M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Ok, if we follow this discussion to its logical conclusion, we will end in a stalemate. There is merit to a larger all-in-one camera that makes production smoother and simpler. Especially on smaller crews, where you really need one box to rule them all.
But the micro budget and bigger productions still like the idea of DSLRs, and they aren't going away. The micro budgets like them for obvious reasons- with a little more work, you can save money and get a picture that looks just as nice. To the big budgets, most of the setbacks of current DSLRs are a non issue- sound is recorded separately anyway, even with larger cameras. The lack of timecode is often an annoyance, however sometimes a particular DP will like it for stylistic reasons and/or because it actually generates a talking point interest in the show ("Hey, did you about that episode of House that was shot on my photography camera??" "Did you see that scene in Iron Man 2 with a 5D?"). All things being equal, the picture quality is there, especially for broadcast television- I personally shot a 15 second interview for a CBS talkshow using a t2i a year ago, and they seemed to like it just fine- so why *wouldn't* they use it? Because something is out there with XLR inputs that they wouldn't use anyway?
I'm not saying there aren't reasons NOT to use them- rolling shutter on moving subjects, timecode for multi-cam sync, etc, but they've proven their worth. Even DPs who have access to an FS100, RED, etc, like to pull out their DSLR for certain scenes. There's something fun and exciting about using them- some people feel it and some don't, I guess.
If you are not a big budget production that would use external sound anyway, and not small enough that it is worth saving money on the micro cameras, then by all means- large chip video cameras can save you significant amounts of time and money in the long run. But that doesn't make DSLRs "dead".
In any event, I'd also like to point out that a lot of the complaints I've seen are with a particular brand of DSLRs, namely Canon (weak and terrible audio, soft picture quality, etc). The GH2, especially with the hack, has shown incredible potential even compared to larger sized cameras like the AF100. Despite having a strange audio jack, the audio noise floor has been reported to be as low as -72dB and although it lacks headphone monitoring, I've recorded a split audio signal to both my GH2 and Tascam recorder with a splitter/attenuation cable, and found the Gh2's audio to be perfectly usable more often than not (still use the Tascam just in case and for monitoring, but sync isn't always necessary). Again, I'm not saying the GH2 is the golden perfect video camera by any means, and there are many situations that I would prefer a larger cam. But I'm getting the feeling that Canon models have given DSLR video an unfairly judged bad rap.
But the micro budget and bigger productions still like the idea of DSLRs, and they aren't going away. The micro budgets like them for obvious reasons- with a little more work, you can save money and get a picture that looks just as nice. To the big budgets, most of the setbacks of current DSLRs are a non issue- sound is recorded separately anyway, even with larger cameras. The lack of timecode is often an annoyance, however sometimes a particular DP will like it for stylistic reasons and/or because it actually generates a talking point interest in the show ("Hey, did you about that episode of House that was shot on my photography camera??" "Did you see that scene in Iron Man 2 with a 5D?"). All things being equal, the picture quality is there, especially for broadcast television- I personally shot a 15 second interview for a CBS talkshow using a t2i a year ago, and they seemed to like it just fine- so why *wouldn't* they use it? Because something is out there with XLR inputs that they wouldn't use anyway?
I'm not saying there aren't reasons NOT to use them- rolling shutter on moving subjects, timecode for multi-cam sync, etc, but they've proven their worth. Even DPs who have access to an FS100, RED, etc, like to pull out their DSLR for certain scenes. There's something fun and exciting about using them- some people feel it and some don't, I guess.
If you are not a big budget production that would use external sound anyway, and not small enough that it is worth saving money on the micro cameras, then by all means- large chip video cameras can save you significant amounts of time and money in the long run. But that doesn't make DSLRs "dead".
In any event, I'd also like to point out that a lot of the complaints I've seen are with a particular brand of DSLRs, namely Canon (weak and terrible audio, soft picture quality, etc). The GH2, especially with the hack, has shown incredible potential even compared to larger sized cameras like the AF100. Despite having a strange audio jack, the audio noise floor has been reported to be as low as -72dB and although it lacks headphone monitoring, I've recorded a split audio signal to both my GH2 and Tascam recorder with a splitter/attenuation cable, and found the Gh2's audio to be perfectly usable more often than not (still use the Tascam just in case and for monitoring, but sync isn't always necessary). Again, I'm not saying the GH2 is the golden perfect video camera by any means, and there are many situations that I would prefer a larger cam. But I'm getting the feeling that Canon models have given DSLR video an unfairly judged bad rap.
