I'm not sure the camera guys get it!

[roxics]

Is it the photo guys that don't get it?

Or is it us, not seeing the forest because we're looking at some trees?

I don't disagree with you about a dedicated vidcam being a better option for video as far as all the other bells and whistles that are missing. But that doesn't change the fact that many photographers today don't seem to understand why the DSLR's are currently beneficial to a certain niche group of video guys.

Also looking forward, someone who does both video and indie film as a hobby, the DSLR is and will continue to be a great form factor. All it really needs is the proper "attachments" for video shooting. A proper viewfinder, XLR and AF video lens.

In some ways Jannard has it right with a modular scarlet. I mean if I can only afford one camera for both stills and film, I'd prefer the SLR form factor over trying to shoot stills with the DVX. You can always build a camera up from a smaller size with the right attachments. You just can't go the other way.

 

[Zim]

When I was a kid growing up in small town Illinois we had a party line. (some of you might not know what that is but you shared the same phone line with other house)

 

[Loic]

In some ways Jannard has it right with a modular scarlet.

Every body is saying the 7D will hurt Red Scarlet. But it looks like Apple proposing well tough out equipment reliable and Canon is the PC type, throwing cheap models ( follow me her I don't want to insult anybody) of camera that are not designed to really satisfy proper use of the equipment without having to use duck tape on the LCD to attach a view finder and other bells.

I can predict a wave of video content crippled with anti-aliasing in the next year only because Canon is not delivering the quality in his products. And auto gain control for sound is a joke!

Jannard will wipe the floor with 5D and 7D soon enough.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Preaching to the choir...

I think my biggest concern with what they seemed to be saying on the podcast was not so much that they think a DSLR is less apt than a professional video camera. It obviously is, as Barry pointed out, in all areas but a few (price being one of them).

It was that they seemed to think that a DSLR was basically the same thing as a $600 handicam. In fact, it was insinuated that one shouldn't really both with a DSLR for video when handicams still shoot 1080p and offer the apparent holy grail of autofocus. This is where the lack of "getting it" comes in for me. It's blatantly obvious that someone couldn't pick up a consumer camcorder from their local megamart and get a "Dublin's People" or "Perya" out of it. The capability simply isn't there.


Most of us here aren't looking to pop a camera out of our backpack and film our kids little league game with one hand while eating a hotdog or nursing a drink with the other (just as, I'm sure, pro photogs don't intend on leaning back and just casually snapping a few pics from the stands). We plan on being actively engaged in the experience of manipulating focus, DOF, aperature and framerate to produce something more akin to a "film" than a home movie.

The difference between consumer camcorder and professional (or semi-professional) video abilities in a DSLR have evidently not been made apparent. To turn the argument around, I can say: My $400 Canon SD700 takes great stills, and comes in a way smaller size. I don't know why people bother with all these big SLR cameras.

 

[Barry_Green]

But that doesn't change the fact that many photographers today don't seem to understand why the DSLR's are currently beneficial to a certain niche group of video guys.

Well, yeah -- definitely agreed there. The DSLRs are being put to a use that the still-photogs don't "get", that's for sure.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Every body is saying the 7D will hurt Red Scarlet.

I can think of one way 7D has hurt Scarlet. I, and no doubt others, were looking at getting a 2/3" scarlet to learn the ropes before stepping up to the S35 brain. Now, I'll have a 7D. I won't need to purchase that 2/3" scarlet, just the S35. Yes, I'm still buying a Scarlet. Yes, I'm very likely to choose it over future DSLR cameras. But RED still lost a sale.

Now, here's hoping Jannard does wipe the floor with these little things sooner rather than later!

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Hi Barry: I agree with most of what you've said.

The thing that drives me nuts is greedy & stingy behavior by cam manufacturers. Note I didn't say all cam manufacturers are greedy & stingy, and I didn't say they're greedy & stingy all of the time. But IMHO most of them slouch in that direction too often.

For example, I don't care what excuse can be dreamed-up for it (and I can imagine several), but not including something as basic as a 1/8" stereo headphone jack on a consumer video-capable DSLR camera is greedy & stingy, period. It would cost the likes of a Canon or Panasonic almost nothing to design-in a headphone jack on a video-capable DSLR cam.

Fer chrissake, about 99% or their customers already own & use earbud or full-size headphones and we expect to use them with all of our devices which play or record audio! (Note to Canon, Panasonic, etc.: There are these things called MP3 players. Maybe you have heard of them? They are very popular. All of their users have headphones!!!)

Canon, Panasonic, etc. omit putting a headphone jack on their video-capable DSLR cams because of greed & stinginess, _not_ because they didn't think of it. These manufacturers have been making A/V gear for at least decades -- they definitely thought about it and decided they'd rather hold off and up-sell us a "prosumer" version with a headphone jack later. Which is fine, but meanwhile, their current _consumer_ users and us early adopter types would like a headphone jack so we can monitor audio while we record & especially for playback, thank you very much!

Another example is the automatic audio level control during video recording. It would cost the manufacturers essentially nothing to allow users to turn this feature off when desired. Sure, someone doing this accidentally might generate tech support costs if they couldn't figure out how to turn ALC back on. But I guarantee you this cost would be offset many many times over by the increase in sales it would generate to us early adopter pro/sumer types who know the value of manual audio level control. And like every detail of the design of these cams, the manufacturers purposely decided to implement the automatic audio recording level control so it can't be turned off. Why? _Not_ because they didn't think of it, but because of greed & stinginess. They want to upsell us to a prosumer cam with manual audio control later. Bless their pointed little heads.

At least in the case of the 7D there's a good chance the Magic Lantern firmware hack folks will be able to disable audio ALC, but first we'll probably have to _wait_ until after Canon releases a firmware update of their own and then _wait_ until it can be hacked, and then hope the hack doesn't break too much else, etc. What an idiotic waste of everyone's time!

Don't get me wrong, I think devices such as the GH1 & 7D are way, way cool. But manufacturers' greed & stinginess about things which have almost no cost -- which means they're essentially disrespecting us -- is getting way, way old.

Sorry, several decades of buying purposely-crippled A/V gear kinda gets to you ... [smacks self in back of head] ... ahh, that feels much better ... now I can go back to researching new toys ...

 

[Loic]

I can think of one way 7D has hurt Scarlet. I, and no doubt others, were looking at getting a 2/3" scarlet to learn the ropes before stepping up to the S35 brain.

The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard. I would rather be in position to shoot broadcast then have the thing that gets in the way in a year simply because nobody will want to invest in a non broadcast standard.

 

[Barry_Green]

For example, I don't care what excuse can be dreamed-up for it (and I can imagine several), but not including something as basic as a 1/8" stereo headphone jack on a consumer video/audio-capable DSLR camera is greedy & stingy, period.

There's another much more likely answer: they never considered that anyone would want such. Think about it -- how many still photographers who pop into video mode are going to be wearing headphones? None. Zero. The percentage of people who would take advantage of that capability is probably 1/2 of 1%. Unfortunately for us, the dedicated video shooters, that's 100% of us! We make up that 1/2 of 1%. I'm pretty certain that they never even thought of it.

There's no headphone jack on my PowerShot SD500, and it shoots "DVD-quality" video.

Another example is the automatic audio level control during video recording. It would cost the manufacturers essentially nothing to allow users to turn this feature off when desired.

Agreed -- but who would use it? maybe 20% of the dedicated video users, so 1/10 of 1% of the user base?

Yes, they could technically cram in absolutely everything into absolutely every product ever, but is that smart? There was a great video on TED about how more choice makes consumers less happy. The fewer choices offered, the happier people are and the more likely they are to participate.

If an end consumer picked up a 7D and saw the menu system of an HPX3000 in there, do you seriously think they'd be saying "great! I love this, I'll read every page of the manual and really know how to extract all the power this camera has?" I guarantee you, no -- they'd put it down and say "ooh, this one's too complex, I just want a simple camera." Remember we're talking about a $1700 product here, which is primarily a digital SLR, not a video camera. The GH1 has icons next to the menu items, fer cryin' out loud!

I'm not defending the lack of features that you want. I'm saying that this product (well, these products) are not aimed at professionals or even prosumers. These are digital SLRs. They're aimed at still photographers, who might want to also occasionally shoot some video clips.

But I guarantee you this cost would be offset many many times over by the increase in sales it would generate to us early adopter pro/sumer types who know the value of manual audio level control.

I think you overestimate our presence. We're a blip on the radar of the overall sales scheme of products like this. And they didn't design these products for us anyway -- we're repurposing them for our own uses because they're pretty close.

Don't get me wrong, I think devices such as the GH1 & 7D are way, way cool. But too often the manufacturers' greed & stinginess about things which have almost no cost -- which means they're essentially disrespecting us -- is getting way, way old.

Is that what it is? Or is it you (and many of us) buying a product that's not aimed at us, and trying to wedge it into a niche where it doesn't truly belong?

Sorry, several decades of buying purposely-crippled A/V gear kinda gets to you ... [smacks self in back of head] ... ahh, that feels much better ... now I can go back to researching new toys ...

There's a saying that isn't designed for this discussion, but one that fits aptly here, which says "buy the best, and you only cry once... instead of every time you go to use it." Buy the product that actually does what you want. Spend a little more and get what you need.

(and yes, I'm aware that they haven't yet made that product for us, but undoubtedly they will. And yes, I'm painfully aware that we come "second" versus the mass consumer, but that's because we're a tiny minority of the marketplace!)

 

[Barry_Green]

The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard.

Oh, come on -- why on earth should the BBC look at the 5D at all? It's a DSLR that not only doesn't shoot video in any recognized standard format, but it doubly doesn't shoot anything that is directly relatable to PAL 25Hz broadcast at all!

Of course they rejected it.

The 7D might be a different issue -- it at least records at proper video-compatible frame rates, including 25/50Hz.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Just out of curiousity and as a great learning experience...

I've heard a great deal from a number of people about how difficult the BBC can be in regards to footage (I first heard the complaints from the RED users, I believe. I didn't know what to make of it at the time.)...

Is there a parallel to this scenario in the US in which certain devices are "blacklisted" from producing broadcast footage? Some of the commercials I see regularly appear to be shot on your PowerShot SD500, Barry. I know there are folks shooting music videos and commercials on the 5D that (supposedly) have aired successfully on major networks like MTV. So what's the deal?

 

[Ian-T]

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

 

[Michael Olsen]

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

That adds to my question: why do they deny devices or capture formats instead of simply listing acceptable deliverable formats? For isntance, why can't they just say "It doesn't matter what it's shot on or originally encoded in, just give it to us in XXXXX format @ this or that resolution and at standard 25p."

 

[Ian-T]

I can understand that some lower rate codecs have certain undesirable compression characteristics that stick out like a sore thumb. But when cleaned up most of them are non-existent. At that point….how can they actually tell? Unless of course you have to declare what you shot you footage on….. But…you can always lie.

 

[dustwaterwindfire]

I looooooove being able to take this thing (5d) into public places with little consequence. shot a whole scene for a music video in waffle house and i think they just thought I was taking photos. I will always have a dslr version of a large sensor cam just for that very purpose. if they added a few extras like better audio inputs etc.. I would actually prefer its run and gun body style. I have enough rigging (shoulder mount, rails, FF) to help me forget it doesnt have a handle or the traditional body of a camcorder.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Barry.

I'd agree with you if Canon & Panasonic (just to pick on two) had never designed video camcorders before in the approximate price range of the GH1, 7D, 5DM2, etc.

It's inconceivable to me that these supremely sophisticated, truly world-class manufacturers "didn't think about it". They absolutely thought about it, and then made a cold, hard business decision that they'd put a headphone jack & manual audio recording control in a later and more-expensive model -- but not in the current HD video-capable DSLR cams.

Despite the fact that the current DSLR cams scream VIDEO, VIDEO, VIDEO! in their marketing, and despite the fact that their initial business requirements & functional design plans for these cams must have included video. A "still" cam doesn't do video by accident. It's planned to the nth detail from very early in the design process.

Then why doesn't a 5DM2, GH1 or a 7D have a headphone jack? Because the manufacturers decided the good will of a relatively small* portion of their customer base (us) is worth less to them than the profits they'll make by _squeezing_ us to buy a more expensive cam later. Heck, they even planned that a bunch of us would buy _both_ the crippled version of the product _and_ the more capable version later. Them manufacturers, they're no dummies!

Certainly, cramming any device full of trivial features of questionable usefulness is a recipe for disaster. But a headphone jack and the ability to turn off ALC aren't rocket science, and certainly aren't trivial features to users like us.

Sometimes I think we let the manufacturers off the hook too easy. Sometimes I think we need to call them out when they're greedy & stingy about truly important features which cost almost nothing to implement or support.

* We may be small in terms of market size, but we're not insignificant, and especially not in terms of opinion-leading, word-of-mouth/viral marketing.

 

[Zim]

They have ways to find out!!

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

 

[mtan]

I agree, I think the dslr body is what makes it so cool for me, very stealthy and compact. I can also take good photographs while I am at it. I personally don't care that much about DOF but it is a bonus for me.

 

[Taylor Rudd]

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

Which camera used can mean a difference in several hundred thousand dollars, and those little details are usually negotiated before any money is transferred....

In terms of broadcast, the standards may be compromised for content (at the expense of a bigger payout).

Some networks use the bronze, silver, and gold rating. If done on spec, these ratings play a role in how much a series is purchased for.

Let's use Discovery Channel as an example. Planet Earth is as gold as gold gets. Something like Deadliest Catch is silver at best, but because HDV probably makes up more than 30% of their show it could be bronze. Let's act like a good DVXUser ( ) and think the camera is the only thing that matters. Even if content/story/production costs weren't an issue (which they are), would you pay the same for an hour of Deadliest Catch as you would Planet Earth?

That adds to my question: why do they deny devices or capture formats instead of simply listing acceptable deliverable formats? For isntance, why can't they just say "It doesn't matter what it's shot on or originally encoded in, just give it to us in XXXXX format @ this or that resolution and at standard 25p."

If you polish a turd its still a turd. It also depends on who is doing the production. Is it the network's internal team? They would never cut costs so much they had to resort to using DSLRs as "A" cameras. Or another production company that is doing a co-pro, acquisition, etc.? It is more likely they would use less expensive cameras...but not still realistic...

You can certainly use 5D/7D/GH1/D90 footage in shows that go to BBC/TLC/Discovery/etc., but only a certain percentage of the show can be that quality (and for limited durations IE a minute at a time).

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

Remember when DV used to be something that sneaked into TV-productions and compared to the times standard BETASP without anyone complaining?

I recall making a test for one of the bigger Swedish TV-broadcasters in the 90's between BETASP, DVCAM, DIGIBETA and some other format I've forgot... BETASP was out of the questions picture wise. This was for there playout center and BETASP was the standard these days.

Even the GH1's low bitrate and funky codec impresses many people in the business who are used to HVX200/RED and other cameras. Maybe these cameras (GH1/5D/7D/D90) are like those days DV. Not a pro format but close and sometimes superior to the de facto standard.

If I compare these to a HVX200 I do miss the pro format of the HVX. But I can get images out of a DSLR that the HVX200 on it's own can't touch.

Treat the DSLRs like a film camera and you will be rewarded. That's why I wanna have great still and video in the same body. Then it's up to me to choose - still image or motion picture. And when you master the two of them there's nothing stopping you!