Yeah, the market has pretty much taken a 180° turn the last few years since the 5D MKII came out. I would say that the 2/3" camera market is pretty much dead but for broadcast and even then, a lot of broadcast is being done with large sensor cameras these days. So probably 2/3" is mostly for news now. But when it comes to production, I haven't seen a 2/3" camera for ages. If you see a 2/3" camera is going to be like a Sony F23 which is still used in some productions such as Dexter. But that's pretty much a cinema camera with a 2/3" chip. So basically a digital S16 camera.
F55: Feature Tour Of The F55
- Thread starter nsoltz
- Start date
News, talk shows, sports, events, etc will keep 2/3" alive for a long time. There are many reasons, but one of the biggest ones is you can have a 100x lens that sees a bead of sweat on a pitchers forehead from 300 feet away. Then, the operator can zoom out to see the whole field all while keeping the shot in focus. The same shot on an S35 sensor would require something like the Hubble Space Telescope with a near miracle focus pulling genius.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
This folks is the difference between a BUSINESSMAN and a Toy Collector!
Thank you!
Pay close attention you Trust Fund Babies you
G
Guest
Guest
??? your definition of dead is odd.
I mean't f55 ( btw I hope I am not being called a toy collector ! To be honest I resent buying gear ( I've been a camera man owner operator for 20 + years ) it's a delicate balance between having what your clients want and keeping gear long enough to get a decent return on your investment. Back in the betacam days that could mean a camera purchase would see you replacing your camera after at least 5 years up to 7 years. Now thanks to forums and the constant gear lust we have people dumping f3's after a year which is crazy.
That may be true, but an F3 costs a tiny fraction if what an F900 cost when they were new. I've paid more for a fluid head than an F3 body. My F900's lost more value than the full price of an F3 every year.
If the rest of your package stays the same, lenses, matte box, other support, lights, sound gear. The cost of dumping an F3 for an F5 doesn't seem ridiculous. It's not a nessesity, but not crazy at all IMHO.
krost-audiovisual
Well-known member
Hey,
i think with lots of one man bands (as myself) you can be happy if your jobs pay your camera in the price bracket around 30.000.- within 2-3years. i don't think that you'll actually "earn" with your camera any more without any form of rental. it's all moving too fast. i was lucky so that i can say within 1.5years with my F3 it's payed off and will make money now... Still i struggle to go for an F55 because there must be a reason that Sony promoted them as "the future ahead of schedule"... and it's always a narrow call for balance between what the client wants(might want) and what you want(can afford).
i think too 2/3rds will be around for a long time. For Sports ( i do American football and obviously freeskiing coverage around here) it's just easier to work with.
maybe Panasonic decides on going for a EX1 like 4/3rds camera with a 14times zoom. would be a massive hit i think.
i think with lots of one man bands (as myself) you can be happy if your jobs pay your camera in the price bracket around 30.000.- within 2-3years. i don't think that you'll actually "earn" with your camera any more without any form of rental. it's all moving too fast. i was lucky so that i can say within 1.5years with my F3 it's payed off and will make money now... Still i struggle to go for an F55 because there must be a reason that Sony promoted them as "the future ahead of schedule"... and it's always a narrow call for balance between what the client wants(might want) and what you want(can afford).
i think too 2/3rds will be around for a long time. For Sports ( i do American football and obviously freeskiing coverage around here) it's just easier to work with.
maybe Panasonic decides on going for a EX1 like 4/3rds camera with a 14times zoom. would be a massive hit i think.
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
I marvel at some people's definition of roi. In business if you pay for a capitol investment within the tax year it was placed into service, that's effective break even. The return occurs after break even and taking all other expenses into consideration. The minute product replacement occurs, roi stops. In all honesty, I cannot recommend purchasing anything that doesn't return at least 1000%(is.10X) of cost within two years. Manufactures are making off like bandits IMHO.
krost-audiovisual
Well-known member
...10times the cost in 2 years?...
the last time hardware that i worked on managed that was at the sound-studio i worked in vienna for national and international commercials... that was a nubus protools 3 running on a 8000series mac that was...
sure, a 5dIII or a GH2 could do that, but for one man bands all other pro camera stuff can't i think...
ok well, thinking about it fcpx, imac still do...
the last time hardware that i worked on managed that was at the sound-studio i worked in vienna for national and international commercials... that was a nubus protools 3 running on a 8000series mac that was...
sure, a 5dIII or a GH2 could do that, but for one man bands all other pro camera stuff can't i think...
ok well, thinking about it fcpx, imac still do...
Nate Weaver
Veteran
I'm like "what?!". Who manages that? I've certainly never heard of it
That means for the amount that I am likely going to spend for a 55 package, I would have to book 18 days a month to clear 10x value in 24 months. And do that for 24 months straight. I wouldn't have to work ever again with that sort of bizarro scenario.
I don't even think that would be possible given 3 day weeks in the rental business, and ~20 business days in a month. The most that anybody could ever hope for is a long term project that books 3 day week rentals non-stop. That's 12 paid days a month.
Not to mention, clearing merely 2x value in 24 months is more than enough money to enrich my life and make the investment worthwhile.
I have spent millions on cameras for the purpose of rentals and made a good amount of money in the process. We never had anything like 10x in two years with maybe a few exceptions for highly specialized gear that cost a ton of money in client education to get a rental out of it. The topic is very complicated on how to actually make money at rentals. We counted on long term staples to keep profitable like lenses. The cameras come and go a lot faster than the support gear.
As for the manufacturers making out like bandits....no. The cost of design, engineering, marketing, and sales is mind boggling whether the camera sees any success or not. It's not much different than drilling for oil. You may make it big or may bust, but it always costs a TON of money to play. By the time Sony amortizes the losses for various problem cameras like the SRW-9000, plus the cost development for F5/F55 - they have to sell a whole bunch of cameras just to break even. Given the huge stakes - if RED, Sony, ARRI, etc develop something that allows them to make off like bandits - THEY DESERVE IT. If they risked $100millions getting technology we all "need" - By your calculations should profit at least $1billion. Are they making out like bandits? In my opinion, it's just good business.
Like others have said, 1000% in two years would rule out buying virtually anything.
Equipment profit = rental income - (depreciation + ownership costs, i.e. servicing)
I have bought equipment second hand and sold it for almost the same price years later without spending a penny on it. These types of investments are very profitable.
When I started as a freelance owner/operator camera bodies cost 3x todays money just to get something that was acceptable as broadcast quality. If you were lucky, you'd be able to get 5 or 6 years use out of it before needing to upgrade. Now comparable camera's are 1/3rd the price but we have to upgrade every 2 years!
If we assume that a 2 year old F3 is still worth something, then we're actually better off than the old days, because a six year old Digibeta was basically a door stop!
But let's be honest - if you're building a good kit, then the camera body isn't the most expensive item anyway. Investment in good lenses, lights and sound will pay back dividends.
(If anyone wants to buy a DVW-790WSP - (new price £32,000), do get in touch)
If we assume that a 2 year old F3 is still worth something, then we're actually better off than the old days, because a six year old Digibeta was basically a door stop!
But let's be honest - if you're building a good kit, then the camera body isn't the most expensive item anyway. Investment in good lenses, lights and sound will pay back dividends.
(If anyone wants to buy a DVW-790WSP - (new price £32,000), do get in touch)
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Your statements make the most sense to me and they seem to concur with my business understanding of ROI.
Manufacturers depend on customers with more money than business sense. what boggles the mind is that whereas they were content with truly slim margins in the past, Asia manufacture has put huge profitability in their corner.
i don't buy any of the stuff about manufacturers 'just getting by' these days.
RED Digital perhaps but not the mainstream makers.
Really. I see kids without the 'stripes' that have barely broken even on one camera, already contemplating the next upgrade and doing this over and over.
I admit that I don't have concrete numbers, but just reading the forums.... ya know
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Absolutely! My only caveat is lenses. With format wars raging, to maintain long shelf life in lenses, you'd have to go Cine in the high end. But with lighting, support and grip, absolutely!
Even solid audio investments are easier to ROI than camera bodies.
I just wish the motion picture industry would settle on one or two sensor sizes. that would make Lens ROI a lot better.
I say S35 becomes the core sensor size and we can then build lens families around that size. Full frame as a second choice and just can the rest.
The only thing i've ever bought that made 1000% ROI is a $399 set of Britek softboxes in 2007. Charged $100 for them and used them 40-50 times a year.
NOTHING else has even come close, except for the 5DmkII, which made about 5x its purchase price. The F3, a close third with 4x its purchase price, and my Epic which has paid itself off in 7 months. The Worst ever, was a panasonic 8.4" HD, BTLH900a that cost me $5,000 and was finally sold at a loss of $3,000. Got only one $150 rental on it once, thats it.
NOTHING else has even come close, except for the 5DmkII, which made about 5x its purchase price. The F3, a close third with 4x its purchase price, and my Epic which has paid itself off in 7 months. The Worst ever, was a panasonic 8.4" HD, BTLH900a that cost me $5,000 and was finally sold at a loss of $3,000. Got only one $150 rental on it once, thats it.
Just wondering, what were the problems with the SRW-9000/SRW-9000PL?
They were not very popular.
Ok, I thought it was some technical related issue. I think the reason they were not popular is mainly that the industry had moved away from broadcast 2/3" cameras for feature and episodic production, and although the 9000PL is a F35 in a broadcast body, I think the perception was still the same. This is the only thing that could explain why the heavier F35 was a hit, while the much lighter and compact 9000PL wasn't. Even though they are the same camera with the very same functions, just in a different form.
Last edited: