Hi,
I’m looking for a comparison between the EX1 and the Sony F350.
I have done some research and both cameras have half inch chips I think.
Has anyone done a by side to comparison and if so what was the verdict in regards to image quality.

Nick

I have both F-350 and EX-1. They both make an excellent image, I would say with EX-1 slightly (but just) better than the F-350. The F-350 has more features though, but in terms of image quality it is my opinion that you can see the extra resolution that EX-1 has (1920x1080 vs.1440x1080 pix.)

The EX-1 is also much better in low light situations.

Have you thought about the EX3? I’d pick that over both of those cameras.

Alister Chapman has both (and an EX3), search the forum as he posted a while back that he preferred the EX over the 350. Again, though, it's close, and more comes down to what form factor you prefer (shoulder mount or compact). I'd also say that comparison with EX3 is better as both have interchangeable lenses.
Workflow is different, I and quite a few others prefer the discs to solid state (cards) as with cards you always need to dump them to drives.
EX pros: Great image (I had questions abotu fast moving subjects, but many others disagree), compact, batteries are small and last forever, nice lens
EX cons: Solid state media takes some getting into, crappy viewfinder (EX3 is good though), doesn't sit too well on shoulder
F350 pros: Built just same as other pro camcorders, same control layout etc.
F350 cons: Overcranking (slomo) pretty lo-res
Steve

Have now tried both cameras and gota say the 350 feels so nice on shoulder and lens is so easy to use and most important image is so clean, Disk format for me seems solid and cheaper that SXS cards.
EX1 & EX3 are both wonderfull cameras and the EX3 is the pick for use in your hands and semi shoulder use. EX1 is so small and hard on my right wrist for long periods.

What I don't get is the the EX 1,3 series has higher resoultuion than the F350 and better in low light, so I have read ( yet to do tests ) for a cheaper price.

Nick

I think CMOS chips and rolling shutter are a big part of it, cheaper to produce than CCDs and global shutter. Do they come at a price, like motion artefacts etc., I think so, but seem to be in a minority. No such thing as a free lunch I always think, and also there must be a reason why BBC Natural History Unit haven't bought a fleet of EX3s for their productions, it's still Varicam all the way - even though they're only 720 lines and (with lens) 10x the price.
Steve

I believe the EX1 and EX3 both produce better pictures than the F350. The F350 pictures always look to processed and electronic to my eye. I have an F350, EX1 and EX3 and the camera I like to use the most is the EX3. It has a great range of features offers the best picture quality and portability. The pictures from the EX3 are remarkable close to the pictures from the PDW-700.
I do prefer the optical disc workflow of the F350 over the SxS workflow of the EX's. But both workflows work well and are a significant step forward from tape.

I agree with Alister. I find that there is something rather coarse about the image of the 350 compared with the EX cameras.

see the extra resolution that EX-1 has (1920x1080 vs.1440x1080 pix.)

These figures don't tell the whole story. The differences are even grater than that. From my messing around I can only get 800 TVL from the 350, while I can clearly see 1000 TVL from the EX1. An EX3 with a Cine prime on the front must be incredible!

So not only do the EX cameras have the edge in terms of vertical resolution, but they also beat the 350 on horizontal resolution as well.

About how much better in low light is an EX3 versus a F335? Are we talking a full stop better?

That's one point but let's also take a look at ergonomics. I own both cams and am much more comfortable doing handheld work with the F350 than the EX1. The F350 with a proper wide angle lens is just a pleasure to operate. It is light, well balance and all contols are in the right place for quick action, reframing and rack focus moves. The EX1 outfitted with a wide adaptor is very front heavy and is much harder to operate. Depending of the type of work you do, you will be able to work more quickly and have better control of your framing and focus on the F350. This to me is far more critical than TV lines resolution.

Thierry.

I agree with Thierry about the EX1's ergonomics. If I had to choose between an EX1 and an F350 I would take the F350. However the ergonomics of the EX3 are so much better especially if you hand a V-Lock battery or similar off the back.

I have tried an EX3 with a 70mm DigiPrime and it was stunning. Not all that different from the F23 we borrowed the lens from.

The EX's are at least a stop faster than the F350. I find I struggle when lighting scenes for the F350 while the EX is much more sympathetic to difficult lighting scenarios.

So what do you guys reach for when you have a shoot?
Considering that the EX1,3 is better in low light and has a higher resolution than the 350
What’s a better all round camera.

I'm trying to make a decision between the three cameras and the work that I do and also not need to up grade for the next few years.
To me the F350 is more industry standard and could put me into more jobs because of workflow, image and the look but still with the EX cameras the image quality is right up there.
I know that as soon as you upgrade there is a new format the very next week and to be honest I seem to change cameras and upgrade each year but if I look at the over all cost over five years I would be better of getting the F350. But is this the right format for what production company’s want.

Advice?

In terms of workflow and what clients can use, things are a lot easier these days as with any of the file-based systems you can just dump to hard drive and supply that, and it'll go straight into their edit system, no need for expensive Digibeta or HDCam decks.
The F350 is getting on a bit now, while EX is more current technology, could be worth considering.
Steve

I don't think optical disc recording over SxS media makes the F350 obsolete. Recording to XDCAM optical discs actually takes care of one if not the major flow of solid state recording: "ARCHIVING". No matter what people say, achiving solid state media is still "a process" that cannot be overlooked. Day after day, I run in people having had missaps with achiving solid state media. It can get pretty ugly.

Thierry.

As an owner of an EX1, EX3 and F350 my camera of choice is the EX3.

I agree Thierry, I think the optical disc scenario is the best of both worlds. Sure gives confidence seing that solid disc coming out of the camera and going on the shelf, as well as being simpler and less time-consuming.
Steve

Nick - I did a review on the F350 being used in various countries and on a wide range of jobs, review gives plenty working pics and how we get on with it. You may find it helpful.

http://www.studioscotland.com/SonyF350_review.htm

I have considered getting an EX1 for those jobs where a little camera would be easier to travel with, use in difficult environments and where you are trying to keep a low profile. But for our business, the EX series camera system would not be a main camera choice.

Working extensively in various countries next year, I decided not to purchase an EX3 for these jobs and settled on taking our F350 with us - our F700 if it arrives on time, (sadly on back order) because I prefer the optical system which gives us an easy and cheap way of storing original footage which our clients want, and pay for us to retain.

The F300 series is in my opinion one of the best all round workhorse cameras available and the optical system has never let us down. You could try and pick up an EX demo or a good used one? find someone / studios trading up to the F700?

Course, the best of all worlds is to have both...

Regards, Stu
www.studioscotland.com

I think the advice coming from everyone here is remarkably consistent.

The F350 is a good workhorse and good all round camera. While it may not be the absolute best in terms of picture quality it does a good job and more than anything else the quality of the lens you use will make a difference to the results you get. It offers both HD and SD and the workflow, while not the fastest is totally dependable and faster than real-time. The discs are not expensive compared to any other professional grade tape yet you get the benefits of a file based workflow without the need to make backup copies.

The EX1 is small and very portable and offers quite remarkable picture quality. However the ergonomics are not the best. There is no standard definition record option and the SxS cards are very expensive compared to tape. The workflow is very fast but you do have to consider how you will store you material long term. You could consider using cheaper SD cards but this is very much at your own risk and is certainly not recommended by Sony. However those that are using SD cards are finding them to be reliable.

The EX3 offers the same remarkable picture quality as the EX1 but sits somewhere between the F350 and EX1 ergonomically and has the same workflow as the EX1.

I have been using the 700 and I love it. But it's a lot more money and I can barely see the quality difference. Also I travel a lot so portability is important and a bigger (heavier) camera also needs a bigger tripod and more, larger batteries with bigger chargers so the whole package get substantially bigger and heavier.

The F3** cameras do represent good value for the money. My F350 is 3 years old now and has been through some hellish environments without letting me down. However I want the best picture quality I can afford, that's why I choose the EX3 for most of my work. I'm not sure I would buy one now unless I could get a very good deal as I think this is a line that really is due for a major upgrade. Whether Sony will bring out a replacement I do not know. But there is a fairly large base of F3** users that will be looking to replace there cameras is the next couple of years.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/private-classifieds/137268-sony-xdcam-350-kit.html

when choosing also consider the f-3xx series are 4 channel 16bit while Ex1 + Ex3 are limited to two.

Big story when you are recording events.

ULI

Definitely agree, I do a lot of performing arts work with my F335, and I make full use of my four channels of audio.

The 4 audio channels is a real bonus. Can Final cut import theses four channels?
Image wise, I think both cameras, EX1,3 and the F350 are more than up to the job.

I like the storage on the f350 and loath it on the EX1,3. If Sony could bring down the cost of cards for the EX series this would make the EX a bit more user friendly for me ( I have been looking @ the post on this fourm for a substute card ) as I do a lot of long form shoots and having to lug around a MBP and leave it safe somewhere is a real concern for me.

Regards

like the storage on the f350 and loath it on the EX1,3. If Sony could bring down the cost of cards for the EX series this would make the EX a bit more user friendly for me ( I have been looking @ the post on this fourm for a substute card ) as I do a lot of long form shoots and having to lug around a MBP and leave it safe somewhere is a real concern for me.

Nick looks like you have missed an important topic on the EX forum. You want to check out this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/138485-summary-sdhc-substitute-sxs-cards.html) on using high speed SD cards with your EX camera. You can get 16gig cards for under $100 bucks. All you need are these inexpensive readers to go along with them.

The solution is inexpensive and simple.

My personal choice is also the PDW-F3xx serie. In the beginning of this year I owned an EX1, and sold it right away after two weeks of use. For me it was a way too heavy camera to shoot handheld. And it is the worst balanced camera I have ever used. I also found the viewfinder very crappy, and focussing on the LCD just wasn't my thing.

After renting lots of months I ordered a new XDCAM HD with a Fujinon lens mid september.

So I guess that everyone has their own story about wich one to choose. For me ergonomics are more important then a little bit more resolution.

Should have tried the EX3 Ivan, could have got the best of both worlds.

Thanks Andy,
I have read that post and that solution is great if only I could get some of the readers mentioned.

Late to the party, but some solid advice here. I only have the F350, and prefer the disc over the card. Aside from price, a disc is much harder to physically lose track of than a small card. I've done two trade shows now for Sony in the EX demo area, and I don't like being responsible for expensive little cards that can easily sprout legs and walk off.

I believe the cache record time is longer on the F350 vs. the EX cameras. As mentioned, 4 channels of audio, archiving already done, full size form factor, etc. You take a slight hit on picture quality and sensitivity, but you won't have any rolling shutter issues with the F350. Also look at durability. The EX cameras aren't built to the same ruggedness of the full size cameras.

Another note, the F350 has IR remote control capability. This IR capability was removed on the F355. A producer can hold the remote and mark the shots with Shotmark 1 and Shotmark 2 buttons on the remote.

Just more food for thought...

-gb-

There's a downslide to the XDCAM discs I don't think anybody has mentioned. I just did a post job where most of the material was shot on a PDW-530 (so I won't talk about quality as the material was SD).

You, or the client, need an XDCAM deck (or the "dumb" drive). The client had no ability to screen the camera masters they had. I didn't have a deck. No big deal as I had the material dumped to drive out of house and the file transfer was inexpensive. From what I've seen, import from SxS is much faster than from the XDCAM disks.

With the EX I can hand the client a portable hard drive (on their dime of course) or I can burn to DL-DVD. They can then view the clips on virtually any modern computer.

Given my client's experience with the XDCAM disks vs my use of SxS (just for a couple of pick up shots on this job), they're moving their shooting over to me too.

Also when shooting with an assistant the SxS is offloaded to laptop during the shoot. Back at the studio I just ethernet the files to my edit workstation. That's FAST and if my clients have lived through other workflows, this really makes them happy. If it's a long trip back to the studio I may even screen (and even rough out some things) on the way back.

It depends on your clients and your workflow but the XDCAM disks can have their downside compared to SxS. Sure archiving SxS is a downside but my clients don't have to watch that.

I like facts and figures so I want to look at the F350 vs. EX1,3 purely on numbers alone so here I go and if I’m wrong sorry.

½ - inch sensor: both cameras
Difference being CCD (F350) vs. CMOS ( EX1,3
Both 8 bit
F350. = Y, @ 1440 X 1080, Cb @720 x 540, Cr @ 720 X 540
Ex1,3 = Y, @ 1920 X 1080, Cb @960 x 540, Cr @ 960 X 540
Both 35MBits/sec @ HQ MODE
Audio sampling the same

The only difference I can see favoring the EX1,3 is sensor resolution is 1920 x 1080 @ 35Mbits/sec and of course, Cb @960 x 540, Cr @ 960 X 540.

So image quality… or the camera that has a better resolution, picture is EX1,3 am I correct.

I’m just looking at image quality form a numbers point of view.
Sorry to put you through this but when purchasing the next camera I do not want to make a wrong decision between these two. I’m after the highest quality between these two and I know lights,etc…. make all the difference but I’m not concerned with this now.

You people use these cameras so I’m after just a bit more advice.

Thanks
Nick

Nick, the numbers are correct and you can see the resolution difference.

Yes the F350 is CCD so there is no skew, but CCD's can produce smear so there are pro's and con's to both. As I said in my earlier post the really noticeable difference in picture quality is that the EX produces a very clean, natural looking picture. It also has CA correction with the standard lens. The F350's pictures always look processed or sharpened even if you turn the detail off, add a but of CA to that and the pictures just don't look as good as the EX.

I spoke to a Sony engineer from Japan once that told me that the F350's look the way they do because they were aimed at DVCAM users who are used to seeing lots of hard black edges so the F350 was set up to give a similar image. Don't know how true that is but when you look at the F350 pictures it seems to hold true.

So.... having said all that I was going through footage shot earlier in the year with both cameras on the same event but at different locations. There is nothing wrong with the pictures from either camera and they cut together without any issues.

As for the advantage of being able to pull of the footage from SxS cards without an additional hardware other than a laptop, well that is true and the SxS off-load is fast. The way to do it with the Discs is to pull off the proxies (using the camera) to a drive or onto the computer and the client can log and preview them. The proxies take up very little space compared to the full HD files and it takes just a couple of minutes to off load an entire discs worth of proxies. If your on a network and have everything set up correctly your proxies can stay on the network and be accessed by anyone on the network and as they are small they wont bog down the network or need huge amounts of storage. With Avid and Vegas you can then do an off-line edit and re-link to the full res files when finished. With FCP you can choose to keep the proxies from every disc you shoot on your hard drive. So if you ever need to find a clip you can search through thumbnails and the proxies to find the footage you want. Then you just go and get the appropriate disc when you need the full res files. While storage is getting cheaper all the time the logistics of keeping hundreds of hours of full res media is tricky, while storing hundreds of hours of proxies is a breeze.

So both work flows have pro's and con's.

It's not an easy and straight forward choice. I think there is a strong argument for larger organizations that are shooting lots of material that will be cataloged or be required over a network to go with the XDCAM HD optical disc system. Smaller companies or individuals may find it easier and quicker to work with the SxS workflow.

Agree with Alister re picture quality, there's nothing wrong with the 350, but there is just something about that EX1/3 that is really pleasant, it's a very gentle plus very hi-res image, took me by surprise as I'm sure it did others. It's not just that tiny extra bit of res, it is quite a different look, which even with menu fiddling I don't think you could quite get with the 350 (or the 700 for that matter). But that's not to say it'll be to everyone's taste, many people may well prefer the 350 look. I think you'd probably be happy with either, it is more ergonomics really.
Steve

This is a side by side comparison between the PDW700 and EX3. It's very close.

Another thought worth mentioning.

Given the cost difference between the EX3 and F350, if you have the budget for the F350 you may actually keep within budget buying the EX3 AND and additional lens.

It really seems to come down to the type/size of your organization (SxS vs XDCAM disk workflow) and type of clients you're working with (doesn't it always).

Alister: The EX is on the left in that photo? The left side seems just a hair more sharp, realizing that could be any number of things from resolution to lens to detail level to actual focus point.

Thankyou all for you help. Both cameras are great with three price ranges, now it's time to decide.

One last question: How is the EX3 on your chest, shoulder for those extended times away from the tripod.

Nick

I haven’t had my EX-3 that long roughly 4 months and I absolutely love it! The ergonomics compared to the EX-1 is outstanding. Also the EX-3 Viewfinder/eye piece is simply ingenious. I prefer to mount my camera on a tripod due to using it with 600mm lens but for those times I’ve hand-held, on the shoulder or chest I’ve found it balanced.

Even crawling through the undergrowth is painless. The EX-3 great run gun type camera with astonishing performance and picture quality.

I love the solid state media and now archive to the new Belkin BD Gold discs or you could purchase a Sony PDW-U1 which will let you via a plug-in with Clip Browser to re-jiggle between the formats (XDCAM EX 1920 x 1080 to XDCAM HD 1440 x 1080 and back again). The latter is expensive and unnecessary if to have Blu-ray.

I'm not sure I would buy one now unless I could get a very good deal as I think this is a line that really is due for a major upgrade. Whether Sony will bring out a replacement I do not know.

This has been my thought for a while now. I first used the 3** series in early 2006. Given the usual timeline I would suspect that at the very least there will be a prototype of something, or an announcement at NAB. The 3** cameras are gradually being outclassed by much cheaper camcorders now with full 1920x1080 chips and recording. I do not think that the ergonomics are really a reason to be spending so much more money plus the additional cost of a lens, which to be frank leaves a lot to be desired in quality these days.

Alan Roberts mentioned on the DV Doctor forums that he thought the Angenieux ENG lenses were much better than the Canons or Fujis. Dunno who sells them over here though, and they don't do a half inch line.

My experience with Angenieux lenses has been mixed. If you get a good one they can be exceptionally good and probably better than most Canons and Fuji's. However the bad ones are not so good. If you are going to buy an Angenieux make sure you test it before you part with any money.

Hehe! Although that seems to be the case also for Fuji and Canon these days! :-)

Will be getting my EX3 on Monday. Then it is the roadmap to getting a decent replacement 2/3". I'll probably get a B4 HD lens for the EX3 a bit down the line to spread the cost of any upgrade. I can bide my time. No hurry.