Sony PMW350 vs the Sony F800 need advice

[Simon Denny]

Hi Paul,
Will your high end guys accept the new PMW350 with the Nano?

[Paul Cronin]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

But the 2/3" full 1080p at Nano bit rates with the 350 well they will accept that for 100% so for me it is a winner.
.

Yes Simon as a matter of fact I have signed up two new jobs since ordering the camera. Both clients in the past have liked my work but wanted a full raster 1080p 2/3" camera. They kept saying buy a F900. But now with the Nano and 350 they say yes. So as I said it depends on your client base. Must keep them happy.

I have been looking to buy 2/3" for over a year and finally the right camera has come along thanks to Sony and Convergent Design.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

...thanks to Sony and Convergent Design.

Shame Sony didn't quite go the whole way themselves! I bet Convergent Design cracked open the champagne when the 350 was announced!

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Daniel Epstein

I still think the accountants will be comparing those cameras against each other. You can get two Panny 300's for about the same price as the Sony 350 and that may swing a lot of people regardless of quality and performance of the respective units.

It depends how you do the comparison. Last I looked, the 301 was about 60% of the cost of the 350 - but those prices are for body and basic lens only. To make working packages, you need at the very least batteries and media, before we even think about tripods and sound equipment.

Since P2 media is more expensive than SxS (about 4x as much on a per minute basis), a given amount of recording media will cost significantly more for a 301 than a 350. And since the power consumption of a 301 is significantly higher than a 350, you may need to spend more on batteries for a 301.

So compare packages rather than basic units and the price difference is much less great, even more so in percentage terms. You may get two Panny 301 bodies and lenses for not that much more than a single 350 - but not two working 301 packages compared like for like with a 350.

And for professional use the 350 is a far better camera. The differences may not be so obvious in simple pixel counting resolution ways, but the 350 is several stops more sensitive in low light, and the 2/3" chip v 1/3" gives far more flexibility in lens options.

[Alister Chapman]

Another thing the bean counters will need to consider is that at this point in time many broadcasters are gearing up with HD cameras but using them to shoot SD. In this case they will be able to use existing 2/3" lenses on the 350's saving further money.
I got confirmation of the price of my 350 yesterday and was shocked. Now I do have a very good relationship with my dealer, so he cuts me a good deal, but even so it's £2K less than I was expecting to pay for a 350K.

[Paul Cronin]

Alister I agree nice price and more good news. I am picking up my 350 next week.

If you have any PP setting that you are willing to share let me know. I will start testing the camera over the holidays. I am sure I will receive a few looks from my wife but she really does understand.

Now in a hurry to choose the right tripod set up.

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

. Likewise the Panasonic 2100 and 2700 fail to meet the specs for the same reason.

The 2700 is not failing anything, it's the choice camera for all big natural history projects for BBC and Discovery at present. Don't know what sort of budgets you guys are working on but the ones that the 2700 are being used on are £1 million plus per 1 hour episode, so if the 2700 isn't good enough for you then you must be working on something pretty damn special!
Steve

[Simon Wyndham]

Steve, no need to jump in with both feet. I was referring to the new edict that the Beeb and others are implementing that dictates native 1920x1080 cameras, 1/2" minimum chip size, and 50Mb/s minimum datarate. The 2700 fails on the first count because it is natively a 720p camera.

The 2700 might be okay at the moment, but 720 native cameras are gradually going to be falling out of favour with those sorts of stipulations being bandied about. This isn't about whether the 2700 is 'good enough' for me personally. I'm just going on the EBU recommendations that the BBC and Sky seem to be bent on implementing as a requirement. No need to shoot the messenger! I didn't say I agreed with it!!

[Steve Phillipps]

I realise that Simon, I wasn't on the attack! It's worth noting though that as with the old Varicam the 2700 is on an exceptions list, allowing its use whereas other 720 cameras might be banned. The projects the 2700 are being used on are for delivery several years down the line too and for international sale so they are obviously happy that they are going to be fine.
Steve

[Paul Cronin]

Steve the 2700 is a great camera and has shot some of the best productions I have viewed. I was close to buying when they had their great deal going this year. But switching from XDCAM to Panasonic is expensive. As for my client who said it was iffy that does not mean he has the best knowledge base. But it does mean he helps pay my bills and I need to keep them happy.

[Alister Chapman]

Natural History is only a very small part of the world of HD TV, while the BBC NHU's programmes are certainly of very high quality they are not the be all and end all of HD TV. Natural History employs a very small number people and uses only a small proportion of all the HD cameras in the world. Just because the NHU have chosen to continue to use their existing cameras doesn't mean that these are the only cameras that are any good.

While the overall budgets for many of these programmes may run into millions, the rates the crews get paid are rarely particularly high. The programmes cost so much because of the amount of time it can take to get even the briefest of sequences. Because of this any savings that can be made, say through the use of in house kit are welcomed. As I understand it the BBC NHU cannot afford to stop using the cameras they already own, that's why they are allowed to continue to use 720P despite the BBC's general requirement for 1080. If budget was not an issue then surely they would be using SRW9000's or HPX3700's at 1080P. The reality is that even with these mega budget programmes the cost of the equipment is a major factor and when you have a fleet of cameras that you were given for almost nothing then the impetus is to continue to use them as long as you can. This doesn't mean they are technically the best cameras to be using. Clearly they do a good job, but how much longer can they continue to use 720P?

[Steve Phillipps]

All the more reason to use EX3s then surely, they'd save a fortune. A lot of these NHU productions are not using the same gear that they've had for ages, the old tape Varicams, they're buying lots of new 2700s.
Of course budget is an issue, and that's why they're not getting fleets of SRW9000s presumably, but if all was equal between the EX3/PMW350 and the 2700 then surely they'd go for the former as they'd save a fortune (ie a standard or wide lens for the 2700 will cost more than double what the EX3 with lens costs).
Steve

[Thierry Humeau]

Steve,

Do you have any information on what NHU backup/archiving strategy is when filming with the 2700s? With my previous experiences, I feel solid state media acquisition involves extra work and a certain level of risk to loose files especially when looking at extensive projects with multiple shooters and locations.

Thierry.

[Paul Cronin]

Steve I think the 350 over the EX3 will offer a better picture and more lens options for big productions where the right glass matters.

Thierry I feel the same the solid state archive scares me with DVD's and hard drives. This is the reason there is a new big box next to me with a U1 and Optical disk. Agree it is a extra step but offers delivery with proxies and meta data along with very long safe shelf life.

[Thierry Humeau]

So, do you just backup your EX material as 420 MXF files on prodiscs? That is how you end up with proxies right?

T.