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.

Well, I agree with everybody... I would keep both. I bought the T2i a couple of weeks ago with the kit lens and a Canon 50mm 1.4 and it's really turning my world upside down. But the thing is, in my particular case, it would be nice to sell my EX1 and get money back. Insurance is expensive, and being on the streets here with that bazooka is not so nice... sometimes it feels like I have too much for the stuff I do, specially considering there are good alternatives like the T2i. Back then when I got the EX1, the alternative was a Z1...

What I meant with "2. Market moving towards DSLR-like cameras..." was cameras with big chips and interchangeable lens function. Number 3 (lenses) is of importance then, because we will be able to use those lenses with future cameras.

Sony VG10 and Panasonic AF100 are the upcoming... do we know of another one?

The Sony at 2,000 seems nice for the guys like I, that would like to lay low... the Panasonic has more features... but it is supposed to cost 3 times more. And without thinking too much I believe I would only benefit from having XLR. Actually I wanted to do a side-by-side comparison with those two cameras to see where the extra 4,000 are, but my laptop is weird, sometimes it "blocks" itself and I can't open new tabs on Chrome or programs, not even task manager (???)...

Sure glad I stumbled on this thread. Both the Sony and Panasonic cameras are news to me. This sure gives clarity about what is up over the next year, not just with these "salvos" as has been mentioned but the other up market offerings that will follow.

The industrial design of the Sony camera is to be commended. Sound and DOF are very good...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Npy-aVIVjE

I think those are very realistic calculations. They certainly parallel my own recent thoughts.
The improvement in performance and image quality of the smaller AVCHD cams has been quite striking since the time that the EX1 was released.
I bought the EX for the 1/2 inch chips and tapeless workflow. All of the extensive features were, and still are,enchanting, but I have come to discover that I don't really use most of them in the type of shooting I do.
And, like you, I find the camera rather cumbersome and a magnet for all sorts of unwanted attention.
I hope that the direction that the VG10 is pointing is maybe a pro version APC cam with EX1 features, but around the size of the good old Sony PD 170.
That's where I want to go...

Then you, my friend, might want to look at the soon to be released Panansonic AF-100. It'll be bigger than a PD 170, but not overtly so, certainly smaller than a shoulder mount cam. It will have variable frame rates, XLR inputs, all the professional features you'd want, at about the cost of the EX1R.

DSLR vs Regular cam
 

I own both and they each have their own uses. The DSLR is ideal for close spaces, ideal for interviews and provides beautiful color. The EX1 is better at slo-motion work, I like the fact the sound and video are there with no separate mixing and the long run time without heating up. If you can keep your camera and invest in the DSLR. It is not an either or.
Just my experience.

Phil

Like the others I would suggest both. A DSLR will be useful for confined spaces, or as Anson Fogel did, used a 5D Mk2 as a very expensive GoPro camera on the front of a kayak!

DSLR's are nice, but...
 

Now that I have my T2i I've actually decided to get a second EX1.
With the rage leaning away from this fine workhorse of a camera, you can pick one up at fire sale prices with few hours on them.

Hey guys, I'm kind of in doubt... the specifications of these new Sony and Panasonic cameras do say they will accept "a wide array of lenses" and so on, but I'm not 100% sure...

I have a Canon 50mm 1.4 and I was planning to buy some EF-S lenses, the well-known 17-55 2.8, the Tokina 11-16 and a Sigma 30... I was wondering... is it 100% certain I will be able to use them with any of these new cameras?

Shooting video with DSLR is plain clumsy.

Compared to what? I actually rather like it!

Be honest - look at the gadgets people are having to buy to be able to use DSLRs as 'proper' video cameras - they're a bodge, pure and simple. They take cracking good images. They are not good at everything else. Control, ergonomics, sound - all the things proper video cameras are built around.

All the hacks and fiddling, all the limitations in running time and they overheat? Great professional attributes aren't they.

I'm not knocking the images - I've seen some outstanding stuff. My issue is purely with the product not being properly designed for the purpose.

If you have an EX1 or 3 - why would you want to swap all the great features for something that's worse in almost every department.

Rather like swapping a range rover for a fiat because you like the fiat colours better!

People don't HAVE to buy squat. I've shot my 550D for the past month right next to my EX1 with nothing more than the kit lens and a tripod plate attached. What people CHOOSE to buy is a vastly different story.

I didn't buy my HDSLR to replace my video camera. I bought it because I wanted to shoot film and couldn't afford it. So when I compare the ergonomics of my camera to the Aaton or Arri that I wanted to buy, it's not that much different. Same limitations, same issues. My unit has yet to overheat. And I've shot with it here in Florida since the day I bought it.

It's designed for it's primary purpose. And that is to take photographs. It is a compromise for video. So is my EX1. So are most of the cameras we own on this forum. Try the ergonomics of a Viper or F23 some time. Or are those not designed for purpose either? Tell me what you have to attach to a Genesis or a RED to shoot a movie, and let's compare that to one of the HDSLRs, both in convenience and cost.

Because at the end of the day, the image is what pays the bills. If I could get the image out of my EX1 that I could out of this $800 camera, I wouldn't have bought it. But I can't. The people I shoot for don't give a darn what I shoot on, just what I come back with. And rightly so.

Well, I have a Range Rover. And yet I drive my Subaru every day. So maybe I'm not the best example.

Actually, now that I've been using my T2i... picking up handheld my EX1 is kind of a pain, really. It's heavy. And it's not well designed at all... the EX1 is not the handheld ergonomics jewel and we know it.

Paul, it's not about downgrading, it's about getting the same (or even better) results and at the same time planning for the future, when the next generation of big-chip cameras come out.

I shoot all my live events now with an Ex1r and a 7D. They match pretty well in post after desaturating the 7D and saturating the Ex1r images just a tad.

It depends on what kind of work you do, but I wouldn't trade my Ex1r in to go 100% DSLR... that would be insane. Try shooting a series of hour-long lectures with DSLRs and you're in for a world of hurt. Or try to do some decent ENG coverage when you only have one camera and need a servo zoom.

I don't care for the color of the 7D. The 5D is better but they both are lacking when looking at a color chart in the YUV colorspace using a broadcast monitor. They are great when shooting RAW for stills, but in the video space the accuracy has not been there in my tests.

They can be bent in post but only a bit as the compression is kind of heavy.

My biggest problem is the monitoring or lack thereof. I don't have any exposure confidence as the LCD does not have a lot of image control for calibration.

I agree with Craig, the winds of change are on the way and once the video models start to appear the DSLRs will lose their charm outside of price.

Honestly, I just can't see buying a DSLR for video at the moment given the large chip video cameras are on the way. I think between IBC and NAB Sony and Panasonic are going to fill the void. We're already seeing it. The flaws such as ergonomics and audio will be major improved in those models.

I just can't see anyone recommending "buy DSLR now" as sound business advice. Sorry if I'm being redundant but I keep seeing posts saying implying people should buy one in addition to the EX. Against that onslaught I'm going to repeat, large chip video style cameras are on the way. The first round ALREADY announced by Sony and Panasonic.

Craig, I see your sentiments mirrored by a number of shooters, and I guess it really does make a statement more about background than anything else.

If you are an event shooter, or ENG, these cameras are not aimed at you. For those shooting narrative, neither the size/layout of the camera, nor it's audio is any big deal. The camera never lives in your hand anyway, you're already used to recording sync sound.

Calling these "flaws" is like saying a pickup truck that doesn't go 200mph is flawed. It's not the purpose or target for the product. And yes, large sensor cameras are coming. But if you can't see that a $1500 DLSR and a $6000 large chip video camera are vastly different markets, I don't know what else can be said.

Your arguments do reming me of the early days of Panasonic 8GB P2 cards with their short record times. Some would claim the frequent card changes were no worse than frequent film changes. People didn't settle for that. Some people even bought EX cameras with longer record times for narrative work.

It's a lot of things wrong for narrative work as well. It ranges from monitoring both internal and external to the heavily compressed AVCHD codec to rolling shutter issues (people shoot action movies too). And many dramatic films certainly have scenes in which there's a "hand held" look. There's going to be improvements in all these areas in the next few months IMHO.

There's no reason to accept limitations especially when they're about to be improved upon within a very few months. There will likely be indy film makers and doc producers flocking to the new cameras as they arrive. Sometimes, guerilla film makers don't have a lot of time to set shots and conveniences (improvements) expedite workflow.

A year ago, when there was not apparent changes on the horizon it was an easier decision given the options available. The options are changing and announcements are already being made by manufacturers.

I tend to agree with Craig now. If you don't specifically need a SDOF setup or a very wide lens or very good low light camera. I would wait until the new crop comes out.

However they are not here yet. And these DSLRs are very cheap even the 5DmkII is really very cheap. And they do things my EX1R and EX3 don't do. So if you need those capabilities for your clients go ahead.

I was shooting in a train this week, I had to shoot food prep in the very cramped galley (kitchen). So I used a 16mm lens on my 5DmkII and it was fantastic. I could get the whole kitchen and serving staff, chef all in one shot. I could do closeups of carafes with ice water with the background just slightly OOF with the staff in the back working away. I could never have got those shots with my EXcams. I was also shooting in the dining car, very cramped, but the wide angle made the car look like it does to our eyes. I love getting wide angle shots with shallow DOF, it puts the emphasis on your chosen subject, this is pretty much impossible with small chip cameras. The other thing is the good glass with beautiful OOF and sundogs (instead of the 5 sided cheap lens ones in most video cams including the EXcams) because of the round diaphragm.

Later when I rode down the "notch" out on the gantry in the front of the engine. I used my EX3 on my shoulder and hand held by the handle hanging off the side of the train. I could not have got those shots easily with the 5DmkII or 7D.

There was also a dedication ceremony at a stop in the notch with a 1/2 hr speech, I shot that with the EX3 with a sound person with a shotgun on a pole and a lav on the principal speaker, that of course called for the EX3 with great sound features.

So there will be many new fantastic tools coming, but if you need it now rent or buy what your clients (your own creative ascetics) dictate. It is all great stuff and it will only get better. I hope!

Some good points here certainly....

I was one of those. But the problem was that the cards were originally 4GB, and would only record 4 minutes of 1080p which for narrative work would have likely been 1 take or perhaps 2. Nothing film like about that! Unless you were buying ends... MANY people settled for it, and P2 absolutely took off. But it wasn't the indies that were buying them. it was broadcast. Because their cameras held 5 cards at a time, and they needed 10 minute interviews at 720p. I bought an EX camera, but not for longer record times, I bought it because it was the best camera at the price. Best for me that is.


Monitoring is a significant issue. That I will grant you. It's ok on the 7D. The others, not so much. The codec isn't great. But it's "good enough". It's at least as good as the XDCam35 in the EX series. Better in some cases. Rolling shutter isn't going to be fixed any time soon at these price points. A hand-held "look" is vastly different from being a hand-held camera. Unless you think someone is going to take an Arricam or a Millineum and run around with it in their arms...


As I see it, the new cameras fix two major things:

1. They will record sound in camera
2. They will give better monitoring.

The codecs appear to be the same, the sensors are the same, etc. Is that worth the jump from my $800 T2i to a $6k-$8k solution? Just to get audio that's worse than (or maybe equal) if I use my sync sound now? Or to get a flip-out monitor? Maybe it is for some.

I guess it's a question of use and value to me. The larger cameras aren't bringing much to the game that I can see, and at a LOT higher price point. If we were talking about $3k cameras, it would be one thing. But we're talking about camera's costing nearly 8-10x the money. I'd be far more interested in a larger body, big sensor camera if they did solve the global shutter problem, improved the codec, etc. But I don't see that happening for a good long while.

Even the ability to hook a NanoFlash will be major for those who need a better codec. I think the improvements will go beyond audio in, monitoring, ergonomics in the $6k price range. If that were the case the cameras wouldn't compete with the current DSLRs and I think the manufacturers know this.

I completely agree. But who are those buyers? Right now, you're looking at a market segment who is complaining that the 7D is "expensive" in many cases, which is why the 550D is such a hit. How many of those buyers are going to move to a $6k camera, and then put a $3k recorder on it? I am not saying there aren't buyer's who'd do that. I'm just saying that we are talking about a VERY different market segment. People willing to drop $10k on a camera and recorder without glass are not the people lining up for the 550D and 7D in most instances.

Well, I've looked at the specs for the Panasonic offering and I can't see anything else it's adding. Maybe the Sony will, or maybe you've seen something I haven't.

Isn't the AF100 supposed to fix the ugly stuff like noise & banding, moire and so on?

I'm really considering what many people suggested, keeping both. In the end, the EX1 is a camera that can surely be milked for money for many years to come, besides me deciding to shoot my own stuff with DSLR.

With the money made I can start buying more stuff for my T2i and that's it.

Moire has been a problem in recorded images since we started recording images. I don't know how you "fix" something that is following the laws of physics. Noise is an issue more with light, or the lack of it, than anything else.

But hey, I'm not a physicist, and I abandoned my Mech Eng. major a long time ago. I'm sure Panasonic has some smart people working for the company. Maybe they'll succeed where others have failed.

But it can be reduced... nobody's talking about moire in the EX1! Or noise banding.