Though it's impossible to predict the future, wouldn't this make sense:

Since the low and high ends of the XDCAM line have been updated most in the last year, the middle of the XDCAM line would need an update for this coming NAB.

The update that seems to make the most sense, and wouldn't step on the toes of the PDW-700, would be to give the F3xx line the 1/2" full raster 1920X1080 CMOS chips of the EX line, staying with the 4:2:0 sampling and the data rates of 25 and 35Mb/s.

This should remove the image quality differences between the EX and F3xx lines that were shown quite clearly in the other thread.

Relatively speaking, it would seem to require minimal R&D as well, working from the EX line's existing design.

Cause though the other features of the F3xx line are important to me, it's really hard to not put image quality as the most important feature of any camera.

My personal feeling is that they will update the line, perhaps not this coming year, but certainly by the next.

A 2/3" HD shoulder mount that records to 35Mb/s VBR and 4:2:0 colour wouldn't step on the toes of the 700, just as the 510 didn't step on the toes of the 530, or the DSR570 didn't step on the toes of the Digibeta cameras.

The only stumbling block here is the number and market for 1/2" lenses that has developed since the introduction of the 1/2" cameras. So we are probably stuck with them for a while, unless Sony extended the lower end EX line with interchangeable lenses for that purpose while redeveloping the 3xx series.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a full on the shoulder EX, maybe along the lines of the S270. With the F3** series the main thing that is lacking is the picture quality, but if you put an EX front end on a F350 back end, even though it would only be 35Mb, I think it would impact the 700 especially as the 700 doesn't do variable frame rates.
The more I use my EX3, especially as I now have a reinforced base plate, a good supply of SxS and SDHC cards the more I prefer it over my F350. Going back to a mono viewfinder on any camera is not something I am fond of!

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a full on the shoulder EX

I could see that happening if they replaced the 3xx series with something else. Sony seem pretty adamant that they will not use CMOS on cameras like the 355 due to the issues they create.

I think it would impact the 700 especially as the 700 doesn't do variable frame rates.

For the time being. Remember that the CCD in the 700 is fully capable of 60fps 1080p if they so wanted it to. The only limit is the throughput to the recording medium.

a good supply of SxS and SDHC cards the more I prefer it over my F350. Going back to a mono viewfinder on any camera is not something I am fond of!

I certainly agree with that.

This may be wishfull yuletide dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice to think that any possible F3XX update could be retro-fitted to the older models. Oh well, if you still believe in Father Christmas.......

This may be wishfull yuletide dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice to think that any possible F3XX update could be retro-fitted to the older models. Oh well, if you still believe in Father Christmas.......

Believe it or not, some of the improved features of the 355 have been added to the 350 via firmware updates. I asked at NAB07 if the 350 could be upgraded to dual layer drive (like we do with computers all the time). Unfortunately, they said no. Also can't get SDSDI out of a 350.

-gb-

Greg - How about the following:-

1. Colour HD viewfinder to fit 3xx & 700 series.

2. Up-dated CCD chip, still 1440x1080, so not poaching 700 work, but 'faster & nicer'.

3. An external(?) recorder at 50Mb/s - Convergent Design have let the cat out of the bag with the XDR so why not play 'catch up'?

4. And.... eerrrr - there must be something else we would all love. A P&S 1/2" Pro35 not costing a King's ransom for instance?

Happy New Year to all,

Greg - How about the following:-

1. Colour HD viewfinder to fit 3xx & 700 series.



The 700 already has one the C35, the F355 has a different fitting and only SD.

A real good upgrade of the 355 would be variable frame rates without resolution loss!

Steve

A real good upgrade of the 355 would be variable frame rates without resolution loss!

Yes, that is one issue that needs sorting. As does the loss of resolution that was discovered when the shutter is turned on in progressive scan mode.

Having 1920 chips wouldn't impinge on the 700. I don't know why they don't just scrap the 350 etc, and just take a 700, restrict the recording to 35Mb/s 4:2:0 and take a couple of other features off. I always use the 510 and 530 as examples because the 510 was identical in every single respect to the 530 apart from only having a single ND wheel (compared to two filter wheels on the 530) and DV25 recording compared to 50Mb/s IMX on the 530. Those were the only differences yet the 530 sold for 22k while the 510 sold for 12k.

As does the loss of resolution that was discovered when the shutter is turned on in progressive scan mode.

That's one I've never understood. There is a logical reason for halving the resolution on overcranking (processing limitation), but gating the CCD charge before the end of a full frame should not impose any higher requirements because the frame rate hasn't actually changed.

-gb-

Having 1920 chips wouldn't impinge on the 700. I don't know why they don't just scrap the 350 etc, and just take a 700, restrict the recording to 35Mb/s 4:2:0 and take a couple of other features off.
Another alternative would be to have 1920x1080 1/2" chips (as the EX), have full 50Mbs 422 recording, and make it SxS only.

Broadcasters with deep pockets may then still want to pay the extra for the 700, to have 2/3" glass, CCDs and the ability to use discs. Others may find the EX 1/2" CMOS chips more than good enough, discs unnecessary - whilst the 50Mbs conforms to broadcast standards in a way the EX1/3 doesn't quite.

Such a camera, if shouldermount, would be much lighter than a 700, far less power hungry, and if they kept certain features such as the ability to take integral digital radio mics, would be almost ideal for such as news. The 700 may still be desired for higher end feature type work, with quite a lot of compatability between the two.

That's what I'd like to see, anyway!

Sounds about right to me David. Is the SxS capable of 50 mb/sec, can't remember if I've seen reference to it somewhere on DVInfo? Did I even hear talk that it could do 100 mb/sec?
Steve

Sounds about right to me David. Is the SxS capable of 50 mb/sec, .....? Did I even hear talk that it could do 100 mb/sec?
Should do 100Mbs easily, let alone 50Mbs - and a lot more. The theoretical max of SxS Pro is 800Mbs and of P2 640Mbs, so a lot in hand for each. (Theoretically!)

What may be of interest is whether SDHC cards in a Kensington or MxR adaptor will work at such speeds. The cards are known to be fast enough, it seems to be the USB that is the bottleneck. Even so, overcranking at about 40fps seems to be about the reliable limit, which seems to correspond to a data rate of 40/24 *35, or about 60Mbs.

Even with the same electronics as the EX, that should give cause for optimism that 50Mbs could be recorded to SDHC via an adaptor. Unless Sony deliberately disallow it. Even in that case, all it needs is an ExpressCard version of the MxR, and SDHC use should become possible again.

Another alternative would be to have 1920x1080 1/2" chips (as the EX), have full 50Mbs 422 recording, and make it SxS only.

Hmm. Thing is though that it leaves people who are DSR users and SD XDCAM ops like myself who are used to using 2/3" glass and chips, and who make the most of them for creative purposes out in the cold.

While I love what my EX3 can do for the money, it is still quite limiting when it comes to interviews for example. I need a much larger room to get that background nicely out of focus. The default glass on the EX3 becomes noticeably soft wide open, so the ability to be able to use top quality 2/3" glass that suffers less from this with no magnification factor would be useful to me.

Having a 4:2:0 2/3" camera at a PDW-510 price and a 4:2:2 at a PDW-530 price would be a direct parallel. I think that having 1/2" 4:2:2 at 50Mb/s available for the price of a DSR-570 would impinge much more on the 700's market than a 35Mb/s 4:2:0 with 2/3" chips. Sony's own past sales strategy with previous cameras shows that they must think the same way.

Also having 2/3" available at the low end means that people can keep their investment in glass more easily if they decide to upgrade. With my 510 I knew that if I needed to use another 2/3" camera I only need hire in the camera body. Owning a 1/2" camera would mean hiring both a camera body and lenses.

Sony should incorporate SxS into all their disc cameras as standard. It wouldn't really cost them much to do so.

Unless Sony deliberately disallow it.

It appears that Sony quietly approve of the SDHC method. As we talked about the other week it would be nice if someone would make an SDHC card in an Express card form factor so there was room to write on it, and to give things a bit of 'weight' with regard to most camera ops clumsy fingers!

I hear what you're saying, Simon.

To try to explain my logic, it's that 50Mbs 422 has now been established as a minimum for long-GOP acquisition by the EBU, and endorsed by such as Discovery and the BBC. Consequently, it seems sensible for any camera above the EX3 level/price to have that as a minimum - if it doesn't, it doesn't meet that current "broadcast" criterium. Same with resolution - now the EXs are 1920x1080, let alone the 700, surely any camera between the two must have comparable figures?

So what's left for any new camera not to have to position it below the 700? Making it SxS only, and 1/2" are the two that come to mind most obviously. Doing away with the ability to slot digital radio mics in may be another - but that may backfire against the sales of just such equipment.

The advantage of doing away with the disc recorder for a cheaper than 700 camera is not only to do with making it cheaper, but also size, weight and power. And power may be another reason for staying with half inch chips, if you accept the reasoning that it realistically has to be 1920x1080. Wasn't power consumption given as the main reasoning why the 330 and 350 were 1/2" in the first place?

That's why I think something along these lines could be as close to the ideal news camera as we may get. Though indeed it needs the memory to be formalised along the lines you suggest, SDHC cards and adaptors are great for individual operators, but I doubt major broadcasters would find them acceptable for general use.

To try to explain my logic, it's that 50Mbs 422 has now been established as a minimum for long-GOP acquisition by the EBU, and endorsed by such as Discovery and the BBC. Consequently, it seems sensible for any camera above the EX3 level/price to have that as a minimum

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. In that case yes you have a point. In that case it might be a better option to have 50Mb/s long GOP for a lower priced camera and got to a higher datarate interframe codec for the high end. Something that SxS could handle with no problems.

It is clear that things have a long way to go. How long will 50Mb/s Long GOP be acceptable for the level that it is now? The BBC have a habit of moving the goalposts, so with 50Mb/s now described as a minimum it doesn't bode well for the 700 in terms of high end production in the long term.

Interesting thread.

Simon has a very good point, a 2/3" 35mbps disc based camera would sell i think, the pictures im getting out of my EX1 are amazing colour wise.. i thought i was going to miss the 422 of my hvx.. but no. I'd much rather invest in 2/3" glass than 1/2".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what I want, rather what may make most sense to a marketing department within technical constraints. I agree an HD "DSR500 equivalent" is overdue, and would love it to be 2/3" for all the reasons Joe and Simon say. The question is how to distinguish it from the 700. Leaving out the disc drive is one obvious way, and will help power and weight as well.
........... it might be a better option to have 50Mb/s long GOP for a lower priced camera and got to a higher datarate interframe codec for the high end. Something that SxS could handle with no problems.
I posted the link to the EBU reference in this thread - http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/137934-ebu-hd-acquisition-codec-tests.html . It's why I don't think we'll see any camera dearer than an EX3 without a 50Mbs mode, certainly not a 2/3" one.
It is clear that things have a long way to go. How long will 50Mb/s Long GOP be acceptable for the level that it is now? The BBC have a habit of moving the goalposts, so with 50Mb/s now described as a minimum it doesn't bode well for the 700 in terms of high end production in the long term.
Yes, though I think the BBC are reporting where the goalposts are moving to, rather than doing the moving.

One quote from the EBU is "The 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programmes, but 10-bit bit-depth is preferred for high-end acquisition.". I'm sure Sonys response would be along the lines of "which is what HDCAM-SR is for if you want 10 bit".

Eventually, I'm sure we'll see SxS being used to record a completely different codec to MPEG2 (MPEG2 doesn't support 10bit), but for now XDCAM422HD has got an unrestricted approval from the EBU for general acquisition. Both it and AVC-Intra meet criteria that older formats such as HDCAM and DVCProHD do not, and I expect to see a move away from the latter two.

Yes, though I think the BBC are reporting where the goalposts are moving to, rather than doing the moving.

Though their own internal policy can help move them. For example they have cast doubt on the use of 720p as HD, and even on 1440x1080 HDCAM in the future. Which begs the question of why the BBC were ever looking at Panasonic cameras since DVCProHD is 1280x1080.

I'm sure Sonys response would be along the lines of "which is what HDCAM-SR is for if you want 10 bit".

Yep! Those were their very words to me once.

Now if the Broadcasters would only PAY for the higher quality formats then we wouldn't have a problem. It's OK for the BBC with their fixed income to dictate standards, however most channels, including Discovery are now dropping their programme budgets rapidly so it will be interesting to see where HD broadcasting goes in the next couple of years.

Now if the Broadcasters would only PAY for the higher quality formats then we wouldn't have a problem. It's OK for the BBC with their fixed income to dictate standards, however most channels, including Discovery are now dropping their programme budgets rapidly so it will be interesting to see where HD broadcasting goes in the next couple of years.

I totally Agree with you Steve it seems crazy to impose HD delivery and shooting standards that are hugely costly when most broadcasters are struggling to make any new material and lowering budgets.

As you say these are interesting times and surely it must be better to encourage quality content shot on lower costing formats than fill the airwaves with repeats and reality show pap!

......surely it must be better to encourage quality content shot on lower costing formats than fill the airwaves with repeats and reality show pap!
My vote would be for quality content shot on higher quality formats - too often what I find myself faced with is crap content AND shot badly on sub-standard equipment. The worst of all worlds?

But the EBU statements are based on scientifically conducted tests, and they aren't being put forward as "law", rather as recommendations for the future. I can't see any reason why an XDCAM camera with 50Mbs mode should be any more expensive than one with 35Mbs max - other than marketing that is.

I believe that 35Mbs was originally chosen mainly for considerations of max writing speed and capacity. No longer a problem with SxS, and even now possible to disc with the 700.
......they have cast doubt on the use of 720p as HD, and even on 1440x1080 HDCAM in the future. Which begs the question of why the BBC were ever looking at Panasonic cameras since DVCProHD is 1280x1080.
I think it's as simple as HDCAM and DVCProHD were state of the art (realistically) until not very long ago. You can't use product that is not available, no matter how much you may want better. Things have moved on, better is now available at prices possibly even cheaper than those formats were then. The BBC didn't just look at DVCProHD, they used it to a certain extent, but that's not to say it was ever considered the "end-all", and the same for HDCAM.

I think it's as simple as HDCAM and DVCProHD were state of the art (realistically) until not very long ago.

BUT, they ares till using a 720 camera, the HPX2700 for the up-coming blockbusters like Frozen Planet.

Steve

BUT, they ares till using a 720 camera, the HPX2700 for the up-coming blockbusters like Frozen Planet.
But that's presumably because features like varispeed are considered essential for Natural History work, and they just don't happen at realistic prices for 1080p? (Yet.)

I'd also expect it's being used to record AVC-Intra, not DVCProHD, so at least getting 720p full raster resolution of 1280x720 - not the 960x720 of DVCProHD in 720p mode.

Hmm. Thing is though that it leaves people who are DSR users and SD XDCAM ops like myself who are used to using 2/3" glass and chips, and who make the most of them for creative purposes out in the cold.

I'm with Simon - I'd rather see 2/3" with 35Mb/s recording than 1/2" with 50Mb/s.

SxS or disc, I guess SxS is cheaper and would reduce power consumption and size.

Also V important:
Decent HD viewfinder (B&W or Colour)
A decent LCD like the one on the Ex1/3 (NOT the DSR450!!!)
High quality audio circuits with all necessary XLRs and connectors.
1080p/i, 720p and SD PAL/NTSC switchable. (SD is still the main format in the UK!)

Variable frame rates are nice but not that important for me.

Size wise I'd like somewhere between a DSR and EX3 with a proper shoulder mount. I think in order to balance such a camera with 2/3" glass, the shoulder pad would have to be nearer the lens than on existing cameras, meaning that the viewfinder would need to move forward as well.

Size wise I'd like somewhere between a DSR and EX3 with a proper shoulder mount.

That's quite interesting that you have said that. In fact I do not understand why the EX3 isn't that camera. JVC has shown that you can have a compact camera body with interchangeable lenses and perfect shoulder balance, so I am not sure why Sony didn't try something similar. After all they must absolutely realise that the EX3 is a pig to hand hold, unless nobody tests them!

If someone came up with a replacement viewfinder arm for the EX3 it could be moved forward and a third party shoulder pad made for decent balance.

If someone came up with a replacement viewfinder arm for the EX3 it could be moved forward and a third party shoulder pad made for decent balance.

Personally I hate workarounds like that though.

In effect I'd like to see an HD DSR450 which would be a smaller due to the removal of the tape deck. I think that such as camera would sell by the truck load!

35Mb would be fine for most broadcast applications, just as DVCAM is now. 50Mb versions like the 700 would replace Digibeta and then there are many "film replacement" systems like the F900 or Red for high end shoots.

As space saving as it would be to loose the disc drive i'd rather the camera keep it. Dont get me wrong, i love solid state cameras, i own 3.. but XDCAM disc is just so damn easy to work with. Especially when all the bugs get worked out in U1 deck. But i guess if it keeps costs down SxS is fine, The 2/3"ness is all i really want.

Well... my 2cents:

1st Sony has to earn money from pdw-700 development & marketing.

I could imagine that after big sales (europe is buying 700s in big numbers, I am involved into broadcaster XDCAM 422 workflow trainings for Sony) we could see a "small" 700 (why not SxS Shoulder cam 4:2:0, 4 ch etc.) , replacing the XDCAM 1/2" line to fill the lower part of industry / broadcast.

But I am sure FOR NOW Sony concentrates on the 700 market.

ULi

Lots of people seem too hung up on just the bit rate. Simply saying that you'd rather have 5Mbps over 35Mbps doesn't guarantee better picture quality. The important thing is the compression ratio and colour space used by the given codec and the quality of the encoders and decoders.

The EX3 and PDW-700 have the same compression ratio. The EX3 is no more compressed than the 700. The difference is the colour space. The PDW-700 is recording more color data, the extra "2" in the 4:2:2 over the EX3 and it's 4:2:0.

Now with many suggesting that XDCAM HD at 4:2:2 is comparable to HDCAM's 4:1:1 (or 3:1:1 if you take into account the 1440 frame size) you could argue that the EX3's actually so close to HDCAM that no-one should really be able to tell the difference. The 4:2:0 colour space of the EX3 gives as much colour information as 4:1:1. If you shoot progressive a good decoder should in theory give better colour results with 4:2:0 than 4:1:1.

Now I'm not going to say that the EX3 is better then a 700 or HDCAM. It's certainly extremely close. These cameras are so close that other variables such as lenses, setups operator skill and lighting are going to be the biggest diferentiators in the quality of the final production, not whether one is 50Mbps while the other is 35Mbps.

Lots of people seem too hung up on just the bit rate. Simply saying that you'd rather have 5Mbps over 35Mbps doesn't guarantee better picture quality.
Yes, but the difference is that with a 50Mbs mode, you can walk up to any broadcaster and know that your equipment meets a current EBU tested and approved spec, at least as far as the compression goes.

Also, the whole subject should be seen far less in terms of first generation picture quality than how the images will stand up to the final broadcast chain, and especially the final transmission compression. There's lots of evidence that differences invisible to eye on a first generation can influence the final result.

But most importantly, enabling the 50Mbs mode doesn't involve any extra engineering effort - certainly for an SxS camera - and shouldn't be any more expensive to manufacture. The same can't be said of a difference between 1/2" and 2/3" chips. (Desirable though 2/3" wouls indeed be.)

I suspect that the only reason the EX1/3 are 35Mbs is that to have enabled the 50Mbs mode would have just given them too many advantages over the 330/350. If we're now talking about a 3xx replacement, it just doesn't make any sense to NOT make them 50Mbs.

As far as colour space goes, then a lot depends on format. 4.2.0 may indeed be fine for progressive material, but for interlace there are a lot of advantages to going to a system with equal vertical lum/chrom resolution. Since most 1080p/25 material is likely to transmitted 1080psf/25, that may well be an added advantage to 4.2.2 even for that.

There's lots of evidence that differences invisible to eye on a first generation can influence the final result.

That is very true. However do not forget that Discovery stress tested the 35Mb/s codec right through the broadcast chain to determine how well suited it was for programming when the 350 first arrived on the scene, and they approved it for unrestricted "Silver" level production. As Alister mentioned the actual compression ratio is no different to the 50Mb/s, although the latter is CBR rather than VBR.

Regarding the colour space, it was interesting to see Adam Wilts test of the EX when he compared a 4:2:2 SDI capture with the 4:2:0 recorded one in progressive mode. There was no visible difference. ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/) But as David pointed out in interlaced modes it is a different story altogether.

I think that my line is that with production budgets being cut all the time some of these lower end cameras really should be made acceptable. As Discovery have proved the 35Mb/s codec holds up very well through the broadcast chain for certain levels of programming. Eventually high def will be used for hum drum programmes, and in fact already is. Look at "A Place In The Sun" on Channel 4! In that programme they appear to be using low spec HDV cameras much of the time. Given that 25Mb/s DV on 2/3" cameras has been fine until now for news and current affairs, and even programmes such as "Coast" on the BBC I do not see why they couldn't use a low cost 35Mb/s 2/3" HD camera in the same sorts of applications.

One thing that isn't clear is what the EBU's testing was based upon? For example were they testing it with only higher end programming in mind? Mind you, will anyone listen to the EBU recommendations anyway? After all this is the same organisation that has decided upon 720p as their main HD recommendation.

Also, the whole subject should be seen far less in terms of first generation picture quality than how the images will stand up to the final broadcast chain, and especially the final transmission compression. There's lots of evidence that differences invisible to eye on a first generation can influence the final result.

Agreed, but as both 35Mbps and 50Mbps XDCAM have the same amount of compression the generation losses will be the same.

I'm not going to argue the fact that if someone specifies a particular format then that is what you should use, but you are more than likely going to be delivering on HDCAM SR or HDCAM and it is my opinion that in most cases you would not be able to tell from the technical quality of the master whether you used a 700, EX3 or 750 HDCAM.

The BBC, Discovery, Nat Geo and many others have used lots of my 4:2:0 XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX footage in all kinds of shows. They have never complained about the quality. Most of the time the only thing they care about is how I physically deliver it to them. Often this is HDCAM which is a shame as I can see the resolution drop when I dub EX footage to HDCAM. The more switched on facilities companies are requesting delivery in the native format.

Will Sony give us a 4:2:2 F35* replacement? I doubt it. If you are producing programmes for the BBC on a regular basis then I don't really see why you wouldn't get a PDW-700.

For Discovery the EX3 and F35* is perfectly acceptable.

Regarding the colour space, it was interesting to see Adam Wilts test of the EX when he compared a 4:2:2 SDI capture with the 4:2:0 recorded one in progressive mode. There was no visible difference.
"No visible difference" is not quite what he said - "All 4:2:0 does in progressive mode is equalize the color subsampling on H & V directions..... It’s not much worse looking than 4:2:2." But I agree that for progressive 4:2:0 shouldn't be considered too much of a problem. I'd rather have 4:2:0 full raster than subsampled 4:2:2, for example!

But it still leaves the issue of interlaced material, and 1080i is likely to be important for a while to come.
I think that my line is that with production budgets being cut all the time some of these lower end cameras really should be made acceptable. As Discovery have proved the 35Mb/s codec holds up very well through the broadcast chain for certain levels of programming.
I don't want anything I'm saying to be taken as "35Mbs is rubbish and shouldn't be even considered for broadcast" but rather as ways in which the "potential future" could (should?)develop, to refer to the thread title. And if 50Mbs can displace 35Mbs *for no extra cost* in new equipment, surely that can only be a good thing? I don't just mean in F3xx replacements, but in EX1/3 MkIIs. There's no reason a 50Mbs EX3 need cost any more than a 35Mbs EX3.
One thing that isn't clear is what the EBU's testing was based upon? For example were they testing it with only higher end programming in mind? Mind you, will anyone listen to the EBU recommendations anyway? After all this is the same organisation that has decided upon 720p as their main HD recommendation.
I think it was to try to bring some science to the debate. At the moment it seems that many parties have their goalposts set all over the place, often for a variety of vested interests. I think what they're trying to do is to establish where goalposts should be - eventually.

There is one huge change coming that needs to be recognised. Whereas in the past higher quality recording methods meant higher costs, that is no longer true with solid state recording. (Except in so far as higher bitrates mean more storage capacity.) If 50Mbs can be coded and recorded with the same hardware costs and 35Mbs, the question becomes not "why to do it?" but "why NOT to do it"!?

If 50Mbs can be coded and recorded with the same hardware costs and 35Mbs, the question becomes not "why to do it?" but "why NOT to do it"!?

I'm in agreement on that David, but if people want a lower cost 2/3" HD camera, Sony are going to want to protect the PDW700 and HDCAM range. However, they may be happy to make a 2/3" SxS 35Mbit 4:2:0 camera. I suppose a DVCAM priced PDW700 may be possible with SxS instead of XDCAM but I'd guess they'd want to limit the product further than that to protect the higher end market - but then again, I hope not! Personally I don't think I would consider a 1/2" camera for my main camera, mainly due to lens choice/ compatibility & DOF control.

Many companies have deliberately crippled a lower cost product. I heard that one of the early IBM's could be bought in "home" spec or "office/pro" spec for 5 times the price. Both were identical apart from the settings of hidden dip switches!

I think the 700 has hit the limit of what can be recorded on the Professional Disc system which may be why there is currently no Slo-Mo. Certainly read speeds seem to be max'd out at around 90Mbps and you need some overhead when recording to allow for TOC updates, proxies, knocks and bumps. I would guess that the next XDCAM HD 4:2:2 camera will record to SxS to allow for over-cranking without having to restrict the data rate. So a low cost full size SxS based camera could impinge on any top end XDCAM HD developments.

This is an interesting discussion and I too would love to see a F350 replacement that was 4:2:2, 50Mbps with 2/3" sensors. But I just don't see it happening, not because it can't be done but to protect the high end. Maybe in a couple of years time when Scarlet come to market they will have no choice, but at the moment, no.

If I had to give up one of the above features it would be the 4:2:2 @ 50Mbps. We all know how good the EX3 looks. A full size 2/3" 35Mbps 4:2:0 camera with HDSDi would be a really useful piece of kit. If you really need 50Mbps (or more) you bolt on a Nano-Flash, problem solved.

Just a side note: F35* family cameras in HQ mode have a compression ratio of 16:1.
EX3 HQ is 21:1
PDW700 is 20:1

Yet the F35* are IMHO the worst looking of the lot, shame because based on tose numbers it should do much better over multiple generations than any of the others. However when you take into account noise and scaling issues the story can be quite different.

In terms of the same product being sold at different prices just consider some of the cameras we are discussing. The F355 is 50% more than the F335 but the only difference is the firmware.

Exactly, and the price difference versus features I need is why I got a F335 instead of a F355.

It's very interesting hearing all the viewpoints here. For myself, as with any of us, my wishes for the next F3xx are based on my needs for it. I think I'm coming toward this from the opposite of most of you.

The vast majority of you are very high end and broadcast. For me, the F335 is the highest end camera I've ever used in my life. Myself, and a friend of mine in this area, both bought our F335s early in 2008 to replace our DSR-300As. Even though my friend works for our local NBC affiliate, the F335 is a higher end camera than his station uses in his normal work, their local production is still SD.

For both of us, the F335 gives us each the highest production values in our respective fields in our local area. My friend in wedding and bar/bat mitzvah event work and myself in performing arts and corporate work.

As always, it all comes down to who the particular camera lines are really marketed for.

Though we certainly understand the advantages of 2/3" imagers, for my friend and I, all our current lens investments are in the 1/2" world. I just checked and apparently there are now 2/3" HD lenses down in the "affordable" range, but for those that have already bought into 1/2" HD lenses, well... Also, there's the issue of our lenses being useful in potential future EX cameras, which is a nice capability to keep.

Why didn't we go with the EX line now?

We needed the record time of dual-layer Professional Discs. I was so happy when Sony surprised us with the F335 after telling me at NAB 2007 there would be a F355, but no F335. This same reason is why a 50Mb/s data rate isn't important to me, for the work that I do, I can't afford to give up all that recording time per disc.

We also needed the current affordability and direct archive capability of the Professional Discs. For our uses, it is not unusual to have dozens of Professional Discs around waiting on editing, we simply couldn't do that with SxS media cost. And the continuing lack of a simple and reliable archive method for the SxS footage via the U1 drive to Professional Disc is a major weakness for SxS for any use by us. SxS just doesn't have the workflow for our needs.

The other important issues were wanting a real shoulder mount camcorder and more than two audio channels. The EX line currently just doesn't fit these needs.

The only alternative would have been going with the S270, but we wanted to step up in quality.

So, we went with the F335, and we are happy we did, our only wishes are better low light capability and the full raster quality of the EX line imagers.

Ah well, just over three months and we'll see what's announced. Meanwhile the F335 is making me money.

Why didn't we go with the EX line now?

We needed the record time of dual-layer Professional Discs. .....We also needed the current affordability and direct archive capability of the Professional Discs. For our uses, it is not unusual to have dozens of Professional Discs around waiting on editing, we simply couldn't do that with SxS media cost.
Not with SxS media cost - but the current usage of cheap SDHC cards via adaptors does mean that EX cameras can now begin to rival disc cameras for media costs. It wouldn't be feasible to have dozens of SxS cards hanging around, but it would be feasible to have dozens of SDHC cards.

I'm assuming all those SDHC options weren't an option when you committed to buy, but if they had been, do you think you'd have come to the same decision?

Correct, the SDHC options weren't there yet. And it is amazing, 10:1 cheaper for 32GB and 20:1 cheaper for 16GB in SDHC versus SxS. Amazing.

So that would have made the decision harder, but for the other reasons I mentioned, I think both my friend and I would have still went with the F335.

There's also the all important durability. I trust Professional Discs completely, Alister's tests were very convincing. As for tape, once you've seen a full half second lost due to one dropout in HDV, you tend to stop trusting tape. As for hard drives, I've had too many fail on me, whether they're used a lot in a computer or barely used on a shelf for long term storage. As for solid state media, well, just cause it doesn't have moving parts, doesn't make me trust it more. With all the little connections internally in it, I'm not sure it would have stood up to Alister's tests. (Expansion and contraction of all those solder joints.) Plus, I've personally had a USB flash drive corrupt before. It was fine once I reformatted it, but that wouldn't help me if something important had been on it.

I've frozen SxS cards into lumps of ice without any issues.

There's also the all important durability.
The only tale I've heard (first hand) of solid state media failing was a friend using a CF card in a DSLR when it died. The first thing he'll say is that it was a very cheap non-branded card, and since then he has always used branded cards.

Professional still photographers have been using flash cards for quite a number of years now, and I haven't heard any reliability issues from anybody. I've also heard first hand from one photographer who left a CF card in his jeans pocket when he put it in the washing machine. Not only is the card still in current use, but the data on it was fully intact afterwards.

So you seem to be able to freeze them and put them through a wash cycle.... anybody think of any other tests!?!

OK, that's good to hear. It's not like I have any doubt that solid state is the future, it's just currently it still hasn't gotten to the price/capacity to beat Professional Disc for my needs yet.

So accepting that SxS cards are durable, what about all the SDHC cards being suggested? I mean, they can't be as good as SxS at 1/10th or 1/20th the cost in every way, right?

So accepting that SxS cards are durable, what about all the SDHC cards being suggested? I mean, they can't be as good as SxS at 1/10th or 1/20th the cost in every way, right?
No, their maximum data transfer speeds are slower. But since they are still more than fast enough to cope with writing rates in normal usage, the only real drawback may be that you won't be able to download from them as fast. But the huge price difference means that's a price that a great many people seem happy to accept! :-) That also means more cards can be owned, and it becomes less imperitive to download just to free up more card space for further shooting.

Only other issue may be that they are more "fiddly" than true SxS cards, but there is a possibility of an ExpressCard memory with "normal" flash specs and price, but in an SxS like form factor. (See the Verbatim thread in the EX forum.)

What isn't clear is how long the data will last on the cards in normal storage. Years certainly, but the very long term may not be as good as for tape or disc. As an acquisition medium that may not matter much for most people, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Just a comment from a one man company, who mostly does cooperate work.
I have been using the F 330 for nearly 3 years now.
In my world I won’t trade for an EX camera. One of the main things is archiving of raw material. Yes you can set up system for archiving, but as it is for now, I can just put the XDCAM disk on the shelf… The form factor is also an issue in my opinion.
The only thing, I can se, in a real world situation, is that the EX is more light sensitive.
I have given up takes because of low light situations, but if it should make a difference, the camera should be at least two stops more light sensitive.
I have been looking into the step up to a 700, but what I really would like, is a more light sensitive 3xx with a 1920x1080 sensor.

what I really would like, is a more light sensitive 3xx with a 1920x1080 sensor.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you Brian! In addtion, I would like to see a LCD monitor similar to the EX-1, or a OLED viewfinder.

That's what I thought when I got my EX1. The EX1 would be the B camera to my F350. However once I saw how much better the EX1 looked, combined with the improved sensitivity the EX1 and then EX3 became my main cameras and the F350 now only comes out for a few clients that also have F350's.

The workflow isn't that terrible. Sure I prefer the optical disc workflow, but I'm also finding it very useful having all my material from various shoots on a hard drive ready for instant access. Of course I have a second drive as a backup plus DVD-DL's and Bluray discs of any footage I need to keep for 5 years or more.

I was working with a PDW-700 yesterday and I really missed the colour VF of my EX3.

In my world I won’t trade for an EX camera. One of the main things is archiving of raw material. Yes you can set up system for archiving, but as it is for now, I can just put the XDCAM disk on the shelf…
Though now if you use SDHC plus an adaptor it's not much more expensive to treat the SDHC cards in the same way. The way prices are going, it won't be that long until SDHC is actually cheaper per GB than XDCAM discs.

You certainly give me something to think about!!

If the picture quality, the workflow and the VF, on the EX3 outclass the F 3xx, then it all comes down to the form factor!!

Then I have to ask the question, is that deciding factor?

If Sony updates the F 3xx, so that it will produce an equal or maybe superior picture to the EX, then I will certainly stay with the the 3xx. As it is for now, you got me thinking!

Regarding the storage on memory cards, I am not comfortable with that solution.
If I should use a card based camera, as a daily tool, I would use a BR solution, either as a standard BR disk or an U1 and a XDCAM disk.
I don’t trust HD drives and cards as a long term storage solution.

Form factor is an issue, I agree. But the EX3 is very versatile and it is easy to add a shoulder pad and put larger batteries on the back to get a good balance. The EX3 advantage is that you can then make it smaller for when you need to travel.

I have some very old 64k compact flash cards and I can still read the data from them. I don't see any issue with using SD cards for long term storage.

Is there an adaptor for standard V-lock batteries??

Is there somewhere, where I can see a picture of an EX3, with attached shoulder mount?

I have a friend who owns a photo shop, on occasions costumers come in with faulty memory cards!
I can’t say why, but it happens… But I don’t trust them!