Anyone Staying with DSLR's?

Jambredz, you're right. It shouldn't come to this. But it always will. Because as soon as you ask about one camera in relation to another, there will always be comparison's drawn. As people start to give reason WHY they may or may not prefer to use Camera A or camera B. Others will disagree and that's fine. Then someone will get their panties in a wad because CLEARLY camera A is better than camera B... and even though they likely own neither, some guy on the internet somewhere said it's so. And this is where the slippery slope get's doused with fresh oil.

The question on the table was who was staying with DSLR. I gave my answer, explained why I felt the AF100 was not the camera for me, and as per usual, got skewered for not going with the flow in saying that whatever flavor of the month camera was automatically better than whatever the previous flavor of the month camera was. If this forum is going to function as a valuable resource it HAS to be acceptable to say that a particular camera doesn't meet someone's needs as long as those needs can be articulated. When that kind of response leads to people being bashed, then this kind of thread will ALWAYS devolve into what we see here.

This is the first and only AF100 thread I've even entered in, and I did it against better judgment. Because history shows on this forum, if you say that the current Panasonic hot product doesn't meet your needs you'll get hammered for it. I watched it happen with the HVX, the HPX, the Gh1, and now the AF100. The pattern is eerily similar. Those who venture into purchasing non-Panasonic products tend to simply keep to themselves and keep a low profile. Clearly, they are smarter than me.
 
Homunculus said:
i read roger deakins and david mullens blogs and it took them a long to even warm up to even TRY OUT a high end digital like alexa/red etc let alone to like it which they still are very guarded against saying any compliments. but DSLR's forget about it, guys like taht don't even answer questions about DSLR's as they generally consider that beneath them!
Click to expand...

David Mullen shot Jackpot in 2001 on the Sony F900 and has shot many digital features since then, and has said nice things about RED.
Roger seems to be very excited about digital but wants to wait until it is truly better than film.
I'm sure if either of them felt like a hdslr was the right tool for the job they would use them. There just seems to be better tools laying around.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
Here's the rub - do you think all Hollywood scripts are brilliant, including the one they wrote for Speed Racers? No? Then why do you think all Hollywood DPs are automatically brilliant and all-knowing? They're not. Some are, sure - but Shane in my opinion sounds inarticulate and crass - which fits because 5D video imagery gives you cheap-flash wow that you better not look at too closely.

You guys obsess over the tiny number of pro DPs who use the 5D - but fact remains that the vast majority would never, ever shoot anything that mattered with a DSLR - EVER.
Click to expand...

In every field most professionals tend to stick with what works and show up and just do their job, and then there are a minority that will push the envelope. You can always tell who the pioneers are, they're the ones with the arrows in their back. Love him or hate him, Shane Hurlbut is a pioneer. He is now making movies in a very different way than any other DP. He's putting his job on the line with this new method, and he's out there selling it to producers and agencies. He's selling his talent with a shooting schedule that will be cut in half. The guy has got a very critical eye for the moving image. The first time he delivers a project and it looks like S*&t. It's over for him. He's a laughing stock. He's exhibited parts of his upcoming Act of Valor for Imax exhibitors, and they are blown away, period.

Maybe you should withhold judgement until Act of Valor is released.
 
Perrone

I prefer sony but this panasonic at this price ...
I know i wont be able to afford the sony version of this cam even if i know it will probably be 10x better but also 10 000k more.

I am a cinealta fan used to work whit the xdcam series product ( at some crazy price range ) but i will buy the af100.
 
Julienmassie said:
Perrone

I prefer sony but this panasonic at this price ...
I know i wont be able to afford the sony version of this cam even if i know it will probably be 10x better but also 10 000k more.

I am a cinealta fan used to work whit the xdcam series product ( at some crazy price range ) but i will buy the af100.
Click to expand...

Go with what works for you within your budget.
 
I will never let go my 5D,
well, not in the near future :)
well, not untill I see what Sony S35 has and how much it costs:)
 
I don't get the intense loyalty to one brand or another. Use what works. I'm an avid user of the 7D, love this little guy, yet I can see its flaws and shortcomings, and I can see how the AF100 will meet those flaws. Fact is, I want both. I love the smaller form factor of the 7D to be honest. That will be the one thing I'll not care for with the AF100: going back to a bigger camera.

But the fact that I can use my old Canon FD lenses with the AF100 (can't with the 7D) is a huge plus, as they are way faster than what I have for the 7D (and probably sharper, too). Plus, the AF100 will have two ways of recording -- internally, and/or externally through a recorder. I love that. And of course, the biggest reason I'd get the AF100 would be for the moire, aliasing and skew issues we see on the DSLRs.

But honestly, and this is from someone who is most certainly a pixel peeper, the 7D's moire issues are generally totally avoidable if you know how it happens, and the aliasing is greatly hidden by a little bit of film grain, which I'm prone to use anyway.

So, for me, they are both great cameras, and you bet your butt I'll be using both when I can afford to add the AF100 to my arsenal.
 
Brandon Freeman said:
I don't get the intense loyalty to one brand or another. Use what works. I'm an avid user of the 7D, love this little guy, yet I can see its flaws and shortcomings, and I can see how the AF100 will meet those flaws. Fact is, I want both. I love the smaller form factor of the 7D to be honest. That will be the one thing I'll not care for with the AF100: going back to a bigger camera.

But the fact that I can use my old Canon FD lenses with the AF100 (can't with the 7D) is a huge plus, as they are way faster than what I have for the 7D (and probably sharper, too). Plus, the AF100 will have two ways of recording -- internally, and/or externally through a recorder. I love that. And of course, the biggest reason I'd get the AF100 would be for the moire, aliasing and skew issues we see on the DSLRs.

But honestly, and this is from someone who is most certainly a pixel peeper, the 7D's moire issues are generally totally avoidable if you know how it happens, and the aliasing is greatly hidden by a little bit of film grain, which I'm prone to use anyway.

So, for me, they are both great cameras, and you bet your butt I'll be using both when I can afford to add the AF100 to my arsenal.
Click to expand...


I very much agree, up to a point. I'm a strong believer that there is not, and will likely never be, one camera that will do everything a shooter wants or needs. So again, keeping a 5DII or 7D alongside the AF-100 is a great solution. If your budget allows it, having an AF-100 and an EX1 could be a great solution. The point is, there are over 60,000 members on DVXUser, and every one of them has a slightly different set of needs.

Now, where I can't agree is on the "totally avoidable" moire/aliasing issues. I can't because it isn't, at least not for my specific set of circumstances. Two weeks ago, I worked on a job for an upcoming network news special. We were shooting aerials (on a radio-controlled helicopter) and ground footage with the 5DII and 7D. The client had very specific shots they wanted, one of which involved showing a fence in the distance. There was no angle we could realistically shoot that didn't show fairly substantial aliasing, whether we were shooting on the 7D or 5DII, at any frame rate and size. The fact is there are just situations where the design compromises inherent in Canon's product will result in shots that are largely unusable.

That said, I have enjoyed (and continue to enjoy) shooting with my Canon DSLRs, but the AF-100, and any future large-sensor dedicated video cameras, will be well worth the investment for my needs.
 
Stephen, for sure, and I should have clarified my thoughts. Yes, for specific shots, the 7D is just flat out unusable if we're honest. That's why I'm so excited for the AF100. But there are dozens of shots that do make the DSLRs a valid option, too, so many that I'd argue outweigh the unusable uses. At least that's been my experience. I've been very happy with my 7D probably about 85% of the time.

Now, having said that, there's a lot that I'd do if I had the AF100 that I don't even think about doing now. Like fast panning, or deep focus wide shots, etc. Mostly what I've been doing with the 7D has been tight close-ups in either a dramatic film or an interview piece. Action? I'm holding out for the AF100 for that.
 
That's the point I hope people take away from this thread. There are many tools available to modern filmmakers, and if you know how best to use each one, you'll always be in the best position to deliver the images you (or your clients) want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top