What's a DSLR killer anyway?

Status
Not open for further replies.
meauounji said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also may have mixed you up with someone else... :/

meauounji said:
BTW, they did use the shallow DOF very heavily during the last scene of the episode. To great effect, I might add.
Click to expand...

I may have to watch it again, then! Of course if they needed the super-shallow DOF the SI-2K wouldn't suffice. I was just trying to say that many of the common arguments for HDSLR's are not really that strong (size, image quality, lenses) when price is not considered. Hopefully I'm making more sense than I was at first.
 
Scarlet is DSLR killer if the sensor size is what you are looking for. It's just way superior at everything. FIXED version will cost 6k$ and includes body, 5" touchscreen LCD with touch focus and camera controls, REDmote (wireless controller), RED zoom lens (FF35 equivalent of 28mm-224mm) etc.. then you have of course 3K, RAW, 120 fps, great DR etc..

6K$ for all that is nothing. You would go over that price with DSLR if you bought lenses and accesories to match that package. It's just different beast, real pro camera and DSLR's (proven to be closer to 720p cameras) don't come even close.

Some of the movies shot in S16mm (similar to 2/3 sensor size) include: Black Swan, Saw, The Wrestler, City of God, The Hurt Locker, Martyrs, The Devil's Rejects, 28 Weeks Later, Babel, Hustle & Flow, Irréversible, Station Agent...
 
Last edited:
isle said:
Scarlet is DSLR killer if the sensor size is what you are looking for. It's just way superior at everything. FIXED version will cost 6k$ and includes body, 5" touchscreen LCD with touch focus and camera controls, REDmote (wireless controller), RED zoom lens (FF35 equivalent of 28mm-224mm) etc.. then you have of course 3K, RAW, 120 fps, great DR etc..

6K$ for all that is nothing. You would go over that price with DSLR if you bought lenses and accesories to match that package. It's just different beast, real pro camera and DSLR's (proven to be closer to 720p cameras) don't come even close.

Some of the movies shot in S16mm (similar to 2/3 sensor size) include: Black Swan, Saw, The Wrestler, City of God, The Hurt Locker, Martyrs, The Devil's Rejects, 28 Weeks Later, Babel, Hustle & Flow, Irréversible, Station Agent...
Click to expand...

It costs 4 times as much. So why should it kill anything? So far it's all
Vaporware.
 
muroshi said:
It costs 4 times as much. So why should it kill anything?
[/B]
Click to expand...

It´s not.

A sheer DSLR body takes you nowhere. You need to buy a ton of stuff to make it halfway work like a video camera.
I know a lot of guys that would love to fork out 6000 for a fixed Scarlet,
rather than the same amount for a DSLR, lenses and accessories to match the Scarlet.

With Scarlet you get more out of the same money.
So why should anyone buy a lesser camera for the same $$ (if the Scarlet would be available of course)?

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
It´s not.

A sheer DSLR body takes you nowhere. You need to buy a ton of stuff to make it halfway work like a video camera.
I know a lot of guys that would love to fork out 6000 for a fixed Scarlet,
rather than the same amount for a DSLR, lenses and accessories to match the Scarlet.

With Scarlet you get more out of the same money.
So why should anyone buy a lesser camera for the same $$ (if the Scarlet would be available of course)?

Frank
Click to expand...
kudos for being smart enough to understand that.
 
Postmaster said:
It´s not.

A sheer DSLR body takes you nowhere. You need to buy a ton of stuff to make it halfway work like a video camera.
I know a lot of guys that would love to fork out 6000 for a fixed Scarlet,
rather than the same amount for a DSLR, lenses and accessories to match the Scarlet.

With Scarlet you get more out of the same money.
So why should anyone buy a lesser camera for the same $$ (if the Scarlet would be available of course)?

Frank
Click to expand...

Yes..it is true you need to add things to a DLSR to make it workable. But $6000 is WAAYY out of a lot of peoples budgets. There are a couple of different market segments that buy DLSRs for video. Those that want to utilize the shallow DOF/interchangeable lenses they have always wanted and had to resort to adapters for. This segment has money and may have moved on to the AF100 or Sony F3. The other segment usually has a choice to make - Prosumer video camera or DLSR? Maybe they have an entire camera budget of around $3000 or less. One gives you a LOOK that a lot of people have gravitated to, problems and all...the other will have good audio support, less image problems, less headaches, but it won't have that LOOK. A lot of these people pick the LOOK over the fully appointed prosumer cams. They may have a T2i at $750, a couple/few fast lenses at $1000 or less, and a ZOOM/Tascam $200 recorder. This is hard to beat...plus people can buy these things over time VS $6000 all at once. I don't think DLSR video is going away anytime soon. Personally.. I made myself buy a high end consumer HD camera to go along with the DLSR to avoid some of the pitfalls that were first brought to my attention by the wonderful people here. Aliasing....break out the little HFS200. Need a stable walking shot with everything in focus...break it out again. Jello free in car shots - no problem. Interviews where you can't make people change their clothes - done.
You are right though - I would buy Something else if I had $6000 VS. a DLSR kitted out to the hilt that cost the same money all said and done. 2/3" would be plenty shallow enough for me...I don't really like the HYPER shallow thing though, subject isolation is all I'm after. Not the blurred ears focused nose type of guy I guess.
 
Last edited:
Camera manufacturers have demonstrated that they can build a super 35 size sensor HD video camera for under $1000. You can shoot million dollar movies with it. It also takes great photos. Yes. the sensor has more pixels than it needs, but that's it. There won't be a DSLR killer until a video camera with these features comes along for under $1000. This particular horse has bolted.
 
Rainer said:
Camera manufacturers have demonstrated that they can build a super 35 size sensor HD video camera for under $1000. You can shoot million dollar movies with it. It also takes great photos. Yes. the sensor has more pixels than it needs, but that's it. There won't be a DSLR killer until a video camera with these features comes along for under $1000. This particular horse has bolted.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell....I have to agree. No one's going back! The DLSR/GH2 forums are the most popular for a reason. It's not because people love MOIRE/ALIASING/WORKAROUNDS...that is for sure.
 
There is no Scarlet killer. No camera can do even close to what it does for that cheap.

You see, it works both ways?

This is like arguing with someone who has 200$ digital point and shoot camera that shoots jpg only and he says that there is no killer for his camera. I say that there is DSLR for 500$ that shoots RAW and has tons of other advantages on image quality etc. Then he says but it costs over 2x more and his point and shoot is good enough to shoot magazine covers just like DSLR. Then I say...
 
isle said:
There is no Scarlet killer. No camera can do even close to what it does for that cheap.

You see, it works both ways?

This is like arguing with someone who has 200$ digital point and shoot camera that shoots jpg only and he says that there is no killer for his camera. I say that there is DSLR for 500$ that shoots RAW and has tons of other advantages on image quality etc. Then he says but it costs over 2x more and his point and shoot is good enough to shoot magazine covers just like DSLR. Then I say...
Click to expand...

I agree with the intent of this post...it can be a never ending argument. I think though that the starting point of this discussion is valid - and it's been proven by the complete sea change in the low budget indie film world. These things have taken over, because they provide a look that previously could only be achieved by cameras costing MUCH more, and in spite of the issues they remain so popular. That in and of itself says a lot - "You're camera does WHAT!" Oh.. It just overheats, it has moire/aliasing issues, no way to monitor sound, horrible sound anyway, the codecs pretty bad, it can't take much grading.... "Why do you use it then?" Well....see it has a certain VIBE/LOOK to it.
Like I said before, these cameras aren't popular because people just love a big giant headache dealing with issues. In a way that says it all.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I agree with the intent of this post...it can be a never ending argument. I think though that the starting point of this discussion is valid - and it's been proven by the complete sea change in the low budget indie film world. These things have taken over, because they provide a look that previously could only be achieved by cameras costing MUCH more, and in spite of the issues they remain so popular. That in and of itself says a lot - "You're camera does WHAT!" Oh.. It just overheats, it has moire/aliasing issues, no way to monitor sound, horrible sound anyway, the codecs pretty bad, it can't take much grading.... "Why do you use it then?" Well....see it has a certain VIBE/LOOK to it.
Like I said before, these cameras aren't popular because people just love a big giant headache dealing with issues. In a way that says it all.
Click to expand...
Yes DSLR's are very popular among the low budget web shooters. Just like point and shoot cameras are popular among people that think it will satisfy their needs. You choose your tool that fits to your project, your budject and where your work is displayed.
 
I still don't understand why people act like issues like overheating, moire/aliasing is SOOOO bad on these things. I was halfway scared to death to make the dslr jump because so many people on here were crying about it. I finally did and I can say I've never had an overheating problem since I got a 7d almost a year ago and I've had aliasing/moire like 10% of the time of Ive used it and it definitely wasn't life ruining as you all make it. I can show you horrible aliasing and moire on things shot on film so I don't understand why its a big deal here. If yall want a shot of buildings at f/22 maybe you should be looking in another direction. The reason most people are using these things are to get shallow dof they could not afford to get in the past. Esp. at a $700-2500 price range. I think the mixup here are we have people who work on "real productions" and then we have indie filmmakers on a budget who produce "real production" quality work and they are arguing from different perspectives. I've never shot on film or RED, im a one man band that def can't afford to even rent a RED for $500 a day along with all the other necessities as alot of people on here so my view of cameras is limited but for my range the 7d is a monster. People like Postmaster have probably been working on sets most of his life and have seen and has a budget to access to more equip. so his taste are higher. Don't kill the tools that us "little people" who are just starting out and don't have a lot of money use because it doesn't fit your tastes. I can understand if they weren't capable but the fact is they have been used on Black Swan, House, a film that sold for $4 million, etc. so it def is just with a little more work.
 
dtjohns1 said:
I still don't understand why people act like issues like overheating, moire/aliasing is SOOOO bad on these things. I was halfway scared to death to make the dslr jump because so many people on here were crying about it. I finally did and I can say I've never had an overheating problem since I got a 7d almost a year ago and I've had aliasing/moire like 10% of the time of Ive used it and it definitely wasn't life ruining as you all make it. I can show you horrible aliasing and moire on things shot on film so I don't understand why its a big deal here. If yall want a shot of buildings at f/22 maybe you should be looking in another direction. The reason most people are using these things are to get shallow dof they could not afford to get in the past. Esp. at a $700-2500 price range. I think the mixup here are we have people who work on "real productions" and then we have indie filmmakers on a budget who produce "real production" quality work and they are arguing from different perspectives. I've never shot on film or RED, im a one man band that def can't afford to even rent a RED for $500 a day along with all the other necessities as alot of people on here so my view of cameras is limited but for my range the 7d is a monster. People like Postmaster have probably been working on sets most of his life and have seen and has a budget to access to more equip. so his taste are higher. Don't kill the tools that us "little people" who are just starting out and don't have a lot of money use because it doesn't fit your tastes. I can understand if they weren't capable but the fact is they have been used on Black Swan, House, a film that sold for $4 million, etc. so it def is just with a little more work.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is crying about it...most are in agreement with you, including me. I stated that a t2i with a couple of lenses and sound recorder is a hard act to beat budget wise. My posts about moire and overheating were a bit sarcastic. People still love the cameras even though some issues have been prevalent for a lot of them...because for the money, nothing comes close to achieving a similar look. I'm in your boat...I don't have a bunch of money. So a 60D and a HFS200 together is the best I can do...and I think it's a great combo. Also in post #26 I echo your sentiments almost exactly- esp. the budget part where I said a lot of people at the $3000 and less crowd have a choice to make and many have gone the DLSR route specifically for the look they provide.
 
Last edited:
Postmaster said:
It´s not.
Click to expand...

So far it is vaporware. The date has been postponed several times and the price went up and up, after Nikon and Canon smartly destroyed RED Scarlets market gap.

A sheer DSLR body takes you nowhere. You need to buy a ton of stuff to make it halfway work like a video camera.
Click to expand...
I'm currently shooting a short with a bare T2i and my old nikkor glass from still photography that is. Total budget 750$ (resell value of the T2i included). If T2i wouldn't be I couldn't afford to make ANY short.

I know a lot of guys that would love to fork out 6000 for a fixed Scarlet,
rather than the same amount for a DSLR, lenses and accessories to match the Scarlet.
Click to expand...
I assume they either do this for a business and documentary stuff, which generates some money or they have big pockets. But narrative film is a hobby for 99.9%.

With Scarlet you get more out of the same money.
Click to expand...
If someone is rich and money is not a question, why not using an Epic? So I dunno at which larger market Scarlet is aiming at. Which means the price could rise even more.
 
Last edited:
isle said:
There is no Scarlet killer. No camera can do even close to what it does for that cheap.

You see, it works both ways?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, cause you are comparing a product that d o e s n ' t exist with something that d o e s exist. Fallacy.
 
Guys....everybody's talking about this as if Canon is standing still.

What do you think the chances are that Canon is standing still?
 
Also people say $6000 for a Scarlet but we all know that isn' t final price to actually have a "working" scarlet. You still have to buy lenses, lens adapters, some sort of storage, a evf or monitor, etc. So you're def. gonna be forking out a lot more than just that $6000 as opposed to a $800 body, a $100 50mm 1.8 lens, a $48 class 10 32gb sdhc card and a $15 wal-mart tripod bare bones to get you started.
 
I'm not sure why Fixed Scarlet always comes into this....

I cannot see more than 5% of DSLR users wanting to use a 2/3" sensor with fixed lens. Wide open, it will have an s35 eqv. of f5.6, it is just not enough for the DSLR crowd. The cinema Scarlet is a better match up... but you are gonna need to invest pretty heavily to get good, fast glass that will resolve 3k.

I imagine that Scarlet will slowly start to roll out around the same time as the 5DIII.... Canon will have this in mind, i'm sure. I expect BIG things from the 5DIII

(btw, I will be buying an Epic-S, if nothing looks better by the time it launches.... so I am not a RED basher.... just bringing some perspective)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top