When will the DSLR flamewar end?

Richard J. Johnson

Richard J. Johnson

Joystick Member
Is it just me or are the same issues being addressed over and over in thread after thread when it comes to the DSLR's? It may be just me, but Redunancy seems like the right word to choose here. Or maybe Ad Nauseam.

It's kind of like listening to the Christmas music station on XM. The same 20 songs sung by 100 different people, a hundred different ways, for a hundred straight days.

It's easy just not to read the threads but sometimes you just can't look away.:shocked:

All I can say is thank the stars for Barry, Kholi, and a few others for keeping the flamage to a minimum.
 
That's just how it goes. If it weren't for this sorta traffic about the original DVX100 this site probably wouldn't be here- so it has its positive side effects.

Noah
 
Haha! I contribute my fair share, sometimes... sorry...

Noah's right, though. See how little a lot of these other filmmaking and camera forums are traversed. DVXuser and REDuser are royal gems for filmmaking, part of it's going to entail flamewars and that just means more people with opinions are rolling around.

Also means more education for the masses.
 
The speculation and misinformation are annoying. But heck, I'm just here for the "Caption this..." threads anyway.
 
Hitek79 said:
If it wasn't for porn and redundant arguing, there would be no internet.
Click to expand...

The internet was a LOT more helpful before the general public were allowed on it. No porn (no pictures at all in fact), and the only real arguing was between computer geeks about silly OS issues and other minutiae.

But hey, now I can order a pizza from my living room on the intarweb.... doesn't get any better than that.
 
NoahK said:
That's just how it goes. If it weren't for this sorta traffic about the original DVX100 this site probably wouldn't be here- so it has its positive side effects.

Noah
Click to expand...

I see your point. I learned almost everything I know here. And i'm sure some of that useful information was probably the by-product of a war that I was not around to see.:violent5:
 
Kholi said:
Haha! I contribute my fair share, sometimes... sorry...

Noah's right, though. See how little a lot of these other filmmaking and camera forums are traversed. DVXuser and REDuser are royal gems for filmmaking, part of it's going to entail flamewars and that just means more people with opinions are rolling around.

Also means more education for the masses.
Click to expand...

I totally feel you. But dammit if I see one more 7D/RED One petulant quarreling thread :kali::Drogar-KnockedOut(D
 
LOL

I am convinced that one can do no wrong when choosing these days; all things considered.

The flame wars were over long ago; and DVX won betches !
 
Well, I've been lurking in this forum for a couple of months(joined last month after just reading as a nonmember), and I have a somewhat different perspective on this. It seems to me every time someone brings up the 7D as anything but a b-camera or for personal use the usual suspects jump in and start saying it's not a good camera, compared to the RED. Which is of course 100% completely true.

But a lot of the OPs in these threads aren't claiming the opposite. When someone asks if they could make a good feature with a 7D, the responses become a mishmash of "use RED" "if your story was worth making you could raise the money to use RED" "You're going to have lots of problems you wouldn't have if you used RED." And then people respond with encouragement for 7D, and it becomes an argument over the technical deficiencies of the 7D versus RED. But of course that wasn't the question the OP asked, but people keep turning the conversation in that direction, and it's not the pro-7D people doing it.

Maybe I missed several months of people claiming 7D is as good as RED(pretty likely actually) but I don't see that being put forth that often anymore, or at least since I joined, but the other side keep acting as if it is.

Obviously a $20,000+ camera will be better than a $1500 camera. Obviously a movie without a good story will not be a good movie regardless of the camera used. Obviously someone talented can make a good movie on any camera. But the talent required to make a good movie is not the same as the ability to raise money. That's why studios exist. If every director could raise millions of dollars(or even hundreds of thousands) for a movie on their own they would.

Which is why the 7D is appealing to so many. Because you don't really know if you can make a good movie unless you try. But the cost to make one is extremely high, even using RED. Especially if you don't live in Los Angeles(for example, I'd probably have to drive 2 hours to find a rental house with RED). For a lot of people, a micro-budget will be the best they can do. But the naysayers that post in this forum don't seem to care or respond to this fact, other than an occasional caveat.

I seriously appreciate the level of technical knowledge the members of this forum possess and share. And I would like to encourage them to continue doing so. But when people like the OP mention arguments and flamewars, with the experts pushing RED being the sane, rational side, I don't see it as being rational so much as pedantic.

And for what it's worth, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I am not a video professional, merely an amateur looking at his options of what to buy in the near-to-mid future. I'm greatly interested in the 7D/Rebel t2i, but mostly due to price. If I could afford a RED or a Scarlet, that's what I would get. But if I could get a RED, I wouldn't be lurking in a 7D forum.
 
Good points, Pete. Yes, there was certainly a phase of endless comparing of the Red to the 7D, and yes there are certainly many of us who are still reacting to that, and yes it still does come up, but maybe a clean slate would do us all some good.
 
Obviously a $20,000+ camera will be better than a $1500 camera. Obviously a movie without a good story will not be a good movie regardless of the camera used. Obviously someone talented can make a good movie on any camera. But the talent required to make a good movie is not the same as the ability to raise money. That's why studios exist. If every director could raise millions of dollars(or even hundreds of thousands) for a movie on their own they would.

Which is why the 7D is appealing to so many. Because you don't really know if you can make a good movie unless you try. But the cost to make one is extremely high, even using RED. Especially if you don't live in Los Angeles(for example, I'd probably have to drive 2 hours to find a rental house with RED). For a lot of people, a micro-budget will be the best they can do. But the naysayers that post in this forum don't seem to care or respond to this fact, other than an occasional caveat.
Click to expand...

You have the EXACT same view that I do on the matter. (You may want to see a doctor about that...) :) (lol)

I've been in video for about 10 years. I haven't made what I'd call a TRUE movie before. I shot commercials, music videos, even tried a short film....but I just want to see if I can "tell a story" in a cinematic fashion. I don't need a Red Camera to do that. NO QUESTION, all things being equal, Red One has better IQ. DUH! Really? But let's be frank...my problem is NOT THE CAMERA....it's ME and my lack of experience. Shooting on Red (tomorrow I have a shoot) is NOT going to make it better.

Here's a PERFECT example. Watch this. It was shot on a DIRT CHEAP Pentax Kx. What a fun ride. What an original concept! (How cool that they can learn on a cam that is that cheap!

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vez7qSrZfpc
 
PastePotPete said:
Well, I've been lurking in this forum for a couple of months(joined last month after just reading as a nonmember), and I have a somewhat different perspective on this. It seems to me every time someone brings up the 7D as anything but a b-camera or for personal use the usual suspects jump in and start saying it's not a good camera, compared to the RED. Which is of course 100% completely true.

But a lot of the OPs in these threads aren't claiming the opposite. When someone asks if they could make a good feature with a 7D, the responses become a mishmash of "use RED" "if your story was worth making you could raise the money to use RED" "You're going to have lots of problems you wouldn't have if you used RED." And then people respond with encouragement for 7D, and it becomes an argument over the technical deficiencies of the 7D versus RED. But of course that wasn't the question the OP asked, but people keep turning the conversation in that direction, and it's not the pro-7D people doing it.

Maybe I missed several months of people claiming 7D is as good as RED(pretty likely actually) but I don't see that being put forth that often anymore, or at least since I joined, but the other side keep acting as if it is.

Obviously a $20,000+ camera will be better than a $1500 camera. Obviously a movie without a good story will not be a good movie regardless of the camera used. Obviously someone talented can make a good movie on any camera. But the talent required to make a good movie is not the same as the ability to raise money. That's why studios exist. If every director could raise millions of dollars(or even hundreds of thousands) for a movie on their own they would.

Which is why the 7D is appealing to so many. Because you don't really know if you can make a good movie unless you try. But the cost to make one is extremely high, even using RED. Especially if you don't live in Los Angeles(for example, I'd probably have to drive 2 hours to find a rental house with RED). For a lot of people, a micro-budget will be the best they can do. But the naysayers that post in this forum don't seem to care or respond to this fact, other than an occasional caveat.

I seriously appreciate the level of technical knowledge the members of this forum possess and share. And I would like to encourage them to continue doing so. But when people like the OP mention arguments and flamewars, with the experts pushing RED being the sane, rational side, I don't see it as being rational so much as pedantic.

And for what it's worth, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I am not a video professional, merely an amateur looking at his options of what to buy in the near-to-mid future. I'm greatly interested in the 7D/Rebel t2i, but mostly due to price. If I could afford a RED or a Scarlet, that's what I would get. But if I could get a RED, I wouldn't be lurking in a 7D forum.
Click to expand...
Post of the thread indeed.

E. :-)
 
PastePotPete said:
I seriously appreciate the level of technical knowledge the members of this forum possess and share. And I would like to encourage them to continue doing so. But when people like the OP mention arguments and flamewars, with the experts pushing RED being the sane, rational side, I don't see it as being rational so much as pedantic.

And for what it's worth, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I am not a video professional, merely an amateur looking at his options of what to buy in the near-to-mid future. I'm greatly interested in the 7D/Rebel t2i, but mostly due to price. If I could afford a RED or a Scarlet, that's what I would get. But if I could get a RED, I wouldn't be lurking in a 7D forum.
Click to expand...

Yes. Excellent post.
 
Obviously a $20,000+ camera will be better than a $1500 camera.
Click to expand...

But give the $1500.00 camera and a light bulb to Martin Scorsese and the $20,000 camera and an Arri Kit to (insert person's in question) and Scorsese is still going to blow the lid off it.

I think people seemed more concerned with the tech specs than actually learning how to become a filmmaker; learning how to tell a story visually.

The purchase of a camera for your project(s) is of course an important decision, but as stated, I'd shoot a feature on almost anything these days; Red, Scarlet, DVX, HVX, 7D ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top