I just received the EX1 and I like it; however, now I'm torn between keeping it or exchanging it for the EX3. Not a good feeling. I want to be happy with one of these camcorders. The EX3 is newer and I'm wondering if the technology is better. I am not a professional but rather a serious amateur. I will probably never change the lens. I'm wondering if someone who owns both cameras could provide some insight. Thanks in advance.

IMHO, the big advantages of the EX3 over the EX1 are:
1. Removable lenses: good if you change them, not a big deal if you don't.
2. Viewfinder, although they have simply added a flip-up eyecup around the excellent LCD of the EX-1, and it's always out there rather than able to be closed away (such as if using an external monitor).
3. Some of the nice features you may use frequently were moved from the on-screen menu to exterior buttons. Along with removeable lenses, one of the best features.
4. Shoulder mounting design ...kind of. More so than the EX1, anyway. Less so than a true shoulder-mount camera.
5. Resale value. It's newer and costs more with the features above, so it should be more desirable if/when you decide to upgrade. It's also bigger and a bit heavier, and in some respects, is not as easily handled in some shooting situations.

Other than that, the images obtained with the cams will be nearly identical.

I just received the EX1 and I like it; however, now I'm torn between keeping it or exchanging it for the EX3. Not a good feeling. I want to be happy with one of these camcorders. The EX3 is newer and I'm wondering if the technology is better. I am not a professional but rather a serious amateur. I will probably never change the lens. I'm wondering if someone who owns both cameras could provide some insight. Thanks in advance.

You have a fine camera. I have the Ex1, don't have both .
If you don't need the lens changes, and I only changed my Betacam lens once.
It has other features, but most are not needed by a serious amateur.

Allen,

I own both cameras, and while I prefer the EX3, I would suggest you just keep what you've already got. Performance-wise, the cameras are EXACTLY the same. Electronically, anything that one can do, so can the other. The technology is exactly the same. The differences are basically all physical. So, you're not going to get better quality by moving to an EX3.

In my opinion, the two biggest reasons to choose an EX3 over an EX1 are: 1) Ability to change lenses. 2) The better viewfinder design. Sure, there's also timecode in/out, genlock, and several other improvements, but the viewfinder and lens are the biggies.

You already said #1 is not important to you, so that leaves #2 as the main reason to upgrade. Is that alone worth a couple thousand dollars? Probably not. I would suggest getting a viewfinder accessory that will make your EX1's viewfinder perform sort of like the EX3's viewfinder.

Towards the end of this online video, I talk about the differences between the two.
What's So Great about XDCAM EX? (http://www.vortexmedia.com/DVD_WHATS_SO_GREAT_ABOUT_XDCAMEX.html)

Relax, and be happy with what you have. The EX1 is a great camera.

Please look at Doug's video.
Will make you feel good about your fine purchase.

Relax, and be happy with what you have. The EX1 is a great camera.

And I might add, with the difference in price, you can afford a lot of extras for the EX1, such as a very good tripod, a decent microphone (or two), and other niceties (like Doug Jensen's training DVDs) that will make your videos even better than by having only a stock EX3.

If you are into nature photography the EX-3 is more desirable I think.
Because you can buy a cheap adaptor that allows you to use older Nikon/Nikkor still lenses with your camera.
These lenses can be had for quite cheap second hand.
Because of the small sensor on the camera you will have something like *5,4 to the tele side of the lens.
i.e a 100mm Nikon still lens would equal a 540mm on the EX-3.

Listen to Doug Jensen . . . there is no better expert than him. He is exactly correct when he states that the lens and viewfinder are the two main reasons to go with the EX-3.

I am currently producing a documentary in which I have completed over 70 interior interviews, and the viewfinder alone has been a great help.

Knowing how to properly light a scene, and a good tripod are much more important than upgrading your camera. I might add that the proper Tiffen filters have been a big help as well, and much more important than upgrading your camera.

Then there's a much overlooked area of production, a good boom mic . . . which is also more important than upgrading your camera.

I could go on, but hopefully Doug will weigh in with more suggestion. He did not mention his warm cards, but I consider them the best $90 investment I've ever made. They will enhance your scenes much more than upgrading your camera.

I'm wondering if the technology is better. .

That bit is easy to answer - NO. They are basically the same camera but with interchangeable lenses, the chips and boards etc. (and therefore image quality) are the same.

One thing I think that cannot be overstated though is just how much better the viewfinder is on the EX3. The EX1's finder is like almost all small camcorders, ie rubbish! The EX3 on the other hand is almost as good as full size broadcast cameras (it can also switch between colour and b/w at the flick of a switch, really nice!)

Steve

I've used an EX1 (a mates) and have an EX3. Both are stunning.

Big advantages of EX1 over EX3 (as the other way round have been well stated above) is that the smaller form factor of the EX1 makes any travel (especially airline travel) a lot (A LOT!!!) easier as the beautiful viewfinder on my EX3 does makes it a bit bulky for carry on luggage dimensions (but it's possible... as I've shown elsewhere in great detail on this great forum - and pics on my website). EX3 also "gets you noticed a lot" in public, not always desirable (in fact often NOT desirable). EX1 is slightly, only slightly, less obvious.

The cost factor is worth stating again - you can get a lot of goodies with the price saving of the EX1 over the EX3. Enjoy choosing them wisely!

You have a very fine tool in your new EX1. Use it, have fun, make great videos with it and don't be worried about it's bigger brother - until you've totally outgrown it.

Then you can buy an EX5.... when that comes out, maybe, if Sony ever make it (full shoulder baby???...just a joke!)

That bit is easy to answer - NO. They are basically the same camera but with interchangeable lenses, the chips and boards etc. (and therefore image quality) are the same.

One thing I think that cannot be overstated though is just how much better the viewfinder is on the EX3. The EX1's finder is like almost all small camcorders, ie rubbish! The EX3 on the other hand is almost as good as full size broadcast cameras (it can also switch between colour and b/w at the flick of a switch, really nice!)

Steve

I think when Hoodman introduces their extension adaptor for the HoodLoupe 3.0 which allows you to use it with 3.5" LCD screens the viewfinder difference will be much less. I am using the 3.0 now and have excellent results except for the annoyance of having to compensate for having part of the screen cutoff on either side.

When I got my EX3 I thought I would end up selling my EX1. But I kept my EX1 because as Andy says it is much more portable and a little more discreet. I love mine for those pick up and run situations.

I have an EX3 and I wish I had an EX1 as well. I'd love a slightly smaller version of the EX3 to have when needed.

I prefer the EX1 to the EX3. To me the single biggest benefit of all these small cameras is just that -- they are small, making many shooting situations possible and easy than with a full size camera. Personally I don't care for Sony's decision to slap on a giant eyepiece on the EX3 LCD. For my uses it's too flimsy and bulky... they should have made it detachable at least. And you always need a B&W capable viewfinder, IMO. With EX1 you have both simultaneously. Doesn't make sense to me how some people leave their EX1 viewfinders in color when they have the LCD. Possibly they don't know how to use a B&W viewfinder for judging contrast.

To me, if you can't afford a full size camera you'd buy an EX3. But if you can afford a full size or already have one you'd still buy an EX1. You can not do with a full size camera some of the things you could with an EX1, due to the size. On the other hand for what I do timecode input is big on the EX3, for multicamera field sync, double system sound. Of course there is something to be said as well for being able to slap on a Digiprime directly to the flange back.

The EX3 should have been the EX1 with all the new features minus the size increase. Keep these cameras small.

I fully agree, Max - never even considered replacing my EX1 with the EX3 (I'm using 35mm adapter, so no need for changing lens, either).


Doesn't make sense to me how some people leave their EX1 viewfinders in color when they have the LCD. Possibly they don't know how to use a B&W viewfinder for judging contrast.

You got me interested with the above statement - could you elaborate, please? I mean, I'm aware the pros prefer B&W viewfinders with their fully-blown cameras, but - never having owned one - I'd like to know how B&W is better in judging contrast...

Thanks!

I bought an EX1 early on and I was a tad miffed when the EX3 came out.
Now that I've used both no way would I want an EX3. I find the control layout on the EX1 friendlier than the EX3. The cheap sock loupe solves the viewfinder problem better than the fragile thing on the EX3. We've already had one damaged and in need of replacement.
Unless you need a longer lens the interchangeable lens argument is a bit of a bust. The cost of good 1/2" HD lenses is prohibitive. If making that kind of expenditure surely one would be thinking of having a bigger / better camera to justify the lens.
The only justification I can find for the EX3 is if you need all the I/O options.

I fully agree, Max - never even considered replacing my EX1 with the EX3 (I'm using 35mm adapter, so no need for changing lens, either).




You got me interested with the above statement - could you elaborate, please? I mean, I'm aware the pros prefer B&W viewfinders with their fully-blown cameras, but - never having owned one - I'd like to know how B&W is better in judging contrast...

Thanks!


Hi Piotr,

In full size ENG cams it's primarily focus. The LCDs are low res with shallow viewing angle, vs. the higher res BW CRT VFs. Although Sony's $10k color VF narrows the gap a bit. Of course this doesn't apply to some of the small cameras with lo-res VFs, and EX1 even reversed this with a lo-res VF, hi-res LCD. Still, cheesy small cam VF res aside, fundamentally focus is easier to detect to the eye and with a camera using a B&W image, because focus is contrast. 2 pieces of white paper of the same shade overlapping with no shadow, much harder to focus than two of different shades.

My Vortex EX1 Field Guide says to keep the VF in color. I have to disagree. Color difference can be judged with a color LCD. Blue against green, etc. -- not tonal difference. The green may look brighter than the blue in color when they're reflecting the same amount of light because you're seeing chrominance on top of luminance. When BW eliminates chroma you can create a contrast ratio with lighting or shooting angle using luminance only. Variations in contrast are hard to see when you have chroma slapped all over it, sometimes nearly undetectable.

It's very easy to test this by using a BW display to light and observe the effects on color. To be freed from the monitor you can also use a BW viewing filter for the eye but you have to learn to see in the camera's reduced latitude.

BW also can help composition dependent on a scene's colors. Studio camera VFs can deactivate the individual R, G, B signals in any combination to produce the best contrast similar to using a color filter on a BW still camera.

We can point a finger at the slipshod VF of the EX1 in these uses but at least it gives you an idea of contrast ratio simultaneous to a color display.

The one thing you forget, Max, is that the thing that really helps focus is the peaking adjustment. The effect that this gives is just as easy to follow on the EX3's colour LCD viewfinder as it is on a B&W CRT.

When BW eliminates chroma you can create a contrast ratio with lighting or shooting angle using luminance only. Variations in contrast are hard to see when you have chroma slapped all over it, sometimes nearly undetectable.

But when the final display is colour, those subtle luma contrast variations will be lost anyway and a BW VF won't show you the colour contrasts that can be achieved with different coloured light sources. Colour VF's are the way forwards. The old mono CRT VF's were a compromise as there were no technologies available to make colour VF's. They had to have the ability to take the separate R, G, B or Y channel to compensate for the fact that they could not show colour, these were workarounds to help compensate for the lack of colour. Colour is critical to composition and exposure, especially in highlights where knee and gamma effects the ratio of colour to luma. While luma contrast is important so is colour contrast. It's not just about the technical aspects of getting the best range of this or that but how the picture looks, how perhaps a pale blue almost over exposed sky can make a scene look cold while a darker blue can warm a scene, These subtle tonal changes are lost in a mono VF. We are viewing in colour, we should be composing and exposing in colour.

Certainly the VF on the rear of the EX1 is next to useless, but the EX1's main LCD and EX3's VF are quite capable and in my opinion some of the best viewfinders around. I'm just about to get a PDW-700. My budget wont stretch to the colour VF at the moment, but I will certainly be looking to add one as soon as I can afford it. I'm not looking forward to being forced to compose in black and white.

My budget wont stretch to the colour VF at the moment, but I will certainly be looking to add one as soon as I can afford it. I'm not looking forward to being forced to compose in black and white.

I was using a Panasonic HD camera recently with only a B/W CRT viewfinder and I found that backgrounds which looked OK in the viewfinder often had a colour distraction which was not obvious when shooting. I was advised that most pros would use a seperate monitor for total accuracy.

I don't think I can fit my 15 inch JVC studio monitor, together with a generator in a Kata 197 bag.

Keep saving Alister, or maybe just get a small 7 inch LCD battery operated screen from Maplins - it may do for a quick colour reference when you are storm chasing.

the thing that really helps focus is the peaking adjustment. The effect that this gives is just as easy to follow on the EX3's colour LCD viewfinder as it is on a B&W CRT.


But when the final display is colour, those subtle luma contrast variations will be lost anyway and a BW VF won't show you the colour contrasts that can be achieved with different coloured light sources.

The old mono CRT VF's were a compromise as there were no technologies available to make colour VF's. They had to have the ability to take the separate R, G, B or Y channel to compensate for the fact that they could not show colour, these were workarounds to help compensate for the lack of colour.

Colour is critical to composition and exposure, especially in highlights where knee and gamma effects the ratio of colour to luma. While luma contrast is important so is colour contrast.

Certainly the VF on the rear of the EX1 is next to useless, ...


Yes, excluding the EX, the focus superiority of a BW VF was, as I mentioned, with the full size cams using an ENG VF. I think we all agree the color LCDs on those cameras are inferior for focus.

On composition -- of course, color composition is the second pillar of composition but not the only one. I'd say that sometimes, the composition needs to be viewed with no color because color gets in the way. Yes we are shooting color and we should use color. A BW display is a complement to color and not a substitute. Given the chance, one may find that with certain shots checking the picture in BW may actually then enhance the color composition. If you can consistently view color pictures in BW in your head and see the difference in composition my hats off to you.

However that preference may be, most specifically with lighting I know of no human that could create the variations in contrast ratios while viewing color, that you can while working with a BW image. These ratios will by no means be lost in color. The effect may be subtle but so often it's all about subtlety isn't it. Lighting an image in BW, while shooting color or not, has been a tenet of many DPs for ages.

Knee and gamma -- I don't know why anyone would adjust those in BW except for black gamma in which case I'd also be looking at color if I had to deal with low key saturation. The zone system was not created using color but applies brilliantly to color. Without due regard to the underlying luma in a color picture as both a separate layer and one which works in concert with the chroma 'layer' how can you reach the higher planes of exposure nirvana. When I operate exposure for 10 cameras in a live environment I use 2 scopes, one for luma only, one for color only. I don't use the flat readout on the waveform to monitor both on top of each other.

The R,G,B channel selection for BW studio VFs is a focusing and composition aid for the operator as I've used it. I'd be curious to know if you use it in another way when VCing or Vid Op in studios or trucks?

In any case I for one find the EX1 LCD useful. Lo res, crappy and flimsy but I'd unquestionably rather have it than not.