Sony PMW-200 Brings HD 4:2:2 Workflow to XDCAM Camcorder Line

[Alister Chapman]

I completely agree that rain and dust proofing is highly desirable. It would be great for my storm chasing trips. My guess is that cost is the main reason for not having it (oops, sorry speculating again) :-)

[Gabor Heeres]

So they can do it within reasonable costs at a camcorder that's 1/3rd of the price of this PMW-200 but not on this one? Seems pretty strange to me.... I mean, if there is one type of cam to have it very useful it should be this PMW-200. A missed chance in my opinion. To me it also seems very unlogical they sealed the NX70 but didn't it with any released pro camcorder since than. Was there probably something wrong with the weather sealing in the NX70 design? Did you take a NX70 on one of your stormchasing trips Alister? If yes, how was it?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

I completely agree that rain and dust proofing is highly desirable. It would be great for my storm chasing trips. My guess is that cost is the main reason for not having it (oops, sorry speculating again) :-)

And I believe that for that level of proofing you can't use external ports etc, just the basic camera which has to be "sealed down". That may be far less acceptable for the sort of use the PMW200 is likely to be put to than the NX70. Equally, the heat issues may make it more difficult for the PMW200.

There's been a lot of attention to detail in this thread. Interesting and valid though it may be, at the end of the day if you are required to buy a camera, and have about £5000 to do it, the choice now boils down in practice to three - the PMW200, XF305, HPX250 - or not buy anything.

Ergonomically, all three are not good. None of them match a good shouldermount, and whilst there may be differences and personal likes and dislikes, I wouldn't put any of them as a clear winner.

Codec wise, both the XF305 and the HPX250 had the advantage (on paper, if not very visible) over the EX1 of that magical "broadcast suitable" tag. With the PMW200 that lead has disappeared. Codec wise, they are all considered fully approved.

The main difference now is chip size. And here the PMW200 is the out and out winner. It puts it a stop ahead in terms of raw sensitivity, depth of field control, and diffraction limited aperture range. That's huge.

For various reasons I'm only too happy to agree that the PMW200 may not be perfect, and some details may have been done better, but the key point is that it's the best of the bunch. At some point you have to stop agonising over details and just put your money down - or do without a camera. At this price point, the PMW200 is simply the best available.

[Alister Chapman]

Didn't take a NX70 storm chasing because it doesn't meet broadcast specs and my clients are generally high end broadcasters, commercials producers or other high end users that insist on footage meeting certain minimum criteria and the NX70 just doesn't cut it. In addition a lot of storm chasing takes place in poor light and small chip cameras really struggle. For $150 I can get a good quality tailored rain cover for almost any camera so that's what I do. For storm chasing and my other natural extremes I use a range of cameras from PDW700s to EX1's and this year the F3 with S-log, but always with a NanoFlash running at least 50Mb/s, normally more or with the F3 a Samurai at ProRes HQ or uncompressed on a Gemini.

[Mark Williams]

Alister, any chance of making available a short .mxf clip from the camera to play around with on my NLE system?

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by David Heath

...For various reasons I'm only too happy to agree that the PMW200 may not be perfect, and some details may have been done better, but the key point is that it's the best of the bunch. At some point you have to stop agonising over details and just put your money down - or do without a camera. At this price point, the PMW200 is simply the best available.

I use my EX1R in studio, domestically and on international travel near and far; on sticks and run and gun. It's a remarkable camera reflecting marvelous innovative design worthy of the designation: Venerable. In contrast, I think the PMW-200 is a stripped down follow-on product principally tuned for a narrow set of requirements for a shrinking broadcast segment.

The functional shoe/LCD of the EX1R was compromised for matte boxes and presumably other lens attached rigs.
The shot transition feature is gone.
The improved EX1R rotating grip is gone.
The advantages of a 12v powered camera to power other professional 12v accessories replaced with an environmentally negative one that doesn't power accessories... ergo no advantage.
Shotgun mount is now even more obtrusive.
All of that and maybe more was sacrificed for a power hungry heat generating dust collecting HD422 image pipeline.

Shooters not needing HD422-50 are better off with the EX1R while they last. The Panasonic HPX-255 at a $1000 lower price (WITH a microphone), built-in AVCIntra frame 422-100MB and 50MB codecs, 28mm wide end and 4 position ND filter in a 5.5 lb package (apparently without the ventilation ports) indicates a manufacturer that IMHO better understands it's customers.

The technical minutia of the superiority of 1/2" chips with apparently miniscule to no noise improvement is entirely uninteresting in the face of the stripping down. The menu item to map a mono audio source to both channels of the headphone is nifty tho.

Sony Professional USA gets a nod for a Facebook "Like" on the criticism and forwarding it to the product group.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

Shooters not needing HD422-50 are better off with the EX1R while they last.

Maybe. But Canon and Panasonic have previously made a big play about the advantages of "full broadcast codec", the PMW200 now puts the three equivalent in this respect. And you haven't really answered the point I put - we know you don't think the codec improvement is worth other changes against the EX1, but leaving that aside which would you go for in a straight race between the PMW200, XF305 and HPX250?

The Panasonic HPX-255 at a $1000 lower price (WITH a microphone), built-in AVCIntra frame 422-100MB and 50MB codecs, 28mm wide end and 4 position ND filter in a 5.5 lb package (apparently without the ventilation ports) indicates a manufacturer that IMHO better understands it's customers.

But don't forget the HPX255 price is without memory. To equip it with enough for (say) 3 hours recording adds quite a bit due to the P2 factor, and greatly narrows the gap between it and a PMW200 or XF305 equipped to the same recording time. Package price (with memory) of the three is very similar.

And on the debit side the HPX250 is 1/3" chips, and (unlike the X305), only servo for iris and focus. I expect true manual at this sort of price. It seems as though the 250 was primarily designed as an AVCCAM model, and a P2 version derived from it. It may be the one to get as B camera to a 2/3" P2 camera, but I'd go for the Canon or Sony otherwise.

The technical minutia of the superiority of 1/2" chips ....is entirely uninteresting in the face of the stripping down.

It's not just "technical minutia" though, it's a stop sensitivity advantage, and a stop better depth of field control. They make a big practical difference to any operator.

[Les Wilson]

I felt I did address the question: HPX-255.

Panasonic can make a camera with a better feature set and offer 422-100MB built-in on the occasion you need it. And as you point out, there's an upward compatibility with higher end cameras in the Panasonic line.

I enjoy the advantages of the 1/2" chips on the EX1R but would look elsewhere for 422-50MB. The HPX-255 is $1000 less expensive which pays for 64GB of P2 with change enough for a second battery. The PMW-200 doesn't come with memory and at B&H, SXS is the same price as P2.

[Mark Andersson]

The HPX-255 has a lot of vents.

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by David Heath

... Package price (with memory) of the three is very similar. And on the debit side the HPX250 is 1/3" chips, and (unlike the X305), only servo for iris and focus. ...

Don't know where you got that information but the HPX-255 is manual focus, zoom and iris. The base prices between PMW-200 and HPX-255 are at least $700 different (depending on street price of the Sony) and memory equivalent.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

I felt I did address the question: HPX-255. ........

I enjoy the advantages of the 1/2" chips on the EX1R but would look elsewhere for 422-50MB. The HPX-255 is $1000 less expensive which pays for 64GB of P2 with change enough for a second battery.

But that is only enough for a hours continuous shooting. Three hours is a far more realistic figure if you want to avoid downloading in the field, which wipes out any price advantage the HPX250 may have in body only cost.

The PMW-200 doesn't come with memory and at B&H, SXS is the same price as P2.

Whilst SxS and P2 may be similar in cost per GB, the bitrate difference means that per minute the figures stack up strongly in favour of XDCAM and SxS. For a given recording time, you need half the number of GB for SxS as the 250 does for P2. So for two hours that would be one SxS 64GB card ($650) versus two P2 64GB (2x$730=$1460). Hence my previous figures - with memory for three hours recording, the HPX250 is MORE expensive than the PMW200.

And for that extra cost you only get 1/3" chips and a servo lens. Sorry Les, I disagree with you, I'll maintain the PMW200 is currently the clear winner.

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

Don't know where you got that information but the HPX-255 is manual focus, zoom and iris.

You can switch to manual control, but there is no direct coupling between the focus/iris rings and the mechanism - it's via servos. Hence a far less precise feel, a slight variable lag, and (worst of all) no end stops. It's fundamentally the same as they use in the AVCCAM model, and similar to what Sony use in NXCAM. It's what I'd expect in cameras in that price range, not what I'd expect for cameras in the range above.

Have you ever tried one? It may be usable - but nowhere near the standard of a pro, manual lens, and that includes the lenses of the EX, PMW200 and XF305.

[Les Wilson]

422-50MB on an HPX-255 is the same amount of footage as 422-50MB on a PMW-200. You are right tho, on the HPX-255, you can record twice the data rate whenever you want without an external recorder as you need on a PMW-200 but can't power off the camera battery.

It isn't about picking a chipset spec winner as you are known to do here. Video production is much more than IQ minutia and pixel peeping. As the old adage goes, audio is half the video. Then there's story telling, lighting and script. Your talking about a fraction of a fraction in the end..... then there's Alister's statement about people can't tell the difference between 420 and 422 without peeping.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

422-50MB on an HPX-255 is the same amount of footage as 422-50MB on a PMW-200.

Errr, the HPX255 doesn't record 422-50MB! It's a Panasonic camera, and hence records AVC-Intra - most certainly NOT XDCAM 422 50Mbs!!

Yes, it can record in a 50Mbs mode (AVC-Intra 50) - but then it's 4:2:0, luminance subsampled, and most definately not considered as fully broadcast approved. To get that tag, it needs to be in the AVC-Intra 100 mode - hence 100Mbs. Hence twice the number of GB for the same run time.

I'll be the first to agree that story telling, lighting and script may be more significant that absolute technical factors, but it's an irrelevant argument. Production factors and technical quality are separate matters. You seem to be implying they are mutually exclusive? Surely that's not true? High technical quality doesn't preclude high production values, and vice versa. What's wrong with best possible story telling etc together with best possible technical quality?

[Les Wilson]

These cameras all produce great images. The differences are small thus a fraction of a fraction of the whole. 422-100 built-in of the Panasonic sounds interesting. Don't care about memory costs. That's a fraction too.

[Eric Olson]

Originally Posted by Les Wilson

then there's Alister's statement about people can't tell the difference between 420 and 422 without peeping.

The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is much greater when shooting interlaced than progressive. Even with progressive, the difference is definitely noticeable for chroma key.

Current HD broadcast standards are like insisting on low salt, low fat, fully organic home cooked dinners and then eating fast food for lunch. Strict requirements on dinner only give the cook difficulty in preparing the meals while lunch has already spoiled the diet. What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?

While the PMW-200 likely improves on the EX1R in many ways, it is also likely that main purpose of the camera is to increase Sony's profit. If the PMW-200 sells for x% more and can be manufactured for y% less, then replacing the EX1R with the PMW-200 has many benefits. A new camera is much better than raising the price of the existing EX1R by x+y%.