Not true at all, sorry -- motorized ZIFs are used *all the time* in high-end digital cinema.

Take out the AF and a motorized lens, and you've taken Canon out of the equation.

I thought we were clear about the target price range: around $5K or so. Not the high-end stuff like Viper, et al.

If it's Canon, then it'll have AF and a motorized zoom... just like the forthcoming 2/3" Scarlet with integrated 8x AF lens for less than $5K. That's what we're talking about here. Not the $15-$20K+ market. Canon won't ever go there.

Ok, as you've alluded to later, we are talking different markets.

Right. Which is sad and totally unnecessary.

So, putting a manual SLR lens on a A1/H1 replacement with a 7D sensor in it is undoable because the development of an AF and motorized zoom is not feasible. Even though the market clamoring for that camera is using non AF and non-zoom lenses on the 5D/7D to begin with... Does this strike you as odd?

This I cannot doubt at all. Frankly, I'd rather see RED leave this market altogether. I have no doubt that in 1-2 years another vendor will be offering exactly what people are asking for, and doing it in the $6k-$8k range.

I think the days of 2/3" shoulder mount cameras is coming to a rapid end. Every time I see a local affiliate out these days it's with a HVX200 or an EX3. I don't see anyone carrying the shoulder mounts any more unless its the rookie who doesn't yet rate enough to get a new camera.

No. Not in the slightest. They're using those lenses because currently there is no other alternative. And they've been complaining rather loudly about the lack of AF in video mode ever since the 5D Mk. II came out. You don't hear so much about motorized zoom because the folks that really need it aren't about to abandon their camcorders (because there is no kludge or workaround for that, or for the lack of long zoom ratios).

It might be a difficult realization for some of our readers to accept, but the fact is that the market clamoring for that camera simply is not that large. Vocal, maybe, but not that large. And they are grossly outnumbered, as I have previously mentioned, by the corporate / event video market that needs AF and long zoom ratios and an MSRP under $5K. That's the market that will be served by this new Canon replacement for the XH series.

I don't doubt the major money market is the corp./event video market. I'm firmly in that market. By day. But the 7D side of me (my weekend/night work) is digital cinema. And that part of me could care less about AF or digital zoom. That is the part of me that is buying the 7D, rails, follow focus, remote iris control, and steadicam.

Maybe it's not economically feasible for Canon to address that market in their video division. That's ok. I think that's why RED decided to step in there anyway. And do what the others wouldn't. I didn't even realize the fixed lens Scarlet was supposed to have a motorized lens. Just never cared.

In ant event, I wish Canon well with whatever video camera they decide to bring out. I just hope it brings something more to the table than the "me-too" stuff that's been speculated about here...

Well other than the post by some who reckons they have insider knowledge I would be surprised if Canon release something with either a 35mm or AP sensor. They are a conservative company and I doubt that they are suddenly going to start competing with RED which runs as the completely the other end of the spectrum. Even just using the same guts as a 7D and making it more video cam like would still be expensive to put together the production line......

I'm still very interested to see what RED do with Scarlet and AF, it's gonna be a tough gig to get it right, some companies have spent years on it and still not cracked it.

Is it possible to split this thread in two? One for discussion of the Canon prototype and another for those who want to play "fantasy digital cinema cam"?

Sorry, that's been my fault primarily. We'll push this back to discussing the prototype. I'm starting to second-guess a couple of my predictions, so I'm going to update that article (today, hopefully).

The ergonomics of the EX3 aren't great and it would be better as a shoulder mounted camera. Above a certain size and weight shoulder mounting makes sense and the EX series are entering into that territory, plus the much loved feature of the JVC HD series is the shoulder mount.

The BBC has 2/3" shoulder mount cameras and there continues to be a demand for them. HD 1/3" chips (at least currently) have problems in low light. Videojournalists tend to be the news people shooting with these cameras rather than the BBC camera people. However, they do get used on documentaries and general programmes, often by directors and researchers.

The 2/3" Scarlet is sitting at the cross over point and how it's used my depend on how much hand held work you use it for. However, being hip and having a sore arm at the end of the working day does seem a pointless exercise.

The requirement for 1/2" and above sensor size by HD broadcasters makes certain requirements size wise in a camera and this will effect how you operate it. Body braces for cameras is so a 1950s concept, the great camera designers of the 1960s, 70s and 80s did away with them.

Chris-

I knew you had a crystal ball !

...Jim

ps- give me a call today at FT

Apart from shooting the kids at a birthday party who would use an AF lens on a video camera? Ever? I can't imagine anyone wanting one a even a semi-pro camera. In fact it makes me shudder just thinking about it hunting focus and ruining shots!
Steve

There's another feature that could be added with a DSLR sensor in a video cam body that does not exist in the DvSLRs - a KILLER digital zoom.

Consider that we have aliasing problems with the pixel skipping. A 3x digital zoom switch would get rid of the aliasing, and would extend the zoom range. A 5x optical zoom, like a 28-135, coupled with a 3x digital zoom gives an effective 15x range.

A digital zoom just doubles up the pixels though, so you'd get worse quality not better.
Steve

Normally, a digital zoom doubles up pixels. In the case of the 7D/5D2/1D4, Canon skips roughly two of three pixels. For the digital zoom, I propose that Canon window the sensor. They could do that without line skipping, and quality would increase.

OK. But that wouldn't be a digital zoom, that would be windowing, that's why I got confused.
Presumably there must be some reason why they didn't do that? Just to keep proper coverage with their lenses maybe? I suppose the other problem with windowing may be that you'd lose too much resolution?
I'm sure you'd find that it's not as simple as it seems.
Steve