Wait for next generation of cameras?

[OldCorpse]

Well, we all know that you can shoot on just about anything - that's common knowledge, and therefore not very interesting.

You are asking - if I understand - a different question. And the answer to that question is that it's very particular for every person - what is enough for one person is not enough for another. I waited for quite a while before making a transition from still film to digital - a friend of mine was content with a 0.3MB Minolta. That's because he was doing "rough/dirty" photography, an aesthetic not unlike the grunge or punk of music where a rough sound is the very point. If you are doing that kind of punk a banged up guitar with a missing string might just be the ticket, if you are looking for slick production, obviously not.

Same here. For me personally, video has reached a level I'm comfortable with, so even a GH2 is enough - which is not to say I'd refuse better gear, but it's good enough for my purposes. For you, an Alexa might not be enough. So it's hard to generalize. Gear reaches a critical mass that's different for each person triggering their goals and actions.

I know of many directors who are sticking with film, because they don't think digital is quite there yet, though it is "close". Others thought it was ready years ago. No uniform rules.

 

[morgan_moore]

3. The price / performance war has just begun... I'm sure GoPro didn't buy CineForm just for fun. Blackmagic is notorious for pushing out quick updates without warning. RED has their Dragon sensor. Arri must have a high-res sensor coming soon. Apertus open source camera. Panasonic high-end 4K. Chinese RAW cameras. Etc etc etc!

Exactly.

Well, we all know that you can shoot on just about anything - that's common knowledge, and therefore not very interesting.

You are asking - if I understand - a different question. And the answer to that question is that it's very particular for every person - what is enough for one person is not enough for another.

So true. I have a personal standard, developed through years of work, which is "is the camera bafflingly bad to a client?"

90% of my shooting for a living is about not messing up. Not is the camera better? but is it not crucially flawed to Joe in the Street?

Say the GH2 - wonderful image for non Raw - but Ive been involved with a client who just now refuses to use double sound footage after a project which was a huge mess (many cam ops different locations etc) - baffled client
The FS100, 800ISO, bright sunny day, you are heading for diffraction, IR polution, colour shifts, Fstops that show dust on the unprotectedwhenyouchangelenses sensor NDing that thing is a right PITA - baffled client
Dodgy highs, I dont shoot weddings, but white dresses variable light, getting that on many cams surely a nightmare - potentiall baffling to the client
Colour fidelity, I shoot for clothes brands, and getting the colour spot on is a right pain compared to the sister stills - baffling to the client
I have architecture clients and I can tell you I binned all my 5d shots - client never saw them!
Recently I was on for filming a multicam conference, did I not get the job due to lack of a good TC solution?
And focus, S35 focus is a significant issue not really looked at by the manufacs - does the C300 have off centre check while rolling?

All of this stuff takes workarounds, I do them, Ive spent money and time on sorting them, and my FS100 is now not too bad but those difficulties are to the fore daily when I shoot.
Im gonna stick with my FS for a while - hey its pretty damn good

Any shooter not intensely aware of the issues with their current cam certainly has no need to swap.

Honesly Id take a decent/clean 720 camera over the current batch and certainly dont think any of them are worth more than £10k (canon/sony) because its just too much for a client baffling temporary fix of a camera

S

 

[atarijedi]

I'm only upset that no one came out with a global shutter camera. I could always go the industrial camera route, but that would entail lugging around a computer, plus, there is no autofocus, and those prices, I would want a well rounded camera, one that includes AF.

 

[morgan_moore]

A very fair point.

"hello can you shoot the disco at my wedding"


"sorry no, not with my C500"

baffling

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

Switch your profession into being part of the theatre! You don't have to wait for ANY new equipment to be developed and released, you can have a similar duty with the exception of actually shooting a performance, the theatre is centuries older than film, and you have the option of Off-Broadway, independent, and Broadway.

 

[Paper_bag]

You are asking - if I understand - a different question. And the answer to that question is that it's very particular for every person - what is enough for one person is not enough for another...

I know of many directors who are sticking with film, because they don't think digital is quite there yet, though it is "close". Others thought it was ready years ago. No uniform rules.

Mr Corpse, thanks for your wisdom. I guess I was kind of saying at least two things at once. On the one hand, the original post was kind of ironic, poking fun at the tendency of people, including myself, to always want more. On the other hand, I think I do believe, as perhaps you and Morgan seem to, in "there" -- that there is a point at which you can call something good enough. I don't think the position is so uncommon. For instance, Deakin has said as much about the Alexa -- that no digital camera prior to it was there for him. And I strongly suspect that many people will also be satisfied once video evolves to having or surpassing most of film's qualities.

Back to the title of the thread, for me personally, I guess I feel "there" is just one or two generations off, at least in the sub $15k camera category, for each of the uses for which one might want a camera -- features, weddings, ENG... For cinema, if you just listed out qualities like depth of field, latitude, dynamic range, resolution, grain and texture, I think most of these are already there or very close to being there... Maybe rolling shutter has a while to go, as do more subtle qualities like roll-off or reproduction of colours...

I don't think this is entirely just fanciful dream cam talk -- I think there is some rational basis to speculating how cameras are likely to improve in two or three years, what companies need to do to stay competitive, what problems are likely to be remedied or not...

 

[refocusedmedia]

I look at this thread, and then I look at things like the BMCC, the Chinese 2K RAW camera, the FS700, etc.. and I shake my head in disbelief.

 

[morgan_moore]

Seeing as 2/3 of those cameras cannot be bought, and are therefore, next gen, it does indeed raise the questions.. "Wait for next generation of cameras?"

 

[Bruce Watson]

On the other hand, people's experiences in waiting for the Scarlet is a good lesson...

That's exactly my point.

Manufacturers spread a lot of FUD trying to make you wait -- for them. My take is that I need it when I need it, not when you finally drag it to market. I learned an adage in my real-time control system days: "if it's late, it's wrong." This applies remarkably well to purchasing decisions.

As to telling the difference between wants and needs.... it's not necessarily easy and often not clear cut. And other people can't help much with it either. Something we all have to decide for ourselves. IOW, I feel your pain about that. This is largely why I don't pay much attention to the equipment markets until I need something -- this gives me a much better signal (needs) to noise (wants) level. ;-)

 

[Kholi]

Dissatisfied yet repeatedly liberated.

It only matters when it doesn't matter. I mean that to say: all the tech stuff seems a lot worse (or better) when you aren't actually using it. When you are using it, and creating something that goes well-dang-beyond the gear, the tech stuff doesn't seem to weigh much.

Now, ask me if I'm dissatisfied with the lack of a large budget. >=T

 

[DM_rider]

I like to purchase what's available, so I can make money.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

I've said it before. It's like a computer. Get the best solution you can afford today ​(unless something new is slated for like next month).

Then totally stop looking an pay no attention them for about 3 years. I bought a 5Dmk2 about 18 months ago. In eh... another year, I'll start looking at what's new on the market.

 

[mcbob]

Random thought/rant. Is anyone else (like me) dissatisfied for one reason or another with all the crop of current and upcoming cameras, and thinking about making do with your existing gear till 2014/2015?
..........
The toys are amazing now compared to 5, 10 years ago. But don't they all need just that little something extra?

It's a question of upgrading in increments vs. leaps. First there was MiniDV... and a number of incremental upgrades over the next few years in steadily-better MiniDV tape cameras, but for the most part a vx1000 could still churn out material with roughly similar quality to a DVX100B. Then arose HD and HDV... a huge leap from MiniDV. You could argue that the leap went in two directions: tape-based HD and tapeless HD, one of which is rapidly dead-ending - again, each with multiple incremental upgrades from the Z1U and HVX to today's offerings. Again, you can produce a roughly equivalent product with those first-generation cameras as you can with today's newest small-sensor offerings.

Similarly, there's been the leap in viable large-sensor interchangeable lens cameras. With all the myriad offerings of the past two years, I'd argue that the super slow-mo, wide dynamic range, high bitrates, and all the other innovations are, nonetheless, incremental. One can still pick up a stock 5D2 (plus a sound recorder) and shoot something with similar qualities as they could with the F3 or C300 (albeit without all the great work-saving touches of the newer cameras).

What will be the next leap? Not certain... maybe 4K - we have a few of these cameras now, but we're not in a global financial condition to promote widespread adoption of the format. Maybe integrated wireless signal transmission... maybe lightfield motion imaging sensors... if I knew, I'd be working on whatever was the next big thing to reap the benefits. As it is, I'll hold at my current increments and wait to upgrade until whatever I have no longer earns enough money.

 

[morgan_moore]

It's a question of upgrading in increments vs. leaps.

Very well said.

All my 'upgrades/changes' have been 'leaps'

EX1-5d - sensor look/lenses (yes you can argue that is not an upgrade overall - I would - but did keep the EX too)
5d-7d - UK frame rate + better monitor out (a leap in saleability and focusability - yep canon kippered me on that one by releasing 25p for the 5d the next week)
7d-FS100 - XLR, long takes, no moire and better monitor out

To me those things were leaps, and the 'current crop' are to me are only incrementally better than the FS100 at twice the price

The BMC may prove to be a leap, or not. that will shake out.

S

 

[David Jimerson]

It's a question of upgrading in increments vs. leaps. First there was MiniDV... and a number of incremental upgrades over the next few years in steadily-better MiniDV tape cameras, but for the most part a vx1000 could still churn out material with roughly similar quality to a DVX100B.

In 4:3 60i, perhaps, but the DVX100 slew everything else for its 24p, which WAS a revolution.

 

[mcbob]

In 4:3 60i, perhaps, but the DVX100 slew everything else for its 24p, which WAS a revolution.

I don't disagree that it was a HUGE increment, but I remember doing pulldown processing to mimic 24p from 60i footage - using the older equipment involved a lot more workarounds to get to approximately the same point, but it was possible.

In terms of hugeiosity of leapness, the DVX's advancements were utterly dwarfed by the HVX a mere ~2 years later.