I came across this photo of video Chris Hurd that was taken around the time he started dvinfo.net:

http://thebrownings.name/photo/misc/mammoth-camera.jpg

That's why I gave up large format photography: I hate to wear a coat and tie while working.

Hey, anybody looks good in a bowler.

The Red One has the same size sensor as the 7D (or almost the same) so it shouldn't make a difference. If you're looking towards something like the S35 Scarlet though, then FF lenses would make more sense, because the S35 Scarlet's sensor is bigger than S35 (30mm wide, instead of the 24mm of a Red One).

Of course, either type of lens would work on a 2/3" Scarlet too.

If we focus (pun!) on the "investment" word, avoid buying a series I lens just before the series II is released. If the series II lens is sharper, the value of the series I lens can be cut by 30-40% nearly overnight.

That's one area where the "rumor" sites might be useful. If you're on the fence about a given lens, it's an old design, and there are rumors about a series II, you might consider holding off a bit. On the other hand, if you need that series I lens for a long-term documentary starting tomorrow, ignore the rumors, buy the lens and make your film.

On the other hand, if you find any lens in good condition at well under market value, it can be a very nice investment. I doubled my money on one such lens simply because I pounced within minutes of a craigslist posting and took my time in selling it. You can't bank on that kind of luck though.

In short, know the market. Know what you need. Be patient, if you can.

Aside from the Series I/II thing, lenses hold their value pretty darn well. They're not exactly venture capital investments, but they do better than a lot of 401ks lately...

That makes 3 hands Jon.

I think going downtown and giving your money to that transient to invest or getting back to that e-mail from the wife of that Nigerian prince is doing better than a lot of 401ks lately...;-)

Dan

The 3rd hand really helps at the poker table! :)

It's nice to know that spending a little money on the 7d isn't like the typical black hole of video camers. The lens, monitors and some of the other goodies actually hold up well. What a novel idea.

To get back to my original question, and after having read all the dialog above, the follow up question to this is:

Is full-format the future of DSLR once chips get cheaper/better, or is APS-C here to stay for the next decade or two? Maybe two decades is a stretch, but I do have some 17 year old FF lenses that I'm using now on my 7D that work excellently, so maybe it's not such a stretch.

I'm lost in all of this...

Video has been my profession, I did some still photography because I could. Since the DSLR's are relatively inexpensive I thought now might be a good time to experiment with shooting video on a DSLR.

Much of the discussion has been from people who have older/higher end lenses sharing their opinions, which I for one really appreciate and think its great that we can invest in accessories that will still be valuable as these cameras improve, but for someone pretty much starting from scratch its all a bit overwhelming. I'm not even sure were to start.

I have the kit lens, which I thought was OK until I tried shooting video in low light, my EX1 does better. But then I have seen some footage from the 7D shot inside a restaurant that was amazing. I realize I have a lot to learn about settings but the restaurant footage was shot with a 24mm f/1.4, not my 17-85 f/4-5.6.

Sorry I don't mean to hijack this thread, but are the APS-C lenses good lenses for video? Are they good for stills? People talk about great deals on used prime lenses, where do you find those? Since I don't know much about lenses and don't trust eBay it makes it difficult. Boy do I sound like a whiner...

Since I'm a bit off topic -- it is so much fun shooting video on a DSLR, stopping to take what you know will be a great photograph only to open it in Photoshop and wonder where that great shot went. I guess as a videographer I got lazy and shooting with a DSLR makes you work for the shot and I forgot how much fun that can be.

Someone still makes a 20 X 24 - they claim you can get it in a mini-van (Wisner???)

I've toyed with the idea of getting an 8 X 10 field camera, but at my age (70 next year) I think I'll just stick with my Linhof Kardan Bi. Not really the ideal field camera but I had a custom short monorail made for it so it packs down to about 8 - 10 inches with lens in place. I schlepped it all over Yosemite when I took a workshop with Ansel Adams almost 40 years ago. Never tried Daguerrotypes, but have fooled with some other "ancient" techniques.

Funny you mention "point and shoot" because on one occasion I did exactly that with the Linhof - the picture was there and there was no time to fool with a tripod so I focused by guess and put the monorail on my shoulder and fired. Worked fine!

Back on topic.

The economics of the chip industry dictate that in the long run small has got to win on price. It costs a few billion dollars to put up a fabrication line and the number of (I think these days) 300mm wafers the line can produce per month is pretty well fixed, so it all comes down to $ per square inch of silicon wafer which equates to making smaller lines and features so as to get chip size down to get more chips per month from the fab line. So APS -C has to be half the price of full frame, and full frame has to price itself out of the low end to middle of the market sooner or later.

By the way, the folks at IDC (the big consulting outfit) have used this idea to show why solid state disk or flash will not kill hard drives - the number of square inches of silicon needed to make enough read/write heads for a hard drive is minuscule compared to the number of square inches needed for flash memory, and to make enough square inches of silicon to equal the world wide total capacity of hard drives would require dozens of new multi-billion dollar fab lines - not very likely to happen anytime soon.

Oh good, so investing in the APS-C lenses is the way to go???

Just kidding. Thats actually an interesting way to look at this, from the manufacturers perspective.

Chuck it's not whether the lens is an APS-C lens or a full frame one. There are excellent lenses in both sizes. Your kit lens is too slow for low light shooting unless you raise the ISO quite a bit. I have the cheapo but sharp Canon f1.8 50mm lens which is great in those low light situations, but it's a bit long. I've seen good comments about the Sigma 1.8 20mm lens (about $600). Lots of people also seem to be getting the Tamron 17-50, which is f2.8 all the way and less than half the price of the Canon 17-55, which is getting great reviews too. But the problem with all these zooms is that f2.8 is considered fast for one, but in the video world, fast is more like f1.6 or 1.8. Because of the type of work I do my next lens purchase will probably be a fast wide angle. Then for a "normal" lens I'd like to get the f2.8 24-70 L lens, money permitting.

Bill,
What are you considering for your fast wide angle choice? I bought and returned a sigma 30mm 1.4, and am leaning towrads the Canon 28 1.8. The 24 1.4 looks great but WAY too expensive.
Bruce Yarock