Should the EX3 or the FS700 be my A-camera?

[Cees van Kempen]

I am working on a documentary with an EX3 and recently received my FS700. Both cameras I can operate with a nanoflash. I am completely aware of the differences in crop, dof, light sensitivity etc. But regarding plain picture quality in terms of resolution, dynamic range and color reproduction I'd like to know what you would advise me to use as the A-camera. The EX3/nanoflash or the FS700/nanoflash? I appreciate your opinion.

[Ron Little]

I am a Nanoflash fan. I am considering both of these cameras. Which one do you prefer the picture on with the Nanoflash the EX3 or FS700?

[Olof Ekbergh]

I use both. The 700 is the A cam most of the time. The EX3 is really easy to grab quick off the shoulder shots with and pow shots that would be hard to keep in focus with the 700.

I love my EX3 and 1R but the 700 is a much better camera in my opinion. Way more dynamic range.

I use the NanoFlash as well. I think the native 700 24mb actually looks better than the 35mb XD cam, so the EX3 actually gains more from the NF than the 700. But I will be using the NF on the 700 as well it does help to get the full 422 color.

[Peter Walsh]

I'm in the same situation, using both EX3 and FS700, and fwiw, I agree with that the FS700 has a better picture and should be the A camera.

[Will Salley]

I agree with Olof. The noise levels in the EX3 can really cause concerns when shooting in low light. I've only has the 700 for a few weeks, but it definitely has less noise than the EX series. I use a Ki Pro Mini, and when in ProRes HQ, the difference in codecs is obvious. Whereas with the NXCAM codec on the 700, the difference is hard to tell, even on greenscreen. I love the ability to have triple-redundancy with the 700, but I haven't gotten around to using the FMU yet.

About the only thing that the EX3 currently has over the 700 is a more ENG friendly kit lens. That should change soon.

[Cees van Kempen]

Will, I do not understand what you mean by 'triple-redundancy' and by 'FMU'. Must be because I am not natively English speaking. Can you explain what you mean with both?

[Will Salley]

"Triple" meaning three. Internal SCHC card, FMU (memory unit), and Ki Pro (external recorder). The camera records to the card and FMU simultaneously, and outputs HDMI and/or SDI for the external recorder. Not many cameras do that.

[Cees van Kempen]

Got it. Thanks.

[Cees van Kempen]

Any other opinions? I have read that due to debayering the resolution of the one chip 700 isn't full HD, whereas I believe the EX3's three chips delivers full 1920x1080 resolution. Is the 700 a better camera eventhough?

[Noa Put]

Why don't you just place both camera's side by side and shoot some footage (since you own both)?
Should be fairly easy to see how both camera's compare resolutionwise.

[Dean Harrington]

ditto that ... compare imagine quality while you are at it.

[Cees van Kempen]

Answers like these show up at several places in the different threads on this forum and are so disappointing. No, it is not easy to compare. That's why there are professional, extensive comparison projects like Zacuto´s. Why there are professional set ups with resolution charts etc, which I don't have. And yes, the answer on about every question in this forum can be found out by testing yourself, by researching, in depth analyses of information on internet etc. But I thought the advantage of wonderful forums like this is that you share, not only factual information, but also opinions. And that you don´t have to find out everything yourself, because together we know so much more. But maybe I misunderstood the purpose of this forum.

[Noa Put]

Sorry Cees, it was not my intention to discourage any other posters to answer your question, I just found it logical to do a side by side shot since you have both camera's.

[Cees van Kempen]

Apalogies accepted :-)

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Cees van Kempen

Any other opinions? I have read that due to debayering the resolution of the one chip 700 isn't full HD, whereas I believe the EX3's three chips delivers full 1920x1080 resolution. Is the 700 a better camera eventhough?

My EX1Rs deliver more 'fun' and 'detail' in faces - but that can be either a good thing or a bad thing. I genuinely believe (in that I see, in post) that the EX1Rs have more detail in flesh tones. There is just 'more' of everything - but that includes noise.

The FS100 and FS700 reach out to 'flatter' in a half baked version of Canon Footage - okay, I'm being sensational and strong, and actually I prefer the FS100/700 interpretation going forward having been seduced by the Canon 'look'.

The point is that the EX1R is getting every pore and every broken blood vessel in the talent's skin tone - and this is beyond 'detail' or 'sharpening' - it's just there. The FS100/700 images seem to 'gloss over' some imperfections, and the lower noise (and better glass, it has to be said) helps that.

The EX cameras deliver a 'craftsman' image. Honest, true, but maybe a little dirty. It's still a look my clients ask for, and the whole package, whether it's EX1 or EX3, is a solid, forgiving and reliable partner. But the FS100/700 images are sexier, technically 'twiddlier' (not technically better, but they look better). And it comes down to what you're being paid to deliver.

Did some ENG stuff today with an EX1. Competent, easy to live with did the job. I look at the pictures - they'll do - client will like them - but I know how much sexier they'd have looked on an FS700. But the post chain would have been fiddlier.

I think the FS700 with good glass and a 422 recorder toasts an EX3 with NanoFlash, but at the cost of the Buggeration Factor, If you're out to shoot whatever happens, I'd rather go with an EX1/3 than an FS100/700. It seem that the EX1/3 are the sporty convertibles, the FS cameras are the minivan/SUVs. The awful truth is that you gotta own and tote both on most shoots.