Has the DSLR Movement killed the Prosumer camera market?

N

Nik Manning

Well-known member
It almost seems ridiculous now to pay $5k for a prosumer video camera.
The progression of the DSLR technology seems to be evolving rapidly. This makes me wonder what can prosumer cameras offer that could possibly make me want to pay Triple the amount for one.

The only thing I can see prosumer cameras doing is becoming more like DSLR's in the future. For most cinematic productions the DSLR's will provide a more pleasing image.

And for news gathering it would seem that DSLR's are more portable and cheaper which will make them more popular.

And I understand things like zebra strips, XLR inputs, alot of the prosumer extras are missed but it seems that they will be coming in the near future. In less than a year a new Canon 5D will be on the market with all of the features of the 7D and probaby more. And currently you can add things like zebra strips and audio monitoring with some fairly simple hacks to the 5D.

If someone comes out with a prosumer camera that has 4:2:2 codec, 2/3 inch chips, 1080p60, and shoots to Compact Flash is that worth buying for $6000? I know that the specs sound good but wouldn't these updates or better be coming from DSLR makers in the next 2 years?

Only competition would be something excessive like a Scarlet camera.That shoots super slow mo and 3K frames. But even that camera will be less than $5,000.

I just don't see myself investing in any prosumer camera for over $5,000 anymore. Am I alone on this?
 
Well I certainly think it will severely dent the lens adapter camcorder market. I posted this in another thread too.
Basically it's killed a lot of the lens adapter+prosumer camcorder market. The 7D has dented that in a big way... at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the hassles that come with it. Obviously the purchase is dependent on the type of production you are doing... but for me The 7D setup is $9,000 less than HVX-Letus setup. I'm glad I can still use all my other gear with the 7D, base plate, rails, matte box, Zeiss lenses etc and I am sooo far in front in terms of $$$ outlaid. And to be honest, the image out of the 7D kills the letus/HVX for what I want it for.
 
Interestingly enough, the only real benefit of the DSLR cameras in terms of video is the sensor size and the according attributes - shallower DOF, better low light performance, etc. In just about every other realm a proper video camera would be better: acquisition, downscaling, compression, audio, storage, battery, usability, monitoring, and physical format.

The sensor is simply made for photography - the electronic shutter is still very slow and introduces rolling shutter artifacts, such as skew and partially exposed frames.

While it does shoot 1080p, the 7D has no better resolution than many other video cameras, at least from the charts and reports I've seen. Indeed, it is worse than many.

The 7D has an absolutely pitiful method of downscaling the image from the native sensor size to 1080p leading to chroma and luma aliasing.

The long GoP compression scheme implemented in the 7D, likely due to lack of proper processing capability, leaves much to be desired. The output is only 4:2:0.

The onboard microphone is essentially unusable for any serious work, and the AGC requires the use of an external recorder.

The 4GB filesize limitation limits the user to approximately 12minute takes. The camera accepts only 1 card at a time - no hot swapping. Further, Canon seems unsure as to how and why UDMA may offer better performance - or do they? Canon certainly can't explain it.

The batteries are definitely nowhere close to an industry standard and have no truly reliable third party suppliers. The battery life is relatively good, however, there is no option to hotswap.

Many individuals have reported overheating issues - serious overheating issues that permit the camera from being used in what many would consider rather moderate climates (85F) without using either extremely short takes or some sort of cooling solution. Further, there are no electronic assistance aids - no histograms, no accurate exposure meter, no false color, no zebras, and no edge recognition.

The cameras LCD is fine. But alone it is not really suited to video. It doesn't swivel, and it is prone to glare and being washed out. The viewfinder doesn't function at all in video mode.

The physical format of the camera is also circumspect - hand holding it introduces a great deal of image instability.

This is not to say that some of these problems cannot be fixed. However, every fix comes at additional cost. A loupe costs at least $100. A rig (which may turn out to only be useful for DSLRS) at least $300 (really $500, for something really solid from what I've heard...). An external monitor would run about the same, more for monitoring assistance features. Audio requires an expenditure of at least $300. Battery addition costs about $150, extra batteries about $70. In addition, will we always be satisfied with the stock lens? Or will we want to spend $2000 on fast primes. Or $6000 on Canon L glass? We must consider the real cost of owning this camera.

And one can throw as much money as they want at the camera, but the problems related to image quality and compression will remain. They are simply part and parcel of the package.

Once companies begin to offer large-chip CMOS cameras which address these flaws and incorporate typical professional features, the prices will reflect that and the cameras will be worth $5000 or more. In my opinion, it would be foolish to expect even half of these fixes in a camera that doesn't cost any more than $3000, body only.

All of that said, the 7D will be my first camera. It is an interesting tool, with myriad problems and solutions, all of which must be considered. In the end, with the right skills and talent, it can produce nice images. I just hope I have the talent and can develop the skill.

I would actually be curious to see some quarterly sales figures from the adapter folks - I wonder how hard this is really hitting them.
 
Last edited:
Michael Olsen said:
The 4GB filesize limitation limits the user to approximately 12minute takes. The camera accepts only 1 card at a time - no hot swapping. Further, Canon seems unsure as to how and why UDMA may offer better performance - or do they? Canon certainly can't explain it.
Click to expand...
Not really a problem. when shooting in film nobody would shoot more than 12 mins...

only main problem i see is the aliasing & the codec (which isnt bad at all)

The rest would be subjective.

objectively speaking, The prosumer would take a hit from the emergence of HDSLRs. How big , time will tell.

but IMO, video cameras are still there for a reason.
 
dcloud said:
Not really a problem. when shooting in film nobody would shoot more than 12 mins...

only main problem i see is the aliasing & the codec (which isnt bad at all)

The rest would be subjective.

objectively speaking, The prosumer would take a hit from the emergence of HDSLRs. How big , time will tell.

but IMO, video cameras are still there for a reason.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the limitation not being too serious for cinema takes. Documentary and wildlife folks, however, seem somewhat troubled by it.

And that's very true - a lot of it is subjective. Many people might not care about chroma aliasing and may be just fine dealing with the heat, etc. I've made my peace with it all, but the problems are definitely still there.
 
If you look at the numbers of viewers here on dvxuser, the 35mm adapter forum has really gone down in viewership since a year ago, so sales must correspondingly be dwindling. I feel bad for them, and hope they have not over leveraged themselves to the point of going out of business.

One more point I'd like to mention - is that for the average user, a small 1/3" chipped video camera is a blessing not a disadvantage. I often let friends borrow my dvx100 to tape dance/theater performances, and I can't imagine they would be able to follow a performer in medium shot with a telephoto lens on a 7D that well without being out of focus half the time.

As well, the lenses on these small chippers tend to be big range zooms, at fast F1.4/F1.5 apertures - something you don't get on the VDSLRs without resorting to primes.



Michael Olsen said:
I would actually be curious to see some quarterly sales figures from the adapter folks - I wonder how hard this is really hitting them.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Olsen said:
Interestingly enough, the only real benefit of the DSLR cameras in terms of video is the sensor size and the according attributes - shallower DOF, better low light performance, etc. In just about every other realm a proper video camera would be better: acquisition, downscaling, compression, audio, storage, battery, usability, monitoring, and physical format.

The sensor is simply made for photography - the electronic shutter is still very slow and introduces rolling shutter artifacts, such as skew and partially exposed frames.

While it does shoot 1080p, the 7D has no better resolution than many other video cameras, at least from the charts and reports I've seen. Indeed, it is worse than many.

The 7D has an absolutely pitiful method of downscaling the image from the native sensor size to 1080p leading to chroma and luma aliasing.

The long GoP compression scheme implemented in the 7D, likely due to lack of proper processing capability, leaves much to be desired. The output is only 4:2:0.

The onboard microphone is essentially unusable for any serious work, and the AGC requires the use of an external recorder.

The 4GB filesize limitation limits the user to approximately 12minute takes. The camera accepts only 1 card at a time - no hot swapping. Further, Canon seems unsure as to how and why UDMA may offer better performance - or do they? Canon certainly can't explain it.

The batteries are definitely nowhere close to an industry standard and have no truly reliable third party suppliers. The battery life is relatively good, however, there is no option to hotswap.

Many individuals have reported overheating issues - serious overheating issues that permit the camera from being used in what many would consider rather moderate climates (85F) without using either extremely short takes or some sort of cooling solution. Further, there are no electronic assistance aids - no histograms, no accurate exposure meter, no false color, no zebras, and no edge recognition.

The cameras LCD is fine. But alone it is not really suited to video. It doesn't swivel, and it is prone to glare and being washed out. The viewfinder doesn't function at all in video mode.

The physical format of the camera is also circumspect - hand holding it introduces a great deal of image instability.

This is not to say that some of these problems cannot be fixed. However, every fix comes at additional cost. A loupe costs at least $100. A rig (which may turn out to only be useful for DSLRS) at least $300 (really $500, for something really solid from what I've heard...). An external monitor would run about the same, more for monitoring assistance features. Audio requires an expenditure of at least $300. Battery addition costs about $150, extra batteries about $70. In addition, will we always be satisfied with the stock lens? Or will we want to spend $2000 on fast primes. Or $6000 on Canon L glass? We must consider the real cost of owning this camera.

And one can throw as much money as they want at the camera, but the problems related to image quality and compression will remain. They are simply part and parcel of the package.

Once companies begin to offer large-chip CMOS cameras which address these flaws and incorporate typical professional features, the prices will reflect that and the cameras will be worth $5000 or more. In my opinion, it would be foolish to expect even half of these fixes in a camera that doesn't cost any more than $3000, body only.

All of that said, the 7D will be my first camera. It is an interesting tool, with myriad problems and solutions, all of which must be considered. In the end, with the right skills and talent, it can produce nice images. I just hope I have the talent and can develop the skill.

I would actually be curious to see some quarterly sales figures from the adapter folks - I wonder how hard this is really hitting them.
Click to expand...

A lot of great points but this sticks out to me and not because it was bolded :)

Once companies begin to offer large-chip CMOS cameras which address these flaws and incorporate typical professional features, the prices will reflect that and the cameras will be worth $5000 or more. In my opinion, it would be foolish to expect even half of these fixes in a camera that doesn't cost any more than $3000, body only.

I think so but if you consider that a new update to the Canon 5D or other DSLR's will come out in less than a year it will more than likely address some of these issues.
And also a major consideration is that it is also a stills camera!

If this year a DSLR camera comes out with Canon 7D framerates, Magic Lantern Hacks built into firmware, continuous/long recording times, and reduced aliasing for under $3000 how can the prosumer cams compete? Seems like most are sold now so with some small updates the whole market will change.
 
dadoboy said:
If you look at the numbers of viewers here on dvxuser, the 35mm adapter forum has really gone down in viewership since a year ago, so sales must correspondingly be dwindling. I feel bad for them, and hope they have not over leveraged themselves to the point of going out of business.

One more point I'd like to mention - is that for the average user, a small 1/3" chipped video camera is a blessing not a disadvantage. I often let friends borrow my dvx100 to tape dance/theater performances, and I can't imagine they would be able to follow a performer in medium shot with a telephoto lens on a 7D that well without being out of focus half the time.

As well, the lenses on these small chippers tend to be big range zooms, at fast F1.4/F1.5 apertures - something you don't get on the VDSLRs without resorting to primes.
Click to expand...

But couldn't you use a consumer camera for that?
 
dadoboy said:
One more point I'd like to mention - is that for the average user, a small 1/3" chipped video camera is a blessing not a disadvantage. I often let friends borrow my dvx100 to tape dance/theater performances, and I can't imagine they would be able to follow a performer in medium shot with a telephoto lens on a 7D that well without being out of focus half the time.
Click to expand...

Ah, but the question was 'prosumer', not 'average user'. Current DSLR aren't ideal for average users even for stills, hence the massive point-n-shoot market. But if we're talking average user camcoders, hell, they're being squeezed from the other direction; average users these days are more than happy to record events on their iphone camera or worse. If they really care about quality they'll buy a flip.

But back to the main subject. Yes, prosumer (as we know it) is dead. But it'll just be replaced by the new prosumer; DSLR guts in a better form-factor for video. Eventually someone from canon dslr will wander over to the video guys with a 7D and ask 'you guys wanna mess with this?', as will someone at panasonic with a GH1. Assuming it hasn't happened already, which I'm sure it has.

I keep seeing banner ads on this site for various adapters and thinking 'oooo, sux to be you right now'.
 
Nik Manning said:
If this year a DSLR camera comes out with Canon 7D framerates, Magic Lantern Hacks built into firmware, continuous/long recording times, and reduced aliasing for under $3000 how can the prosumer cams compete? Seems like most are sold now so with some small updates the whole market will change.
Click to expand...

That's my point though - this scenario won't happen. All of these capabilities, along with the hardware that supports them, have worth. It seems very likely that this worth will be significantly higher than that of the 7D. It looks like the 1D MKIV will be the next item to potentially address these issues and it will likely go for at least $4000 body only (as that is the current pricing for the 1D MKIII, so I'm assuming that Canon is nice and makes no markup on their new product).

Judging only by what you listed as being fixed in your post one still needs to add an audio recorder, a loupe, and some form of stabilization. That's at least $400, being conservative. Lenses, again conservatively, would be at least $400. So we are now at nearly $5000. Even the 5D MKII easily tops $3500 with equipment.

And this is my point: The reason the DSLRs are so cheap is because they aren't video cameras. They don't offer features designed to aid video production aside from frame rates, which is a pretty small concession because we still don't have a true 1/48 shutter speed available. When companies decide to add these features, the worth of the camera increases, as does its cost. In order to make them work similarly to video cameras, additional expenses are accrued.

If anything, Canon and Panasonic are not about to suddenly decide to offer their previous line of cameras but with better (and decidedly more expensive) sensors for one fourth of their previous price. DSLRs are not the ticket to a 60-75% off sale. The prosumer market is definitely going to shift, and markedly, but it won't go away.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's completely killed the prosumer video camera market- but it's definitely going to do away with the 35mm lens adapter for prosumer camera market. Why spend $10K+ on a camera and adapter that are going to be something of an optical compromise not to mention heavy! Next to a DSLR with a ready to go mount, nice lenses and maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the price. It's clearly the wave of the future and companies need to either shift to adapt or see their prosumer cameras go by the wayside. As a consumer, this is a great time.

Noah
 
dcloud said:
Not really a problem. when shooting in film nobody would shoot more than 12 mins...
Click to expand...

Say someone designed a freely rechargeable electric car (solar?) that could do just about everything a regular car could do, but it topped out at 5mph. Would we then use the argument that, "the amazing new technology might lead to a slightly annoying compromise but, well, that's no slower than a horse and buggy and people were happy with those for 100's of years"?
 
Michael Olsen said:
That's my point though - this scenario won't happen. All of these capabilities, along with the hardware that supports them, have worth. It seems very likely that this worth will be significantly higher than that of the 7D. It looks like the 1D MKIV will be the next item to potentially address these issues and it will likely go for at least $4000 body only (as that is the current pricing for the 1D MKIII, so I'm assuming that Canon is nice and makes no markup on their new product).

Judging only by what you listed as being fixed in your post one still needs to add an audio recorder, a loupe, and some form of stabilization. That's at least $400, being conservative. Lenses, again conservatively, would be at least $400. So we are now at nearly $5000. Even the 5D MKII easily tops $3500 with equipment.

And this is my point: The reason the DSLRs are so cheap is because they aren't video cameras. They don't offer features designed to aid video production aside from frame rates, which is a pretty small concession because we still don't have a true 1/48 shutter speed available. When companies decide to add these features, the worth of the camera increases, as does its cost. In order to make them work similarly to video cameras, additional expenses are accrued.

If anything, Canon and Panasonic are not about to suddenly decide to offer their previous line of cameras but with better (and decidedly more expensive) sensors for one fourth of their previous price. DSLRs are not the ticket to a 60-75% off sale. The prosumer market is definitely going to shift, and markedly, but it won't go away.
Click to expand...

I think the point maybe that the 1D MKIV may address the audio recording issues, monitoring issues with flip put screen, and stabilization issues. And it would more than likely cost less than $5,000. Is that to much to expect for a DSLR camera that would cost 3 times more than the 7D?

I am not saying the 7D is the perfect camera or close but I am saying that the DSLR in the very near future maybe the perfect hybrid for the vast majority of productions.
 
ethan cooper said:
Say someone designed a freely rechargeable electric car (solar?) that could do just about everything a regular car could do, but it topped out at 5mph. Would we then use the argument that, "the amazing new technology might lead to a slightly annoying compromise but, well, that's no slower than a horse and buggy and people were happy with those for 100's of years"?
Click to expand...
I horse can easily do 25 MPH, which is reasonable if you don't work 40 miles away from home. Which you should not.
 
For those who think a fork is the only utensil they will ever need, sure, the fork killed off the spoon and the knife market.

For those who think a motorcycle is the only vehicle they'll ever need, sure, the motorcycle killed off the bicycle, pickup truck, cargo van, sports coupe, and sedan market.

For those who think that any limited single-purpose tool that's frankly pretty bad at anything outside its very limited area of usage is the be-all-and-end-all, then sure, the DSLR may have killed off the prosumer video market.

But -- for the other 95% of shooters out there (and eaters, and drivers) the rest of the market seems plenty healthy.
 
Cranky said:
I horse can easily do 25 MPH, which is reasonable if you don't work 40 miles away from home. Which you should not.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to post that here LOL. Maybe you are saying that DSLR's may have compromises but they are the way of the future?
 
Barry_Green said:
For those who think a fork is the only utensil they will ever need, sure, the fork killed off the spoon and the knife market.

For those who think a motorcycle is the only vehicle they'll ever need, sure, the motorcycle killed off the bicycle, pickup truck, cargo van, sports coupe, and sedan market.

For those who think that any limited single-purpose tool that's frankly pretty bad at anything outside its very limited area of usage is the be-all-and-end-all, then sure, the DSLR may have killed off the prosumer video market.

But -- for the other 95% of shooters out there (and eaters, and drivers) the rest of the market seems plenty healthy.
Click to expand...

95%? Seems rather high considering all of the prosumer guys that have traded in there, dvx,A1,hvx,dvx,etc for GH1, 5D,7D, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top