Michael Olsen
Veteran
Every time I read something like that it makes me smile. It seems like classical economists are turning over in their graves. Just doesn't seem right, somehow.
Video equal, will you sell your 7D for a T2i?
- Thread starter jonE5
- Start date
Every time I read something like that it makes me smile. It seems like classical economists are turning over in their graves. Just doesn't seem right, somehow.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, the thing is, it isn't right. The Scarlet isn't a direct replacement for a video camera, it's in a different class. It's a purpose-built digital cinema camera.
Or not; we frankly don't really know what it is, we get an announcement every thirty to ninety days. But the Red One is in no ways a broadcast video camera, like all the competitors from the established companies, so it doesn't seem that unreasonable to guess that the same relationship will carry forward.
Or not; we frankly don't really know what it is, we get an announcement every thirty to ninety days. But the Red One is in no ways a broadcast video camera, like all the competitors from the established companies, so it doesn't seem that unreasonable to guess that the same relationship will carry forward.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Too true. It's important to remind myself of that difference. It'll be interesting to see exactly how it works out, and what its 1080p24 4:4:4 mode will look like...
shaocaholica
Well-known member
Canon also sells a S35 interchangeable lens camera that does 1080p24/25/30 and 720p60 for $800. Imagine what the EOS team (not pro video) could possibly make in a $5000 camera if video was a priority? We've already seen that the internal politics at Canon aren't holding back the EOS cameras by much. Yes Canon has some pretty high priced gear but recently they have be pulling a "RED" if you will at the very low end of the spectrum. All I'm trying to do is try to guess how this low end segment will evolve.
Ian-T
Veteran
I agree. Take out all of the still functions, focus on the video end and keep the price reasonable. I think it can be done well under $10,000. Yes...it's all conjecture...but when I look a tiny company like Red..having to do all of their R&D and everything else that goes into making their cinema camera as low priced as they did it makes me think a corporate giant like Canon...who already has a tremendous track record, years of R&D in this industry etc., and financial power can make a similar cinematic camera for half the cost of Red/Scarlet easily. They have already showed that costs can be cut with certain compromises. Cut the Stills (and add some power to the sensor readout).. and you got a hit.
The comparison to me is like a Mom&Pops vs a Walmart.
Last edited:
J Davis
Veteran
Stills is the DSLR bread and butter, its how they make their money - to the market of photogs.
Its not us dof hungry video freaks that keep the DSLR world turning.
If you are talking getting rid of still features, avoiding pixel binning and line skipping then you are really talking about a whole different canon department
ie. putting aps-c cmos in camcorders
this is where panasonic may have an edge, all they have to do is marry the micro 4/3rds mount with their P2 camcorders
and build a 4/3rds cmos sensor with big ass photosites so we can avoid line skipping and get 1080p
4/3rs would be cheaper size to make than aps-c and the dof is slightly more manageable when it comes to shooting narrative
Its not us dof hungry video freaks that keep the DSLR world turning.
If you are talking getting rid of still features, avoiding pixel binning and line skipping then you are really talking about a whole different canon department
ie. putting aps-c cmos in camcorders
this is where panasonic may have an edge, all they have to do is marry the micro 4/3rds mount with their P2 camcorders
and build a 4/3rds cmos sensor with big ass photosites so we can avoid line skipping and get 1080p
4/3rs would be cheaper size to make than aps-c and the dof is slightly more manageable when it comes to shooting narrative
Last edited:
shaocaholica
Well-known member
Don't you waste a lot of the 4/3 sensor when you shoot 16:9 or even wider?
J Davis
Veteran
good point, what they should do is make a 2:1 sensor (or thereabouts if you want look around) and match the diagonal to the 4/3rd lens family image circles
(and canon likewise to aps-c)
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Whenever we talk about these things, this seems to be the thing I've always wanted to know. How much of the DSLR market share we video people occupy.
The fact that they released the 7D with added framerates (24p, a cinema framerate) and are releasing a firmware update for the 5D makes me think that they are committed to this video/filmmaking thing. I don't think that they anticipated the reception these DSLRs would have from video prosumers and professionals, but they are pretty committed to heavily marketing them as "moving photography" cameras.
I just don't know if they'll lean towards appeasing our market or continuing to play up the photojournalist/photo hobbyist market with cameras that shoot awesome stills and really robust HD video. Apparently its been both so far.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I seriously feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone... wasn't all the optimism about Red specifically because they were a new company, they were small, they didn't have all the overhead, they could slash prices because they sell direct to the customer and cut out the middlemen, they're not bound by entrenched corporate culture, they don't have any higher end to protect, and on and on and on, and so that's how they could make a $17,500 camera that competes with the $100,000 units from the other guys.
... and now, all of a sudden it's Canon (monolithic, massive, corporate gargantuan Canon) who is the cost-cutter of the group?
What's happening here? Did I forget to take my pills or something? It's bizarro-world or something...
Guys, we're talking about CANON here. CANON. A company that still tries to get $9,000 for a 1/3" video camera. CANON. A company that doesn't innovate, they sit on the sidelines and let everyone else duke it out, sort it out, settle all the issues, and when everyone's agreed, THEN Canon steps in and offers up something based on last year's technology. Heck, look -- they just introduced a new MPEG-2 codec. MPEG-2. MPEG TWO. Even Sony is starting to move away from MPEG-2, and Canon has just now decided "the market is mature, we will now enter it."
Canon has a stills division, which is a world-leader and moves rapidly. And they have a video division, which drags its feet like a zombie. They're still selling the GL2, for crying out loud. They are the last manufacturer to take any step. They were the last manufacturer to introduce HD models. Heck, in their professional lineup they STILL don't have a tapeless model, over FIVE YEARS after Panasonic introduced the first tapeless HD camera.
They make quality equipment, yes. But they certainly don't do it a) fast, or b) cheaply.
J Davis
Veteran
Barry, I think the difference here is you are talking consumer and prosumer gear.
Red don't do that and have stated they will never do that. Of course if you compare pro red gear to canon consumer you will see a price difference.
If you compare pro red gear to pro SI-2K or Arri you will see a difference.
I see the them dragging their zombie feet with GL2's because they are smart. They know how to milk the market for max profits and don't release a cam until they have to stay ahead on specs.
Vixia being a great example, just look at how many versions each with a minute incremental improvement
Red don't do that and have stated they will never do that. Of course if you compare pro red gear to canon consumer you will see a price difference.
If you compare pro red gear to pro SI-2K or Arri you will see a difference.
I see the them dragging their zombie feet with GL2's because they are smart. They know how to milk the market for max profits and don't release a cam until they have to stay ahead on specs.
Vixia being a great example, just look at how many versions each with a minute incremental improvement
Last edited:
shaocaholica
Well-known member
I think you answered your own question. Its Canon's stills division thats been making all the video buzz lately. Those ridiculous Canon video prices are not from the stills products.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
Barry, I don't have your experience in the industry. I've only entered the whole prosumer camera world in the last couple of years.
From my perspective though, isn't the whole concept of HD video in a DSLR kind of make it a whole new world? Isn't Canon leading the pack in this niche even though they've followed before?
From my perspective though, isn't the whole concept of HD video in a DSLR kind of make it a whole new world? Isn't Canon leading the pack in this niche even though they've followed before?
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Stills division concerned with making stills better. Must compete with other stills (Nikon, etc.). Have found easy way to add on video capability with little time.
Dedicating themselves to video camera would mean that they were no longer working on the stills. Then they would have subpar video cameras, subpar stills cameras, and DSLRs that shot subpar professional video.
I don't think Canon wants to be any more subpar than it has to be.
Sorry, short on time.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Okay, seriously -- if you want to know who will do what you're asking first, the answer is pretty glaringly obvious: Panasonic or Sony.
You have four manufacturers of camcorders out there, being Canon, JVC, Panasonic and Sony.
Historically, in professional video, innovation comes from JVC, Panasonic and Sony. Canon drags behind the others by YEARS. Sony introduced the VX1000 in 1995, Canon didn't show up to the party until 1997. Canon gets credit for introducing "frame mode" but even that doesn't count; that was actually a Panasonic invention, it was first used on the AG-EZ1, and Canon bought the chipset from Panasonic to include it in the XL1.
JVC made the first low-cost 1/2" DV camcorder, the DV500. They invented consumer HD, with the HD1 in March of 2003, over a year and a half before Sony showed up with their FX1.
Panasonic has been on the forefront of all the filmmaker revolution here. Panasonic introduced 24p to this price class on the DVX100 in 2003; Sony didn't bring out 24p until ... well, when? 2006? Three YEARS after Panasonic did?
Panasonic brought out the first tapeless memory camera, in 2004; the first high-def memory camera in 2005. Now every camcorder manufacturer records to memory, but Panasonic innovated that years before anyone else did. Sony didn't even introduce memory recording until the EX1 in 2007, over three years after Panasonic introduced it.
Panasonic also introduced variable frame rates in 2005, something that neither JVC nor Canon have matched YET. Four years later. Sony did match it, in 2007.
Panasonic introduced 10-bit recording, with AVC-Intra. None of the others have matched it yet.
Panasonic introduced a precision repeatable focus ring on the DVX in 2003. It's 2010 and I'm still waiting for Canon to match that.
Panasonic was the first to put 1080/24p on a prosumer-priced camera.
Sony has their share of innovations; bringing low-cost HD CMOS sensors out, half-inch chips in the EX1, etc.
And yes, JVC innovated HD interchangeable lenses -- but -- for filmmakers, does it matter? Who actually changes the lens on their camera? JVC introduced consumer HD recording, yes -- but it was 30p-only. So while they're an innovative company, their innovations have not lined up with our interests (although they were the first to introduce 720/24p HD, a couple of months before Panasonic did).
But as far as innovating things that actually matter to US, the filmmaking community, Panasonic has been innovating and carrying the torch and bringing out the things that actually matter to us, way WAY ahead of the other video camera manufacturers.
So now, when we look at what's being asked for here, a large-sensor video camera, who do you really think is going to actually do it first?
JVC doesn't make still cameras. They don't have access to that whole lineup, so they're out. Besides, they can barely keep the doors open as is.
Canon drags their feet in video to an extreme degree, and Chris Hurd has already discussed it with them and been told that the short answer is "No." And the long answer is "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo." Ain't gonna happen. At least not this year.
Sony? Maybe. But they haven't even made a DSLR with video *at all* yet, have they? So are they really going to be the first ones to make a proper video camera using the large sensor?
Nikon? Nikon doesn't make video cameras. They're not in that business.
So who does that leave? Hmmm... let's see... the company that introduced us to 24p, the company that innovated quality audio recording on prosumer-priced equipment, the company that innovated variable frame rates and tapeless recording, and the company that does all that YEARS before anyone else. And the company that already has the GH1, which is a far, far, far superior video camera (as a video camera) than any other SLR out there; a camera which actually acts like and works like a video camera. For those of you who haven't ever used a GH1 and think Canon is the be-all-and-end-all, just use one for five minutes and you'll see that the engineering decisions behind them are very different -- the Canon is a stills camera with a tacked-on video feature, whereas the GH1 was engineered to be a competent replacement for a video camera. Yes they both have their issues, but man, the handwriting is on the wall as to which company "gets it" and makes products aimed at US.
So, come on... there are really only two places to look. There are two companies that would actually give us what we want, a proper large-sensor shallow-DOF moviemaking machine. And those two companies are Panasonic and Red. Red is a dedicated digital cinema camera company, and Panasonic is the most innovative, cutting-edge, early-adopting, first-out-of-the-gate of the big four, and they have the SLR division and they have the understanding of what the filmmaking customer wants and they've shown that they listen to us, they take notes from us, they take our wishlists and take it to the factory and say "here, build this".
Red is supposed to be first, with the Scarlet, we'll see how that goes. But from the Big Four, I have no doubt whatsoever that if anyone's gonna do it first, it'll be Panasonic. If JVC had a stills division and any actual cash flow I'd say they'd be a strong contender to do it first, but I don't think they have the resources (either the r&d money, or the stills division).
So if you're looking for a camera from the Big Four that's designed for video first and foremost, with a large sensor, shallow DOF, and 24p... I think there's only one direction to be looking.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Look at the GH1 website, they show how the imaging circles overlap to give pretty much equal sensor coverage in each of the aspect ratios.
Barry_Green
Moderator
My guess is less than 5%.
Oh, that's for certain -- you can look up the video interview with Tim Smith where he admits exactly that. They were blown away that film people were looking at the 5D. They designed the 5D for photojournalists. But they do understand what we want and have said they will make it.
But they don't shoot robust HD video. They shoot compromised video. That's the whole problem, and why we're looking to see whether one of the video manufacturers will take this technology seriously and make a product that's oriented towards video shooters.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Canon is definitely a leader in the stills camera arena (even though Nikon actually did DSLR video before they did). But Canon's video division is a very different animal. They let everyone else "take point" and they bring up the rear; always have, always will, they admit it and they say they like it that way.
So the question is: are you looking for an SLR that also shoots video? Then yes, Canon will be a leader in that.
Are you looking for a properly-engineered video camera that overcomes all the SLR shortcomings, fixes the moire and the aliasing, adds proper audio and timecode and zebras and live waveform and sync's timecode with other cameras in a multi-camera shoot, one that you can use for more than 10 minutes at a time, one that doesn't overheat, etc? If so, you don't want an SLR, you want a video camera that uses an SLR-sized sensor. And then you're back to talking about Canon's video division. If you want that, I think a very safe bet would be to wait about two years after Panasonic introduces it, and a year after Sony does... that'll be about the time Canon's professional video division introduces a comparable product.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly.
So do you want a DSLR with a tacked-on video feature? If so, sure, you'll get great pricing, quick innovation, and aliasing/moire, no headphone jack, no timecode, no way to defeat the audio gain, etc.
If you want an actual professional video product, then you're going to go to the back of the line and wait years for Canon to get around to producing it only after everyone else has first.
J Davis
Veteran
What is interesting is the price of RED's bottom of the line pro stuff is edging on the prosumer price bracket. $4750 for a 2/3 fixed zoom is undercutting the HVX's and the HPX's. Combined with the fact that they can hand off media that has been debayered in camera you can see they can now get the ENG crowd and event shooters.
A ripple effect will happen with Pana Canon and Sony as they knock all their prices down to make sales. Logically the sweet spot for prosumer HVX type cams will all sit around $3000 because if you have $4000 to spend you may as well cough up a bit more and go RED.
A ripple effect will happen with Pana Canon and Sony as they knock all their prices down to make sales. Logically the sweet spot for prosumer HVX type cams will all sit around $3000 because if you have $4000 to spend you may as well cough up a bit more and go RED.