DSLRs taking over in the nearest future?

[Kit Hannah]

Where IS Sony on this one?

And if Sony and JVC release VDSLRs, they'll be competing with their video lineup just like Canon and Panasonic.

To me, from a business sense, better to be competing against yourself than someone else!


I think Canon will come out good here since they already primarily dominate the still world. Sony would do well because they have a name as does Panasonic. Seems like the GH1 is doing okay.

Nikon does have a name, but they are know for ONLY still cameras for the most part. The D90 was milidly successful but still left things to be desired. Canon has such a huge presence in the Video and Still world. It will be interesting times the next few years.

 

[groveChuck]

To me, from a business sense, better to be competing against yourself than someone else!

While that could be true, so could the opposite (we need a business expert to sort this one out!)

I would lean towards the view that if you're competing against yourself, you're using resources against yourself, cannibalizing sales.

One step forward, one step back.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were...

No question though, it's going to be a VERY interesting next few years, and I think it's about convergence.

 

[Matt Grunau]

I'm going to go against many posts here and say unless video can catch, and quickly, the quality and range of dslrs, I can absolutely see them being the next wave for serious filmmakers.

Yes I know many folks will scoff and point out the advantages a video camera has, and I at the same time will point out inexpensive workarounds to make the DSLR as functional as video, and point out the significantly higher image quality. On board XLR jacks are handy, but certainly not necessary. I dont know of many cameras that can record 24 bit 96K like the $300 Zoom H4. Syncing audio in post is something done for ages, and would personaly much rather get the massive increase in quality that comes with a DSLR's picture and spend a little bit for an external recorder.

I do a hell of a lot of post work, as is becoming more and more the norm, and I have worked with footage from both. There is no comparison.

DSLRs are taking better and better video, and the same can not be said about video cameras taking stills. While this may seem a silly thing at first, it shows the capability of the one doing the others job. And in that SLR wins. Keep that tendency up, and there will indeed be only one camera type to do all, but it will not be from the evolution of the video cam.

 

[Kit Hannah]

While that could be true, so could the opposite (we need a business expert to sort this one out!)

I would lean towards the view that if you're competing against yourself, you're using resources against yourself, cannibalizing sales.

One step forward, one step back.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were...

No question though, it's going to be a VERY interesting next few years, and I think it's about convergence.

Groove, most businesses would be happy to be making money rather than their competition, no matter what product they're selling. They're competing against themselves in a sense having 2 different cameras. Each camera serves a different purpose for a different level of user, but sometimes those will blend and overlap big time.

And all they have to do is shift resources. Better to be making money with a new product than not at all IMHO.

 

[Kit Hannah]

I'm going to go against many posts here and say unless video can catch, and quickly, the quality and range of dslrs, I can absolutely see them being the next wave for serious filmmakers.

Yes I know many folks will scoff and point out the advantages a video camera has, and I at the same time will point out inexpensive workarounds to make the DSLR as functional as video, and point out the significantly higher image quality. On board XLR jacks are handy, but certainly not necessary. I dont know of many cameras that can record 24 bit 96K like the $300 Zoom H4. Syncing audio in post is something done for ages, and would personaly much rather get the massive increase in quality that comes with a DSLR's picture and spend a little bit for an external recorder.

I do a hell of a lot of post work, as is becoming more and more the norm, and I have worked with footage from both. There is no comparison.

DSLRs are taking better and better video, and the same can not be said about video cameras taking stills. While this may seem a silly thing at first, it shows the capability of the one doing the others job. And in that SLR wins. Keep that tendency up, and there will indeed be only one camera type to do all, but it will not be from the evolution of the video cam.

I don't think you are going against most people's posts (or at least not mine), but that's exactly what I'm saying and I believe many people would agree. That's obviously been proven by the sheer number of people jumping ship to these sort of cameras - very quickly might I add. It's full steam ahead here and I believe the manufacturers are scrambling, going WTF? This is insane! Low cost, dual purpose, better image quality. A few tweaks need to be done, but they're getting close.

If I were a manufacturer, I would be getting on board if I wasn't already with a big time product. I can almost guarantee you that by NAB 2010, you'll start seeing a lot of the features people are requesting in SLR bodies. ie. Multiple frame rates, better audio inputs and higher quality monitoring. I think people would be happy for the time being if some of those "small" things were satisfied.