Have $2k, I refuse to spend!

[jpastuch]

Instead of sitting around and complaining, why not make this yourself?

 

[Michael Olsen]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.

Fair enough. I don't really like the whole idea of planned obsolescence, either. But the problem is - it's their game. So, no camera for you. Wait for RED - there is some promise there.

The corporate leviathans dole out incremental advances timed perfectly to satisfy the gullible with slightly better video with each new generation.

And yet those many throngs wait with bated breath to spring forth each time with unbridled passion unto their new, marginally better, dawns.

It is a bit bothersome. But it is also the way of life. Which, as I have been told, isn't fair.

We don't want a DSLR with video as an afterthought.

In my opinion, for serious video (vocabulary: Digital Cinematography) you'll never want a DSLR. DSMC, maybe, DSLR, no. DSLRs are made for photographers, who really like to take photographs. These people are serious about photographs. They think video is a swell idea - "Look, Whitham! Moving Pictures!". But that's not their deal. It's a trick, an "it also does this" sort of feature to them they can show their photographer friends. It doesn't really matter. But the photographs do! And how!

So these cameras will, at least until a sufficient portion of photographers accost the camera companies and really tell them (read: not buy new cameras) that they want - no, need...demand...desire! - video. Real nice, smooth rolling shutter free video encoded in a sane manner.

Then the camera companies will offer small digital video camera in an SLR format. Which, honestly, I find quite awful aside from its inherent proclivity for covert use. And it won't even take very nice photographs because the OLPF is made for video. So now the photographers don't even care about it.

We want a dedicated large sensor interchangeable lens video camera with XLR audio, multiple frame rates, full HD and good DSLR features thrown in but not the primary purpose.

Wait until October the Thirtieth for the new RED release schedule and accompanying product updates. Also, wait until October the Twentieth for the Sony announcement. Or, just keep waiting. There will always be something better right around the corner.

We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.

If you know this, you know something many others do not!

Building high quality cameras, even en masse, is an expensive business. It is not like building a computer from OEM parts, then staring at Alienware ads feeling all smug and warm. No indeed.

Whomsoever releases such a camera will get my $2-3k, in a heartbeat - and not one second before!
ATTENTION Nikon, Canon et al!!!
Are you listening?
Release the damn camera already, for you shall not recieve one penny from me until you do.

I feel that if they could, they would, because there are so very many of us in the same situation as you. We would love that. Demand would be incredible. Hooray!

But at the same time, these companies will act in their own rational self-interest and protect their own products. How many EX-3s would be sold if a $2000 camera really did everything better? Not many.

Does anyone agree?
Send the message loud and strong to the big three by refusing to buy into crippled so-called upgrades and awkward compromised DSLR's with tacked-on video!
SAVE YOUR MONEY and force the manufacturers to give us what we already know they are developing for release once the current generation has run it's course

The problem with this logic is that you'll never buy a camera. As soon as the next generation comes out...there's the next generation. The 7D just landed and people are already talking about the EOS 1D MKV and how it will be better. And you can bet that when the MKV lands, there will be another Canon camera coming out "soon" that will be better than that.

So unless you'd rather Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc just stop where they are, there will always be something better. Always. And forever and ever.

Make me famous and call it Olsen's Law.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

It gets tedious seeing these same posts telling multibillion dollar companies that they don't know how to run their own businesses...

If we take your argument at face value, the actual act of "repackaging" will involve creating new housings, etc., which -- as we've been told by Panasonic, any single hardware change like that costs them $5m dollars. Five million dollars. Then they have to create packaging, test it, develop a user manual, fix the bugs that will inevitably crop in, create new video functions to address the specific video functionality, and then -- oh yeah, a marketing campaign. While in your imaginary world that might all be free and no effort whatsoever, well, in the real world that all adds up to tens of millions of dollars.

Look, they know what we want, and they haven't been able to deliver it yet. There are two possible reasons: either A) it is not technologically feasible to do so at a price we're willing to pay, or B) they are profoundly incompetent idiots. Seeing as we're talking about multibillion dollar companies here, who obviously know more about building and selling cameras than anyone else ON THE GLOBE, I tend to rule out option B.

Of course, there's always option C, that they're just meanies who could do it but just won't because... well, they're mean. Or they're trying to "protect" some other line of equipment. But I find that argument to be almost as silly as option B.

Which leaves option A. They know what we want, and when they can build it, affordably, and sell enough of them that it's worth it to them, they'll do it.

In the meantime -- if none of today's products suit your needs, don't buy them. That's the simplest, easiest thing to do.

Your logic is flawed regarding option C.
Companies generally don't manipulate products and markets because they are "meanies", they do it in order to protect existing markets and until sufficient returns have been made on previously spent r&d.
Hence the tediously long and incremental upgrade path.
I hope Red will be the one to upset this stifling economic model, but I believe ulitimately it will coerce the big three to up their game to stay ahead of Red.
I don't think Red are much interested in the consumer market, but their stirring of the hornet's nest will trickle down to the big three's consumer/prosumer lines.
To believe that large corporations are honestly trying their best to deliver technology several generations ahead of the current (artificially retarded) models is naive.
If it really does cost $5million in r&d for each generation then it's clearly not in the interests of the manufacturer to release a superior model until their initial investment has been recouped, regardless of external advances in technology & design.
The industry maintains a self-regulating equilibrium - unless an exception such as Red emerges to kickstart the feedback loop of investment vs. profits.

 

[Barry_Green]

they do it in order to protect existing markets and until sufficient returns have been made on previously spent r&d.
Hence the tediously long and incremental upgrade path.

In the '50's, maybe. Today? No way. You sit on your butt for one moment too long and someone will come in and eat your lunch.

Before going much further, let me ask you this -- do you believe that Intel artificially limits progress on microprocessors, crippling today's technology in order to make people buy more of it at high profit margins? Or do you believe that if they tried that, AMD would go past them so quick Intel would wake up in a gutter with a bottle in a brown paper bag saying "huh? what happened?

I hope Red will be the one to upset this stifling economic model, but I believe ulitimately it will coerce the big three to up their game to stay ahead of Red.

Red has had a big impact on the number of 2/3" cameras that get sold, already. But they did so, curiously enough, by selling a product that cost more than today's 2/3" cameras...

To believe that large corporations are honestly trying their best to deliver technology several generations ahead of the current (artificially retarded) models is naive.

To believe otherwise is what is really naive. In a world without competition, your theory could hold true. In a world with competion, it simply doesn't hold water -- unless you want to engage in collusion theories and that they're all collectively in it together, out to screw the little guy...

How does it make any business sense whatsoever, to hand half the market to your competition? Look at wal-mart, the most dominant force in selling today. Did they hold back, and let the mom and pop stores survive? Not in the least. They crushed every competitor, they dominate retailing from sea to shining sea (actually around the globe), and now they're pretty much free to charge whatever they want because there is no major force that can compete against them.

The theory you're proposing is that Sony says "hey, we came up with this new sensor, that could totally blitz Panasonic, but ... let's not put it out on the market yet. Panasonic's taking 80% of the broadcast business, but we're okay with that, we have this great technology and we're just NOT GOING TO USE IT because we want to continue selling what we've got on the market today, meanwhile our competition is slaughtering us."

Sorry, believing in that idea seems far more naive, to me.

If it really does cost $5million in r&d for each generation then it's clearly not in the interests of the manufacturer to release a superior model until their initial investment has been recouped, regardless of external advances in technology & design.

In a world without competition, that would be a reasonable attitude to assume.

Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy.

And if that is indeed the assertion, and even the truth, then there's nothing anyone on the globe can do about it.

 

[Stephen Mick]

In a world without competition…

Sounds like a movie trailer in the making. (Just not a movie shot with the 7D, 'cause Canon's a bunch of money-hungry demons.)

 

[Cranky]

This is a possibility for 35mm adapter makers who want to move to something more high-tech. Buy a 7D, make a body on a CNC, design and make an additional circuit board for all external controls, update the firmware, tack a huge fan onto this and voila! a full frame handheld cam.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Olsen would you agree for argument's sake that there are certain definite criteria by which the "holy grail" will be generally defined as having arrived?
IMHO the criteria are:

Large sensor in the 35mm range (FF, S35, APS-C - it's all good enough)
Interchangeable lens
Full HD or better
Quality codec & practical media/storage (likely to evolve the fastest of all the criteria)

When such a camera arrives, I will buy it.
I'm not in the habit of constantly upgrading to stay ahead of the pack - I believe content is king, irrelevant of the means of acquisition or delivery.
I squeezed every last pixel of narrative out of my XL2 for 5 years before upgrading.
I anticipate my next purchase will be the "holy grail" and it will serve me well for 5 years at least (I hope!)
The DVX100 was the last real "game changer".
Time is long overdue for the next candidate to emerge

 

[Paul V Doherty]

This is a possibility for 35mm adapter makers who want to move to something more high-tech. Buy a 7D, make a body on a CNC, design and make an additional circuit board for all external controls, update the firmware, tack a huge fan onto this and voila! a full frame handheld cam.

Now that's the sort of creative hackery to get the attention of the manufacturers!
I fear such aggressive modifications would end up costing more than the camera though.

 

[Barry_Green]

Olsen would you agree for argument's sake that there are certain definite criteria by which the "holy grail" will be generally defined as having arrived?
IMHO the criteria are:

Large sensor in the 35mm range (FF, S35, APS-C - it's all good enough)
Interchangeable lens
Full HD or better
Quality codec & practical media/storage (likely to evolve the fastest of all the criteria)

When such a camera arrives, I will buy it.
I'm not in the habit of constantly upgrading to stay ahead of the pack - I believe content is king, irrelevant of the means of acquisition or delivery.
I squeezed every last pixel of narrative out of my XL2 for 5 years before upgrading.
I anticipate my next purchase will be the "holy grail" and it will serve me well for 5 years at least (I hope!)
The DVX100 was the last real "game changer".
Time is long overdue for the next candidate to emerge

Can we add in that it actually resolve an HD image, instead of being a barely-SD image with all sorts of spurious aliasing all over?

 

[Paul V Doherty]

In the '50's, maybe. Today? No way. You sit on your butt for one moment too long and someone will come in and eat your lunch.

Before going much further, let me ask you this -- do you believe that Intel artificially limits progress on microprocessors, crippling today's technology in order to make people buy more of it at high profit margins? Or do you believe that if they tried that, AMD would go past them so quick Intel would wake up in a gutter with a bottle in a brown paper bag saying "huh? what happened?


Red has had a big impact on the number of 2/3" cameras that get sold, already. But they did so, curiously enough, by selling a product that cost more than today's 2/3" cameras...


To believe otherwise is what is really naive. In a world without competition, your theory could hold true. In a world with competion, it simply doesn't hold water -- unless you want to engage in collusion theories and that they're all collectively in it together, out to screw the little guy...

How does it make any business sense whatsoever, to hand half the market to your competition? Look at wal-mart, the most dominant force in selling today. Did they hold back, and let the mom and pop stores survive? Not in the least. They crushed every competitor, they dominate retailing from sea to shining sea (actually around the globe), and now they're pretty much free to charge whatever they want because there is no major force that can compete against them.

The theory you're proposing is that Sony says "hey, we came up with this new sensor, that could totally blitz Panasonic, but ... let's not put it out on the market yet. Panasonic's taking 80% of the broadcast business, but we're okay with that, we have this great technology and we're just NOT GOING TO USE IT because we want to continue selling what we've got on the market today, meanwhile our competition is slaughtering us."

Sorry, believing in that idea seems far more naive, to me.


In a world without competition, that would be a reasonable attitude to assume.

Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy.

And if that is indeed the assertion, and even the truth, then there's nothing anyone on the globe can do about it.

"Sorry, but the only way I can see any logic in what you're proposing is if you have to accept the premise that all the companies are engaged in a vast price-and-technology-fixing conspiracy."

Sorry to inform you, but this happens every day in board rooms, reserve banks, yacht clubs, country clubs and "society" institutions all over the globe.
Prices are fixed, markets are carved up, timelines are devised on all manner of commodities and services by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
This is no conspiracy of secret societies or hidden governments.
It happens in the open, if you operate at a high enough level.
I see and hear about it almost daily with my partner, and that's only at the relatively paltry State level.
One's mind boggles at what must go on at the national and international level of commerce and government.

 

[Cranky]

Sorry to inform you, but this happens every day in board rooms, reserve banks, yacht clubs, country clubs and "society" institutions all over the globe. Prices are fixed, markets are carved up, timelines are devised on all manner of commodities and services by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

OPEC is probably the best-known price-fixing "club". But pumping oil is something you can regulate. You cannot regulate R&D, and the fact that today your rival does not offer a certain product for sale does not mean he has no capacity to offer such a product in the near future.

 

[Barry_Green]

And therefore, if that is your assertion, then there is simply nothing we can do about it, so why worry about it?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.

So, why aren't you buying a Red, or a low end Red?

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Can we add in that it actually resolve an HD image, instead of being a barely-SD image with all sorts of spurious aliasing all over?

Amen to that!
Improving the encoded image is the main issue with the current generation.
There's no question that the sensors are more than adequete for true full HD, it's just the codecs and storage that are the weak link at present.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

So, why aren't you buying a Red, or a low end Red?

Ultimately I believe the big three are best equipped to deliver what we want in a prosumer or high-end consumer package and price point.
I don't think Red are interested in that part of the market or they would be pitching a stripped-down large sensor camera limited to full HD and consumer-friendly codecs/storage (i.e. HDV or AVC or similar)
My hope is that Red will force an evolutionary leap upon the big three merely by it's presence in the low-end pro market.
Personally I really like Nikon, I own several thousands of dollars worth of Nikon gear already and I believe Nikon has the LEAST vested interest to protect existing product lines.
I would like to see Nikon step up to the plate on this one

 

[John Caballero]

To paraphrase Jim Jannard: If you want a camera exactly the way you think it should be then go and a start a camera company. If someone has $2000.00 and refuses to buy a camera from the big guys, who cares? Don't buy it. It is your choice. Go and put the money in the bank, in the stock market or whatever. I make my living from stills and video and thanks to cameras like the D90 and the GH1 I can make money, pay my bills and buy more camera stuff. We don't tell the big companies what to manufacture. It is their business and they run it any way they want it. We benefit from their products. Especially with this developing DSLRs. You can do great stuff with the GH1 as seen in this great video by Joe Shaw: http://vimeo.com/6942561. If you are talented enough the current crop of hybrid DSLRs are great tools to work with now.

 

[youngindiefilms]

I refuse to become party to the artificial camera wars perpetrated by the big three.
The corporate leviathans dole out incremental advances timed perfectly to satisfy the gullible with slightly better video with each new generation.
We don't want a DSLR with video as an afterthought.
We want a dedicated large sensor interchangeable lens video camera with XLR audio, multiple frame rates, full HD and good DSLR features thrown in but not the primary purpose.
We know such a camera can be made right now for less than $5k, indeed probably for $2k to $3k en masse.
Whomsoever releases such a camera will get my $2-3k, in a heartbeat - and not one second before!
ATTENTION Nikon, Canon et al!!!
Are you listening?
Release the damn camera already, for you shall not recieve one penny from me until you do.

Does anyone agree?
Send the message loud and strong to the big three by refusing to buy into crippled so-called upgrades and awkward compromised DSLR's with tacked-on video!
SAVE YOUR MONEY and force the manufacturers to give us what we already know they are developing for release once the current generation has run it's course

Dude, seriously. You think they can say some magic words and spit out some hundred thousands new cameras which you'd like to see. They're working on such cameras behind curtains for sure and you can expect to see such new cameras from the big players in 2010. You have to have some patience. Seriously. Think before you write.

 

[Ben_B]

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Dude, seriously. You think they can say some magic words and spit out some hundred thousands new cameras which you'd like to see. They're working on such cameras behind curtains for sure and you can expect to see such new cameras from the big players in 2010. You have to have some patience. Seriously. Think before you write.

"Think before you write" balderdash! Physician, heal thyself!
Next time try reading the entire thread before writing before you think.
2010 is unlikely at current artificially stifled rates of evolution

 

[killacam]

I don't think they are artificially holding back now- this is a new market and companies aren't as sure of what the market wants yet. I think they've just recently become aware of the burgeoning demand for hd video in DSLRs (and by recently I mean in the past year or so) and will add stuff like XLR inputs later. The next generation will undoubtedly be better (more geared towards video with better codec implementations as faster processors become available). They might hold off on rolling out their next gen cameras until the market starts to wane for their current ones I'll grant you that. And there probably is some segmentation going on (I doubt they would have given the 7d a full frame sensor for fear of cutting into the 5d's market). That could have been for the 60p though who knows. Anyway I'm sure we'll see those "perfect" cameras soon enough. I think most of your posts are tongue-in-cheek though..."balderdash"? who says that? haha.