB disc labled with a date and time.

Now, when editing you insert ONE disk just like you would load ONE tape.

with this sensor and this 18-200 mm lens I wish this could teach it to do video also!

It is interesting to see the new panny and Sony models that are on the way.
I am really needing an affordable shoulder mount. I would like it to be able to switch select to SD also.
---ed