It's a WHOLE lot easier to do when you know what lens is going to be put on the camera. Just like fixing CA, pincushion, and barrel distortion. When you know what the lens is going to give you at every aperture and focal length, you can do a lot in software.

I am curious about those here who mix and match your EX cameras with DSLR's. When you are matching the colors on the cameras do you eyeball it or simply set the cameras to near factory default or do you use a DSC chart (or equivalent) either to prepare profiles or shoot charts at the start of your shoots or scenes?

I was impressed with the intercutting with Olof's posted test clip from a few weeks back showing cuts between his DSLR and his EX. He mentioned that he had done some tweaking but one got the sense it wasn't with scopes, charts and such.

It would be good to know how much one has to do to get the cameras in the same ballpark color wise.

Hedging bets... have both.
 

Don't sell the EX1, but invest in glass.

I added a T2i/550D with Tokina 11-16 because the EX1 isn't - let's admit it - good at those w-i-d-e shots. I prefer the mix to having an EX3. But I couldn't function with DSLR-only. Not even with three bodies. Don't get me started about audio, and the moire and aliasing. Just treat the DSLR as a special effects camera.

And that's the bottom line. DSLRs will do wides like an EX just cannot.

Still playing with camera setups, the biggest problem is with crushed blacks vs EX1 setup, which I will not change. About to test out 'Super Flat' but the problem with that setup is that it then requires CC on every shot.

But the bottom line is that I am going to invest in 4/3 and 1.6x lenses for when the inevitable marriage happens, when the EX1s are retired and we have grown-up camcorders that don't exhibit alias or moire, and hopefully shoot to a strong codec. I see a future of interchangable lens cameras taking the 1.6-4/3 format, rather than full frame glass. But like tripods and mics - invest in good glass that never goes out of date. The T2i back is pretty much a disposable item in the mean time.

And of course I may be wrong about Full Frame losing out to 1.6x, of course.

While I certainly appreciate the shallow depth of field, the ability to go very wide, the low light ability of a large sensor, I do think the $6000 video camera version will resolve many of the issues people are seeing with the DSLR as video cameras.

I recently came across a blog post from Stu Moskowitz (of Red Giant fame amongst others) and he pointed out the issue with aliasing and resolution. A properly downscaled photo to 1080 from the same camera looks much better than the 1080 video from the same camera. The camera is throwing out a lot of data when used in video mode.The result is lose of resolution, aliasing/moire in some cases.

It's not that DSLR's aren't at all workable but that a $900 to $2500 camera is not going to match what I think will eventually be done when we see a $6000 large chip video camera engineered for video use.

5tu's post... says it all
 

Which is why I hedge my bets with the hope I can attach my glass to the new cameras.

5tu shows how the back end is showing its price point, whereas the glass is capable of so much more.

Or maybe it's all sounding like: "Ben, let me say one word to you: Glass. There's a great future in glass."

Matt, I was at the Canon Expo in NYC so seeing things there makes all this topical again. People got to have some real hands on under some interesting situations.

That had a fake CSI lab set with a variety of Canon cameras setup. The "director" would explain what was about to happen and we would follow (or attempt to) with the cameras we happened to chose to experiment. They ran through a variety of situations from two and three person conversations to close ups of investigative lab work to shots in which people would walk across the set. I got a very strong sense of the limitations using a 5D Mark II (not that I didn't know them already). It basically confirmed by desire for a video camera. Now if someone can come up with a "one man (person)" follow focus . . .

Impressive looking was the 2 camera X105 in RedRock prototype 3D rig. Horrible 3D though as it wasn't properly calibrated.

Impressive was the concept camera (concept, not prototype) which was a 2/3" chip 4K resolution fixed lens camera about the size of an EX1. Many people thought it looked like a hair dryer. Certainly the side vent to air cool the chips may have been a factor. Supposedly capable of more that 60fps (and remember this is 4K) although I couldn't test this.

Impressive was MXF MPEG2 4:2:2 FCP Log and Transfer NATIVE import of files from the XF cameras. No transcode to ProRes and NO REWRAP to .mov.
____
So basically I see current HDSLR for product shots, talking heads (with second sound) and anything more you're looking at more gear and crew.

Give the above I can see a video HDSLR equivalent having amongst other features:
Live LCD monitor built in with attention paid to the ability to focus (think peaking while subject moves so you can track by hand), XLR audio in, MXF MPEG2 4:2:2 with native support (well FCP needs this), proper scanning of the CMOS sensor (no low rez or aliasing), 90fps or 120fps at 1080p.

The other variant might involved 2/3" and 4K but that's really an odd combination though.

While I don't expect any surprises at IBC, given Sony's VG10, Panasonic's AF100, pieces of technology Canon has happening, I think we're approaching the next revolution. NAB should be very interesting next year.

All three of the above are in the DSLR market to some extent so the convergence is nigh upon us.

I can understand the tempting to enter into DSLR given the low point of entry. I think a key consideration may be the compatibility between lenses and whatever higher end large chip video camera you may want to purchase next year.

Yeah the buy glass philosophy sounded very nice to me, but I learnt different manufacturers have different mounts and that is not nice at all. You can use adaptors, but say goodbye to easy aperture control and the extra bucks you spent on IS... unless of course you have ultra expensive lenses and you can keep aperture, which probably won't be the case if you are buying an entry level T2i...

A moderator at the other forum's AF100 thread said that based on his experience we shouldn't be expecting a big chip video camera from Canon anytime soon, so if you just bought a T2i with the 1 grand Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, good luck with upgrading the body I guess... what are you going to get anytime soon... the 60D?

This fact is one of the things that pushed me back from selling the EX1... I'm very happy with my T2i Kit + 50mm 1.4 + 55-250mm and I will keep it that way for now, watching closely what happens in the market. I'll probably get some extra shots with the 50mm 1.4 and see what happens in post, but I'm convinced to keep using the EX1 as my main cam even if I do a lot of narrative stuff.

They've had different mounts since camera lenses have been manufactured. This is nothing new, nor is it a big deal.

Solution: Easy aperture control? Turn dial to selected aperture, press record. How much easier does it need to be? What the heck is the big deal with IS? Especially with how much it adds to cost. Maybe if I was running around hand held all day, or shooting out the side of a jeep. But for basic narrative work, it's of very little benefit from what I can see.

Manal lens, problem solved.

Upgrade the body for what?


Interesting. I am about to move my EX1 to B-Camera status next week as the T2i takes over A-Cam. I'll use the EX1 when:

1. I absolutely cannot record sync sound
2. I absolutely cannot get fast enough glass
3. Someone wants to see an "expensive looking camera" on set.
4. I need continuous recording.

Barring those things, I'll be happy to leave it at home, as much as I like it and the images it makes.

The products and the manufacturers are becoming even more differentiated than before. The camera you use for run and gun is not necessarily the camera you use for narrative. That's only things as they are though not necessarily how things will be in a year or so.

Ivan, I'm not sure what experience determines that Canon won't come out with a large chip video camera. In fact what a "video camera" is itself changing. Imagine if Canon improved the line skipping down conversion and added live built in LCD monitoring with peaking for focus while tracking a shot. Add MPEG2 4:2:2 codec, allowed for longer record times and for many that would be most of what they're looking for. It may not be much of a change in ergonomics though and they may feel audio is better left to second sound. You can see how much more "video" friendly their DSLRs have gotten with firmware updates.

Sony is already showing it's directions with the VG10 but it's clearly "consumer"

Panasonic is with the AF100 but seems to be more "lower end professional"

Canon's concept camera shows they too are certainly thinking of something else. 2/3 chip, 4K and that was "hybrid" form factor. Basically Canon may have two divergent classes of video cameras. Large sensor for narrative and small for run and gun. In talking to the reps in that "booth" they emphasized they're thinking hybrid in the concept they're displaying.

Panasonic is showing one direction for 3D in a single camera whereas Canon shows two XF105s.

Canon brings out MPEG-2 4:2:2 at a price point much lower than Sony EX but only fixed lens and no shoulder mount. They also come out with a model the size of JVC HM100.

The movement the companies are making are not synchronous at all. You'd really need a matrix to show what they have in common and what are the radical differences in design and product development strategy.

What I can say is all three (Sony, Canon, Panasonic) will have large chip cameras that shoot video. Canon will CERTAINLY make improvements even if they keep the DSLR ergonomics. You can see they're already doing that. A good portion of the EXPO was DSLR as video camera.

The problem is if one invests heavily in Canon glass by you see the Sony you love next year you will have a bit of a quandary. Sony will likely be "run and gun" and then the lens control will be an issue. It's not as much for narrative which is Perrone's point.

I'm not giving up hope yet.

You betcha. AF100, Epic, Scarlet, rumoured Sony offerings beyond the 60i attempt, all advertising compatibility with Canon & Nikon lenses, hovering around the APS-C to Four-Thirds for sensor size, all of which are 'kinda' 35mm cine (sorta wriggling around 20x13mm) in a way that 2/3" and smaller is NOT.

Just happen to be shooting with the 550D tomorrow using a set of Nikon primes, some of which may have been born before me. My Nikon D200 is gathering dust, but my Nikkor G lenses will be used tomorrow too - albeit with the 17-55 2.8 wearing an expensive adaptor (was cheaper than buying a replacement Canon lens).

Yes, of course the EX1s will do most of the heavy lifting. But my EX1 backpack now includes the 550D with the Tokina 11-17, which is - to all intents and purposes - my 'wide angle adaptor'. Don't want to rely on it as a main camera yet, but will buy glass for it (and by inference, whatever comes after it).

So Canon's hair dryer has caused its reaction, the XF100 is really cute and the no-brainer for a 305 based B-roll. Just waiting for the other shoe to drop on Canon's response to Panasonic's opening salvo. Trouble is, Canon's a sort of tortoise company. The XL2 is still a steady seller, the XM2 is a mini-legend - why should they rock the boat?

Just so long as Canon - and the other non-lens-making camera manufacturers - make sure we can use their glass.

How are you using Nikkor G lenses? They don't have an aperture ring on them, correct?

My days of buying Canon glass are long over. I'll buy Nikon glass, Pentax glass, Fuji, Yashica, Mamiya, Leica, Zeiss... but no more Canon for me.

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Top secret Nikon G lens adaptor:

Nikon G - Canon EOS Adapter

works a treat. If you like manual lenses and wide apertures.

Perrone, do the rest of us a favor and please leave the Pentax M & A series lenses alone!

Thank you.

No worries, I'm not interested in any of them. Super Taks, S-M-C's, and SMCs for me, thanks.

Ah yes, I have seen those. That's a no-go for me. I keep an adapter on each lens. I'd go broke fooling with those!

LOL! The M's and A's are SMC K-mounts.

Yes, I know. I've been going over these things for weeks now. M42 solves a lot of problems for me so that's where I am going. Actually just got my first ever M42 lens today. A Fujinon 55mm F1.8.

Good! the less competition i have for an 85/1.4 when I find it, the better! :) (or the 35/1.4 yeah, right!)

I have a personal limit of $250 for glass. So you need not worry.

I didn't want to buy more than 2 types of adapters because they get just too hard to manage. So I chose F-Mount and M42. So all my glass will fit into those types.

I've got a full set of Nikon to put together from 20-200, and I'll be doing a full set of Pentax as well. Then some fun odds and ends.

The great advantage of the Nikons is how similar they look. So lensing a movie lets me move from lens to lens without having to do much in the way of matching colors shot to shot. This isn't so true with other glass as I've found. So the Nikon set will be my primary movie makers, I'll have the Taks for general stuff, and then some specials like the Helios or others when I am looking for things like flare, or other specialties. The thing about some of the Pentax lenses is the Bokeh and color richness is absolutely STUNNING. I knew I had to get some when I saw the samples. It's unfortunate so much of the glass is slow. I am trying to put together a set of F1.8-F2.0 glass, and if money permits, a faster set if possible. There's a LOT of F2.5, F2.8, and F3.5 glass in the Pentax lineup. And it's hard for me to justify that glass when I can stay on the zoom for F2.8 and not worry about matching shots later in post.

1. That is obviously with fully compatible or old/expensive lenses, but with the new lines I believe it's not the case... you won't be able to control aperture on a EF 50mm 1.4 mounted on a Panasonic with an adaptor, you would have to stick to one aperture or have your T2i nearby to change it. Or am I wrong?

2. Upgrade the body for what? Well I guess it's pretty obvious! We've been on the other thread remember, "normal noise & banding for T2i"? That defects can be worked around but it will be nice in the future not to have to do so... moire would also be a nice fix. A little upgrade in resolution as well and the pro video stuff as zebras, histograms, peaking, magnifier while recording, good monitoring output, no time limit, no overheat etc etc... but if we won't be seeing that anytime soon, I don't feel very confortable spending a lot of money on DSLR stuff, specially on specific for-Canon lenses.

On the other hand, you seem to have in your hands a lot of vintage manual lenses and knowledge about them, right? In your case I guess it makes sense not to be concerned too much because you will just jump around with adaptors. Maybe the only sense right now is to grab vintage lenses instead of spending 1,100 dollars on a sensor and mount specific lens as the 17-55 for example. I don't know, I'm just throwing out my thoughts. What do you think?

Here is honestly what I think.

DSLRs derived from film SLRs. And they derived in such a way as to emulate the way film cameras worked. Using ISOs, using interchangeable lenses, using optical viewfinders (then digital), using motor drives, etc. Every advance prior to video had been to make pro DSLRs operate more like pro film cameras.

Then video came. And the heavens opened.

But what you are left with is a small, digital film camera that operates NOTHING like what "video camera" users were used to. In film cameras, if you wanted ND, you put it on the lens. If you wanted gain, you changed the ISO, if you wanted sound, you brought an audio recorder. This is why I constantly say that what we have in our hands is not a mini-video camera. It is a mini digital film camera. And the two are VERY different beasts.

Canon can continue to develop these cameras as digital film cameras and not lose their core base of digital STILL shooters. However, every concession they make to VIDEO camera shooters, weakens the camera for it's original intent. The LAST thing a stills shooter wants to see is a dang zebra pattern in the frame when he's trying to take a still picture. Or a bunch of wires running all over the place while trying to take a photograph. Might as well go back to film and cut the tether.

So my solution is simple. Instead of trying to get these cameras to bend over backwards trying to shoot them like video cameras, go with the flow and shoot them like the digital film cameras they are. Embrace what they ARE instead of fighting it. Pretend it's a mini Arri 35 and shoot. The technology will come along with these cameras just like it did in movie cameras. Arri pushed, Aaton pushed, Mitchell pushed... But in the mean time, you didn't see people standing around on every street corner in Hollywood complaining about the cameras. People went and shot films!

Look at the very expensive 35mm modern film cameras. Hollywood, Bollywood, and other areas produce over 1000 films a year on REAL film. With cameras that have interchangeable lenses, no autofocus, no auto-iris, no histograms, no peaking, no sound in the camera, no IS, a rolling shutter, a 10 minute time limit, no magnification while shooting.... They do it day, after day, after day. They make it work. VERY well. And here we are with 1/10000 the budget they have, and complain about our cameras holding us back from making REALLY good films.

I don't have a lot of vintage glass. I've sold two sets of glass as I was coming up as a photographer. Now, I am buying it all over again for video purposes. And I am happy to be doing so. The feel of modern still lenses is garbage. The movement on a late 60s Nikon or Pentax absolutely SHAMES the $1500 luxury lenses of today. The Fujinon lens I got in the mail today focuses like it has ball bearings with just the right amount of drag. I haven't felt that in any lens since the late 80s.

So my recommendation is this:

Use the tool in your hands as it is. Yes, they will get better over time. I don't think it will come from the DSLRs. They are not suited to the ultimate purpose. But neither are traditional video cameras. The REAL target should be to emulate today's very expensive digital cinema cameras in a package the size of an EX3 or similar. The Alexa, the Aaton Penelope, and the Scarlet are all moving in that direction. Good for them. Other than Sony, none of the video camera manufacturers have anything at all in that market. So maybe they'll wake up and give the folks something similar.

When I attach a vintage lens to my DSLR, I get a light box. It does what I ask it to do. It does not second guess my choices. It allows me to make mistakes in exposure, shutter choices, etc. It is demanding. But it rewards knowledge, skill, and craft. And ultimately, that is what I want from my camera. Record the light passing through the lens, and leave me alone. I see cinematographers talking about it all the time. How nice it is to untether and just shoot. Meanwhile, the video guys have 1000 cables running everywhere with monitors all over the place. BAH! No, I don't worry about what's coming down the pike. Full Frame 35mm lenses are going to be around for quite some time. So my Nikon glass, and my Pentax (m42) glass and other purchases will move seamlessly from Nikon, to Canon, to Pentax, to wherever. I don't worry about losing autofocus because I don't use it. I don't worry about IS because I don't use it. My lenses have aperture rings so *I* control my aperture, not the camera. I control my focus, not the camera.

That's why I bought another film camera this spring. No LCD, no nothing. It won't even meter for me when I attach vintage lenses. Perfect!

I was one of the first guys to buy a Nikon D90, purely for video work. The video results have never been that good, but as a still camera it is excellent. I also have a Canon 7D on loan together with a few lenses - I am not that impressed, although I have seen some excellent footage. I guess I have been spoilt with first using the Canon XL1s, XHa1 and now the EX3

As far as HDSLR are concerned, they are here to stay and will introduce many people to the exciting world of movie capture, this can only be good news for us as technology will improve and become cheaper. The downside is that there will be more competition for those few jobs that still require a videographer, but hey, it keeps us on our toes and hopefully one step ahead of any new competition.

I was also one of the very early adopters of digital cameras, I was using them whilst everyone was still running to the E6 labs to get their film processed. Today, anyone with a digital SLR camera calls themselves a photographer. The same will be true for video, anyone with a HDSLR camera will call themselves a film producer/ filmaker etc.

Just my two-pence worth

And very correct Vincent. Sadly.

Lower point of entry certainly means a flooded field but it also means lower overhead for a business. Skills don't change with low point of entry. A good DP is still a good DP. The customers that want it will pay for it. The customers that don't . . . get the newbie with the gear.

It's the lower overhead that is the caution here and is at least part of the root of this very thread regarding "smart move . . . get a DSLR."

The market is demanding more video like features in DSLR and Sony, Panasonic, Canon are ALL responding to that demand. People in this thread are judging whether camera bodies or firmware will be updated to incorporate those features. We are judging whether the glass will be transportable to the new bodies.

The response from the manufacturers is escalating exponentially. While the lifecycle of video cameras have shrunk, the lifecycle of DSLR AS VIDEO CAMERAS, FOR THE TIME BEING may be EVEN SHORTER.

Canon Expo showed how much their focus is on video for DSLR. My guess is you will see new bodies by NAB in early 2011. We know Sony and Panasonic are entering the market with different approaches as well.

Perrone, for Canon it WILL come from DSLR. That's why their "concept" camera is a hybrid. They are thinking video in DSLR body. I'd bet they'll have a body with live monitoring at least with histogram and a record time that goes beyond 12 minutes. They're looking at 4K. They'll address the downsampling issue.

Sony will have interchangeability with their Alpha camera lenses. Panasonic has Lumix. And there's Canon. Each will probably come up with proprietary features for lens camera interaction yet will likely have some compatibility outside the "family."

Yes, people have good reason to be concerned when invest in a kit including lenses from any one manufacturer and inside of a few months see another manufacturer with a breakthrough best taken advantage of with a purchase within its "family." Things are going to move VERY FAST in the next 6 months, I predict.

I agree with what you say Perrone but I think you are over exaggerating the auto functions in cameras... you say you dial in your on settings as if we didn't... nobody shoots auto here. Many like IS because it helps a lot if you don't have an good rig, but that's it. Maybe the Full Auto button on my EX1 doesn't work and I don't know it.

And I totally agree with your thoughts with having a little bit better camera that doesn't try to be a video camera. Screw audio, screw long recordings, screw 1000 buttons. But please give me an optional histogram, zebra, peaking and recording expanded focus. It would be a shame to held back the advances of technology.

Even though I say I will keep my EX1... I still mess my pants and cry whenever I see my T2i footage. I pretty much feel like a 15 year old teenager, having no idea what to do.

I will take a look at those vintage lenses threads...

I think their DSLR product has to diverge then. Because at some point the tools serving video, are not the tools serving stills.

I am very curious where the market is going. I've already staked my position with the EX1 and T2i. I'd be willing to make one more jump into a RED type product provided I could use my current glass, I got at least 2k, I could control it fully manually, and it gave me decent recording options.

Beyond that, I really have all I need to do what I want to do.

I disagree, I see people discussing shooting auto functions all the time. I certainly shoot auto-iris when I am on my stabilizer.

Again, this comment references the video camera market. And there's nothing wrong with that. You, like the great majority of buyers of these cameras, want a "video camera". I am saying for me personally, I don't really care to have that with these small cameras. I don't mind that in the larger bodied cameras with XLR inputs, and all the other stuff.

My EX1 gets plenty of use. It does a lot of things better than my T2i. One of those things is continuous recording. But where it's just image that I care about, the T2i is usually going to be my goto camera. At least for now.

It's EASY to get overwhelmed with the vintage lenses. I find it best to just stick to 1 or 2 mounts. I chose the Nikon F mount and the m42 screw mount. Both have inexpensive adapters available, both have (had) long production runs, and both have a very wide variety of lenses available.

The Advantage of the Nikons for me, is that they also work on Nikon cameras. And the look of Nikons has been pretty consistent for a very long time. So I don't worry about switching from a 24mm to a 50mm and having a totally different color or look to the frame. That is HUGE when you are filming a movie.

The advantage of the screw-mount is that adapters are easy and cheap. You'll be able to adapt those lenses to just about any mount you can think of for not much money. And they were made in a time when people saw lens-making as art. Everyone was trying to make the best product they could, rather than modern lenses being made to a low price. It shows in the workmanship and materials. There isn't a single piece of plastic on the lenses I am buying other than the caps. They'll be here long after I am gone. And boy do they feel sweet in the hand! :)

But there are problems with image quality and I believe they will be addressed just as Canon addressed 30fps vs 29.97 and added 23.98fps and 25fps. There is a loss of resolution and aliasing due to line skipping on the downconvert to 1080. I don't think adding improved chip sampling would make the camera would somehow make it less fit for DSLR stills shooting. If they can't change that in firmware it will be in a new body. Look at the video features they've included in their DSLRs since the 5.

Live LCD out is something they can address. Histogram is easy since that's already there for still photographers. Note Canon has added movable LCD too now. I believe this can all be done with the DSLR form factor. Certainly XLR inputs wont happen in DSLR form as that would be a major ergonomic change. But the rest doesn't conflict at all with technology within a DSLR body.

Their concept camera showed the potential divergence but that may yet be a different line of cameras. It's 2/3" chip hybrid body, 4K video and frame rate above 60fps. These might cause even more heating problems in a DSLR body. It had no recording media and no audio inputs. It was a fixed lens. The concept shows the potential exemplifies they already have the technology to head in that direction. Imagine a 2/3" chip, 4K camera capable of overcrank over 60fps in a size no bigger than an EX1r.

The above portends the divergence. That does not preclude improving DSLR for video use which I believe will happen.

At least with T2i, it's inexpensive relative to video dedicated lower end professional cameras. When they do come out with improved functions on a new DSLR body, the lenses will travel.

I think the image quality is just fine. Certainly, it can be improved. Just like anything else. I think people tend to forget where we've come from in only a short time. You think the T2i has image quality problems? I shot on VHS cameras. THAT was an image quality problem. But at the time, it was heralded as a break-through. What is constantly changing is our expectations.

And no, I don't think improving the chip technology would hamper the stills crowd. They'd welcome it as much as we would. As long as it didn't cause any inconvenience to them.


Completely agree.

Imagine.... a Scarlet. :)

Agree on both counts.

And that, is the point. People are dumping incredible amounts of money into these incomplete bodies. And pouring tons more money into proprietary glass technology. And what happens when Canon changes the mount? And all that expensive glass becomes a doorstop?

The last few movies I've done, I think the only prime on set was a 50. And it was an AF 50 trying to be used in manual mode. Every try fitting a focus ring on a nifty fifty? And yet, I see recommendations for that lens left and right for filmmakers, when they could be buying a far more suitable piece of fast glass for even less money. I got so frustrated on the set of my last set, that I decided to just start buying fast primes to avoid the incredibly frustrating concessions one has to make to accommodate the AF zooms.

I think as filmmakers, we've slipped terribly. We are all trying to speed up production and that's costing us quality. Zooms are faster to use on set for pros because you don't have to remove the mattebox, and do all the other gyrations. But at the indie level, I think they've taken away a lot of the discipline required to shoot with a set of 6 primes or so. When you've got a 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, and 105, you need to make some real framing choices and some movement choices. I think every beginning filmmaker should have to learn to make movies with 3 primes. A 24 (or equivalent), a normal, and an 85. Frame the entire movie with those lenses and learn about visual continuity.

Anyway, we've moved off the topic somewhat, though I think camera choice and lensing is paramount to the idea of shooting on a DSLR. So maybe someone will read all these long posts and make some sound decisions based on them.

Well to keep on topic and face one key dilemma that you allude to, there's image quality. That's why I mention the DSLR down convert issues. I'd think intercutting a very high resolution EX shot with a lower resolution DSLR shot might be a problem. If the shots are unrelated it may not be as obvious but if they're in the same scene I foresee problems.

As filmmakers or, more broadly story tellers, we're faced with dropping budgets, whether our own or for clients, hence the push to speed things up. We are always faced with smaller, more portable (faster mobility) kits in which fewer components are put into use to server more purposes . . . like using a DSLR for video rather than buying REDs which in itself is a lower budget solution for the six figure priced cameras. This is the push that got us to the point where we use $900-$2500 DSLR for shallow DOF . . . which is less expensive than the cheapest EX camera.

So we end up with two cameras, an EX camera which is low cost and high resolution with chips bigger than 1/3" and a DSLR which is even lower cost, lower resolution but great DOF and we are trying to use the two together when the recordings don't look at all similar even when each "covers" our express purposes.

So now we look at a real total cost of both cameras and each with separate support gear and you could be in $15,000 - $20,000 range when you include lenses, and shoulder mount and steady devices for the very different weights and ergonomics.

So to cut costs further we want that "one kit to rule them all" otherwise find away to get the two to work more closely together on a single production. Sigh!

It's hard to add to Perrone's comments since I agree with everything he is saying. When it comes to using these DSLR's for video, it helps to have several decades of experience using the old 35mm film cameras that were manual everything. Zebras? Screw that. Give me a spot meter and an 18% grey card (for example). Heck, having live view is "cheating" IMO. Go back to film where you didn't know if you nailed exposure until you processed the film and printed proof sheets, LOL! Fortunately, all of these skills we had to learn 25-30 years ago in order to be successful photographers still apply today.

Ivan, the old manual glass is not necessarily expensive if you look in the right places. Lucky for me, my dad kept his Pentax LX system he was using when I was a kid and now I'm using his glass (and used his LX a few months ago for a family photo shoot with amazing results using Kodak Portra VC160). And there is no comparison to today's junk. 30 years ago, the lenses were made for manual focus because that's all we had. Today, no one knows how to pull focus by the seat of their pants @ 1.4, so the lenses are designed to operate primarily in autofocus mode.

Craig, there's nothing wrong with the images these cameras produce IF you restrict their use to favorable conditions. For example, I would NOT lock these DSLRs off on sticks for static, wide shots. That's just not going to give you a pleasing image - more like a moire fest. Use your EX1 for that and it will be perfection. Stick to beauty shots with these DSLRs where the absence of absolute resolution will not be apparent, and you will be rewarded beyond belief. That's why people are saying to use them IN CONJUNCTION WITH your EX1s because both cameras will compliment each other.

Perrone, a perfect example of the bokeh you're referring to is the Pentax M 135/3.5. Dirt cheap lens because it's so slow and probably pretty commonly found. Great for full frame, but not so much 1.6x APS-C because the crop forces you to back away from your subject for framing, which negates the distance factor for obtaining shallow DOF - you really need f2 and under with 1.6x and the moderate tele lenses (105 and >).

Another beauty is the 85/1.8 - arguably the best portrait lens ever made by anyone! I LOVE using all of this vintage glass today! They feel SO familiar.

I'll edit this to add: You'd be surprised how much you can do with a 50/1.4 on a 1.6x DSLR. That's about $100 of mint glass, 550D body for $800, battery grip for $60, a $150 Velbon PH368 head w/sticks, $500 for Blackbird stabilizer, and $600 for RR Deluxe ShoulderMount. Total = $2,200 for absolutely sick results under the right circumstances.

Heh, why do you think I just paid $100 for a MINT Nikkor-S 50mm/f1.4? That's right, it's not even coated! $100 to get better lens flare than I could EVER get in any $1k plug-in suite. And it takes a right nice picture too!

A few years back I tried to sell all my old Nikkor lenses, ranging from 20 to 500mm (16 lenses in all) The money I was offered was a sham, e.g. I wasn't going to part with a 85mm 1.8 lens for just £25, so I kept the lot. Now, with Mike Tapas and Steve Schovlars Nikon to EX adaptors I get fantastic results with the old lenses on my EX3. Sure, I get a 5x magnification with the lenses, maybe I can now find a new job as a peeping Tom paperazzi video man (just kidding).

btw. my gut feeling is that this SDOF will be a short lived phase, once the novelty has worn off and the viewer gets fed up of seeing the same type of image. Remember the early days of digital manipulation when every animal had a zebra skin applied YAWN.

Lensing is a lot easier than lighting. And as long as that's the case, we'll continue to see shallow DOF. There are just a number of shots that are DARN hard to pull off on small indie money. The deep focus night for night shot is one of them. It takes some real effort and money to pull an F8 or F11 at night.

Must have been a UK thing.

I didn't have night shots in mind, its the overuse of shallow depth of field that is so common place in most TV productions. I think you would be one of the first to say don't use f8 or f11 on a video camera. ;-)

Maybe a Zebra skin on an Elephant or Lion was a UK thing. The point I was making was that effects are being used for the sake of effects rather than making a statement etc. "Look how clever I am", springs to mind

Not surprisingly, I don't watch much TV. In fact, I don't think mine has been on in 3 months, so I am not aware of the current trends. In any event, I am not so optimistic that we'll see the end of shallow DOF for quite some time. There's a whole lot of 1/3" shooters out there who've not yet discovered the trend.

Shallow DOF is just one more tool in the story telling toolkit. Keep in mind that one of the features we found attractive about the EX was 1/2" chips in a camera size that would have previously been 1/3". And now there's a reasonably priced 2/3" EX camera.

It's also interesting to note that Canon, which has been a leader in the affordable large chip shallow DOF for video use market, also just came out with the XF series video cameras that are only 1/3" chips. But their concept camera is 2/3" chips in an EX1 sized camera.

Yet the 1/2" and 2/3' chips we hunger for in small form factor and cheered so mightily when the EX1 arrived seems to pale in comparison to a $900 Canon T2i.

Basically what's happening is an attempt to describe the smallest and largest chip sizes useful for video work. There are times when it may be easier not to battle SDOF such as shooting live sports when trying to track a fast moving subject across "focal planes." Maybe it's when shooting news and the background detail adds important context and information.

So is the smallest "acceptable" chip size 1/3", 1/2", 2/3" for enough control and yet easy to have a deep DOF when needed? We know at the other end we want deep DOF but we really need an easy way to move between the two (and everything in between).

There are times you want to see the monster's eyes peering in the back window across the room and there are times you want to force the viewer to focus on the terror of the would be victim's face.

One question worth asking, is it easier to have the flexibility of an EX with 35mm adaptor kit or to have a camera dedicated to SDOF capabilities? Canon's XF line is 1/3" and FIXED LENS so far . . . very different than their XL interchangeable lens cameras.

On the other hand Sony might be sending up a new direction in moving away from fixed lenses with the VG10.

Right now, many of us on this thread seem to be looking at EX and Canon DSLR as a two camera solution. The fact that the OP presented this as either/or (sell ex/buy DSLR) seems to indicate a desire for one camera capable of SDOF.

A good DP knows when SDOF helps tell a story but also knows that Deep DOF can help you see monster's eyes in the back window.

A good DP also knows when his tool is going to be over-matched. Ironically, it can be just as hard to get a large sensor camera to get deep DOF as it is for a small sensor camera to be shallow. There aren't a lot of deep focus movies on film any more.

Yes, and that's why I mention one vs two camera solutions. One might get an EX with a Letus kit for example. I think the problem we discerning folks face is how to move between Deep and Shallow DOF without having a radical change in other qualities such as resolution or "look" (color, gamma, etc).

To me, the crux of the question is how have a BROAD range of control over DOF and not have radical changes in the "character" of the recording.

If you're shooting an entire production with a DSLR with Shallow DOF the choices are simple.
If you're shooting an entire production with EX and 35mm adaptor you have to deal with setting up the adaptor which might be a bit more of a pain than just using a DSLR.

One is faced with the aesthetic issues of mixing the two though. Ease of use vs more closely matched looks.

Or you could just wait a few months and buy a video camera with a big sensor. The AF100 is due in Dec and something from Sony soon after.

Andy