Which one better for my requirements Ex3 or PMW 350K or PMW 350L.
I have Ex1 and also EX3. But still debating whether to keep EX3 or replace EX3 with PMW 350K or PMW 350L. I am looking for more ZOOM than what EX3 has to cover some performances in huge auditorims especially dances.
Cost of PMW 350K is around $19K with 16X lens.
Cost of EX3 is around $9K with 14X lens. and extra another $7K if I need more zoom.
With my above requirements can you suggest what are my alternative options to get more than 14X zoom with EX3 especially for covering dance performances or may be better to go with PMW 350K.
Any help in making my decision is really appreciated. I bought this EX3 but have time to return till Tuesday of next week.

Thanks
Prashant

If you get the Fujinon ACM-21 2/3" adapter for the EX3 you can use 2/3" lenses. You can hire a wide range of 2/3" lenese and as the focal length is magnified by a factor of 1.3 as the EX3 is a 1/2" sensor camera the lenses will have a longer focal length. You could also buy a longer focal length zoom lens for the EX3. The Canon KH20x6.4 can be picked up reasonably cheaply. If all you want is longer focal length then the EX3 is possibly the best bet, but if you want better sensitivity, lower noise and better image quality as well then a PMW-350 may be better. DO remember if you get a 350 you also need a bigger tripod, V-Lock batteries and a charger which all add to the kit cost.

I would also add that you might consider EX-3 plus NanoFlash. Focal length seems to be a concern that you could solve with a longer lens or a 2/3" lens with its magnification factor. NanoFlash will give you a tremendous boost in quality, greatly reduce any motion artifacting and give you that 4:2:2 color sampling for any grading. BTW, I would also add the Nano to a 350 just to bring that camera to its full potential.

I have EX-1 and EX-3 as well as a NanoFlash. If I had a way to monetize the 350, I'd buy one today. It is an amazing camera and even the stock lens is a credible starting point.

Ned Soltz

2/3" lenses? Nanoflash? Upgrading to a $17K camera?
Just because you want a little more telephoto range on your EX1 or EX3 seems like a waste of money.

Buy yourself Schneider 1.6x or 2x adapter and save the $$.
1.6X TELE-CONVERTER HD EX1/EX3 - Schneider Optics (http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1474&IID=6369)

Only if your happy with vignetting through most of the zoom range.

Hire or if you can borrow a 350 from the supplier for the day and test it out under similar scenarios you would be using it in. Get hold of the best lens for the job and so you will be able to tell what you need/want.

That is what I would do. Considering you have EX cameras, the testing should not take long.

Only if your happy with vignetting through most of the zoom range.

True, but in a stage presentation the full zoom range might not be necessary. I'd set the EX3 up on a wide shot and use the EX1 with converter for my tight. A real two camera shoot would be cheaper than the other solutions. Zooming in and out is a little low end these days.

Thanks a lot for all the responses...
Which convertor should I buy??
1.6X TELE-CONVERTER HD EX1/EX3 - Schneider Optics or
Century Precision Optics ?

Also if I use the convertor , Will I be using any quality in the video for dance (More Movement).

Thanks
Prashant

I tried 1.6X TELE-CONVERTER HD EX1/EX3 - Schneider Optics and was not at all happy. i might look for better Zoom lenses whcih can be used with EX3. If anyone has any suggeston for any zoom lens for ex3 please post ehere

XS17x Fujinon has a little, just a little more zoom power than stock. Any bigger and the EX3 becomes too front heavy if you have to 'hand hold' it. Would be OK on a good tripod of course but the cost goes up as well.

Lots of decisions to make!!!

Or you could get a Nikon 100-300mm or 200-400mm with an adapter. They seem to perform very well on the EX3 and will give plenty of magnification for more or less any use. I'd also steer clear of front of lens adapters, I've never seen one that was terribly good.
Steve