EX1 or EX3

[Allen Minor]

I just received the EX1 and I like it; however, now I'm torn between keeping it or exchanging it for the EX3. Not a good feeling. I want to be happy with one of these camcorders. The EX3 is newer and I'm wondering if the technology is better. I am not a professional but rather a serious amateur. I will probably never change the lens. I'm wondering if someone who owns both cameras could provide some insight. Thanks in advance.

[Zan Shin]

IMHO, the big advantages of the EX3 over the EX1 are:
1. Removable lenses: good if you change them, not a big deal if you don't.
2. Viewfinder, although they have simply added a flip-up eyecup around the excellent LCD of the EX-1, and it's always out there rather than able to be closed away (such as if using an external monitor).
3. Some of the nice features you may use frequently were moved from the on-screen menu to exterior buttons. Along with removeable lenses, one of the best features.
4. Shoulder mounting design ...kind of. More so than the EX1, anyway. Less so than a true shoulder-mount camera.
5. Resale value. It's newer and costs more with the features above, so it should be more desirable if/when you decide to upgrade. It's also bigger and a bit heavier, and in some respects, is not as easily handled in some shooting situations.

Other than that, the images obtained with the cams will be nearly identical.

[Bob Jackson]

Originally Posted by Allen Minor

I just received the EX1 and I like it; however, now I'm torn between keeping it or exchanging it for the EX3. Not a good feeling. I want to be happy with one of these camcorders. The EX3 is newer and I'm wondering if the technology is better. I am not a professional but rather a serious amateur. I will probably never change the lens. I'm wondering if someone who owns both cameras could provide some insight. Thanks in advance.

You have a fine camera. I have the Ex1, don't have both .
If you don't need the lens changes, and I only changed my Betacam lens once.
It has other features, but most are not needed by a serious amateur.

[Doug Jensen]

Allen,

I own both cameras, and while I prefer the EX3, I would suggest you just keep what you've already got. Performance-wise, the cameras are EXACTLY the same. Electronically, anything that one can do, so can the other. The technology is exactly the same. The differences are basically all physical. So, you're not going to get better quality by moving to an EX3.

In my opinion, the two biggest reasons to choose an EX3 over an EX1 are: 1) Ability to change lenses. 2) The better viewfinder design. Sure, there's also timecode in/out, genlock, and several other improvements, but the viewfinder and lens are the biggies.

You already said #1 is not important to you, so that leaves #2 as the main reason to upgrade. Is that alone worth a couple thousand dollars? Probably not. I would suggest getting a viewfinder accessory that will make your EX1's viewfinder perform sort of like the EX3's viewfinder.

Towards the end of this online video, I talk about the differences between the two.
What's So Great about XDCAM EX?

Relax, and be happy with what you have. The EX1 is a great camera.

[Bob Jackson]

Please look at Doug's video.
Will make you feel good about your fine purchase.

[Zan Shin]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Relax, and be happy with what you have. The EX1 is a great camera.

And I might add, with the difference in price, you can afford a lot of extras for the EX1, such as a very good tripod, a decent microphone (or two), and other niceties (like Doug Jensen's training DVDs) that will make your videos even better than by having only a stock EX3.

[Joachim Hoge]

If you are into nature photography the EX-3 is more desirable I think.
Because you can buy a cheap adaptor that allows you to use older Nikon/Nikkor still lenses with your camera.
These lenses can be had for quite cheap second hand.
Because of the small sensor on the camera you will have something like *5,4 to the tele side of the lens.
i.e a 100mm Nikon still lens would equal a 540mm on the EX-3.

[Brian Barkley]

Listen to Doug Jensen . . . there is no better expert than him. He is exactly correct when he states that the lens and viewfinder are the two main reasons to go with the EX-3.

I am currently producing a documentary in which I have completed over 70 interior interviews, and the viewfinder alone has been a great help.

Knowing how to properly light a scene, and a good tripod are much more important than upgrading your camera. I might add that the proper Tiffen filters have been a big help as well, and much more important than upgrading your camera.

Then there's a much overlooked area of production, a good boom mic . . . which is also more important than upgrading your camera.

I could go on, but hopefully Doug will weigh in with more suggestion. He did not mention his warm cards, but I consider them the best $90 investment I've ever made. They will enhance your scenes much more than upgrading your camera.

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Allen Minor

I'm wondering if the technology is better. .

That bit is easy to answer - NO. They are basically the same camera but with interchangeable lenses, the chips and boards etc. (and therefore image quality) are the same.

One thing I think that cannot be overstated though is just how much better the viewfinder is on the EX3. The EX1's finder is like almost all small camcorders, ie rubbish! The EX3 on the other hand is almost as good as full size broadcast cameras (it can also switch between colour and b/w at the flick of a switch, really nice!)

Steve

[Andy Wilkinson]

I've used an EX1 (a mates) and have an EX3. Both are stunning.

Big advantages of EX1 over EX3 (as the other way round have been well stated above) is that the smaller form factor of the EX1 makes any travel (especially airline travel) a lot (A LOT!!!) easier as the beautiful viewfinder on my EX3 does makes it a bit bulky for carry on luggage dimensions (but it's possible... as I've shown elsewhere in great detail on this great forum - and pics on my website). EX3 also "gets you noticed a lot" in public, not always desirable (in fact often NOT desirable). EX1 is slightly, only slightly, less obvious.

The cost factor is worth stating again - you can get a lot of goodies with the price saving of the EX1 over the EX3. Enjoy choosing them wisely!

You have a very fine tool in your new EX1. Use it, have fun, make great videos with it and don't be worried about it's bigger brother - until you've totally outgrown it.

Then you can buy an EX5.... when that comes out, maybe, if Sony ever make it (full shoulder baby???...just a joke!)

[Barry J. Weckesser]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

That bit is easy to answer - NO. They are basically the same camera but with interchangeable lenses, the chips and boards etc. (and therefore image quality) are the same.

One thing I think that cannot be overstated though is just how much better the viewfinder is on the EX3. The EX1's finder is like almost all small camcorders, ie rubbish! The EX3 on the other hand is almost as good as full size broadcast cameras (it can also switch between colour and b/w at the flick of a switch, really nice!)

Steve

I think when Hoodman introduces their extension adaptor for the HoodLoupe 3.0 which allows you to use it with 3.5" LCD screens the viewfinder difference will be much less. I am using the 3.0 now and have excellent results except for the annoyance of having to compensate for having part of the screen cutoff on either side.

[Alister Chapman]

When I got my EX3 I thought I would end up selling my EX1. But I kept my EX1 because as Andy says it is much more portable and a little more discreet. I love mine for those pick up and run situations.

[Erik Phairas]

I have an EX3 and I wish I had an EX1 as well. I'd love a slightly smaller version of the EX3 to have when needed.

[Max Allen]

I prefer the EX1 to the EX3. To me the single biggest benefit of all these small cameras is just that -- they are small, making many shooting situations possible and easy than with a full size camera. Personally I don't care for Sony's decision to slap on a giant eyepiece on the EX3 LCD. For my uses it's too flimsy and bulky... they should have made it detachable at least. And you always need a B&W capable viewfinder, IMO. With EX1 you have both simultaneously. Doesn't make sense to me how some people leave their EX1 viewfinders in color when they have the LCD. Possibly they don't know how to use a B&W viewfinder for judging contrast.

To me, if you can't afford a full size camera you'd buy an EX3. But if you can afford a full size or already have one you'd still buy an EX1. You can not do with a full size camera some of the things you could with an EX1, due to the size. On the other hand for what I do timecode input is big on the EX3, for multicamera field sync, double system sound. Of course there is something to be said as well for being able to slap on a Digiprime directly to the flange back.

The EX3 should have been the EX1 with all the new features minus the size increase. Keep these cameras small.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I fully agree, Max - never even considered replacing my EX1 with the EX3 (I'm using 35mm adapter, so no need for changing lens, either).

Originally Posted by Max Allen

Doesn't make sense to me how some people leave their EX1 viewfinders in color when they have the LCD. Possibly they don't know how to use a B&W viewfinder for judging contrast.

You got me interested with the above statement - could you elaborate, please? I mean, I'm aware the pros prefer B&W viewfinders with their fully-blown cameras, but - never having owned one - I'd like to know how B&W is better in judging contrast...

Thanks!