Have $2k, I refuse to spend!

[Paul V Doherty]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.
The corporate leviathans dole out incremental advances timed perfectly to satisfy the gullible with slightly better video with each new generation.
We don't want a DSLR with video as an afterthought.
We want a dedicated large sensor interchangeable lens video camera with XLR audio, multiple frame rates, full HD and good DSLR features thrown in but not the primary purpose.
We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.
Whomsoever releases such a camera will get my $2-3k, in a heartbeat - and not one second before!
ATTENTION Nikon, Canon et al!!!
Are you listening?
Release the damn camera already, for you shall not recieve one penny from me until you do.

Does anyone agree?
Send the message loud and strong to the big three by refusing to buy into crippled so-called upgrades and awkward compromised DSLR's with tacked-on video!
SAVE YOUR MONEY and force the manufacturers to give us what we already know they are developing for release once the current generation has run it's course

[mcgeedigital]

Then keep waiting.

[stephenmick]

Viva La Revolucion!!!


(Um, I already bought two 7Ds. Can I still join your army?)

[Cassius]

You can always trade up after a new release if it's that big a deal to you.

[xmephestox]

they are a company. they want to make profit. lots of it.

[thisisapocalypse]

We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.

We actually don't know this at all.

I think it's also a bit unfair to accuse the camera makers of *holding out* this sort of thing...we're still basically in the 1st and early 2nd generation of DSLRs with HD Video capability and look how astonishingly good they are! Product R&D take time, a lot of time.

They've opened up remarkable possibilities in a very short amount of time...they aren't perfect, but they're closer to what using real movie cameras is like than using a camcorder. If you're making serious stuff, you'd more than likely want to do an outboard audio solution anyways, the audio built into a camera is never going to be as flexible as a good outboard solution...and it's not portable. Let the camera be the camera, and synch the audio with a good outboard device.

A 5D along with a Zoom H4Nn would get you nearly everything you really need - sure you wouldn't have multiple frame rates, etc., but you'd get a good large sensor, great interchangable lenses, and a pro built body.

Lots of people on these boards are using the 5D, 7D, and GH1 to make fantastic video, they all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I think there is no doubt that they've opened up possibilites that simply did not exist before, and they are good enough to make real films if you've got the content, and work within their limitations...which are really quite few considering they're still basically first generation. I think focusing on what *can't* be done is less useful than focusing on what *can* be done - just look at some of the great stuff users have posted...great stuff can be achieved with almost any of these cameras if you utilize their strengths.

Of course, if you don't have good content, none of the above is going to matter.

[mcgeedigital]

Viva La Revolucion!!!


(Um, I already bought two 7Ds. Can I still join your army?)\

You can be the cook in his army. :beer:

[Paul V Doherty]

I'm really concerned about form factor.
If Nikon packaged the D90 in a motion or video form factor with 23.976p, 24p, 25p & 30p, plus XLR audio and full manual control I for one would jump on the bandwagon.
This could EASILY be done for $2k - the price of the D90 and 7D proves it.
Come on, Nikon!!!!!

[Paul V Doherty]

Mention must be made of the absolute necessity for multiple frame rates.

True 24p is incongruous with some output media, and causes all sorts of headaches for soundtrack sync if any part of the chain is running at 23.976p, for example.
One cannot shoot multi-cam unless all are running at the same rate.
23.976p is an absolute must if any new camera is to be integrated with existing 23.976p video cameras.
Furthermore in PAL world (after all, the majority of the world is PAL) any new camera MUST feature 25p if it is to be seriously considered as a stable-mate for other cameras.
Don't make the mistake of thinking only film makers and indies are interested in large sensor "film-style" cameras.
The concert video and sports markets alone justify the abovementioned criteria.
Form factor and 25p are CRUCIAL to the success of any pretender to the VDSLR throne

[Huy Vu]

This could EASILY be done for $2k - the price of the D90 and 7D proves it.


No it does not. You're making a pretty big logic leap here without knowing anything about the development cost or technological background behind designing these cameras. The D90 and 7D are still camera with video capabilities tacked on to them; the compression and video hardware behind them aren't very good. To make a camera like you wanted would require some pretty serious R&D effort.

[Paul V Doherty]

The component parts already exist, little or no r&d is required.
Take the DVX100 form factor, insert D90/7D sensor & optics, plus HV20 HDV encoding & transport (or equivalent solid state with a decent bit rate & codec.
ALL the parts already exist.
Somebody just needs to put it all in one package.

[Paul V Doherty]

No it does not. You're making a pretty big logic leap here without knowing anything about the development cost or technological background behind designing these cameras. The D90 and 7D are still camera with video capabilities tacked on to them; the compression and video hardware behind them aren't very good. To make a camera like you wanted would require some pretty serious R&D effort.
BTW your assumption about my understanding of r&d and production costs is both impertinent and evidence of hubris beyond pardon.
Your impertinece is duly noted

[Paul V Doherty]

BTW your assumption about my understanding of r&d and production costs is both impertinent and evidence of hubris beyond pardon.
Your impertinece is duly noted
The big three, like all profit-driven corporations, answer to shareholders.
By doling out piecemeal improvements slowly over time, they effectively sell the same product several times over to their customer base.
For example, when Nikon eventually releases the holy grail large sensor video camera many otherwise satisfied D90 owners will buy-in, crying "at last, here is the camera I REALLY wanted when I bought the D90" - until the new-improved version comes along.
This is a sad reality of retail, but it does not diminish the fact that the "holy grail" video camera is not far-off, and it will represent a watershed moment in camera technology.
All that matters for shareholders is who releases such a camera first.

[jpastuch]

It's funny, lots of people have the same exact argument in regards to a cure for cancer and AIDS. Except, you know, their cause is actually important and stuff.

[mhood]

All that matters for shareholders is who releases such a camera first.

I can sure understand that but "doling out piecemeal improvements slowly over time" seems contradictory.

[Jason Ramsey]

BTW your assumption about my understanding of r&d and production costs is both impertinent and evidence of hubris beyond pardon.
Your impertinece is duly noted

Lol.... alright, dude... Let's try to chill a bit with that kinda stuff...

[Huy Vu]

The component parts already exist, little or no r&d is required.
Take the DVX100 form factor, insert D90/7D sensor & optics, plus HV20 HDV encoding & transport (or equivalent solid state with a decent bit rate & codec.
ALL the parts already exist.
Somebody just needs to put it all in one package.

And this doesn't require R&D? It's not Legos part that you can mix and match, there are overriding concerns to address. If you take a look at Barry Green's recent series of test on the 7D you'll see that the 7D video hardware really doesn't do that good of a job compared to a dedicated video camera like the HMC40. Unless you work for Nikon or Canon and knows first hand what it takes and costs to develop a camera, you really can't make assumption about how much it costs to make this stuff. It's like when people complain endlessly that Panasonic can make P2 cards for $50 because it's "just like SD cards" but there's a conspiracy to jack the price up to $1000.

I don't see any point in refusing to buy a camera until one comes out that does everything that you need. You'll never make any film that way and you'll be waiting for the rest of your life. There will ALWAYS be something better coming out and by comparison what you have will seems antiquated. Get what you need now and upgrade when the time comes.

[Paul V Doherty]

And this doesn't require R&D? It's not Legos part that you can mix and match, there are overriding concerns to address. If you take a look at Barry Green's recent series of test on the 7D you'll see that the 7D video hardware really doesn't do that good of a job compared to a dedicated video camera like the HMC40. Unless you work for Nikon or Canon and knows first hand what it takes and costs to develop a camera, you really can't make assumption about how much it costs to make this stuff. It's like when people complain endlessly that Panasonic can make P2 cards for $50 because it's "just like SD cards" but there's a conspiracy to jack the price up to $1000.

I don't see any point in refusing to buy a camera until one comes out that does everything that you need. You'll never make any film that way and you'll be waiting for the rest of your life. There will ALWAYS be something better coming out and by comparison what you have will seems antiquated. Get what you need now and upgrade when the time comes.
Perhaps you didn't read my posts thoroughly: take the D90, add XLR audio and full manual controls, house it in a video form factor and I will be the first to buy one.
NONE of this requires r&d - Nikon dabbled in video cameras in the early 1980's - they could re-use their original video camera housings for all I care, I would still buy it.
Nikon can easily outsource a balanced audio module if need be.
None of this is rocket science - it is merely marketing "experts" and bean-counters holding us to ransom.

[Barry_Green]

The component parts already exist, little or no r&d is required.
Take the DVX100 form factor, insert D90/7D sensor & optics, plus HV20 HDV encoding & transport (or equivalent solid state with a decent bit rate & codec.
ALL the parts already exist.
Somebody just needs to put it all in one package.
It gets tedious seeing these same posts telling multibillion dollar companies that they don't know how to run their own businesses...

If we take your argument at face value, the actual act of "repackaging" will involve creating new housings, etc., which -- as we've been told by Panasonic, any single hardware change like that costs them $5m dollars. Five million dollars. Then they have to create packaging, test it, develop a user manual, fix the bugs that will inevitably crop in, create new video functions to address the specific video functionality, and then -- oh yeah, a marketing campaign. While in your imaginary world that might all be free and no effort whatsoever, well, in the real world that all adds up to tens of millions of dollars.

Look, they know what we want, and they haven't been able to deliver it yet. There are two possible reasons: either A) it is not technologically feasible to do so at a price we're willing to pay, or B) they are profoundly incompetent idiots. Seeing as we're talking about multibillion dollar companies here, who obviously know more about building and selling cameras than anyone else ON THE GLOBE, I tend to rule out option B.

Of course, there's always option C, that they're just meanies who could do it but just won't because... well, they're mean. Or they're trying to "protect" some other line of equipment. But I find that argument to be almost as silly as option B.

Which leaves option A. They know what we want, and when they can build it, affordably, and sell enough of them that it's worth it to them, they'll do it.

In the meantime -- if none of today's products suit your needs, don't buy them. That's the simplest, easiest thing to do.

[cinebuddy]

Sigh.

[jpastuch]

Instead of sitting around and complaining, why not make this yourself?

[Michael Olsen]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.
Fair enough. I don't really like the whole idea of planned obsolescence, either. But the problem is - it's their game. So, no camera for you. Wait for RED - there is some promise there.

The corporate leviathans dole out incremental advances timed perfectly to satisfy the gullible with slightly better video with each new generation.
And yet those many throngs wait with bated breath to spring forth each time with unbridled passion unto their new, marginally better, dawns.

It is a bit bothersome. But it is also the way of life. Which, as I have been told, isn't fair.

We don't want a DSLR with video as an afterthought.
In my opinion, for serious video (vocabulary: Digital Cinematography) you'll never want a DSLR. DSMC, maybe, DSLR, no. DSLRs are made for photographers, who really like to take photographs. These people are serious about photographs. They think video is a swell idea - "Look, Whitham! Moving Pictures!". But that's not their deal. It's a trick, an "it also does this" sort of feature to them they can show their photographer friends. It doesn't really matter. But the photographs do! And how!

So these cameras will, at least until a sufficient portion of photographers accost the camera companies and really tell them (read: not buy new cameras) that they want - no, need...demand...desire! - video. Real nice, smooth rolling shutter free video encoded in a sane manner.

Then the camera companies will offer small digital video camera in an SLR format. Which, honestly, I find quite awful aside from its inherent proclivity for covert use. And it won't even take very nice photographs because the OLPF is made for video. So now the photographers don't even care about it.


We want a dedicated large sensor interchangeable lens video camera with XLR audio, multiple frame rates, full HD and good DSLR features thrown in but not the primary purpose.
Wait until October the Thirtieth for the new RED release schedule and accompanying product updates. Also, wait until October the Twentieth for the Sony announcement. Or, just keep waiting. There will always be something better right around the corner.

We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.
If you know this, you know something many others do not!

Building high quality cameras, even en masse, is an expensive business. It is not like building a computer from OEM parts, then staring at Alienware ads feeling all smug and warm. No indeed.


Whomsoever releases such a camera will get my $2-3k, in a heartbeat - and not one second before!
ATTENTION Nikon, Canon et al!!!
Are you listening?
Release the damn camera already, for you shall not recieve one penny from me until you do.

I feel that if they could, they would, because there are so very many of us in the same situation as you. We would love that. Demand would be incredible. Hooray!

But at the same time, these companies will act in their own rational self-interest and protect their own products. How many EX-3s would be sold if a $2000 camera really did everything better? Not many.

Does anyone agree?
Send the message loud and strong to the big three by refusing to buy into crippled so-called upgrades and awkward compromised DSLR's with tacked-on video!
SAVE YOUR MONEY and force the manufacturers to give us what we already know they are developing for release once the current generation has run it's course

The problem with this logic is that you'll never buy a camera. As soon as the next generation comes out...there's the next generation. The 7D just landed and people are already talking about the EOS 1D MKV and how it will be better. And you can bet that when the MKV lands, there will be another Canon camera coming out "soon" that will be better than that.

So unless you'd rather Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc just stop where they are, there will always be something better. Always. And forever and ever.

Make me famous and call it Olsen's Law.

[Paul V Doherty]

It gets tedious seeing these same posts telling multibillion dollar companies that they don't know how to run their own businesses...

If we take your argument at face value, the actual act of "repackaging" will involve creating new housings, etc., which -- as we've been told by Panasonic, any single hardware change like that costs them $5m dollars. Five million dollars. Then they have to create packaging, test it, develop a user manual, fix the bugs that will inevitably crop in, create new video functions to address the specific video functionality, and then -- oh yeah, a marketing campaign. While in your imaginary world that might all be free and no effort whatsoever, well, in the real world that all adds up to tens of millions of dollars.

Look, they know what we want, and they haven't been able to deliver it yet. There are two possible reasons: either A) it is not technologically feasible to do so at a price we're willing to pay, or B) they are profoundly incompetent idiots. Seeing as we're talking about multibillion dollar companies here, who obviously know more about building and selling cameras than anyone else ON THE GLOBE, I tend to rule out option B.

Of course, there's always option C, that they're just meanies who could do it but just won't because... well, they're mean. Or they're trying to "protect" some other line of equipment. But I find that argument to be almost as silly as option B.

Which leaves option A. They know what we want, and when they can build it, affordably, and sell enough of them that it's worth it to them, they'll do it.

In the meantime -- if none of today's products suit your needs, don't buy them. That's the simplest, easiest thing to do.
Your logic is flawed regarding option C.
Companies generally don't manipulate products and markets because they are "meanies", they do it in order to protect existing markets and until sufficient returns have been made on previously spent r&d.
Hence the tediously long and incremental upgrade path.
I hope Red will be the one to upset this stifling economic model, but I believe ulitimately it will coerce the big three to up their game to stay ahead of Red.
I don't think Red are much interested in the consumer market, but their stirring of the hornet's nest will trickle down to the big three's consumer/prosumer lines.
To believe that large corporations are honestly trying their best to deliver technology several generations ahead of the current (artificially retarded) models is naive.
If it really does cost $5million in r&d for each generation then it's clearly not in the interests of the manufacturer to release a superior model until their initial investment has been recouped, regardless of external advances in technology & design.
The industry maintains a self-regulating equilibrium - unless an exception such as Red emerges to kickstart the feedback loop of investment vs. profits.

[Barry_Green]

they do it in order to protect existing markets and until sufficient returns have been made on previously spent r&d.
Hence the tediously long and incremental upgrade path.
In the '50's, maybe. Today? No way. You sit on your butt for one moment too long and someone will come in and eat your lunch.

Before going much further, let me ask you this -- do you believe that Intel artificially limits progress on microprocessors, crippling today's technology in order to make people buy more of it at high profit margins? Or do you believe that if they tried that, AMD would go past them so quick Intel would wake up in a gutter with a bottle in a brown paper bag saying "huh? what happened?

I hope Red will be the one to upset this stifling economic model, but I believe ulitimately it will coerce the big three to up their game to stay ahead of Red.
Red has had a big impact on the number of 2/3" cameras that get sold, already. But they did so, curiously enough, by selling a product that cost more than today's 2/3" cameras...

To believe that large corporations are honestly trying their best to deliver technology several generations ahead of the current (artificially retarded) models is naive.
To believe otherwise is what is really naive. In a world without competition, your theory could hold true. In a world with competion, it simply doesn't hold water -- unless you want to engage in collusion theories and that they're all collectively in it together, out to screw the little guy...

How does it make any business sense whatsoever, to hand half the market to your competition? Look at wal-mart, the most dominant force in selling today. Did they hold back, and let the mom and pop stores survive? Not in the least. They crushed every competitor, they dominate retailing from sea to shining sea (actually around the globe), and now they're pretty much free to charge whatever they want because there is no major force that can compete against them.

The theory you're proposing is that Sony says "hey, we came up with this new sensor, that could totally blitz Panasonic, but ... let's not put it out on the market yet. Panasonic's taking 80% of the broadcast business, but we're okay with that, we have this great technology and we're just NOT GOING TO USE IT because we want to continue selling what we've got on the market today, meanwhile our competition is slaughtering us."

Sorry, believing in that idea seems far more naive, to me.

If it really does cost $5million in r&d for each generation then it's clearly not in the interests of the manufacturer to release a superior model until their initial investment has been recouped, regardless of external advances in technology & design.
In a world without competition, that would be a reasonable attitude to assume.

Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy.

And if that is indeed the assertion, and even the truth, then there's nothing anyone on the globe can do about it.

[stephenmick]

In a world without competition…

Sounds like a movie trailer in the making. (Just not a movie shot with the 7D, 'cause Canon's a bunch of money-hungry demons.)

[Cranky]

This is a possibility for 35mm adapter makers who want to move to something more high-tech. Buy a 7D, make a body on a CNC, design and make an additional circuit board for all external controls, update the firmware, tack a huge fan onto this and voila! a full frame handheld cam.

[Paul V Doherty]

Olsen would you agree for argument's sake that there are certain definite criteria by which the "holy grail" will be generally defined as having arrived?
IMHO the criteria are:

Large sensor in the 35mm range (FF, S35, APS-C - it's all good enough)
Interchangeable lens
Full HD or better
Quality codec & practical media/storage (likely to evolve the fastest of all the criteria)

When such a camera arrives, I will buy it.
I'm not in the habit of constantly upgrading to stay ahead of the pack - I believe content is king, irrelevant of the means of acquisition or delivery.
I squeezed every last pixel of narrative out of my XL2 for 5 years before upgrading.
I anticipate my next purchase will be the "holy grail" and it will serve me well for 5 years at least (I hope!)
The DVX100 was the last real "game changer".
Time is long overdue for the next candidate to emerge :)

[Paul V Doherty]

This is a possibility for 35mm adapter makers who want to move to something more high-tech. Buy a 7D, make a body on a CNC, design and make an additional circuit board for all external controls, update the firmware, tack a huge fan onto this and voila! a full frame handheld cam.
Now that's the sort of creative hackery to get the attention of the manufacturers!
I fear such aggressive modifications would end up costing more than the camera though.

[Barry_Green]

Olsen would you agree for argument's sake that there are certain definite criteria by which the "holy grail" will be generally defined as having arrived?
IMHO the criteria are:

Large sensor in the 35mm range (FF, S35, APS-C - it's all good enough)
Interchangeable lens
Full HD or better
Quality codec & practical media/storage (likely to evolve the fastest of all the criteria)

When such a camera arrives, I will buy it.
I'm not in the habit of constantly upgrading to stay ahead of the pack - I believe content is king, irrelevant of the means of acquisition or delivery.
I squeezed every last pixel of narrative out of my XL2 for 5 years before upgrading.
I anticipate my next purchase will be the "holy grail" and it will serve me well for 5 years at least (I hope!)
The DVX100 was the last real "game changer".
Time is long overdue for the next candidate to emerge :)

Can we add in that it actually resolve an HD image, instead of being a barely-SD image with all sorts of spurious aliasing all over?

[Paul V Doherty]

In the '50's, maybe. Today? No way. You sit on your butt for one moment too long and someone will come in and eat your lunch.

Before going much further, let me ask you this -- do you believe that Intel artificially limits progress on microprocessors, crippling today's technology in order to make people buy more of it at high profit margins? Or do you believe that if they tried that, AMD would go past them so quick Intel would wake up in a gutter with a bottle in a brown paper bag saying "huh? what happened?


Red has had a big impact on the number of 2/3" cameras that get sold, already. But they did so, curiously enough, by selling a product that cost more than today's 2/3" cameras...


To believe otherwise is what is really naive. In a world without competition, your theory could hold true. In a world with competion, it simply doesn't hold water -- unless you want to engage in collusion theories and that they're all collectively in it together, out to screw the little guy...

How does it make any business sense whatsoever, to hand half the market to your competition? Look at wal-mart, the most dominant force in selling today. Did they hold back, and let the mom and pop stores survive? Not in the least. They crushed every competitor, they dominate retailing from sea to shining sea (actually around the globe), and now they're pretty much free to charge whatever they want because there is no major force that can compete against them.

The theory you're proposing is that Sony says "hey, we came up with this new sensor, that could totally blitz Panasonic, but ... let's not put it out on the market yet. Panasonic's taking 80% of the broadcast business, but we're okay with that, we have this great technology and we're just NOT GOING TO USE IT because we want to continue selling what we've got on the market today, meanwhile our competition is slaughtering us."

Sorry, believing in that idea seems far more naive, to me.


In a world without competition, that would be a reasonable attitude to assume.

Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy.

And if that is indeed the assertion, and even the truth, then there's nothing anyone on the globe can do about it.
"Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy."

Sorry to inform you, but this happens every day in board rooms, reserve banks, yacht clubs, country clubs and "society" institutions all over the globe.
Prices are fixed, markets are carved up, timelines are devised on all manner of commodities and services by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
This is no conspiracy of secret societies or hidden governments.
It happens in the open, if you operate at a high enough level.
I see and hear about it almost daily with my partner, and that's only at the relatively paltry State level.
One's mind boggles at what must go on at the national and international level of commerce and government.

[Cranky]

Sorry to inform you, but this happens every day in board rooms, reserve banks, yacht clubs, country clubs and "society" institutions all over the globe. Prices are fixed, markets are carved up, timelines are devised on all manner of commodities and services by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
OPEC is probably the best-known price-fixing "club". But pumping oil is something you can regulate. You cannot regulate R&D, and the fact that today your rival does not offer a certain product for sale does not mean he has no capacity to offer such a product in the near future.

[Barry_Green]

And therefore, if that is your assertion, then there is simply nothing we can do about it, so why worry about it?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.

So, why aren't you buying a Red, or a low end Red?

[Paul V Doherty]

Can we add in that it actually resolve an HD image, instead of being a barely-SD image with all sorts of spurious aliasing all over?
Amen to that!
Improving the encoded image is the main issue with the current generation.
There's no question that the sensors are more than adequete for true full HD, it's just the codecs and storage that are the weak link at present.

[Paul V Doherty]

So, why aren't you buying a Red, or a low end Red?
Ultimately I believe the big three are best equipped to deliver what we want in a prosumer or high-end consumer package and price point.
I don't think Red are interested in that part of the market or they would be pitching a stripped-down large sensor camera limited to full HD and consumer-friendly codecs/storage (i.e. HDV or AVC or similar)
My hope is that Red will force an evolutionary leap upon the big three merely by it's presence in the low-end pro market.
Personally I really like Nikon, I own several thousands of dollars worth of Nikon gear already and I believe Nikon has the LEAST vested interest to protect existing product lines.
I would like to see Nikon step up to the plate on this one :)

[John Caballero]

To paraphrase Jim Jannard: If you want a camera exactly the way you think it should be then go and a start a camera company. If someone has $2000.00 and refuses to buy a camera from the big guys, who cares? Don't buy it. It is your choice. Go and put the money in the bank, in the stock market or whatever. I make my living from stills and video and thanks to cameras like the D90 and the GH1 I can make money, pay my bills and buy more camera stuff. We don't tell the big companies what to manufacture. It is their business and they run it any way they want it. We benefit from their products. Especially with this developing DSLRs. You can do great stuff with the GH1 as seen in this great video by Joe Shaw: http://vimeo.com/6942561. If you are talented enough the current crop of hybrid DSLRs are great tools to work with now.

[youngindiefilms]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.
The corporate leviathans dole out incremental advances timed perfectly to satisfy the gullible with slightly better video with each new generation.
We don't want a DSLR with video as an afterthought.
We want a dedicated large sensor interchangeable lens video camera with XLR audio, multiple frame rates, full HD and good DSLR features thrown in but not the primary purpose.
We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.
Whomsoever releases such a camera will get my $2-3k, in a heartbeat - and not one second before!
ATTENTION Nikon, Canon et al!!!
Are you listening?
Release the damn camera already, for you shall not recieve one penny from me until you do.

Does anyone agree?
Send the message loud and strong to the big three by refusing to buy into crippled so-called upgrades and awkward compromised DSLR's with tacked-on video!
SAVE YOUR MONEY and force the manufacturers to give us what we already know they are developing for release once the current generation has run it's course

Dude, seriously. You think they can say some magic words and spit out some hundred thousands new cameras which you'd like to see. They're working on such cameras behind curtains for sure and you can expect to see such new cameras from the big players in 2010. You have to have some patience. Seriously. Think before you write.

[Ben_B]

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/861/ghx100.jpg

[Paul V Doherty]

Dude, seriously. You think they can say some magic words and spit out some hundred thousands new cameras which you'd like to see. They're working on such cameras behind curtains for sure and you can expect to see such new cameras from the big players in 2010. You have to have some patience. Seriously. Think before you write.
"Think before you write" balderdash! Physician, heal thyself!
Next time try reading the entire thread before writing before you think.
2010 is unlikely at current artificially stifled rates of evolution

[killacam]

I don't think they are artificially holding back now- this is a new market and companies aren't as sure of what the market wants yet. I think they've just recently become aware of the burgeoning demand for hd video in DSLRs (and by recently I mean in the past year or so) and will add stuff like XLR inputs later. The next generation will undoubtedly be better (more geared towards video with better codec implementations as faster processors become available). They might hold off on rolling out their next gen cameras until the market starts to wane for their current ones I'll grant you that. And there probably is some segmentation going on (I doubt they would have given the 7d a full frame sensor for fear of cutting into the 5d's market). That could have been for the 60p though who knows. Anyway I'm sure we'll see those "perfect" cameras soon enough. I think most of your posts are tongue-in-cheek though..."balderdash"? who says that? haha.

[mhood]

XLR inputs??? I'd settle for a headphone plug.

[stockfuel]

You have $2k and want a complete cinema camera?

I guess Ferrari should bring about a $5k supercar too?

[Jackson Miller]

Paul, why don't you take your upper jaw and connect it to your lower jaw and stop talking. Or typing. Seriously these topics spring up all of the time it gets annoying. First of all most of what you are saying is wrong and second of all it doesn't matter because you will have no effect on how a company wants to run its business. Personally, I am so blown away by canon right now. They have been giving us everything we are asking for (in DSLRs) that they can and that is clear.

Also why do you keep talking about Nikon when you refer to the DSLRs? They have made it pretty clear so far that this is not a market they are interested in exploring. If they come out with an amazing new VDSLR then things will be different but as of now... urg nevermind, I am going to bed. bcd,wbcdlwbcldwblcdwblcdbwjlcdbwlcdbw.

[daveswan]

I absolutely don't want XLRs on my DSLR, the phrase "Tits on a Boar" comes to mind, sorry if it's a bit coarse.
I think....I hope, camera manufactures think the same. Put them on a Plug-in module, but not on the camera.
Most people buying these cams are photographers, not cinematographers, and lumbering a 5D / 7D sized cam with XLRs will pi$$ them off big-time.
Meanwhile I'm holding off until I see Digic V cams coming along.
Dave

[vic777]

We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.According to Epistemology, to know something ....
1.) We must believe it to be true.
2.) We must be warranted to believe that it is true.
and the kicker ...
3.) It must indeed be true.

Your opinion probably fails steps 2 and 3. maybe even 1.

[xmephestox]

alright, i can't help it, i have to chime in. to state u know how much something really costs is ridiculous, nobody but the companies know how much it costs. to say "mass" market doesn't TRULY apply to this realm. the class of camera is prosumer, to professional broadcast, to cinema class. anything under prosumer is going to be 1500 dollars or less. your not gonna see a 18 year old, or ur average Joe buying a hpx 170, 5d mk II, or whatever.

prices go down according to supply and demand. you don't know how much a circuit board costs to make, or a sensor, or a optic element, or even the specialized housing they use. u don't know how much it costs to go through quality control, testing, PAYING their r&d to come up with great stuff like this. people wonder why a follow focus costs so much money, probably because only a couple thousand are sold every year. unless you see everybody in the world buy it like an ipod, ur not gonna see prices like that for that kind of quality. in the end in the big business world, it still is a niche market.

[Bungess]

Barry,
You are the man, and I'm not passionately disagreeing with you but check this out.

I think you'll dig this analogy:

Think about the time and effort we put into movies compared to paid gigs.
We all want our movies to be awesome, so we put in ridiculous hrs to make them the absolute best they can be. We work our butts off because we genuinely care about the final product, and we want it to be the best. At some point, we step back and say "Enough, we've given it our best, we can't afford to spend more time and money on this." And that's when it's done.

Now, for our paid gigs, the same is true. HOWEVER, the dollar sign is always looming in the background. We decide to by-pass certain things that could add value to the final product (like extra color-correction) because we think "hey, we've already given the client more than was promised, let's hand it in and get paid". There's nothing wrong with that thought, it's just business.

I'm not being naive when I assume that perhaps Canon and Panasonic have the means to deliver EXACTLY what we want, but choose not to. Do I think they're evil bastards? NO WAY! Perhaps they recognize that they've already over-delivered with these DSLRs and they'd like to get paid.

Now imagine a camera company that uses the same mentality as us when we make movies...
They literally do everything in their power to provide the best, and though they can't give cameras away, they'll give consumers the most bang for their buck that can be afforded. They actually love what they do, and if their "movie" (or camera) ends up being a hit and makes lots of money, then great, if not, well at least they tried their best.

Now in today's money driven world, how could we ever expect anyone to actually care that much about motion-capture... Waite a minute... JJ.

Scott Jenson

[Barry_Green]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. That's all perfectly true.

The only part where I got kind of sideways with the rest of the world on the whole JJ thing was when people started saying stuff like "Red's gonna give us a hundred thousand dollar camera for $17,500 and Jim can afford to do it because he's a billionaire." Like, he was actually selling Red Ones at a LOSS, and doing so because he was charitable and liked giving away his fortune.

That, I submit, was not a true and accurate view of the situation. :)

Other than that, sure, you're right. I do think that every once in a while something revolutionary comes along because the passion of the designer comes through, and very frequently I think that things are usually watered down on the way to the consumer, by accountants, by concerns about customer service issues, by concerns about marketing and service and support, and such as that.

What I vehemently disagree with is that notion that we could have a firebreathing octo-core Mac Pro with 12GHz chips TODAY, for only $400, if only Apple would quit trying to milk us and would just BUILD IT!!!11!!1!!! (which is, frankly, the equivalent of someone demanding a 1080/60fps 12-megapixel video camera for $2000, or whatever the wildly-out-of-step-with-the-marketplace demand-of-the-day is).

[Bungess]

Yup, makes sense.
So there's option D (in reference to your first post).

D: it IS technologically feasible to do so at a price we're willing to pay, but since they'll still satisfy the market demand with less R&D, they make a safe business decision and hold off on the extra R&D. They still care about motion-capture, but there's money to be made now, and headphone jacks can wait :-)

Jim's philosophy is nuts, but it's worked so far, we'll se what happens with Scarlet.

(Now back to editing...)

[Barry_Green]

How does it follow that it is technologically feasible to do it now, at a price we'd be willing to pay?

The only one who's come anywhere close to it is Jim, and at $17,500 for body-only, that's a price that not many are willing to pay...

As for Scarlet, we'll find out in a week. Plus, they've already hinted at another delay; this time they say that Red's philosophy is changing. No more beta-testing of cameras in public, no more releasing a product before it's 100% finished. That will cause a delay (a "bump in the schedule") in Scarlet and Epic being released.

[Bungess]

I followed with "option D" because these companies have already shown us what they can do. The technology exists to have mud-free AVCHD (not saying they chose to add mud to the GH1, but saying they could have invested more to make it mud free). They understand how to make live HDMI out. Of course there's a price tag to these added features, but if the GH1 had no mud and live HDMI out, they'd sell more of them period.

These companies could create an accelerated program that listens intently to its users and invests lots of cash into creating the best motion-capture camera at the lowest price possible. Yes, they are doing this already, but MAYBE not to the extent that they could. Maybe their accountants are saying "It's too risky to invest in the DVXUSER dream cam. Let's satisfy the current market demand and keep our feet on the ground and our head out of the clouds...

[Barry_Green]

Okay, yes better technologies do exist, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can cherry-pick this piece from this cam, and this piece from that cam, and have it still add up all to the same price.

Anyway, they do have a division that listens to DVXUser, and that is concentrating on making VIDEO cameras, not still cameras -- it's called the Broadcast/Professional division, Panasonic Broadcast and Television Systems Company (PBTSC). If the DVXUser Dream Cam is going to come from any division of Panasonic, that's who's gonna produce it.

[Bungess]

Yeah, you're right. It'd take an incredible effort to compile all the features we want into a final product, and I'd be an idiot to assume the $1,700 price tag would still suffice.

But they can still do better, and instead of shaking my fist, I'll look up PBTSC and see if I can send them an email. Here's to the DVXUser Dream Cam :-)

[Nitsuj]

Some people are not happy with whatever is offered to them. By the time a camera comes out with their specs they demanded there will be a camera to come out with Ultra High Definition and then it will start all over again. Then there will be those that say "I'll just hold off until that camera comes out with these specs". They will continue to work their jobs they hate doing and dreaming of the job they would like to be doing. One day they will might get sick and while lying on their death bed they might say something like "Oh I should have just gotten whatever was out at the time and reached for my dream" while the nurse pumps them full of drugs saying "That's nice dear." If any of you are wanting to be a filmmaker but are just waiting for the next best thing while you work at a job you don't really care about, then stop waiting and just do it already. Nothing is stopping you but yourself. Not the technology, not the camera, not they money, only you are stopping yourself. The biggest obstacle for anybody is themselves. Okay rant over. buh-bye.

[DJDecay]

I have my own chaos cents to throw in to this.

How come in Japan all laptops, cameras and electronics are way more tricked out, latest editions bigger and better options? Even when a product is from an American company where design and development happened here? There products eventually get released here, but not all.

This is because their market is willing to pay.

Some of these gadgets from there get refactored to the americas market (dumbed down, features thrown away for one or another reason) by way of importing companies called XYZ of America which don't manufacture or develop anything, just import the stuff and provide service and warranty.

http://www.sony.jp/CorporateCruise/Press/200910/09-1021/

Read the specs, I don't believe this is how the states edition of these cams will look.

Lumix GH1 JP page: http://panasonic.jp/dc/gh1/movie_photographing2.html

Loving the HPX-305 and Edius marketting: http://panasonic.biz/sav/

Compare and Contrast

AG-HMR10 JP: http://panasonic.biz/sav/avccam/ag-hmr10/index.html
AG-HMR10 US: http://www.panasonic-broadcast.com/en/products/high-definition/avccam/AG-HMR10.php

AJ-HPM-110 - USA : http://www.panasonic-broadcast.com/en/products/p2-series/p2-mobile/AJ-HPM110.php
AJ-HPM-200 (DVCPRO and AVCHD and Intra) - Japan: http://panasonic.biz/sav/p2/aj-hpm200/index.html
http://panasonic.biz/sav/p2/aj-hpm200/topimg_hpm200.gif

[killjon]

I don't care what happens I'm still getting a DSLR that shoots in HD.
The best of both worlds for the price IMO.

[Denwa]

How does it follow that it is technologically feasible to do it now, at a price we'd be willing to pay?

The only one who's come anywhere close to it is Jim, and at $17,500 for body-only, that's a price that not many are willing to pay...

As for Scarlet, we'll find out in a week. Plus, they've already hinted at another delay; this time they say that Red's philosophy is changing. No more beta-testing of cameras in public, no more releasing a product before it's 100% finished. That will cause a delay (a "bump in the schedule") in Scarlet and Epic being released.

Are you going to review the Scarlet when it is released Barry?

[Paul V Doherty]

I would pay $2-3k for a D90/7D repackaged in motion capture form factor, jello and 5 minute time limit included!
Does it not seem reasonable that this could be done at that price point?

[James0b57]

We might not be able to shoot the moon, but we could at least hit the lamp post. Some of the features they left out were pretty lame. Most notably nikons auto shutter and ISO: no manual control in video mode for those. That completes the trifecta of "Why would you buy this?" reasoning. 1.) Jello 2.) frame rate 3.) no manual shutter speed and ISO control. The list doesn't stop there, but I won't badger the issue.

If they had manual control of exposure critical functions, i would buy. (I am planning on going Canon for this reason.) That doesn't mean I'd be satisfied, but I would be a consumer anyway.

Have you ever offered a dog some old food just to have him look at you like "I'm not going to eat that!" I feel that way about the video function on some of these cameras for now.

[James0b57]

.......If the DVXUser Dream Cam is going to come from any......

"Dream cam", it has a nice ring to it. Good one, Barry.

[Denwa]

The AG-DRM1000.

3 x 3" 3840×2160 120P Native CCD. 4 Channel XLR inputs. 3D Capable. Selectable DoF based on resolution and a revolutionary lens mount design that changes DoF by changing lens distance from CCD.

[James0b57]

The AG-DRM1000.

3 x 3" 3840×2160 120P Native CCD. 4 Channel XLR inputs. 3D Capable. Selectable DoF based on resolution and a revolutionary lens mount design that changes DoF by changing lens distance from CCD.

Where's the lens mount on this thing?

http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/superlift/product-detailJMinbtfhjTUr/China-Trowel-Machine-DRM1000-.html

[Denwa]

No no no. That's the consumer version. This is an AG pro series. ;)

[Seo]

The AG-DRM1000.

3 x 3" 3840×2160 120P Native CCD. 4 Channel XLR inputs. 3D Capable. Selectable DoF based on resolution and a revolutionary lens mount design that changes DoF by changing lens distance from CCD.

Two CCDs of that size for 3D could melt the camera case the moment you turn it on! Eeeeeek. :violent5:

[ydgmdlu]

Amen to that!
Improving the encoded image is the main issue with the current generation.
There's no question that the sensors are more than adequete for true full HD, it's just the codecs and storage that are the weak link at present.
No, it's the imaging hardware, the sensor and image processor. There's nothing significantly wrong with the codecs and storage at present. Rolling shutter artifacts and aliasing are caused by the imaging hardware.

[Denwa]

I'm quite amazed how many people have jumped on the DSLR band wagon. I've had an Indie director tell me his Canon 7D was better quality for lower price than my HMC150 and he will be filming his feature with it.

[roxics]

I'm quite amazed how many people have jumped on the DSLR band wagon. I've had an Indie director tell me his Canon 7D was better quality for lower price than my HMC150 and he will be filming his feature with it.

There are two philosophies people seem to be falling into with regard to these HDSLRs. One involves overall image quality and the other image characteristics.

The people who tend to "not understand" the HDSLR bandwagon are those that seem to subscribe most to the former. Overall image quality. Whereas a lot of artist types seems to subscribe to the latter. Image characteristics.

Personally I've always said, give me a camera that shoots movies with a look that mirrors 35mm film, even if it records to VHS. So I would fit into the Image Characteristics category. While I do care about quality, it takes a backseat to being able to tell my story with a certain characteristic look that I'm after.

I would assume that the Indie Director you talked to was probably trying to convey this idea but wrongly used the words "better quality" to describe it.

[ethan cooper]

Are you going to review the Scarlet when it is released Barry?

Better question is "are you going to still be alive to review the Scarlet when it is finally released"

Earlier in the thread Barry mentioned the idea of the Dream Cam. I think for many of us that was the promise of the 3K for $3K fixed lens Scarlet from 2 years ago but sadly it was only a dream that didn't come to market quickly enough and the world changed around Red making that dream obsolete.

[Barry_Green]

I will of course be getting a Scarlet when it's released, whenever my number comes up. At least, that's the plan at this time, unless they announce something on November 30th that makes me change my mind.

[ethan cooper]

I will of course be getting a Scarlet when it's released, whenever my number comes up. At least, that's the plan at this time, unless they announce something on November 30th that makes me change my mind.

Fixed lens or whichever is released first?

[ydgmdlu]

Fixed lens or whichever is released first?
Barry has said that, for him, the Scarlet starts at S35.

I feel the same way. The wait's gonna be long...

[Barry_Green]

Fixed lens or whichever is released first?I no longer think in those terms. I don't know what they will release, I don't think the "fixed lens" or other things we've heard about even have any bearing on reality anymore. Of the prior list, the only one that made sense to me was the S35, anything less and I was scratching my head wondering what's the point? The S35 looked like a hot little number, although the price tag will play a factor as well. If the S35 ends up looking 10% better than my 7D, but it's 10x the price, then I may pass. If it's 3x better than the 7D at 4x the price, I'll buy the first one they make.

But again, right now, I look at Scarlet as nothing more than a brand name. They've told us a million times that "everything changes" and I now believe them. Everything you thought you knew is out the window; it's no longer a "pocket professional" camera, it's not "3K for $3K", it's not for Soccer Moms and it's not going to be sold at Best Buy. It now looks to me (from what we last saw) that it will be a less-expensive Epic, needing comparable accessorization.

But, again, I'm not even thinking about it until November 30th. Any brainpower spent chasing that particular moving target has turned out to be fruitless energy expended; they have changed it completely at least 3 times now, so now I just wait contentedly to see what they will introduce, and I'll evaluate it on its merits at that point. In the meantime I've bought an HPX170, an HMC150, an HMC40, a GH1 and a 7D, and I probably will get others as technology develops and things get better and better. Waiting for something else to come along is just silly, when there are fantastic products available today and work that can be done right now.

And while the November 30th announcement will be interesting, I'm not going to get invested in whatever they say until the product is actually shipping, because frankly, we've been here before, and everything changed before, who's to say it won't all change again?

[raymondluo]

I have till January before I give up on waiting for the best bang for your buck HDSLR.


And while i'm hoping for a mirrorless system camera that surpasses the GH1 (Ricoh, E-P2, Samsung NX in the running) so I can use the viewfinder proper, if Sony's 14mp FF camera does video with full manual controls, I'm in too. All rumors so far, however.

Else, it's trade-in 5D hellp 5Dmkii with 24p

[patssle]

There's nothing significantly wrong with the codecs and storage at present.

I disagree. Using a codec that few computers can play back or edit in real time is ridiculous. Also the quality of the codec is nowhere near the higher standard HD formats like DVCPROHD.

The codec department on the HDSLR needs a major improvement.

[mhood]

I disagree. Using a codec that few computers can play back or edit in real time is ridiculous.

Totally agree. It sometimes seems as though AVCHD is nothing more than an evil plot to sell quad core computuers.

[mcgeedigital]

I'll wait until the Nov. 30th renderings/drawing/musings.


Whatever.

[Denwa]

PH mode on an HMC150 looks good. But then, they don't have PH mode in an DSLR do they?

[Barry_Green]

No, the GH1 doesn't have PH mode. If it did, it'd be hugely better.

[ROCKMORE]

BTW your assumption about my understanding of r&d and production costs is both impertinent and evidence of hubris beyond pardon.
Your impertinece is duly noted

Don't take this the wrong way. I would be interested in your level understanding of R&D in the HDSLR global market. Perhaps you would be willing to post a resume highlighting your experiences in the field. This may help us all better understand the basis of your position.

[Denwa]

What bit rate/codec do the Nikon and Canon DSLR's record?

[Nathyn]

Everytime I want something and it finally comes out, there's usually something cheaper and newer that I want. LOL. When the Sony FX100 came out I wanted a camera that looked like it but did 24p, then the Canon A1 came our and the Sony FX1000 (which looks almost exactly like the FX100) but now I'm looking at small tapeless solutions. Right now I want something like the JVC HM100 in an FX100 body. LOL. That would be perfect for about $3500 or a JVC HM100 type camera in an HG10 body for about $900. I'd grab that ASAP. But right now it's really between the HG10 and the HV30.

-Nate

[ydgmdlu]

What bit rate/codec do the Nikon and Canon DSLR's record?
Nikon: MJPEG 17 Mbps
Canon: H.264 40-50 Mbps

[NextWaveG]

Paul seriously...do you understand VDSLRs at all? Let's go back to why they exist...

Marketing firms wanted Canon and Nikon to add video functionality to their DSLRs so they didn't have to hire a photojournalist and videographer. And since these cameras have great sensors, they ended up having great videos.

Then indiefilmmakers came along and saw the potential and started gobbling them up. Canon has been the only company to respond to the demand by adding custom controls to 5D and added functionality to the 7D and 1D.

Nikon still says that their customer base doesn't care about video so don't even look at them to release anything with XLR or video camera ergonomics. Canon is the only VDLSR manufacturer with good experience in video cameras.

But that said, their H1 and A1 series of cameras are still selling great. VDSLRs are a new technology and trying to implement them into a camcorder will take some time. A big limitation is processor power. The Digic IV doesn't have what is needed to have all the framerates, autofocus, etc. that we would need from a solid camcorder.

Instead, look at the VDSLR as the rest of us do. A shrunken DOF rig. DOF rigs use SLR lenses, don't have fluid zoom control, need manual focus, etc. But VDSLRs are better because of their picture quality and low light capabilities.

We are in the midst of a change in technology. Enjoy advancement instead of demanding your opinion.

[Barry_Green]

Canon has been the only company to respond to the demand by adding custom controls to 5D and added functionality to the 7D and 1D.
??? The GH1 is more video-camera-like than any of the Canons.

Canon is the only VDLSR manufacturer with good experience in video cameras.
???

Instead, look at the VDSLR as the rest of us do. A shrunken DOF rig. DOF rigs use SLR lenses, don't have fluid zoom control, need manual focus, etc. But VDSLRs are better because of their picture quality and low light capabilities.
Yep, shrunken in size, shrunken in price, and shrunken in hassle.

[NextWaveG]

Sorry Barry, you're right. I've owned a D90 and now a 5D MkII and sometimes I forget about the GH1. I just know a few people who weren't satisfied with the compression and DOF so the GH1 was never an option to me.

But to continue one of my previous points, don't expect Nikon to do any camcorder manufacturing. Panasonic, Canon, & Sony will be the ones to look at.

...but I don't think it will be under $5k...it'll be a lot closer to $10k. Look at the EX3 or H1 for reference. A camcorder with DSLR sensor would be a "hi-end" model and probably be in the "hi-end" price range.

So in the end, Paul, don't wave your $3k in front of Canon, Nikon, etc. thinking your idea is so perfect and they are stupid. If you want a VDSLR sensor, buy a 5D or the like. If you want a camcorder, buy a HVX200 or the like.

[Barry_Green]

Well, I agree with what you're saying. Nikon doesn't currently have a video division, and I don't expect them to create one just to cater to the (relatively) few of us who want a digi-cinema camera.

Canon could, with an XLH2-type of camera, but even the 1/3" XLH1A is $5,000; don't expect a cinema-ized version to be any less, certainly.

Panasonic has been prodded plenty of times about the GHX100 prototype, but I sure wouldn't expect that at DSLR pricing.

And Sony -- so far, they haven't got an SLR to base any prosumer video camera from. That may change on the 18th, if the rumors about an SLR announcement are correct.

[johnhafner]

with the 1DsmkIV shooting FULL 5k raw 12 fps, that is halfway to 24p. I would wager Canon is only a 1-2 years away from having the bandwidth/throughput to shoot 24fps. The datarate would be 400 megabytes/sec if you stored it as raw images though, so that would need a $2000 of raid flash array to handle and really isn't feasible.

When I think about the sensor MUST have the bandwidth, it can't be the limit if it can burst 8 20 meg raw frames a second for 2-3 seconds. That 160 megabytes of image data per second, what is limiting is either flash drive speed of 30 megabytes a sec or the processor. And since the 5.5 megabyte sec video out is 1/6 the full data rate of a class 6 card, THAT is not the limit either. That leaves the processor, Follow moores law and in two years max canon will have the ability. Every thing else equal, with double the processing power, I imagine you can cut the pixel binning in half, and get a video image twice as sharp ending all this ALIASING controversy.

[johnhafner]

Whether they do it or not, is another story.