I tried out the W3 for video once, that was enough. It has really poor resolution for video it's only option is 720p24. I only use it for stills for 3D which I like it for that but now that I have my 4k 3D rig going, I have higher megapixel video than I do stills on this camera. 8.3 megapixel for video vs. 7 mp stills on the w3. Comparing stills between the two, I have 20 mp and a 1" sensor plus larger glass. Only advantage with the W3 now is size which it's smaller, but I'll never use it again for video other than my initial tests. The Panasonic 3d1 is much better for video with 1080i60 SbS, although the lenses are closer together. But despite the SbS framing limitation on recording, the quality is still superior to the W3's independent AVI streams which are a hefty 40 plus megabits/sec each. The problem lies in the 720p24 recording which softens the image quality. The fact that the streams are independent vs SbS and 40 mbps recording doesn't help.
Yes, two Go Pro's would be a better solution. The W3 is good for stills and that's about it. It will do video in a pinch, other than that, it's just horrible quality. The other bad thing on the W3 and 3D1 is for stills you really can't use the flash on these because the flash is too close to the lens which will pick up dust particles, so you're pretty much limited to available light. Second, the cameras are pretty old now and 1/2" sensor with no flash option means poor low light use. About the only 3D shooting I do with these is for stills and entirely in 16x9 for use in the timeline with 3D video. Now that I can shoot in 4k though, there isn't really any advantage since I can just take a frame grab from the timeline and have a higher mp still image than either of these cameras.
This line intentionally left blank.
Last edited by tomtastic; 03-23-2016 at 02:56 AM.