-
Why buy a PDW-F335?
I own a PDW-F350 and five PDW-F330s. I need to have eight cameras, so I need to buy two more.
I have the $64,000 question:
Why would someone buy a PDW-F335 for $13K sans lens when you can buy an EX3 for $8500 that includes a lens, or an EX1 that’s even cheaper?
When you add a lens to the F335, the cost is so much more than the EX1 or EX3. And I’m finding I regularly have small camera envy when I see a lot of the footage that’s shot with them, where they have much more mobility, where you can hold the handle and manuever and get in places that are much more difficult with the bigger cameras.
And as I get older, when I shoot all day with the bigger cameras, they’re hell on my back. Does anyone know why Sony hasn’t fazed out the F335? and even the F355?
Is Sony simply making money on us older chumps who’ve always been “big” camera snobs, even when there’s no advantage anymore?
-
22 Replies
-
[Thomas Hughes] “Why would someone buy a PDW-F335 for $13K sans lens when you can buy an EX3 for $8500 that includes a lens, or an EX1 that’s even cheaper?”
A few observations from an EX “handycam man”:
Shoulder mount cameras have properly sized (and more robust) controls and connections.
Shoulder mount cameras by their very construction will have a steadier shot.
XDCAM disk is an instant archive backup.
Certain clients will take a shoulder mount camera operator more seriously.– Don
-
Sad but true. Though I think the era of shoulder-cam= better quality is just about over now except perhaps for rural news channels and C-SPAN.
Noah
Check out my new RED Blog. Unlock the secrets of the DVX100, HVX200 and Apple Color.
Now featuring the Lens Adapter Guidebook, Sony EX1 Guidebook,
DVD Studio Pro and How to Light Interviews.
https://www.callboxlive.com -
I think we are entering an era where portability is a major factor.
In this era of tightening budgets many stations are moving some of their ENG work to one person crews.
In addition the transfer rates of solid state media allow for much faster turnaround.
In the good ‘ol days many news stations would recycle stock so archive may not be of paramount importance (at least for those stations).
There may also be maintenance time and cost vs “throw away” costs and it may be easier at least in some circumstances to throw away a $6000 camera (EX1).
Also it may be easier to get shorter ROI and upgrade more quickly as technology improves rather than be locked into a technology and workflow which may be surpassed in a short time.
Certainly the 300 series has its merits as Don points out and I think Sony will let the marketplace decide but if I were a betting person I know where I’d put my six pence.
-
A friend of mine has been shooting news on an EX-1, as the TV network I used to work for is pondering that same question.
Most of his concerns are related to weather, either indirectly or directly:
1- fragile compared to the big cam, and connectors not always in the best location (since there isn’t much real estate to begin with);
2- lens fogging, and you can’t remove it to air it out;
3- tiny controls which are hard to maneuver when shooting on the fly, especially with gloves.
I’d never risk subjecting an EX camera (or any other “prosumer” cam) to the abuse I saw our “big” cameras take at the hands of journalism school graduates (ahem) on a daily basis.
Cf
-
As recently discussed on another forum…I like my chances for carry-on baggage on even smaller planes with my EX1…
I may be able to let go of my large camera envy some day soon…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
Having recently gone from a 2/3 inch shoulder camera with a wide angle lens to EX-1, I must say I will never go back.
20 years of heavy cameras have not been kind to my back.
I especially like the effiency of the smaller batteries, and how easier they are to charge & transport.
Being able to take EX-1 as carry on luggage is a huge plus.
All advantage aside, if I could have taken my old camera to a fat farm, filled it full of helium & used light batteries I would definetly have kept it.Cheers
Colin -
I am currently shooting a fairly large documentary with my EX-3. I’ve been to L.A., Detroit, Wash. DC, San Antonio, Atlanta, Kansas City, Topeka, and I’m not done yet. I am a one-man crew. No assistants. I carry the camera case and audio case on board the airplane. This is all made possible by a small camera, andd streamlining my lighting gear into one case. The budget on something like this would be considerable more if I had a larger camera, which might mean hiring an assistant and flying him all over the country with me.
If you know how to operate the camera, and have taste and experience in lighting a location, the EX-3 is performing great.
-
My concerns about the ruggedness of construction and delicateness of connectors go WAY down when it’s just me running the gear, since I’m clinically insane when it comes to taking care of equipment. But when there are a bunch of fresh college grads handling the gear and I’m just the fix-it guy in the aftermath, that’s when I crave the heavy-duty stuff.
Cf
-
“Road” worthiness is certainly a factor . . . but so is the fact that you may be able to toss away 3 cameras to equal the cost of that road worthy camera. There’s no simple answer to this but I’m sure the bean counters measure that in . . . along with the technological trend that the camera simply doesn’t have to last as long given the frequency of advances.
Again I think the market will speak and judging from what I’m seeing the little cameras are replacing the big ones in many (not all) situations.
-
I used the 350 for almost two years, now that I have the EX cameras I’ll never go back – even a new 800 is no temptation. Images are our business, and the EX cameras make better images than just about anything out there regardless of the price.
As for students beating up gear, you can’t expect everything to be idiot proof, and as a line someone uses regularly on this forum says, “you can’t fix stupid”. I say fail ’em or fire ’em.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up