I'll be passing through the United States briefly in mid/late July and am looking at picking up an EX1R while I'm there.

Any chance there'll be any competitive videocameras launched between now and then? I understand most new/updated models are launched at big trade fairs like NAB in Vegas, but wanted to check just in case. I'm keeping an eye on used EX1Rs and if the right deal came up I might purchase, send to a friend and pick up on my way through.

I'm interested in the Sony because of its small size, 1/2" sensors, and manual controls, so anything competitive would have to have similar qualities.

Many thanks.

Dave

The new Canon. Only 1/3" chips but has better codec, maybe better lens. The difference between 1/2" and 1/3" is pretty small (for instance just 1 stop depth of field, ie a 1/3" at f2.8 will have same dof as 1/2" at f4). Might be worth a look.
Also JVC HM700 if you don't want CMOS.
Red Scarlett on the horizon, some time between now and the year 12,000!
Steve

The new Canon. Only 1/3" chips but has better codec, maybe better lens. The difference between 1/2" and 1/3" is pretty small (for instance just 1 stop depth of field, ie a 1/3" at f2.8 will have same dof as 1/2" at f4). Might be worth a look.
Also JVC HM700 if you don't want CMOS.
Red Scarlett on the horizon, some time between now and the year 12,000!
Steve

I thought the canon had the same codec? Slightly more bitrate and 4:2:2, but same (or very similar) codec.. The 1/3" sensor doesn't make a ton of difference in depth of field, but can be the difference in quite a bit of noise in low lighting scenarios. Canon could have knocked it out of the park with this release, but fell short in my view. Especially given that it's $1700 more than the EX1r for the XF305 with SDI output like the EX1r. The difference in price is more than halfway to a nano-flash which offers 280Mbs recording if desired.

Agree with all of that Perrone. Yes, same codec but 50 mb/s 422 vs 35 mb/s 420, a definite improvement, and (perhaps) importantly approved by EBU a good enough for HD use while 35mb/s falls short.
As a general rule of course 1/2" will have less noise than 1/3" but a test of the new Panny HPX370 with 1/3" showed the same of less noise than an EX1. Sometimes you do wonder what corners have been cut to achieve it though, looked to me like the images from the 370 were much less noisy than the older HPX300, but they also looked softer, just as if you'd applied a noise reduction algorythm like you would with Noise Ninja etc.
Steve

Agree with all of that Perrone. Yes, same codec but 50 mb/s 422 vs 35 mb/s 420, a definite improvement, and (perhaps) importantly approved by EBU a good enough for HD use while 35mb/s falls short.
As a general rule of course 1/2" will have less noise than 1/3" but a test of the new Panny HPX370 with 1/3" showed the same of less noise than an EX1. Sometimes you do wonder what corners have been cut to achieve it though, looked to me like the images from the 370 were much less noisy than the older HPX300, but they also looked softer, just as if you'd applied a noise reduction algorythm like you would with Noise Ninja etc.
Steve

I thought EBU specified a minimum of a 1/2" sensor anyway? Or was just BBC?

Yes it does, I thought that was what you were referring to Canon knocking it out of the park if they'd had a 1/2" chip too they'd tick all the boxes. As it is they are halfway there - which could also be viewed as noman's land really! It does seem daft that with the EX1 you have to put on an external box to get full EBU spec, and it's 100% obvious that Sony could put the codec straight into the camera for a tiny amount extra cost - but obviously they want to sell more expensive cameras too.
Steve

Yes it does, I thought that was what you were referring to Canon knocking it out of the park if they'd had a 1/2" chip too they'd tick all the boxes. As it is they are halfway there - which could also be viewed as noman's land really! It does seem daft that with the EX1 you have to put on an external box to get full EBU spec, and it's 100% obvious that Sony could put the codec straight into the camera for a tiny amount extra cost - but obviously they want to sell more expensive cameras too.
Steve

At least with Sony, it makes sense. Those NEEDING broadcast level signal can spend $3k and get it in spades with the Nanoflash. And Sony protects it's existing higher end XDCam line.

Canon HAS no offerings above these cameras. There's nothing there to protect. Though I guess it's somehow possible they couldn't put a 1/2" sensor or larger into the camera? They did everything else.

Quite honestly, I've been utterly thrilled with the quality of image from my EX1, and I suspect most Canon users will be too with this range of cams.

The difference between 1/2" and 1/3" is pretty small (for instance just 1 stop depth of field, .........
Chip size will give a difference in three basic ways - depth of field (as you say), sensitivity, and minimum usable aperture.

The first two get talked about quite a lot, the third less so. The physical size of the iris starts to come into play with diffraction effects on HD cameras - as you stop down smaller than a certain aperture, diffraction starts to make the picture softer. The effect will vary with chip size, and be more of a problem the smaller the chip size. The result is to lower the usable aperture range - so whereas a 1/2" camera may be usable between f2 and f5.6 (say), an equivalent 1/3" camera may be restricted to f2 to f4.

Take the three effects together and it shows why 1/2" chips are preferred to 1/3" - and why 2/3" are better still.

In practical terms, then it's exactly as you say. The new Canon has the better codec, but would be so much better with 1/2" chips.

Yeah.... I must say I'm very grateful to Sony and Convergent Design for providing me with the EX1/nanoFlash combo. To answer the OP's question, I personally have that peace of mind when anything new is announced (like the Canon) - I'm not getting tempted at all...Well, perhaps the PMW-350 I'd love to have - but this is not my price league, anyway.

Quite unlike 3 years ago, when soon after purchasing the (not bad at all) V1E, the EX1 was announced. I new at once I just had to upgrade, and the sooner the better (which I did). I never regretted - so if I were in the OP's shoes, I'd still buy the EX1R even today again (plus, if he is planning to deliver for high standards broadcast, I'd add the nanoFlash).

Just my $0.02.

The result is to lower the usable aperture range - so whereas a 1/2" camera may be usable between f2 and f5.6 (say), an equivalent 1/3" camera may be restricted to f2 to f4.


It's obviously not true to say that it's only "useable" between f2 and f4, just that theoretically diffraction will have some effect. But on screen it's never as obvious as the science would suggest. Therefore I think you can extend this a bit, and be quite comfortable between f2 and at least f5.6, which to me is plenty of range combined with NDs - would it better to have more, yes, but not as disastrous as many seem to think IMO.
Steve

Piotr, agree entirely, though I just think it makes Sony look silly that they seem not to able to offer 50 mb/s and then some small indy does it brilliantly!
Steve

Steve, of course they ARE able - after all, Convergent Design use Sony's own encoding chips...

It's just a marketing strategy - protecting more expensive models.

And the new Canons do offer 50/422, but for a price not so much different than that of EX1+nano !

I agree with Piotr, the image out of the EX will stay in style for many years.

The only thing that would get me to trade up would be form factor and no more skew in a new CMOS chipset.

The EX-1 at $6,000 is quite a bargain. It will be interesting to see how the 320 is priced.

sorry, wrong place :)

I agree with Steve, it would have cost very little to add the higher quality codecs to the EX1/3. If you look at the NX5 you see what Sony's thinking: Cameras are getting so good and so cheap the only profit will will be in selling proprietary hard drives. Like buying a $99 printer that has a $79 ink cartridge.
And I scratched my head a lot looking at the Canon. My thought: they got trapped in a development cycle. About half way through they realized their own 7d was going to be the real threat going forward and that the future of 1/3" for full pro cameras is bleak. But they had too much money in already, they have a longer development cycle than Sony or Panasonic, and if they showed nothing they'd be entirely out of the market. They release it for too much money with a better than competition codec (the easiest thing to change) hoping to sell enough to not take a bath.
I think we all expect products to show up that behave like proper video cameras but use 35mm and 4/3 chips and can use lenses that work for those formats, including very expensive servo-zooms not presently available.

I agree with Steve, it would have cost very little to add the higher quality codecs to the EX1/3..

Yes but you are winding the clock back 2.5 years. The EX1 was hailed as a miracle camera when it came out, and HDV was still a very viable competitor. AVCHD was hardly on the radar. The Panasonic HVX200 was the only solid state camera to compete against below $25k and shooting a half hour on it cost $3k.

The market has changed a LOT in 2.5 years. And while the Canon may have a slightly better codec implementation, it still can't beat the sensor in the EX1/EX3.

Panasonic and Sony are looking toward larger sensor cameras. Maybe Canon will join them sometime in the future.

Well Panasonic's low end pro camera is a 1/3" chip, the HPX370. Same situation as the EX1/3 here but in reverse, great codec, small chip, instead of bigger chip, poorer codec.
Steve

Think how amazing it would be if the major manufacturers pooled resources to create a decent 35mm or S35mm sensor. Just get it over and done with. And let them differentiate themselves with features, codec, etc. There's room in this market for EVERYONE to play, but many pros are looking for nearly the same things. A larger sensor, with good sensitivity and low noise. What drives me NUTS is that RED has it. It's had it for years now. Arri has it and has for years (though it hasn't been particularly sensitive), and the new Alexa is the total package. Panavision has it.

I don't need a PL mount. I don't need RAW. I don't need 4-pin XLR power, I don't need a whole lot of things. Just give me an s35 sensor camera with clean ISO 400/800, HDMI and SDI out, and 2-4 CompactFlash slots. Give me a Nikon mount and you can sell it to me without the glass. Give me a workable codec. XDCam is just fine, or allow me a firmware update to a i-frame 50-250Mb codec if I want that.

Give it to me for under $10k.

Is that so hard?

You don't ask for much, do you, Perrone?

Oh, wait...I want the same thing as you.

Maybe you just need an HDSLR such as the Canon 7D or 5D, albeit without some of the bells and whistles in your list.

I think something close to what Perrone is talking about is on the way. The Panasonic AF-100 and the Sony offering will be as far as the camera makers want to go at this point.

Video camera pricing models have always been based upon chip size. Now we as the consumer are asking for a chip that is 4x the size of the old big kid on the block (2/3") for under $10,000

How will this new camera impact 2/3" camera sales? Is the whole reason this type of camera is even being considered is that the 2/3" market is already secondary or dying to the camera makers?

If they can make the cameras affordable enough, one can see having "role" based camera ownership. One would use the EX-1 for certain situations and the shallow DOF camera for all of the interviews, or whatever. Buying more cameras instead of the one monster purchase.

The initial post is about EX-1 competition. I think future offerings will be more of an addition to your ownership rather than a replacement. I also think Blu-ray needs to take over more for there to be a need for better image quality. Because right now, the EX-1 can be overkill in many situations.

So the new 4/3" camcorders like the Panasonic AF100 and the Sony offering aren't likely to replace the Sony EX1? Would that be because they are more suited to studio filmmaking than on-the-move documentary work?

I've seen some beautiful work filmed on the DSLR cameras. But I've read that they are extremely difficult to use in run and gun situations - the kind of video work I do.

I would love to find an EX1R replacement 2/3rds the size and weight, with ergonomics designed for handheld work, and simple to use functions.

Canon are due to ship their XF350 & XF300 at the end of this month, may be worth waiting to see what they can do. I have seen some amazing footage shot with them and will be getting one in for review very shortly.

I waited for the Canons to be announced and once they were decided to go a different route, I really looked at the PMC-150 for a B cam, but when it came down to buying a B cam and all the accessories went with a ex1r to go with my ex1r. Having two identical cameras will be nice, make editing much easier and accessories will swap back and forth.

I really felt Canon should have came in at $4500-$5000 to compete with the proven Ex1r. Canon has had its lemons over the years so was not going to take a chance for a 1/3 chip.

You do hear a few negatives about the EX1's but its from pretty demanding professionals, will see how Canon does in that price range, chances are they will also be dealing with people who demand a lot from this class of camera.

I find myself going a different direction, using a 7D for high impact shots and considering a much smaller, less expensive, low light camera like the Pan TM700 or Sony CX550V for run and gun or wide cover shots. If the small cameras had XLR/manual audio and the TM700 had a great HD display, or if the CX550V had 24P and 30P, I'd feel very well equipped.

I'm surprised someone hasn't equipped one of the new generation small cameras with a quality mechanical lens package, XLR's, and good audio (or have they?).

Steve, of course they ARE able - after all, Convergent Design use Sony's own encoding chips...

It's just a marketing strategy - protecting more expensive models.

And the new Canons do offer 50/422, but for a price not so much different than that of EX1+nano !
I have been told that the 50/422 is locked-out in the firmware.
Does anyone hear about this before?

Video camera pricing models have always been based upon chip size. Now we as the consumer are asking for a chip that is 4x the size of the old big kid on the block (2/3") for under $10,000

How will this new camera impact 2/3" camera sales? Is the whole reason this type of camera is even being considered is that the 2/3" market is already secondary or dying to the camera makers?

If they can make the cameras affordable enough, ......
One point that seems to be being missed here is regarding lenses. It's wrong to think that 2/3" cameras have traditionally been more expensive than 1/3" models solely down to the chip/camera body costs - a big factor has been that the bigger the chip, the bigger, heavier and more expensive the lens has to be to service it. That, or accept compromises in quality/f no/zoom range/wide angle ability - or some combination of the four.

IF there is a general move to cameras with DSLR size sensors, then EITHER users are going to have to accept that they will have to give up a lot in some or all of those factors OR expect to have gigantic expensive lenses if they are to match such as the lenses on a camera like the EX1. For some people, using primes will be no hardship - for others a fast 12x zoom with decent wide angle is essential.

The real clever part about the EX1 is building a camera with 1/2" chips, but maintaining a size/weight, even cost, more typical of 1/3" cameras. And without compromising on zoom range, wide end of lens, or speed of the lens. Yes, it would be better still with the 50Mbs codec, but you can always add an external coder - there's nothing you can do about a cameras chipset except get a different camera.

David,

I am unclear about lens cost with relationship to sensor size.

I am under the impression that it is more difficult to make a high resolving lens for a 1/3" camera than a larger sensor. Is this off-base?

While a realize 8-20x zoom ranges are pretty much unheard of in the SLR world, I would think the lowered resolution output of a vDSLR (2 megapixels) would ease some of the issues.

One compromise might be an 8x zoom range on the new larger sensor cameras if zoom range is what makes lens design so difficult. Your thought would be appreciated.

I am unclear about lens cost with relationship to sensor size.
I think all you can really say is that the bigger the sensor size, the more expensive the lens (and very much so) - assuming the two lenses have equivalent angles of view, max f no, zoom range etc etc. Compromise one or more of the features of the lens (smaller max aperture, lower zoom range etc) and expect the price to change. It's not just cost - also size, weight etc.

Let's assume a square sensor with dimensions of 10mm, and a simple lens of (say) 20mm focal length with an aperture of f2. By definition the diameter of this simple lens will be 10mm - f no= focal length/lens diameter. Now let's make the sensor 20mmx20mm. For the same angle of view, the focal length will have to be 40mm, and if we still want an f2 lens, that means a diameter now of 20mm. It will also have to be thicker overall than the first lens, so the doubling of linear dimensions, the 4x increase in area (2 squared), means much more than a 4x increase in lens volume, and hence weight.

OK, real world lens are far more complicated, but do you see how the problems start to come about?
One compromise might be an 8x zoom range on the new larger sensor cameras if zoom range is what makes lens design so difficult. Your thought would be appreciated.
My thought is that it's not just zoom range, but a host of other factors - max aperture, widest angle of view etc etc. It's also possible to cut corners on a lens for still usage in a way that's not possible for video. Most obvious is that a video zoom *must* track focus throughout the range whilst zooming - that's not necessary for DSLR stills. It is quite possible to take a photo, zoom, refocus, take another photo, etc. Similarly a lens designed for still use may ramp considerably over it's zoom range, the aperture at the tight end may be 2 stops down on the wide end - that's unlikely to be acceptable for video use. *IF* a user is happy to use prime lenses or zooms with very limited ranges, a large format video camera becomes realistic and presents advantages. If a user doesn't want to give up his 14x zoom with f1.8 max aperture and a wide angle at widest, either forget about large format sensors or be prepared to pay a great deal for the lens.
How will this new camera impact 2/3" camera sales? Is the whole reason this type of camera is even being considered is that the 2/3" market is already secondary or dying to the camera makers?
The 2/3" market is typically the broadcaster market and I don't see them wanting to give up their fast wide angle zooms with a large zoom range any time soon. So I don't see the 2/3" market dying at all. I am considering getting a decent camcorder for personal use for a particular project and was looking at the higher end AVC-HD models - I'm now looking at a DSLR with video capabilities. (For what I want to do, the lens issues aren't a problem.) Similarly in the consumer market. Now still cameras are coming along with decent (if far from perfect) true video capabilities, why bother with a separate video camera at all?

My own feeling is that sales of mid range 1/3" cameras will be most afected by the new developments. The EX, with 1/2" chips and more pro video features may enable it to buck the trend more than most.

After dragging around 2\3 shoulder mount cams my EX1r certainly doesn't feel cumbersome in any way. I did a silly amount of reading and research before purchasing and there really is nothing in its class right now.

After a long and tortous research I finally bite the bait for sony Ex1r and I feel I made te right choise after few hours of use. I believe it is a bit difficult to go wrong at this choice of camera for now and immediate future.