Hi all,

first post here!

I'm a bit in a dilemma, maybe the community can give me some input to direct my decision:
I'm planning several documentaries that shall be broadcasted (in Germany). I currently have sold my HVX, due to media cost, but own a 5D and a 7D with a lot of glass. I still feel the need for a dedicated video cam, for sound, recording times and DOF (I need some DOF, that a DSLR can only provide stopped down -> challenge under low light conditions).
So I'm currently hesitating between a EX-1R and a NX5. From the clips I've seen so far (on vimeo etc. only, unfortunately) and my quick hands on at a seller, I'm still undecided. Media cost (SxS or SDHC) is now irrelevant as SDHC is officially supported by Sony (and it seems to work fine with the updated firmware).
The other pros and cons of both are rather known to me, esp. because of this great forum. The NX5 is tempting for the price, but using FCP, I fear the post problems reported by some members and I don't know if the stations will accept AVCHD material (for non-news stuff).

Do you have any experience you can share?
Thomas

What is the potential of using the NX5 with a Nanoflash? Similar cost to an EX1, but vastly superior codec.

I've been using the EX1 for about two years now, and it's by far my favorite camera that's priced under $15,000. But those SxS cards are pricey, and that's a consideration. But I really like the NX5U, after spending a week with it, and will likely be getting one in the coming weeks or months. Because it's more affordable.

Sure, I'll take the EX1/r over the NX5U, but that's another $1500 to $2000 for a similar camera.

Another is editing--you can easily edit with both cameras in all major edit systems, though it's more "native" in FCP with the EX1. For the NX5U, you transcode it as ProRes 422, which can make those clips very, very large.

It may just come down to cost for you, along with storage/drive space, etc.

Heath

Heath, are you unaware you can shoot to SDHC with the EX1? It makes the media issue a non-issue.

I've been using the EX1 for about two years now, and it's by far my favorite camera that's priced under $15,000. But those SxS cards are pricey, and that's a consideration. But I really like the NX5U, after spending a week with it, and will likely be getting one in the coming weeks or months. Because it's more affordable.

Sure, I'll take the EX1/r over the NX5U, but that's another $1500 to $2000 for a similar camera.

Another is editing--you can easily edit with both cameras in all major edit systems, though it's more "native" in FCP with the EX1. For the NX5U, you transcode it as ProRes 422, which can make those clips very, very large.

It may just come down to cost for you, along with storage/drive space, etc.

Heath

I'm not up on the latest on the EX1/R, so good to know! I did take a look at the specs--do they use adapters? I may have been ignoring new technologies on the EX1; then again, it's work's camera, so I doubt they'd jump on any new accessories.

Still, at the end of the day, the EX1/R's quality is better in some regards to the NX5U, but the price is still higher.

Heath

Perrone,

Just saw this:

Sony Product Detail Page - MEADSD01 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcamexsite/cat-broadcastcameras/product-MEADSD01/)

Man, I need to get back in the game! (wink) Thanks for the head's up! Of course, where was this two years ago when my last job had me putting together an EX1 package to shoot this film we did (December Movie (http://www.decembermovie.com)).

Heath

Hi Thomas,

I'm just bought a Sony Ex1R a few weeks ago and I couldn't be happier. I did tons of research, and like you, I was considering an NX5u. But if you read the NX5u forum, people are having all kinds of problems with this camera and I don't have time to wait for all the bugs to be fixed, or to be sending the camera back to Sony for repairs. Bottom line... why settle for second best?

The Ex1R is my dream camera.. it's expensive but I think in the long run it's worth the price. I can't say anything bad about it so far.

You can also buy SDHC adapters like the MxM which brings the cost of media to reasonable levels.

If you have the budget, I would highly recommend the Ex1R.

I've been shooting on SDHC for over a year and a half. In fact, I don't even know where the SxS card is that came with the camera. I don't think I've ever used it after I moved to SDHC.



Perrone,

Just saw this:

Sony Product Detail Page - MEADSD01 (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcamexsite/cat-broadcastcameras/product-MEADSD01/)

Man, I need to get back in the game! (wink) Thanks for the head's up! Of course, where was this two years ago when my last job had me putting together an EX1 package to shoot this film we did (December Movie (http://www.decembermovie.com)).

Heath

That's awesome. I don't think my current employer knew that, either. The only thing I ever used with the EX1, accessory-wise, has been two Firestore units, but I had to record in, essentially, HDV mode.

Heath

Not to get too off topic, but I saw this ad here:

RAW SxSxSDHC Memory Adapter-Hoodman Corporation (http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1063)

And I remember seeing that, but not being able to convince my old (or current) boss to buy it. Man, I'm suffering from CRS!

Heath

Not to get too off topic, but I saw this ad here:

RAW SxSxSDHC Memory Adapter-Hoodman Corporation (http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1063)

And I remember seeing that, but not being able to convince my old (or current) boss to buy it. Man, I'm suffering from CRS!

Heath

Hoodman has adapters, M&R has adapters, and Sony's own adapter should be on the market soon.

I have absolutely no use for SxS cards any more. They used to be necessary for overcranking, but not that Sony has enabled the full speed on the data bus, that's not a problem any more. Update to the newest firmware, and SDHC can do everything SxS can. Best deal ever. 1hr of video for $40.

You're right, best deal ever!

So, it's ultimately up to you, Thomas. If you can, try out both cameras at a dealer and see how they work.

Heath

Thanks for your input. For me, the decision comes down to the editing. From my experience with my little consumer AVCHD cam, I hate the workflow (even if I preview the files with movist and transcode only the good ones via clipwrapper, to avoid log & transfer in FCP).

So one more question regarding XDCAM workflow: Do I need to transcode XDCAM or can FCP (6.02) edit it natively - I Know there are the presets for XDCAM but I never have used them?
This may mean for doc shooting to pay upfront more for the camera but saving many hours (time=money) in log & transfer...

Thing to remember is that the EX has chips of twice the surface area of the NX. This means that it'll be cleaner and quieter in the dark and that you won't have such noticeable diffraction problems when you use the iris range. You'll also have differential focus on a lot of your shots - with the NX's tiny chips you've got to really work to get the same effect.

Of course the 13x zoom on the EX is the same size as the 20x zoom on the NX, and this all has to do with the chip sizes.

tom.

Thomas,

It's the same as AVCHD--you transfer your data off the card(s), then use FCP's Log and Transfer to convert to editable QuickTime clips. Unlike AVCHD, you don't need to use ProRes 422, so your clips are about the same size as the data. Ie, 3 GB of data equals about 3 GB of clips, in terms of XDCAM EX footage.

Tom,

Of course--you're talking about a large amount of small pixels on a small chip vs. same amount of larger pixels on a larger chip. You'll always get better results in low light shooting. Of course, 1/3" or 1/2" sensors on DV/NTSC cameras will always do well because they're dealing with a few hundred thousand larger pixels.

Heath

I thought this was interesting. Taken from the verbage below the Sony SDHC adapter:

"The MEAD-SD01 Media Adapter is recommended for emergency use only".

At least they are making it available!

Thing to remember is that the EX has chips of twice the surface area of the NX. This means that it'll be cleaner and quieter in the dark.....
Not sure that follows Tom. The EX has chips of twice the area - but twice as many photosites as the NX, hence each photosite in each case will be the same size. Assuming the same underlying technology, I'd therefore expect comparable sensitivity. But the 2 megapixels of the EX will mean it's sharper than the 1 megapixels of the NX and/or mean less detail enhancement needs to be used.
....... and that you won't have such noticeable diffraction problems when you use the iris range. You'll also have differential focus on a lot of your shots - with the NX's tiny chips you've got to really work to get the same effect.
Yes, all true. The EX must be seen as a better camera than the NX, and I think Sony would agree with that. The real advantage the NX has is price, but personally I think the EX is worth the difference.

As far as using SDHC goes, then although I think it works well in the main it's worth adding the caveat that each card should be properly tested before "real" use, don't just open a packet and use a new card on a paying job. I believe SxS cards are individually tested before sale (same with P2) - SDHC are only batch tested, so you may get the occasional one that doesn't meet spec.

Considering the big difference in price, that's not a big issue.

I didnt want to open a new thread so I will post my question here :)

I have desided to go tapeless and sell my 2xcanon xha1


my budget is 4000-4200 euro which is the price range of a new NX5 or a used EX1 ( not R)

which one do u thing is the best investment and y?

which one is easiest on editing? nx5 codec or ex1 codec?

In Final Cut Pro, they're both easy to edit. Now I'm not sure if any new FCP 7 updates have added better support for AVCHD, but when I worked with the NX5U last February/March, having to process the clips as ProRes 422 made the footage quite large.

I think the NX5U is a great camera; I'm always cautious when it comes to used electronics, but if you trust the seller, go for it. The EX1 is absolutely a fantastic camera; I was using it for about 2 years before I left production for a bit in April to focus on writing.

Heath

Thank u Heath for the quick reply! :)

I will go for the Ex1


ps: I am using premiere cs4 for editing and now I will upgrade to cs5

You can't go wrong with the EX1. If I could afford it, I'd buy one but with my budget (and many others'), the NX5U is a very nice camera.

Sure, the chips are smaller so the lens is a bit wider (if I remember correctly--I was working with both cameras back in February for a couple of days) and the light sensitivity isn't quite what the EX1 has, but I really dig the NX5U.

heath

Hey,
didn't read this thread sooner because I'm just getting interested in the NX5. One thing you guys aren't focusing on enough is the codec. The EX-1 is using mpeg 2 while the NX is the advanced H.264 codec. I think this is a clear difference. On the one hand, you'd be investing in old technology with the EX and future/now technology with the NX 5. How does that factor affect your thinking?

David, whatever you're thinking about 'old technology' (EX1) and 'new technology' (NX5) the clear for all to see fact is that the EX1 gives better pictures than the NX5, in all lighting conditions. But then again (you could argue) so it should as it's 25% dearer.

It didn't affect my thinking in going the NX route because of the longer zoom, my stack of NP-F batteries and LANC controller. And I have to accept the fact that the pictures are not as good - no two ways about it.

tom.

what do you mean by not as good?

After this however, I just read about the dreaded Final Cut Pro Log and Transfer issues. Of course, I'm a FC user. I was leaning toward the EX-1r myself but have been attracted to this camera's price point as I need 2 of them for my work.

What do I mean by not as good? Not as sharp, not even when both have been put onto lowly DVD, and I've seen this on my 46'' LCD. Not such good dof control because of the smaller chips. AVCHD is very efficient so less gigs needed for storage but more grunt needed for processing.

reading the posts here on this. havent shot with the nx yet but have shot the ex, seems they would be close in pic quality in good light but ex better in lowlight. ive heard some say on here that the ex looks alot better even in good lighting. 1/2inch chips would certainly make a different in lowlight,but would the pics be closer in quality under good lighting situations?

I used the EX1 for 2 years and loved it. Sure the technology is "old," but the 1/2-inch chips and other imaging goodies made it a better picture than the NX5U. However, I still think the NX5U is a great camera, too.

Heath

I have owned my EX-1 for a few years now and love it, but I have a client who prefers me to shoot on his NX-5 camera. In my opinion, the NX-5 is awful compared to the EX-1. The LCD viewfinder is smaller and doesn't seem as sharp, the focus has about a half second lag as does the iris, making for plenty of out of focus and under or over exposed shots because you end up pulling too far, and it just feels very plasticy. If you have the budget to go with the EX- do it.

(I have a shoot on Monday with the NX-5 and after reading what I have just written I am feeling quite depressed now!)

One thing you guys aren't focusing on enough is the codec. The EX-1 is using mpeg 2 while the NX is the advanced H.264 codec. I think this is a clear difference. On the one hand, you'd be investing in old technology with the EX and future/now technology with the NX 5. How does that factor affect your thinking?
The important thing to realise is that the only way the codec of the NX5 is more advanced is that it allows for comparable quality at a lower bitrate. How much lower depends on the actual coder - and current chips built in to cameras and working in real time are nowhere near as efficient as expensive ones or software encoding with a computer in non-real time.

So with these two cameras in mind, the coding difference is partly the codec, partly bitrate, and I'm pretty confident that the higher bitrate of the EX is far more significant than the codec difference. So not only is the front end of the EX better, the codec quality is higher, and it's far easier to edit natively than AVC-HD. In pretty well every respect the EX will outperform the NX5.

But - isn't there always a but? - the EX is more expensive, and you'll need more GB for a given length of recording.

Bitrate can be a very significant factor for something like transmission, streaming, etc and this is where H264 really shines. For acquisition, MPEG2 has a lot more going for it, bitrate issues are less important, especially if it doesn't affect the choice of physical media. (And both can be recorded to SDHC, it's not a case that 35Mbs MPEG necessitates SxS.)

Shaun,
This is the first time I've read about the lag issues in all the posts about this camera. Are you sure that there's nothing wrong with your unit?

David,
I get what your saying. One of my dilemma's is that I actually need 2 cameras. I have 2 XH-A1 Canon HDV cameras. I'm using a Focus DTE recorder with one of them but it's a hassle. I want to sell both and get into tapeless and the NX with the bolt on storage drive looks really appealing. Exactly what I need at the right price point as I primarily shoot theatre and dance shows (long duration). The EX will kill me price wise if I have to buy 2 and then the external drive is a lot of extra dough. It also seems that some people are running into periodic issues with the SD cards in the EX when not using the S x S. I don't think that Sony will stand behind any issues with these "emergency" cards either. Obviously, I can't afford to have card issues when shooting one of a kind shows......

David I too shoot theatre and dance shows. I moved from an FX1 to the NX5U with the FMU and it is a real improvement. I got one of the early units and have had the lens unit changed by Sony ( back focus and slow auto focus). Now the auto focus is fast( focus is usually in manual but I like to check with the push auto focus button)

I don't have any lag that I am aware of though to be fair I do not hand hold the camera or use the viewfinder, it's always on a tripod , Lanc controller and using the LCD. It matches up well with the SR11 and XR500 that I use as fixed unattended cameras. Occasionally another camera used is an EX3 and these edit well together. EX3 is used for the closeups, NX5U for mid shots and the others are fixed full stage or a specific location on stage. Side by side the EX3 is better ( I would hope so its more than twice the cost) Once the framing moves to a mid level there is not much between the EX3, NX5U and the XR500. The increased data rate of the EX3 and NX5U show on fast moving subjects with detail compared to the XR500. When detail is low the XR500 has a cleaner picture!!!! I do understand that this is likely a function of resolution recorded by the more expensive cameras. However when viewed in HD or SD the XR500 is cleaner to the viewer and looks just as sharp even if the test results may not bear this out.!!!!

It has taken me a little time to get used to the differences to the FX-1 and sometimes I wish for the spot focus feature of the SR11 and XR500. Using peaking and focus ring doesn't do as good a job as just touching the point that one needs in focus!!! The NX5U has the same touch LCD and Bionz processor but lacks some of the nice features of the consumer cameras accessed by the touch screen.

Ron Evans

Shaun,
This is the first time I've read about the lag issues in all the posts about this camera. Are you sure that there's nothing wrong with your unit?



Hi David

I just arrived back after having shot today with the NX-5. And you know what? There was no lag! I must have been using a suspect camera (my client has two of them), because it was very pronounced every time I pulled focus and iris on that particular unit. I used it last Tuesday night and it was definitely lagging, but today it didn't. I'm not sure what the answer is other than I probably used his other camera today. So, to the OP, ignore that particular criticism I made re the NX-5!