What's a DSLR killer anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meauounji

Well-known member
So this is going to be a bit of a rant, and maybe a little flame bait, too.

But I was just reading some article the other day, and the word "DSLR killer" came up again. It doesn't really particularly matter right now who the author was, but it did get me thinking.

What's a DSLR killer anyway?

Well, let's take a look at the reason why we like DSLR video/film in the first place. I think it's because of the following:

Large sensor. This means shallow depth of field. Love it or sick of it, it's a part of the draw. This also affects the choice of lenses available to you. A 5D or 7D can make excellent uses of 50 year old lenses. That's pretty darn cool, and potentially cheap, too. Larger sensor also contributes to better low light capability, which brings me to the next point.

Low light capability. My personal comfort zone is ISO 1600, sometimes higher depending on the project, but not only can you crank up the ISO/Gain, it looks pretty good doing it, too. Combined with a reasonably fast lenses and you can shoot with available light in almost ANY situation short of cave diving during a lunar eclipse. Camcorders can crank up the gain, but to me, it just doesn't look as good.

Cost. It's cheap. No bones about it, the most expensive DSLR you would reasonably get for video is $2500, and you can get pretty darn close to what $2500 gets you with just $1000. If you're thinking "But I have to buy all sorts of stuff to make it good! Have you seen Vincent Laforet's rigs?" I would contend that most of the stuff you buy for a DSLR you either want or need it for a "real" camcorder anyway. Personally, with the exception of a $30 attenuated audio cable, I haven't spent money on anything I can't reuse with other rigs, and I've spent a fair bit.

Sex appeal. I can't put a finger on it, but there's just SOMETHING about DSLR footage that just screams "lick me". It's probably a combination of the depth of field, 24p, the right shutter angles, and tone curve, but nothing else comes close that isn't in a 5-figure price range.

Oh, but I hear you saying: "Yeah, those things are cool, but look at all these flaws! Rolling Shutter! Moire! Bad codec!" Yes, I'm with you. They suck. Which brings us to the DSLR killer subject. Let's see what a "DSLR Killer" has to have in order for us to stop our love/hate with them.

Minimal/No rolling shutter. I accept the fact that you're going to have rolling shutter to some degree due to the nature of CMOS chips, but let's pretend for a minute that there are other technologies available, or that CMOS can have a read/reset time that's fast enough for rolling shutter to not become an issue anymore.

No Moire. The way DSLR's currently do it is just unacceptable. It really isn't. It's footage ruining kind of unacceptable. It's a miracle we've got as many people making good looking stuff as we do when this is such a problem.

"Good" Codec. I did take the time to put up a couple of quotation marks there because "good" is something of a relative term, especially when it comes to codecs. Some people won't accept anything less than 4:2:2, but some can deal with 4:2:0 just fine. Some people think RED RAW is the only thing worth shooting in. Whatever. The real point here is that we have no choice other than the sucky-implemented h.264 8-bit 4:2:0 stuff when using DSLR's.

Professional Inputs/Outputs. More specifically, ditch the mini-HDMI connector. It's the devil. At least go to full-sized HDMI connectors. Seriously though, some people actually like silly things like XLR and BNC connectors. If you're thinking it's not that bad, you haven't had a take interrupted by a wonky mini HDMI cable, forcing a crowd of a dozen cast and crew to wait while you figure out what just went wrong.

Keep the same price.

I thought I'd add a line break for effect.

Because here's the punchline: There're literally several cameras out there right now that can do all four of the above "DSLR killer" things. Heck, films have been shot on this funny stuff called "film" a long time before DSLR's ever came out and they've never had to deal with any of that crap. The problem is, they cost too much. Even the AF-100 is twice the price of a 5D, has a smaller than APS-C sensor, and still only records in 8-bit 4:2:0 without a $2000+ add-on.

Bottom line: in order for some thing to "kill" DSLR's, it has to perform at least as good as DSLR's in the "reasons to love" category, solve the at least one or two of the problems in the "reasons to hate" category, AND it has to operate in the same sub-$2500 market. Personally, I can't wait for something to come along and "kill" DSLR video. I'm sick of all the headache I have to deal with when using a 5D, but I'm still not willing to pay $13,000 for a Sony F3 just yet. At the rate we're going, it might just be another DSLR that comes along and "kill" DSLR video as we know it.

So what's my point? Stop talking about DSLR killers. There aren't going to be any. At least not in the next year or two. Camera manufacturers know that a good camcorder can sell for a 5-figure price, no sweat. An entry level "pro" camcorder is at least $5000. (Think HVX200) Top end DSLR's cost $5000. That's where they STOP. DSLR's START at about $800 for an enthusiast model. No way a professional camcorder is going to come along and "kill" an $800 camera. Not. A. Chance. One day, maybe, just maybe, someone will wise up and figure out that if they just dropped the megapixel count on their sensors and increase the buffer size, they already have enough data-throughput to handle 3k video on their DSLR's. (The 7D is proof of this, it can process 5k at 8fps, which is exactly the same as 3k at 24fps) But for now, love what you got. It's good enough to make a movie that sells for 4 million at Sundance, good enough for a top-rated TV-Drama, good enough for all sorts of people shooting all sorts of things, and for now, it's good enough for me.
 
I didn't jump on the DSLR bandwagon for a while. It took a bit to win me over really. I just wasn't used to such a tiny thing producing such good video. I wasn't used to having something that light blow me away like it does. I really love the power of it. Such a small device, yet produces beautiful images. My personal opinion is, just like any camera it has it's strengths and weaknesses. There's areas where I still need a traditional camera. I wouldn't do much doc work on it unless I was hunting for b-roll that day. But really, they're cheap, give beautiful footage and can be on you at all times. I really like that I can now have my camera on me so if I see something that inspires me, maybe an awesome sunset, I can shoot it and maybe even use it! Location scouting got great, I could even test blocking with a stand in. It also makes a great viewfinder. There's just something about a camera that is small enough to be a viewfinder in itself. Plus it's an excellent photo camera! It allows me to hone my composition plus get to know my tools a little bit better. All in all, there may come new cams but you couldn't carry an AF100 with you at all times. There's just something unique about DSLRs. I'm still testing to find it's limits and incorporate it smoothly into my workflow but I'm excited about this new tool for sure. Your rant inspired me to rant for myself, very nicely said!

EDIT: I forgot to add, when I was in film school, I didn't have anything like this. I saved everything I could to get a decent cam to learn on. A kid could work a summer job and pay one of these off and start practicing. It's quite practical.
 
Last edited:
meauounji said:
But I was just reading some article the other day, and the word "DSLR killer" came up again.
Click to expand...

I don´t know if you are referring to me, cause I wrote two "DSLR killer" articles.

meauounji said:
What's a DSLR killer anyway?
Click to expand...

I´m glad you asked, but that question is to simple.
It should go like: What`s a DSLR killer for whom?

For film students, and folks with ultra low budgets, there is no real alternative out there in the moment.

If you shooting "House" on a major budget, or George Lukas, who used a 5D on Red Tails, the price of the body is not so much an issue, cause just the crew catering for one day is much more. So if they can get the same, or even better performance sensor, a bit larger body, and other pro features, without the hassle an workarounds of DSLRs, they probably happy to pay 10000 or 15000 for a body (but they probably rent it anyway). The cost of the camera at those productions is usually just a tiny bit, compared to the cost of the stuff in front of the camera.

So there goes the price argument, for anything else than ultra low budget flicks.

Size is not such a big deal too, if you come with three trucks of light and grip.
Of course there are situations where you want/need a smaller camera, but on the other hand, a Epic or F100 are not THAT much larger. I can see the benefits for stealth shooting though.

Available/low light: In my book, picture quality of all DSLRs sucks at 1200 ISO (some start at 800). What we call ISO here is actually nothing but analog or digital gain, masked with - more or less good - noise reduction. That leads to faces that look like rubber masks (you can save some money on make-up here :happy: ), until you are not looking at your beard stipples with a macro. DSLRs also don´t respond good to anything else than full spectrum light. And don´t get me started on codecs.

Saving on lighting just because you can crank up the gain is a very bad idea. You would rob yourself of THE most important creative tool of cinematography. So if you want to light a scene, you still need the same amount of lights - maybe just not that powerful.

What I want to see is a s35 camera that records uncompressed to cheap of the shelf HDs, with all the bells and whistles of a professional video camcorder in the price range under 10000 bucks.

Now that would be a DSLR killer, for "normal" productions.
For low and no budget productions, DSLRs gonna stay for a while, till we got something better. I believe, that it boils down to something of the form factor in the neighborhood of a Scarlet - like medium format photo cameras.

Let´s wait and see. camera wise we live in a very interesting time, where a game-canger or revolution is around the corner every 6 months.

Frank
 
Last edited:
The honesty of it is that the Panny TMZ or whatever series of $900 camcorders kills DSLR's. The video quality is really triple what it is on a DSLR, and the manual controls are almost just as profound. Thing is, it lacks depth of field because of it's very-cropped sensor. The thing even as a 1.2 aperture lens on the front of it, with a screw mount at that for filters! So if anyone's shooting a production where they don't want depth of field, I'd say that's the DSLR killer.
 
Postmaster said:
I'm glad you asked, but that question is to simple.
It should go like: What's a DSLR killer for whom?
Click to expand...

The only reason anyone cared about HDSLRS in the first place is because they're (relatively) dirt cheap.

Why did House use HDSLR's instead of an SI-2K Mini - which, believe it or not, is SMALLER than an HDSLR and has BETTER image quality? Because the HDSLR is cheaper.

A true HDSLR-killer will only emerge when it does MORE than the HDSLR's AT THE SAME PRICE.

RED is not an HDSLR-killer. Nor is Arri Alexa. Nor is the SI-2K Mini. Nor is the AF100. Why? PRICE.

If the AF100 was $2,000 maybe it could be considered a HDSLR-killer. But it's not $2,000.
 
Jester2138 said:
The only reason anyone cared about HDSLRS in the first place is because they're (relatively) dirt cheap.

Why did House use HDSLR's instead of an SI-2K Mini - which, believe it or not, is SMALLER than an HDSLR and has BETTER image quality? Because the HDSLR is cheaper.

A true HDSLR-killer will only emerge when it does MORE than the HDSLR's AT THE SAME PRICE.

RED is not an HDSLR-killer. Nor is Arri Alexa. Nor is the SI-2K Mini. Nor is the AF100. Why? PRICE.

If the AF100 was $2,000 maybe it could be considered a HDSLR-killer. But it's not $2,000.
Click to expand...

Exactly...

Postmaster said:
What I want to see is a s35 camera that records uncompressed to cheap of the shelf HDs, with all the bells and whistles of a professional video camcorder in the price range under 10000 bucks.
Click to expand...

That would be cool to see, but distinctly not a 'DSLR killer' at that price point. The big manufacturers think they can usher the DSLR people into buying $5000 cams, but while the GH2 still, at least seemingly, shoots higher resolution with less moire than the AF100 at less than $1000, that just ain't going to happen in droves.
 
Postmaster said:
If you shooting "House" on a major budget, or George Lukas, who used a 5D on Red Tails, the price of the body is not so much an issue, cause just the crew catering for one day is much more. So if they can get the same, or even better performance sensor, a bit larger body, and other pro features, without the hassle an workarounds of DSLRs, they probably happy to pay 10000 or 15000 for a body (but they probably rent it anyway). The cost of the camera at those productions is usually just a tiny bit, compared to the cost of the stuff in front of the camera.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. While it IS true that large budget projects can afford more production and production value, why would they allow ALL that budget to hinge on a camera body that costs as much as their Twizzler budget? Especially when they could afford to shoot on any camera on the planet.

I think the answer is obvious and I'd think the only camera that might ever be a "DSLR killer" would be a better DSLR.
 
With regards to House, I'm fairly certain I remember Greg Yaitanes said specifically that they used 5D's for two reasons; size and the super-shallow-DOF. They needed the size in order to get into the nooks and crannies of the collapsed building set. (It makes a ton of sense when you watch the episode) They also used something like a vintage Canon 50mm f/1.0L. Combined with the full frame sensor, is basically the kind of DOF that's impossible on any other camera out right now. So while SI-2K mini is technically smaller, it also comes with a 2/3" chip, and a DOF of "not at all shallow". Also, an SI-2K mini's small size is JUST FOR THE HEAD. It needs to route the data to a recording unit, which starts to chip away at its usability. For Red Tails, I believe it's at least a partially similar story where the camera's size allowed them to put it in the plane's cockpits without much hassle.

So I guess I missed one more "reasons to love". Size. No other S35, much less full-frame35 camera comes in a package this small, and to my knowledge, there AREN'T any cameras out right now that shoot full-frame35 digital, regardless of cost or size. The 5D is absolutely unique in that regard.


@Postmaster, It wasn't you. But in either case, my point wasn't to attack any article or author specifically. The word DSLR killer in some random article just made me think about what it would take to kill DSLR's at all since I seem to hear a lot about that nowadays.
 
this whole discussion seems like an exercise in typing. the RED ONE was supposed to be a game changer. it really wasnt. the way i see it, the only people who are going to truly see the benefit of the red one, red epic, arri alexa, etc are people who already had pretty deep pockets anyway. and just want something a bit more nimble.

id imagine similar logic would move productions like HOUSE to use a DSLR as a similar experiment. just to see if they can. or to get by in a specific situation

most people i know who rely on DSLRs for day to day work are wedding shooters (for low light and because the mass storage is cheap) or feature shooters (because what they shoot is well suited to the downfalls of a DSLR)

AFAIC, DSLRs are here to stay. and the only thing that would make them less attractive to the unwashed masses would be that mythical RED scarlet - IF it ever actually becomes available.
 
meauounji said:
So while SI-2K mini is technically smaller, it also comes with a 2/3" chip, and a DOF of "not at all shallow". Also, an SI-2K mini's small size is JUST FOR THE HEAD. It needs to route the data to a recording unit, which starts to chip away at its usability. For Red Tails, I believe it's at least a partially similar story where the camera's size allowed them to put it in the plane's cockpits without much hassle.
Click to expand...

I know it's just for the head, but I find a contradiction in your argument that the SI-2k is nowhere near too expensive for the finale of "House" but the hassle of a wire running out the back of the camera to a recorder somewhere else is too much trouble. Surely if they had as many resources as many claim and "could shoot on whatever they wanted" they wouldn't mind such a small inconvenience? It wasn't too much trouble for "Slumdog Millionaire," winner of the Best Cinematography Academy Award, was it? Or any of the many big-budgeted films already shot on the SI-2K Mini?

My point is simply that contrary to what seems to be popular belief, "House" does have limits and unless you want to argue that the 5D "looks" better than the SI-2K Mini then you have to admit that it would have made better sense from a purely cinematographic standpoint to have used the SI-2K Mini. The only possible advantage the 5D has over the SI-2K is the edge in DOF with crazy lenses (maybe they used it in the episode, I can't remember any examples of the top of my head though).

As for "Red Tails," here's what Phillip Bloom has to say: "it was as much as a real world test as it was for being used to get those extra angles"

I love DSLR's, but seriously, sometimes people get carried away and act like they're the most amazing thing ever to hit filmmaking. Guys, they're just cameras!
 
OK. I know that this is a "flame bait" thread....but I don't think it has to be. I say we look at it in two separate parts:

1. Killer. A true "killer" is a product that enters a market and ENDS the life-cycle of a competing product. When is the last time we saw a true "killer" product? Ironically the closest thing that we have seen in these circles is what DSLRs did to "Lens Adapter" demand/purchase/usage. I'm not saying they're "dead" yet...but it is as "catastrophic" as we've ever seen. LET ME TELL YOU: I PRAY that something will "kill" DSLRs as resolutely as the prior example....because I can't even imagine what that would be. Another example (for now) is the proprietary cellphone OSs. Android has MURDERED/KILLED the great majority is the last 12months....the next 12months likely will complete this example of a "killer" category.

2. DSLR. Digital Single Lens Reflex. Again...ironic that the DSLR is the product that "killed" a 200 year GIANT....film, for photography. Many photogs denied, buffaloed, stalled....then surrendered so convincingly that the MAMMOTH GIANTS that ran that sector are now on the ropes fighting for their lives (Kodak's in DEEP trouble). I think we need to get real about this side of the equation. DSLRs aren't going ANYWHERE because their primary purpose is STILL GOING TO BE PHOTOGRAPHY. When will these go away? When somone finds a better way to capture still photography. (It may well be another 200 years before we figure that one out...) So the next question is....why REMOVE the video features from a DSLR? When someone finds a reason why that makes sense, maybe there will be some teeth to this arguement.

Until then...no reason photogs are going away from DSLRs. No reason to justify manufacturers taking VID features OUT of DSLRs. No VID product is LEAPS AND BOUNDS better for close to the same price. People will be shooting videos on DSLRs for a VERY LONG TIME.

Cheers!

ps....NOTHING would make me happier as a photographer/cinematographer than for some company to prove me wrong. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO!!!
 
// Smart-*ss Mode //

Hmmm... I thought Moire was the real DSLR video killer. ( you work your butt off to get a great shot to only have it completely borked by effing Moire! )
 
I've learned that people are never happy. They always find fault with something that's superior to what they've ever had before. And no matter how much more improved that something gets.....they find something else to complain about. Something's not right with this picture (pun intended).
 
@ Jester2138,

I wasn't aware that I was making a contradiction since I didn't even touch the price/cost argument with the House finale. Maybe you interpreted my silence as me saying SI-2k isn't too expensive for House. I didn't say anything like that. My only point there was that the SI-2k didn't suit their needs because it didn't have shallow DOF that they were looking for, and that the small size of the head wasn't representative of what it takes to actually use the camera.

BTW, they did use the shallow DOF very heavily during the last scene of the episode. To great effect, I might add.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top