Hello EX People

Just one simple question, what should I buy the Sony EX-1/EX-3 or Panasonic AG-HPX171E.

Is the Sony EX a better camera, and what's the different between them (DVCPRO HD, and Full HD)?

Best Regards
Mikael
Sweden

Depends on your point of view. DVCPRO HD certainly is HD. The Panasonic Varicams have been the mainstay of HD Natural history for many years, producing beautiful images.

However if you compare full res 1920x1080 and 1280x720 on a big screen then the 720 looks soft.

My vote would also go to the EX3 as it is full raster 1920x1080 and has an excellent VF and interchangeable lenses. The EX half inch sensors give a shallower DoF and larger sensors help keep sensitivity up and noise down. The use of a long GOP codec means you can get much more material per Gb on a card and with card prices the way they are that has to be a serious consideration.

If you budget is tight then the EX1 might be better for you.

Ask the same question in the Panasonic forum and you might get a different answer!

to me there is no substitute for the picture quality,
plus EX has better low light, I have EX for a bit less than a year, and I still can't get used to amazing picture in different light conditions and different profile settings;
and now with the kensington adapter it's even better deal than before.

Don't forget there are many DVCPRO HD cameras. Some do a lot better than the 540TVL the HPX does. Just trying to a least be fair to DVCPRO HD as a format.

Hello EX People

Just one simple question, what should I buy the Sony EX-1/EX-3 or Panasonic AG-HPX171E.

Is the Sony EX a better camera, and what's the different between them (DVCPRO HD, and Full HD)?

Best Regards
Mikael
Sweden

My take on your question. Both cameras produce beautiful pictures. The 171/170 has a wobble problem on the lens which means you may not be able to put anything on the front of the lens or any kind of shake could produce lens movement. If you are going to attempt to do broadcast level work the 170 may not be exceptable but if you are doing DVD productions ~ that should work fine. It's also, I hear (don't have one but have other Panny cameras) easier to get a look out of the box.
In the end however, the EX1/3 can produce image quality exceptable for both broadcast (full raster) and damn near anything else (especially if you use nanno/flash at 4.2.2). So, it's really a question of investing in a camera that will allow you long term use in case your work expands into broadcast level work (assuming you are not there, of course ~ my bad if so) and does impress clients on a shoot as in (EX3 at least) looks more professional. That's a silly reason to choose a camera, so, I put matte boxes on the front of smaller cams to jack-up the pro look.
Panny does produces some lovely images. I love their cams but I've gone over to the dark-side and picked up the EX3 because it's not going to be obsolete in a year or two and because of the image quality. For the price point ! that just can't be beat.

i have to say, now that I have my camera setup correctly and focus fixed, image quality
is astonishing, and memory is a no brainer now with the SxS subsitute, you can shoot
for cheap! the rolling shutter still sucks for photo flashes.

Hi

I just purchased an EX3.

For me it was the "Full Raster" issue that swayed my decision.

The other thing for me was the issue of CCD's v CMOS sensors. You should look into the some of the known issues of CMOS sensors before you make a decision. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the Panny's are CCD.

Eg: 1) Rolling shutter (CMOS) vs Global shutter (CCD), there are issues re, strobe lighting
and camera flash for the EX3

2) There has been some discussion of "jellocam" and "skew" images, apparently
EX3's don't cope with fast panning, having said that there are lots of posts stating
that this isn't an issue at all

Just do some searches here or google some of the words I've high lighted and you will find a multitude of discussion on all these issues.

In the end it's a personal thing, unless you have unlimited budget.

Good Luck, my EX3 is amazing!

Michael

here is a recent video Idid with the EX1, you can see the rolling shutter issue clearly with the strobing lights

Halloween Party cut2 on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/2163242)

The only downside to the EX-1 is that it has a CMOS shutter which can mean weird half exposures under strobes or flashbulbs. If you do alot of event shooting this should be a serious consideration

Mikael, what kind of shooting do you do? for some people the Ex series is perfect, for others, the Panasonic range is best.

I just spent the day at a V8 race track, shooting lots of cars going fast around a track, for very fast turn around SD broadcast. Would i shoot that on an Ex camera? no way. HD only, CMOS rolling shutter. DVCPRO50 onto p2 cards. Easy.

But then some days, i shoot 30 second promo's where i have full control over the environment, and time in post production to get a very good down-convert, i'd definitely rent an Ex camera for that.. I am currently considering adding an EX1 to my kit.

There are a lot of misinformed people around who think the 'Full HD' tag means everything.. it doesn't. A full raster camera is great, but its not everything.

Just one simple question, what should I buy the Sony EX-1/EX-3 or Panasonic AG-HPX171E.
I'm doing exactly these sorts of comparisons myself at the moment, also including the Sony Z7 and the Panasonic HMC151.

They all have their pros and cons, but I've come to the conclusion that the one I can least make a valid case for is the 171. The Z7 has the advantage of still being compatible with the SD/tape world (whilst offering HD and solid state), the HMC151 is undoubtably the cheapest (same basic front end as the 171, but vastly cheaper recording), and the EX seems to be top of the tree for quality, with other benefits such as true manual lens, good viewfinding etc.

I can see a case for the 171 as B camera to a 2/3" P2 camera, maybe, or if you're heavily invested in a P2 workflow, but I don't think it makes sense if you're talking of a isolated purchase. That's especially true now it's been shown that the Ex can use SDHC cards as well as SxS.

I think the cheap media (Transcend/Sandisk/Kensington combo) is the clincher. the days of media costing silly money are over. The flash and strobe shots don't seem to worry the clients - ie they don't spot them as a problem. I am not technical but subjectively the EX1 35mbit pictures blow everything else away for the price point.

just trying out the 171 at the moment. i quite like it. much better than the hvx200

If money is an issue and you are willing to go the SDHC card route with the EX, memory alone makes the EX cheaper in the long run if you simply buy memory in terms of how much time you get out of a card (unless of course you only got about 32-40 gb of P2 memory).

i.e. an 8 gb P2 card records significantly less time at full quality than 8 gb SxS card.

just trying out the 171 at the moment. i quite like it. much better than the hvx200

Phil, in your opinion, how does the noise levels compare to the EX1?
I've heard mixed reviews on this. Barry has been performing some tests and believes it's as good if not better then the HVX200A.

My understanding is the resolution is the same as the HVX200. The real question is how does it look with artificial enhancement shut off.

The EX1/EX3 still holds an impressive image without the artificial enhancement (detail) on. It does not go to soft and displays great detail.

Also, have you checked out the results coming off of the XDR 100mbps long-GOP? Absolutely unreal under fast high detail motion. Acually even looking at non moving camera shots the image has better color, lower noise, and NO visible macroblocks hanging near the blacks. Even when you blow the image up it looks good.. Simply amazing.
I imagine the HPX170 would fair well hooked up to this device.

There are a lot of people who have jumped on the Full HD bandwagon. I was told once that i have an HDV camera because it only shoots 1440x1080. Needless to say i've never bought from that broadcast store again.

I was told once that i have an HDV camera because it only shoots 1440x1080. Needless to say i've never bought from that broadcast store again.
A fairly silly comment as HDCAM also subsamples to 1440x1080........

But in the context of this debate it's worth noting that the 171 is counted with HDV cameras by major broadcasters in the context of what is allowed for unrestricted acquisition - 171/200 material is subject to the same limited quotas as any HDV camera. One of their requirements is generally "only 1/2" chips and above".

Worth bearing in mind - two cameras, similar costs of ownership, but one far more acceptable to broadcast organisations than the other. That's especially true when you mate the EX1/3 with an XDR for even less compressed recording. And with the alternative option of cheap SDHC recording now.

On the subject of resolution I'm reminded of "it's no disgrace to be poor.... but no great honour either". I could say "it's no disgrace to subsample...... but .....". Displays are rapidly going 1920x1080 native, at least for 40" and above, all new codecs (XDCAM-HD, AVC-HD etc) are going the same way. A few years ago some research came to the conclusion that 720p would be "good enough" for the vast majority of home viewing - but it was based on the assumption that home screens would be viewed at around 2.7metres, and be mostly in the range 35-40" or smaller - the norm is now 42-46" for new purchases.

My point was the 'Full HD' bandwagon was driving by and they were trying to get me to jump aboard. These guys are major sony fanboys, and i can guarantee that they had been told that anything less than full raster 1080 was HDV..

Interesting point Heath, about which camera is far more acceptable to broadcast organisations.. I know a lot of people who would say that the DVCPROHD codec of the HPX would make it more accepted.

You cant really compare the 2 with an XDR on the back.. because its an optional $4,000 dollar accessory.

By the time you've bought an Ex3 and an XDR you might as well have bought an HPX500..

It's true the HPX500 is an amazing camera. The new HPX200A is an improvement in picture quality and noise over the older HVX200.

The problem is DVCPRO-HD is now an older codec. Yes, we all know many pros use this codec and the Varicam was a success.

I remember when the EX1 was first compared to the HVX200. There was a day and night difference in every aspect, noise, exposure, and especially resolution.
With the NanoFlash at $3.5K, this is a small investment that would offer dramatic codec improvement under fast detailed motion and improved keying.

This is reasonable considering the price of SxS and P2 memory cards.

I've withdrawn a few posts from public view which centered around someone's misleading, errant comment that somehow stated ""Despite the 'HD' tag, DVCPRO HD is not true high-definition." That is of course complete nonsense. DVCPRO HD is indeed a high-definition video format (sadly, the word "true" is bandied about these days as a marketing term and unfortunately it has very little if any relevance in terms of actual truth).

Some other web site was referenced as the source of that statement; however as far as we're concerned it bears absolutely no authority whatsoever here. As a reminder to our readers: I am very, very particular about the accuracy of information that is passed around on DV Info Net, so please do not bring what you find elsewhere on the web into this place, because chances are high that it's probably wrong -- such as that bogus claim about the DVCPRO HD format.