Greetings.

I realize this camera is not out yet, but I was curious about your thoughts on how the image quality may be XF300 compared to the HPX 170.

I was pretty much set on the 170 until the 300 came out. From what I can tell, the 170 has a slightly wider angle back end on the zoom.

So my question is, if the 300 was out now (knowing only the specs) which would you be more likely to buy? Which camera would have a better image quality.

Sorry if this is sort of a dumb question, but wondering if I should hold off for a short time for the Canon.

Jonathan

I should also have asked comparing both cameras at same settings.

There seems to be quite a difference between the two. The Canon still does not have an accurate price, but likely to be around $6500, more expensive than the Panny at around $4500.

The HPX170 is well specced, but only has 650 lines resolution as opposed to over 1000 for the Canon (1.1 effective Mpix as opposed to 2.2)

Both have 1/4" sensors, but to my measurement the Canon is usable up to 1000/1200 ISO, Panasonic's figure is 500. I'm not guaranteeing mine to be absolute, but realistic.

XF has an 18x zoom, the HPX 13x. P2 media is expensive relative to CF cards.

I could go on. Both are capable cameras shooting 4:2:2, but the Canon is 'now technology' as opposed to 1998 technology, and is broadcast capable at 50Mbs. The Canon image quality is beautiful, but is the higher price justified for your market?

It will be interesting to make a comparison with HPX170 / EX1R / EX3 when production quality Canons are in circulation.

Nick.

Hi Nick,

That's just what I was looking for! I realize with the camera not yet available that everything is speculation. The proof will be when they are released and someone does a side by side.

Thanks.

Jonathan

Jonathon,

Not much info about your needs, but here's my 2 cents.

The Panasonic camera's have a very pleasing "look" if that's what you want. They are not going to be as sharp as the EX1 or Xf range. Also, P2 is still the most expensive media option AFAIK, so you're paying more for the cards for lower resolution. The camera's also have a plasticky toy-like feel to them IMO, however the camera is significantly cheaper than the other cameras you mention, depending on how much memory you need to invest in. They do come with a 5 year warranty which is very reassuring.

It really comes down to your budget and memory needs. Personally i really like the Panasonic look, and am not too fussy about the resolution. All these camera's are outstanding, and if P2 pricing is an issue Panasonic have an SDHC option in the HMC 151 which is half the price of the Canon. I think the Canon is overpriced - in the UK at least, but it hasn't officially arrived yet so it's hard to say for sure. Having said that the use of CF cards could make the Canon camera cheaper than the Panasonic if you need to buy a lot of cards.

I suggest you rent both, preferably from a rental house that will sell you one with the rental fee taken off the price of the new model. That way you'll know you made the right choice, and you won't have to pay for the test.

As a 5Dmkii owner, i'd go with the Canon if money was not an issue. I feel it will be a great camera that will cut nicely with my 5D as a 2nd camera. I owned an XHA1 and miss it since i sold it, even though i now use an EX1 when i need a "proper" video camera. But the price jump is huge. Almost double in the UK, and if i was watching my pennies, i'd be perfectly happy with a 170, or indeed a 151.

Finally, it seems likely that the 170 is due for an upgrade. Second guessing camera manufacturers is always a silly past time, but many are speculating that a fixed lens version of the hpx 300 is round the corner, and i wouldn't be surprised to see it happen this year. The new one will have up to date sensors, and P2 will probably take another price drop given the emergence of Canon's CF card camera. Meanwhile the Canon will be around for several years to come.

Like i said. Rent both, consider your memory needs, check your bank balance, and make a decision based on that.

Hope this helps.

Dom,

Yes that is helpful. I am anxious to see what the XF300/350 can produce when it becomes available. I'm sure when I decide on something some new capture device will be down the road. Time to just jump in.

Jonathan

Having used the 170 and owning a 150, I can tell you there's not much difference picture quality-wise between them. I've used them as A & B cams on shoots and can't tell them apart once in my FCP system.
170 has a much faster workflow though. Need to transcode the 150 to pro res. Transcoding didn't bother me and the record time on the 150 is 200 minutes with a 32 gig card. Made the choice a no brainer between those two. Love my 150!

BUT...here's the thing...
I have started using the DSLR's (T2i and friend's 5D) for shoots and comparatively the Panny footage which used to look great to me now looks noisy and soft even in well lit studio situations.

I have begun to set aside funds for a Canon XF. Spec-wise, it should be loads better than either Panny. I can't give up a true video camera but really need one to match the crispness and color of the DSLR's better. Initial reports seem to confirm that the XF's will do just that. In a few months look for my 150 with lots of goodies for sale!

Agreed. I've seen the two camera's side by side and haven't been able to tell the difference. Actually the 170's is not a great buy at the moment unless you can get a good discount IMO. The 151 is still a good buy if you don't need 422, as i suspect most people don't.
In favour of the Canon I would add that i much prefer CF cards to SDHC as the former feel much more robust. P2 are still too expensive for my liking, particularly in light of the available competition.

Seems to me a more relevant comparison would be between the HPX300, not the HPX170 or HMC150, and the Canon XF300 / 305.

I say this because street price between them should be within $1,000 or so. Plus they both use newer generation 1/3" CMOS chips, etc.

I already know (or am very certain) that the XF300 will have better IQ than my 150. But then it costs half what the XF300 will likely cost. The HPX300 would be the real challenger here.

Fair point re the chips Steve, but i would argue that the real challenger to the hpx 300 would be the changeable lens version of the XF range, that i hasn't been announced yet AFAIK.

And there's the problem for us in the UK. The cheapest version (xf300) is supposed to be retailing for 6 grand (9000 US$), while the 305 is more still. And these are the fixed lens options. The XHL1 replacement will cost even more. So even in it's cheapest fixed lens version this camera costs more than the EX3. Ouch!
I'd be interested to know how many of you folks across the pond would pay 9 grand for this 1/3 chip fixed lens version?

Wow. This keeps getting better. Thanks guys for your insight. I can't wait for real hands on comparison, whenever that may be.

Comparing the XF300 to the Panny 300. Oh man....

Jonathan

Dom,

I wouldn't pay $9000 for the camera on any side of the pond and to be honest, I was surprised at the $6500-$6800. I was thinking it was going to be the XH A1/H1 replacement but Canon had better keep those cameras in the line because there is a huge price gap between Canon's top of the line consumer camera $1299 to this Camera.
I was all excited about it until I saw the price. Not long after they were announce I was thinking of selling my A1's before the perceived glut of the soon to be outdated A1. Glad I didn't. I still own two XH A1s's and for my work, I'm keeping them. I read that Chris talked about how they should make a camera for this "gap" but I don't beleive I would sell the ones I own for those either. Sometimes I need two cameras and buying two of the new ones would cost me over $14,000, So I'm ordering more tapes from the guys at Tapeworks and saving the cash. Just doesn't make good business sense for me.

Minor thing......the 300 & 305 have 1/3" chips........

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Wow. This keeps getting better. Thanks guys for your insight. I can't wait for real hands on comparison, whenever that may be.

Comparing the XF300 to the Panny 300. Oh man....

Jonathan



Not to further complicate matters, but Panny also has that new AF-100 cam based on their 4/3's CMOS chip that really looks to be a killer, at a price of around $6K, or so they were saying at NAB....it is due out September-ish, I believe.

choice is good!

I have not held the 300 but I have held the 305 and it IS heavy! Front heavy ... It's got a 'huge' lens.
The 170 however is light in comparison.

Steve,

Looking at Panasonics press release, it looks like you'd still have to invest in optics. So that price is PLUS lens(es). Unless they have a Nikon mount, I'm not sure I could afford to do this.

Have to see toward the end of the year.

The weight issue of the 300/305 could be something to consider, since I am sort of old and horrible, but mentally still 24 YO.

Jonathan

I think at NAB Panny said it (AF100) would ship with a lens but cannot swear to that.

They did make a point how the camera would be able to use adapters so that owners of Canon and Nikon glass could use them. The only question about that is if there would be any "cropping" factor when adapting these lenses.

I don't mean to sound that I am advocating this cam too much, its just fascinating to me the number of choices that are open to us now.

Not to further complicate matters, but Panny also has that new AF-100 cam based on their 4/3's CMOS chip that really looks to be a killer, at a price of around $6K, or so they were saying at NAB....it is due out September-ish, I believe.

The delivery date mentoned at NAB for the Panasonic AF100 was "End of Year 2010", so we might have to wait another 7 months before it arrives.

I honestly expect it will blow-away pretty much everything else in the prosumer price range, because we are now talking about a camera with a sensor almost the same size as the RED ONE, with interchangeable lenses, built for video, selling for about $6K. When the AF100 arrives, there will be no other prosumer camera like it.

...My personal opinion on the XF300/305 camera is that it should have been out 3 years ago, when the prosumer solid-state market was still fairly new. ( it's too late and costs too much money for what it offers )

Not to further complicate matters, but Panny also has that new AF-100 cam based on their 4/3's CMOS chip that really looks to be a killer
choice is good!


I love the look of short depth of field (I'm a stills photographer with a 20 year old addiction to fast lenses), but would not want to shoot commercial or ENG video with a 'big' sensor.

It is liberating to be 'back' on a real video camera after the EOS 5D Mark II

Nick.

I love the look of short depth of field (I'm a stills photographer with a 20 year old addiction to fast lenses), but would not want to shoot commercial or ENG video with a 'big' sensor.

It is liberating to be 'back' on a real video camera after the EOS 5D Mark II

Nick.

Hi Nick.

Am looking at a new camera to replace my venerable Sony A1E. Have been thinking of either the SOny EX1R or more recently, the Canon XF300. I do videojournalism for international news broadcast out of Latin America. I would like to move into docs as well - current affairs style (lots of handheld), not set up with lighting, etc.

The new Panny sounds great but your comment suggests that ENG work would be troublesome with a 4/3" sensor. Why is that? Focussing issues?

Many thanks. And apologies for the newbie question.

Dave

Hi Nick.

Am looking at a new camera to replace my venerable Sony A1E. Have been thinking of either the SOny EX1R or more recently, the Canon XF300. I do videojournalism for international news broadcast out of Latin America. I would like to move into docs as well - current affairs style (lots of handheld), not set up with lighting, etc.

The new Panny sounds great but your comment suggests that ENG work would be troublesome with a 4/3" sensor. Why is that? Focussing issues?

Many thanks. And apologies for the newbie question.

Dave

Depth of focus will be very thin with this size sensor, yes. If you've got to shoot quick, and you've only got 1 chance to get the shot, it would be very risky to depend on a camera like this. Also, chances are they're aren't going to solve the rolling shutter issue with the large single cmos, so expect a good amount of jello in handheld shots. Not to mention all the additional gear you'll need to carry with you to make shooting with a camera like this as versatile as shooting with a smaller chip camcorder (follow focus, rails, additional lenses, etc) - you can bet lenses that aren't native m4/3 won't be able to auto-focus, and most won't have any kind of OIS. This isn't a camera for run 'n gun shooting - even in the AF100 brochure given away at NAB this year, Panasonic says it is "designed for stable camera work." For docs & ENG, I think you'd be much happier with a smaller-chip camcorder and maybe a cheap dslr (GH2?) as a secondary cam for those 'beauty shots.' :)

Brian, you've said it all for me. Absolutely correct.

Dave, not a problem, the only way is to ask, I have done it plenty myself.

My ideal solution for the type of work you are looking at would be a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder and a DSLR for arty shots or to give an edge to the features work. Obviously, I like my Canon gear, but take your pick of what works for you. Careful setup will allow the intercutting of two cameras effectively.

DSLR / Big sensors have their place and 'the look' is wonderful, but trying to keep ENG stuff in focus would be scary. With a wide open lens, DoF can be measured in mm.

Not sure if you mean Panny DSLR or Camcorder? DSLRs have not got enough resolution on the rear screen to focus accurately at normal magnification, even with a Z-Finder or similar. Magnification is not possible during shooting and therein lies the issue. If you go Panny 4/3 camcorder, presumably a monitor could be used, but the restricted DoF would still be a pain, + cumbersome. In the past, news crews did it (with film), but they did not have the audience looking for the pixel perfect focus that people expect now on their HD screens.

Hope this helps somewhat?

Nick.

Talking restricted Depth of Field etc, this was a shot from the XF300, taken out of the factory section of the Morgan piece. Quality is close to a DSLR still and the B&W gives it a slightly more edgy look.

I'm not sure were going to get it, but imagine how sensitive a 4/3" or S35 sensor could be if it only had 6 million great big pixels (assuming 1920x1080 bayer) as opposed to the 18 or 24 million small pixels of a DSLR sensor. The potentially 3 fold increase in sensitivity would allow the use of smaller apertures which would help reduce the shallow DoF for shoots where you don't desire it. However I think in the rush to bring out 4/3" cameras the manufacturers are simply going to re-purpose DSLR type sensors rather than developing all new video sensors.

There seems to be quite a difference between the two. The Canon still does not have an accurate price, but likely to be around $6500, more expensive than the Panny at around $4500.
A few weeks after you wrote that, the best information seems to be that the UK price of the Canon will be somewhere under £6,000 (ex VAT), and the current price of the HPX171 is about £3,500. Trouble is, that HPX171 price is without any memory, and until you buy P2 cards it's virtually useless. I'd reckon you'd need at least two hours worth of recording time, so for two 64GB P2 cards don't expect much change from £1,500. So the comparison now becomes about £5,000 v "somewhere under £6,000".
I could go on. Both are capable cameras shooting 4:2:2, but the Canon is 'now technology' as opposed to 1998 technology, and is broadcast capable at 50Mbs.
Not just broadcast capable, but there are now many threads in this forum pointing out how the Canon XF305 has been approved for BBC HD usage - the HPX171 isn't, and falls far short of the minimum spec in many ways. From sensor resolution through to codec. Although the HPX may be 4:2:2, that's based on a sub-sampled luminance raster, so even that isn't as good as it may first appear.

Take all that into account, and my feeling is that the price difference is very small consideing the vast improvements it brings, and I'd expect the Canon to hold it's second hand value far better.

As far as the AF100 goes, it's been announced that it will be AVC-HD, so don't expect broadcast approval without an external recorder like the nanoFlash. I fully endorse what Alister says in the last post. A camera with a sensor like this COULD be very nice if the sensor was purpose designed. All the indications are it will make use of an existing still camera design, and apart from not getting the sensitivity it might, will also therefore likely have aliasing issues as well.

And for docs and handheld work, forget it. Even Panasonic are saying it won't be suitable for that.

Dave, not a problem, the only way is to ask, I have done it plenty myself.

My ideal solution for the type of work you are looking at would be a 1/3" or 1/2" camcorder and a DSLR for arty shots or to give an edge to the features work. Obviously, I like my Canon gear, but take your pick of what works for you.

As far as the AF100 goes, it's been announced that it will be AVC-HD, so don't expect broadcast approval without an external recorder like the nanoFlash. I fully endorse what Alister says in the last post. A camera with a sensor like this COULD be very nice if the sensor was purpose designed. All the indications are it will make use of an existing still camera design, and apart from not getting the sensitivity it might, will also therefore likely have aliasing issues as well.

And for docs and handheld work, forget it. Even Panasonic are saying it won't be suitable for that.

Thank you kindly David and Nick. Your advice is very helpful.

Now it appears the choice comes down to either the EX1R or the Canon XF300. I've read the debate between the two camera's on image quality and light sensitivity. However, I'm curious which has better in-camera stabilization, or more precisely which will be superior for handheld work. I'm leaning towards the Canon .... but can get a better deal on the Sony.

Any advice on which of the two is superior for ENG-style work as a reporter/producer/cameraman?

Cheers!

Dave

I think it's things like this that we just don't know yet, it's too early to tell. I doubt there's much in it. The Canon has a bigger zoom range and the LCD design appears a little better as it is usable from both sides, but what all that translates to in the field is another question, on e best answered after a few weeks on a busy shoot.

Hi Folks,

Very informative thread here, as started by Jonathan!

@Jonathan--Did you eventually decide which cam to get? A Panasonic HPX170, Sony EX1R, or the Canon XF300?

I'm in a similar boat, as we're preparing the upgrade to HD (whew, finally :)

I've had the good fortune to have a friend lend me his 170 for several days. And I've shot mainly backyard footage with it, mostly of our dogs playing around, and the wife gardening. I do have to say that the 170 is easy to handle, very light (compared to our XL2!), and easy to edit with (natively on Premiere Pro CS5). I've even burned a blu ray (my first one--whoop!) using Encore, and it looked pretty darn good on the 52" screen.

I have not made the decision to buy the 170 yet, but aside for the reasons mentioned, other videographers in my area use the P2 workflow. And I can easily integrate with them, i.e. multiple cam shoots.

But I'm not in a hurry, waiting on you kind folks how you use your new XF cams, and how you relate your experiences with it. Hope to make a decision in the next few months. Here's hoping I make the right one :)

Best,

Image stabilization is a huge factor for me as well. The Canon has what it's calling "a newly designed SuperRange Optical Image Stabilization system (lens shift) with three modes: Standard, Dynamic and Powered," which I've heard very good things about. My XF300 arrives tomorrow, I'll do some tests with the different modes vs no OIS at full zoom and post the results.

Cheers Brian. Looking forward to it. One guy I've spoken with says the Canon's OIS is sensational. He tested the three modes in a variety of situations. I'll be interested in hearing your opinion, and seeing the results.

Would be interesting to see how the Canon compares to the EX1R.

Image stabilization is a huge factor for me as well. The Canon has what it's calling "a newly designed SuperRange Optical Image Stabilization system (lens shift) with three modes: Standard, Dynamic and Powered," which I've heard very good things about. My XF300 arrives tomorrow, I'll do some tests with the different modes vs no OIS at full zoom and post the results.

please please please post raw samples :D

I'm interested to see a constructive test of OIS from the Canon. I used it heavily, trying both Dynamic and Powered for the car shoot. To be fair, the results were miraculous considering how I was being buffeted by wind at high road speeds (none of my clips had software treatment to stabilize them)

Powered seemed to have an edge, but nothing could be expected handle some of the vertical lurches (that I edited out of the clips) induced by British roads.

The only one thing I would love to see is some form of bracket to permit effective resting on shoulder for hand-held work. Anyone got possible suggestions?

Nick.

The only one thing I would love to see is some form of bracket to permit effective resting on shoulder for hand-held work. Anyone got possible suggestions?

Nick.

Canon rep at Cinegear in Los Angeles said Canon would be coming out with one, but he didn:t give a time table.

Really helpful Brian, thank you. I have been nagging Canon here in Europe, also for an adapter 'in the kit' for smaller diameter microphones: so much better than elastic bands!

A little late seeing this post but no one seems concerned about (1) the CMOS sensors and (#2) the lack of SD recording in the new Canon lineup. The rolling shutter and flash banding effects are pretty scary and I can't believe we're supposed to accept these artifacts when paying so much money for a camera.

At least the 170 has CCD sensors.

David, this is an exisiting issue in marketplace. We, (camera purchasers & users) are not being complacent, just accepting the reality. CCDs are just too expensive to make full raster, especially in a small form factor. So CMOS is a tradeoff for increased resolution. The manufacturers have made their point and hopefully someday they can produce CMOS in a fashion that eliminates skew and banding.

I have integrated the EX-1 into my workflow and realised the flash banding goes by so quickly that it is often a non-issue. Skew bothers me but it too most often will go by un-noticed.

We are still in a transition period so to speak. Tradeoffs are part of getting new technical developments and affordable HD is still being developed. So we have celebrate the positives of the cameras which mostly outweigh the negatives.

thanks for the reply.
I take your points about evolution. However, from my point of view, in reference to the sensor, the cure is worse than the disease. I don't think CCD's not being full raster has stopped the production of HD content. In my opinion, it is a smaller compromise than the CMOS trade-off. Hasn't really accomplished the overall savings either...it seems. Maybe they saved on the chip itself but...
you can imagine why people are wondering about the cost of the 300 series. Almost twice as much! So the sensor technology is helping with the camera cost? And we're supposed to accept the artifacts on top of that when the CCD didn't have them? I find it difficult to accept paying upwards to 10k and in some cases more, depending on the manufacturer, for a camera with these kinds of problems.

A little late seeing this post but no one seems concerned about (1) the CMOS sensors and (#2) the lack of SD recording in the new Canon lineup. The rolling shutter and flash banding effects are pretty scary and I can't believe we're supposed to accept these artifacts when paying so much money for a camera.
CMOS is a way of not just upping resolution for the same size chip, but it also has advantages in terms of sensitivity and highlight handling, and lower camera power requirements. I hear what you are saying, but the current view is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks overall - it may be comparable to when CCDs first came in (and displaced tubes). They had terrible vertical streaking on highlights, but overall the feeling was that it was a price to be paid given the benefits.

As for "paying so much" - then the very same artifacts are present in cameras costing very much more, Red being the obvious example.

I find the point about SD recording maybe more valid - but it depends what your work consists of. Some people may only want to shoot HD so it becomes a non-issue (maybe downconverting later), but for others, yes, it could be a big problem. (It wasn't on the original EX1, but had to be added to the EX1R due to demand.)

The only excuse may be that real time downconversion is very difficult to do well, at least without spending a lot of money. Maybe Canon just felt that rather than not do it well (or make the camera cost even more) better to not try to do it at all?

Yep, I can just hear it now. Manufacturers will be referring to these new cameras as "those first generation units" after we've spent all we have to purchase them now. As much as I like some of the concept of card based acquisition, I think I'm going to stay with my tape based, CCD pickup A1 and go the DTE route when I need it.
thanks for the thoughts.

I have an XHG-1, but after using both XF300 and 305, I can hardly bear to go back to it; the difference is night and day. I'm happy to put up with some rolling shutter in return for all the other advantages CMOS brings to these cameras bring.

Ironically CMOS bought immeasurable improvements to my Canon DSLR cameras back in 2000, despite howls of protest from the CCD purists. Nothing new and all that?

Nick

Well I do a lot of theatrical work. Lots of strobe lights flashing at different rates and flash cameras in the audience too. I'm not too keen on experimentation when it comes to a paying gig. Also do whip pans and other fast panning techniques when not doing theatrical. Not too keen on adding the special effects of bending objects in the background! Although, maybe it would be cool. I must have missed the survey when the manufacturers decided that the CMOS artifacts were acceptable to professional videographers. :-)

anyway, to each his own.

David, I totally agree with you, but I have accepted the reality of the situation. CMOS is not going anywhere not matter how unhappy we are.

I struggled with this for a while but I feel it is more important to be happy than hate. So I use the tools and live with the shortcomings that everybody else seems to think is not an issue.

I wish there was a survey. Given that a lot of stuff still gets delivered on DVD, the technical race and 1080p seems like running around in circles at times.

But I agree, from the outside, it does not look like CMOS is saving anybody much money given the latest Canon and Panasonic 1/3" chip models.

I hear what you are saying, but the current view is that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks overall - it may be comparable to when CCDs first came in (and displaced tubes). They had terrible vertical streaking on highlights, but overall the feeling was that it was a price to be paid given the benefits.

As for "paying so much" - then the very same artifacts are present in cameras costing very much more, Red being the obvious example.



This seemed to the case when the BVW 400 Betacam SP came out without any (or at least noticeable) vertical streaks, but the then broadcasters became happy 1/3" cameras with horrendous vertical streaks, plus softer pictures. On the other hand, the small cameras were cheaper.

My camcorder ownership has progressed over the years from VHS, Panasonic SVHS, Canon L-1 Hi8, Canon XL-1, XL-1s to XH-A1.

Bought a 5D mkII when they were first released, ditto for the 7D. After using these still cameras with their many limitations, I have acquired quite an inventory of Canon L glass as well as a couple examples of Zeiss glass. The low light capability and DOF control of these cameras - with good glass in front of them - yields some very impressive images.

My next proper video camera upgrade will have an AP-S sized sensor - or larger - with interchangeable lenses.

between the two, it would depend on whether is for work ie music videos or weddings, in which case i would choose the sharper non-pixel shifting XF300, versus creativity, where i would pick the HPX170 due to HD-SDI and variable framerates.

Go with the XF305. It has HD-SDI and variable frame rates.

The only one thing I would love to see is some form of bracket to permit effective resting on shoulder for hand-held work. Anyone got possible suggestions?

Nick.

I was wishing for the same for my HMC150 and found that the shoulder rig I use for my DSLR works great with the full camera. In fact, I put a focus ring on the lens and my follow focus works great. I also have a zoom/focus iris controller that mounts to the handle. Most suprisingly, the eyepiece happens to line up perfectly!
I am planning on trading the Panny for the XF300 later this year so hopefully the ergos aren't too different.

If you shoot both DSLR and camcorder, I'd try it!

Hi Robert,

What model shoulder rig are you using for your DSLR and Panasonic camera?

(I'm hoping you'll say,"Oh it's the really good one that's under $200" :)

Cheaper than most as I made a few pieces and sourced others from lesser known manufacturers.
The rails and riser are red rock with a couple of other pieces added on. It is a single handle and has an adapter to mount to a tripod that also fits my monopod. I'll take a couple of pics Thursday while I'm on my shoot.