Did a "DSLR KILLER" ever arrive?

[Danielvilliers]

Shows that indeed it's right there with the best in a lot of areas amongst the "Still cameras with video capabilities" that we lump together as DSLR.

However it's not the be all end all replacement for the whole "DSLR" range as it has it's own weaknesses and limitations.

As I said before, ALL these cameras cut deep into the market for the Prosumer cams, and there is still nothing in that prosumer price range that's enough of an upgrade to fully justify the extra money to me. The big step up is 4K.

I think this test is not showing that it is .... "that indeed it's right there with the best in a lot of areas amongst the "Still cameras with video capabilities". What it is showing that it is a cut above the "Still cameras with video capabilities" in resolution at least and that it is more competing against the $ 13K + Sony F3 and Canon C300. I expect it to be well beaten against these two in the low light test. But they are a cut above everything else on the market today, so it will be interesting to see the gh2 against the rest. If it is in at least in the same ballpark then I don't see any DSLR coming close to it. With the advent of the slr magic 12 mm f1.6 lens, the only disadvantage of the gh2 against the other bigger sensor ones for a fast wide angle lens on the m43 is gone. Until the release of the 1dx or perhaps the new rumored Nikon Pro cameras, the hacked gh2 stands clearly on top of the dslr or photo cameras that shoot video line.

 

[NVentive]

I chair an arts coalition that will be bringing in money to build an incubator for indie producers here, and have met several times with those producers to find out what they feel they need. The wish list so far includes lighting, sound, support, location assistance, insurance information ... not one of them mentioned a camera and most of them shoot with DSLR's. I don't see that changing any time soon.

 

[daveswan]

DSLR killer is a big term.

Are we talking stills or motion (Yes I know this is a cine forum, but DSLRs aren't primary cine cameras) For motion the GH2 pretty well nails it, esp hacked. I wouldn't expect the forthcoming 650D to beat it. Come close or equal, perhaps but it isn't as video-orientated as the GH2, I would expect it to run on a single Digic V (Not the V+). However the 1Dx / 5DIII / 1C(?) OTOH I would hope and expect to kill the GH2, but at a higher price.

For stills, no I don't see a DSLR killer on the horizon at all, not even the RED epic, for ergonomic, economic, and image quality reasons

 

[Razz16mm]

The mid range or old "prosumer" market is what's in trouble. For sub $2K I can get a very capable DSLR. It doesn't make a lot of sense to step up to the $8K to $15K mid range for modest improvement. If I'm going to step up I want to step up all the way to a 4K camera.

For me the important step up would be Bayer raw in a modest priced motion camera. If I am limited to long GOP MPEG codecs of one kind or another in the under $10k range, then the only reason to step up to a true HD video camera is for efficiency in professional production settings. My main issue with DSLR's is that they are a pain in the butt to use for general video production.

I was seriously looking at the VG20 as an option because it is a camcorder, but the impressions of early reviewers and a read through the manual convinced me otherwise. Sony screwed up yet another great opportunity to serve the market for serious creative hobbyists at a reasonable price.

 

[8string]

It's the toolset. I would love a DSLR with audio monitoring capability on a par with my xf305 for the price of a 7D. And zoom ability as nice as the slow crawl (and in focus) of any major pro level camcorder. (I know, zooming is dead, whatever). And dual XLRs while we are at it. Hmmm. I guess I am talking about an AF100 or something like it. As long as Canon, Panasonic and Sony are making pro level camcorders with these features, I don't think we will see the equivalent in a 7D price range. Or am I missing something?

 

[Razz16mm]

It's the toolset. I would love a DSLR with audio monitoring capability on a par with my xf305 for the price of a 7D. And zoom ability as nice as the slow crawl (and in focus) of any major pro level camcorder. (I know, zooming is dead, whatever). And dual XLRs while we are at it. Hmmm. I guess I am talking about an AF100 or something like it. As long as Canon, Panasonic and Sony are making pro level camcorders with these features, I don't think we will see the equivalent in a 7D price range. Or am I missing something?

Camcorder features, do add significant cost and need a different form factor to be practical. Nothing wrong with that. It would be nice not to sacrifice the creative image control of the DSLR in the process though.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

It's the toolset. I would love a DSLR with audio monitoring capability on a par with my xf305 for the price of a 7D. And zoom ability as nice as the slow crawl (and in focus) of any major pro level camcorder. (I know, zooming is dead, whatever). And dual XLRs while we are at it. Hmmm. I guess I am talking about an AF100 or something like it. As long as Canon, Panasonic and Sony are making pro level camcorders with these features, I don't think we will see the equivalent in a 7D price range. Or am I missing something?

Would be nice for some users, but for a lot of us that stuff is worthless add ons that just inflates the price. I always run separate audio, I never zoom, etc... That's probably one reason DSLR was so attractive. Not paying for stuff I don't need.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

DSLR killer is a big term.

Are we talking stills or motion (Yes I know this is a cine forum, but DSLRs aren't primary cine cameras) For motion the GH2 pretty well nails it, esp hacked. I wouldn't expect the forthcoming 650D to beat it. Come close or equal, perhaps but it isn't as video-orientated as the GH2, I would expect it to run on a single Digic V (Not the V+). However the 1Dx / 5DIII / 1C(?) OTOH I would hope and expect to kill the GH2, but at a higher price.

For stills, no I don't see a DSLR killer on the horizon at all, not even the RED epic, for ergonomic, economic, and image quality reasons

Perfect world for me would be an 5DMK3 that had the vistavision sensor combined with enough processor horsepower to take full advantage of it. No line skipping, 60 FPS, full res HDMI out, etc...

 

[daveswan]

XLRs on a DSLR? Tits on a boar

 

[maranfilms]

and there is still nothing in that prosumer price range that's enough of an upgrade to fully justify the extra money to me. The big step up is 4K.

t

I agree to an extent But you have to consider the work thats being done. If I were an event shooter, I would much rather go with the xf100 than a dslr. Or if you shoot hd for broadcast, you need that extra 4:2:2, and 50mbps. But for narrative and docu for web. I totally agree with you. The dslr's will give a better result.

 

[Razz16mm]

Would be nice for some users, but for a lot of us that stuff is worthless add ons that just inflates the price. I always run separate audio, I never zoom, etc... That's probably one reason DSLR was so attractive. Not paying for stuff I don't need.

I treat a high quality zoom like an infinitely variable prime lens. I prefer them as I do not like having to carry a bag full of lenses or needing to change lenses constantly to change composition, especially in run and gun work or in situations where sensor contamination is likely to be an issue like wet or windy days outdoors. There are times when having to change a lens will cost you a shot.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I treat a high quality zoom like an infinitely variable prime lens. I prefer them as I do not like having to carry a bag full of lenses or needing to change lenses constantly to change composition, especially in run and gun work or in situations where sensor contamination is likely to be an issue like wet or windy days outdoors. There are times when having to change a lens will cost you a shot.

They have utility for some people for sure. I don't do "run and gun" or any kind of event work. I own a couple of cheap Canon zooms I use for "family photo" type stuff (my kid's graduation or school play, that kind of thing), but that's it.

 

[David W. Jones]

I'm guessing out of my 60 lenses I probably have 10 zooms. There are many shooters out there who think it's sacrilegious to zoom in or out on a shot, or to even use a zoom all together. Again it's a case of the right tool for the job. Sometimes a zoom is exactly what you need for a particular shot. For example... My Cooke 20-100 is great for sit down interviews. And the way it renders skin is fantastic. For those of you who feel using a zoom lens is beneath you, watch the shining or Band of Brothers, just two examples of the Cook 20-100 zoom being used effectively. It's kind of funny really, as I hear youngsters say that if you use a zoom your product won't look like film, and then they use unmotivated slider moves on every shot. Different strokes for different folks. As Razz16mm said, many times using a production zoom as a variable prime is a huge time saver. Especially in the era of shrinking crews and dwindling budgets.

All the Best!

Dave

 

[brunerww]

I had one from Sony shortly before release, it was a nightmare on every level. Awkward control placements, ridiculous menus that made no sense, awful build quality and Im not going to mention the pain in the arse file formats that Sony insist on using. FCP hates them Premier hated them, it was just a pain.

I was frustrated with the lack of reviews too - so I rented one from borrowlenses.com and shot a quick side-by-side comparison with my unhacked GH2. I had to shoot around my work schedule and family obligations (so please excuse the focus and audio challenges).

I liked the camera. Great manual sound without an external recorder. Good looking 1080 24p and 60p images. Better in low light than my unhacked GH2. Worse moire, though. No color/sharpness/contrast control. And the touchscreen/menus are for consumers, not pros. Bottom line, it is a DSLR in camcorder form factor with no overheating, unlimited clip length and a headphone jack. I'm saving up for one to complement my GH2.

Files edited just fine in Sony Vegas (shocker ;-)).

Here's the review. And here is a short writeup on the VG20 as a still camera. Hope you find them useful.

Best of the New Year,

Bill

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Zooms that are as fast as my primes are ridiculously expensive, for the utility I'd get out of them, just not worth it, but like I said every tool has a purpose. They are perfect or what some people do. Just not worth the price for my needs.

 

[Razz16mm]

I was frustrated with the lack of reviews too - so I rented one from borrowlenses.com and shot a quick side-by-side comparison with my unhacked GH2. I had to shoot around my work schedule and family obligations (so please excuse the focus and audio challenges).

I liked the camera. Great manual sound without an external recorder. Good looking 1080 24p and 60p images. Better in low light than my unhacked GH2. Worse moire, though. No color/sharpness/contrast control. And the touchscreen/menus are for consumers, not pros. Bottom line, it is a DSLR in camcorder form factor with no overheating, unlimited clip length and a headphone jack. I'm saving up for one to complement my GH2.

Files edited just fine in Sony Vegas (shocker ;-)).

Here's the review. And here is a short writeup on the VG20 as a still camera. Hope you find them useful.

Best of the New Year,

Bill

I'll check out your review this evening. The choice between a bit better image quality and creative flexibility with the GH2 vs superior on camera audio and production convenience of the VG20 as a camcorder is a difficult one to make. For my purposes I'm leaning more towards the GH2 due to the ETC/16mm mode. Configuring a GH2 rig to work as conveniently for video as the VG20 will cost more though. The camera body is just a starting point.

 

[Cassius]

XLRs on a DSLR? Tits on a boar

I heavily disagree. As a photographer I enjoy having my 7D available, and adding XLR, along with the necessary internal hardware, would ruin the form factor. At that point you're looking at an AF100- these concerns have already been addressed. XLR would be unnecessary and unsightly, nothing like those beautiful boar tits we all love so much.

 

[brunerww]

I'll check out your review this evening. The choice between a bit better image quality and creative flexibility with the GH2 vs superior on camera audio and production convenience of the VG20 as a camcorder is a difficult one to make. For my purposes I'm leaning more towards the GH2 due to the ETC/16mm mode. Configuring a GH2 rig to work as conveniently for video as the VG20 will cost more though. The camera body is just a starting point.

Sounds like you've read my review already ;-) You have identified the key dilemma.

Image quality and the flexibility provided by ETC are real GH2 advantages - but it was really nice to have (some of) the conveniences of a camcorder. But the entry price for the VG20 is a little steep.

I plan to get both - but if I could only have one, I agree with you that it would be the GH2.

Bill

 

[vision_filmz]

Primes are not only image quality above zooms as well as low light, but one very very important thins is maintaining focus while doing a rack. With zoom lenses no matter what you do they always tend to breath ever so slightly. Yes they have their advantages as having variable distances is excellent for run and gun work, but I prefer to use primes even though I know they are more time consuming.

 

[Kholi]

Primes are not only image quality above zooms as well as low light, but one very very important thins is maintaining focus while doing a rack. With zoom lenses no matter what you do they always tend to breath ever so slightly. Yes they have their advantages as having variable distances is excellent for run and gun work, but I prefer to use primes even though I know they are more time consuming.

Sorry, this isn't a universal thought.

The 14-24/2.8 Nikon DG lens, for instance. It's heads and tails above each prime in its matching lengths in every single area. The major reason primes have been so much better than Zooms over the years is cost to sales ratios. As in it would cost too much to produce a zoom of the same quality versus primes and quantities. That isn't the case anymore.

Also, it should be made clear that SLR and PL are not the same world: I can't give you a factual percentage but I can say that it's very high, the amount of productions that literally live on Angenieux Zooms through-out. But, it's Cinema glass, it was designed for motion picture, an application SLR lenses were not designed for.