Sony catching up to RED?

I have had a play with an earlier Sony SLR model and it was very nice to shoot with. I don't mind their stills cameras. Their PD150s/170s model are good for fast set ups and shooting on the fly.... well they were 4 years ago.

Then along came Panasonic & changed my expectations of what I should be able to do with a $3k miniDV camera (or whatever the DVX cost when it came out).

Then Panasonic/Jan Crittendon again whett my whistle with what would be possible if I had variable frame rates on a video camera with the HVX....

...And Sony went all HDV and well, interlaced : (

So my money is on Panasonic as the best serious contender playing catch up with Red. They seem very aware of people like us out there.

But both would prob. try and protect their high-end cams maybe.

Then again Canon could throw a wild card in their with some amazing new XL on steroids cam.

Welp. Fo sure Cleatus, them there exciting times ahead!!!

El Stupido

PS: I was going to buy a DVX, but keeping an eye on the boards eventually lead me to the HVX which I conspired to buy before it lead me to Red. I prob just hire the HVX now & save my pennies for the big one!!
 
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydslra100/

"10 megapixel APS-C CCD
Interestingly Sony has gone for CCD rather than CMOS with this camera, so it's not the same sensor as used in the DSC-R1. We've no official confirmation but it seems likely that this is the same 23.6 x 15.8 mm CCD used in the Nikon D200."

DPReview thinks the Sony is using the same imager as the Nikon D200 which has some of the most beautiful pictures that I've ever seen from a digital camera and that's around $2000 without lens. Of course there are other factors besides the imager so I'm sure there are sacrifices to get the price down to $1000 but still, it's very exciting.

I would settle for 1280x720 out of a $2000 Digital SLR at 24 fps just to get the large CCD or CMOS chip and the dynamic range. That would be terrific. Just tell your actors to move very slow and speed it up in post. ;)

The Sony will shoot max 3 frames per second at any resolution until the memory card is full, except no RAW mode for this.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately:

DSLRs use phsyical shutters; RED uses an electronic one.

Sony's CCD would get unusably hot and noisy at 24fps (let alone 60) and I doubt it could even dump its charge that fast.

Canon's CMOS technology is way ahead of Sony's CCDs (which are still pretty good, to their credit).

CCDs use way too much power for a small form factor video camera.

Then again, they do have the Genesis...
 
yeah i expected to see the Genesis in the first post when i clicked on the thread title.. im sure shooting 24fps wont be far off in the DSLR world.. i mean pont and shoots can do it already.. they just end up looking like crap.
 
Jarred, I completely agree.

However recently I found something interesting. I have a Canon S400 which takes like 10 fps 320x240 just awful movies. My sister in law recently got a newer Canon point and shoot that does 640x480 30 fps and the video looks pretty good. But looking at the color channels they are pristine. Also the amount of detail in the darks is amazing. I shot a comparison to my Sony DV camera and the still camera almost looked like film in comparison. I was quite shocked and this was from a $150 camera. The bummer is there is practically zero manual control over the camera, even through a menu.
 
One of the advantages of adopting an S35 sensor for RED is that there is a wide world of expensive, highly innovative R&D going on for still camera sensors that has benefits for motion picture sensor users. We ain't seen nothin' yet!
 
Last edited:
Hey WesVasher

Hey WesVasher

The LX2 has manual focus and some other manual stuff.
 
Last edited:
WesVasher said:
Jarred, I completely agree.

However recently I found something interesting. I have a Canon S400 which takes like 10 fps 320x240 just awful movies. My sister in law recently got a newer Canon point and shoot that does 640x480 30 fps and the video looks pretty good. But looking at the color channels they are pristine. Also the amount of detail in the darks is amazing. I shot a comparison to my Sony DV camera and the still camera almost looked like film in comparison. I was quite shocked and this was from a $150 camera. The bummer is there is practically zero manual control over the camera, even through a menu.
Click to expand...

i agree.. they are getting pretty good those little cameras. 640x480 though is incredibly easy. It will come when those little digital cameras shoot hd onto a SD card that looks pretty good, but we arnt there yet.
 
sooner than you think

sooner than you think

We will be there in September, just not at 30fps. If you can settle for 15 fps you are in luck. Maybe when FAT 32 comes out and they redesign the Lumix to take advantage of it, 30 fps might be possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
acrochordon dude thats the third warning you have gotten about putting big ass images inline in a post.. time for a timeout for you. sorry.
 
Jarred Land said:
i agree.. they are getting pretty good those little cameras. 640x480 though is incredibly easy. It will come when those little digital cameras shoot hd onto a SD card that looks pretty good, but we arnt there yet.
Click to expand...

Right, it's probably safer to say that Digital Still Cameras might... might allow people like me who use an extremely low end DV camcorder to shoot better video maybe. Chances are there will just be better and better video cameras for less money that will be better suited anyway.

If Panasonic would make an HVX lite type camera for people like me under two grand that did at least decent 720p to flash or hard drive then I'm be so stoked. Maybe they'll do a nice AVCHD camcorder.
 
Good to see that the high noise of the LX1 seems to have been ironed out. I have the LX1 and while it takes fantastic pictures, it does have rather high noise at settings above ISO80, though this can be mitigated through Photoshop and Noise Ninja with the LX1 downloadable profile.

Haven't shot much motion stuff on it but it is certainly good for a quick point and shoot in emergency situations, recording 848x480 at 30fps (I live in Australia so I wish there were a 25fps option, but it's no biggie). Microphone is on the back though (handy for narrating the action but not so handy for picking up in frame stuff). Records nearly 20min using a 2GB SD card (use a good high speed one which records at 133x for best results). 2GB is the max with the FAT16 limitation.

My main reason for picking one up was that it was the first camera I could find with the features I wanted, that had a true 16:9 sensor (3840x2160), useful when working in a film environment and taking behind the scenes photos for DVD extras etc. I'd recommend the LX1 to people, so the new LX2 should be even better!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top