G
Guest
Guest
100% agree.
But you might also agree that most cameras have odd ergonomics or I/o choices.
100% agree.
But you might also agree that most cameras have odd ergonomics or I/o choices.
G
Guest
Guest
I believe you could shoot a better promo video than that now. Even with the same camera. Shooters have gotten better too.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Which ones? I would like to thoroughly read them to gain a better perspective.
And if they are not readily available, what holds true?
G
Guest
Guest
Once I was hired to shoot in 4K and then asked to deliver a DVD. I was luckily on the phone, so they never saw the expression on my face.
But more to your point, some broadcast has to be so backwards compatible, I find there is quite a mix going on. And totally agree, specs are misleading. We seldom see what we think we are getting. 1080p from F35 and 1080p from old youtube or 5d are pretty big. As you describe, similar things are going on in the 4K and 8K world. Based on the widespread acceptance of the old 1080p look, true 720p is probably all people really care about for most motion content.
But I am getting off track here. haha!
G
Guest
Guest
This makes me
Just by the way you're writing about them, may I ask if you've used many DSLRs or mirrorless cameras in your career?
For what it's worth, there are only a few models that overheat in a world of 50+.
And it's really important to define everyone.
Because the 1% who create Hollywood movies do use ARRIs and REDs, but the rest of the world mostly doesn't. The amount of people using DSLRs/mirrorless is astronomical compared to the amount of people using FS7s, EVA1s, etc.
I think we should be a bit more open-minded too.
What if I was a YouTuber who makes 1 million a year. Is my bedroom set professional? Does a crew make it professional? Why do I have to use a professional camera? What is a professional camera?
And why are they deemed difficult to use only because they are difficult for YOU to use who may have experience with more traditional, older cameras (if you don't mind me saying).
The world has changed and is changing, Barry. There's still a place for the cameras you write books about for many more years, but as a professional it would be foolish to think some of the things you think about DSLR/mirrorless systems.
The professional world is quite diverse these days. Though, I think it is still fair to call the broadcast and studio worlds the "industry" or "pro".
Success on youtube doesn't imply any type of visual skill or quality, but camera ops for tv, ads, music videos, films, are workers for hire, and they tend to bring more than their personality to the mix, since their trade is camera work, not an auteur film maker or star.
And as such, the demands for their tools is slightly different.
The separation between "professional/traditional" body cameras and the DSLR/DSLM is due to the Japanese companies unwillingness to release GH-4/5/5S, A-7S/II, 5D MKII/IV in pro-bodies. Had they done so - and they would under a free market type competition - the correlation between image quality and price would be continuously incremental. I.E., a $5,000 camera would be better than a $2,500 camera, a $7,500 would be better than a $5,000 camera and so on. Then the "what is or isn't good enough" would be drawn much in the same way the Netflix is doing it - test the cameras, then make the list of the approved gear. A company lower on the food chain would make a similar list but include more options or totally ignore the camera choice and go by the visual/cinematographic quality only. In the hands of Vince Laforet's, 5D MKII looked like a quality, if not the state of the art, unit a decade ago. Now, it'd be dismissed as unworthy in an instant.
G
Guest
Guest
That sounds like a lot of work. Barry just mentioned it all again in this thread.
G
Guest
Guest
Let's look at that. Should cameras be separated by price and image quality? And if so, how big the jump between brackets?
DSLR's only have marginal differences in image quality between pro and consumer. They all shoot raw and what not. Obviously, the higher cameras tend to have the better image quality, and that is understandable, but the differences are not nearly as drastic as they are in video. ( I believe this was the thinking that got Red cameras off the ground. But they cut undercut before they could deliver 3K for $3K, and they pivoted back towards the high end)
Professional camera people buy professional cameras, even if a T6i and photoshop could almost get the same look. Because of better features and ergonomics.... and that last 5% better image quality.
But that isn't the same in the video realm. Image quality has bigger gaps between prices. To the point that boutique camera companies slapping sensors in boxes and customers drool over the image quality for the price, only to end up with a frankenrig and higher failure rate.
If these manufacturing companies are laying off people and sales are dropping, I am curious where they are planning to go? Or is it just a sinking ship?
G
Guest
Guest
I'll probably complain about digital sensors until they definitively beat film. :beer:
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Ah, good catch. Valid point.
G
Guest
Guest
Barry,
Most cameras are passable today.
I am not suggesting that cameras are unusable, just seeing that both users and camera companies fixate on image quality to the point of going backwards. I appreciate that you are not one of those people, and you have always mention professional ergonomics in your posts.
From where i am, i can’t possibly make realistic assessments as to why things are the way they are, but i can make general judgements about the gear we are presented with. And i am often puzzled by the misteps, given the establish history of motion capture and standards, and the technicological acheviements already available.
Most cameras are passable today.
I am not suggesting that cameras are unusable, just seeing that both users and camera companies fixate on image quality to the point of going backwards. I appreciate that you are not one of those people, and you have always mention professional ergonomics in your posts.
From where i am, i can’t possibly make realistic assessments as to why things are the way they are, but i can make general judgements about the gear we are presented with. And i am often puzzled by the misteps, given the establish history of motion capture and standards, and the technicological acheviements already available.
That's unknowable. It can only be estimated by the corporate strategists and then proved or disproved by the consumers. It is a rare product that hits a home run a la GH-4, C300 and FS-7. And that's in a rigged market, where all the participants agree to a designated slice.
Video requires a lot more processing, both at the sensor and in the body. Consequently, the performance/price gaps are far wider, in the geometric rather than algebraic leaps. Now, Red is a good example of a well funded independent company that found its niche in the high end market. Black Magic Design is another one. In fact, BMD is a far better proof than Red because, beginning with the Cinema Camera which delivered far superior specs vs. the Japanese manufacturers for its price and continuing with the Pocket that shot Raw 1080P and on and on.
Now, why wouldn't the Japanese match the BMD specs? Surely, they had far superior R&D departments and quality control. But they let BMD get their foot in the door because rules of the game apply only to the Japanese.
And then there was Samsung NX1, which had better specs five years ago than Canon and Nikon do to this day.
Chaebol vs. Keiretsu. Take your pick.
Yes, all of the above. Quality, ergonomics and workflow. That requires a heavier investment but, as we understand from the economics of the medium/high budget production, cameras are a minute portion of the budget and the top creative people often are given a complete control over their tools.
These gaps exist due to the pricing power of the Japanese manufacturers. Simply put, they're half-competing and half-partnering with each other and that leaves predetermined price gaps. Which is why there have been so many attempts to break into the market by the independents, from Aaton to Iconoscope to Axiom to Digital Bolex to AJA. Had the Japanese covered every possible niche, there'd be no room for anyone else as Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax, JVC would have several virtually identical items competing against one another the way Toyota Corolla competes against Honda Civic, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra/Versa, Kia Forte, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Chevy Cruze, Fiat Abarth, VW Golf, et cetera, et cetera.
In my opinion, cell phones will destroy - if they hadn't already destroyed - the consumer market. The pro market is different because it's a low volume/high quality niche. Samsung dipped its toes in the water and then completely exited the photo-video market. Sony will stay because it makes sensors and pretty much every product that contains them. Canon and Nikon have a great legacy behind them and are trying to diversify but they're diversifying into fully competitive markets like medical, surveillance, printing and auto. Panasonic can take it or leave it. Fuji's sticking with the high end photo. Ricoh/Pentax and Olympus are probably on their last legs.
I'll tack on the postscript in a separate ... eh, post.
For consumers, the camera manufacturers aren't just Canikony but Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Apple, Samsung, OnePlus, Google, LG, etc. I posted a piece by Thom Hogan on a Panasonic S1 thread. One of the trends he mentions is that smartphones are slowly but surely squeezing out the low end Point&Shoot models. On the Cipa chart I posted on the "Canon layoffs" thread yesterday, the P&S sales are off 50% in units shipped off 2017. At some point, that market will be completely absorbed by the smartphone. Then, it'll be the 1" and the MFT turn. Then the APS-C. This is why the trend in the ILC cameras is toward the bigger sensors because those are far too large to be inside a smartphone. That will probably prolong the inevitable demise for a decade or so. After all, medium format is a long way from 1/2.3".
For consumers, the camera manufacturers aren't just Canikony but Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Apple, Samsung, OnePlus, Google, LG, etc. I posted a piece by Thom Hogan on a Panasonic S1 thread. One of the trends he mentions is that smartphones are slowly but surely squeezing out the low end Point&Shoot models. On the Cipa chart I posted on the "Canon layoffs" thread yesterday, the P&S sales are off 50% in units shipped off 2017. At some point, that market will be completely absorbed by the smartphone. Then, it'll be the 1" and the MFT turn. Then the APS-C. This is why the trend in the ILC cameras is toward the bigger sensors because those are far too large to be inside a smartphone. That will probably prolong the inevitable demise for a decade or so. After all, medium format is a long way from 1/2.3".
G
Guest
Guest
So they say, but haven't multiple cheap cameras proven that it isn't a cost factor except at the extremes? Much in the same way that medium format 5000MP cameras would be understandably expensive.
Solid 720, 1080, 2K and 4K video have been possible at an affordable price for some time.
There really is no big difference between pro and consumer in video quality anymore, except at the extremes.
filmguy123
Veteran
You essentially state this in your post in other terms, but to piggy back off that - the consumers have spoken hence the high volume of high IQ cameras flooding the market.
The very high tier pro market is both price insensitive and firmly entrenched in certain products and workflows. That makes it hard to break into, and it makes quality/reliability/trust the #1 metric - not price - so really the only way to "win" them is to offer a substantially better and more compelling product, regardless of price. A same price, or even slightly cheaper camera equivalent to Arri from a newcomer... whats the point? You lose trust/familiarity. And with a price insensitive market, even a camera at 1/3rd the cost thats maybe slightly better - still an uphill battle. This is a hard nut to crack. RED did right during the transition to digital. Good timing.
That leaves a sort of very low volume "tweener" market. This appears to be getting squeezed continually, every single time one brand takes a risk and gives a little more between $5k-$10k price point. I think its going to get squeezed even more in the next few years.
Interestingly enough - I think this market will get squeezed precisely because IQ is plateauing yet companies still need to release new products. Ok, so Panasonic releases an EVA2 with an L-mount and better codes, slow motion, and some other features. Great. It has to offer more than the EVA1 to be worth it. And it's going to be difficult for them to price much higher than the EVA1. So, as soon as the EVA2 drops, three things happen: (A) the EVA1 will drop in value and you'll have a used market full of EVA1, FS7 mk II, etc. at a lower price than today. And the image quality and physical features and I/O will still be pretty much on par with the EVA2. This drops the actual price of entry for most users into this field. (B) The mid tier market will now offer even more at the same (new) price point than it did in 2017 (which was already a lot). (C) Sony etc. all has to outdo the competition, repeating this cycle.
This is obvious, of course. We know this.
This has always happen, except now we are peaking on the diminishing returns curve. What you've got is a low ground that is constantly rising both in IQ and features and 3rd party workarounds (like Xume filters and Atomos recorders), and a high ground that is stagnating in practical purposes (although continually improving, it is mostly only on "vanity metrics" (maybe that term is unfair - lets call it specialty features) - things like super slow FPS and super hi res and way over the top DR) that don't most people unless they are at the very very top end.
And then you've got this middle ground that, save for a few hold out features, is just continually being compressed into the low ground.
ND filters. SDI. XLR. Those are sort of the big three, right?
But then of course we have: Xume Filters, ProRes RAW over HDMI & USB 3.0, XLR modules & MixPre-3 type devices.
Form factor? We are so spoiled for options to rebuild exactly the box you want via Zacuto, SmallRig, and a million others.
Perhaps the best illustration of this squeeze from the "low" end - The S1H. $4000. It matches or beats the EVA1 in pretty much every spec except the listed big three, all with a better UI and IBIS to boot. It also packs better for travel, sometimes an increasing number of OMBs are doing.
So whats left? We already know modular is the future.
It'd be easy to see the future in the way it's always been, but I think it's going to get derailed by a few things we are already seeing:
1. ND filters become outdated. Sensor tech is already moving to individually dimmable pixels that essentially work as on-sensor ND. Other solutions also in works. Don't think of "when ND filters come to DSLRS", think more like "when ND filters become obsoleted by technology".
2. SDI becomes outdated. USB 3.2 latest specs are smoking. Double the run distance I believe, extremely high data. I don't know if it's good enough yet, but give these interconnects a few years and there will be little left for SDI. Sure, SDI has a "pro connector". That's just a connector, though. Picture USB 4.0 with near infinite run distances passing multiple streams of super high bandwidth data in razer thin cables. Now picture some companies wrapping that in a super reinforced shielding with a high grade connector on the end. Walla. SDI is dead. The top tier markets might still use it, as those large entities tend to be slow to adapt, but everyone else will move on.
3. XLR. Always the classic, but we can't be that long away from better pre-amps built into camera bodies, and we already have great XLR modules. I think this is already solved, but we just haven't seen a ton of widespread implementation of great products at the prosumer level. As well, think a few years out. Will XLR cables be replaced with pro-grade USB 4.0 cables and all digital recording? No biggee if not, but it certainly seems possible.
End of the day, I think the low end and mid tier market fully merge, and DSLRs become more akin to RED's "brain" modules. I think accessory modules simply improve to a less jerry-rigged state where everything is power efficient and runs off one central battery the size of the S1 battery if you so wish. And "all-in-one" cameras largely evaporate - where even manufacturers sell those designs as modular.
I think imminent tech improvements will pave the way for that very easily, because we are right on the cusp to the largest hurdles there dissapearing (they already are). Namely:
* I/O connectors (Think USB 3.2 or 4.0)
* Battery (not so much better battery tech, that's down the road, but more power efficient CPUs and MicroLED screens, etc.)
* Storage (smaller yet higher density SSDs combined with more efficient codecs like ProRes RAW/H.265)
* Sensor tech or otherwise obsoleting traditional ND filters
Large size bodies made sense before - they've been necessary to fit all the parts. Dissipate all the heat. But that's decreasingly the case. So they'll still exist - where they need to - at the very high end.
So, nothing. Nothing will be barred. I think the market will transform. It already has. Follow the natural trajectory.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Very infrequently. As stated before, we used the GH1 on a couple of short films, one of which was premiered at South by Southwest (not Slamdance, I got that wrong; the Slamdance film was on the HVX200). And I used the Canon 7D briefly on our Lighting For Flim & Video DVD. And I can't remember what we did with the GH2. After that I swore off them. By that time the AF100 and FS100 were out, and the FS700 followed shortly, and then the FS3, FS5, FS7, the BlackMagics, and then the EVA. So there was never a reason to go through the process of using a mirrorless or DSLR again.
Yes, that's clearly true. I mentioned two groups -- those who are doing productions with full cast and crew, and are paying their crew, which are today probably 0% DSLR; and then there's the rest of the group, those who are not hiring full cast and crew, and for that group the DSLR is almost certainly the weapon of choice.
I wasn't discussing popularity, I was talking specifically about the reasoning that those who can afford a full-fledged camera, use one.
Entirely irrelevant to the point. First of all, there are no YouTubers who make a million a year, statistically speaking. There are a couple, but the overwhelmingly vast majority are making pennies. I should know, I've got over 40,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos, and over 8 million views, so not a tiny channel, probably much bigger than the vast majority of YouTubers, and my channel brings in maybe $100/month.
But more to the point -- I think you're trying to see something in my statement that wasn't there. For the record, I have always been a staunch defender of various ways of making a living from video. When people denigrate wedding videographers, I am the first to point out that that group is probably the hardest-working, and highest-earning per-capita, group in all of video. The average wedding videographer makes more in a weekend than almost every single "indie filmmaker" will in their career. So you won't find me knocking the professionalism of those who put in the effort and work for a living!
My point was that "image quality is the most important thing over all" is simply not true for a lot of people, and used the working video/film professional who has a budget and a cast and a crew as my example. Those folks need good image quality, yes, and pretty much every prosumer camera and above delivers suitable quality. So the differentiating factor, for them, is: workability, workflow, reliability, etc.
Nobody that I know of would voluntarily choose to work with a consumer camera instead of a properly-engineered professional camcorder, when their career is on the line. Sure they may experiment, for the novelty of it, but when the paycheck is on the line, those who can afford properly-engineered pro gear, use it.
That has been explained a hundred times over. Simple things like timecode sync'ing to an external recorder, proper XLR inputs with quality pre-amps and line/mic selectability, mounting with common easily-rentable professional lenses, industry-supported power systems, connectivity with industry-supported monitoring tools, and on and on and on. Can you imagine, for a second, someone trying to argue "but this DSLR has a half stop more dynamic range, and it has an HDMI cable, and it has a 1/8" microphone input"... that ain't gonna fly.
Yes, I'm quite well aware of that. For example, before "the DSLR revolution", we used to be a community of filmmakers. We'd run festivals and get fifty, sixty, even 90 entries. We talked about film, we worked on film, we commented and shared about film, we made films.
After the DSLR revolution? Haven't seen a film from anyone, really. The filmmaking spirit died the day the equipment became "democratized". The last time we tried running a fest like the old ones, and we got two entries. Two. Where did all the filmmakers go?
Correlation isn't causation, so I can't say definitively that the DSLR killed off filmmaking, but I can point at the dates and show how different the world became when the DSLR Revolution happened. Prior to that time, people wrote scripts, told stories, hired actors (even if it was for pizza and credit), and tried to make a film. A mini movie.
After that date? Filmmaking appears to have become redefined, I've seen many people including major names post their "films" which could only be properly described as "some little travel blog montage". Certain camera reviewers and pundits would put up a collection of random shots and call that "a film." Is that what filmmaking's become? A demo reel that nobody would ever watch, except someone considering that camera to make their own demo reel (er, I mean "film") on? If so, I'm happy to let that realm pass on to the next generation, as I want no part of it.
I begrudge nobody the medium for making their art or their living. Go right ahead, use whatever you want, and hopefully you will reap rewards and recognition from your efforts.
Well, okay, first of all, the type of cameras that I write books about aren't the types that are used on the sets I described earlier (with the exception of the EVA1), so that isn't really part of this particular discussion. Further, I think my attitudes on DSLR/mirrorless are not only not foolish, but quite prescient. I believe I was completely right about them, just too early; how quickly they vanished from the budgeted set (when properly-engineered, properly-integrated pro cameras with large sensors appeared) is undeniable proof of that.
So let's crystallize the point: I'm saying that as long as the image quality is good enough, paid professionals in a paid working environment on a set with paid cast and paid crew will always, almost exclusively, choose to use a properly-engineered, properly-integrated professional camera over a consumer alternative, even if that consumer alternative were shown to offer an edge in image quality. There are exceptions, of course, sometimes Soderbergh wants to shoot a film on an iPhone, or sometimes someone wants to shoot an episode of "House" on a Canon 5D. But those are such incredibly rare exceptions that it proves how long-standing and inviolable the rule is.
I'm NOT saying "if you use a DSLR you're an amateur." A pro can use whatever tool they want. I do think a DSLR would be a profoundly silly choice for sports coverage, for example. But it might be perfect for the youtuber, or as a crash cam, or as a POV camera, or something like that. It might be an ideal "stealth" camera for a guerilla documentary. It might be ideal for a wedding videographer or someone like that.
Finally, back to the original point -- "image quality" does not make you a professional, nor does it make you a filmmaker. Jack and I made three films that played at three of the top 10 film festivals in the world. One was shot on an HPX500, one was on an HVX200, and one was on an unhacked, original GH1. None of these cameras would be praised by people today for their image quality, and the GH1 had the worst codec ever put into any video product ever, far worse than HDV. Yet each of those films was accepted into one of the premiere, top-tier film festivals in the world (Tribeca, Slamdance, and South x Southwest). Because Jack was an outstanding director and writer, and Timur Civan and Vincent Pascoe and MacGregor were brilliant world-class DPs, and we cast superb actors, those films all looked outstanding and qualified for some of the biggest festivals around. Regardless of what they were shot on. Frankly, nobody ever asked what they were shot on.
And after having accomplished that, I pretty much swore off using those products again, because while the novelty was briefly fun, the reality is that something like an EVA1 or FS7 is simply an infinitely better, more integrated, reliable, and preferable way to shoot. And after we did those films, these newer generation of pro cameras became widely available, so that's what we moved to.
If that makes me "foolish", I'll happily accept that.
Last edited: