I can understand the video.. really, I can. Because the 1Dx is going to be used by photojournalists for publications. Publications that have websites that are pushing more and more to have video content... so yeah, while it sucks to be a photographer and be asked by your photo editor to "grab some video if possible" it's just how things are going these days. If you are a photographer first to a breaking scene.. it can be a game changer...
I can understand the video.. really, I can. Because the 1Dx is going to be used by photojournalists for publications. Publications that have websites that are pushing more and more to have video content... so yeah, while it sucks to be a photographer and be asked by your photo editor to "grab some video if possible" it's just how things are going these days. If you are a photographer first to a breaking scene.. it can be a game changer...
Yes indeed!
Jim, reading your comments and looking at your gear list, would the 1DX, cost aside, be something that would meet particular needs of yours that weren't adequately met before?
Typically software comes in suites, and no matter that any particular person might use only a fraction of the tools in a suite the cost of developing the whole suite is passed on to and shared by every purchaser. More still photography editing suites are now including video tools.
Yes, higher processing power is one way that dslr tech can improve, but the upper level of that in a without-video body I think could be significantly less than for with-video, commensurably the cost.
Neil
On the software front, when they added video to aperture, they reduced the price. The 5DII with video costs less in real terms (taking into account exchange rates etc.) than the original 5D without video did.
Any additional hardware due to video (such as mic in and hdmi out) costs pennies when purchased in the bulk that Canon buys/makes them and this will be more than offset by the economy of scale of selling many more cameras to people who desire the video functionality.
I personally don't find it that attractive, and would much rather see the same camera (and the same PS) *without* video features, yet hopefully, much lighter and les expensive.
bowThank you for saying something that I have been screaming (in my head) for a while now.
As a manufacture myself, I cringe every time I read "it wouldn't cost anymore" Nothing in manufacturing is free..nothing. Its not that the parts cost more (they do) but integrating all those parts to play nice with one another costs more. There is always a compromise when adding complexity to any part.
I make aproduct line that compete at the international level. Competitors are constantly trying to get one product to compete in more than one weight class. Some do a "good" job..some not so good. There is always a compromise when you ask a product to do more than job..always.
Because the 1Dx is going to be used by photojournalists for publications. Publications that have websites that are pushing more and more to have video content... so yeah, while it sucks to be a photographer and be asked by your photo editor to "grab some video if possible" it's just how things are going these days. If you are a photographer first to a breaking scene.. it can be a game changer...
Ok I have seen this type of quote also. First how many 1Dx's will be sold for this guy ( photographer first to a breaking scene)?
Better question..how many sales out of a 1000..or out of 10,000?
As far as a boss asking for something more..we all go though that. Why not a hand held, hand launched drone with a camera for even better coverage? Or a jet pack so you could really cover the event..jet packs are cool.
I guess my point is you can always come up with a "what if" scenario. But that is hardly ever the premise for product design, or evaluation.
Digital SLRs with video were an experiment from Canon. Canon was looking for something to make the 5D MKII more attractive and, since the 5D MKII was to have Live View, it was realized that video capture could be added for very little cost.
The rest is history. The Canon 5D MKII exploded in popularity, to a large extent "because" of the video. Public attention was now polarized on the possibilities and large forums were produced just to support the birthing of this new capability. It's not so much that everyone is using the technology to best advantage, but it is that everyone with the technology is experimenting to see where it can help them.
Wedding photographers are using the "fusion" between still photography and video as a selling point, and in many markets it's working. (Sadly in my backward community it has not sold.)
At this point, developing a new camera with "less" video features would cost more money and would produce less return for the manufacturer.
If you want to blame anything, blame "Live View". That feature, which a lot of professional photographers had requested, mostly to confirm focus in a studio environment, was the development which led to the rather trivial video capture development.
I bet there are still some who don't believe me.
It turns out that the Canon 50D and 450D can also be used as video acquisition devices, even though they were not designed for it. You can either record to a tethered computer or to the camera's memory card, thanks to more recent development by Magic Lantern. While it's not the same video quality as the more recent cameras, it demonstrates the viability of the concept, and this is all with out the resources and capabilities of Canon, and this is with the considerable detriment of having to "blind reverse engineer" the Canon process, and using substandard, underdeveloped circuits and firmware. But, this is all provided for free.
For anyone hoping to get a cheaper version of the Canon 1D X by convincing Canon to omit features, you might as well ask for your next car with a discount because you really don't need power windows and the AM component of the radio. It just makes no sense to believe that dumbing down is always less expensive.
For anyone hoping to get a cheaper version of the Canon 1D X by convincing Canon to omit features, you might as well ask for your next car with a discount because you really don't need power windows and the AM component of the radio. It just makes no sense to believe that dumbing down is always less expensive.
I agree but for a different reason. Once a product is done..its done. To ask the manufacture to remove something, is more work for design and manufacture=more money not less
But if you were to make a new product/camera from scratch, you cannot add features, hardware for free.
As that is not the case the whole discussion is moot.
I Also don't think a camera that takes pictures only as Dumb. As far as what sells and why..that is a whole new thread. But lets not equate common sense and logic with customer smarts..or I would be digging ditches
Gary
I agree but for a different reason. Once a product is done..its done. To ask the manufacture to remove something, is more work for design and manufacture=more money not less
But if you were to make a new product/camera from scratch, you cannot add features, hardware for free.
As that is not the case the whole discussion is moot.
I'm betting the cost of producing, supporting and distribution of two versions of the same camera, one without video and one with, would exceed the couple of dollars it takes to have just one model with video.
While I'm not too sure of the actual costs involved, it would appear that it didn't cost too much to add video to dSLRs, judging partly by how quickly it has been adopted into the entry level dSLRs, which did not jump up in price. $2-$5USD per camera would be my guess.
Remember that even many P&S cameras have competent video recording capabilities these days. It is very much a commodity feature.
Yeah, I understand all that... Packing more features into the same form factor is an inevitable trend, cause if you don't do it, you competitor will and then would brag it has more features than you... I'm really suprised and pleased (as I said) they found it in them to stop at 18.1MP...
Anyway 1DX looks like a bitching piece of hardware/software, and now I am simply wondering if I should wait for 5DX or just grab this one when it gets out.
Although - I would probably wait until compatible ACR version comes outs anyway
Canon doesn't design DSLRs from scratch. They start with a current DSLR. For the 1D X, they probably started with the 1D4 and 1Ds3. To take video out of the 1D4 would have cost more. However, I really like what Canon is doing. The 1D X has a bunch of new *still* features. They're giving still photographers big reasons to upgrade. They haven't forgotten still photographers. They're not devoting all of their resources to the big moneymaker, video. Instead, they're introducing a new product line, the C300. Also, they've announced the development of a cinema-oriented DSLR. They'll put all the big video features in that. They'll give the normal traditional DSLRs some video features, especially the lower-end ones. More features is an important part of this market. But they aren't abandoning still photographers and turning DSLRs into video cameras, like many have thought. We have the 1D X for stills, and the C300 for video. I think we'll see the same thing in the mid-range market: a 5D3 or whatever it's called for still photographers, and a video-oriented 5D-like camera (maybe the under-development video DSLR that they talked about?).
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited November 6, 2011
I predict that in 5-10 years' time, Canon, Nikon and Sony will all be considered the "PC / Windows" of the camera industry, and we will see an "Apple product" emerge.
It will be simple in design and operation, with high-quality components and manufacturing, and it will NOT be the choice of every photographer, but it will fill a niche that is very much needed by a select few who cannot stand the "cram it all in" mentality.
I look forward to that day! Or, I'll just buy a gaggle of mint D700's and shelve them until I need them. Although if I burn through one camera every three years and assume a 20-30 year career as a photographer, that could get expensive. I guess it would be no more expensive than upgrading to the newest model every 3 years anyway...
I don't have the slightest interest in video but the camera manufacturers are all in the business of selling stuff and that means ticking boxes that not all potential buyers are interested in. I think Canon have made a lot of good decisions with their latest pro camera (especially not pumping the pixels).
Jim, reading your comments and looking at your gear list, would the 1DX, cost aside, be something that would meet particular needs of yours that weren't adequately met before?
Neil
Yes. For 2 reasons.. One of which can be solved with a 7D the other Canon's refusal to add features only to their flagship camera.
First, Frame rate. I shoot sports and I've been shooting them with a 3.9fps 5DII. Can't tell you how many shots I've missed because the framerate was low. That being said, I just rented a 7D and I don't know what the issues are yet (haven't RTFM) but I've had worse luck tracking subjects at a pee-wee football game with it than I do with my 5D using only the center point for focusing in AI-Servo mode. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of the 7D, but I'd hope with all the advanced subject tracking of the 1Dx that it would not happen.
Second, VOICE ANNOTATION!!!!!! Why the F)(*$& can't canon add this to anything but their 1D line? Nikon has it on things other than their flagship model.. I for sure, don't have a perfect (nearly) memory (what was I saying???) , but shooting sports, you can't write things down and then go back to shooting, it takes too much time.. So voice annotation is a must. People have told me to get a separate voice recorder, I have one on my phone. Still means I need to take a hand off my camera, get my phone, find the app, if it closed.. load it, record, go back to shooting. This should be on my body.
My other work, news, is pretty slow. I don't need 12fps. I don't need annotation. I don't need a lot of things a 1Dx provides. But carrying around a 50lb bag with everything would be a hell of a lot less weight if I just went with a 1Dx. Yeah, I'd still use my 5DII (pretty sure) for landscape work.. But other than that.. I don't care about having 40MP right now. If a 5D3 comes out, I"ll probably get it.. but not for video features, but for landscape work. Professionally and for my sanity, I need to move to the 1Dx
Yes. For 2 reasons.. One of which can be solved with a 7D the other Canon's refusal to add features only to their flagship camera.
First, Frame rate. I shoot sports and I've been shooting them with a 3.9fps 5DII. Can't tell you how many shots I've missed because the framerate was low. That being said, I just rented a 7D and I don't know what the issues are yet (haven't RTFM) but I've had worse luck tracking subjects at a pee-wee football game with it than I do with my 5D using only the center point for focusing in AI-Servo mode. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of the 7D, but I'd hope with all the advanced subject tracking of the 1Dx that it would not happen.
Second, VOICE ANNOTATION!!!!!! Why the F)(*$& can't canon add this to anything but their 1D line? Nikon has it on things other than their flagship model.. I for sure, don't have a perfect (nearly) memory (what was I saying???) , but shooting sports, you can't write things down and then go back to shooting, it takes too much time.. So voice annotation is a must. People have told me to get a separate voice recorder, I have one on my phone. Still means I need to take a hand off my camera, get my phone, find the app, if it closed.. load it, record, go back to shooting. This should be on my body.
My other work, news, is pretty slow. I don't need 12fps. I don't need annotation. I don't need a lot of things a 1Dx provides. But carrying around a 50lb bag with everything would be a hell of a lot less weight if I just went with a 1Dx. Yeah, I'd still use my 5DII (pretty sure) for landscape work.. But other than that.. I don't care about having 40MP right now. If a 5D3 comes out, I"ll probably get it.. but not for video features, but for landscape work. Professionally and for my sanity, I need to move to the 1Dx
Great read Jim!! Thanks very much!
The AF/tracking tech in the 7D is highly sophisticated, I think unbeaten in dslrs. It is not however user friendly! So much so that a significant number of 7D users totally avoid it as much as possible! How they can sleep at night, I don't know!:D The 1DX has now the option to intelligently automate that system.
On the software front, when they added video to aperture, they reduced the price. The 5DII with video costs less in real terms (taking into account exchange rates etc.) than the original 5D without video did.
Any additional hardware due to video (such as mic in and hdmi out) costs pennies when purchased in the bulk that Canon buys/makes them and this will be more than offset by the economy of scale of selling many more cameras to people who desire the video functionality.
I'm betting the cost of producing, supporting and distribution of two versions of the same camera, one without video and one with, would exceed the couple of dollars it takes to have just one model with video.
Can the improvements in the 5D2 over the classic, putting video aside, justify it's current price? Shouldn't it be even cheaper!
I've already said that digital video tech is developing while dslr tech is stagnating. To buy a standalone digital video cam for product quality equivalent to that of still images from the 1DX costs as much as the 1DX. The video tech at present in dslrs is cheap, yes, in cost... and cheap in that it's handicapped.
Video in dslrs "as good as it can be, is limited in its features and capabilities, and therefore there will remain a great many things that they simply can't do, or at least can't do all that well." - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml
So toy video in a top of line dslr? As video tech development soars, how long before that wears thin with the 1D market? So if Canon wants the putting of video in 1D*s to make any sense it will have to put in future 1D*s something better than cheap, in other words expensive!
Can the improvements in the 5D2 over the classic, putting video aside, justify it's current price? Shouldn't it be even cheaper!
I've already said that digital video tech is developing while dslr tech is stagnating. To buy a standalone digital video cam for product quality equivalent to that of still images from the 1DX costs as much as the 1DX. The video tech at present in dslrs is cheap, yes, in cost... and cheap in that it's handicapped.
Video in dslrs "as good as it can be, is limited in its features and capabilities, and therefore there will remain a great many things that they simply can't do, or at least can't do all that well." - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml
So toy video in a top of line dslr? As video tech development soars, how long before that wears thin with the 1D market? So if Canon wants the putting of video in 1D*s to make any sense it will have to put in future 1D*s something better than cheap, in other words expensive!
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.
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!
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.
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?!rofl
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
[email]roakeyatunderctekdotcom[/email]
<== Mighty Murphy, the wonder Bouv!
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.
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!
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!
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?
Comments
Correct!
Which is why we have something to complain about!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Yes indeed!
Jim, reading your comments and looking at your gear list, would the 1DX, cost aside, be something that would meet particular needs of yours that weren't adequately met before?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
On the software front, when they added video to aperture, they reduced the price. The 5DII with video costs less in real terms (taking into account exchange rates etc.) than the original 5D without video did.
Any additional hardware due to video (such as mic in and hdmi out) costs pennies when purchased in the bulk that Canon buys/makes them and this will be more than offset by the economy of scale of selling many more cameras to people who desire the video functionality.
As a manufacture myself, I cringe every time I read "it wouldn't cost anymore" Nothing in manufacturing is free..nothing. Its not that the parts cost more (they do) but integrating all those parts to play nice with one another costs more. There is always a compromise when adding complexity to any part.
I make aproduct line that compete at the international level. Competitors are constantly trying to get one product to compete in more than one weight class. Some do a "good" job..some not so good. There is always a compromise when you ask a product to do more than job..always.
Ok I have seen this type of quote also. First how many 1Dx's will be sold for this guy ( photographer first to a breaking scene)?
Better question..how many sales out of a 1000..or out of 10,000?
As far as a boss asking for something more..we all go though that. Why not a hand held, hand launched drone with a camera for even better coverage? Or a jet pack so you could really cover the event..jet packs are cool.
I guess my point is you can always come up with a "what if" scenario. But that is hardly ever the premise for product design, or evaluation.
:hide
Gary
The rest is history. The Canon 5D MKII exploded in popularity, to a large extent "because" of the video. Public attention was now polarized on the possibilities and large forums were produced just to support the birthing of this new capability. It's not so much that everyone is using the technology to best advantage, but it is that everyone with the technology is experimenting to see where it can help them.
Wedding photographers are using the "fusion" between still photography and video as a selling point, and in many markets it's working. (Sadly in my backward community it has not sold.)
At this point, developing a new camera with "less" video features would cost more money and would produce less return for the manufacturer.
If you want to blame anything, blame "Live View". That feature, which a lot of professional photographers had requested, mostly to confirm focus in a studio environment, was the development which led to the rather trivial video capture development.
I bet there are still some who don't believe me.
It turns out that the Canon 50D and 450D can also be used as video acquisition devices, even though they were not designed for it. You can either record to a tethered computer or to the camera's memory card, thanks to more recent development by Magic Lantern. While it's not the same video quality as the more recent cameras, it demonstrates the viability of the concept, and this is all with out the resources and capabilities of Canon, and this is with the considerable detriment of having to "blind reverse engineer" the Canon process, and using substandard, underdeveloped circuits and firmware. But, this is all provided for free.
For anyone hoping to get a cheaper version of the Canon 1D X by convincing Canon to omit features, you might as well ask for your next car with a discount because you really don't need power windows and the AM component of the radio. It just makes no sense to believe that dumbing down is always less expensive.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
But if you were to make a new product/camera from scratch, you cannot add features, hardware for free.
As that is not the case the whole discussion is moot.
I Also don't think a camera that takes pictures only as Dumb. As far as what sells and why..that is a whole new thread. But lets not equate common sense and logic with customer smarts..or I would be digging ditches
Gary
Link to my Smugmug site
Remember that even many P&S cameras have competent video recording capabilities these days. It is very much a commodity feature.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Anyway 1DX looks like a bitching piece of hardware/software, and now I am simply wondering if I should wait for 5DX or just grab this one when it gets out.
Although - I would probably wait until compatible ACR version comes outs anyway
It will be simple in design and operation, with high-quality components and manufacturing, and it will NOT be the choice of every photographer, but it will fill a niche that is very much needed by a select few who cannot stand the "cram it all in" mentality.
I look forward to that day! Or, I'll just buy a gaggle of mint D700's and shelve them until I need them. Although if I burn through one camera every three years and assume a 20-30 year career as a photographer, that could get expensive. I guess it would be no more expensive than upgrading to the newest model every 3 years anyway...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Our new camera is the most simple to use one ever made. You don't even have to press the shutter button... we press it before we send it to you!!!!
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
Yes. For 2 reasons.. One of which can be solved with a 7D the other Canon's refusal to add features only to their flagship camera.
First, Frame rate. I shoot sports and I've been shooting them with a 3.9fps 5DII. Can't tell you how many shots I've missed because the framerate was low. That being said, I just rented a 7D and I don't know what the issues are yet (haven't RTFM) but I've had worse luck tracking subjects at a pee-wee football game with it than I do with my 5D using only the center point for focusing in AI-Servo mode. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of the 7D, but I'd hope with all the advanced subject tracking of the 1Dx that it would not happen.
Second, VOICE ANNOTATION!!!!!! Why the F)(*$& can't canon add this to anything but their 1D line? Nikon has it on things other than their flagship model.. I for sure, don't have a perfect (nearly) memory (what was I saying???)
My other work, news, is pretty slow. I don't need 12fps. I don't need annotation. I don't need a lot of things a 1Dx provides. But carrying around a 50lb bag with everything would be a hell of a lot less weight if I just went with a 1Dx. Yeah, I'd still use my 5DII (pretty sure) for landscape work.. But other than that.. I don't care about having 40MP right now. If a 5D3 comes out, I"ll probably get it.. but not for video features, but for landscape work. Professionally and for my sanity, I need to move to the 1Dx
Great read Jim!! Thanks very much!
The AF/tracking tech in the 7D is highly sophisticated, I think unbeaten in dslrs. It is not however user friendly! So much so that a significant number of 7D users totally avoid it as much as possible! How they can sleep at night, I don't know!:D The 1DX has now the option to intelligently automate that system.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Can the improvements in the 5D2 over the classic, putting video aside, justify it's current price? Shouldn't it be even cheaper!
I've already said that digital video tech is developing while dslr tech is stagnating. To buy a standalone digital video cam for product quality equivalent to that of still images from the 1DX costs as much as the 1DX. The video tech at present in dslrs is cheap, yes, in cost... and cheap in that it's handicapped.
Video in dslrs "as good as it can be, is limited in its features and capabilities, and therefore there will remain a great many things that they simply can't do, or at least can't do all that well." - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/camcorders/cam-cam.shtml
So toy video in a top of line dslr? As video tech development soars, how long before that wears thin with the 1D market? So if Canon wants the putting of video in 1D*s to make any sense it will have to put in future 1D*s something better than cheap, in other words expensive!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
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=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
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
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The counter to the "apple" argument is, that you would then be paying for incremental upgrades. Yearly.
I am part of the camp that doesn't believe that adding video creates an additional extreme cost to the camera.
www.tednghiem.com
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=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Video and photo only take so much processing power... not sure about yearly there, lol
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.
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
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
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
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
<== Mighty Murphy, the wonder Bouv!
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.
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
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
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
http://www.behance.net/brosepix