dSLRs in general, some opinions please

[Paul Curtis]

Originally Posted by Brian Standing

Lord amighty. All this is now available in a portable package that costs only 500 clams, and people are COMPLAINING? The video image doesn't quite measure up to cameras costing orders of magnitude more? Color me shocked.

Oh for sure. Although i'd happily pay $$$$ (well ££££ in my case) for a dSLR that did do it properly, that's not the issue.

I think a lot of people are believing and expecting that it's pro quality and it's nowhere near.

Also i think the frustration is that it's *so close*, almost there expect for some dodgy compression and a scaling artefact. As a some time developer and tinkerer with sensors and electronics i really don't see it being that difficult from what they've all got. So I assume it's on purpose.

What worries me a little is that the visual quality bar is being lowered all the time. We now accept rolling shutter, even in movies. And i suspect we will soon accept aliasing in movies. But i guess that's the nature of the game.

cheers
paul

[Paul Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Next year, possibly... this year, no. Here's why: Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam at DVInfo.net

If Red deliver anything of their DSMC (?) system this year then perhaps others will be spurred on to do something as well

cheers
paul

[Bill Grant]

Wow,
I'm really glad I'm not an "expert" and see things like you guys. It would be so hard to enjoy my job. I thought that clip looked phenomenal. I have a 5DmKII and am consitently blown away by the image quality. But then I don't care what the charts, tests, or "experts" say I care what my eyes see. And in almost every case this camera's image quality far exceeds any medium I have for playing it. Ignorance is truly bliss... However, there are some major drawbacks from a useability standpoint. Mainly audio, formfactor, and lack of autofocus. Those things you have to weigh carefully, but image quality is not an issue unless you have a lot of charts and stuff that you want to shoot.
Bill

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Bill Grant

Wow,
but image quality is not an issue unless you have a lot of charts and stuff that you want to shoot.
Bill

As you say, ignorance is bliss. But I've shot a Mark 2, and I've watched the quality fall apart. Mostly due to codec. In most circumstances it really does do a nice job, but it fails terribly under stress.

These cameras are getting there. They are just not quite there yet...

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Paul Curtis

If Red deliver anything of their DSMC (?) system this year then perhaps others will be spurred on to do something as well

cheers
paul

I don't think you'll be finding a RED S35 sensor camera at DSLR prices, this year or any time soon. Even the 2/3" Scarlet is the price of a high end DSLR. The first new 35mm sensor camera will be the Epic, which is closer to an Arri than a DSLR in cost terms.

[Paul Curtis]

A 7D is pretty much the same size as a RED S35. All i'm looking for (in a dSLR) is decent scaling of the full image and better compression. Neither of which are big technical barriers.

For example, i'd have the scaling of the GH1 with the compression of the 7D and it would be perfect for my personal use or some low end jobs. There's no dSLR that ticks those boxes right now. The Pentax suffers bad compression, weird pixel sizes and inflexible frame rates.

And of course it needs to take great stills, after all it is a stills camera :)

If we're producing something professionally then we'd just hire something appropriate for the job be it digital or film. In those cases it's about work flow, crew experience and form factor.

cheers
paul

[Brian Drysdale]

Technically it's possible, whether it can be done at a price that stills photographers are not going to complain about is another matter. The RED cameras go for the motion aspect, which requires more processing power than 5 fps motor drive commonly found on stills cameras.

[Matt Hoecker]

You really have to wonder how long it will be before a company like Nikon, who to my knowledge doesn't have a hand in the pro video market, will just create a new Video camera with a DSLR sized 35mm sensor that does do most everything everyone wants. Developing a new product takes time. You're talking about designing a whole new camera body style, and improving some of the tech that you use in your current cameras, but it seems like the potential sales would more than offset the dev cost, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't many of us pony up 3k-5k or more for a camera that did full 1920x1080 (or better) recording in various framerates in a video camera body that had the ability to use DSLR lenses? That recorded in AVCHD full 24mb/s bitrate or maybe even something better?

I sure would. You'd be rivaling Red for some of their market on the new scarlet, even if you didn't make this new camera able to shoot in 2k. A lower price would make many be more than happy with 1080p.

I admire Red for what they did. They took that thought of, "This is what people want, we could do it for much cheaper than it's being done now," and went out and created a product that is in such high demand that they can't keep up with it.

Yes, not creating this super product may be better for the bottom line right now, but you have to think that if these companies wait too long, someone else is going to swoop in and snatch up the market.

[Graeme Hay]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Technically it's possible, whether it can be done at a price that stills photographers are not going to complain about is another matter. The RED cameras go for the motion aspect, which requires more processing power than 5 fps motor drive commonly found on stills cameras.

5FPS at 24MP is the D3x the D3s does 8 FPS at 12 MP, so that a lot of data going though the circuits, what catches them (and most DSLR) is the buffer isn't designed to do this continuously.

Originally Posted by Matt Hoecker

You really have to wonder how long it will be before a company like Nikon, who to my knowledge doesn't have a hand in the pro video market, will just create a new Video camera with a DSLR sized 35mm sensor that does do most everything everyone wants. Developing a new product takes time. You're talking about designing a whole new camera body style, and improving some of the tech that you use in your current cameras, but it seems like the potential sales would more than offset the dev cost, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't many of us pony up 3k-5k or more for a camera that did full 1920x1080 (or better) recording in various framerates in a video camera body that had the ability to use DSLR lenses? That recorded in AVCHD full 24mb/s bitrate or maybe even something better?

I sure would. You'd be rivaling Red for some of their market on the new scarlet, even if you didn't make this new camera able to shoot in 2k. A lower price would make many be more than happy with 1080p.

I admire Red for what they did. They took that thought of, "This is what people want, we could do it for much cheaper than it's being done now," and went out and created a product that is in such high demand that they can't keep up with it.

Yes, not creating this super product may be better for the bottom line right now, but you have to think that if these companies wait too long, someone else is going to swoop in and snatch up the market.

Personally I'm waiting for a D700v or D3v which is more focused towards Video, I still want the PhotoCamera part, but by tacking on Video (please Nikon - 1080p!) it reduces the number of cameras I need to carry to an event (as people now knowing about these dual cameras are asking for Photo & Video).