Are Cameras Evolving Too Quickly?

JeganRX

JeganRX

Well-known member
I'm going to get burned at the stake for even suggesting this.

Look, I think the incredible evolution of cameras in the last few years has been a positive thing in itself. Say what you will about Jim Jannard, but the man certainly did contribute a "push" in the direction of digital cinema. Nikon deserves some credit for technically starting DSLR video, and Canon of course deserves huge credit for the 5D and 7D pushing (semi)proper video from a large format sensor. 4k is everywhere, and interchangeable lenses are now standard. RED's abandonment of the fixed-lens Scarlet is proof of this. In short, we've come a long way, and both film and video look better than ever.

But has anyone felt this rapid evolution to be problematic for their careers? Take for example the pain that film photographers felt when realizing that they could no longer keep their bodies for years at a time. The body certainly evolves, and that's a cost of doing business, but feature sets change rapidly. The video world is a bit different, and it seems that cameras have become "trendy". A quick look on Mandy or Craigslist will show producers asking for the latest cameras. DSLRs have waned a bit from what I've seen, but as an example, the AF-100 was immediately in demand upon arrival. Now, the C300 and Scarlet seem to be everywhere. Alexa dominates the high end as well. Yes, I realize that the AF-100 has a different aesthetic due to micro 4/3rds, and that it may be visually less desirable, but this is totally different from, well, the DVX-100's life cycle.

Am I just complaining, or does anyone else see this as an unfortunate reality? It seems difficult to keep up with these, not so much because it's hard to read up on the newest camera, but it's difficult to get your hands on each and every camera in a real setting. You become less marketable as the cameras you know become older, and less "trendy".

Anyone?
 
I'm by no means a gear head like some others on these forums. So for me, yes, it moves too quickly. I think it is a bit of a problem because if you're being hired as a 'cameraman with his own camera', then trying to keep up with things can make you go broke.

However, maybe it's just me, but I feel like we're reaching an 'end point' if you will. A point where the cameras are getting so good, and so cheap, that pushing the camera significantly forward will become more and more of a challenge for the companies manufacturing these things. That's probably why they're releasing so many models with very few changes, as they don't want to reach that end.

I'm sure there are all kinds of shutter issues, dynamic range issues, and various other small nitpicking issues that can be fixed for future models. However I'm not so sure buying a high end camera now will be drastically different from a camera a few years from now.
 
I agree on Jon's end point statement, Personally I think in about 5 years we will be building cameras like computers, meaning putting together the best parts we can afford at that point in time. I applaud Red for making their cams upgradable, i really think thats the direction the high end should take.
 
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Is this from the perspective of someone who is a cameraman or DP for hire? Or is it from the perspective of a indie director/producer, or...?

Because that's all different answers. If you're a guy for hire, then yes, it's trouble if the producer makes demands that you use this or that cam or piece of equipment - you have to stay abreast all the developments.

But if it's just for you as your own shooter, then it's fine - or even preferable. Because what you do, is select a cam that fits your needs, or does what you want, and you then can relax and learn it - you're under no pressure to upgrade. That's the situation I find myself in with the GH2 - that cam does what I need. And so I can buy it, and learn it, and I don't care if the GH3 comes out, or some Sony or whatever. Because it will do what I need it to do on my project. A newer better camera will come out - so what? The GH2 does what I need, so what do I care? If anything, the fast evolution is an advantage for two reasons: because there are more choices at more price points, so that the odds are that you'll find something that fits your needs pretty perfectly. So it was great that DVX100 came out, but then again, that's all you had as a choice if you were a little indie guy. Today, there's the AF100, the FS100, tons of DSLRs at every price point.

Ultimately, I too agree with Jon. I think we're reaching a point where the tools are at such a level that it becomes almost generic. When the cams can practically see in the dark, when the image generated is at the limits of human perception, when costs come down like all electronics do, you end up with it becoming just a tool... at an extreme, it's like a hammer - how much more evolution do you need in a hammer? Now, we're still not at that point, but we're close. More importantly, I think we're at a point where we can say: "the tool is no longer a limitation". Some will argue we've been at that point for 20 years, but really, my go-to example is the GH2. It's a sub $1K cam that puts out outstanding footage. Sure, it can always be better (and if there's a GH3, it'll probably be better), but really, it's totally OK to do a feature on if you're willing to put some elbow grease. But really, if you can't afford $1K, then this is a different conversation.

We live in great times!
 
We live in great times!
Click to expand...
Yes!

RX782, you're not complaining, you raise a valid question. This was sort of discussed a month or so ago in the FS100(700?) section, hell, I'm sure it's talked about all the time all over the boards.

I'm personally getting tired of the constant influx of new models….I think it's getting ridiculous, but that's just me. As far as career problems, not at this time.
 
there was no "red push", i had a camera phone with video recording option and a point and shoot camera(canon by the way) that had a video mode quite a few years before red was created or announced. it was normal for point and shoot, compact and dslrs to have video features. the sony cameras, the viper, genesis were all made before red was a company some of them a decade before red became a thought.

it's a transitioning period that should settle soon on the high end(with the global shutter cameras introduced), and maybe a year or two after that on the professional consumer level.
 
Red's push was to develop a practical digital camera and format to match or exceed the capabilities of 35mm motion picturenfilm in every respect, resolution, DR, aesthetics. Most emphatically not a video camera and certainly nothing like the crude video coming out of point and shoots 6 years ago. DSLR's still only shoot low end consumer video formats and high end pro cameras still with few exceptions shoot HD video, not full resolution raw comparable to film. How many Vogue covers have Sony and ARRI video cameras shot? How many successful large screen major theatrical feature films have DSLR's shot? They are all still playing catch up to RED 6 years later.
 
Last edited:
dude, you have 16mm in your username, you should be ashamed.

red's limited color space and color reproduction is no were near film or other digital cameras. they did not 'push' other companies or anything, and they did not exceed film in any way.

and even if it's a numbers game, productions using arri or panavision or sony cameras trumps red by miles, they are not in the same zip code.
 
Regarding clients wanting the latest and greatest, I think that's yes and no - you read as many posts about clients insisting on a 5d MKii when Red is available.
 
I think I have a good perspecitve on this from my stills career

I started on an Nikon FM2 and a slection of film stock
I had a big 'sensor' huge DR great resolution et al

My level of my bar was set

Now around 2000 I was 'forced' to go digital to keep up with expected delivery speeds in newspapers
I invested $25K in 3 nikon D1 camera (me plus two staff)

Those D1 cameras were well below my bar

I got on the upgrade path nikon D100, D70, D80 - cheapo consumers cams
(I skipped the D1x, D2, D2x - expensive pro cams)

All of these cameras were below my bar

I then bought a hasselblad and digiback - it had an image that I was pleased with - but cost another $20k

Then the nikon D3 came out - my bar was met in a $4k camera

I have made no upgrades to stills camera since the 2008 D3 even though I am offered the D3x and D4 and D800

Refelecting this back to the world of video we see..

A period of flux when affordable tools are not really good enough
A high end solution from a small company that is good enough but costly
Three years later the arrival of affordable tools that are truely up to the job

We are in that changing time now for motion cameras so what lessons

-avoid consiststent small upgrades?
-consider the expensive professional tool?
-wait an affordable but good tool will come

In terms of specifics I have a real downer on the F3/C300 - I see them both not that good and expensive

Right now Id be looking at an Alexa/Epic or a cheapo DSLR/Fs100 - but not much in between unless I had specific projects that would pay out an F3/C300
I would avoid incrmental upgrades like the 5d2-3 step

It is a wonderful time in digital stills - anyone can afford a camera that is very good - of a quality that pros were paying $20k for three years ago

That time is not yet here in motion - but will come soon - navigating that period of flux takes skill and understanding of your own business..

S
 
Last edited:
I think its perfectly in line with tech of today.
These things will refine themselves out for a period, and then after a few years it'll shake things up again.
Right now, we are plateau on 2k cameras with a push into RAW. (Basically follow Canon, Sony, Panasonic, and Nikon. They cater to the main stream)
For a few years, small refinements will come out (RAW). Then the industry will move again. This is the same with computers and mobile tech.
Whats probably the most confusing, is the workflow that these camera's will be requiring. Other then that, I welcome the evolution...
 
Alex H. said:
I've yet to work on a shoot with RED or Alexa where the camera was not rented for the production.
Click to expand...
Actually Alex.....it may be a geographical thing. I know 3 people with their own RED's (sadly I am not one of them). But I live in LA where every other person you see is tied into the film biz in one way or the other.

RX782, I definitely see your point and agree with it. The way I see it, though, those that are always going after the "next thing" never really learn everything there is with the tool they have (yes, a camera is just a tool used in film-making, albeit an important one). I see great stuff using the simplest cameras. Personally, I think the only time someone should "upgrade" their camera, is if it broke, or they have evolved past their camera's abilities. Not the other way around.

Constantly upgrading your camera just because it has the latest bells and whistles puts you further and further behind on the learning curve as a film-maker, IMO. Especially if someone has not fully learned the bells and whistles of what they have already.

And it is my feeling that if more people espoused this idea, we would not have the glut of.....ahem......"garbage" out there. People let their equipment speak for their abilities, when it should be their body of work.

But on the other hand, it does drive down the prices on the earlier models of cameras that are exceptionally decent for film-making, if someone knew what they were doing. Look at HVX's, I bought mine for 3700 used, sold it it for 2500, and now???? I can buy a 200a for 1600. And that is a very decent camera. But I knew it's weaknesses and strengths.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
...it may be a geographical thing. I know 3 people with their own RED's (sadly I am not one of them). But I live in LA where every other person you see is tied into the film biz in one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Certainly an important consideration. Places like NY and LA, it may make sense for more people to own. However... how much business do they do renting their cameras out, even if the camera goes with them on a freelance shoot? If the income is there to justify it, then absolutely it's logical to own.

We have a couple of larger rental houses here, but they rent ENG cameras. There are rental houses in Nashville that have the larger cams (Alexa, etc.). Locally, I know there are a couple of folks who own... but their primary income is from renting the camera and crewing as DIT with the cam.
 
Are cameras evolving too quickly?

Not for me. For me they aren't evolving quickly enough. I don't need this middle stage of low end cameras all doing AVCHD and 4:2:0 8 bit chroma subsampling. What I want is something like MPEG-4 (but not the current AVCHD, or even AVCHD 2.0, maybe we'll get it in AVCHD 3.0? IDK, but I doubt it), but with 4:2:2 10 bit, with a couple of XLR inputs (full manual) of uncompressed 24 bit 48KHz audio. And, of course, 14 stops of dynamic range ;-)

What I want is good gradable video and lossless audio in a camera less than $5K USD. We've been so close I could taste it, but the major manufacturers aren't heading in that direction. At least, they weren't -- but Blackmagic may push 'em in that direction. I can only hope.
 
Been thinking about this for a while...

Back about 10-20 years ago, a well-equipped cameraperson might have to own a single $15-30K camera systems to ensure compatability with most clients.

Nowadays, a "well-equipped" cameraperson might have to own 2-3 $3-5K and a ~$20K camera system to ensure compatability with most clients. The fact that the looks of these varied systems can more or less easily be made to match seems irrelevant to certain producers.

One side effect is dilution of expertise... I can shoot (and have shot) with a bunch of different modern cameras, but only know one or two systems really, really well.

Is there a solution? Not sure if it's necessary, but in practical terms I (try to) never buy what I don't already have potential work to pay for. I bought a GH2 and paid it off in one job, then bought a AF100 and paid it off in a month. The ancient HVX and newer AF100 will cover 90% of the work I could potentially land at my skill level, and I don't see the cost offset for a F3/C300/RED/any 2/3" ENG in that 10% of work that my equipment won't satisfy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top