DSLR 5D Mark III - Dream features list...
- Thread starter Papertwinproductions
- Start date
You might like the site canonrumors.com if you havent seen it yet.
Done waiting, getting the MK II February 11th. It's like computers, once you get one you have to make yourself stop looking, at least for a while.
Half the things on that list are pipe dreams that are never going to happen.
What people seem to forget is that DSLRs are stills cameras with video functions, albeit very good ones. The predominant market for DSLRs is still, by some way, still photographers. I went on a day boat cruise through the Greek islands this summer and I was one of about ten non-Japanese people on the boat. There were maybe 200 Japanese tourist and 90% of them had DSLRS, mainly either the Kiss X4 or the 5D Mark II as far as I can see. And they were just there for their holiday snaps. I think that people outside of Western Europe and North America have a different attitude to holiday photography (most Brits are happy to shoot up Marbella with a £100 Pentax) and they make up the core of the DSLRS market. Indie filmmakers simply don't have the numbers to pressure Canon for greatest video functionality.
What people seem to forget is that DSLRs are stills cameras with video functions, albeit very good ones. The predominant market for DSLRs is still, by some way, still photographers. I went on a day boat cruise through the Greek islands this summer and I was one of about ten non-Japanese people on the boat. There were maybe 200 Japanese tourist and 90% of them had DSLRS, mainly either the Kiss X4 or the 5D Mark II as far as I can see. And they were just there for their holiday snaps. I think that people outside of Western Europe and North America have a different attitude to holiday photography (most Brits are happy to shoot up Marbella with a £100 Pentax) and they make up the core of the DSLRS market. Indie filmmakers simply don't have the numbers to pressure Canon for greatest video functionality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc
What Philip Bloom thinks.
I'm guessing that the 720p only 60fps will disappoint you guys. And why the heck did Canon decide on that knowing that videographers are among their biggest fans?
What Philip Bloom thinks.
I'm guessing that the 720p only 60fps will disappoint you guys. And why the heck did Canon decide on that knowing that videographers are among their biggest fans?
The 60 fps even at 720 is pretty big. I was probably going to have to buy a C sensor camera to get it (slo mo, mostly music videos). So save that money, sell MK2 and I'd be mostly there.
My question is, why can't someone make a camcorder that's marketed for indie filmmakers, produces video with comparable quality to the DSLR cameras, utilizes 35mm lenses, and sells for the same less than a $1000 price point of the T3i?
I have yet to see it...
I have yet to see it...
If Canon have learnt anything from the Mk. II, it's that people are prepared to put up with fairly huge problems and inconvenient workflows (remember the early days of 30fps only [not 29.97] and no manual exposure?) for the visual appeal of the video. There may be a lot of people using the 5D for video, but it's still a stills camera first and foremost, and that's what the majority of people are buying them for.
Canon has a $16,000 one and Panasonic a $6,000 one. Cameras cost money. A $1000 camera isn't considered a "indie filmmaker" camera, it's high end consumer. You gotta remember that until the recent major adoption of the Epic, reds were mostly considered "indie filmmaker" cameras. If canon released something at that price point, it probably wouldn't be worth the $1000, or would lose them a lot of money in development.
I understand that that's the way things are, I'm asking why can't they be different? Why can't they offer a camcorder that does those things for $1000. And it's hardly like they're going to lose money on development, since the technology currently exists in the DSLR's already on the market. They could take that technology, omit all the bells and whistles that cater toward still photography, and come up with a camcorder for filmmakers.
What's the list of things it would need?
-Use of 35mm lenses
-Ability to shoot 1080p at various frame rates from 24 to 60
-HDMI out
-XLR input(s)
-Weighted and shaped like a traditional camcorder
-Use of SD card, et al...
They could use the same type of sensors and other internal parts as in the DSLR's. If the T3i can be priced out at $800 new, there's NO reason they couldn't make some adjustments to produce a camcorder with everything listed above for around $1000.
You say a $1000 camera isn't an "indie filmmaker" camera. Why? Just because it costs $1000? According to that logic, unless I'm using a $6000 camera, I'm not an indie filmmaker, I'm just a consumer that makes movies? Sorry, but that sounds pretentious and elitist to me. I mean, they used a 7D for films like Black Swan, 127 Hours, and Red State. They use it for TV shows like "House" and "Wilfred." And those are hardly "consumer" grade productions.
The single biggest reason they charge so much more for "professional" grade cameras is because they know the market will bear it. So many filmmakers (apparently like you) are so used to paying crazy high prices for cameras, that $5000 is considered relatively inexpensive. But for someone like me that has no need, nor the means, to buy a camera that expensive, a $1000, or even a $1200 option would be perfect. And I would imagine there's a LOT more people out there like me that would rather have a lower priced option, than there are professionals who have no problem spending high dollar amounts on a camera... But then, that's just my opinion.
Last edited:
DSLR are used on major productions only when they are convenient for some reason (usually the small form factor). We use them because they are cheap.
You're right LasVegas.
If, somehow, everyone refused to pay the prices of RED or C300, etc. the prices would come crashing down. They only charge that high because people don't mind paying that much.
Also, another thing to note is that if large manufacturers make an amazing camera like you mentioned for only around $1,000, it would cannibalize the sales of the more expensive models. This Its' not going to change any time soon.
If, somehow, everyone refused to pay the prices of RED or C300, etc. the prices would come crashing down. They only charge that high because people don't mind paying that much.
Also, another thing to note is that if large manufacturers make an amazing camera like you mentioned for only around $1,000, it would cannibalize the sales of the more expensive models. This Its' not going to change any time soon.
Exactly. So why can't they make a "cheap" camcorder package that offers the same basic "movie mode" things that the DSLR cameras offer, for about the same amount of money?
Sorry, I'm not trying to make an argument out of this. I'm simply posing a question that doesn't seem to have an answer that makes sense to me...
That a very valid point. I would continue to wonder, however, if the number of higher end camera sales that would be lost by those customers moving to the cheaper models, would be offset by the number of people that would spend a bit more for this kind of camera over more entry level models due to the higher quality footage...
Overpriced, just like most other "professional grade" camcorders...
And I'm not complaining about features the 5D or 7D or any other DSLR camera doesn't have. I'm complaining about the lack of a camcorder on the market that has similar features to a DSLR's movie mode, that's in the same price range. It doesn't exist...