No, definitely decided not to buy any more cameras for a while! But am pointing clients in the direction of the 500 as for wildlife it looks like a real contender - low power consumption means less/lighter batteries too, and has pre record, slomo, plus super 1080 chip too, ticks a lot of boxes, at least until we get proper 1080/60P.
Steve

Agree it looks like a nice choice, still wish they would offer it with the PMW-350's VF for under 20K.

How about the F3, that should be great for Wildlife shooting?

No, 'cos it's full frame so you lose all your lens power. Also only 35 mb/s codec - what's that all about?! Viewfinder looks EX1ish too, ie rubbish. Get the feeling folks might buy the F3 and then add loads of kit to it like they do with DSLRs - Nanoflash, monitor etc.?
Steve

Steve, Paul,

Okay, maybe "blows away" is bit over the top. For me, I simply like the image that Sony CMOS sensors produce. They're much quieter than CCDs and more light sensitive. I also believe they have a slighter improvement on color depth too. I also think the EX record format may have a bit of an edge over XDCAM or maybe it's the matrix being use on this series. Granted the F900 is older technology and if the guy shooting with the F900 was using standard gamma settings, you could make just about any HD camera look better. I haven't seen the footage side by side yet but will give you a report once I do..... I think the purpose of the 500 was to fills the gap created by the 350 which is 4:2:2 50mbps and file based memory recording and still be backward compatible with the 700 & F800 guys work-flow and image quality. Now that Sony has released the 500 I'm hoping they'll offer a 4:2:2 50mbps upgrade for the 350. Not going to hold my breath though!

My Scene file for the 350 & 320 for general use with detail setting a bit higher on the 320
Master Black - 3 to -15 depending on subject matter
Gamma on, Gamma table 2 or 4
Black Gamma - 30 (increase for more detail in blacks)
Detail - 8 to - 15
Low Key Saturation + 4
all other settings default

Interesting note. My 350 came preset to standard gamma where as the 320 was preset to gamma table 2. The demo model Sony lent me (preset to standard gamma) looked great in the view finder but was really flat once viewed on screen. I'd be interests to find out what the newer 350s are preset to. Setting the gamma to 2 or 4 and lowering the Master black to taste is a quick way to get the camera looking pretty good.

Steve,
I am sure owners will add loads of gear to the F3. Convergent Designs and AJA are both smiling. I do have interest in the F3 for my doc work. Nice to see great footage coming from the AF100 off native codec. This just out today. AF100 Demo shot by Leo Ticheli Productions on Vimeo

Dan,
Not trying to question your opinion. CMOS just keep getting better and better and I have no doubt you are getting great results. I am still looking at the 350 for my eng camera. But for me I would have to use my Nano, or the Ki Pro Mini which I would like to test. I like the Ki Pro Mini taking advantage of the 350 SDI out, 10 bit 422, using ProRes HQ (220Mb/s). This is an excellent feature when shooting for HD broadcast, which is what I would be doing with the camera.

350 at native 50Mb/s 422 would be a nice upgrade, but like you say don't hold your breath with the 500 just out.

Very nice of you to post your PP. I plan on testing a 350 again and will use your settings as one on the list of PP's.

Dan finally checked out your site. Nice work!

This is a great thread, and have enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. (Sorry for the long post; I tend to get a bit long-winded.)

I finally made the leap from an old BetaSP rig (Sony BVP-550) with Canon lens to the new-fangled world of high-def and SxS cards. That last camera was 35 thousand, and I wasn't about to spend that kind of money again, especially in this economy. When shopping around, I was seriously considering the Panasonic HPX 500 but it did not shoot 1080p, only 1080i. It was already a 5 year old camera, and just didn't feel comfortable with investing in "old" technology right out of the box. However, I did like the option of buying a camera and lens separately, something that was not a good economic option with the PMW350 and it's stock lens.

But for the money, the 350 was a good fit, especially considering that I generally only shoot corporate stuff anyway. Yes, I was ringing my hands about the 35Mbs rate and the CCD vs CMOS thing, but heck, my clients wouldn't be able to notice the difference anyway....and I'm not entirely sure I would either. I guess I can always add a Nano if it makes that much of a difference to a client.

At the time, Panasonic had a generous trade-in option on my Beta rig, and, another highly-respected shooter here in town was seriously suggesting I get into a VariCam, but doing so was going to be another 12 grand for a lens even after the trade-in. I simply felt that was too much camera for my type of clientele, and I'd rather use that 10 grand on something else......such as a new Power Mac (which I also got).

For the most part, I've been very happy with the image quality of the 350....sure beats what I've been looking at for the past decade. I've already done 2 paid shows with the camera and 2 freebies just for practice. I am also intrigued by some of the custom settings that are out there...I haven't tried any of them out just yet. Despite what we all do as videographers to make our signal quality the best it can be, we have no control over that kind of monitor it will be seen on, and how well that monitor is set up (of course, that's no reason not to strive for the best). But at the same time, CRT monitor adjustments are becoming a thing of the past as most HD players and screens are automatically adjusted for optimum picture quality. (another issue is that of clients inability to sent out BD vs DVD to prospects).

The only REAL problem I experienced with my 350 w/ stock Fuji lens was the lack of space between the lens and the big-honking color viewfinder. I always had plenty of room with my old Canon and it's B&W VF, and operating the lens rings and zoom rocker was a snap. But with this 350, it was almost a deal breaker. I still find the switch for auto/manual iris on the lens to be too far forward to reach with my right hand while on shoulder.

But on sticks, the only way to operate the zoom control is with your left hand through the space between lens and VF, and you need to do so without accidentally bumping the iris or focus rings. Maybe you guys don't have a problem with this, or maybe I'm just a big guy with big hands, but this was serious. After studying the demo camera for awhile, I determined I could make a bracket that raised the VF up by one inch.....so with that in mind, I bought the camera. And the one-inch bracket has made all the difference in the world. I can now operate my lens at speed without taking my eye away from the eye-piece.

I've made a couple of newbie mistake while shooting, mostly too much display info in the VF, covering a poorly dressed cable or something sticking in the frame that I didn't see. I absolutely DO NOT miss changing tapes every 28 minutes, and having three 32-gig SXS cards gives me plenty of record time, even during the heaviest of shooting schedules. And with the low cost of external drives, archiving clients clips is really not an issue (I just bought a 2Tb HD at Fry's electronics for $69...man that's cheap!). And the camera is so much lighter than what I've been used to!

There is one issue that I haven't found an answer for however. When shooting in very close quarters...such as on a drilling rig...I often resorted to slapping on a wide-angle adaptor to be able to get everything in the frame that I needed to. With the Canon lens, adjusting the back focus to compensate for the extra glass was quick. However now, with the stock Fuji lens, setting back focus is electronic, time-consuming, and requires a chart. Short of renting an expensive wide-angle lens ($250/day) have any of you had any success with a wide-angle adaptor?

So overall, I am absolutely elated with my PMW-350. After having used the big broadcast rigs all of my 30 years of shooting, I could not bring myself to getting the smaller-style cameras with 1/3 imagers....though the quality of those cameras is remarkable as well. In fact, I'd like to get one for a back-up. Are there better cameras out there? Absolutely!! But for the foreseeable future, this rig will suit my purposes just fine.

(The other part of this equation is a new MacPro with 8 Tb of hard drives; one Huge Systems RAID with 1 Tb, plus and additional 4 Tb external, running FCP Studio 2)

Regards,
Patrick McLoad

Patrick great post. Thanks for sharing your decision and shooting experience with the 350. Sounds like you made the right choice.

I also had problem with the left hand fitting over the lens under the VF. But sounds like a simple 1" riser is the right solution.

I am still deciding if it is 350 or 500. For me with all of the fast action the CCD really does a better job for me, ah but the cost. UURRR crash. Oh that was me falling off my chair.

I do not recall the PMW-500 even being an option for me a few months ago, but given its price without a lens, VF, and microphone, that's a serious amount of money. I would have to pass.
Talk about planned obsolescence!! There's always a new camera every 6 months.

But at that budget altitude, I would surely be looking at Panasonic as well.....even used gear. There's always someone who got in over their head and who now needs to dump it all. And how comfortable are you that for that amount of money, it doesn't do 3-D?

Seems like the 500 would at least have an additional SxS port given the higher need for storage at 50mbs.

One can't help but feel that these prices are artificially high. They are after all, mass-produced electronics. But what should strike the fear in these camera manufacturers is the number of $1,000 digital SLR's that shoot 1080p with the advantage of interchangeable lenses!

And as the article points out, it seems more economical to add an external NanoFlash to achieve the bit rate. Interesting that BBC just bought 200 PMW-350's. I'd rather spend the money on a cool dual-channel Sony wireless microphone receiver to fit in the compartment on the camera. I currently use a Shure, single-channel system, mounted behind the battery. Takes awhile to get it all set up and mounted....I would like something faster.

But I guess it all depends on your clientele and the crowd you run with. What will p---- you off is to find the 500 reduced by 5000 dollars a year or two from now! Hard to beat the 350 when it includes a decent lens. When we watch some of the footage shot on crap cameras on History, Discovery, and Nat. Geo, one has to ask himself exactly where are these "minimum standards" that broadcasters say they just have to have.

There was a time not too long ago when the format you shot separated the pros from the wannabes. Big differences between VHS, 3/4", 1", BetaSP, and digi-Beta. But now, thanks to the digital age, images from an SLR can be made to look every bit as good as a $50K broadcast camera. The difference now is lighting techniques and composition. Sort of like when Final Cut came around and kicked Avid's butt.

For me, making the transition to high-def took awhile, but it was inevitable. I think you ought to use the heck out of the 350 and let it make a pile of cash for you. There will always be something new just over the horizon. Remember, the main goal of the camera manufacturer is to separate you from your money...and the changes between the "new" cameras (350 and 500) are incremental and small. Another question is will you be able to raise your rates appreciably to pay for new gear without alienating yourself from your clients?

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Having owned the PMW-350 and the F800 there is a pretty big difference in picture quality with latitude and motion. And I shoot fast motion a lot with some customers who see the difference. Agree some can’t and that is fine but the ones who can pay the difference.

I have no argument that the PMW-500 is over priced and Sony is making a bundle off of their broadcast cameras.

As for a Panasonic I am looking at a used 3000, which is native 1080p chip. I would not buy a 720-chip camera and my clients won't accept it for the gigs I would use it on. 3-D is not in my near future and I don't think it is they way to go. But that is a whole different discussion we should not get into here, due to forum rules and I am also not interested in the discussion.

I did see Nigel's review and will check it out again, thanks. I also tried one at its release in NYC in September. Did not have but a few minutes with it but the demo footage shown at that release was fantastic. You could see the CCD shine in the sunset shots.

I have no problem with only two S&S card slots, since it holds twice the footage as with the P2 at the same quality. Also I would dual record to either my Nano or a Ki Pro Mini.

Also own a Canon 5D MKII but to say it shoots the same video quality, as a $50K broadcast camera is just not right. It is an amazing still camera, I mean amazing still camera, but its video is marginal. Again not to get into it here it has been beat to death. And people will think what they want. My clients will only accept it for time-lapse and stills.

No disagreement here on the standards dropping with networks. And they puff out their chest if you ask what is needed for video requirements. Then I am told by a Discovery show, can I use a Sony Z1 not a F800 to match the rest. At least it still comes to content, we hope.

I am talking by email with two clients on contracts and one is happy with the 350/Nano/Ki Pro Mini, and the other says CCD and 500/Ki Pro Mini. So I need to keep playing my cards until I sign both hopefully in the same week and then spend and make Sony happy.

Appreciate your input and point of view. Always nice to here from other shooters in the industry who have been doing this for a long time.

All good points.

P

Having owned the PMW-350 and the F800 there is a pretty big difference in picture quality with latitude and motion.

I used to hire a PDW700 regularly before I bought my PMW350 and have done one shoot where I intercut between the 350 and four 700s. To my eye (and the director's) the 350 produced a less noisy image. Apart from that I couldn't see any difference between them. The 350 also appeared to be slightly more sensitive.

I haven't noticed anything inferior on 350 footage compared to 700 footage. Maybe the 800 is better or maybe it requires a side-by-side test to see the difference. Can you elaborate on the differences? Have you got any of the footage still?

Of course CMOS can occasionally cause flash banding, so if I did a lot of red carpet work, I would want the 500. Apart from that and not having 4:2:2 50 Mbps, I prefer the 350. I certainly wouldn't pay double for the 500 unless I knew I would see a return on the extra investment. Most of my clients need persuading to go beyond an EX3.

One problem that I can see with the PMW-350 is the rolling shutter - but not enough to dislike the camera.
Had some clips I needed to stabalize with mecalli and although the softwre can stabilize the rooling shutter too, the rolling shutter cannot be removed completely making the picture wooblig. Tried a clip from my CCD camera and the stabilizer could make the clips work.

Pretty amazing if it's less noisy than the 700 as that's already a really non-noisy camera, I was amazed at it when I had mine. I used to use -6db but it was pointless as at 0db there was virtually no noise anyway. Very different story to the Varicam - still love it but noise is not its strong suit!
Steve

Hi Mike,

I am not cutting down the PMW-350 it is a great camera and still one of the four (350, 500, 700, Panasonic 3000) on my list. I have not shot with the 700 even though it is the same chips as the 500, 800. But what I have found doing side-by-side testing with Doug Jensen using his F800 and my PMW350 the picture is noisier on the 350. But the 350 is still very nice and low noise compared to everything in its price range. And we had to look for the difference in our test since they were static. As we have be saying motion is a different story, and with all my aerial work there is no comparison which one is better, not even close.

The problem I was having with the PMW350 latitude was useable latitude. And this has nothing to do with rolling shutter or skew. Let me explain. When I shot aerial’s of ski areas for HDTV broadcast with the PMW350/Nano at 100Mb/s we had to choose, do we keep the detail in the blacks and loose some in the bright whites or the other way around. Well we kept it in the whites and lost detail in the blacks. The camera could not handle the full range with detail. On similar aerial shoots with the F800, not the same day but bright conditions with blacks in the frame we did not have the same problem. The F800 was noticeably better in all detail, and this was true on all shoots I used the camera on. I have found this over and over between the two cameras. Still not cutting down the 350 just showing the difference you pay for with the CCD. It is a lot of money but for some it matters.

Another example is working for biologist shooting ducks. I changed to the F800 from the PMW-350 and did not tell them 7 month into the shoot. This was a 12-month on going shoot. The head biologist called and said “what did you do buy a new camera.” “Why do you ask is everything OK”, he said “The detail is so much better this month”. They blow the footage up to as much as 400% on a big screen looking at details. Now this was telling. It happened with another client also. There is more detail on the 500,700, 800 chips. It does not have the electronic sharp look the 350 CMOS has but that is not detail.

And as I have mentioned in the previous post fast motion is much better with CCD.

Does that mean I am not going to get a 350 this time, not sure yet, it all depends on the contract amount and demands. I will go with what is demanded by my clients to get the job and what will serve me well in the long run. And will the clients pay the difference, of course they will or I would not spend the extra.

Bo,
I don’t think the fact that Mecalli cannot stabilize the CCD footage has bearing at all on the quality between CCD and CMOS. Mercalli is very nice software but I think editors think it does magic. To me it makes it soft and scales it up reducing the detail, which should help the CCD. This could save a shot and it does often and for that Mercalli is great.

Agree Steve the XDCAM HD 2/3” CCD chips is leading edge, with low noise and amazing latitude. But as we keep coming back to it you pay the price up front to play the game.

Appreciate all the great questions and input helping me decide on the right camera, and camera owners adding their thoughts. It is never easy to decide on a big purchase and return for my dollar is always high on my list.

Anyone got a PDW700/800 or PMW500 and want to do a side-by-side with my 350? I think Alister Chapman already has a 700 and 350 so maybe he can comment.

I'd be interested to see the differences as I sometimes shoot with both cameras on one shoot.

Paul and I already did that twice last spring and I posted several videos at Vimeo, which I have since removed. I can't speak for Paul, but in my opinion the F800 blew the 350 away. Not only that, but my EX1 looked better than the 350, too. Ask Paul what he did with his 350 after the tests. :-)

If you don't mind doing a lot of grading you can make almost anything look pretty good, but I prefer to get 99% of the look I want in the camera, at the time of the shoot. Unfortunately, I could find no combination of paint settings on the 350 that even came close to a achieving a "look" I could accept as good enough. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing any footage from a 350 that I liked that didn't require grading.

Hi Doug, I remember seeing the videos but I wonder whether there was something wrong with the 350 you used because I use a EX3 regularly and it certainly isn't as good as my 350 in terms of image quality. When we shot with 4 700s and my 350, the 350 was slightly quieter at 0dB but we never had like-for-like shots so it was hard to compare much beyond that. We matched settings as closely as possible although the menus are different. I remember Alister saying he thought his 350 and 700 were almost indistinguishable but I don't want to speak for him, hopefully he will add his thoughts. I watched your Vimeo videos but I wouldn't want to make any kind of critical judgment from Vimeo.

Doesn't the 800 have additional paint settings over the 700? That probably helps. Also, I tend to shoot a lot of dark, contrasty interiors, whereas your tests that I saw were exterior.

IMHO image quality wouldn't be the driving factor in choosing between a 350 and 700 (and probably the 500 as it is the same CCD block). The workflow, total cost, features, rolling shutter and power draw would be more important... I think that's the point I'm trying to make :)

Hi Mike,

We discussed if there could have been something wrong with my camera. But we never did anything about this, and there were times I had nice footage with the camera that Doug has not viewed. So I did not think there was a problem with the camera.

I think it would be interesting if you did another test. But one thing is as you said in your post it is very hard to tell in heavily compressed Vimeo or Exposure Room, which I prefer. Also pulling stills is hard, the best way is big corrected monitors which we did in the field with our test.

The 800 does have user gamma that gives the camera some extra options. But Doug was shooting with normal Sony HG’s, which are also on the 700. IMHO the optical filters on the 800 do make a difference. I know Alister prefers the 700’s in camera CC filters according to his review from the air show work. Would also be interesting if Alister still has his 700? He was talking about selling it and just keeping the 350, not sure if this was really due to cost or he could not see the difference.

Understand your final points and total cost of course is a big one. I think if the 350 and the 800 were within $5K most everyone would buy the F800.

I have to decide in the next three weeks. Planning on shooting demo footage on both the 350 and 700 in that timeframe

The only REAL problem I experienced with my 350 w/ stock Fuji lens was the lack of space between the lens and the big-honking color viewfinder. I determined I could make a bracket that raised the VF up by one inch.....so with that in mind, I bought the camera. And the one-inch bracket has made all the difference in the world. I can now operate my lens at speed without taking my eye away from the eye-piece.Details of Patrick's solution located here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony-pmw-350k-viewfinder-bracket-kit.html

Very nice fix Patrick,

Thanks for posting the link Chris.

Details of Patrick's solution located here:

Sony PMW-350K Viewfinder Bracket Kit at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony-pmw-350k-viewfinder-bracket-kit.html)

I thank you as well for the link. It is an elegant solution for the stated problem but I wonder how the elevated VF will mesh with the VF protective cocoon on the available carry cases (i.e. Petrol, Porta Brace, etc.)?

That is a good question Ron. I personally don't use the tight-fitting "skin" for my cameras as they retain heat (more of an issue with my prior Beta rig), and I've heard they scratch the camera, but I could be wrong about that.
I only have a rain cover, but haven't tried it. Camera covers aren't built to very exacting specifications anyway; most are loose-fitting.

I do know it doesn't interfere with my soft carrying case (PortaBrace). I would expect some disassembly may be required in the form-fitting ATA cases, but I always remove the VF when shipping via hard case anyway, and carry the VF in a more protected carry on.
But I would rather have to alter "camera clothing" than to put up with an operating issue that can make or break a shot in the heat of the moment.

I offer a 100% money-back return for any reason, so if it doesn't work out, no big deal....you've got nothing to loose.
It's not like this is a big monetary gamble or anything like that.

Patrick McLoad

Hi Patrick,

Actually, I was referring to the camera carry bags rather than the skins that may tend to scratch the camera body. My current favorite carry bag is the Petrol PC005, and after taking measurements of the VF cocoon height with the 350 inserted, I was disappointed to find that an extra inch in VF height would make the bag unusable ... same for several of the Porta Brace contenders.

But I agree with your take in regards to the advantage your mod kit provides. Just not certain my current portage and shooting needs would allow for the required assembly and disassembly.
Regards.

Ron: Please see my blog site where I have inserted a new photo of my 350 in a case:

Sony PMW 350K Viewfinder Adjustment Bracket | Adjustment bracket for the viewfinder on a Sony PMW350K camera. (http://sonypmw350k.wordpress.com/)

I use the PortaBrace CO-OBB (pictured) or the CO-OB, both of which are designed for the PMW-350 (and probably other cams as well). The camera with VF extension fits just fine, and the VF fits into the sculpted side-pocket. It even fits with the bottom plate still attached.

I am not familiar with Petrol cases. But the extended VF isn't any higher than the handle itself, so if the handle fits in your case, then so should the VF.

Ron, we're only talking about a 50 dollar bracket here, not a 1000 dollar accessory that you have to eat if there's a problem. If you don't like it or if it doesn't fit, send it back and you'll get your money refunded. It's probably one of the cheapest parts you'll ever buy for your camera.

Patrick

Hi Patrick,
Thank you for your reply.
The Porta Brace that I measured is the CTC-4, and its protective protrusion would not allow for a 1 inch elevation of the VF, nor would the previously mentioned Petrol. I will, however, have a look at the case described in your post and get back to you.
Thanks again.

P.S. I will soon require a separate room to house all of my discarded or never-used cases.

Ron I can also highly recommend the same case Patrick is recommending. I have one and it is great as a carry-on and daily use. The CO-OB and CO-OBB are the same size according to the Portabrace website.

I think the extra "B" in the model number stands for "black" as opposed to PB blue.

I would first try the bracket to see if an issue exists before buying a $350 camera bag.
But then again, there's nothing like a new, good-fitting bag either!! :-)

P

Hi,
While haven't tried the PB C0-0B, I do own the CTC-4 which fits nicely. My only complaint with regards to the PB cases, at least the models that I have on hand, is that they do not secure the camera very well internally and do not provide much storage space. Of course they offer fillable, zippered bags to assume some of the inevitable voids in the case's interior.

I recently purchased the newly released Petrol PC005 which fit the PMW-350 like a glove, in addition to providing a considerable amount of storage space both internally and externally. The case is larger than the C0-0B, primarily in width, and I suspect that it would not be a good choice for an airline travel bag but for those of us who travel by other means it offers a lot. Although this case is high enough, the protective protrusion for the VF will not allow for a 1" elevation of the VF, as the top of the VF comes very close to the ceiling of that protrusion in its stock state.

As an aside, with the VF mounted as Sony intended, I find that the eyepiece to eye alignment is perfect on the horizontal plane. What influence, if any, does the 1" elevation have on neck fatigue, or do you rotate the VF downwards to compensate?

Ron: With all due respect, I guess you were just not meant for this bracket.

I really don't know what you are talking about. One-inch is infinitesimal. Whether you are on your knees, on sticks, or on shoulder, you adjust the eye-piece to your eye....that's why it's on a swivel.

Patrick

Hi Paul,
Am I happy with my PMW-350? The answer is Yes, but I would be happier with PMW-500…as simple as that.
When the PMW-500 came out I was very angry…it could have been the perfect solution for me even if I had to add some extra $$€€,the CCD vs CMOS, 422 vs 420 (I’ve solved it with NF)
When I was looking for a new HD camera to purchase without spending too much and using solid state memory cards I thought to myself: the PMW-350 could be perfect if it has CCD and if it was 422, and 4 month later (after purchasing PMW-350) Sony announce new camera PMW-500…my friend bought the PMW-350 2 days before Sony’s new 500 announcement, and certainly wasn’t happy to hear that.
I use the PMW-350 and Nano Flash for the Italian television Rai and La7, and I also work sometimes for the German and Austrian tv DW & ORF, and I have to say that I have received only compliments for the nice job and the quality image, great satisfaction.
I must say even that I ‘am very happy with camera I can see many limits with the rolling shutter issue,if I could I would immediately change it with the pmw-500,but it’s too late now, the extra $$ I could spend on the 500 4 month ago went to other extra gear, but sometimes when I use the 350 in low light situation I console my self with: I want to see the PMW-500 handling this situation as well as my lovely 350…on the other hand in other situation like fast action I would love to have the 500.
So dear Paul, If you can permit it (PMW-500) get it, just my opinion…
Cheers
Samer
VIDEOSHOT (http://www.videoshot.it)

Hi Samer,

Your input is greatly appreciated and your timing is impeccable. Today I decided to go with the PMW-500. Pen has started going to paper on contracts I have been waiting on. So it looks like next week I will buy the camera with associated gear needed.

Hi Patrick,
Yes, even though I am a Floridian, the intense heat has not adversely affected my cortical function ... I fully comprehend the purpose and advantage of the VF's swivel joint (LOL). But I wear eye glasses and have noticed that when angling the VF in a downward fashion it does not mesh properly with my glasses unless I reposition my neck, a maneuver I find both difficult and painful as the result of an injury. And it was for that reason that I posed my postscript.

In any event, while I find your kit an elegant solution for a problem that may exist for many, I can manage with the stock setup as is.

Thank you once again for your response to my query.

Paul,

What glass are you buying with the PMW500 (or using, if you already have 2/3" glass)?

Ned Soltz

Hi Ned,

Well I was just talking by email with Doug about that one. Last time I had the Fujinon ZA17x7.6 and it was excellent. I tested against HJ, HA, J, and XA and it stood out as the best deal. But now I am looking to see if I can afford the ZA22x if not I will go with the same lens as last time. Hard to find good used deals on glass unless you know of any I have not found?

Congratulations, I must say I am happy for you .. but also a bit 'jealous :-) I wish you good luck and good work, let us know your opinion after experiencing it.
Samer
VIDEOSHOT (http://www.videoshot.it)

Congrats Paul! Which Viewfinder will you pair with the PMW 500? I know Color VFs are pretty expensive. If it were available today, would you purchase Sony's CBK-VF01, ( The same optional VF as supplied with the 350/320 )?
How does the 350 VF compare to the HDVFC35W, or the HDVFC730W?

Hi Ned,

Well I was just talking by email with Doug about that one. Last time I had the Fujinon ZA17x7.6 and it was excellent. I tested against HJ, HA, J, and XA and it stood out as the best deal. But now I am looking to see if I can afford the ZA22x if not I will go with the same lens as last time. Hard to find good used deals on glass unless you know of any I have not found?

Sounds good... I don't know of any deals on used 2/3" lenses and I personally would be much more comfortable buying new unless I really knew the lens' history.

I would imagine that for the helicopter work you had discussed, the ZA22x might be better.

Good luck. I am jealous as well ;)

Ned

Thanks Samer, Trell, Ned,

It is the right camera for my business at this time and current contracts. Look forward to putting it to work the first week in Jan.

Now the lens search. I will keep the Fujinon ZA 17.7.6 as my first choice but will also look at other options next week at Abel.

Trell, if the PMW-350 VF was on the market (not until fall 2011) I would consider it depending on price. Right now I am looking at the C30W and C35W. I have not looked into the HDVFC730W not familiar with that one.

Ned for flying shooting I don't think you would ever use the 22x added range over the 17x, unless it is a CineFlex system. Our custom gyro system is excellent but beyond 10x7.6 you are pushing the motion

Trell I checked on the HDVFC730W viewfinder and that is not what I am interested in using. I need a proper viewfinder when the camera is on my shoulder. For flying and on sticks I also use my Marshal 7" monitor which might now go to the 6.5 for the added resolution.

Hi Paul,
My Fault, I also meant comparing the C30WR VF or the C35WR.
Thanks!

No worry Trell,

I thought there might be one that I was missing. I would prefer to buy the 35 since that is what I had last time and loved it. But the 30WR also looks nice. I know the 30W has problems with its screen if it ever has exposure to the sun.

All of my post on the PMW-500 will be on the thread linked or a new one.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-hd-cinealta/486315-any-news-sony-pmw-500-a-5.html#post1598852