Scarlet... resounding thud?
 

I know before Red's official announcement there was a little buzz in the air about Scarlet. Event people seemed to be holding out hope that it would be a wonder camera, but since they made the announcement I've noticed a disturbing lack of noise coming from the wedding forums here. I'm assuming that the proposed camera(s) didn't seem to excite you guys. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I think the demand for 3D wedding/event videography in 6K+ will be a niche market in 2009.
However I predict that at some point this will become the standard.

George/

I love the idea of 'future-proofing' my next camera purchase, but I also believe that a camera has to be ergonomic, lightweight,and capable of clean low-light capture. Until those issues are addressed and the images revealed in a real-world scenario, its just a lot of hype.
I know more people who are excited about the video-capable DSLR's than the new offerings from Red.

I'm much more excited about Scarlet than the 5D Mark II, but the Canon is here now, so I'm buying it.

I was really excited about it, but less so after the announcement. I'm worried about the ergonomics issue of controlling it well hand held. It looks like you will have to use it with rods, which is a pain. Whether it will have auto focus, built-in ND filters, the ability to record for long periods, and other issues.

Are the 2/3" scarlet models attractive to wedding shooters? I've only shot still photography at weddings, but as a videographer I would want excellent low light performance and dof control. Red One does not have good low light characteristics, and a 2/3" sensor does not have the ability to narrow DOF significantly.

I think there is both opportunity and risk for event photographers with the realization of low light and DOF control in a low priced cameras/camcorders. Is a bride going to prefer a clean video look or a cinema look (for lack of a better term)?

In a few years, I predict that the current look of better 1/3" 3 CCD is going to be perceived as old fashioned in a bad way. Especially for emotional, personal type events like weddings.

Since most of us are shooting with 1/3" cameras, 2/3" will offer more desirable DOF than what we're currently getting.

Not sure what you mean there. Maybe if you explain what you mean by the terms "clean video look" and "cinema look" I'd be able to follow your point better.

Because of DOF, or resolution, or??? If you're meaning that technology will be well past the capability of current 1/3" cameras then yes, I'll agree that the 1/3" look will be dated.

Ethan, have you looked at the 5DII wedding demo on the Canon site? Have you looked at Laforet's demo called 'Reverie'? Neither could be done with a 2/3" Scarlet.

Lets be fair here and state that we don't know the capability of the 2/3" Scarlet in regards to noise in low light. As far as I know there's been nothing said about it's ISO. I'll give you the point that it can't recreate that type of DOF. Reverie in particular used fairly fast and expensive glass that most of us who would be shooting events with Scarlet can't afford.

To claim flat out that Scarlet couldn't produce an equivalent image (minus the razor thin DOF of a fast zoom) isn't being fair since we've yet to see anything from the camera. I'd wager that the 2/3" Scarlet's video capability will be pretty darn good. Who knows how it will handle in low light though.

As an event guy, I'd say that it's a good thing in many situations that I don't have to deal with extreme shallow DOF. I'd hate to be pulling focus for someone coming down the aisle without much margin for error. I'd still take 2/3" DOF over 1/3" any day, but 35mm DOF would be a bear to deal with in fluid situations at live events. There are times when I'd like it, especially for detail shots, but all the time might be too hard to manage.

For me it boils down to price.
I'm not so shallow DOF crazy but I do appreciate the look it achieves.
I couldn't see it working too well for certains parts of weddings in this country anyway eg. people like a lot of dancing coverage. Boring I know but a lot of this footage /is simple panning and scanning of a room. Shallow DOF would be a nighmare in this situation.
I personally wouldnt like the idea of too shallow DOF in any part of coverage of people coming to and from the lens in a important part of the day eg. bride walking up the isle.
I have enough to be worrying about as it is.

So after this consideration what exactly am I getting in a Scarlet over another already available camera? I already know the answers but for this price I wouldn't see it as worth it.

I have the d90 for some creative 2nd cam stuff (im still working SD so its good enough) and wait for what comes next in the Nikon DSLR range.

I've thought about the d90 as well since I already own Nikon glass, but I work handheld much of the time and really worry about how badly that camera skews.

How do you like it?

How is it future proofing when the only thing you're not replacing are the cheap components? What if say the sensor replacement costs $2000 to 6000 a pop depending on the sensor you get? Can we realistically expect the sensor upgrade to be any cheaper? For the same price that we can buy an entirely working camera, we'd only be upgrade a sensor?

The 8x zoom will probably give us less of the shallow DOF that we can achieve on our 1/3 cam + 20x zoom.

I see lots of talk about DOF, and my thoughts are that you should be careful what you ask for. As Ethan pointed out, there are a lot of situations in live "run and gun" event shooting that strong DOF would not fit well in. It works great for detail and setup shots, and some other creative shots, but not for many other types of shots where you would have to continually adjust focus on the fly (perfectly) in order to get a usable shot.

Good thing with the 5D2 is that you can always stop down to increase DOF.. with it's good high ISO performance, you can even stop down when light isn't optimal. Another reason why these video capable DSLRs are such a better alternative to using DOF adapter.

Well, it's cheaper than buying the entire rig over again now isn't it?

I think we small timers have to come to grips with the fact that Scarlet and the DSMC system wasn't designed for the guys who only spend $4,000 on a camera, it seems to be aimed at the $12,000+ crowd. Sure you can get the 2/3" versions for something in the neighborhood of $3K to $5K (fixed) and $5K to $8K (interchangeable) but those don't seem to be market they're really aiming for. If I buy a 2/3" Scarlet I'll be on the low end of their food chain.

Those who are already spending $20,000 on cameras will now be able to get much nicer images for their money, but for us to get into that game, we'll need to shell out much bigger bucks than we're use to.