Just curious how much longer you plan to keep using your Z5 before considering it obsulete and upgrading to either tapeless, or better quality (new generation) cam? Some of these new cams out there are really nice. I'm not seeking advice, just your thoughts where the Z5 sits with newer technology cams...

With the integrated MRC, the Z5 is tapeless. It has features that have been removed from the NX5. I consider it the pinnacle of affordable pro HDV tape cams from Sony and for me, I have no plans to replace the four I own unless I move to a whole new format. Like I win the lottery and can afford four new EX3s....

Was thinking exactly the same thing but with the MRC it's still great pics for $5K. THe XLR out, the lens range and choice of accessories make it too good to change over yet. I suppose you could jump the gun and get rid of it as tape is pretty well dead, but what do you replace it with - nothing I've seen for the money and quality.

I think there's a nice selection of 3-ring, high zoom 3-chip 1/3" replacements if you don't want to go the MRC route to solid state. In the $3-4K range there's the HDR-AX2000, AG-AC130, HXR-NX5U and AG-AC160.

The Z5 HDV market segment is now AVCHD. You have to go above $5k to step up in CODEC

I am considering to upgrade from my z5u but can't find anything that can do the job for me as good as this camera does. z5u is ideal for stage productions as a stationary camera. Never used it in tapeless mode (lack of MRC) and have been getting drop outs more often recently.
I like this camera and not sure if I should get MRC (another 1K investment with cards) or sell it and go tapeless.

Looking at B&H the Z5's seem to have dropped at least $500 in price lately and the MRC is only $800, so second hand it may not be worth selling, but using as a second cam. Most of my stuff is for webmedia and non-broadcast, so for me it's brilliant, easy, reliable - I'm not going to buy and sell same for same. If you're working towards a broadcast format then obviously you need to step up, but otherwise I'd wait.

i agree 110% with adam's comments....

i don't see any alternative in my situation (i require tape for major clients and national broadcasters), though i do shoot with a mrc as well.

i had a play with some other higher end cameras, but no tape, no go, and to be perfectly honest, the pics out of the z5 are simply stunning - as would be any hd pics shot correctly ;-)

It has features that have been removed from the NX5

That's good feedback about the Z5. Pretty amazing that given all the new cams it is still as good as it is. Per the NX5U, I thought they added features, like GPS, Tapeless, H/d, Touchscreen, AVCHD and the rest of the cam was essentially the same layout and features. What doesn't the NX have vs the Z5?

One that comes immediately to mind is Shot Transition, which seems like a silly useless feature, but it's the only way to get a slow creeping zoom over 90 seconds or so, which we use quite a bit in concerts. There are a couple of others mentioned in the early NX5 threads, as I recall, but they don't come immediately to mind.

If I remember them I'll post links.

The z5 makes fabulous images as it is.

To extend its life for just about ever why not record off the hdmi for even better quality. I have seen some of this footage and you'd have to spend big bucks to top it!!!

Jvc hm150?

wouldn't give jvc equipment a second look. i know mike has some jvc cameras he's happy with, but my experience of jvc equipment has been abysmal, from the knobs falling off their pro d7 vtrs and tacky knobs on their pro cameras, through to proprietary .mod files and wayward crt colour monitors....

i always felt (feel) that they could never quite position themselves, so opted to try and cover all bases by producing feature rich 'cheap and tacky' equipment.

in 40+ years of working in broadcast tv i have never seen jvc equipment used 'professionally' in a tv studio or serious post facility.

If you're really happy with the camera and want to extend the life, especially if starting to get more dropouts, take a look at the Atomos Ninja, will take HDMI out of camera prior to compression and record as 4:2:2 ProRes for much better result than HDV tape (or same format on MRC unit).

Jeff Pulera

Having owned the Z-5, a great camera. I have now replaced it with the Panasonic AG AC-130. WOW!!!!

Define "Wow!" (in detail)

yes, please do ;-)

it's been my experience over the years that most cameras in any particular class can be capable of giving stunning pics GIVEN the right lighting, etc.,

this held true in the days of analogue, and now digital.

the 'wow' factor usually comes with GOOD glass and bigger sensors, both of which cost proportionally more than the camera in the class below.

i've also read people praising avchd over hdv - to all intents and purposes they are simply codecs recording 0's + 1's, and not like betacam vs vhs.

As long as it keeps on ticking, I'm sticking.
Since day one, I've used and recorded to a Focus Enhancements HDD recorder. It gives me redundancy and a much faster workflow. The tape, then, is just a backup. Having gotten used to that and with falling prices, I will probably get an HDMI recorder like a Convergent or Atomos. The price for the units, from $1200 to $1500 and I get an even better image, tapeless or driveless media, a redundant backup and fast workflow. You would have to spend much more to get the same features and abilities. Again, when you use a tapeless acquisition, the tape becomes the backup. All you have to do is lose a flash card or get a corrupted file and you'll understand immediately the value of redundancy.

I've grown to really like the 20x range of the lens which I don't have to change and, therefore, doesn't present back-focus problems or sensor contamination.

Certainly any new camera I'll have to consider but I've been shooting stuff on a DSLR which provides great B-roll. It seems a camera "upgrade" is the least of worries these days.

Dave

Is there much difference in quality between recording to MRC1 and via HDMI to a HDD like Atomos?
Would you get both? I already have the MRC! and pics are very sharp and clean.

me too?

as chris asks, how much 'better' is hdmi output. is it chalk and cheese, or simply specs?

My understanding is the resolution is the same, but the color depth isn't. It's uncompressed. Helpful if you are doing a lot of grading in post. Otherwise useless.

I don't believe the resolution is the same (MRC1K vs HDMI). The MRC1K simply records whatever comes out of the Firewire port which is either standard-def DV, or 1440x1080 HDV (with a 1.3333 pixel aspect ratio to make a 16:9 image).

The output of the HDMI port however is true 1920x1080 straight off the camera's sensors hence is higher res and well as better colour.

What you then record that output on will determine if the recording is better than a file from the MRC1K

Regards
Dave

The chip in the Z5 isn't capable of 1920 x 1080. It's 1440. Page 129 (126 for the Z5E).

Which by the way is also true for the NX5.

So would you say the difference is negligible?
I suppose the final display would also play a part - if it was for broadcast or lets say cinema release. If it's for corprporate or webmedia, would you see any difference ?

The chip in the Z5 isn't capable of 1920 x 1080. It's 1440. Page 129 (126 for the Z5E).

Which by the way is also true for the NX5.

Adam, I don't see this about the NX5 on the Sony product page. Where did you see that the NX5 is 1440x1080?

These are the different recording rates for the NX5U from the B&H specifications page:

AVCHD FX (24Mbps) 1920 x 1080/60i
AVCHD FH (17Mbps) 1920 x 1080/60i
AVCHD HQ (9Mbps) 1440 x 1080/60i
AVCHD LP (5Mbps) 1440 x 1080/60i
AVCHD FX (24Mbps) 1920 x 1080/24p
AVCHD FH (17Mbps) 1920 x 1080/24p
AVCHD FX (24Mbps) 1920 x 1080/30p
AVCHD FH (17Mbps) 1920 x 1080/30p
AVCHD FX (24Mbps) 1280 x 720/60p
AVCHD FH (17Mbps) 1280 x 720/60p
MPEG2 SD HQ (9Mbps) 720 x 480/60i
MPEG2 SD HQ (9Mbps) 720 x 480/60i (24p Scan)
MPEG2 SD HQ (9Mbps) 720 x 480/60i (30p Scan)

Adam, I don't see this about the NX5 on the Sony product page. Where did you see that the NX5 is 1440x1080?

Read the specs in the manual. There aren't enough pixels on the chip to actually be 1920 x 1080. It's roughly the same as the Z5, which is 1440 x 810. I'm sure you can upscale or interpolate the data to simulate those resolutions, but they're not coming natively off the chip, based on the way it's been explained to me.

But I could be completely misunderstanding how these magic boxes work.

to confirm adam's pixel count:

Imaging device: 3-chip 1/3-inch type Exmor CMOS with ClearVid pixel array
Effective picture elements: Approx. 1,037,000 pixels with ClearVid array

about half full hd

I stand corrected and apologise for the duff info.

Regards
Dave

Adam, did you mean 1440 x 1080?

No. The manual says 1440 x 810.

Did anyone have a definitive answer to which is higher quality - the atomos HDD via HDMI or the MRC1 ?

wouldn't give jvc equipment a second look. i know mike has some jvc cameras he's happy with, but my experience of jvc equipment has been abysmal, from the knobs falling off their pro d7 vtrs and tacky knobs on their pro cameras, through to proprietary .mod files and wayward crt colour monitors....

Cannot say I agree with this at all.

Did anyone have a definitive answer to which is higher quality - the atomos HDD via HDMI or the MRC1 ?

I do ;-)

DV video is 25Mbps. Now, 1080i HDV is being recorded to the SAME TAPE. How is that possible, when a 1440x1080 frame of video has 5x the info of DV video? COMPRESSION! Doesn't matter if you have a $500 HDV camera, or a $5000 HDV camera with much better optics and sensors - in the end, HDV compression is "throwing away" a huge amount of picture quality.

HDV records at 25Mbps using Long-GOP MPEG-2 compression with 4:2:0 color, which discards half the color info that you would've had with a 4:2:2 recording. HDV only records two FULL frames of video each second - the remaining frames record only partial image data - basically just the changes occurring in each frame compared to the complete reference frame. Therefore, only a small fraction of what you shot actually gets recorded. There is a lot of guessing and patching things together with the HDV codec, and with movement and detail, the image can break down rather quickly with a lot of artifacting.

Have you ever noticed that when you get a dropout with HDV, that it takes out at least 15 frames of video - a full half second? That's because all the frames in the GOP (Group of Pictures) need to reference one another for playback and if one frame gets corrupted, it takes all its neighbors with it.

Regardless of how many pixels are on your 1080i HDV camcorder's image sensor, when shooting live the camera will output a video signal via HDMI at 1920x1080, before any compression takes place. Therefore, if you connect the Ninja or similar device, you have the opportunity to capture a MUCH better image than if you let the camera apply HDV compression, retaining the color, detail and clarity that the sensor saw.

Ninja records directly to the Apple ProRes codec using 10-bit 4:2:2 color, at one of three quality settings - LT at 100Mbps, 422 at 150, or HQ at 220. This will squeeze every possible bit of quality out of your camera, without the HDV codec hurting or limiting the image quality.

One could just as well connect a laptop computer with a capture card in the field and get similar results, but of course you lose the portability factor of the Ninja.

I have shot stage plays and dance recitals with the Ninja using my Sony HDV camera at 1080i, simultaneously recording to HDV tape and ProRes. I put both clips in my Adobe Premiere CS5 timeline so I could compare image quality and there is a very definite difference!

To further compare, I grabbed stills from the HDV and ProRes clips (of the same frame) and layered them in Photoshop. I use the Zoom tool to blow up an area of interest, and then toggled back and forth and the difference is very apparent when viewed that way.

In areas of similar color, HDV will simply create large blocks of color in just a few different shades, while the same area in the ProRes clip is made up of individual pixels on many shades, showing fine details apparent that are soft and muddy, if not entirely gone, with HDV.

I hope this answers the question. Yes, you CAN get much better quality out of your current camera. I don't have a laptop, but actually took my desktop PC to an all-day shoot and connected the HDMI out from the HDV camera into my Matrox MXO2 Mini capture device and captured direct to the computer hard drive in the Matrox MPEG-2 I-Frame codec at 125Mbps with 4:2:2 color, and this saved me many hours of capture time as well as providing a better image quality. So it doesn't have to be Ninja, but use anything you can to get away from HDV compression if you have the opportunity. Color correction, keying and compositing work will all benefit, in addition to a better image overall.

Thanks

Jeff Pulera

How is an external hd like the Ninja like in terms of portability anf field use? Is there a boot up time? Battery life? I wonder how well it would work for run and gun shooting where the cam is turned on/off for clips as needed. Otherwise I can see the 442 would be great.

Thanks Jeff that is an encyclopedic answer - appreciate it. So there sounds like a significant difference between the MRC1 recorder and a HDD device via HDMI.
Finally, did you have any problems using pro-res on your PPro Cs5 timeline ?
And yes I would also be very interested to hear about the poratbility and flexibility of field recording with a device like Ninja.

Yes, you CAN get much better quality out of your current camera. I don't have a laptop, but actually took my desktop PC to an all-day shoot and connected the HDMI out from the HDV camera into my Matrox MXO2 Mini capture device and captured direct to the computer hard drive in the Matrox MPEG-2 I-Frame codec at 125Mbps with 4:2:2 color, and this saved me many hours of capture time as well as providing a better image quality. So it doesn't have to be Ninja, but use anything you can to get away from HDV compression if you have the opportunity. Color correction, keying and compositing work will all benefit, in addition to a better image overall.


Not to mention that 4:4:2 is the MINIMUM requirements for certain broadcast outlets, if that it a direction you think your work might someday end up at. I'm so glad this came up about the 442 out of the HDMI. Something I think I will explore more. I was thinking about buying a MRC1. Would really like to hear more about the field usability and any unique hassles of a H/D recorder. Do some of these recorders start/stop automatically when it senses a signal?

i've been very happy with my mrc1 (though i always shoot to tape as well for instant archiving). i bought a couple of 16gb sandisks as recommended in this forum, and which have worked flawlessly for a couple of years now. however, i just bough an adata 32gb cf card for about $80 which has worked without problem so far.

as for the op thread - yes, you can get 4:2:2 out of hdmi, but in all honesty what for? ok. if you're green screening, or likely to be doing some seriously HEAVY cc'ing and post there might be justification, but for everyday projects (and a lot of mine end up on tv) i really think it completely unnecessary.

i shoot for a couple of national broadcasters and they're happy enough with hdv...

of course, if i were embarking on a full blown tv production i'd hire a proper hd camera and use my z5 as b-roll.

The Ninja has LANC ports on it, haven't tried it though since my Sony FX7 HDV and Canon HV20 lack LANC. The new Atomos Samurai with SDI in/out also has LANC jacks, but in addition, there are a few different methods of triggering that unit through the SDI stream, based on time code and other factors.

I've only used the Ninja for long tripod shoots and have not done any "run and gun" - was using demo unit from the shop for some big stage projects I had to shoot. In my situation, I would need to physically activate Ninja recording, so I don't think it would be great for shooting all my 5-second pre-ceremony shots, unless I just let it run and cut it up later. Nice thing about the long shoots in not having to change HDV tapes mid-performance!

Regarding the importance of 4:2:2 - ok, forget about color for a moment, HDV compression is still nasty and the ProRes footage is MUCH cleaner. I guess one wouldn't realize the difference until comparing side by side. I've shot enough HDV footage over the last 4 years to know firsthand how good, and how bad, HDV can look. Lock down shot at ceremony looks good. Dance footage with flashing lights and strobes = bad news, block city!

The ProRes clips captured by Ninja work fine in CS5 and CS5.5 (I use PC versions). There was an issue with Premiere and ProRes clips with 4-channel audio, but Adobe fixed this in CS5.5 with a recent update. Note that the 2-channel clips were always fine. If you have QuickTime installed on the PC, you already have the ProRes codec, nothing else to buy or install, and of course ProRes is fully supported on Macs.

Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor

... my Sony FX7 HDV and Canon HV20 lack LANC...

The FX7 certainly has a LANC port. But the MRC is controlled via FW; if you shoot with a tape in the cam, it reads the START/STOP signal automatically and follows suit as long as you have it in FOLLOW mode. If you shoot without a tape, you must use the controls on the MRC itself.

To Jeff or anyone else in the know: I am seriously thinking about getting the Atomos Ninja. Using Premiere Pro 5.5 (Windows) with Matrox Mini, can I import the ProRes footage from Ninja directly into a Matrox HDV project, or do I have to convert the footage to Matrox HDV codec first? Also, is ProRes LT good enough to match already existing HDV footage on the timeline or do you need to use ProRes 4:2:2 or ProRes HQ to get as good or better quality? Basically, which of these codecs best match the HDV footage (say, from 2 other camers shooting HDV), at least until I can afford to purchase numerous Ninja's?

No need to worry.

If your three cams have been matching up well aready, you will not have any new problems by adding a Ninja recorder to one of them.

I'm wondering if you have been capturing from HDV tape via the Matrox Mini? If so, you probably have been capturing via the Mini to a Matrox 1440 HDV format. That codec is what you get when you use the Mini, but you could just as well have captured via Firewire and gotten a standard HDV file. It makes no difference to the preset in PPRo. You can still do captures with the Mini from
your other two cameras and mix that footage with the Ninja files and not need to make any changes to your PPro work-flow.

In PPro CS 5.5 (and prior versions), the Matrox Mini is simply a display/monitoring device. You only use Matrox presets so that your timeline goes out to your external monitor. The timeline accepts whatever I've you put in it --- I had one with DV, HDV, AVCHD, XDCam, Cineform AVI, and Quicktime, footage. I've never tried ProRes but, in my experience, the Matrox preset is completely agnostic about the kind of video you put on the timeline. You do not have to convert anything.

In terms of matching footage from HDV with Ninja files, the differing codecs will not make any practical difference in most situations. Camera settings and white balance are far more important.

I regularly mix 1440x1080i HDV (from MRC units) with 24 mbps 1920x1080i AVCHD without a problem. (Well, I do spend some time making sure I have similar settings for say, the FX1000, NX5 and CX cams that I use). But the 1440 andd 1920 numbers only reflect differences in pixel shape. They make no practical difference for resolution or color in most situations. Adding a Ninja will not change this for you..

I generally use a 1920x1080i timeline preset and let CS 5.5 takes care of adjustments. And, when I say I mix HDV and AVCHD, I'm talking about multi-cam shoots with as many as seven cameras and venues as different as outdoor weddings and dance recitals in dark theaters.

In theory, the greater color space with the Niinja could yield footgae that is enough sharper/cleaner etc. to be noticably different from footage recorded with lesser colorspace, and sometimes it can be distinct for the reasons that Jeff has pointed out. Mostly, though, a Ninja can make some editing easier --- for example, the more robust color space may give you more flexibility in matching with your other two cameras (as opposed to trying to make editing adjustments of the standard HDV footage to match the Ninja footage). But, as Adam and Leslie have pointed out, the differences to viewers are only likely to make a practical difference if you are editing for large-screen theatrical releases, green screening, doing heavy color grading (as opposed to simple matching between cams), and the like.

This is not to suggest or imply that you should skip the Ninja. Tapeless recording has major advantages. (I use a mix of MRC-HDV cams and AVCHD cams and no longer shoot tape, at all). The Ninja can give you more robust images, too. The cost difference over an MRC is not large. If I did not already have MRC units, I probably would be getting Ninjas, myself.

So, as a practical matter, you will not have to do anything different with your CS 5.5/Matrox Mini editing set-up except that you might want to use a Matrox HD 1920x1080i sequence preset rather than the HDV presets you have been using. I've found going the other way (using 1920 AVCHD in a 1440 sequence) sometimes makes for odd scaling in the the external monitor view from the Mini. This might just be a peculiarity my computer system, but it does not occur when I use a 1920 preset.

nice summation jay ;-)

Thank you Jay West.
I have 2 Sony Z7U's and 1 Z5U. I have 2 MRC HDV recorders for the Z7U's. I think getting the Ninja would make everything tapeless and then I could also offer more robust codec for clients that want it. I would rather do this then getting another MRC unit. Now, I mostly shoot 1080 30P on the MRC's. Any issues with mixing the Ninja footage with the other cams this way? My understanding is that the HDMI output for both the Z7U and the Z5U is strictly 1080 60i.

My admittedly hazy recollection is that the Ninja records what your camera shoots. The Z5 and Z7 record in 1080/30/p. The Ninja will record it. Try a search on "Sony Z5 + 1080/30p + ninja" and I think you'll find confirmation of this.

Hi guys,
Can I ask a question of the Ninja owners....
Has anyone had issues at loud venues with the hard drives stopping because of vibration errors due to the bass sound waves?
I had a HDD camcorder that suffered terribly from this which made it all but unusable for concerts.
I know SSD would be better, but kind of blows out the cost a bit.

Does anyone have issues with Ninja portability?
How does the Ninja attach to a Z5 or 7 when working in a number of locations outside - is there a clip or velcro strap you can use?
Is it durable when bumped or even dropped?
Thanks

Since nobody has responded to the questions about vibration resistance, mounting and portability, I'll offer my 2 pennies worth based on the little I know.

Some of this comes from having read through the manual for the Ninja when I looked at the possibility of getting one. Some of this comes from comparing footage shot with MRC-equipped FX1000 (the prosumer Z5) with that from an NX5 (the AVCHD version of the Z5).

When it comes to comparing the Ninja with an MRC for a Z5, here's how I respond to the questions that Gerald and Chirs posed.

(a) Mounting: you can mount the Ninja into the tripod socket on the bottom of the camera. It is similar to to the way you insert an XLR adapter unit between tripod and camera. The Ninja is vertical so you can see the screen, Atomos said you also can mount a Ninja topside to an accessory shoe. I do not recall if Atomos sells the shoe-bracket-adapters, so check the web site. The touch screen has (I think) a single record button which will seems less awkward that doing tapeless recording with an MRC. When going tapeless with and MRC (no tape in the carriage), you have to press two buttons (record and play) much like on VCR. The buttons are small enough that I've often found it easier to use two hands. (Interestingly, using an MRC with a Canon camera, I can work with the camera's record button whether or not there is tpe in the carriage.)

I tried researching the LancC connections but never found out how it works with the FX1000/Z5 cams and a Ninja. The Ninja's manual --- at least when I looked at it --- basically said nothing more than that there was LanC connectivity and it allowed for "remote" operation. (Maybe this means you can run the Ninja from a tripod controller?)

(b) In terms of portability and blance, the MRC unit has it hands down over the Ninja with a Z5. Tthe MRC simply snaps into the back of the Z5 and runs off the same battery. A lot less extra weight and no balance problems for handheld shooting. WIth a Z5 on a tripod, its pretty easy to start and stop recording even without tape in camera.

(c) Cost -- you have to figure in both device and media.

The MRC goes for $750 (US$) and 32 gb CF cards run about $60 to $70. A 32 gB card will be good for about 180 minutes of recording HDV from a Z5. You'll want a couple of cards (for when you do not have time to download and back-up the card contents and for longer shoots. So, to start with, figure about $900 to go with an MRC.

The Ninja is $995. The ProRes recording format requires a lot more space than straight HDV. It needs about 100 gB/hr. for the highest quality ProRes recording. (In other words, ProRes files will use roughly 7½ times the space of ordinary HDV.) To get 3 hour recording capacity, you would need some 300-340gB laptop drives. Last time I checked, 2.5" drives with 300-340 gB capacity seemed to be going for between $80 and $120 depending on the maker and whether you want 7200 rpm speed. (Atmos says that the Ninja works fine with 5400 rpm dirves, by the way.) You would want to buy two drives for the same reasons you would want at least two CF cards with an MRC. So, a comparable cost on a Ninja with 6 hours of recording capacity would be roughly $200 to $250 more than an MRC. Having the ProRes HQ footage might be worth an extra $200 to you. It might not.

The economics look a lot different if you need to run in higher vibration environments, like the concert shooting that Gerald mentioned, More on this in a moment, but the cost of an SSD is about 4 to five times the cost of a mechanical 2½" drive. I looked at SSD's a couple of weeks ago when I had to hurriedly build a new editing workstation. The prices for 300gB SSD were well north of $500. (They may come down in the future when the Asian factories recover from the Thai and Japanese disasters, but that seems to be a long time coming.) So, equipping a Ninja with SSD capacity can be considerably more expensive even if you got one mechanical drive and one SSD. Still less than half the cost of buying a comparable camera to replace a Z5, though.

(c) Durability and vulnerability: not a good idea to drop anything with an lcd screen. That said, one of my MRC units fell off a top shelf onto my editing desk and it still works fine. If this had happened while recording, I'm "guessing" I would have lost some video. But maybe not, One of my MRc-equipped fixed cams was knocked over at a dance rectal last spring and I lost no video.

The Ninja is bigger and heavier than an MRC and thus more susceptible to damage from falls. As you would expect, the Ninja manual has specific cautions about this.

(d) Disk shock and vibration resistance/hard drive stoppage (Gerald's question about extremely loud concert environments).

Maybe Jeff can speak more to these variables since he has actually used the Ninja for concert shoots.

Without his direct experience, I offer my 2 pennies worth.

As I recall, the manual for the Ninja specifically said to use SSDs in high vibration environments. Atomos was not specific about this means. How much vibration and noise is "too much" for a mechanical harddrive? One thing that occurs to me is that, if you are shooting the kinds of projects where you need to use ProRes rather than HDV, you probably have the kind of budget that will cover at least one SSD. Otherwise, I'd say that CF cards with an MRC would be a much more budget friendly way to upgrade and prolong the useful life of a Z5 where you may be shooting in stressful environments.

This should not be taken as an offhand comment. I can say that I've never had noise and vibration cause an MRC to shut down or fail with an FX1000 even when there was so much noise and vibration that that the shaking made the footage unusable. I've also done some similar shoots in the past while feeding a camera via On-Location to a laptop computer, all perched on the top level of very springy bleacher seating. As long as I hand-held the camera (and had image stablization enabled), I had no problem with recording to the lapop. Whether this was a bad an environment as Gerlad ran into, I cannot say. What I can say is that that my laptop's mounting for the drive was likely much better than the mountings for the internal hard-drives on consumer handycams. Also, some 2.5" laptop drives are more vibration resistant than others. Plus, you may get gyroscopic effects when hand-holding a camera with a mecahnical hard drive, and those effects can contribute to problems .

The Ninja mounting set-up may be more vibration resistant than, say, what you would find with the a hard-drive mounting in a consumer handycam. (Although the Ninja manual did mention the possibility of gyroscopic effects when the Ninja is mounted on a camera.) These variables make it hard to generalize about when you can get by with a Ninja using mechnical drives and when you must have an SSD.

Gerald's example of the hard-drive camera --- which I'm assuming was a small consumer cam --- may not translate directly to running a Z5 with a Nina. The Z5/ninja combo wil have several times the mass of a handycam and will likely be sitting on a reasonbly sturdy tripod which may counteract the kinds of difficulties that make a small handycam's drive fail to record. I can say I've never had any trouble with starts/stops when using my NX5 (which is essentially a Z5 with a 128 gB SSD) nor any trouble with starts and stops with the MRC units I use. I've only worked once with a hard-drive equiped consumer handycam and it seemed very vulnerable to vibrations.

These points, I think, bring us back to Adam's earlier points. It seems to me that, unless you truly need/want the benefits of ProRes recording and are regularly shooting in stressful environments , the economics favor getting an MRC. . If you will be shooting in less stressful situations and need or want the ProRes frmat, a Ninja with a mechanical hard drive may well be worth the extra couple hundred dollars.

Jay, thanks again for that in-depth reply - I really appreciate the volume of information in that post. It answers my question perfectly. I already run the MRC from a Z5 and am extremely happy with the quality, ease of use and positioning on the camera. For me pro-res is not necessary as most of my footage ends up on the web, not broadcast, although some is played on large display LCD's for corporate promotions.
Since most Sonys have a very similar button and menu set-up I occassionally hire an XDcam for broadcast needs and charge accordingly - this could be a better option than a Ninja for me.
Cheers mate.

Jay, thank you so much for all that info :)
Food for thought on so many levels.
Im leaning towards the MRC now, fact is, when comparing footage from my Z5 to my hacked GH2, the Z5 stands up pretty well even though it is only HDV. Good enough for multi cam shoots anyway.

Now I just need to find a back heavy shoulder mount. Is it just me or is the Z5 extremely front heavy and awkward to hold for long periods?
Anyone suggest a good shoulder mount?

+1 jay. excellent summation (again!)

and i agree entirely with chris - if i need anything better then i'll hire it. however, considering the quality i'm getting from the z5, and having shot with other cameras i really can't see the need, other than perhaps for heavy-duty chroma-keying for broadcast, and even then, with a proper setup, i doubt i'd bother.