DSLR decision for "creative" work

[Barry_Green]

For those unaware, Barry and I have a great deal of mutual respect for each other.

Absolutely. Perrone totally knows his stuff, and I rather enjoy seeing how we can look at the same thing from totally opposite sides of the spectrum, and still be completely serious and yet totally understand where the other side is coming from. I think I used to drive him crazier, but I think he's grown to understand me better now.

So Barry, honest question. Why did Panasonic go with micro 4/3 when they could have gone for something more standard like S35? Especially since they were starting ground up as you say?

Well, there's only so far down on the ground they could start. The GH1/m43 sensor was their starting point. I don't know for sure that it will be the actual GH1 sensor (I know Jan's been quoted as saying that, but as far as I know that's not an actual press release). Could be that chip, might be a re-engineered "video" version of it, might be some advanced "GH2" sensor, we don't really know and we'll find out in a little under five months.

But the point is, their factory has the capability to make m43 chips and there are m43 lenses. And the Broadcast side is way smaller than the consumer side, so while Broadcast could never sell enough to get the benefits of mass economies of scale, the consumer side certainly could. So by making it compatible with m4/3, they leverage off the millions and millions of m43 cameras out there, and inherit a range of lenses, while making it adaptable to any camera lens.

Frankly, the biggest obstacle towards us getting the "dream" camera -- a professional video camera with all the advantages of the SLR -- has been the lenses. Up until a year ago, there were NO lenses that were appropriate for a video camera with a large sensor. The major lens manufacturers (Fujinon, Canon, and Angenieux) stopped their video lenses at 2/3". Angenieux makes film lenses, but ENG-style or video-appropriate autofocusing lenses -- there aren't any, at ANY affordable price, for larger chips. So when Panasonic Consumer decided to invest the R&D to create the GH1's kit lens, I think that's the turning point. The GH1's lens, if you've used it, is really quite remarkable. 14-140, with excellent CAC, completely silent video-style autofocus, OIS built in, and it has communication with the camera body's electronics to overcome pincushion and barrel distortion so you get a rectilinear 14mm wide. Only real knock against it is that it's slow, at max f/4. Other than that, it's pretty darn good, quite video-appropriate, and most importantly, it's the right price.

But when you're looking at making a $6,000 camera, what lens do you put on it? A Nikon? Some of us might find that okay, sure, but pro video guys are gonna cringe at using a breathing tiny-focus-range stills lens. And DSLR zoom lenses are horrible. What are you gonna do, use a one-ring push-pull zoom for video?!?! What do you do for the video guys?

The GH1's kit lens (and a couple of their others, I think the 20mm pancake) do the job that they needed done, at the price point they needed it to hit. That lens sells for like $850 MSRP. It's the right weight, the right size, the right focal length, and the right features, to make the PACKAGE make sense.

If they went with S35... what lens do you put on it? An S35 lens? Where are you going to get that? I had a Cooke 20-100 on my Red One, it was about six hundred pounds and three feet long (okay, slight exaggeration, but only SLIGHT). Seriously, what video-appropriate lens is there? Even if you go with something like a Zeiss LWZ, you're looking at a comparatively massive lens that costs, what, $40,000?

That's why I think there's little chance of Canon coming out with a large-chip video camera. There's no video-appropriate lenses for APS-C. None. There's no mass market consumer base to draw from (yet). Maybe they'll make one (they are Canon, after all) but so far... they haven't.

So yes, while folks could (and many will) use SLR lenses with an AF100 (including me, I have a fairly complete Zeiss ZF set waiting for an AF100 to go on), that's not appropriate for the (relatively) mass market of professional video shooters. For the video professionals, wedding shooters, event shooters, ENG guys, anybody else who wanted to use this camera, there had to be a video-appropriate lens. And they said they're making it for "digital cinema and professional video", so it had to serve both purposes.

The GH1's 14-140 is as video-like as you're gonna get; only thing it's missing is a power zoom, but other than that, it acts and feels and focuses and stabilizes like a video camera lens.

And that lens covers m4/3.

So, added all together, taken in context as a complete package, the logical decision is: the camera will be m4/3.

Would it be nice to get that extra 3mm for 35mm? Sure. But again, the question is: what lens would you use with it? How does the total package make sense?

I wasn't in on the planning meetings, so this is me with my (limited) knowledge of the manufacturing business, and my knowledge of the general consumer/prosumer consumer landscape, reconstructing their thought processes, but it all makes sense so I don't think I'm too far off.

 

[Barry_Green]

(oh, and ... while they haven't mentioned anything about this, how cool would it be if the AF100 ends up being compatible with THIS?)

 

[PerroneFord]

Your last two comments bring something to light that I think deserves mention. And you struck it perfect.

When Barry says "Video" or "Video Camera" he means something like the HPX, EX1, NEX, etc. These are cameras with the features he keeps mentioning as important like autofocus, high range focal length zooms, etc. For those coming from a "video camera" background, these features are important. And in that vein, cameras like the GH1 are familiar and welcome.

And this is where the departure happens for me with the AF100. And to a large degree with the Canon DSLRs. When Panasonic says the the AF100 is a digital cinema camera, they throw in a whole ball of wax that doesn't belong. Because that is NOT what the camera is. The camera is a large sensor video camera. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So how does that differ from a "digital cinema camera"?

Well lets examine what's out there that qualifies as a digital cinema camera

RED One/RED Epic
Grass Valley Viper
Silicon Graphics SI2K
ARRI Alexa
ARRI D21
Sony F35
Panavision Genesis

There could be an argument for the Phantoms, but I think this list comprises all the major players. The Aaton Delta would qualify but I don't know if it's shipped yet. And the Dalsa is gone.

What do all these have in common?

They are all large sensor. At least S35.
None have any provision or need for autofocus
Most require off-board recording
All can output RAW
The RED might meter internally, but I am not sure if any of the others do.


So when Barry makes the following comment: "That's why I think there's little chance of Canon coming out with a large-chip video camera. There's no video-appropriate lenses for APS-C. None.", I think it totally misses the mark. Sure there are lenses for APS-C cameras. We're using them every day. And we are using them for video. The difference is that there are not ENG-Style video lenses, and I think it's IMPERATIVE that we draw that distinction.

Those of us who are shooting the DSLRs in what could be characterized as a Hollywood, or narrative style, have no need or interest in autofocus. It's bothersome, expensive, and unwarranted. We don't care that it's heavy. We do care VERY much if it's slow. None of us want a F4 lens even if it is silent, autofocus, and could make toast and coffee in the mornings.


So I think the distinction needs to be draw at what is "Video" and what is "Digital Cinema". The Canon's fill the low-budget digital Cinema niche quite well save for the codec. The AF100 and GH1 are designed to a different audience. They are designed to Panasonic's traditional market. The "Video camera" market. Panasonic does not yet have a professional video camera with anything larger than a 2/3" sensor. And until that changes, I think most will never regard them as a digital cinema company.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, you missed one other common element in your digicine list -- all of those units cost Way, WAY more than the AF100 will (and the SI2K is a little sensor, it's 2/3").

All the units you listed, other than the Red, will sell maybe 10 to a hundred copies in their existence. The AF100 is aimed at the broad market and needs to hit that broad market's economies of scale to make its price point valid. Really, what would be the point of them introducing yet another $40,000 or $50,000 camera on the market? By your own list there's already at least seven high-buck digicine cameras on the market -- who really, really needs another?

But there's nothing made for the purpose at the $6,000-or-below price point.

You can argue that the Canons fill the nano-budget digi-cine niche, but -- I don't think they really do. I mean, for guys like you and me who used to shoot on a Bolex, yes, we can adapt to them. But who shoots on a Bolex anymore? Who WANTS to shoot on a Bolex anymore? Why has everyone moved on? Because we want and need all the creature comforts that the last 40 years have given us. Sync sound. Timecode. Zebras. ND filters, for cryin' out loud. Variable frame rates. OIS. Autofocus when you want it -- pro stills shooters have adopted it, and sometimes you need it.

Shooting with a DSLR is a nostalgic visit to the ancient past, where we had to work five times harder to get anything done. It's fun, for a little while. Then it becomes a distraction, and finally a pain in the bleep. I indulged for a while, but I got over it pretty quickly, and cannot wait for a product to come out that gives me all of the goodness, all of the richness, all of the great things a DSLR does... with none of the hassle, none of the drawbacks, none of the niggling complaints, and none of the major shortcomings. All of the good, none of the bad. That's what I'm looking forward to. That's what the AF100 promises.

 

[PerroneFord]

Well, you missed one other common element in your digicine list -- all of those units cost Way, WAY more than the AF100 will (and the SI2K is a little sensor, it's 2/3").

Sure they cost more. I don't see that as a problem. That's why productions RENT cameras and don't buy them when it's time to make a movie. BTW, the Viper is also 2/3" but both it and the SI2K shoot RAW or a form of it, which is why I've included them both.

All the units you listed, other than the Red, will sell maybe 10 to a hundred copies in their existence. The AF100 is aimed at the broad market and needs to hit that broad market's economies of scale to make its price point valid. Really, what would be the point of them introducing yet another $40,000 or $50,000 camera on the market? By your own list there's already at least seven high-buck digicine cameras on the market -- who really, really needs another?

I have no issue whatsoever with where the AF100 is targeted. And I think it's an excellent target to go for. So did RED. The "Scarlet" market is the big sensor, smallish camera with a common glass mount (EOS, Nikon F, m43) so that people playing with our kind of money can get a system up and running. I think that's wonderful. But that doesn't make it a digital cinema camera. It just makes it a video camera with a big sensor. What's the point of doing yet another high buck DigiCine camera? If you've got nothing new to offer, then nothing. But every one of those Digicine cameras brought something new to the game. Whether it was the Viper giving REAL RAW output out of a 2/3" sensor, or the D21 giving film like feel, or the RED giving 4K images, or the SI2K giving remote head capability (used to great effect on Slumdog), or the Genesis pushing CCD technology with it's striped sensor. They all were built as showcases for what each company knew about recording the moving image. If panasonic feels in knows something these folks don't, then they should be in that market. If they've got nothing new to offer, then they need to just stay in the market's they are in now.

But there's nothing made for the purpose at the $6,000-or-below price point.

Correct. And I don't see that changing for quite some time.

You can argue that the Canons fill the nano-budget digi-cine niche, but -- I don't think they really do. I mean, for guys like you and me who used to shoot on a Bolex, yes, we can adapt to them. But who shoots on a Bolex anymore? Who WANTS to shoot on a Bolex anymore? Why has everyone moved on? Because we want and need all the creature comforts that the last 40 years have given us. Sync sound. Timecode. Zebras. ND filters, for cryin' out loud. Variable frame rates. OIS. Autofocus when you want it -- pro stills shooters have adopted it, and sometimes you need it.

It doesn't have to be guys like you and me. The craft of narrative filmmaking is well understood and well defined. Techniques from the past 100 years are handed down to film students every year all over the world. But I'll tell you the truth, and maybe it's just because I'm getting older now, but I've done a film on the EX1, and 2 on the 5D. I don't think I've had my Ex1 lens in autofocus mode for more than half an hour in the nearly 2 years Ive owned it. I have used the auto-iris to avoid needing three hands but that was only on stuff I couldn't light. I don't use timecode when I shoot, I am comfortable with using on-lens ND or a mattebox, and I shoot everything sync sound because until these cameras come with nice pre-amps and 24bit recording, shooting sync sound is cleaner and better. Variable frame rates have been around since the 19-teens. Certainly nothing new there.

Shooting with a DSLR is a nostalgic visit to the ancient past, where we had to work five times harder to get anything done. It's fun, for a little while. Then it becomes a distraction, and finally a pain in the bleep. I indulged for a while, but I got over it pretty quickly, and cannot wait for a product to come out that gives me all of the goodness, all of the richness, all of the great things a DSLR does... with none of the hassle, none of the drawbacks, none of the niggling complaints, and none of the major shortcomings. All of the good, none of the bad. That's what I'm looking forward to. That's what the AF100 promises.

I guess I like the nostalgia. A freedom from the tether of modern technology and modern movie making. I'd just as soon put gaffer tape over the LCD and shoot that way. I don't find it any harder to shoot with the 5D/7D than with the EX1. But that's probably because I shoot the EX1 like I shoot the DSLR cams. At least for narrative work. Now if I am doing run-and-gun, on the fly, man on the move and solo shooter, then yes, videocamera is the weapon of choice. This is apparently what Panasonic's "take" on movie making is, and what they view a digital cinema camera to be. This is diametrically opposed to what the digital cinema industry things a digital cinema camera is.

Maybe Panasonic will change the mind of the industry. But I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, continuing to talk about the Red, Viper, Alexa, etc is totally unrelated to what Panasonic is addressing, so for a moment, forget all that and let's start back over:

Take the DSLR, fix every shortcoming, and now you have an AF100. Are you saying you don't see any appeal to that?

What if Canon took their DSLR and fixed everything "missing" in it -- they gave it a much better codec, manual audio control, professional audio connectors, line/mic/phantom, all that. They gave it a live histogram and, even better, a live waveform monitor, and zebras. They gave it not only a functional video output, but TWO functional, "real" video outputs -- HDMI *and* HD-SDI. What if they got rid of all the moire, all the rainbow, all the aliasing... what if they added a PL mount option? What if they got rid of the recording time limits, and got rid of the overheating... what if they made the viewfinder actually work during video recording, and they made the LCD panel articulating and rotatable?

Are you saying you wouldn't welcome any of those changes, and that you'd still prefer to shoot on a bog-standard DSLR?

Because if that's what you're saying, we can't ever see eye to eye.

And if you WOULD welcome those changes, I can't understand why you're not chompin' at the bit for the AF100, because that's exactly what it is. Every shortcoming fixed and repaired, made for a professional to be able to do anything and everything they want, without having to wrangle or frankenstein or wrestle against the camera, not having to do double-system sound, etc. etc. etc.

Or, put another way -- what if you had your EX1, and you could get DSLR-style shallow DOF out of it? Wouldn't that be nice? That's what the AF100 is intended to be -- an EX1 with shallow DOF. It's what I think will be the ideal blend between those two.

No, it's not an $80,000 Alexa. No, it's not a $50,000 Epic. Nor is it meant to be, so that discussion isn't really relevant.

What it IS, is all the best of the EX1 and all the best of the 7D, combined in one unit.

To me, that's **** exciting. It sounds like it's the holy grail that shooters have been clamoring for, for YEARS.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Every shortcoming fixed and repaired, made for a professional to be able to do anything and everything they want, without having to wrangle or frankenstein or wrestle against the camera, not having to do double-system sound, etc. etc. etc.

One thing I think we can say for certain is we don't know if they fixed every shortcoming with regards to the CMOS sensor. I think it's an unknown. Both the 7D and GH1 have excessive rolling shutter. They both fail in this department. They both have excessing aliasing to me, and the 7D (or all of Canon really) has MUCH WORSE moire than the GH1.

While I agree with you that headaches can be removed from using the AF100, it also doesn't fix some of the hugest problems I deal with. Sure, my frankenstein setup took a bit to conceive, but it works well now and I am VERY fast with it. For me the AF100 adds on board recording to save time in post (as I already have the equipment and am VERY efficient with it) and it removes the crappy codecs we are dealing with, but at a $4500 price for me right now more than what I have. If I added up all the extras I bought that the AF100 would replace, it wouldn't even be close.

That's the question people are going to be asking themselves. IF the sensor is the same as the GH1 and it has aliasing and moire just as bad, is it worth it to move to that OR wait for the next generation. It's a question I will be asking myself for sure.

For me, as I said, I am invested in lots of Canon glass. If Panasonic makes a converter that is electronic from my EOS lenses, I will certainly be more interested. But if not, it grows less appealing.

And for all the people I work with who do cinema style productions, they could care less about autofocus. HOWEVER, all the people I know who do events and stuff, I can totally agree with you, but then, that's a video camera and not a cinema camera. (Which I can certainly understand wanting to hit both markets).

To me, unfortunately only on paper really, the S35 from RED hits EVERY target I have right now in wanting something in a camera. To me, I think that's the writing on the wall. And not so much RAW, as for me, I could live with something less, but the quality of results they get from the Epic and MX sensor, especially when downsized into a 1080p stream is WAY better than anything else I have seen, including the Alexa results which suffer from Moire.

It's a step, and I am VERY GLAD that Panasonic is embracing these new desires, but it doesn't get me excited as you because my biggest beef is the sensor regardless of the compression. Let's just hope they worked on that more!!! They need to get away from pixel binning and start reading the whole sensor. Imagine how amazing that would look from ANY of the DSLRs downsampled from the full resolution.

 

[PerroneFord]

Well, continuing to talk about the Red, Viper, Alexa, etc is totally unrelated to what Panasonic is addressing, so for a moment, forget all that and let's start back over:

Take the DSLR, fix every shortcoming, and now you have an AF100. Are you saying you don't see any appeal to that?

What if Canon took their DSLR and fixed everything "missing" in it -- they gave it a much better codec, manual audio control, professional audio connectors, line/mic/phantom, all that. They gave it a live histogram and, even better, a live waveform monitor, and zebras. They gave it not only a functional video output, but TWO functional, "real" video outputs -- HDMI *and* HD-SDI. What if they got rid of all the moire, all the rainbow, all the aliasing... what if they added a PL mount option? What if they got rid of the recording time limits, and got rid of the overheating... what if they made the viewfinder actually work during video recording, and they made the LCD panel articulating and rotatable?

Are you saying you wouldn't welcome any of those changes, and that you'd still prefer to shoot on a bog-standard DSLR?

For *my* purposes, the 7D/550D need the following to be perfect for what I want:

1. RAW recording either in camera or external
2. No skew/moire
3. HDMI output with 1:85 and 2:35 mask overlay
4. 100 Mbps Jpeg2k or equivalent recording in-camera.
5. No overheating (though I've not had this problem at all even here in Florida)


If they could fix that, the camera would be 100% ideal for me AT THIS PRICE. In fact, I don't know that I'd keep the EX1 at that point.

Because if that's what you're saying, we can't ever see eye to eye.

When have we ever seen eye to eye on video? Barry, you've been seduced by the dark side (broadcast). I've stayed the path of film. Come back into the fold man... We'd love to have you back.

And if you WOULD welcome those changes, I can't understand why you're not chompin' at the bit for the AF100, because that's exactly what it is. Every shortcoming fixed and repaired, made for a professional to be able to do anything and everything they want, without having to wrangle or frankenstein or wrestle against the camera, not having to do double-system sound, etc. etc. etc.

Well now you know why I'm not chomping at the bit. The AF100 gives me 1 of my 5 desired elements, at nearly eight times the cost of my T2i. That's not good economics for me.

Or, put another way -- what if you had your EX1, and you could get DSLR-style shallow DOF out of it? Wouldn't that be nice? That's what the AF100 is intended to be -- an EX1 with shallow DOF. It's what I think will be the ideal blend between those two.

Putting a big sensor in the EX1 would be very nice. But that doesn't make it a digital cinema camera. And I already own a video camera. I would not be willing to pay another $6k to buy a second one with a big sensor. The appeal would be there for the intended market perhaps.. the DSLR shooter who wants a video camera with shallow DOF. But the DSLR shooter who really wants a digital cinema camera probably isn't going to budge.

No, it's not an $80,000 Alexa. No, it's not a $50,000 Epic. Nor is it meant to be, so that discussion isn't really relevant.

True. The only reason that spawned was the far fetched notion that this AF100 was a digital cinema camera.

What it IS, is all the best of the EX1 and all the best of the 7D, combined in one unit.

What you define as "best" and what I define as best, are not congruent. To me, the best thing about the 7D is that I can put it in my pocket. The second best thing, is that I can use it in light where the EX1 fails. The third best thing is that it's cinematic.

To me, that's **** exciting. It sounds like it's the holy grail that shooters have been clamoring for, for YEARS.

What shooters? That is the crux of the matter. If the Scarlet was a 1080p camera I don't think it would garner 1/10 of the response. And if it couldn't do RAW, it would lose another half. We're not talking about Epics or Alexa's here. We are talking about a market the AF100 is going to have to compete against. The EX1, HPX170, Sony whatever, Nikon whatever, Canon whatever, market.

I think the AF100 will sell to a lot of people who've been buying the EX1's the HPX170s, and the XF305s to make movies. It will probably sell to those who are buying HMC150s, NX5s and similar cameras looking to move up to something more cinematic. But I can't forsee this camera taking a single sale away from someone who really wants a Scarlet.

 

[Barry_Green]

Scarlet, to me, doesn't even merit discussion today because it doesn't exist, and the only Scarlet that may exist any time soon is a 2/3" version, which is pretty much the exact opposite direction the market seems to want to move in. People adopted DSLRs not because they shot raw, not because they were 3K (they're barely better than 720p), they moved to the DSLR because of the large sensor and shallow DOF. Scarlet 2/3 represents a reversal of that trend, and I don't know if folks will go for that.

If we're talking about an S35 Scarlet, that's a different discussion, and one we can take up in 2012 when there's a chance that there might actually BE an S35 Scarlet. I frankly believe that the longer it takes, the less likely they will be to make it. It's the one I want, but I think it may be sacrificed in the name of "well, we've go the 2/3" Scarlet, and if you want S35, just buy an Epic."

Well, we'll see how this plays out. For me, the DSLR is more of a kludge, and the AF100 represents pretty much the ideal refinement of the idea, minus ALL the kludge. Gives me exactly what I want, while removing all the goofy workarounds and pain. The DSLR is about the furthest away from an "A" camera that I can imagine, although it certainly can have its place as a "B" or "C" camera, and I will probably always hold onto my GH1 for that exact purpose. But I cannot WAIT to retire it to its rightful place, and get back to shooting "the way shooting was meant to be done."

(and as far as film goes, I just bought another camera, this time a CP GSMO off ebay, it's being looked at by Visual Products right now to get it into shape, so -- I never left the "film" fold... I just got tired of dinking around with bogus workarounds. Over the past 30 years I've spent a lot of time trying to use products for purposes other than what they were designed, like trying to make Super8 look like 16mm, trying to use a Beaulieu R16 for sound work, and on and on... I'm done with that. I'd rather work on a great story, than work on trying to shoehorn a product into doing things it's not really designed to do. Someone wants to shoot a dialogue-filled movie on a Krasnogorsk K-3, I tell them STOP. Sell it and buy a CP16 or even an Auricon, but don't try to do sound on a K-3. To me, that's what shooting moving images on a DSLR has become.)

And if you're putting a 7D in your pocket, what kind of pants are you wearing? Them's gotta be some DANG big pockets!

 

[Barry_Green]

Both the 7D and GH1 have excessive rolling shutter.

I think all CMOS cameras do. I don't expect any improvement in this department; this is just one of those things you've got to choke down.

They both have excessing aliasing to me, and the 7D (or all of Canon really) has MUCH WORSE moire than the GH1... IF the sensor is the same as the GH1 and it has aliasing and moire just as bad, is it worth it to move to that OR wait for the next generation.

They've said that this specifically will be addressed and fixed.

If I added up all the extras I bought that the AF100 would replace, it wouldn't even be close.

When I was 16, I bought a Honda Hawk CB400T motorcycle. Twin-cylinder, 400cc. And then I immediately set about trying to make it faster, and faster, and faster. I replaced the exhaust pipe, I tried to get a big-bore kit for it, I tried to make my own ram-air system, I rejetted the carburetors, I got a high-flow air filter, everything.

Net result is that I had a botched-together kludge that lost half its value the moment I started tinkering with it. And everybody (EVERYBODY) told me, at the time... "If you want a faster bike, why not just buy the one with the bigger engine?" Well, at the time, that wasn't what it was about. It was about the challenge, it was about doing what hadn't been done, blah blah blah.

Today, I'd just buy the right bike for the job.

For me, as I said, I am invested in lots of Canon glass. If Panasonic makes a converter that is electronic from my EOS lenses, I will certainly be more interested. But if not, it grows less appealing.

I don't know if Panasonic will or not. But I do expect that maybe Birger will. Same guys who make it for the Red already, could certainly make something for m4/3.

To me, unfortunately only on paper really, the S35 from RED hits EVERY target I have right now in wanting something in a camera.

Oh, I agree! Me too!* But I think where we're at right now is:
"The S35 Scarlet is the camera of the future. And always will be." :nads:

*but it'd be even better if it was global shutter.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Haha, well for me the AF100 is not here yet either, but has been promised, and of course I believe Panasonic will deliver in a timeline more predictable BY FAR then Red.

That said, like many of your sentiments towards different cameras, I'll believe it when I see it. And I certainly hope to see it! That's how I feel with the AF100 and their CMOS. Pertaining to rolling shutter, I know it's here to stay, for now, since rolling shutter is NOT a CMOS inherit limitation but a design decision, but they can make it faster, A LOT faster. The difference between the 7D and the D90 is night and day. The difference between my HV30 and the 7D is night and day. I'd really like my next CMOS based camera to at least perform as well as the HV30 rolling shutter wise.

We'll just have to wait and see! Cause if they do pull off a significant increase on that front, it will certainly attract people!

I also think people coming from cameras like the HVX200 are going to be certainly interested in the AF100. They can shoot it like a video camera till they get comfortable with the new options.