Hi Alister,

I have been wondering if you have had a good opportunity to see the difference between the EX camera's picture against the PDW 700 picture at say 100Mbps recorded on the nanoFlash?

It would be interesting to know how much of a difference there might be between the 2 sensors with most everything else being the same. Any studies done yet?

Thanks

Hi David.

The EX with a NanoFlash is still not a PDW-700. The 700 has a clarity to the images that the EX lacks. It's difficult to describe. The PDW-700 does the greens of grass and foliage better than the EX. I will post some side by side samples later this week. The EX/Nano footage looks better than straight EX footage and is a LOT more robust in post production, it is a worthwhile difference. I don't think you will ever make an EX into a PDW-700, but it narrows the already small gap still further. The only snag is that using the nano on the 700 improves that too, making the gap a little wider again.

I think that on a two camera shoot if one camera op had an EX/Nano and the other a PDW-700 and they were set up to match, the editor would have a damn hard time telling which was which. It would only be in like for like, side by side shots that the differences would be noticeable.

I am in the fortunate position at the moment of having an EX1, an EX3, the PDW-700 and a NanoFlash. If I could only keep one kit it would be the EX3 with the NanoFlash. I would be prepared to sacrifice the small quality advantage of the 700 for the better portability and flexibility of the EX3/Nano combo.

Cheers Alister,

Never at any time did I expect your $40,000+ camera to be seriously threatened by our $10,000+ camera but as you suggest, the gap is small, albeit noticeable on matching shots. I really did expect your answer to be what it was, but it's nice to know that the EX has a very high 'bang for bucks' status, even without the nano & broadcast lens, which I have.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. Best wishes and thanks also for posting up your mini tutorials. You have helped many people understand the technicalities of the EX just that little bit better to give them confidence so that they can modify the picture profiles themselves.

David.

Never at any time did I expect your $40,000+ camera to be seriously threatened by our $10,000+ camera but as you suggest, the gap is small, ...........
I suspect Alisters answer is absolutely right in so far as it goes, but it is only talking about picture quality in a straightforward way. The extra cost of the 700 doesn't just get a picture quality improvement - it gets a far more versatile camera, in respect of the ability to use it with a far greater variety of lenses, for example. I'd also expect it to have higher sensitivity, and be far more suitable for the addition of high end accessories.

It's horses for courses - other times the size/weight of the EX may make it the preferred camera.

I suspect Alisters answer is absolutely right in so far as it goes, but it is only talking about picture quality in a straightforward way. The extra cost of the 700 doesn't just get a picture quality improvement - it gets a far more versatile camera, in respect of the ability to use it with a far greater variety of lenses, for example. I'd also expect it to have higher sensitivity, and be far more suitable for the addition of high end accessories.

It's horses for courses - other times the size/weight of the EX may make it the preferred camera.

Absolutely!!!

However, if I might respectfully contest the variety of lenses issue. I have the EX3 and I can have all of the (suitable) 1/2 inch, 2/3 inch and DSLR lenses attached to it if I want. Lots of variety there.

Cheers