I have a sony 320 and love it, I mostly do wildlife filming but i find it a bit of a lump when carrying it with added lens and a tripod, I just wondered if there was a camera out there on a par with the 320 but would be a bit more portable, I don't want to ask these so called experts that sell camera's because they can flob you off with anything as long as they get your money so iam asking here, sorry if its on the wrong forum

thankyou
Ian

That's an easy question to answer: PMW-EX3.
It's pretty much the same thing as a 320 but in a smaller package. Features a great viewfinder, interchangeable lenses, and the same workflow.

Thanks Doug

But i traded my ex3 for the 320 and i think the 320 give a slightly better picture but it just seems to be heavy or it could be me getting weak

The ex3 is abit long in the tooth now what do you think to the new single chip cameras from canon and sony would they fit the bill

Thanks
Ian

I still think the EX3 is the best bet for what you have described you will be shooting. There's no reason why the 320 should out-perform an EX3 that has been properly configured. I also think you would regret switching to a large sensor camera and spending the money necessary to outfit it with QUALITY lenses. Your zoom range will be limited, and the lenses are very heavy.

It is true the EX3 has been around for a few years, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a top performer. Just take a look at the brand new PMW-200. It is basically an EX1/EX3 with 50Mbps capability. The sensors, lens, and image processing is pretty much identical. My advice is to get a nice leather padded strap from Port-brace (http://www.portabrace.com/products/straps-and-accessories/camera-shoulder-straps/226-shoulder-straps-compact-hd) and just get used to carrying a pro camera. I carry an F800 around all the time and I'll bet it weighs 2-3 times what your 320 weighs. Plus, don't forget MASS = STABILITY for wildlife shooting.

thanks Doug

That sounds good advice i do like the camera, thankyou very much

Ian, another option that just occurred to me is the PMW-160. Although is has 1/3" sensors, the picture quality is very good. Compared to the PMW-320 is has several advantages:

1) Smaller and lighter
2) Lower power consumption.
3) 14% better telephoto ability
4) 10% better wide angle coverage
5) HD422 50Mbps codec
6) Can use XQD cards
7) Smoother, faster, zoom control
8) Three ND filters for more precision
9) WiFi capability for remote control

Ian, I'm assuming you want to stay with SxS media.
Is your shooting mostly in the daytime? .
If so, Doug's recommendation of the PMW160 is spot on. It has one heck of a zoom range, and the 1/3" chips won't be a hindrance in daylight. Night shooting would be more problematic, of course.

thanks Glen and Doug

the only prob with 160 is that it has fixed lens, for wildlife filming to be able to change lenses is a must so i think i will stick with the 320 and just exept the weight and find ways around it, Many thanks for your help

Yes, it is a fixed lens, but is has a nice servo zoom, optical Steadyshot, a remote connector, smooth focusing, a real iris ring, and is the equivalent of a 18mm-360mm lens on super35mm camera. That's a pretty decent 20x zoom range -- plus it's a fast f/1.6 lens. It'd be real hard to beat those specifications with any another camera anywhere near the price of a PMW-160.

What lens(s) are you using on your PMW-320 now?

Thanks Doug

I have a old 300mm Nikon lens + a 2x converter which give me a good close ups I film birds and animals which on most times are a long way off

Ian, I understand. I just can't help myself from making the case for some alternatives. The 300mm on a 1/2" sensor gives you a lot of telephoto capability that you'd really miss if you went to a super-35mm single sensor camera.

thanks Doug

might be of post but is progressive the way to go now and what shutter and frame setting would you use iam in the UK

The PMW-320 has better noise reduction and image processing compared to the EX3 (I believe it uses the same DSP as the PMW-350/PMW-500) and this results in less noise and improved mid range image performance compared to the EX3. The new PMW-200/150/100 cameras also used a new DSP, which is why, despite having the same sensors as the EX1 and EX3, the PMW-200 produces a better image.

IMHO the EX3 would be a downgrade from the PMW-320. The PMW-150/160 is a nice camera, but if you shoot in low light it doesn't quite have the same noise performance as the PMW-320, especially if you have to add any gain. The large sensor cameras (FS100/700, F3 etc) are not ideal for wildlife, you will need much longer focal lengths than your using now and fast, long focal length lenses are expensive. You probably have the most appropriate camera for what your doing already, unless you would be prepared to take a very small image quality hit with the EX3.

Thankyou Alister

I had read some were that the 320 was slightly better than the Ex3 and i do like the 320 it gives me a very good picture with or without the nano which i use if i ever get any broadcast!!, It was just it is abit of a lump with added lenses and tripods to lug around but iam going to have to live with it

Many thanks

Ps Alister in the UK would you film in interlace or progressive just that in progressive flying birds look a bit jumpy
Ian

. . . despite having the same sensors as the EX1 and EX3, the PMW-200 produces a better image.

I challenge you to prove it by posting some examples. Have you actually done side-by-side testing? I have and I know that nobody can tell the difference between them in low-light or any other time.

Thanks Doug

I have a old 300mm Nikon lens + a 2x converter which give me a good close ups I film birds and animals which on most times are a long way off

I did not realise that you can use still lenses on the PMW-320.

Not so on the PMW-350, is it?

Cees

the lens works very well on the 320 but i had to buy the nikon to half inch sony bay optical converter from Century Schneider optics, I don't know about the 350

I did not realise that you can use still lenses on the PMW-320.

Not so on the PMW-350, is it?
Should still be possible with the PMW350, though with a somewhat different (wider) angle of view. Just remember that the sensors are much smaller with both the 320 and the 350 than any stills camera, so the lens is capable of covering a much wider area. The nett result is a magnification factor when used with either the 320/350 compared to a still camera. For wildlife, that's likely to be a good thing.

Theoretically, lenses designed for single sensors are likely to have flaws when used with three chippers, and vice versa, due to differing designs suitable for a single image plane versus via a beam splitter. Likewise, a lens may have resolution optimised for full design coverage, and used for a smaller image may look soft compared to a lens optimised for 1/2 or 2/3".

Practically, use what you can afford....... :-)

Thanks David for your reply. I use the EX3 with Nikon lenses, so I am familiar with the effect of still lenses on smaller chip cameras. I have been told once that you can not use still lenses on 2/3" cameras, due to the flange distance between the lens and the chips. Started to wonder now if that is also the case with the 350 (being a 2/3" camera), since it seems to be possible with its 1/2" sister camera, the 320.

Cees is correct the flange back for the 2/3" cameras is about 10mm longer than the 1/2" cameras so you can't use most of the common DSLR lenses. Some DSLR lenses can be adapted to work with 2/3" cameras by fitting a B4 flange to the back of the lens.

A Winter wonderland 2010 watch and enjoy - YouTube

This is a video i shot with the EX3 with nano of the snow in 2010

Cees is correct the flange back for the 2/3" cameras is about 10mm longer than the 1/2" cameras so you can't use most of the common DSLR lenses. Some DSLR lenses can be adapted to work with 2/3" cameras by fitting a B4 flange to the back of the lens.

Alister, is there a way to find out which lenses can be adapted. I have no clue what a B4 does. Does it have influence on the optical quality of the lens?

I have been told once that you can not use still lenses on 2/3" cameras, due to the flange distance between the lens and the chips.
My apologies Cees, you and Alister are quite right about flange distances, I hadn't realised there was such a difference between 3 chip 1/2" and 2/3" in this respect and was mainly thinking that coverage area would still be more than enough for 2/3" chips.

So the 320 with it's 1/2" chips may well be best bet for the intended purpose.

I have no clue what a B4 does. Does it have influence on the optical quality of the lens?

B4 just designates the type of mount. Just like Nikon F, Sony Alpha, Sony e-mount, PL, etc. are all different types of mounts. Almost all 2/3" cameras in the last 30 years have used a B4 mount.

As far as optical quality goes, a B4 could look great (such as a DigiPrime or high-end Fujinon or Canon ENG lens) or it could look like crap at the lower end of the price scale with a cheap lens. All B4 means is that it has a certain type of docking collar and interface for communicating with the camera.

Thanks for the explanation Doug. The difficult question is which dslr lenses could possibly be used with for example a PMW-500 and what adapting it takes. But I guess with my large set of Nikon primes it is not a logical/feasible option to move towards a PMW-500. I want to upgrade from my EX3, especially regarding noise. The upcoming large sensor cameras F5/55 are very promising, but a smaller sensor is very beneficial in my wildlife filming. It is a pity that with smaller 3-chip cameras (1/3" and 1/2") dslr lenses are usable, the same for the larger 1 chip cameras, but just the good 2/3" cameras do not match with the dslr lenses. Alas.

I know it would be a total waste of your Nikons.. but if you could get a 500 with a nice(maybe second hand) B4 2/3 inch standard zoom with a doubler.. you,d be really well set up.. providing you had also a decent tripod of course..

The digital extender function is also pretty good with the 500.. when set to assignable just one quick push of a button and boom.. X2 extender.. no fussing with the iris focus etc..

But yes a pretty big xmas present to yourself.. which Iam sure you richly deserve.. :)

I sent Santa Claus my wish list, but she said .....NO

Bad luck. I better stick to my dslr lenses and keep an eye on the F55

haha... well F55 ... could be worse.. !!

Yeh, but santa claus doesn't know yet.Still have to find a way to gently tell her.

Do what I do. buy it, keep it on the down low then when shes see's it tell her you got it a long time ago. :-0

hey it works sometimes!

O|O
\--/

Mine had to come with with to LA to "supervise " the purchase..

I have been looking at large sensor cameras to shoot wildlife for quite some time now. I have been looking at the Canon C300 wondering if it makes sense to invest in a telephoto lens like the 70-200.

However my preferred choice of working would be to not swap lenses all the time, which seems to be what large sensor cameras are all about.

Just recently I have started thinking if the Sony F3 with the Sony servo lens might fit me better. Seems to have an acceptable range at both ends, useful for several tasks. I have come across a used Sony lens and now looking for a used Sony F3 to see if that could be economically viable.

I have a Sony FS100 which I am not sure what type of lenses to choose for it. I have the Metabones adapter and a Tokina 11-16 lens. Whatever lens I am looking at things quickly add up along with a rig with baseplate, follow focus, lenssupport and so on. Not sure if I want to drag several lenses with me. I have come across a battletested RED 18- 80 lens which might be a good alternative for allround use, but then I would have to buy a longer telephoto lens.

At the other end I think an EX3 or JVC HM750 could be a good choice for wildlife.

A friend of mine has an EX3 with one of the prime Nikon zoom lenses (max. focal length 300mm) and he's very satisfied with the results.