camera makers may finally focus on something besides more and more resolution

Barry_Green said:
if you're talking about making a dedicated large-sensor video camera, now you're talking about selling maybe 10,000 per year
Click to expand...

And at $5,000 apiece, that's $50 million a year.

Which of them are dedicated video camera lenses? Which operate like a video camera's lens does?
Click to expand...

Do they have to? Again, there are many different video productions of all sorts being shot with the DSLRs. If they make one that, once fastened on, completes the HMC150 body style (like the Sony EX3, I think), that would be great. But also I would enjoy using a whole slew of still photographic lenses, just like is already being done with the DSLRs and adaptors.
 
Why does pointing out the obvious constitute "fighting" it? I would be the first in line to buy that product.

But just because I want it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
 
I have even heard a rumor that there were these photojournalists at LIFE magazine, and they used to use MANUAL LENSES. And they didn't even have focus pullers!!!
Click to expand...

Ah, but those photographers only have to be in focus for 1/60th of a second whereas video/cinema/whatever the hell you wanna call it needs good focus for seconds or minutes at a time.
 
Barry_Green said:
Why does pointing out the obvious constitute "fighting" it? I would be the first in line to buy that product.

But just because I want it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
Click to expand...

In another thread you said almost the same thing I'm saying:

Barry_Green said:
I've been lobbying for them to make a larger-sensor version of the HPX170. Put the 4/3 chip in the HPX170, put the micro 4/3 lens mount on front, and put on the stock lens from the GH1.
Click to expand...

Should I have raised the objections there that you raised here?

ethan cooper said:
Ah, but those photographers only have to be in focus for 1/60th of a second whereas video/cinema/whatever the hell you wanna call it needs good focus for seconds or minutes at a time.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the still photographers have it better. Seems worse to me. In photojournalism, it's all about getting The Shot. Henri Cartier-Bresson would watch a scene and wait for just the right moment and then SNAP! Or what about the Medium Format cameras (10x the area of Super 35) with manual lenses used by wedding photographers? Even harder. Ask them how many of their shots are out of focus.

And as to whether videomakers can pull off shooting live events or documentaries with large sensors, again, see the wedding videos that I linked to earlier. Or the many other videos posted on this site and throughout the Internet from DSLRs.
 
I'm agreeing with you. We all want it. I've been lobbying for it.

But there are very valid reasons why they haven't done it yet. And pointing those out doesn't constitute "fighting" the issue. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I tell the manufacturers what we want -- and yes, I'd be just fine with having to use an SLR lens on it. But would anyone else be? Would their target market be happy with that? No. So I'm telling you both sides of the situation.
 
combatentropy said:
And at $5,000 apiece, that's $50 million a year.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. Producing a relatively small quantities of products drive your costs up way more than if you make a ton of products. As long as we're throwing out random numbers it might cost the manufacturer $80 million to make those 10,000 cameras whereas it if they make 1 million units of the same camera it might only cost them $10 million.

combatentropy said:
Do they have to?
Click to expand...

SLR lenses for film, like VDSLR, are nothing more than a stop-gap solutions because real cinema lenses are so expensive. With real cinema lenses you get things like no breathing, longer focus throw with geared ring (that spins the right way), declicked aperture ring, correct focus distance, focus that holds through the entire zoom range etc. They're fine as a budget solution but do understand that SLR lenses are not to the level of cinema lenses in film application.
 
Barry_Green said:
I'm agreeing with you. We all want it. I've been lobbying for it.

But there are very valid reasons why they haven't done it yet. And pointing those out doesn't constitute "fighting" the issue. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I tell the manufacturers what we want -- and yes, I'd be just fine with having to use an SLR lens on it. But would anyone else be? Would their target market be happy with that? No. So I'm telling you both sides of the situation.
Click to expand...

By fighting, I mean friendly fire.

Huy Vu said:
As long as we're throwing out random numbers
Click to expand...

Who's throwing out random numbers? We're doing our best guess based on data. Why are you throwing out random numbers in the manufacturer's favor? Let them speak for themselves.

SLR lenses for film, like VDSLR, are nothing more than a stop-gap solutions because real cinema lenses are so expensive. With real cinema lenses you get things like no breathing, longer focus throw with geared ring (that spins the right way), declicked aperture ring, correct focus distance, focus that holds through the entire zoom range etc. They're fine as a budget solution but do understand that SLR lenses are not to the level of cinema lenses in film application.
Click to expand...
I'll take the "stop-gap" for $5,000 to $10,000.
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
I'll take the "stop-gap" for $5,000 to $10,000.
Click to expand...

If you're happy with a stop gap, get a DSLR, some rails, a beachtek etc and go for it.

If you want a proper video camera with a large sensor RED sell them and they might have a cheaper one out some day. REDs cost more than a HPX170 though for all the reasons already explained.

From what you've said so far what you want is a video camera with a large sensor that can use still lenses and is cheap. If that's all you want a kitted out DSLR should be fine for you.
 
Well, to be clear then -- that's *not* what I want. I want a video camera with a large sensor that can use still lenses and is cheap, and does *not* have the pixel-binning line skipping aliasing and moire bullcrap.

So what I am lobbying for is not just a repackaged DSLR; I want a proper video camera that doesn't ask the shooter to make the kind of compromises that today's crop of digital still camera hybrids do.
 
also it would be nice if the video camera had built in ND filters, XLR audio in and recording audio at 48k, color bars, zebra bars, hard switches for gain and white balance and 2 P2 card slots. What I am talking about is maybe a HPX 170 with a 4/3 chip and lens mount that shoots Avchd-intra, also wile we are asking why not a COMOS with a Global Shutter
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
Who's throwing out random numbers? We're doing our best guess based on data. Why are you throwing out random numbers in the manufacturer's favor? Let them speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

What data? Where? What kind of numbers are you talking about when you claim that a manufacturer can sell 10,000 units at $5,000 each and still make money? The fact is that none of us have any idea how much it will actually cost to design and produce this theoretical camera. One meaningless figure deserves another. This type of question is brought up all the time where people seems to think that big camera companies are idiots for not making a 35mm sensor camera with all the fixing and selling it for $5000 a piece. Well duh, if they can do it for that price then why wouldn't they? They must be holding out on us! Jeez, I'm willing to bet that most people who are predicting how much it "should" cost to make this miracle camera have never set foot in a development lab or even have any clue as to what it takes to design a camera.
 
I think combatentropy is just saying that with what we have out there in the form of DSLRs at their low price point and current ability it seems like manufacturers do have the means to make THE camera we all wish existed.

Take a camera like the GH-1, which basically is ALMOST there. It's internals are small enough to fit inside a standard camcorder's body...add a couple XLRs...give it a few more picture controls along with a more robust codec...and they'll be off to a good start. At $5,000+ they'd be five times higher than the cost of a GH-1 right now. I certainly think that's a good guess.

As they go along in the product cylce they can work on increasing sensor readout (without the pixel bining etc. ) which would give us better IQ as new models come out. But for right now...it all seems like it's possible to do at a low to moderate cost. But...what do I know?
 
Huy Vu said:
The fact is that none of us have any idea how much it will actually cost to design and produce this theoretical camera.
Click to expand...

The cost of sales in this market is about 50% and Canon were operating at about 18% net in 2008 in the camera segment. The projected sales and pricing mentioned about, even though completely unrealistic (10,000 for this product?!), could justify the sensor development. If I remember correctly they made two billion USD net on their cameras in 2008, so they could probably fork out some money for research:) 1/3" and 2/3" progressive CCD should be a first priority though IMHO, their 1/3" interlaced sensors are getting old and a single 2/3" sensor would allow entering a whole new market (with 50mbit GOP perhaps).
 
Panasonic may be working on 4/3 chip that will be a game changer

From
http://www.eoshd.com/entry.php?6-Panasonic-GH2-to-be-first-shutter-less-camera

"Billed as a 'global shutter' and marketed as HD Progressive, Panasonic will for now reserve this feature only for their high end range of camcorders" - "source confirmed that Panasonic's strategy was to divert investment into the development of a global shutter so that they could save money in both R&D and manufacturing costs"
 
Yak said:
also it would be nice if the video camera had built in ND filters, XLR audio in and recording audio at 48k, color bars, zebra bars, hard switches for gain and white balance and 2 P2 card slots. What I am talking about is maybe a HPX 170 with a 4/3 chip and lens mount that shoots Avchd-intra, also wile we are asking why not a COMOS with a Global Shutter
Click to expand...
That's the kind of thing I've been clamoring for, for the last 10 months. But it also has to be immune to the aliasing or it won't be a professional product.
 
Ian-T said:
I think combatentropy is just saying that with what we have out there in the form of DSLRs at their low price point and current ability it seems like manufacturers do have the means to make THE camera we all wish existed.
Click to expand...

But see, that line of reasoning isn't logical. It assumes that all camera parts are interchangeable and you can just take feature X and put it into camera Y without significantly redesigning it. DSLR have their flaws because their sensor was made for shooting stills and not for shooting video so it's not like Canon and Panasonic can take the GH1 and 7D sensor, remove all the bad part and just put it into a prosumer body. That would probably require a redesign from the ground up and that costs money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top