I'm so tired of the networks saying which camera can be used or not used. They're not qualified to make those decisions. A camera is simply a hammer used to construct our projects. As the DP, I will decide which tool is the right one, and there are many more considerations than the pixel count of the imager. There is so much processing going on in these cameras that it's now possible for a "lower" pixel count CCD to have the same impact, snap, and apparent resolution as one with a higher native pickup, and I'm not talking about EE as being a factor. I shoot primarily film, and a good amount of Hd with the f900 and I'm very impressed with the picture from the HPX500. I've done 4 shoots with the 500 and the editors and colorists have a hard time telling whether my footage came from the 500 or the f900. So how are some network QC people going to say that the 500 is unacceptable? And in fact, how do they even know what a project was shot on when we deliver everything to them on D5 or HDCam tape? I'm not convinced that Discovery and National Geo ever made that statement. I wonder if this wasn't some "upsell" tactic of the Panny salesman. Also, even thought the 200 and 500 cut together very well, there is a noticeable amount of increased detail in the HPX500.