Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    21
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by sewolla View Post
    Went to NAB this year and saw the CX350 there. A pretty impressive camera! It seemed it would fit very well into the event type work we shoot, so I did some more research on it when upon returning to LA.
    Ordered one 2 days ago from Filmtools and am anxious to do some testing along side my DVX200.
    We shoot a lot of concerts and other events, and it will be used alongside the DVX. I love the DVX200, however I am getting a bit "up there" age wise, and would appreciate the lighter weight of the CX350. So yes the weight was a factor.
    Another factor was the availability of shooting in 422 10 bit in camera.
    It also seems a bit better suited for the event world we work in. If it works out as well as I expect I will likely order at least one more.
    Will post more notes on my results once it gets here.

    I too own the DVX200 and am considering this new camera. I welcome your feedback as comparison between the two, as detailed as you have time for. It helps all of us when those with real experience using the camera's can supply their knowledge and experience.

    Thank you in advance.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2
    Default
    Remote zoom seems to be a problem on CX350. We have tried two CX350 and Manfrotto 521 (some other Manfrotto as well). Zoom speed stays slow for 80-90% of the push on the remote zoom, and then all speed comes at once. Not smooth at all. Zoom lever on camera works just like any other camera so it is only if we use remote from back on tripod arm. If this isn't fixed the camera will loose a lot business.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,678
    Default
    I agree. The LANC port has an issue. I have spoken to support and hopefully they address it sooner than later. It seems to be a low priority from the design point of view imho.

    Regarding the DVX200 vs CX350, to me the image quality or base sensor quality is better with the CX350. I just can't like the DVX200's image. Crushed blacks and touchy highlights. The CX350 is not a shallow DOF camera given its lens. It is basically an f4 1" sensor camera, but it is a better image form my point of view.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Default
    Some clarification that may or may not prove useful: as far as I know, Panasonic has NEVER SAID that you can use a LANC controller with the Panasonic CX350 or EVA1. The port is not identified as LANC on the camera, or anywhere in the owner's manual. Now, as a matter of fact, it does use LANC protocol, but apparently that doesn't mean you can just use any old LANC controller and expect good results. For one thing, the Panasonic supports iris control through LANC, and most LANC controllers don't have iris control because most Sony and Canon LANC cameras never supported iris control through the LANC port.

    Panasonic calls it a "serial remote terminal". I would always advise someone to get a controller that's made specifically for the Panasonic CX350 (or EVA1). I don't know which controllers those may be, so I asked Panasonic to recommend some, and they said that they've tested the Libec ZFC-L, the Manfrotto MVR901ECLA, and the Varizoom VZ-STEALTH.

    lanc.jpg

    I took a look at those three controllers, and the VZ-STEALTH is the only one that specifically mentions that it is compatible with the CX350 and EVA1.

    Now, it is entirely possible that other controllers will work satisfactorily with the CX350...or, as some of you have discovered, it's entirely possible that other controllers will not work satisfactorily with it. If you plan on using a wired remote, I'd recommend sticking with the ones that Panasonic has tested and approved for use with the CX350.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,678
    Default
    I appreciate the clarification Barry but what is up with this? It is like Panasonic has never made a camera for this segment before. As I told support, 70-80% of the time I am making money with these types of cameras I am using a remote zoom controller. How could such little regard be paid to this part of the camera? BTW, the VZ-Stealth looks like the first ever remote zoom created for a prosumer camera. No, that is not the first choice for performance and why is it the only one that is bonafide?

    Panny or LANC or whatever, they need to sort this out and not come up with a third option! Sorry for the rant...


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Default
    I can't answer why they do what they do, I can only observe what is, and what isn't. It would certainly seem prudent for them to either produce a controller, or certify existing controllers, with all alacrity.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,753
    Default
    What do you do if you wish to use an organization’s system, but that organization no longer exists? Yet someone owns that legal entity, so it’s not like you can just go stealing use of the name or other aspect.

    Meanwhile, more solutions are being worked on with 3rd party developers.
    Mitch Gross
    Cinema Product Manager
    Panasonic System Solutions Company


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,678
    Default
    Mitch, if you are saying that the LANC protocol is wrapped up in some legal confusion then why not stay with the two input Panasonic protocol for this camera? Saying that LANC is a difficult situation but still deciding to produce a camera knowing user's will have a difficult time does not make much sense to me. I am sure a lot of us already own these types of controllers, I know I own too many. But after trying two different large brands with a Panasonic/LANC switch and one other that is pure LANC with the camera, I have to think minimal research has been done.

    Why not create something that works with existing products? It is not that large of a market. I will purchase the LIBEC controller listed above but I wonder if it will work at a professional level.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    LA, CA
    Posts
    389
    Default
    The topic of wired remotes is something that I spent some time on with a Panasonic engineer at NAB. This engineer said that yes, you can in fact use a LANC controller with the CX350. With that assurance from him, I placed an order for one, along with a Varizoom VZ Rock PZFII for Canon. Better cancel the order for that Varizoom.
    I really need that ability as much of my work is done with cranes, etc. and I need the ability to control iris, etc. in those situations.

    I do certainly agree that remote controller compatibility is something that Panasonic should have had settled before the CX350 was ever released.

    Barry, where did you find where the VZ Stealth was compatible with the CX350?
    Thanks for all you do,
    Steve


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Default
    You can control zoom, focus, and iris through the CX ROP app. Not quite the same of course, but in lieu of an alternative solution, I point it out as a possible option.

    I asked Panasonic for their recommendations for controllers, and that is what they sent me.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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