I'm not sure the camera guys get it!

Taylor Rudd said:
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?
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying and based on that info, if we had to leave it up just to that one category (camera being most important), then no I would not. It's kind of silly though when I think about it. WHen it came to standard definition television of old (or at least yesterday...lol) did they go by a similar rating system? For example, if a series decided to use film over digital aquisition did that automatically command a bigger payout? Or did it all have to do with the overall cost/budget of that particular series (camera just being one of them)? Seeing how cameras are getting cheaper and much better in their IQ I wonder where within that system they will fit in for future broadcast.

Thanks for that run down by the way.
 
Loic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh really. Do please document this for us. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the 5d only shoots 30p and the BBC broadcasts at 25fps.

If someone shoots a feature film with the 7d or a similar camera that gets a thumbs up and a theatrical release (I give it about a year to 18 months), you think the BBC will refuse to show it?
 
Barry_Green said:
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."
Click to expand...

right on - look at the manual for the 7d, it's written so it can be understood by a 12 year old, all 'do this, then do that, it'll look like this'. It doesn't even mention things like gamma curves or background concepts. If the reviewer in the New York Times says it's a bit hard to use that'll affect their sales more than 100 DVXuser threads.
 
Eddy Robinson said:
right on - look at the manual for the 7d, it's written so it can be understood by a 12 year old, all 'do this, then do that, it'll look like this'. It doesn't even mention things like gamma curves or background concepts. If the reviewer in the New York Times says it's a bit hard to use that'll affect their sales more than 100 DVXuser threads.
Click to expand...

Um, Barry brought up the "HPX3000 menus in a 7D" idea, not me.

I specifically posted about the 7D's lack of a lowly headphone jack & the ability to disable audio ALC. Period.

_Everyone_ understands what a headphone jack is. And almost no one would be hopelessly confused by a menu item that says something like "Audio automatic rec level: On/Off".

It's quite a stretch to take my basic suggestion and turn it into a plea for stuffing the 7D with dozens or hundreds of additional features.

Let's not give the cam manufacturers a pass for omitting a drop-dead obvious, basic feature like a headphone jack, which any relatively expensive "consumer" audio-video recording device should have.
 
Doesn't it have an A/V output? Couldn't that double up as a headphone out with the right Radio Shack connector? Clunky? Yes it is...but all is not lost.
 
Ian-T said:
Doesn't it have an A/V output? Couldn't that double up as a headphone out with the right Radio Shack connector? Clunky? Yes it is...but all is not lost.
Click to expand...

That's what people have been doing on the 5D2 *with Magic Lantern*.

Unfortunately, out of the box, audio is disabled on the AV jack when recording.

From the manual, p. 159:

"If you connect the camera to a TV set and shoot a movie, the TV will not output any sound during the shooting. However, the sound will be properly recorded."

-- X
 
Loic said:
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.
Click to expand...
I am constantly in disbelief at what passes as 'broadcast standard'

99% of all material broadcast, that I have seen, I would describe as woeful.

Most HD broadcast looks worse than DVD !

I have 0% doubt that the BBC will broadcast plenty of 7D sourced material in the next year !!

The 7D footage I have seen so far, is vastly better than the majority of the current HD broadcast material.
 
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
It's quite a stretch to take my basic suggestion and turn it into a plea for stuffing the 7D with dozens or hundreds of additional features.
Click to expand...
And I agree. But are you going to be the only one makin suggestions? Where does it stop -- who draws the line?

Anyway, I agree completely that it's asinine to have a video camera without the ability to monitor the audio. It's ridiculous and seriously compromises the usefulness of the product as a video camera.
 
Zim said:
some footage from the HMC40 Looks good. Also not a bad deal on a kit too. Really, if you only want video why not something like this over a DSLR? To each his own I guess!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/638292-REG/Panasonic__AG_HMC40_AVCCAM_HD_Camcorder.html
http://vimeo.com/6145756
Click to expand...


1. Price
2. Interchangable lenses of better quality.
3. Depth of field
4. Also a pro level still camera
5. Smaller form factor to carry everything in.
That is what the 7D gives you over a regular video camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
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?

Video on a DSLR is not the ultimate destination, guys. It's a severe compromise. The DSLR is a lousy form factor for shooting video. It's borderline unacceptable for professional use (no live monitoring? No XLR ports? No zebras or audio levels or waveform monitors or ... *anything* that a pro is used to?) So what are the benefits? The benefits are that they have (usually) large sensors and interchangeable lenses. The End. Everything else about video-on-a-DSLR is worse than anything about a regular video camera. Having been enamored of my GH1, and spending just a day with the tiny little HMC40, I have to say the HMC40 is leagues better for shooting video for professional purposes. If it had shallow DOF, nobody would even be talking about using a DSLR for video...

So, yes, let's embrace that we finally have shallow-DOF without adapters. But to embrace video-on-a-DSLR as the ultimate solution? No thanks (and I say that as the very happy owner of a GH1 and a foaming-at-the-mouth rabidly-waiting-for-my-preorder Canon 7D). It'll do for today. It'll do because it's cheap. But the minute someone makes a proper video camera with such a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, the SLRs are going on ebay.

Video on a DSLR is a temporary bandaid to get us over this stretch of time where the only proper video cameras we can afford currently have 1/3" or 1/4" chips, until the future when camcorder manufacturers start offering big-sensor video cameras with an SLR lens mount. I happen to think that *has* to be coming.

Until then, we use video cameras for the video-camera usage, and DSLRs for the shallow-DOF.
Click to expand...



Barry, part of me agrees with you and part of my doesn't.
I come from a Photo background, and can see how the DSLR can evolve into a seperate product that does video.

I agree that a traditional video camera form factor is and has been great for that, and I can seehow it can continue to be great.

What I see as a potential for the DSLR is to be the same thing in a different form factor that ALSO does great stills.

The thing I like most about the DSLR's is the ability to carry it all the time in a traditional camera bag. That is one of the major reasons I don't like to carry my big cameras unless paid...too much to transport.

I can see how sound can be easily added with a device similiar to a battery grip, whearas the connections interface through the battery compartment. Out of the battery grip device, you have mini XLRs for audio, or even a stereo wireless receiver...just picture that!

For waveforms, all you need is to put the camera on rails and add a 7" monitor.
It is so light, you can have a short double rail from the camera to the matt box, and use a sigle rail from there through a shoulder brace via a bearing pivot, that extends further to where your batteries mount as counter weights.


I can see the need and evolution of both types of camera systems.

I can definately see the need for a DSLR that can shoot HD 24p footage for under $2,700 and fits in a traditional camera bag. I can see that all day long.
You get two of them, and you always have a back up camera system, or a second camera while doing EITHER a photoshoot OR a video, or mix and match.

WOW I say!
 
Green Hornet said:
1. Price
2. Interchangable lenses of better quality.
3. Depth of field
4. Also a pro level still camera
5. Smaller form factor to carry everything in.
That is what the 7D gives you over a regular video camera.
Click to expand...

And 60fps @ 720p. Never before done with a 35mm sized sensor/lens at this price point.
 
I think a still camera is much more likely to evolve into a killer video camera than it is for a killer video camera to evolve into a good still camera. The HDSLRs have already gotten over the biggest hurdle which is getting the sensors to work well enough to record video at the most used frame rates. The main thing now is getting AF to work well and designing some video specific lenses with servo zoom. They could even design lenses for smaller sensor sizes so you can get that deep DOF for standard video work and then just window the sensor. The rest of it like audio controls and monitoring is relatively easy-peasy.

But for a video camera like RED to try to "kill the DSLR" is not realistic. They would have to develop their own AF systems, metering system, flash system, lens system, etc. All of those things took Canon and Nikon decades to develop and for the market to accept. The still camera market is physically huge compared to video. Canon and Nikon totally dominate this space and have been doing it for decades. It would be extremely hard to get people to accept a new brand.
 
Last edited:
Zim said:
Really, if you only want video why not something like this over a DSLR? To each his own I guess!
Click to expand...
Because they don't see nearly as well in the dark as these much bigger sensor DSLRs. Also, the detail and sharpness do not come close. Most importantly...DOF control.
 
Barry_Green said:
...
So, yes, let's embrace that we finally have shallow-DOF without adapters. But to embrace video-on-a-DSLR as the ultimate solution? No thanks (and I say that as the very happy owner of a GH1 and a foaming-at-the-mouth rabidly-waiting-for-my-preorder Canon 7D). It'll do for today. It'll do because it's cheap. But the minute someone makes a proper video camera with such a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, the SLRs are going on ebay....
Click to expand...

totally agree with this, and think that with the video community buying VDSLRs, it shows the manufacturers that there is a market for it. if we all just ignore them and sit on our hands waiting for them to release a proper video camera with a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, we might never see it because they'll assume there's no place for it.
 
Regarding the OP's question, still photographers are resistant (and sometimes outright hostile) to video for these reasons:

  1. Some have no interest in video. They feel that adding video features is taking away precious camera development time for improving image quality for stills. Or they think the sensor is being compromised somehow in order to take video. They also don't want to pay more for features they feel they won’t use.
  2. Most don't understand the sensor size/DOF/low light/24P/60P advantages desired by filmmakers because most are not filmmakers. Most only understand video as it relates to consumer video cameras.
  3. Some actually fear that adding video will add complexity that will hinder their still picture taking abilities. They think the added buttons and menus will be a distraction since they won't be using the video function.
  4. Some see video as a threat. They fear that if someone can shoot high quality video and pull stills from the footage, still photography will be obsolete.
  5. Some actually understand that operating a DSLR in video will be difficult because the AF is primitive and manually focusing motion at this DOF is hard. So if they want to shoot video they’d rather do it on a simple, easy to use consumer video camera.
  6. Finally, some are just elitist or old school fuddy-duddies that don't like change. To them a still camera should be a still camera. If they want video they will buy a video camera. Many consider video on DSLRs to be a "toy." These are the same guys that railed against Live View because they consider that too to be a "toy" meant only for lowly P&S cameras.
In response to these points I would say:

  1. I can understand how they feel since not everyone has a knack for video. But that's too bad because even in still photography you're a storyteller. It would good to learn both.
  2. This is simply due to lack of knowledge. However some are beginning to see the light (haha!). Their reaction to "Perya" was very positive: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=32982506
  3. That's just crazy. I say deal with it and learn to adapt. We live in a technological world.
  4. I don't think still photography will ever go away. Yeah, you can pull stills from a video but there is still something unique about the process and the care needed to visualize and capture a singular moment in time. It takes special skills to be the best at that just like it takes special skills to be the best at cinematography.
  5. Can’t argue with that.
  6. Not much to say except these guys can keep driving their Model T's.
My background is also mainly in stills.
 
i have been using my 5D for a fashion documantary, im actually supposed to do stills but ive been shooting Broll on the MkII. The head of the company, saw some of the footage and kissed my head. (literally) thanking me for making her look amazing. ( like the stills, which is why she hired me to begin with ... she loves my stills)
Its not sound synch stuff, but it definitly looks good if youre not using it as the only camera.
Its like trying to shoot with a old super 8 camera. looks so "cool" but you really cant do sound synch work with it. so its cool as a "b Roll" camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top