why do VDSLR's look better than the cams we spent twice as much on?

Richard J. Johnson

Richard J. Johnson

Joystick Member
I really did not know how to word the title but you get what I mean. I have a $4000.00 cam with all the bells and whistles another 3 grand in adapter and add-ons and can easily be trumped by a $2600.00 VDSLR that is tiny in comparison. Anyone know why?
 
big chip that nativly uses 35mm lenses. And since they are DSLR's to begin with the technology for a wider dynamic range is built in, no to mention a massive subsample before compression and recording..

Brave new world.
 
TimurCivan said:
big chip that nativly uses 35mm lenses. And since they are DSLR's to begin with the technology for a wider dynamic range is built in, no to mention a massive subsample before compression and recording..

Brave new world.
Click to expand...

indeed.

And your work with the original HVX still inspires me to keep mine.
 
filthrich said:
indeed.

And your work with the original HVX still inspires me to keep mine.
Click to expand...

thank you sir.... :)

If you know how to light for it the HVX is capable of magic.

cant wait to get my mits on a mkII.


And i have a RED musicVideo on thursday. cant wait.
 
There are a lot of things you're paying for in a $4,000 camera that you don't see directly on screen. In a lot of situations current VDSLR's don't quite cut it, and they certainly aren't built for audio. The sturdy, durable build of a real video camera and the ergonomic design made for live action work is another big part. A lot of people are getting drawn in by the shallow depth of field from what I can tell, a response to the constant lack of the same that has plagued video since it was invented. You can get just as good or better images out of a dedicated video camera in that price range if used properly, and the other functions make up a lot of the difference. Plus it looks better. I'm all for changing technology and would like to have a VDSLR, but mostly for price... I'm still skeptical, and I miss my HVX.
 
Cassius said:
There are a lot of things you're paying for in a $4,000 camera that you don't see directly on screen. In a lot of situations current VDSLR's don't quite cut it, and they certainly aren't built for audio. The sturdy, durable build of a real video camera and the ergonomic design made for live action work is another big part. A lot of people are getting drawn in by the shallow depth of field from what I can tell, a response to the constant lack of the same that has plagued video since it was invented. You can get just as good or better images out of a dedicated video camera in that price range if used properly, and the other functions make up a lot of the difference. Plus it looks better. I'm all for changing technology and would like to have a VDSLR, but mostly for price... I'm still skeptical, and I miss my HVX.
Click to expand...

And while all of his is correct, advancements in technology and supply/demand make still cameras a less expensive alternative. More units are typically manufactured in the still camera world. Smaller, lighter, less material, and yes, as stated above, less features.

Another important aspect to remember as well is that video cams themselves on the lower end, like the HVX200, have a lens built in as well. That $2600 DSLR doesn't have a lens built in and is for the most part a manual only lens when it comes to video.

You can get some pretty expensive lenses for DSLR cams. If you start adding on memory cards, extra batteries, support, etc, you really aren't that far off from many of the cameras out there.

Now, the true savings is when a $2600 DSLR looks better than a $50,000+ body only - it's set up different, but if you need the quality and you can shoot around the setbacks of the DSLR, you save a substantial amount of money.
 
Thing is these VDSLR's are still a developing part of the overall market. The 5D mkII has its quirks like 30p and no manual control, but they've only been around for what, maybe a year? Look what level VDSLR's have reached already with the video-centric GH1. Now think back to the not too distant past when the big debate was whether the best camera was the DVX or the XL-2. That was only about 3.5 years ago. I'd be willing to bet that in 2-3 years, we'll all pretty much be using a VDSLR or an HD video camera with VDSLR components tucked inside its outer shell for our films and music videos. Sure, some of us here that do other types of work might also have a 1/3 or 1/2 sensor cam for things like live events, training videos, interviews, etc. Unless 3D filmmaking takes off in a big way, there will be a massive transition to VDSLR-type cameras.

Don't get me wrong, I love shooting with my XH-A1 and I think the HVX makes fantastic images too, whether with or without a DoF adapter, but when the VDSLR advantages are weighed even now, they seem like the right direction to be heading towards in the near future.

The main things that VDSLR's need to improve on is audio (both inputs and control), ergonomics for video (which could be solved by a dedicated video camera with VDSLR-style sensor and lens mount), skew/jello, compression/codec quality, and manual controls. In some cases the manual control issue is moot (GH1), while the compression/codec issues are not a problem in others (5D mkII). I think that the majority of these issues will be worked out or at the very least, will become a minor quibble within the next year or two.
 
Last edited:
As others have touched on it's quirks and reliability that makes one cheaper. By and large these VDLR's can produce a nice more filmmic image but they may leave you in the lurch in extreme movement situations etc. For Narrative Filmmaking when you can do a retake and craft your shooting strategy, the plusses they offer far outway the workarounds etc. But for a steady shoot everything cam, maybe not as much.

It's kind of like having 2 professional singers you could hire. One can hit a certain very hight note every single time and musically (artistically) she's no slouch. For this solid reliabiliy you pay a higher price.

Then there's this new singer. She's a little inexperienced and not as consistent. She can sing an octave higher than the more expensive singer, and her musicianship leaves the other singer in the dust. But there's some things she just can't do reliabily. Occasionally yes, but not always. Seduced by the beauty of her singing, and the money you can save, you decide to hire her and craft the evening's program around her strengths.

Not sure how this post turned into a Choose Your Own Adventure, but there you have it.
 
It's interesting. I've been playing with my zoom H4N. There's no compromise on this thing. You can record audio of equal quality to [Insert Hollywood Blockbuster], period. You can't run 6 wirless mics into it but you can run 2, and get two channels of ambient on the built in mics, mix the 4 trax seperately and do it at a ridiculous quality level - something like the audio equivalent of shooting more than 4k. And all for $325.

This uncmopromised quality is where DLSR's are headed.

DSLR's, HD, FILM are all growing together into one hybrid. It's just going to be "a camera" soon, and you'll have Mark II quality with minimal or no skew, full manual, and 24p, and it will cost under $2k. Eventually.
 
It's not complete is it, I should have said some manual control issues right? Or is it totally manually controlled now?
Thanks for the clarification.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Manual control was fixed with the recent firmware upgrade.
Click to expand...

That's right. I wasn't aware that the firmware was already released.

Bottom line is, look how far things have come since the D90, which hasn't even been out for a whole year yet. We never got that level of improvement and added features with the DVX100 to the DVX100A. Same thing with most other cameras too. It just seems that the VDSLR arena is a bit more competitive than we've had with the pro/prosumer market.

Currently I'm eyeing the GH1, but who knows what could come in the next 6 months or less that might blow it out of the water? The way things have progressed so far, we could very well have another major leap in the VDSLR market in 3-4 months. Then of course there is the various Red Scarlets as well. Right now it feels like there are too many options to choose from.
 
Currently I'm eyeing the GH1, but who knows what could come in the next 6 months or less that might blow it out of the water?

This is why you don't approach equipment purchases (of any kind) this way. You buy when the kit has reached a level that fulfills your needs. If something better comes along 6 months later (and it almost always does), it doesn't matter much, since your needs are being met anyhow.

So far, looking at the specs, I'm not buying a VDSLR - they don't meet my needs. When they do, and the price is right, I'll buy and not worry about what turns up next.

That said, VDSLRs could be a game-changer. Of course, consider - the prosumer kit in the XH-A1 class goes for anywhere between $4K-$6K. The high end VDSLR like the 5D MK2 (with lenses) are also in this range. So price may no longer be a distinguishing factor down the road.
 
OldCorpse said:
Currently I'm eyeing the GH1, but who knows what could come in the next 6 months or less that might blow it out of the water?

This is why you don't approach equipment purchases (of any kind) this way. You buy when the kit has reached a level that fulfills your needs. If something better comes along 6 months later (and it almost always does), it doesn't matter much, since your needs are being met anyhow.
Click to expand...

Well, its not so much that the GH1 won't meet my current needs, but more of a why not wait a wee bit longer since I already have a camera (XH-A1) that I can get by with just fine for quite some more time. Personally, I don't like going through the whole process of buying a camera and then selling it 6 months later for a good deal less than what I paid for it initially. And the whole 6 months estimate was kind of conservative anyhow. There's still the Scarlet and other good possibilities like a Nikon D400 that are probably just around the corner (as in 3-4 months).

Either way, the GH1 is a hot camera and is not going to be the easiest thing to get a hold of right away. We still have a while to wait and see what kinds of footage the early buyers can show us. There isn't a ton of footage out now anyways, so I'd rather wait a bit, maybe til the end of the summer to see how the GH1 performs in various situations.

So far, looking at the specs, I'm not buying a VDSLR - they don't meet my needs. When they do, and the price is right, I'll buy and not worry about what turns up next.

That said, VDSLRs could be a game-changer. Of course, consider - the prosumer kit in the XH-A1 class goes for anywhere between $4K-$6K. The high end VDSLR like the 5D MK2 (with lenses) are also in this range.
Click to expand...


I anticipate that the tech that makes HD video from a DSLR possible will definitely trickle down to the pro/prosumer camera arena in various ways over the next few years. That to me is what is most exciting, since what we have now is probably just the tip of the iceberg (just look at the DVX or the XL1, and compare those to what we have available now).

So price may no longer be a distinguishing factor down the road.
Click to expand...

Exactly, just look at the S35 model of the upcoming Scarlet. Same thing with Canon's rumored APS-C sensor/EOS mount XL-style camera that could be coming next year, at a supposed price of around 7K. Not surprising either when you factor in what some here have spent on an HVX + 35mm adapter rig.
 
Last edited:
One thing that's REALLY been killing me is the inability to effectively execute handheld beyond a 35mm focal length. And so far 35mm is really pushing it, to me anyway. It's less an issue on the MKii because that's like shooting around, what, a 24mm? 28mm? That's not tough. But once you hit the 50mm mark and you try to pull focus it has been a bare and I really can't say I've seen any footage without an IS Lens or some sort of GlideCam majigger that shows it's feasible. And shoulder mounting with a 50mm doesn't help either.

If the solutions to this are all making the camera larger (aside from the IS lens) then it's kind of "meh, whatever". Some people are okay with sticks, in fact most people are but alot of us want to roll handheld. That's one thing I can say for the 35mm Adapter Hybrids and larger cameras: Handheld isn't an issue once your body is trained to handle the weight.

Not just shoulder mounting, but cradling, handheld low modes, etc etc. Wasn't 'til yesterday that I caved in and accepted the facts.

If you're a sticks shooter, you'll be fine for the most part.

If you're a handheld run-n-gunner and you don't want to invest in glidecams and all that, you need to add serious weight to the equation.

I broke out the Zacuto Lunchbox and rigged up something with the MKii yesterday and can now confidently operate handheld at 135mm Focal Lengths. 180 is pushing it, but completely feasible and doable.

The downside?

It weighs 13 - 14lbs now.

That's not necessarily a downside for me, though. I'm used to holding heavier and it's very comfortable to cradle. But it sorta defeated the whole purpose of "small package" yeah?

Then there's the hidden costs of making them work. GH-1 has the least hidden fees out of any of the offerings so far. But if you really look at what you're buying and what you're MISSING, it starts to add up.

The MKii's expense is beyond 2600.00. I think to get anything close to comfortable you may spend upwards of 3500.00 to begin with.

Basically, the images might look better (at first glance) but if you can't use the cameras then the image means a hill of beans.

As far as why do the images look better? Well, it's subjective and technical. For reasons mentioned already, sensor tech etc. But, also, some people actually do prefer a deep DOF. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top