PMW-350, How happy are you with the camera

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Rohan,

All good points and a few I noticed in the short time I use one.

I did find the stock lens pretty nice but not up to the ZA I used.

[Vincent Rozenberg]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Hi Vincent,
Do you match it to other HD cameras?

No need, but did it once with EX1/3, and it can hold up pretty good. I have a PDW 350 as well, but def. can not match those...

How many 350's do you own?

2. I think that when i need a third one, I would consider a 320 kit. Depends on how much I need it.

What glass do you use?

Only Stock lens the best bang for the buck IMO. Once had a $30K Canon on it. If you look good you can see it, but most of the times you have to tell it. Blind testing and picking is hard. Though, ergonomically the more expensive lenses are better.

Did you come up with your own profile setting where you don't have to grade? (We will be doing shoots daily that will be on HDTV and there is no time for grading)

I do TV shoots with it as well, a lot of shows no time for grading either. I use one of Allister's settings and are very pleased with it.

Schwem SP (The other camera person has the XDCAM 700 and owns two of these)

Wat's this? I can not find it with Google.

[Vincent Rozenberg]

Originally Posted by Rohan Dadswell

The stock lens is fairly rubbish although the lack of focus breathing is amazing.

Can you give more arguments on this? In usability I can agree, but image wise it will do way better then the price would tell you. As stated in my post above, blind testing and picking it would be very hard.

[Bo Skelmose]

I would not consider the stock lens for anything else than static work.
I use my older Canon broadcast lenses. Bought a Canon 22x7.6 HD lens, but this do not work as the camera cannot power up with this lens. Tried to contact Canon but got no reply - do not know if I should try Sony if they can come up with a solution.

[Paul Cronin]

Vincent are you saying the PDW 350 can't stand up to the PMW 350 with your test?

Nice to know you go right to HDTV with out grading.

The Schwem lens is an old gyro lens that has two options. FP (Fast Pan) and SP (Slow Pan). We would use slow pan. The edges of this lens are soft so we use it on tight shots only.

Bo,
There is something wrong with either the lens or your camera. I tried a HJ22x7.6 on my PMW-350 when I owned it and it worked fine. I was not very impressed with any of the Canon glass but ti worked.

And I agree with Vincent the stock lens does a much better job then most people give it credit. Sure the ergonomics are not like a nice Fujinon ZA or HA but the glass is fine.

[Boyet Blas]

no Tripod, no Nano, just shoulder mounted using the stock lens ... fitness competition:

Slimmers World GREAT BODIES '10 Finals - TOP 5 (Male) on Vimeo

I kept on switching to different color temperatures experimenting ... I'm still trying to get acquainted to it :)
(video info: the last guy in the posedown is 61 years of age... he won 2nd place hehehe...)
AND YES, I AM HAPPY WITH MY SONY PMW 350... next week I'll be getting my Nano..looking forward to it..

Visit my website at www.mabuhaybeauties.com
Sony PMW 350
Canon XL H1S
Canon 1Ds Mk3 for my photo galleries (except for those photos not mine)

[Vincent Rozenberg]

Originally Posted by Bo Skelmose

I would not consider the stock lens for anything else than static work.

As asked before: Please give arguments. Is this based on image or usage?

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Vincent are you saying the PDW 350 can't stand up to the PMW 350 with your test?

I consider PMW way better then PDW. Image wise, but also like the new viewfinder and EX menu structure for example.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Vincent appreciate the help and your input.

[Vincent Rozenberg]

You're welcome, what you gonna do with it?

[Paul Cronin]

Vincent,

If I went for the PMW-350 (That has not been decided yet) it would be used on a big contract that shoots boats. That is all I can say at this time about the contract. I would be on the water chasing them, on board at times, helicopter at times, and of course the shore side work. This is the deal where they specified 2/3" HD. So I am looking at the 350 for its cost and hopefully the quality would be there. Having had an F800 as my last camera it is hard to beat, but that is a sad story.

Also it would fit into a few other contracts in the works and already singed along with my other cameras and gear.

[Tom Roper]

I am happy with my PMW350k and picture profiles, I can no longer even say what the settings are without looking them up. The most significant improvement was to use a high quality circular polarizer for most outdoors work. As you've noted, the cam has so much sensitivity to light, it presents the right opportunity for the polarizer to provide an adjustable contrast detail on every shot. It's so ubiquitous, at times I forget its there, even on indoor shots. I shot a spot for a local BMW dealership, and a promo for a stunt rider, turned into more work, ironic because it's not my full time occupation. The color and sharpness just pop off the screen.

The only negative for me is to be careful using high zoom magnification on the tripod, any vibrations there will cause the skew/wobble.

The nanoflash 4:2:2 improves 1080/i60 interlace video appreciably, while being less noticeable at 24/30p.

I think the main thing about the 350 is the value, spending a lot on the extras is a judgment only you can make, but law of diminishing returns applies.

[Paul Cronin]

Hi Tom,

Nice to hear from you again. From my friend in Boulder sounds like the mountains have nice snow?

I know you spent a lot of time with your picture profile. If I do get another 350 I will pick your brain.

The light is an issue with some of my shooting and an ND living on the lens would be the case outside. On the water using a polarizer at anything but about 90 deg to the sun can cause some problems I have found in the past.

Great to hear your hobby is paying for your gear.

Agree the 350 value is hard to beat.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Tom Roper]

Getting perfect exposure, or the preferred gamma etc., at times seem like a subjective judgment that we don't always agree on, or perhaps it's because we're working with different scenes. But it seemed to me that for many of my outdoor scenes the PMW350 exposure metering was a little bright. You can turn on Iris Override in Auto Iris submenu of the Operation Menu, allowing you to dial in some limited exposure compensation with the little wheel on the front, but there is quite a bit more control available in the Maintenance Menu, Auto Iris2 submenu. There, you can also control the mix ratio of peak to average value, and/or the size and location of the detection window. With these controls, you can basically create custom metering modes, your own spot metering or scene averaging metering scheme.

There's so much latitude available, for me it's more customization than I usually need, but I do set my Iris level to -10 (AutoIris2 submenu), so that the default picture is a little less bright. But again, this depends. I don't use the hyper gammas as much, I prefer the wide range full bodied look of the STD Gamma, ITU-R709, which sometimes means a little extra work to fit the scene range within the exposure range, sometimes adjusting the knee, the exposure as needed, and also the circular polarizer. As to the latter, even if the sun is not at right angles, it does double duty as a ND filter. I realize you have to be mindful with water and snow, as not to overdo the polarization effect. I would assume the 500 and 800 are capable of some additional gamma manipulations within the scene to manage highlights, but the polarizer gives adjustable control that you can make good judgments about from the viewfinder that work quite well.

But whatever scene settings we choose, they are USER settings, meaning that you can't just plug in my settings, or me plug in your settings, and expect the same satisfactory outcomes in all cases without also applying the other operator judgments unique to the scene.

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Tom,

Understand the Iris control and how you are using it. An ND would be nice for a lot of my shooting which I did not use most of the time when I had the camera. The F800 has built in optical ND's which are excellent.

Makes sense you are using the STD to get max latitude and how detailed you are on your adjustments. There are just times I don't have the time so I need a bright day setting, cloudy days setting, interior setting, and night setting. Maybe I am just lazy.

If I do go this route it would still be nice to test your setting and try your method it sounds like you really like the results. Better yet your clients like the results.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin

Understand the Iris control and how you are using it. An ND would be nice for a lot of my shooting which I did not use most of the time when I had the camera. The F800 has built in optical ND's which are excellent.

I can't compare the 350's built in optical ND's to the 800, but I use screw-on ND (or polarizer) to supplement the built-in. Sometimes you need both, and it's really the only way (on the 350) to get the shutter speed slow enough for smooth motion and still use larger aperture openings, as you know. Not using supplemental ND could really handicap in bright scenes.