EX3 is the gold? at DVinfo.net

Mac Treouser · February 13th, 2009, 03:38 AM

Hi,

Seems EX3 became a very hot topic recently...i'm wondering which to invest...need your helps here and give some idea or suggestion to grab it...

I'm using it for indoor-Cencert (simple lighting) + interviewing + Live Feed...

EX3 or HVX2000 or XL-H1s s'ld i grab for it and why?
you even can recommend other models here...

Thanks and appreciate!!!

Steve Shovlar · February 13th, 2009, 04:31 AM

EX3 is a class above the other two IMO, but of course more expensive initially. That will soon be re-couped as you can use SDHC cards in an adaptor, so 16Gb of HQ filming in an EX3 costs less than $100 for an hour. P2 card for the HVX costs just under $800, and that is for 16 minutes of filming! So in the scheme of things the EX3 costs $100 an hour, the HVX costs $3200 an hour.

There's a ton of stuff in this forum to read and make your own mind up though. Do a search.

Tom Roper · February 13th, 2009, 09:08 AM

To me they do compare nearly equal for 60i image quality, the EX1 HQ 35 mbps and the XH-A1 HDV 25mbps. The EX1 in no way trounces until you switch to 1080/24p/30p. There it shows an advantage. I have both cams.

Edit: Actually I'll retract part of that. The low light of the EX1 is significantly better. In daylight they are about equal for 60i.

Mac Treouser · February 13th, 2009, 09:48 AM

wow...Thanks for help and the kind analysis...appreciate!!

So,according to the Camcorders in the market (Prosumer or Semi-Pro) ,EX3 is the Top Model interms of PQ+Format?

If ,say, we have a chance to list down the model you like or vote it from the Best ... what's your vote?

e.g:

1) EX3
2) XL-H1s
and so on...

W'ld you please share your opinion on that?
Thanks

Andy Tejral · February 13th, 2009, 09:50 AM

I find it interesting that you guys are willing to compare the ex1 to a camera that doesn't exist!

Panasonic makes a hvx200 and an hvx3000. Not an hvx2000.

I've been reading these boards about the new JVCs and all the other cameras. I'm still coming back to the ag-hpx170. As Adam Wilt points out, resolution isn't everything. And I'm not particularly interested in picture quality--I'm sure any of these cameras will meet my needs. To me the big sellers are the waveform monitor and general ergonomics.

Sure comparing sdhc cards to p2 is an obvious money saver but comparing sxs to p2 is a draw. Personally, I'd want all my media to work in all situations. If all you want to do is record straight video, fine but if you want to use the overcrank feature you'll have to have make sure your sxs card is available--possibility for a headache on the day of the shoot.

Jay Gladwell · February 13th, 2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

The EX1 in no way trounces until you switch to 1080/24p/30p.

Tom, you just contradicted yourself.

To compare the XL-H1 to the EX3, which is what he is asking about, doesn't work at all. In order to do so, you'd have to be shooting with the EX3 in the SQ mode, which is comparable to HDV 25mbps. That alone tells us there's a degradation in image.

Tom Roper · February 13th, 2009, 10:51 AM

Jay,
Canon's HDV mode on the XL/XH in daylight is very comparable to HQ 60i on the EX, even at the higher bitrate. Specs don't tell the story on this one.

Herminio Cordido · February 13th, 2009, 11:51 AM

How can you use as an argument that there is ONE (1) mode that the cameras create "similar" images, when only the Ex3 has the ability to film in over 10 different modes?

Also overexposing the 3 of them by 15 stops will bring a equal white on all of them!

Come on guys we are comparing cameras here, not how equal their images would be at a certain (specific) situation.

The Ex3 is Light years better

Andy Tejral · February 13th, 2009, 02:23 PM

I'm just trying to keep up with reading here. And I guess I'm behind the times. It was my understanding that fast frame rates could not used with the current adapter systems.

Yes, different frame rates and resolutions will result in different recording times. But on a $/Gb basis they are on a par. I think trying to compare codecs and picture quality and recording times is a highly subjective past time.

But I do stand by the statement that resolution isn't everything. Yes, 1/2" chips will give you much better low light performance. But that may or may not be important in an indiviudual's situation. Indeed, it may be a deal maker for the original poster since he was interested in indoor concerts. But then, if low light is a really big deal for him, he may want to go 2/3" chips.

Again, ergonomics and the waveform monitor are still skewing me towards the Panny. At least until Canon comes out with a solid state video camera--I'm interested in the 5D mkII but it doesn't quite meet my needs.

I've owned a vx1000 and a pd170 and used a lot of Sony gear. I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of their ergonomics. I do like my Canon product and its been a long time since I've used Panasonic.

Craig Seeman · February 13th, 2009, 02:24 PM

HDV anything is a flat out looser to XDCAM EX. There are too many situations where the HDV codec can be broken. Sometimes it can be as simple as leaves or grass blowing in the wind.

The HVX200 doesn't come close to the EX1 and especially not the EX3 (with interchangeable lenses).

SxS beats P2 by a country mile. Much faster transfer times with SxS (PCIe) vs P2 (PCMCIA).
Also, due to the codecs used, P2 has much shorter record times, means more offloading (which is slower) greater chance of mistake).

On EX for a little over $300 one can pack it with 64GB and get close to 4 hours of record time with XDCAM EX codec.

Then there's the 1/2" vs 1/3" chips for better DOF control on EX.

I can't even think HVX200 or XL/XH series are even close.

Sure there are better cameras than the EX, at a much higher price. The only cameras coming to market that seem competitive are the JVC HM series which have smaller chips and are CCD so there's chip size and function as well as other features sets on the JVC HM series . . . which also uses the XDCAM EX codec.

Certainly the higher end Panasonic cameras have a lot going for them but not the HVX200 compared to the EX.

Jay Gladwell · February 13th, 2009, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

No, I don't/haven't. I'm just trying to keep up with reading here. And I guess I'm behind the times. It was my understanding that fast frame rates could not used with the current adapter systems.

That is true. For the fast/slow motion recording, you must use the SxS cards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

Yes, different frame rates and resolutions will result in different recording times. But on a $/Gb basis they are on a par.

I'm not certain I fully understand what "they" are referring to. What do you mean by "on a $/GB basis..."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

I think trying to compare codecs and picture quality and recording times is a highly subjective past time.

In your opinion. But a few major broadcasters would disagree with you. So would I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

But I do stand by the statement that resolution isn't everything. Yes, 1/2" chips will give you much better low light performance. But that may or may not be important in an indiviudual's situation.

Again, this is your opinion. When it comes to HD, resolution is everything! If it weren't, folks like The Discovery Channel and National Geographic Channel wouldn't have the guidelines they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

Again, ergonomics and the waveform monitor are still skewing me towards the Panny. At least until Canon comes out with a solid state video camera--I'm interested in the 5D mkII but it doesn't quite meet my needs.

I've owned a vx1000 and a pd170 and used a lot of Sony gear. I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of their ergonomics. I do like my Canon product and its been a long time since I've used Panasonic.

Okay, herein lies the truth--YOUR NEEDS and YOUR PREFERENCES. That's perfectly acceptable! I totally accept that. However, let's not muddy the water by confusing hard facts with personal preference.

Brian Luce · February 13th, 2009, 04:44 PM

I'd count out the HVX because for concerts and interviews, long record times are important. P2 makes that pricey. With the Sony you can buy the cheap 3rd party media, with the Canon you have tape. So they're better choices.

The bigger sensor on the Sony will benefit you in low light concert settings. The Sony will also give you more latitude and better resolution -- a better image basically but I disagree with what others here say regarding the image quality being some sort of quantum leap past the HVX or Canon. All three give a nice image that's roughly proportional to the price you pay. The EX series does seem to have reached the top of the pyramid for sub 10k cameras for the moment. In six months some new hottie will have us all drooling. Until then...EX is playmate of the month.

Andy Tejral · February 13th, 2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

However, let's not muddy the water by confusing hard facts with personal preference.

Ehhh, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a hard fact.

If you're talking about the best camcorder period, the ex3 isn't it. I won't pretend to know what is, 'cos I'm not interested in that realm.

Otherwise, you're talking about the best camcorder for a particular use. The best bang for the buck or the best value. And then all you've got is opinions.

We don't really know, but it doesn't sound like this guy is looking for Discovery/BBC approval. Not everyone does.

Certainly, there are circumstances where you want the highest resolution for the budget. But features can make or break a product as well: if the EXx does what you want great, but I think blindly going with the highest resolution camera at a price point is a little, uh, short sighted.

Craig Seeman · February 13th, 2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Tejral

Again, ergonomics...

Then you should consider the JVC HM700. 1/3" chips but it's CCD if you don't like CMOS. It's XDCAM EX codec with all the same virtues as the EX series (records to SDHC as well as SxS). It's a real shoulder mount camera with interchangeable lenses. Sorry but HVX200 and Canon XL/XH are long in the tooth. If you want small ergonomics there's the JVC HM100. Of the current cameras on the market I wouldn't be considering either HVX or XL/XH.

Canon should have something new and likely tapeless at NAB. Panasonic HPX170 or HMC150 would at least be worth a look. While I'm not a fan of P2 at least there's the ability use SDHC and AVC.

Craig Seeman · February 13th, 2009, 06:02 PM

Generally you'll get facts, opinions, a combination of the two. If you're going to discount all of them then why bother asking.

February 13th, 2009, 03:38 AM	#1
Mac Treouser Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Singapore Posts: 43	EX3 is the gold? Hi, Seems EX3 became a very hot topic recently...i'm wondering which to invest...need your helps here and give some idea or suggestion to grab it... I'm using it for indoor-Cencert (simple lighting) + interviewing + Live Feed... EX3 or HVX2000 or XL-H1s s'ld i grab for it and why? you even can recommend other models here... Thanks and appreciate!!!

February 13th, 2009, 09:50 AM	#5
Andy Tejral Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New York City Posts: 523	I find it interesting that you guys are willing to compare the ex1 to a camera that doesn't exist! Panasonic makes a hvx200 and an hvx3000. Not an hvx2000. I've been reading these boards about the new JVCs and all the other cameras. I'm still coming back to the ag-hpx170. As Adam Wilt points out, resolution isn't everything. And I'm not particularly interested in picture quality--I'm sure any of these cameras will meet my needs. To me the big sellers are the waveform monitor and general ergonomics. Sure comparing sdhc cards to p2 is an obvious money saver but comparing sxs to p2 is a draw. Personally, I'd want all my media to work in all situations. If all you want to do is record straight video, fine but if you want to use the overcrank feature you'll have to have make sure your sxs card is available--possibility for a headache on the day of the shoot. __________________ Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer

February 13th, 2009, 11:51 AM	#8
Herminio Cordido Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 57	comparison How can you use as an argument that there is ONE (1) mode that the cameras create "similar" images, when only the Ex3 has the ability to film in over 10 different modes? Also overexposing the 3 of them by 15 stops will bring a equal white on all of them! Come on guys we are comparing cameras here, not how equal their images would be at a certain (specific) situation. The Ex3 is Light years better

February 13th, 2009, 02:23 PM	#9
Andy Tejral Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New York City Posts: 523	I'm just trying to keep up with reading here. And I guess I'm behind the times. It was my understanding that fast frame rates could not used with the current adapter systems. Yes, different frame rates and resolutions will result in different recording times. But on a $/Gb basis they are on a par. I think trying to compare codecs and picture quality and recording times is a highly subjective past time. But I do stand by the statement that resolution isn't everything. Yes, 1/2" chips will give you much better low light performance. But that may or may not be important in an indiviudual's situation. Indeed, it may be a deal maker for the original poster since he was interested in indoor concerts. But then, if low light is a really big deal for him, he may want to go 2/3" chips. Again, ergonomics and the waveform monitor are still skewing me towards the Panny. At least until Canon comes out with a solid state video camera--I'm interested in the 5D mkII but it doesn't quite meet my needs. I've owned a vx1000 and a pd170 and used a lot of Sony gear. I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of their ergonomics. I do like my Canon product and its been a long time since I've used Panasonic. __________________ Andy Tejral Railroad Videographer

February 13th, 2009, 04:31 AM	#2
Steve Shovlar Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Dorset UK Posts: 697	EX3 is a class above the other two IMO, but of course more expensive initially. That will soon be re-couped as you can use SDHC cards in an adaptor, so 16Gb of HQ filming in an EX3 costs less than $100 for an hour. P2 card for the HVX costs just under $800, and that is for 16 minutes of filming! So in the scheme of things the EX3 costs $100 an hour, the HVX costs $3200 an hour. There's a ton of stuff in this forum to read and make your own mind up though. Do a search.

February 13th, 2009, 09:08 AM	#3
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	To me they do compare nearly equal for 60i image quality, the EX1 HQ 35 mbps and the XH-A1 HDV 25mbps. The EX1 in no way trounces until you switch to 1080/24p/30p. There it shows an advantage. I have both cams. Edit: Actually I'll retract part of that. The low light of the EX1 is significantly better. In daylight they are about equal for 60i.

February 13th, 2009, 09:48 AM	#4
Mac Treouser Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Singapore Posts: 43	wow...Thanks for help and the kind analysis...appreciate!! So,according to the Camcorders in the market (Prosumer or Semi-Pro) ,EX3 is the Top Model interms of PQ+Format? If ,say, we have a chance to list down the model you like or vote it from the Best ... what's your vote? e.g: 1) EX3 2) XL-H1s and so on... W'ld you please share your opinion on that? Thanks

February 13th, 2009, 10:51 AM	#7
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Jay, Canon's HDV mode on the XL/XH in daylight is very comparable to HQ 60i on the EX, even at the higher bitrate. Specs don't tell the story on this one.

February 13th, 2009, 02:24 PM	#10
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	HDV anything is a flat out looser to XDCAM EX. There are too many situations where the HDV codec can be broken. Sometimes it can be as simple as leaves or grass blowing in the wind. The HVX200 doesn't come close to the EX1 and especially not the EX3 (with interchangeable lenses). SxS beats P2 by a country mile. Much faster transfer times with SxS (PCIe) vs P2 (PCMCIA). Also, due to the codecs used, P2 has much shorter record times, means more offloading (which is slower) greater chance of mistake). On EX for a little over $300 one can pack it with 64GB and get close to 4 hours of record time with XDCAM EX codec. Then there's the 1/2" vs 1/3" chips for better DOF control on EX. I can't even think HVX200 or XL/XH series are even close. Sure there are better cameras than the EX, at a much higher price. The only cameras coming to market that seem competitive are the JVC HM series which have smaller chips and are CCD so there's chip size and function as well as other features sets on the JVC HM series . . . which also uses the XDCAM EX codec. Certainly the higher end Panasonic cameras have a lot going for them but not the HVX200 compared to the EX.

February 13th, 2009, 04:44 PM	#12
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	I'd count out the HVX because for concerts and interviews, long record times are important. P2 makes that pricey. With the Sony you can buy the cheap 3rd party media, with the Canon you have tape. So they're better choices. The bigger sensor on the Sony will benefit you in low light concert settings. The Sony will also give you more latitude and better resolution -- a better image basically but I disagree with what others here say regarding the image quality being some sort of quantum leap past the HVX or Canon. All three give a nice image that's roughly proportional to the price you pay. The EX series does seem to have reached the top of the pyramid for sub 10k cameras for the moment. In six months some new hottie will have us all drooling. Until then...EX is playmate of the month.

February 13th, 2009, 06:02 PM	#15
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	Generally you'll get facts, opinions, a combination of the two. If you're going to discount all of them then why bother asking.