XDCAM EX possibly at $6k

Bill Pryor · September 6th, 2007, 01:41 PM

The brochure says 50 minutes with a 16 gig card at the HQ, ie., the 35mbs mode. So you'd get 100 minutes with two of the cards, 140 minutes at the 25mbs rate. With two 32 gig cards you could shoot for over 3 hours at top quality. If 32 gig cards are only 500 bucks, you spend around $2K on media and you have a camera that you can use for a lot of shooting situations, plus the advantages of larger chips. What's not to like.

I shoot a lot of interviews with a 2/3" chip camera, and I can always blur the background if I can control the lighting. With a 1/3" chip camera I can get that kind of depth of field only on the head and shoulder shots. The 1/2" chips will be between those two and should provide a reasonable level of depth of field control for many things. I like to keep the background soft for interviews in public places because some dork always walks by in the background and looks at the camera. Blur him and nobody notices. It's not going to be as good as 2/3" chips obviously, but better than 1/3".

I also like the fact that Sony has made the tapeless workflow actually reasonable with the bigger capacity cards and the little portable XDCAM disc burner. The capacities of the cards are enough so you don't have to stop while you're shooting and download footage. And when you do download it, it should be relatively easy to burn XDCAM discs so you can file it for later use. I personally still perfer tape because of that time it takes after the fact to make a permanent copy of the footage, but at least this system is getting much closer to practicality for me than other tapeless things. I've seen and handled the XDCAM HD 350 in person and really liked it. But if this one is close in image quality, which it should be, it's about 1/3 the price. Lots of small production companies could handle the after-the-shoot time to make discs for that kind of money.

Matthew Dunn · September 6th, 2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Jeppsen

With all due respect, I don't think this new camcorder is going to slacken the use of 35mm adapters. I personally can't wait to try my Brevis adapter on the EX...though with a 77mm front thread, I think adapters are going to need a redesign, or a new achro at very least.

I misstated my thoughts. What I should have written was essentially what Sony appears to be claiming, i.e. a more film-like DOF look than other camcorders in the EX's class.

I agree with your comments. I don't see significant prospects for diminished use of adapters on the EX (assuming re-designs to accomodate the front thread are in fact forthcoming).

Todd Giglio · September 6th, 2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Dunn

I misstated my thoughts. What I should have written was essentially what Sony appears to be claiming, i.e. a more film-like DOF look than other camcorders in the EX's class.

I agree with your comments. I don't see significant prospects for diminished use of adapters on the EX (assuming re-designs to accomodate the front thread are in fact forthcoming).

Actually all you would need is a 77mm to 72mm stepdown ring to make this work with most adapters (the HVX200 uses a 82mm to 72mm stepdown ring).

Todd

Randy Thompson · September 6th, 2007, 03:11 PM

todd,

forgive me if I am wrong, but i thought all of the 35 mm adapter out there were optimized for 1/3 ccds only and that you would need something similar to the P+S Technik pro 35 for the sony EX.

rand

James Huenergardt · September 6th, 2007, 03:17 PM

In my understanding, the way the 35mm adapters work should not matter if you have 1/4", 1/3" or 1/2" or larger sensors.

Basically, the 35mm lens is projecting an image on a piece of 'ground glass'.

An achromat allows the camera to zoom in, focus on, and only capture the image on the ground glass.

So, in my opinion, having a 1/2" sensor should give me a better image using my Redrock M2.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Todd Giglio · September 6th, 2007, 03:21 PM

Actually most 35mm will work with the EX1. I know that the problem really has little to do with the imager size, but rather the position of the larger cameras in relation to rod placement (M2 for example; there has been discussions on the redrock micro site). People have successfully mounted to the Panasonic HPX500 (2/3rds imagers) with their M2's.

Brian Valente over at redrock posted this after I asked about mounting the M2 to the EX:

"The M2 etc. looks promising to fit onto that camera. The issue has never been one of image sensor size, but more form factor and lenses. The 2/3" and 1/2" cameras are huge and have rods that are far below them. They also have really big complex lenses. This little EX looks like the kind of form factor that could be a real winner with the M2."

Hope that helps!

Chris Barcellos · September 6th, 2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Huenergardt

In my understanding, the way the 35mm adapters work should not matter if you have 1/4", 1/3" or 1/2" or larger sensors.

Basically, the 35mm lens is projecting an image on a piece of 'ground glass'.

An achromat allows the camera to zoom in, focus on, and only capture the image on the ground glass.

So, in my opinion, having a 1/2" sensor should give me a better image using my Redrock M2.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Definitely would be helpful from the stand point of light gathering capabilities. Sounds like the the 1/2" chips might giving about two stops or so more exposure capability, which would be a tremendous boon to the 35mm adapter technology. One thing we fight all the time is the grain associated with gain needed in many of the adapter shooting situations.

Jason Strongfield · September 6th, 2007, 03:36 PM

Maybe out of topic, but i know i would be looking to put a 35mm adapter to the EX (if its not $8000), anyways,

The m2 is a light hog. Watch this test http://www.richard-darge.com/m2brevis.htm

I hope the EX have an image flip function. But thinking like Sony, i dont think it will happen.

Greg Boston · September 6th, 2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Jeppsen

*What in the blue blazes is a "1/2 inch type" sensor? Is it 1/2" or not?

It may well mean something similar to the blurb in Sony''s pre-NAB press release regarding XDCAM HD regarding chip size. They indicated that the 1/2 chips they are using make full use of the face of the sensor, giving their 1/2 chips performance that is more like 2/3.

This accounts for the some of the wow factor that many grizzled 2/3 camera owners expressed when seeing what the full size XDCAM cameras were capable of.

-gb-

Randy Thompson · September 6th, 2007, 05:21 PM

thanks guys for clearing that up,

I thought that I would have to just be satisfied with whatever DOF that the EX could give. Its good to know that there should'nt be any problems with 35mm adapters like the redrock micro
,sgpro or the brevis 35 working with a 1/2 inch image sensor.

rand

Matt Jeppsen · September 6th, 2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Strongfield

The m2 is a light hog. Watch this test http://www.richard-darge.com/m2brevis.htm

Well, they kinda all are...the Cinevate Brevis is one of the most light-efficient adapters on the market, and I still have a hard time shooting interiors without gaining up a touch, or breaking out a light kit. This is with fast glass. Another consideration is that most Nikon lenses are at optimum image quality when you stop them down further. And if I have to break out lights, it doesn't really matter how light-efficient the adapter is. I'm not complaining, but it's just the nature of the beast. I think shooting with a 35mm adapter forces you to slow down and shoot in more film-style, and take better care with lighting..be it P+S, M2, Brevis, or the SGPro. Anyway, Chris is probably poised to bring the smackdown as we get even further off topic (don't shoot boss, shaking the bush...) :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Strongfield

I hope the EX have an image flip function. But thinking like Sony, i dont think it will happen.

Oh please please please have a flip setting...

Mark Hartopp · September 7th, 2007, 06:26 AM

The price is EUR6,500 according to the IBC daily news email I just got..

Hmmm

Quick edit : heres the link: http://www.ibc.org/cgi-bin/enews_cms..._no=64&issue=8

Chris Hurd · September 7th, 2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Jeppsen

Anyway, Chris is probably poised to bring the smackdown as we get even further off topic (don't shoot boss, shaking the bush...) :-)

Fortunately for you Matt, that endearing Cool Hand Luke reference gets you off the hook... this time.

Any man who loses his spoon spends a night in the box,

Jason Strongfield · September 7th, 2007, 02:48 PM

One of the biggest seller of this EX cam is the expectation that the cam can use generic Express Card as its recording medium. Meaning a lower prices compared to that of the Panasonic P2 card technology.

Now report from http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/ clearly stated that generic express card is not usable at all. With the current published prices, the SxS card is priced roughly the same as the P2 card.

We also see Sony's strong commitment of staying with optical discs on their higher end XDCAM cameras. Would this SxS suffers the same faith as many of Sony proprietary formats ? At least Panasonic is solid on P2 and moving all their higher end 2/3" ENG cams to P2, so we know P2 wont be abandoned just because of sluggish Hvx200 sales.

Panasonic also just announced their 32 gig p2 card for MSRP $1650 which might translate to street price of $1400 - $1500.

Not only the camera is (according to euro currency exchange rate) to be near $USD9000 with the SxS media at comparable price as the well established P2, suddently the EX is not an attractive option anymore.

Bill Pryor · September 7th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Where have you read the price of the SxS cards? I've been wanting to know what they cost.

September 6th, 2007, 01:41 PM	#46
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	The brochure says 50 minutes with a 16 gig card at the HQ, ie., the 35mbs mode. So you'd get 100 minutes with two of the cards, 140 minutes at the 25mbs rate. With two 32 gig cards you could shoot for over 3 hours at top quality. If 32 gig cards are only 500 bucks, you spend around $2K on media and you have a camera that you can use for a lot of shooting situations, plus the advantages of larger chips. What's not to like. I shoot a lot of interviews with a 2/3" chip camera, and I can always blur the background if I can control the lighting. With a 1/3" chip camera I can get that kind of depth of field only on the head and shoulder shots. The 1/2" chips will be between those two and should provide a reasonable level of depth of field control for many things. I like to keep the background soft for interviews in public places because some dork always walks by in the background and looks at the camera. Blur him and nobody notices. It's not going to be as good as 2/3" chips obviously, but better than 1/3". I also like the fact that Sony has made the tapeless workflow actually reasonable with the bigger capacity cards and the little portable XDCAM disc burner. The capacities of the cards are enough so you don't have to stop while you're shooting and download footage. And when you do download it, it should be relatively easy to burn XDCAM discs so you can file it for later use. I personally still perfer tape because of that time it takes after the fact to make a permanent copy of the footage, but at least this system is getting much closer to practicality for me than other tapeless things. I've seen and handled the XDCAM HD 350 in person and really liked it. But if this one is close in image quality, which it should be, it's about 1/3 the price. Lots of small production companies could handle the after-the-shoot time to make discs for that kind of money.

September 6th, 2007, 03:11 PM	#49
Randy Thompson New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Meridian, Mississippi Posts: 22	todd, forgive me if I am wrong, but i thought all of the 35 mm adapter out there were optimized for 1/3 ccds only and that you would need something similar to the P+S Technik pro 35 for the sony EX. rand

September 6th, 2007, 03:17 PM	#50
James Huenergardt Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Chehalis, WA Posts: 513	In my understanding, the way the 35mm adapters work should not matter if you have 1/4", 1/3" or 1/2" or larger sensors. Basically, the 35mm lens is projecting an image on a piece of 'ground glass'. An achromat allows the camera to zoom in, focus on, and only capture the image on the ground glass. So, in my opinion, having a 1/2" sensor should give me a better image using my Redrock M2. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

September 6th, 2007, 03:21 PM	#51
Todd Giglio Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 265	Actually most 35mm will work with the EX1. I know that the problem really has little to do with the imager size, but rather the position of the larger cameras in relation to rod placement (M2 for example; there has been discussions on the redrock micro site). People have successfully mounted to the Panasonic HPX500 (2/3rds imagers) with their M2's. Brian Valente over at redrock posted this after I asked about mounting the M2 to the EX: "The M2 etc. looks promising to fit onto that camera. The issue has never been one of image sensor size, but more form factor and lenses. The 2/3" and 1/2" cameras are huge and have rods that are far below them. They also have really big complex lenses. This little EX looks like the kind of form factor that could be a real winner with the M2." Hope that helps!

September 6th, 2007, 03:36 PM	#53
Jason Strongfield Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: USA Posts: 195	Maybe out of topic, but i know i would be looking to put a 35mm adapter to the EX (if its not $8000), anyways, The m2 is a light hog. Watch this test http://www.richard-darge.com/m2brevis.htm I hope the EX have an image flip function. But thinking like Sony, i dont think it will happen.

September 6th, 2007, 05:21 PM	#55
Randy Thompson New Boot Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Meridian, Mississippi Posts: 22	thanks guys for clearing that up, I thought that I would have to just be satisfied with whatever DOF that the EX could give. Its good to know that there should'nt be any problems with 35mm adapters like the redrock micro ,sgpro or the brevis 35 working with a 1/2 inch image sensor. rand

September 7th, 2007, 06:26 AM	#57
Mark Hartopp Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Dawlish UK Posts: 203	The price is EUR6,500 according to the IBC daily news email I just got.. Hmmm Quick edit : heres the link: http://www.ibc.org/cgi-bin/enews_cms..._no=64&issue=8

September 7th, 2007, 02:48 PM	#59
Jason Strongfield Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: USA Posts: 195	One of the biggest seller of this EX cam is the expectation that the cam can use generic Express Card as its recording medium. Meaning a lower prices compared to that of the Panasonic P2 card technology. Now report from http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/ clearly stated that generic express card is not usable at all. With the current published prices, the SxS card is priced roughly the same as the P2 card. We also see Sony's strong commitment of staying with optical discs on their higher end XDCAM cameras. Would this SxS suffers the same faith as many of Sony proprietary formats ? At least Panasonic is solid on P2 and moving all their higher end 2/3" ENG cams to P2, so we know P2 wont be abandoned just because of sluggish Hvx200 sales. Panasonic also just announced their 32 gig p2 card for MSRP $1650 which might translate to street price of $1400 - $1500. Not only the camera is (according to euro currency exchange rate) to be near $USD9000 with the SxS media at comparable price as the well established P2, suddently the EX is not an attractive option anymore.

September 7th, 2007, 02:59 PM	#60
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Where have you read the price of the SxS cards? I've been wanting to know what they cost.