Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 88
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    174
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew McCarrick View Post
    I don't know of any 2/3" 3CMOS cameras from Sony and the only one I can find from Grass Valley is the LDK 3000 and that's nearly $73,000.00. All the other cameras that use CMOS sensors that are relatively cheap all use single sensors not arrays.
    Sony PMW350 has 3 cmos sensors and is 2/3". Cmos has become more accepted, but just the other day I heard of a motion picture here in Norway being shot on HPX3700 as none of the cmos based "film"cameras were suitable for high action hand held, too much jello. So CCD still has something going for it...


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    1,155
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew McCarrick View Post
    ... the only one I can find from Grass Valley is the LDK 3000 and that's nearly $73,000.00.
    $73,000? That's what they mean with "LDK 3000 - The Economical Choice for High-Quality HD" ?



    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bandido View Post
    Panasonic has a good camera on the HPX300 they just have to improve the sensor and make the viewfinder detachable.
    Doing so, it wouldn't be an HPX300 anymore. The HPX300 is designed around the price tag. Putting in bigger chips would drive up the price, and making the viewfinder detachable would cause the price to skyrocket.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    174
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    Doing so, it wouldn't be an HPX300 anymore. The HPX300 is designed around the price tag. Putting in bigger chips would drive up the price, and making the viewfinder detachable would cause the price to skyrocket.
    And IF the VF were detachable....what's really the point with the Pana VF options in the range of 3500-8000$ . Want bigger chips, detachable vf and 1080 native? Well there's always the Hpx3000...


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Default
    That's pretty much what I mean. By making the viewfinder *not* detachable, they were able to leverage off all the existing hardware in the camera body, instead of having to build it into the viewfinder. A separate LCOS HD viewfinder costs as much as an entire HPX300. But by doing it the way they did, they dropped the price to the point where the viewfinder is included free and the whole camera retails for under $8,000.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    81
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Hidef1080 View Post
    I'd be down with a 150-something with more resolution and dual SD slots or with SD / Compact Flash combo slots.
    HD – SDI would be nice.
    Much better LCD screen would be nice [not even touch screen just better than now].


    I think it will happen but just not this year.
    I would have been sold on the 150 if it had higher resolution chips.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Haifa, NYC, LA...
    Posts
    875
    Default


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Country Victoria, Au
    Posts
    261
    Default
    I don’t think they could justify doing an improvement upgrade (picture quality wise) on the 150’s (NTSC/PAL) , without doing one on the 170’s or 200’s!
    Doing so might make people not bother with the other 2 cameras at all, considering it’s cheaper. Panasonic wouldn’t want that to happen!

    Also, if they changed them and put CMOS chips in (GOD FORBID!), I don’t think they would call them 15x, 17x or 20x anymore. There would be to much confusion.

    I haven't got a 152 yet and I can live without it now for a little longer to see if anything does happen at NAB.
    It's impossible for me to get the footage I want to see (shot on a 152) so that I can make up my mind if it would be suitable or not. .

    This forum needs a “bang head against a brick wall” in the Smilies


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Haifa, NYC, LA...
    Posts
    875


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Country Victoria, Au
    Posts
    261
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by grimrebes View Post
    I thought about following those directions but decided it would wreck my monitor


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •