If able, do you think it would be a smart move to sell and get a DSLR?
 

First of all... this thread is not intended to be - yet another - EX1 vs. T2i/7D/5D thread. I believe that by putting "if able" in the title I made this clear... we all know by now that the EX1 is a "big" camera, with better resolution suitable for broadcast, long event recordings and other similar heavy duty tasks. We all know by now that the other ones are small, with nice low light, dof and many lenses.

I'm not really a heavy duty user. About 80% of the stuff I did with the camera, I could have done with a DSRL rig with a recording device. And I even think I could have done it better, as my main interest is indie filmmaking. The other 20%? I don't care much about that.

Considering:

1. What I just explained.
2. The market seems to be moving - or preparing to move - towards offering more advanced DSRL-like video recording devices.
3. Today, when buying a DSRL you spend a lot on lenses that will last. The EX1 is one big expensive body.
4. If buying a good-enough body like the T2i, you get to keep some money from the exchange.

Would you consider a smart move to sell right away my EX1 and get a T2i with lenses, accesories and a recording device?

DSLR shooting has a large number of problems that its fans don't want to talk about.

No decent sound and you need to bolt on so many extras you wouldn't believe. I believe the DSLR "revolution" is all hype, yes the images are nice but I just can't imagine using one of those ludicrous rigs with all the bolt-ons for paying work. With an EX1 you can literally pull it out of the bag and be running. With a DSLR it's simply not that easy.

Let alone the fact that long form shooting is difficult, the aliasing problems, the whole balance of the unit being designed for still shooting.

I was watching some hand held DSLR material earlier, superficially nice images but loads of problems. For those who are not fans of the rolling shutter in the EX1 then DSLR's are far worse in this regard. In the images I was watching there seemed to be a lack of exposure latitude (this may have been down to the model used) and the handheld work looked bad because I suspect really isn't designed for it.

The EX series is designed for video only. It hasn't been bolted on as some afterthought. You have professional video in a number of industry standard formats in a easy to edit codec, as well as professional sound straight out of the box. It's a well balanced unit great for handheld use or on sticks. It is a video camera from the ground up.

Let alone the fact you have all the things that us video people need on the EX1. You can zoom during shots (yeah yeah, I know), its easy to follow focus, you can use the transition memory, you have white balance. Also all the auto features that you won't use 98% of the time but which do come in useful occasionally.

If you want interchangeable lenses, go and buy an EX3 or try a 35mm adaptor. I wouldn't rule out a DSLR for one or two beauty shots, but shoot an entire production on one? I'd rather go back to my PDX-10!

As a film maker, you might be able to consider the DSLR option, but personally I'd consider how I can get the most out of the EX1.

About the only use I would have with it is using it in a place where you were not able to or allowed to be shooting video.
And probably thats not ethical.

based not on theory, but on experience - I own them all - if you can wait till the next year - wait,
if you need to move today - move, but not to T2i;
7D or better yet 5Dmkii would be my choice to replace EX1 if I needed to;
and don't be affraid to use those 'ludicrous rigs with all the bolt-ons for paying work' - big names in the busines use them very well;

That's a good point. Not so much "covert" but situations where you don't want to draw attention to yourself.

Mind you, I recently purchased a small Canon video camera for the occasions I'd rather not use the EX1. And again it's an all in one unit so it just works out of the bag and has onboard adjustable image stabilisation. I can just carry it around like a tourist and it works splendidly handheld. As far as I'm aware, most if not all of the DSLR solutions lack many of the features I'd consider standard in a video camera at that price range these days such as stabilisation.

I'm not saying some of the results aren't good, but many of the demos focus on shallow depth of field shots as a "wow" factor. I was watching a interview the other evening where the cameraman had decided to go for shallow DOF. The thing was the piece was taking place in the most glorious location and aside from a few cutaways we barely saw it. In my opinion that's just a cameraman saying "I have a cool feature lets use it" and forgetting that actually the content of the shot might be more important than the arty effect.

A camera is a tool. You need the right tool for the right job. But you also need the skill to use the tool. There is a place for DSLR and it will grow in prominence, but I think we're going to see a split between the people who need different looks.

Back in the days of film and video tape (when in the UK most location TV work was done on film and studio was on VT), you had two different arts. Even the corporate field was divided as some people used film and some experimented with early VT formats. As film died out for that use, we moved nearly exclusively to video tape and it all converged. I'm now convinced that we'll see a split again from the people using full video cameras, and the people using DSLR like devices like the one Sony are soon to launch. The DSLR branch will be more filmic in the old sense and the video camera people will carry on as before. In a sense perhaps DSLR is a film replacement for the kind of people who might have previously considered 16mm?

I might be talking nonsense however!

I wonder if the new Sony VG10 APS chip camcorder is not going to prove itself to be the opening shot for all of the companies to introduce properly designed video cameras based on the large DSLR chips.
If that's the case, DSLR use for professional video production will probably become no more than an historical footnote.

Robert is dead on right in my opinion. The camera he mentions is only Sony's first low end salvo. Panasonic is also working in this area.

I dont' doubt we'll see cameras for lower end professional use by NAB next year if not sooner. Unless you can get an immediate ROI on an entire kit, I think now would be the worst time to invest in DLSR for video.

I'd stay with a true video camcorder. That said, the T2i isn't that bad, price wise. Can you afford both? I see them as complimenting each other.

Sony NEX VG10 just so you understand why I think Robert is correct. B&H is already taking preorders.
Interchangeable Handycam Camcorders | Sony | Sony Style USA

This is EXACTLY the direction I went it. I love my EX1, and use it a lot. But I am starting to use both the EX1 and the T2i together more and more often. Three times in the past week in fact.

Just to address a few comments:

1. Sound isn't good: True. Recording separate sound is SOP for narrative work. This isn't a big deal. It's not that "fans" don't mention it, It's not worth mentioning because it works just like what many of us are doing anyway.

2. You can't use the camera without a lot of bolt-ons. Simply not true. I've shot two films on the 5D with nothing more than a set of rails, a follow focus, and a stabilizer. Exactly what I would use with the EX1 or any other camera for narrative. The past two weeks, I've used the camera absolutely bare. Attach a lens, and a tripod plate and shoot. That was for live event work, second angle.

3. Rolling shutter is worse: Maybe. But if you've learned to work around the rolling shutter on the EX1, the exact same techniques hold for the DSLR.

4. Exposure Latitidue: Same as most video cameras have had for the past several years. Not as good as an EX1 of course, but clearly good enough. Somehow photographers manage to shoot magazine quality shots with these cameras every week. The sensor doesn't magically change just because you hit the video switch.

Are DSLRs perfect? Not by a long shot. Would I use them for long event work? Probably not as an "A" camera. But there's a whole like of mythbusting that needs to happen. You can't treat them like a "video camera" and expect it to work well. Treat it like a tiny film camera loaded with reversal stock, and you'll be in business.

As has been said here earlier. Both are great tools that compliment on another.

Below is a thread I started last week.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...ompatible.html

Unless you really do this just for a hobby I would hesitate to take on jobs with only a DSLR.
Here is an interesting thing. Philip Blooms great videos about how to use the 5DmkII and 7D appear to mostly be shot with an EX1 or EX3.

I will under line the word I, this is just an opinion of some one who has been shooting for decades with lots of different cameras. And I am really enthusiastic about my EX1R, EX3. But I have to say these days I love to shoot with my 5DmkII and 7D.

I have been using the Canons for over a year now and they are intercut with my EX3 and EX1 as well as legacy BetaSP and DSR500 footage.

I see the DSLR's as a great SDOF adapter. And I have a lot of Canon glass I can now use, some of it dating back to the 70's. Yes you can even use FD glass (not the best solution but fun for soft images). I have a Canon 16mm that is fantastic for interiors on the 5D.

The DSLRs have made me enjoy shooting more, because of the challenges, they are plentiful. But mostly because you can do things easily you can't do with an EX1 or 3 (easily that is). And the images can be incredible.

I think this is what I was trying to say, but far more concise. There's a whole different set of looks available with a DSLR. But its an additional bit of kit, not a replacement for the EX.

I could see the film students at our local art college who currently use 16mm going out and using this new Sony camera. Looks like a great bit of kit for the arty crowd. In fact I daresay I'll end up with one myself. But what Sony have done is produce a proper video camera with interchangeable lenses at (hopefully) the same kind of price point as the old VX series.

The poster who said DSLR will be consigned to history is spot on. We'll be seeing the hybrid cameras that take the advantages of DSLR shooting and marry them up with established video camera technology. If you've seen the pictures of that new Sony, the DSLR's suddenly look unwieldy and impractical.

I would keep both an EX and a DSLR. To me they are tools just like a carpenter has many different hammers for different jobs.

Having a video camera designed for video and audio use is essential and easier than running a DSLR for the run and gun stuff.

Different tools for different jobs.

Cheers

I'll second Simon, keep the EX1 and slowly start to build a dslr rig.

As I do photography too, I have 5d mk2 together with some nice L lenses but if I didn't I certanly WOULDN'T sell my camera.

As a matter a fact, I got my EX1 after 5Dmk2.

I did have a plan to make a killer 5D rig but then I sat down and cooled my head a bit. It would be big, it would be impractical, it would still have trouble with aliasing, it would still have around 600-700 lines of resolution, it would still have very limited audio options, it would still have PITA custom white balancing it would be very hard to work with in some situations (too shallow DOF and focus issues) and it wouldn't have power zoom. I would be making it something it's really not meant to be.

So i got myself a nice camera to complement it, a EX1.

this way I have best of both worlds.....sort of...well...for the price at least!

Also remember the overheating issues that tend to plague the 7D and T2i but more so the 7D because its sealed very well. I seriously considered adding a Canon just two months ago as I love photography and was a photographer prior to getting my EX1.