Originally Posted by Matthew Saville The 5D mk1 was $3300 MSRP at release, and the 5D mk2 was $2700 at release. That's a $600 improvement! Also, I highly doubt that DSLR makers will be so bold as to dramatically increase the price of a mainstream product simply because of a need to add high-tech video features. That's just not gonna happen. Nikon knows this, and that is why they have been hesitant to add video in the first place. Heck, the D3X lacked video entirely, even though other Nikon DSLR's already had video at that point. And Canon, on the other hand, has already stated that they will be developing a "cinema-oriented" DSLR, separately from their mainstream DSLR line, for video users. Either way, I don't think either Canon or Nikon will be caught dead increasing their production costs and MSRP's significantly for the sake of video features. A "still" camera will always be a "still" camera in my opinion, and makers are wise to remember that. If they don't, then as I predicted we will certainly see an "Apple product" that takes us back to the basics- A light-tight box with a button and a sensor. =Matt=

Neither will C/N/etc/etc stand still! That is a more evident fact than any other! So where will Canon move since they are as unlikely to leave last year's video tech in next year's dslrs as anything you say? Have they got themselves in a corner?

Btw my first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix 5700 p&s cost as much as my 40D, give or take. What does that say? That my 40D was cheap? Tricky isn't it!

Btw2 Is that "button" really necessary?!

Neil

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Either way, I don't think either Canon or Nikon will be caught dead increasing their production costs and MSRP's significantly for the sake of video features. A "still" camera will always be a "still" camera in my opinion, and makers are wise to remember that. If they don't, then as I predicted we will certainly see an "Apple product" that takes us back to the basics- A light-tight box with a button and a sensor. =Matt=

The counter to the "apple" argument is, that you would then be paying for incremental upgrades. Yearly. Not to completely knock Apple, I use apple products.

I am part of the camp that doesn't believe that adding video creates an additional extreme cost to the camera.

Originally Posted by NeilL Neither will C/N/etc/etc stand still! That is a more evident fact than any other! So where will Canon move since they are as unlikely to leave last year's video tech in next year's dslrs as anything you say? Have they got themselves in a corner? Btw my first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix 5700 p&s cost as much as my 40D, give or take. What does that say? That my 40D was cheap? Tricky isn't it! Btw2 Is that "button" really necessary?! Neil

Video in DSLR's will certainly progress, but not to the extent that it hinders or complicates the use of the camera as a still photography camera, nor will it be allowed to add significant cost to the retail price of the camera. Or, if that does happen, it will be as an off-shoot model, such as Canon's promised "cinema oriented DSLR", while they also maintain a stills-oriented camera body.

In my opinion, the likes of the 7D etc. already take things far enough- switches and dials that completely turn the camera into a video camera, heck on the 60D your camera can go into live view the moment you turn it on... To me, this is enough of an intrusion and I would not buy a DSLR that took things any further. I'm hoping to high heaven that Nikon's next affordable FX DSLR doesn't have some sort of dedicated video switch. Or if they add a LV / video switch, they had better make it so that I can program it to do something else.


=Matt=

Originally Posted by Moogle Pepper The counter to the "apple" argument is, that you would then be paying for incremental upgrades. Yearly. Not to completely knock Apple, I use apple products.

Video and photo only take so much processing power... not sure about yearly there, lol

Originally Posted by Moogle Pepper I am part of the camp that doesn't believe that adding video creates an additional extreme cost to the camera.

I'm with you. Adding video features to a camera is mainly a firmware/software based decision to use the hardware currently in the camera for video. They'd have the same processing power in the camera with or without the video, and its up to them if they want to write the code in or not to have video capabilities.

Originally Posted by Overfocused Video and photo only take so much processing power... not sure about yearly there, lol I'm with you. Video is mainly firmware/software based. They'd have the same processing power in the camera with or without the video.

Then would you like to suggest why dslrs with video are so video handicapped as to be far inferior to real video cameras as commented by the LuminousLandscape quote?

And would you like to suggest what the future is for such toy-like video in top end dslrs when video tech is delivering so much better in other formats and so people are expecting so much more of video generally?

Please do! And also what about this -

Rising is not the only way that prices can rise, they can rise by not falling.

We might expect, and there are many examples in many areas of tech, that prices for devices will fall over time. One trick that manufacturers can play with pricing is to increase prices without increasing prices by keeping prices steady, even by reducing prices. The trick is done by adding extras to devices. So for example, last model of device D sells for $P. The new model has a new feature A+, and DA+ sells for ($P - 1). However, the actual cost of manufacturing DA+ is ($P - 5), which means that the manufacturer makes $+4, which the buyer happily pays believing the new feature is coming without a price rise, indeed at a price reduction!

As you can see, the new feature is actually contributing significantly to profit but without appearing to!

As you can see too, a falling price can actually hide a rising price, like a Trojan Horse. The trick means that a manufacturer can introduce new features to boost sales, features which add to profitability not through a higher price but through a lower price controlled to produce the desired level of profitability! Attractiveness and demand in the market are stimulated and kept high for a device increasingly cheaper to manufacture but which has extras that are expensive to manufacture. The equation comes out in favour of profit for the manufacturer because the profit margin is maintained by continuing high level of sales coupled with apparent falls in prices which are in fact price rises when net (old tech + new tech) manufacturing costs are considered.

The crux is not that prices are nominally cheaper even with video, but that prices without video should fall much more! The increasing price of added video can be covered by not passing on fully the cheaper manufacturing cost of the basic device to the consumer.

Business is as cryptic as any other high value activity. And wouldn't you do this?

Neil

The crux is not that prices are nominally cheaper even with video, but that prices without video should fall much more! The increasing price of added video can be covered by not passing on fully the cheaper manufacturing cost of the basic device to the consumer.

Ding Ding..we have a winner. Nicely done Sir
I have a range of products that only sells to one distributor since 2003. I have never raised the price. They never understand how I can maintain that level with everything else going up.
Could be that I am a great guy giving back to the hobby...or something else
Gary

Originally Posted by NeilL Then would you like to suggest why dslrs with video are so video handicapped as to be far inferior to real video cameras as commented by the LuminousLandscape quote? And would you like to suggest what the future is for such toy-like video in top end dslrs when video tech is delivering so much better in other formats and so people are expecting so much more of video generally?

DSLRs, despite the hand-wringing to the contrary, are still designed to be primarily DSLRs. The "free" video functionality has to be implemented on top of the existing still picture hardware that's available in the camera. That's why the limitations exist. If, and when, the two technologies converge, the distinctions, and the limitations, will cease to exist.

As for hyperbole such as "handicapped", "inferior" and "toy-like" - true, you're not going to make the next silver screen blockbuster on a 5D or 7D, but they work amazingly well for video as TV shows such as House and Saturday Night Live can attest to.

So though some people may neither want nor desire the video features of the current crop of DSLRs, those abilities are quite capable of producing extremely high quality material when correctly used. And at a fraction of the cost of full-blown cinematography equipment.

Roak

Time to refinance the house!

Originally Posted by NeilL Then would you like to suggest why dslrs with video are so video handicapped as to be far inferior to real video cameras as commented by the LuminousLandscape quote? And would you like to suggest what the future is for such toy-like video in top end dslrs when video tech is delivering so much better in other formats and so people are expecting so much more of video generally? Please do! And also what about this - Rising is not the only way that prices can rise, they can rise by not falling. We might expect, and there are many examples in many areas of tech, that prices for devices will fall over time. One trick that manufacturers can play with pricing is to increase prices without increasing prices by keeping prices steady, even by reducing prices. The trick is done by adding extras to devices. So for example, last model of device D sells for $P. The new model has a new feature A+, and DA+ sells for ($P - 1). However, the actual cost of manufacturing CA+ is ($P - 5), which means that the manufacturer makes $+4, which the buyer happily pays believing the new feature is coming without a price rise, indeed at a price reduction! As you can see, the new feature is actually contributing significantly to profit but without appearing to! As you can see too, a falling price can actually hide a rising price, like a Trojan Horse. The trick means that a manufacturer can introduce new features to boost sales, features which add to profitability not through a higher price but through a lower price controlled to produce the desired level of profitability! Attractiveness and demand in the market are stimulated and kept high for a device increasingly cheaper to manufacture but which has extras that are expensive to manufacture. The equation comes out in favour of profit for the manufacturer because the profit margin is maintained by continuing high level of sales coupled with apparent falls in prices which are in fact price rises when net (old tech + new tech) manufacturing costs are considered. The crux is not that prices are nominally cheaper even with video, but that prices without video should fall much more! The increasing price of added video can be covered by not passing on fully the cheaper manufacturing cost of the basic device to the consumer. Business is as cryptic as any other high value activity. And wouldn't you do this? Neil

Neil,

The quote you gave is quite correct, video in DSLRs has many limitations. Some of these, such as codecs, audio monitoring/levels, and frame rates are already being addressed as new cameras come out, without affecting the stills side of the camera. Others, such as HDMI out etc are also being addressed, space permitting. However, a pro camcorder will always have better ergonomics with many dedicated buttons etc for these functions that DSLRs lack.

Other issues, such as the lack of XLR sockets and ND filters cannot be addressed within the form factor of a DSLR. This is why cameras such as the AF100 have been developed which combine a camcorder form factor with a large sensor.

However, the AF100 costs a lot more than a GH2 (for example), despite having quite similar image quality. So there will be a market for people wanting to use DSLRs for pro video for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the future improvements in video performance of DSLRs will be limited to software and small hardware changes. These add very little extra cost to the manufacture of the camera, and the development cost is offset by the increased sales.

In the case of the 1DX, I suspect few videographers will buy that camera, you could get a AF100 for that money. The feature may be handy for some pro photographers however, so I guess Canon put it in for that reason. The 5D3, 7D2 and future consumer models are likely to be very popular for video, however.

As for the 5d vs 5d2, the 5d2 is far superior for stills. Sensor cleaning, increased resolution and improved low light performance are all big improvements. I know lots of wedding photographers who upgraded and love the 5D2 despite never using the video functions.

One final thing, if your argument was correct, the D700 should be way cheaper than the 5D2, but it isn't.

Originally Posted by Stuart-M In the case of the 1DX, I suspect few videographers will buy that camera Do we know how many 1DX owners actually use the video in the serious way for example roakey describes eg for TV shows? And how many of those who do will soon abandon 1DX video as the ante rises in video tech? In other words how permanent will the combo fad be? The 5D3, 7D2 and future consumer models are likely to be very popular for video I agree. But again how long before the market moves on for reasons of tech limitations and pricing? the D700 should be way cheaper than the 5D2, but it isn't. Nikon must be getting the returns they desire, so why?

I think the future of the combo is likely very much on the minds of the manufacturers. I think of a 3 legged race. Shouldn't 3 legs be better than 2? But they aren't!

Neil

Originally Posted by roakey As for hyperbole such as "handicapped", "inferior" and "toy-like" - true, you're not going to make the next silver screen blockbuster on a 5D or 7D, but they work amazingly well for video as TV shows such as House and Saturday Night Live can attest to.

I never use video functions on any of my bodies, but my understanding from videographer friends is that feature movies have been made using 5D2s, and they are appreciated as great instruments for shooting video if good sound equipment is used alongside it. They always seem disappointed that I don't even know how to use the video function!

Originally Posted by jhefti I never use video functions on any of my bodies, but my understanding from videographer friends is that feature movies have been made using 5D2s, and they are appreciated as great instruments for shooting video if good sound equipment is used alongside it. They always seem disappointed that I don't even know how to use the video function!

Well yes indeed, and that is part of the extra price video adds to the combos! And what about lighting, and what about dolleys...? And can one person do it all?

Neil

>>Do we know how many 1DX owners actually use the video in the serious way for example roakey describes eg for TV shows? And how many of those who do will soon abandon 1DX video as the ante rises in video tech? In other words how permanent will the combo fad be?

Broadcast TV and movies aren't the only serious use. Videographers use them for wedding videos, corporate videos etc.

I think for higher budget films such as high cost adverts, broadcast and movies, the new large sensor camcorders will gradually take over.

On the other hand, wedding videographers etc. are much more likely to use DSLRs, probably alongside small sensor camcorders.

The problem is that the large sensor camcorders are not as practical in many ways as the smaller sensor ones. For example my HMC151 camcorder has a 13 x zoom f/1.6 lens with servo zoom and IS. Such a lens is not possible for a large sensor, so for many situations this is better than a DSLR or even a large sensor camcorder. But for shallow DoF and low light situations the DSLR comes into its own.

These practical issues are not a factor for some types of big budget productions where the shots can be planned.

Getting back to the point, I think there are some small tweaks that the camera companies will make to DSLRs to improve the video side. But I don't think these will impact stills photographers in a negative way. People will still continue to buy DSLRs for video in large numbers and this will improve economies of scale helping to keep the costs down for stills photographers.

Large sensor video cameras will continue to be released and will develop, maybe with improved lens options, but these are an order of magnitude more expensive than consumer DSLRs with very similar image quality, so they will not sell in huge numbers. Small sensor camcorders will continue to sell as well, as these are very practical for many types of video and TV production.

Originally Posted by Stuart-M >>Do we know how many 1DX owners actually use the video in the serious way for example roakey describes eg for TV shows? And how many of those who do will soon abandon 1DX video as the ante rises in video tech? In other words how permanent will the combo fad be? Broadcast TV and movies aren't the only serious use. Videographers use them for wedding videos, corporate videos etc. I think for higher budget films such as high cost adverts, broadcast and movies, the new large sensor camcorders will gradually take over. On the other hand, wedding videographers etc. are much more likely to use DSLRs, probably alongside small sensor camcorders. The problem is that the large sensor camcorders are not as practical in many ways as the smaller sensor ones. For example my HMC151 camcorder has a 13 x zoom f/1.6 lens with servo zoom and IS. Such a lens is not possible for a large sensor, so for many situations this is better than a DSLR or even a large sensor camcorder. But for shallow DoF and low light situations the DSLR comes into its own. These practical issues are not a factor for some types of big budget productions where the shots can be planned. Getting back to the point, I think there are some small tweaks that the camera companies will make to DSLRs to improve the video side. But I don't think these will impact stills photographers in a negative way. People will still continue to buy DSLRs for video in large numbers and this will improve economies of scale helping to keep the costs down for stills photographers. Large sensor video cameras will continue to be released and will develop, maybe with improved lens options, but these are an order of magnitude more expensive than consumer DSLRs with very similar image quality, so they will not sell in huge numbers. Small sensor camcorders will continue to sell as well, as these are very practical for many types of video and TV production.

Good read. It was necessary to drag ourselves away from the very simplistic "...and it's got video" kind of response to the advertising of dslrs. As you and others make clear video means a few different things, and generally requires much more both of gear and expertise than can be found in a dslr and a typical dslr photographer.

Leaving aside the use of dslrs by videographers for video rather than still photography, where dslrs obviously have created an option, in this discussion the only serious use by (some) stills photographers seems to be for weddings. That would seem to me to be a restricted population of dslr users who actually require video.

All in all, I think video in dslrs is closer to a 3 legged race than a triathlon.

Neil

Interestingly enough Greg Yaitanes (producer/director of House) blogged that one of the reasons he used the 5D on an episode of House was because it let them do the shoot quicker and for a lower cost because the sets did not have to be designed to be broken apart like they did for the bigger video cameras they typically use. Complete scenes could be shot without have to brake down and rearrange the set in between parts of the scene. He also mentioned the depth of field too.

Originally Posted by Stuart-M >>Do we know how many 1DX owners actually use the video in the serious way for example roakey describes eg for TV shows? And how many of those who do will soon abandon 1DX video as the ante rises in video tech? In other words how permanent will the combo fad be? Broadcast TV and movies aren't the only serious use. Videographers use them for wedding videos, corporate videos etc. .

Originally Posted by NeilL Good read. It was necessary to drag ourselves away from the very simplistic "...and it's got video" kind of response to the advertising of dslrs. As you and others make clear video means a few different things, and generally requires much more both of gear and expertise than can be found in a dslr and a typical dslr photographer. Leaving aside the use of dslrs by videographers for video rather than still photography, where dslrs obviously have created an option, in this discussion the only serious use by (some) stills photographers seems to be for weddings. That would seem to me to be a restricted population of dslr users who actually require video. All in all, I think video in dslrs is closer to a 3 legged race than a triathlon. Neil

I wouldn't say they can't be used in other ways, but you get much better results with a monopod and maybe a Rode videomic, these aren't expensive (relatively speaking), but on the other hand, if somebody wants a camera for the family trip to disney, maybe a small camcorder would be better suited and a lot easier to carry around.

I would agree that most photographers don't need the video function, even wedding photographers, unless they are videographers as well (as I am). In fact, I don't use my 5D2 for video, I use a 550D as my second video camera alongside my HMC151 camcorder.

However, that isn't the point really. The video function may not be used by photographers very much, so they will buy it simply based on its stills capability. A whole other set of customers may buy the same product for video and not care about the stills side. I hardly ever use my 550d for photos. Obviously these are primarily stills cameras so as long as the stills performance isn't degraded I don't see the problem.

I am not sure I understand your frustration with your 7D, Jim.

I own a 7D, a 5DMK2, and a 1DM4. I find the 7D a very close competitor to my 1DMk4 is AF acquisition and capture, and my 5DMk2 way behind either of them. The AF on my older 5D was very slooow, and only worked with single point AF in One Shot mode.

The 7D offers several different ways to arrange your AF, and I prefer to use three AF point groupings, distributed to right, left , upper or lower, or center for wildlife shooting. Indeed I never used AI servo AF with earlier crop bodies but I find it works pretty good on my 7D.

Will the 1Dx be available my March of this year?

The "EOS-1D X Instruction Manual" and the "Pocket Guide (EOS-1D X)" were posted today:

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/p...uresAndManuals

(Current links are:

EOS-1D X Instruction Manual
and
Pocket Guide (EOS-1D X)

... respectively.)

Originally Posted by ziggy53 The "EOS-1D X Instruction Manual" and the "Pocket Guide (EOS-1D X)" were posted today: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/p...uresAndManuals (Current links are: EOS-1D X Instruction Manual and Pocket Guide (EOS-1D X) ... respectively.)

Is this a good indication that the camera will be shipped soon? I have mine back ordered in B&H and wonder how long it will take before it gets into my hands? I'm hoping that Christmas will come very early

Originally Posted by pemmett Is this a good indication that the camera will be shipped soon? I have mine back ordered in B&H and wonder how long it will take before it gets into my hands? I'm hoping that Christmas will come very early

That's the "hope", but only Canon knows its delivery schedule. The 1D X has been so long delayed, many people are getting discouraged.