Panasonic HVX200 vs SOny EX1 vs Sony NX5U? Found Local Sellers!

Panasonic HVX200 vs SOny EX1 vs Sony NX5U? Found Local Sellers!

  • Hurry And Get The "Panasonic-HVX200"!!

    Votes: 9 52.9%

  • Better Not Let That "Sony EX-1" Get Away, Move!

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Forget Them, Buy The "Sony NX5U" Brand New!

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Total voters
    17
puredrifting said:
It kind of blows the credibility of whomever wrote this if they think that the EX3 has 2/3" sensors.

Comparing the Sonys to the Panasonics is like comparing Apples and Oranges. The Sony EX1/EX3 are razor sharp, much cleaner, sucky codec and terrible ergonomics. The Panasonic HVX201/171 are much softer, noisier, better codec and overall, pretty decent ergonomics (171 is great, 201, a bit chunky but still better than the Sonys).

The OP should buy whichever brand has the look and features that are most important to them. I use both the EX1 and the 170 and owned a 200 so I have experience with all of these cameras. A talented filmmaker/videographer can make magic with any of them, they are all great, just depends on what is important to the OP.

Dan
Click to expand...


is the lense on the ex1 good enough? i am going to front the cash for a ex1r the new one that just come out....i love the crisp image of the exmor 1/2 inch cmos sensors...

but on the other hand i just picked up a 7d yesterday, and it has almost the same size sesor as the redone camcorder, they are talking about it all over, and there is customizable picture presets, so i can have the exposure up nicely and evenly so post editing will be splendid...

i am going to setup a really nice xlr input on the bottom tripod mount, and shotgun mic on the top where that mount is for the extra external flash mechanism goes...

i will have the option for boompolse since the xlr inputs have clean preamps, and a 3.5 mm plug for the camera...

heres my thread....

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=202095
 
craven said:
is the lense on the ex1 good enough?
Click to expand...

Good enough for what? It's good enough for DiscoveryHD broadcast. And good enough for Public Enemies (and District 9) to be shown worldwide on the silver screen. I'd say it's good enough for most uses people will put it to.

Not to say it's equal to an Arri Master Prime, or a Cook S4... or even Canon L glass or Nikon ED. But it's still pretty darn good.
 
ok....cause i also have a canon 7d, what lense do you recommend with that for use in cinema? i already have the 18-135mm....

do you agree with the web statements all over saying the c-size sensor in the 7d is very very, comparable to the sensor in the red one camera?
 
craven said:
ok....cause i also have a canon 7d, what lense do you recommend with that for use in cinema? i already have the 18-135mm....

do you agree with the web statements all over saying the c-size sensor in the 7d is very very, comparable to the sensor in the red one camera?
Click to expand...

The RED sensor measures: 24.4 mm by 13.7 mm
The 7D sensor measures: 22.3 × 14.9 mm

So yes, they are similar in size. But they are somewhat different in function and implementation.

I cannot recommend a lens for your 7D that is for use in Cinema. There are a great many lenses used for Cinema depending on need. Popular sizes range from 18mm to 180mm. I suspect that the 20, 24, 35, 50, and 85 get a lot of use or lenses around that size. There are also a few zoom lenses popular in cinema though they tend to be quite costly.

Fortunately, the 7D does not greatly benefit from the very expensive, true cinema lenses. So as long as you are buying quality lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc., you should be just fine. I would expect most good quality primes to fall between $300 and $1k. So use that as a rough guide to costs per lens.
 
craven said:
so thats what the 75-300 means, 75mm widest shot possible, and 300mm closest?
Click to expand...

Sort of...

The two numbers are focal lengths. The smaller the number the wider the shot, and the higher the number the narrower and more magnified the shot.

To give you an idea, with a 7D, if you stood at the side of a football field, and zoomed to 300mm and focused on someone standing halfway across the field, you would get maybe their waist to their head. At 150mm, you'd got their full body. If you tried to use that 300mm indoors in the average bedroom, you'd get their eye or nose. At 150mm you'd get maybe most of their face.
 
PerroneFord said:
Sort of...

The two numbers are focal lengths. The smaller the number the wider the shot, and the higher the number the narrower and more magnified the shot.

To give you an idea, with a 7D, if you stood at the side of a football field, and zoomed to 300mm and focused on someone standing halfway across the field, you would get maybe their waist to their head. At 150mm, you'd got their full body. If you tried to use that 300mm indoors in the average bedroom, you'd get their eye or nose. At 150mm you'd get maybe most of their face.
Click to expand...


so what would the difference be if they both were 35mm, but one was 75mm and one was 150mm?

so the 18mm - 135 that i have is a reall good lense then?
 
The 18-135 is a very useful range. It has a good wide field of view on the wide end, and an okay telephoto. It covers the range of what we would normally use as the most-common cinema focal lengths.

Doesn't mean it's a great lens, as it's probably the cheap kit lens, but -- it works fine, it has a good range, and while it's not the best for stills it's plenty good enough for video. The only real knock on it is that it's slow (meaning, its maximum aperture only opens up to f/4; a "faster" lens would open up to f/2 or f/1.4 or even faster, thus letting more light in).

If you're new, and you've got the 18-135, don't worry about getting other lenses. Just use that one and build up your skills. When you've outgrown the kit lens, that's when you should start thinking about getting others.
 
Barry_Green said:
The 18-135 is a very useful range. It has a good wide field of view on the wide end, and an okay telephoto. It covers the range of what we would normally use as the most-common cinema focal lengths.

Doesn't mean it's a great lens, as it's probably the cheap kit lens, but -- it works fine, it has a good range, and while it's not the best for stills it's plenty good enough for video. The only real knock on it is that it's slow (meaning, its maximum aperture only opens up to f/4; a "faster" lens would open up to f/2 or f/1.4 or even faster, thus letting more light in).

If you're new, and you've got the 18-135, don't worry about getting other lenses. Just use that one and build up your skills. When you've outgrown the kit lens, that's when you should start thinking about getting others.
Click to expand...

thanks! what lense do you think we be of the best for aperture, and good wide lense for a nice background blur for video depth of field?

and what lense do you think is best for stills?

these 2 lenses will be for later down the road....

you a master in the photo/video community!

thanks again
 
PM me interested. I live in the triangle area with HMC150, bought it just for my wedding. Comes with 3 years transferable warranty covering accidents as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top