All NEW super duper camera coming.. (yawn)

Sure, there will always be people who want a $3k body to have features from a $30k camera. That will always be the case, even for myself.

But just because technology moves forward doesn't mean you need it. Can the phone from 2005 still make phone calls?
 
I dunno guys. A top of the line -- speaking in prosumer terms -- cam was about $4000 in 2005 (DVX series, Canon XL2). These were self-contained units with huge zoom range, NDs, XLRs, just about any feature you could want, media was usually $3-5 per hour of recording time. These were not the most amazing cams ever, but for many folks they were plenty "professional" enough. I think many are just waiting for today's equivalent. Seems like the HD cams today with equivalent specs (not literally the same in terms of bitrate, etc., but in terms of "very high quality for its time") are a few thousand more when new. Any less and you compromise on lens, codecs, or somewhere else. I know blah blah blah inflation, but still. . .

In terms of gear lust, I know what excites ME about certain cams (C100 for instance) are the sexy sexy images. In a perfect world it would be one cam, which weighed a pound, and never needed to be upgraded for the rest of your life. I am a dude and also an American so I get the appeal of shiny new toys, but really, simple, light, quick is the ideal.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Sure, there will always be people who want a $3k body to have features from a $30k camera. That will always be the case, even for myself.

But just because technology moves forward doesn't mean you need it. Can the phone from 2005 still make phone calls?
Click to expand...

A phone is used for a lot more than making phone calls these days. Texting, internet, email, GPS, ApplePay, 4k video, photography, etc.. A phone from 2005 is going to be pretty limited in what it can do compared to what's currently on the market.

So sure, if all you need it to do is to make phone calls, than a phone from '05 is a great option. But it's ignorant to tell someone else what they need in a phone.

As far as technology moving forward, you own an F55. So it's obviously important to you, or your business to own a camera with current features that takes advantage of innovation in camera technology over the past 10 years :)
 
starcentral said:
Ok but where does it end? ...
Click to expand...
On pure image quality - when the professional eyes can no longer discern what they get from the different cameras. After that, it'll be the workflow. And it'll always be the workflow because we can't imagine what innovations will soon be introduced.

(As a side note, I would want to see a high end TV drama and feature films shot de facto live with the image quality and shot selection of a current single camera feature film. Think back to the early days of sports coverage - one camera on the 50-yard/midfield line. Now, you have Superbowls with 30+ cameras. That's the future of production that I am interested in)

Also, lighting is a lot less expensive than it were. Furthermore, with the emergence of the LED's, the energy draw is much lower and one no longer needs WWII size anti-aircraft projectors to light the scene. And, with everyone building battery gigafactories, an outdoor night shoot should be able to last hours off one small suitcase size box.
 
It doesn't matter what camera someone owns in order to have an opinion on whether or not we've long passed what's really needed from a camera of today. I might be a spoiled brat and in reality an F55 doesn't make images 9 times better than a $5k camera anyway.

I tend to agree with Samuel and maranfilms and think we've had "everything" needed for a long time now. A C100 or Sony F3 only costs $2999 and offers quite a lot all things considered.
 
Mainly I want a camera that is less.

Less compression. Raw is the end game.
Less rolling shutter. Zero, actually. Still waiting for global shutter to return in full force.
Less wait. Cameras need to boot up, change settings, scroll through menus, etc., instantly. Again, this is the return of a feature that was lost.
Less mass. Cameras need to continue to shrink to about the size of the PXW-X70 sans lens. The human hand, lens mount, and XLRs are the limiting factors. The LS300 and FS5 are pretty close but could still lose an inch here or there.
Less price. Naturally I'll take the same thing for less money, and prices will naturally fall over the years.

As for resolution, dynamic range, and frame rates, cameras as a whole are pretty much there. I don't need more than 2K. I would fine with up to 4K, for a really fine 2K downsample, but further than that I think is useful 1% of the time and a burden in some way 100% of the time.
 
The only reason I brought it up was because you said wanting NDs, codec options, a small body, etc...were minor quibbles yet you own a camera with all those features.
 
And ... this is not about the cameras per se ... someone ought to come out with a 24-70 cine zoom for under $4,000 .. at the moment, that the price the rehoused Sigmas cost ... if Sigma takes the Samyang step and rehouses them themselves, a lot of folks will be grateful ... it appears that XEEN's aren't off to an auspicious start but the idea is something to keep an eye on.
 
DLD said:
And ... this is not about the cameras per se ... someone ought to come out with a 24-70 cine zoom for under $4,000 .. at the moment, that the price the rehoused Sigmas cost ... if Sigma takes the Samyang step and rehouses them themselves, a lot of folks will be grateful ... it appears that XEEN's aren't off to an auspicious start but the idea is something to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...

Aaah, yes. Lenses as limiting factors. For my use scenarios (narrative), I'm far more interested in the wide end than the long one. And while it's neat to work with primes, the convenience of zooms cannot be overlooked, and to me is the decisive factor. Zooms are so good now, optically, that I honestly don't feel a great need for primes most of the time as far as image quality goes. I love the idea of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. But a 24-70 if it could be made fast enough, would be just amazing, especially if it was small in size and light (the whole charm of m4/3 to me). A good cam with a good lens, and we're in business. I do not believe we are there yet, but of course YMMV.

But the whole discussion reminds me of the Henry Ford observation: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Films change and so the technology to make films changes too. There is a whole bunch of innovations which could be made and which are not something people are clamoring for, simply because of the limitations of imagination - but once they come about, people can't live without them. Nobody asked for the iPhone, people were super happy with the latest Nokia. And then, boom. Now nobody can live without that amazing computer/communicator in your pocket. And note - many innovations are coming from the lowly world of cell phone cameras... which then get ported into regular cameras. We are only limited by our imagination. To say "this is it", is to unnecessarily limit yourself. Many people thought (and I agree with them) that you can make a feature on a GH2. But who is going to argue that the GH4 is not the better tool for most scenarios, and for that matter, that the GH4 has limitations that people are already chafing under, and looking forward to relief and greater fulfilment with the GH5... and I doubt that the GH5 will be a "that's it" camera, we'll be hankering for the GH6 and so on. We are definitely not at the end of the journey. I can think of at least a dozen things I'd dearly love in a camera that is nowhere near being delivered as yet.
 
If you have one of these cameras you can (and should) genuinely stop looking at the camera market and new gadgets for at least 3 to 5 years:

F65, F55, F5, FS7, C300II, Weapon, Dragon, Alexa, Amira, Varicam 35,

If you own anything less, then sure, you'll always be looking for a new camera that solves a problem you're having, IQ, usability, audio, price, and they will always get better. Until the day the world vanishes.
 
Content is king.
Otherwise, you're just a technician.
Technicians barely get paid these days.
So the camera should be the least of your worries.
The question is, do you have a good story to tell and can you tell it in a way that no one else can?
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
If you have one of these cameras you can (and should) genuinely stop looking at the camera market and new gadgets for at least 3 to 5 years:

F65, F55, F5, FS7, C300II, Weapon, Dragon, Alexa, Amira, Varicam 35,

If you own anything less, then sure, you'll always be looking for a new camera that solves a problem you're having, IQ, usability, audio, price, and they will always get better. Until the day the world vanishes.
Click to expand...

Ursa Mini 4.6K is probably one of those cameras (well maybe it should have internal ND). I can see it being more than enough for the next 5 years. I hope it forces other companies to compete. Not holding my breath, though.
 
If content was king, we wouldn't be here on DVXuser.com. It would cease to exist! It's not like we're all here hanging out on the screenwriters or art direction forums

:beer:
 
OldCorpse said:
Aaah, yes. Lenses as limiting factors. For my use scenarios (narrative), I'm far more interested in the wide end than the long one. And while it's neat to work with primes, the convenience of zooms cannot be overlooked, and to me is the decisive factor. Zooms are so good now, optically, that I honestly don't feel a great need for primes most of the time as far as image quality goes. I love the idea of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. But a 24-70 if it could be made fast enough, would be just amazing, especially if it was small in size and light (the whole charm of m4/3 to me). A good cam with a good lens, and we're in business. I do not believe we are there yet, but of course YMMV...
Click to expand...
I have an unscientific approach toward the lens prices - I go by weight. (hold the boos, per favor)

Let's look at cine zooms first. The lowest priced is Tokina 11-16 T 3.0 at $1,600. It weighs 680 grams. Stepping up in price, Tokina's 16-28 T3.0 is $4000. It weighs 1,500 grams (1.5 KG).

With me so far?

OK, next is Tokina 50-135 T 3.0 at $4,500. It weighs 1,530 grams.

And here is the big jump in price. Sony 11-16 3.0 is $7,090. It weighs 1,100 grams.

After that, we see another huge price jump but a relatively small weight increase. Angenieux 16-40 T 2.6/2.8 is $17,000. It weighs in at 1,900 grams. Available for the same price and at the same weight is the 30-76 mm T 2.6/2.8.

I'll end the cine tour with Canon's 15.5-47 T 2.8 at 19,300 and weighing in at 2,200 grams.

Now, let's go back to the photo zooms. Sigma's 18-35 F 1.8 is $799 and 811 grams. Nikon's new 24-70 F 2.8 is $2,400 and 1,070 grams. Sony's 24-70 F 2.8 is $2,100 and 975 grams.

Finally, let's go up in weight class. Nikon's 200-400 F/4 is going for $7,000 and weighs at 3,360 grams. Sigma 120-300 F2.8 is $3,600 and 3,390 grams. Et cetera, et cetera.

So, what are the common objections to my line of thought? That photo lenses exhibit breathing and focus shift? But that's the problem of the design, not the manufacturing. In other words, a lens of any kind is basically glass and metal. The quality of the glass on the top photo lenses is excellent. The internal construction is reliable. Thus, the only difference is the design, which does deserve a premium over a similar product that has lower requirements. But is that difference worth $15,000 in a competitive market? IMO, there are a lot of compromises that can be found, compromises that suit the $5,000 cameras rather than the $50,000 ones.
 
starcentral said:
If content was king, we wouldn't be here on DVXuser.com. It would cease to exist! It's not like we're all here hanging out on the screenwriters or art direction forums

:beer:
Click to expand...

Even artists have to go to the bathroom occasionally, that doesn't mean they spend all out time hanging out in the toilet however.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
If you have one of these cameras you can (and should) genuinely stop looking at the camera market and new gadgets for at least 3 to 5 years:

F65, F55, F5, FS7, C300II, Weapon, Dragon, Alexa, Amira, Varicam 35,

If you own anything less, then sure, you'll always be looking for a new camera that solves a problem you're having, IQ, usability, audio, price, and they will always get better. Until the day the world vanishes.
Click to expand...

The issue however is if you own one of those cameras, then you most likely must be operating at the rarefied high end production level. So to stay there operating at that level, you will need to upgrade within five years for sure.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
If you have one of these cameras you can (and should) genuinely stop looking at the camera market and new gadgets for at least 3 to 5 years:

F65, F55, F5, FS7, C300II, Weapon, Dragon, Alexa, Amira, Varicam 35,

If you own anything less, then sure, you'll always be looking for a new camera that solves a problem you're having, IQ, usability, audio, price, and they will always get better. Until the day the world vanishes.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, maybe not 5 years, but there's a lot of mileage in all of those cameras. For me to want to upgrade my FS7 it's going to take a massive jump in performance, I won't be interested in a couple more stops of DR or a bit more low light performance or even better HRF, someone is going to have to make a very compelling argument that I will make a financial return on and my clients will actually see a benefit.

Yoclay is right, Content is King. If you're making compelling content your clients aren't looking at how well the whites roll off they're too busy watching the production. The quality of the cameras in the list above are very good, all you need to do is concentrate on the content and your craft.
 
Last edited:
No audience ( particularly now ) have ever said i much prefer the Arri look to the ( insert manufacture name here ) within certain parameters . They will talk about storyline, wardrobe, acting, VFX but never will they discuss camera.

Maybe just maybe the purist will discuss being shot on film.......but seriously does a modern mass audience even know what that looks like anymore?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top