# A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"



## gibbygoo (May 22, 2011)

I saw this on a video production forum in my home town. Not sure if I agree with it all, but it sure gave me a chuckle. Enjoy:


Too bad, Canon. Sony (and panny to some extent) beat you to it. The big-sensor pro video cams are upon us. The DSLR is now in its rightful place--as a consumer toy for "aspiring" whatevers to pretend they are video professionals.

As soon as the 5d2 splashed (or even before), Canon should have gone into overdrive to bring the large sensor to the professional video market. Now they're just playing catchup (assuming they're even playing). Unfortunately, now we've got this uneducated client base who see all the pretty shallow dof clips of flowers and sunsets and closeups of people smoking to some funky soundtrack on vimeo. Only catch is, they have ZERO awareness of just how comically inadequate these contraptions are as production video cameras. 

Go ahead, tell me how I'm wrong, and the DSLR revolution is still upon us. The truth is that persistent ignorance of the now well-documented "shortcomings" have created a chaotic marketplace in which any photo-joe now thinks he can handle a professional, commercial-grade video project because he has a $800 toy and learned imovie on his mac mini. Yeah, you know who you are. You're the same bottom feeders who charge $200 to shoot a wedding with your nifty new "professional" camera and single on-camera speedlite. 

Consider: I just lost a job to some doofus who (for 1/8th the price of my bid) shot a series of 16 dirt-bike tests over three days. The job called for on-camera interviews, run-and-gun captures and a few other requirements. The end result is now scattered on vimeo (with glowing comments to boot). No nat sound of course. Just some pirated commercial soundtrack, a circus of half-assed pull-focusing, seizure-inducing moire patterns and jello cam up the wazoo. All beautifully titled in a canned, comical spinning serif font. The client called me, actually, TO APOLOGIZE for their ignorance and greed. But they had already re-allocated their budget. I have no idea if I'll ever land a contract with them in the future. They were pretty sour about video projects of any kind. 

Oh, you want your car engine rebuilt? Forget the trained mechanic down the street. Go to my buddy. He does good engine repair. He just bought a new engine repair kit that is all the rage right now.

Oh, you want a tummy-tuck? Forget the ..... oh... blah....

My biggest complaint about the new large sensor cams (hs100.af100.f3) is that they don't cost enough to keep out the riffraff. Now my marketing costs are going through the roof just so I can convince my current and prospective clients that there is still a huge diff between professional visual arts and fly-by-night hobbyists.

Anyway, hats off to Sony, especially, for the F3. (Jury is still out on the NEXFS.) Between a super 35 sensor and my workhorse ex1r, I think I'm set for the foreseeable future. As long as I can afford to stay in business as the overpriced a-hole who doesn't appreciate the "game-changer" of DSLR technology. (Yeah thanks "Reverie," thanks a lot. Can't wait to see the next gen of redrock micro/zacuto frankenstein rigs on your blog. Freaking joke.)


----------



## traveller (May 22, 2011)

You sound like you're very bitter with the world right now. 

It's getting ever more difficult to justify charging professional prices in a world that is flooded with cheap equipment and jonny-come-latelys. I really feel for all out there who are trying to make a living out of photography and videography, but venting you spleen on forums is not going to get you business. Focus your energy on marketing your business to people who can afford the prices you need to charge; justify to them why it is worth paying for someone who knows what they're doing. 

I'm not a pro, so I won't presume to offer you any advice on this other than recommending you read some of Keith Cooper's thoughts: 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/stuff/

Good luck, it's a hard market out there right now. I have a friend who is struggling to make ends meet with commercial clients, who are reluctant to pay out for professional photography in the current climate.


----------



## motorhead (May 22, 2011)

Gibbygoo,

I have to say I agree with every word you've written. The dSLR video was never going to be more than the latest gimmick. Real professionals will always want the proper kit and be prepared to pay for it.

The skills required to plan, shoot and then edit together a good film are very different to those we still photographers practise and I really don't see anyone being good at both. And thats before we start to consider the soundtrack, which is a whole other skill set all of its own.

But there does seem to be a dumbing down of skills. I watched a recorded TV programme of the British Superbikes at Croft a week or so ago and the whole thing was a complete mess from beginning to end. Remember this was not live, the producers had time to have cleaned up the footage and get a sense of watching a battle at the front develop, instead all we got was the handheld cameras waving around after every bike. The result was we learnt nothing at all. Thats without the hysterics of the commentators!


----------



## JDMism (May 22, 2011)

You two realize that Gibbygoo actually didn't write this? :-\


----------



## DuLt (May 22, 2011)

Isn't this something that has happened for ages now?

I saw a movie of a guy with a leica m9 taking pictures with the lens cap on! AND he didn't figured it out! He just kept refocusing.

When something becomes acessible to the masses quality drop big time, but that isn't all that bad.

Hollywood puts allot of cash into "hollywooddesk" productions but keeps the themes and content "safe" for audiences, they need to earn they money back.

Indie productions don't have to worry about the minimal quality to put out risky work, it's assured by these cheap cameras.

There will allways be tossers, there will be allways de jack-asses with pro gear calling themselves artists when they can't even think, that's 90% of the world, or more.


----------



## DJL329 (May 22, 2011)

JDMism said:


> You two realize that Gibbygoo actually didn't write this? :-\



Apparently not!


----------



## foobar (May 22, 2011)

It's the same rant we're read from professional photographers 5 years ago when DLSRs went mainstream.
And that's the same rant we've heard from music producers 15 years ago when digital recording went mainstream.
...


Technology gets cheaper, that's just the way it is. Does the auther think the availability of cheap, large-sensor video cameras will solve his problem? Why should it? It's just another tool that used to cost five-digit sums and is now available for the masses. In fact, it will make his problem even worse.

The only way to differentiate from the crowd is by delivering high quality work and nothing else.


----------



## lol (May 22, 2011)

There's two halves to that, the commercial side, and the technical side. On the technical side, the claim there is that Sony/Panasonic have jumped Canon in "affordable" big sensor video is partially right. The Panasonic AF100 is "only" a quarter the sensor area of a 5D2 so if you want the stronger shallow DoF effect, it is no substitute. The Sony F3 is more interesting I guess, but it is also over 5x the price of a 5D2. Fundamentally the 5D2 is still the only value really big sensor option around. But, there is at the end of the day a "good enough" sensor size argument too. In a similar way, APS-C is "good enough" for the majority of DSLR photographers, but that doesn't rule out the fewer cases where full frame is needed.

And in a case of possible optimism, who's to say Canon are not also working on their own interchangeable lens video big sensor camera? At the minimum they could just repack the 5D2 core into a better form factor. Maybe they're holding out for their next generation sensor to fix some of the shortcomings of existing sensors too.


----------



## Gothmoth (May 22, 2011)

> A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"



must be a prety lame loser that guy who wrote this.
whining about losing jobs...LOL... well let me tell you something.. if your GOOD you will always have clients. 



> The only way to differentiate from the crowd is by delivering high quality work and nothing else.



100% agree... unfortunately the guy who wrote it is unable as it seems.
itÂ´s always the bad or mediocre artists who complain.

and thats because today his grandma can deliver the same quality with new technology has he could 5 years ago. that is frighten these guys.
they donÂ´t evolve in their arts the same way technology does .... otherwise they would have no reason to complain.

why would somone complain that technology gets better and cheaper so everyone can use it?
todays 800$ "toy" cameras are better then the pro stuff we had years ago.


----------



## NormanBates (May 22, 2011)

the revolution doesn't mean anybody can do it

what it means is that the difference between a pro and a wannabe is no longer the equipment, but the skills


----------



## unfocused (May 22, 2011)

> It's the same rant we're read from professional photographers 5 years ago when DLSRs went mainstream.
> And that's the same rant we've heard from music producers 15 years ago when digital recording went mainstream.



It's also the same rant we read from painters when Daguerre announced his discovery.

I suspect that some monk somewhere in some monastery wrote a similar rant when he heard about Gutenberg. Probably a similar rant from the cuneiform union, when they found out about that cheap, amateurish papyrus.


----------



## distant.star (May 22, 2011)

Adapt or perish. It has always been so, sort of a Darwinesque thing.

Complaining about that tribe over the hill using those new "spear" things instead of clubs to get their meat won't get you more meat.

If you want to do art, get yourself a patron and do art. If you want the masses to support you, mediocrity must be your master. This has never been more true than today when our society has elevated mediocrity itself to an art form.


----------



## gene_can_sing (May 22, 2011)

The DSLR revolution is the BEST thing to ever happen to video. Why? Because it allows talent (and not just people with money) to rise to the top. 

My day job is I'm a director and designer for multi-media based commercials and TV spots (generic label of Motion Graphics). Until the Macintosh became powerful enough to do this type of work, it was solely the domain of companies who could afford computers like the Inferno or Flame (250K +). But around 2000, the Macintosh, along with After Effects and affordable 3D programs came along, and all of a sudden everyone could do it. It was a revolution.

The result, a HUGE explosion in creativity and the BEST ARTISTS rose to the top, and that's how it SHOULD BE.

Even with all the cheap equipment and competition, I still make a very, very good living. Why? Because I'm good. it has nothing to do with equipment, strictly talent.

The DSLR revolution is the exact same thing. It's going to allow the VERY BEST to rise to the top. It's no longer about whether you can afford a RED, it's about how creative and good of an artist you are.

And just like Motion Graphics, the evolution of video is going to be the same thing. If you suck, you can no longer hide behind expensive equipment because everyone can now afford it. So you have be good because there are going to be tons of hungry, talented people chopping at your heels.

And the best people will always make good money and have a good career. Darwin's law applied to video.

The 5D3 (if it ever comes out) is not going anywhere. It's the only full-frame video camera, so it has a very special, artistic type look with it's very shallow DOF.

With that said, Canon truly BLEW IT! They could have owned this new market, but their conservative, glacial pace, allowed Sony and Panasonic to take over what was rightfully theirs. I'm baffled by Canon, because they had to be really stupid to lose that market, and they somehow did, or are well on the way to losing it. Canon as a company, truly baffles me. How you can blow something that was such a sure bet, is beyond comprehension.


----------



## DuLt (May 22, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> The DSLR revolution is the BEST thing to ever happen to video. Why? Because it allows talent (and not just people with money) to rise to the top.
> 
> My day job is I'm a director and designer for multi-media based commercials and TV spots (generic label of Motion Graphics). Until the Macintosh became powerful enough to do this type of work, it was solely the domain of companies who could afford computers like the Inferno or Flame (250K +). But around 2000, the Macintosh, along with After Effects and affordable 3D programs came along, and all of a sudden everyone could do it. It was a revolution.
> 
> ...



Has people mentioned, normaly the one's who complain are the one's that are bad, that had that job because they were the only one's with the equipment.

I see allot of "self-taught" "Pro's" with 5d markII, 24-70 F2.8 and 580 Flashes shooting weeding in full auto mode whose work isn't bad in the sense that the image is blurry or under/overexposed, but the image is so god awfully bland, clichÃ© or "cheap" that makes their work bad, though most people wouldn't notice it.


----------



## nex-s (May 22, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> The DSLR revolution is the BEST thing to ever happen to video. Why? Because it allows talent (and not just people with money) to rise to the top.
> 
> My day job is I'm a director and designer for multi-media based commercials and TV spots (generic label of Motion Graphics). Until the Macintosh became powerful enough to do this type of work, it was solely the domain of companies who could afford computers like the Inferno or Flame (250K +). But around 2000, the Macintosh, along with After Effects and affordable 3D programs came along, and all of a sudden everyone could do it. It was a revolution.
> 
> ...



I can't agree more. It's the same like with education. Many years ago truly genious people had to do dirty work for the whole of their lives just because they could not afford to attend a fancy university. Now everything has changed and it is only to the good. If you are loosing clients that means either you are not as good as you think you are or the client does not need such a professional work done. And ACTUALLY thats the same thing as with being able to afford expensive equipment. Why would I, for example, pay someone with proper equipment to make a video or smth if I don't need it done so professionally but I just need the picture itself be technically good. Previously such clients would have to pay huge amount of money or they just could not afford it, because only the richer could afford such equipment and everything else, that a simple person could afford was rubbish.

And there is no end to DSLR video, everything will continue. Ok, videocameras WILL become better than DSLR video, but still. If you can get a good video quality and amazing picture quality in one gadged that is affordable, why not get it, rather than spending huge amounts of money for two gadgets. Moreover if you don't want to carry those two big gadgets around. Nonsense. I love DSLR and I love it's video opportunities.


----------



## sailingmunch (May 22, 2011)

"I see allot of "self-taught" "Pro's" with 5d markII, 24-70 F2.8 and 580 Flashes shooting weeding in full auto mode whose work isn't bad in the sense that the image is blurry or under/overexposed, but the image is so god awfully bland, clichÃ© or "cheap" that makes their work bad, though most people wouldn't notice it."

Exactly,
The people who don't understand photography say oh what a great picture! although to the seasoned photographer they can tell whats wrong with the photo right off the bat


----------



## Admin US West (May 22, 2011)

Having run a business for many years now, I can tell you that you must change with the times. You cannot stay still, because the competition sure won't.

Products that once were rare and expensive (and profitable) attract those who want to get in on the profit, so I must find a new niche that isn't yet exploited. Pretty soon, they are competiting with that product as well.

This has been going on like forever, its adapt or offer a product that is so clearly superior that its in demand. I wouldn't even consider a photography business, but lots of people who need cash, plunk down their last dollar to buy a DSLR, and start selling and, of course, finding out that they can't make money as well as driving the good photographers out of business. Photo journalism is in even more dire straits, every one has some sort of a digital camera, and can upload photos to a TV station website for instant on the air use, and they are paid nothing!

It used to be that selling prints and albums was a big money maker, but now, its old hat, and many do not even want prints.

I'm retired, so I only do photography for fun, but life is tough for all but the elite photographers, and they can't drive off the business with a stick. Local ones like Chase Jarvis do very well.


----------



## Bob Howland (May 22, 2011)

*Is it the DSLR video revolution or the cheap video revolution that is important?*

I bought a Panasonic HDC-TM700K video camera in the middle of 2010, mostly to become familiar with shooting video. Given enough light, that camera, costing $700, can take excellent video. A couple things were immediately apparent though. First, the controls on a camcorder and the controls on a DSLR posing as a camcorder are radically different. And it seems that the camcorder controls are as they are because they work better that way. Second, there is a lot of extra equipment that has to be purchased to do video well. Just consider the difficulty of doing a smooth pan (i.e. buying a tripod head that costs more than the camera), or zooming smoothly and slowly (i.e., buying a remote control so the camera doesn't have to be touched) or even holding a camera still for a minute or more without resorting to a tripod (i.e., buying a $1000+ shoulder rig). 

Quite honestly, I would be more likely to buy a Canon XF100/105/300/305 camcorder than a 5D3 that uses my current still lenses. Shallow DOF may be nifty, but I'm not seeing a lot of it used in the shows and movies that I'm seeing.


----------



## DuLt (May 22, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Having run a business for many years now, I can tell you that you must change with the times. You cannot stay still, because the competition sure won't.
> 
> Products that once were rare and expensive (and profitable) attract those who want to get in on the profit, so I must find a new niche that isn't yet exploited. Pretty soon, they are competiting with that product as well.
> 
> ...



It's like most buisness's. One thing is to find a good spot were people only look at the money, not the results.


----------



## 4jphotography (May 22, 2011)

I've seen people with their first point and shoot with more natural talent than 10 year vets with a photo degree and all the hottest gear, and vice versa. For all our techie hang-ups, at the end of the day what comes out has very little to do with what you're shooting with as it does how you use it, and no matter how many megapixels you have it can't replace a good eye. Now, I know this post is about video, and honestly I don't do video, never have, and would actually prefer my pro grade DSLR to come without it and maybe cost a bit less or the development dollars be spent on something that pertains to, you know, photography (no insult intended, vid folks). That said, I think it's the same with any artistic venture... You will always have blow hards who bro'd their way into a gig with all the hot goodies and not a gram of talent talking smack and being arrogant, and you will also always have some kid or guy just playing around with their p and s or hell iPhone blowing your mind. I think the important thing is to not worry about what everyone else is doing or what they're doing it with and just focus on doing the best that YOU can, with what you have. I make a living with photography, and have seen a lot of folks come and go. But I work hard and treat people with respect and kindness, and you know what? Haven't had a slow spell in years.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (May 23, 2011)

I like the thoughtful replies in this thread. However, I think it's a mistake to look at this from just one angle, and assume that the technology is democratic. The technology cares not what ends it is used in search of; the people who battle for their right to enjoy their livelihood - their freedom, democracy - make that distinction. One does not become a slave to technology, however, but they may already be a slave to ideas that deny them the full effect of their soapbox. Ironically, I feel that many pro photographers' laser-etched focus on _the final image_ cuts themselves out of the picture, suffering the indignity of seeming irrelevance that the founders of the field never suffered. But - I'm sure that ship has already sailed, and who could imagine Walter Iooss or another sports photog invited to joke around with the ESPN crew. Some things perhaps can't be changed, even if they should.

The complaint of the original pro photog reminds me of Harlan Ellison on getting paid. And interestingly, I found the link again on a digital photography website. Furthermore, one of the top rated comments purports to be from an industry pro or insider.

It's true that the tools are helping a lot of people get into photography - lower prices have let me get into it with nearly professional-level tools, for example. We all know that there is not just a trend to mediocrity when prices and demand force a field wide open, but that there's also a lot of real talent out there. It's in most industries, too - everything from cartooning to even research writing has been impacted by the appearance of (the obvious one) affordable computerized assistance. No more does Robert Crumb have to slave over drawings and intricately shade them - you can do all that and more in any of a wild variety of paint applications, some of which even double as instant messengers within internet browsers. Instant feedback; endless ramifications. If Robert Crumb were starting today, you'd have to wonder what his new inspirations would be. If something seemingly obscure like "Keep On Truckin'" can have such an impact today even on teenage web cartoonists, what about the loop back? Some people (I'm not going to drag Crumb into this one) are such creative giants they are more or less able to survive as autarks, but I think a lot of that perception is nostalgia sleepwalking. Most everybody, even if they don't like to admit it, suffers little ill from mugging a bit back from the amateurs. (icanhazcheezburger.com for example - shamelessly ripping off the 'net amateurs and making top dollar while doing it)

I think the real issue for photographers is knowing when to put your foot down. I can imagine organizations that work on a charitable basis (either as their mission or as their way of stretching the budget) who won't know in twenty years who the guy or gal was who took photos for them for forty - because they just donated all the shots, not even putting down a name. I am a naturally greedy enough person that I would never allow this (I possibly have the complete reverse problem from the original writer, in that I put the planning and that contract stipulation down before I have the workflow or commitment ready...)

There's a bridge to the professional question. I've not worked as a pro in media myself (yet, possibly getting there...) but I do know that there are at least two directions to attack the problem from. One, the direction the original writer, and Ellison, and Frank Miller and countless others take, in shaming their fellow pros to take a stand for credit. An aside: A few weeks ago an academic was on "Fareed Zakaria GPS," a CNN talk show, was putting forward the theory (you can buy their book to read the full story!) that the rift between money-makers and everybody else was forced agape in the 1970s as top "talent" demanded more salaries...it's an interesting proposition; I'm not convinced that's true, but it stands to reason that if only some of the choicest figurehead staffers of a production get the biggest salaries that society, as a whole, suffers due to the inequality.

The technology doesn't seem wholly to blame for income inequality - the "Great Divergence" happened in the 1970s - but it can reinforce it when used by naive people: Starstruck, cowed, or just clueless.

That suggests the second route for attacking the problem. Instead of preaching to the choir (and a lot of us didn't swallow the argument anyway), and complaining about ballooning advertising costs, the original writer needs to scramble harder to rejustify their expertise and professionalism. Bedside manner isn't just for doctors. This is not, at this point in history, a matter of what's just or fair, but a matter of what you have to do in order to stay in business.

I've been around some academic poets who did not, on a casual look, seem to have this problem; it was just expected that if you were famous university faculty would invite you, wine and dine, and everybody in attendance would buy your books. But of course, poets suffer income crunch just as much as other artists, especially when modern poetry is regarded (rightly or wrongly - not an issue to get into in this space) as irrelevant - partly because people mistakenly thought that technology replaced poetry, which it does not. Whatever the case may be, the academic poets I've met seem able to live within their means and still wear a clean shirt.

My DSLR's video was good enough for some poetry readings, but I still haven't uploaded any - well, that's nothing to do with the quality, really. From that standpoint - asking permission before taking any video, doing it simply for the record and for posterity - it was fine as video from a fixed tripod of a speech, but nothing more. As I was putting myself through a crash course on photography at the time, I was content to ignore the questions about content versus technology, since I was working on my own technical abilities - but I'm not sure it was really a period of creative growth for me. In DSLR video, just a few experiments lead me to believe there's potential in tilt-shift style lenses for movies, but the current tools are woefully inadequate. I saw something on DPR about a standalone movie suit coming from Canon with help from Technicolor...but that won't follow focus.



sailingmunch said:


> "I see allot of "self-taught" "Pro's" with 5d markII, 24-70 F2.8 and 580 Flashes shooting weeding in full auto mode whose work isn't bad in the sense that the image is blurry or under/overexposed, but the image is so god awfully bland, clichÃ© or "cheap" that makes their work bad, though most people wouldn't notice it."
> 
> Exactly,
> The people who don't understand photography say oh what a great picture! although to the seasoned photographer they can tell whats wrong with the photo right off the bat


I suppose I should be proud of myself today for throwing away a couple technically superior images for ones with better compositions. Actually, I do it naturally - as wordy as I get I don't know that I always could sell somebody on what I do that makes the extra work worthwhile.


----------



## awinphoto (May 23, 2011)

foobar said:


> It's the same rant we're read from professional photographers 5 years ago when DLSRs went mainstream.
> And that's the same rant we've heard from music producers 15 years ago when digital recording went mainstream.
> ...
> 
> ...



+1 amateurs are the #1 competition to Professionals all over... Professional Photographers, Videographers, etc... While I have seen awesome work done by 5d's and 7d's and such, I also admit they are done by people who really know what they are doing and come from video backgrounds. While I will admit I am a professional photographer and NOT a professional videographer, I do offer video work to my clients, however I do offer samples of my work so the clients know what they are getting talent wise. Hopefully with the next few generations of cameras we will get a better product.


----------



## awinphoto (May 23, 2011)

Also dont forget, talent will and should always win out in the professional world. Be limited and questionable in quality regarding videos, remember parts of the TV show "House" is/was shot with the 5D II's as well as avatar (i believe... correct me if i'm wrong). So they can keep up with the pro video cameras if in the right hands. I'm no video pro but I did take some video classes at BIP and have first hand experience with video equipment and editing and such... My 7D can do some good shots if on a tripod and such but panning scenes look like crap... I'm still doing what I can to get better with what I've got but thankfully in weddings and such I can set up a 7D or 5D on a tripod and let it capture the moment rather than run and guns... =)

I used to offer high end architecture and real estate photos to several architects and real estate agents... now real estate agents are buying 7d's and rebels and doing their own photography and architects are going to the lowest bidder... You have to adapt some times or you will go out of business, especially in this market and economy.


----------



## SergeSmArt (May 23, 2011)

*Re: A grateful BEGINING to the DSLR video "revolution"  *

.. correct me if I'm wrong...  .. as far as I see this should be named: "A grateful BEGINING to the DSLR video "revolution" .... Canon 5DMark II camera give us a good start... and all new camcorders, as Panasonic AF 100 and Sony F3 and FS 100 is RESULT of what Canon had start... 
I don't see any problems with it...only want Canon to make the same type of camcorder with big "Cinema"sensor, as I wrote in the other thread --> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,895.0.html .. so we will able to use the same lenses 

I don't think anyone from the street can be as good as Mozart even if he get a Stradivari violin 

( Don't blame me for my poor English, please.. I never had a chance to learn it in school.. )


----------



## nex-s (May 23, 2011)

*Re: A grateful BEGINING to the DSLR video "revolution"  *



SergeSmArt said:


> .. correct me if I'm wrong...  .. as far as I see this should be named: "A grateful BEGINING to the DSLR video "revolution" .... Canon 5DMark II camera give us a good start... and all new camcorders, as Panasonic AF 100 and Sony F3 and FS 100 is RESULT of what Canon had start...
> I don't see any problems with it...only want Canon to make the same type of camcorder with big "Cinema"sensor, as I wrote in the other thread --> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,895.0.html .. so we will able to use the same lenses
> 
> I don't think anyone from the street can be as good as Mozart even if he get a Stradivari violin
> ...



You are right actually. If the DSLR's haven't delivered what they have, then nobody would have seen the need to improve videocameras and they would still probably have small sensors and bee inadequatly expensive.


----------



## kkoster (May 29, 2011)

I don't understand the OP's rant. It isn't the equipment, but the person operating it that matters.

It's all about marketing how good you are. If you really are any good, you will always get work.
People don't hire you because you have a machine bigger, or are better kitted out than the next person. They hire you because they've seen your portfolio and are fans of your work.


----------



## kawasakiguy37 (Jun 14, 2011)

If you think your a professional videographer and you only own one camera....think again. A good kit CHEAP kit would be a 5D for the 'beauty' shots mixed with a real camcorder for anything with movement or not requiring super low light capabilities. Stop kidding yourself....theres no one camera that can do anything (not even those 50k Arris, theyre huge!)


----------



## papa-razzi (Jun 14, 2011)

I just had to reply - so many good comments. Bottom line is the guy got out-sold. If he actually had a superior product to offer the customer which was worth what he was charging, then he wasn't able to get the customer to understand that and he lost the deal.

If you are in the photography/video business, you are running a business. It isn't just about how good of an artist you are, etc. Yes results matter (your product) probably the most (at least long term), but you also have to be good enough at all the other aspects of running your business - such as sales, marketing, customer service, people skills, etc.

Affordable technology has lowered the barrier to entry in the photography business. So there is a lot more competition. Some of the competition is low-skill low-price that undercut the current folks in the business. There are also a lot of talented folks getting in that couldn't afford to earlier. Regardless, affordable technology has made the Photography/Video business harder. You have to be good at your craft, and you have to run your business well to continue making a good living.

The other consideration is that certain segments of the market just go away for the prof. photographer. Those segments are happy with what the amateur/hobbyist can do with new technology and just don't need/value what a pro can do - enough to want to pay for it.

The creative/innovative guys will find ways to open up new customer segments and make money using the new technology. For example, I see a lot of pro photographers embracing the boom of affordable DSLRs by offering training courses as a part of their business. This does two things - helps them make money, and educates potential clients on the value of what a pro can offer. So they help the hobbyist along and help educate the masses on the value of a pro.

The guys that complain because their old way of doing things isn't working any longer and don't want to change, or that really weren't that good to being with and are getting pounded by new competition aren't going to survive.


----------



## adamdoesmovies (Jun 15, 2011)

kawasakiguy37 said:


> If you think your a professional videographer and you only own one camera....think again. A good kit CHEAP kit would be a 5D for the 'beauty' shots mixed with a real camcorder for anything with movement or not requiring super low light capabilities. Stop kidding yourself....theres no one camera that can do anything (not even those 50k Arris, theyre huge!)



I actually know several videographers and photographers who don't own any of their equipment, but rather have it issued to them, or rent it based on the job.


----------



## maharzan (Jun 15, 2011)

Sounds like he is a desperate signing huge studio and he is furious about singers/musicians producing their own albums in the digital world. Good Luck to him is all I can say. Change comes this way and its very hard to appreciate for many.


----------



## jcns (Jun 15, 2011)

every change brings a new set of challenges.
Previous to all this evolution, pros were the ones with the skill and money to buy the equipment.
Now there are millions of amateurs that have very good equipment. Some are awful at shooting and some are not bad and some are very talented.
Video/photo customers will and have been hiring bad amateurs; in essence gambling their once in a lifetime opportunity. 
It's only a matter of time before these god awful amateurs go out of business because talented is not something you can develop. Not everyone has "the eye" to shoot.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 15, 2011)

jcns,

While I have no love for video at all and will never voluntarily buy a camera with the spawn of the devil in it, I must protest about your claim that photographers/videographers cannot learn to be good at what they do.

It's true that a very lucky few do seem to be born with a gift that we mere mortals can only gasp in amazement at. However most have learnt their trade the hard way, "through perspiration not inspiration" as the saying goes.

I for one am firmly in the second category, only really grasping the knack of composition by accident and after many years of producing total rubbish. In fact I still cannot explain why I can now visualise what I could not 20 years ago.


----------



## kawasakiguy37 (Jun 15, 2011)

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new



motorhead said:


> jcns,
> 
> While I have no love for video at all and will never voluntarily buy a camera with the spawn of the devil in it, I must protest about your claim that photographers/videographers cannot learn to be good at what they do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 16, 2011)

kawasakiguy37 said:


> Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new


Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common. 
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!


----------



## motorhead (Jun 16, 2011)

Lawliet said:


> kawasakiguy37 said:
> 
> 
> > Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new
> ...



That last is a VERY interesting comment and I wish I'd come up with it. The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing. Me? I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well. So better for me would be a socket set, not the pair of molegrips others might choose.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 16, 2011)

motorhead said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > kawasakiguy37 said:
> ...



That's a fair comment, however, lets look at it from Canon's perspective... Lets say (speaking of tools) they can build and sell a hammer for instance... It can be the king of hammers and sell it at a 500% profit margin to costs to manufacture and lead the industry in hammers. Now lets say they build a hammer thats not as good but also has ratchet attachments, bubble level, and ruler. They put that at 3/4 the price of the top of the line hammer. Which tool do you think will sell more to the general public? Yes, the better hammer may sell better to pro contractors however to everyone else, the all-in-on will sell better and yield higher profits. 

Heck, even Nikon has figured this out and have geared their line up to tailor to video as well. I think everything has their own place in the industry but like everything else for professionals, might as well adapt or you may get left behind competition.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 16, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...



Generally speaking, a middle model will sell better, and often makes the most profit. Many consumers do not want to buy the lowest cost model, and the high end is too expensive to they go for the middle, which costs only a tiny amount more to make, but has a fat profit.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 16, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well.



Sometimes the "best" tool for the job is the one you have with you right now. Think of all the Youtube videos posted during the democracy demonstrations in the Middle East: the cell-phone video and audio is crappy compared to that from DSLR's, not to mention dedicated video equipment. Do you think any protesters would be able to smuggle "real" video equipment into those events?

Yes, dedicated equipment is a invaluable for those who have the time, money and opportunity to buy, transport and use it under controlled (or somewhat controlled) conditions. For the rest of us, DSLR video is a wonderful bonus, and we're happy for the opportunity to create videos well-above the level of cell-phones, even if it doesn't match the quality of dedicated equipment.


----------



## skitron (Jun 16, 2011)

motorhead said:


> The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing.



But this isn't the philosophy behind a video capable DSLR. The philosophy is "Since we have liveview for our DSLR still shot cameras, we can add value to our products by simply capturing that liveview output and allow users to video thru their current investment in glass." The whole thing is a byproduct of liveview for stills, which was designed in an effort to improve stills. It just so happens that the byproduct turned out to be very good. 

As for me (enthusiast, not pro), I'll be buying both videocams and still cams for the forseeable future because they are still way too different. I'm not giving up the anti-shake of the CX550 nor the stills IQ of a 50d and will only want to improve on both. But I'm very pleased with the idea of being able to do both functions with either device (well at least when I get a 5d3  ) so I can choose which function is "primary" for the day without giving up the other entirely or resorting to toting both devices. Bottom line is I'm all for improving the stills on a videocam and the video on a still cam and this doesn't mean I want a "jack of all trades". It only means I find value in the secondary function when it is good quality.


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 16, 2011)

skitron said:


> The philosophy is "Since we have liveview for our DSLR still shot cameras, we can add value to our products by simply capturing that liveview output and allow users to video thru their current investment in glass." The whole thing is a byproduct of liveview for stills, which was designed in an effort to improve stills. It just so happens that the byproduct turned out to be very good.



The problem is that there are quite a few decision makers that see "use current investment" & cheap bodies&lenses, or "its 35mm, so it has to be great" - but don't realize that getting the material up to established quality standards is expensive. Up to redoing the whole shoot with a proper camera, with a six figure price tag for talent and location.
At least the increased rates compensate for the PITA-factor...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> The DSLR revolution is the BEST thing to ever happen to video. Why? Because it allows talent (and not just people with money) to rise to the top.
> 
> My day job is I'm a director and designer for multi-media based commercials and TV spots (generic label of Motion Graphics). Until the Macintosh became powerful enough to do this type of work, it was solely the domain of companies who could afford computers like the Inferno or Flame (250K +). But around 2000, the Macintosh, along with After Effects and affordable 3D programs came along, and all of a sudden everyone could do it. It was a revolution.
> 
> ...



Agree with everything you said from first paragraph to last.

(You could tell Canon doesn't get it from their insanely arrogant speech a few years about being infinitely far head in the FF DSLR world and with room to lounge at the top doing nothing for years before competition would arrive hah and then not even getting basic things like why 5D2 should've had manual controls from day 1. They still don't even have a fully working AutoISO for stills and refused to outline the histogram so you can actually see it when using it outdoors for stills mode and don't flash overexposed video which even the magic lantern hack does. Granted they get praise for heading this way to begin with but OTOH....)


----------



## Lawliet (Jun 16, 2011)

It might apply if we where ever hard limited by the camera.
But - we weren't. For example: giving my consumer camcorder the DOF of a 35mm was actually much less work&money then getting set, costumes or talent up to desired standard. But it required a bit of thought instead of buying gear. If that VDSLR enables you to do anything new you're just as stuck as before.


----------



## catz (Sep 22, 2011)

I think the revolution is that talents that can not afford $$$$$ or $$$$$$ camera, have now chance now express and use their skills and the rest is to let the Darwinism to work. Those who have skill will remain, no matter what's the price tag of their gear and it can surely happen that pros with $$$$$$$ worth of gear will lose because what they have is gear, but not really talent, they do how they have always done before. Traditional TV producers at least in here are those dinosaurs which are going to fall (I would predict). I have been attending on events which have had traditional TV-professionals with so heavy gear SD camcorders and other gear on them and the picture they are doing looks like absolutely crap - I prefer all the rainbows of my 5D in comparison - SD has ugly aliasing when displayed upscaled (without antialiasing) on a sharp HD display and the nicest "cinematographic" effect these guys are using is zooming ;-) because their cameras are so big they can't move them even on a dolly... It might be that in USA everybody is doing HD already and Pros constantly do better stuff there than here, but it is interesting here on events to see these enormous SD cameras that are like size of a truck and do worse picture than my Sony handycam from stone age. People with more versatile gear like FS100s, AF100s and and F3s are going to replace those SD gear guys sooner or later and we may even start seeing some sliders, steadicam, shallower depth of field etc. in TV which has not been there ever before (in this country at least where I am from, at least as far as I have seen the little I have watched, I generally don't watch TV because I don't have time and it is crap that only goes to people that are 40 years older than me).

Anyway, skill is two things a) talent and b) practice, practice, practice and not gear. Owning a RED would not turn me a pro-DP overnight, so I rather keep doing this b) with my 5D mk II now and mkwhatever later. And yeah, I am I software engineer, product owner and a project manager and not a certified professional cinema person - I know C++ and how to build teams and to run projects, but it does not matter, I keep doing the b) because I like to do that. I am just happily shooting more and more material, terabyte by terabyte, and now I am even progressed enough to have a storyboard and a plot for a script (script under construction) for ~50 scenes and 5 minutes and we are going to film these despite pros would laugh us out loud . We are not afraid of that. We have several plots actually for the future too. Some of them are not possible to implement yet with the current tool and skill level, but hopefully will realized someday - they are rather cool, something you haven't seen from Hollywood.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 22, 2011)

It seems you really think that the cost of the camera is a factor beyond static noise? Keep in mind that simply changing the lighting on your average set to deal with the lack of genlock in the 5DII costs about as much as a dozen F35s.

Funny - its the same story told when video became available. Production got cheaper, the reduced quality was associated with video as technology instead of all the shortcuts in front of the camera. Reprise in HD...


----------



## Jedifarce (Oct 5, 2011)

gibbygoo said:


> I saw this on a video production forum in my home town. Not sure if I agree with it all, but it sure gave me a chuckle. Enjoy:



I believe whoever wrote that piece was doing a bit of trolling and probably never filmed with a DSLR. Sure there are video limitations with a DSLR, but as long as you are aware of them it's not really a problem. Video camcorders are great if you need to capture action-oriented shots or some overcranking, but in terms of visual quality, they pale in comparison with what can be achieved by a DSLR fitted with the right equipment. 

There's nothing wrong with utilizing both technologies, if you need to film lots of movement use a video camcorder, for the static shots bring in the DSLR for the nice DoF you can't get with the former.


----------



## AGMedia (Oct 7, 2011)

gibbygoo said:


> My biggest complaint about the new large sensor cams (hs100.af100.f3) is that they don't cost enough to keep out the riffraff. Now my marketing costs are going through the roof just so I can convince my current and prospective clients that there is still a huge diff between professional visual arts and fly-by-night hobbyists.



This is pretty standard fare over at DVXuser.com

These are the same people that first scoffed at the 5Dm2 video (actually, I was one of those). Two years later the 5Dm2 hit every studio in Hollywood, the winner at Sundance was a 5Dm2 film, and almost every national TV ad spot (in the US) is filmed on a 5Dm2.

You can't really condemn people who write comments like that -- but you should have a little sympathy for them. The fellow who wrote those comments probably mortgaged his home to buy a Panasonic HPX3700 along with ONE lens -- then, out of nowhere and against all the old rules -- suddenly Mercedes Benz is filming ads on a Canon 60D (along with a GoPro, I think).

Is DSLR movie making reaching it's end? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that camera makers are scrambling to get out more affordable large sensor cameras. No in the sense that consumer cameras are going to continue to improve -- and in the right hands -- produce pro level results. Will the 5Dm2 be in every Hollywood studio a year or two from today? No. Will some really bright kids with a consumer camera of two years from now produce a feature film that ends up banking millions -- bet your bottom dollar on it.


----------



## SimonMW (Nov 3, 2011)

I used to be one of the people who hated the DSLR 'revolution'. I've used pretty much most professional video cameras in some way or another. I was one of the first people in the UK to own XDCAM when it first came out in 2/3" SD form. And I have to admit to being quite snobbish about 'pro' cameras. I wouldn't be seen dead turning up for a shoot with what I considered to be a 'toy'.

But I have gradually changed my tune. The video industry, at least in the UK, seems to be in an unrecoverable nose dive. I could no longer justify keeping my Â£18k worth of 2/3" SD broadcast camera sat on a shelf due to nobody wanting SD anymore (even when their videos were going to be on the web at VGA resolution!) It had to go, so I sold it, too late. The Â£12k camera body was worth Â£2500! Over the course of ownership that works out as a depreciation of Â£1900 per year I owned it!

Mind blowing! I also bought into a Sony EX3, an absolutely stunning camera, but again, at around Â£6k cost to purchase people just want that softer, more organic look that the DSLRs offer.

So, with the total lack of work going around I just sold my EX3 today. Luckily that camera has held its value nicely. But I am now left with my 60D.

As someone who does professional work (when it exists!) this is a big risk for me to take. The moire and aliasing issues can put people off. But here's the thing. If clients are now only willing to pay rock bottom prices, and the videos are mostly going to the web (lets be honest here, most video does these days) there can no longer be any justification for the big expensive cameras. Less expensive, with more regular upgrades I think is the way that things are going, much like professional video software did.

The 60D does have moire and aliasing issues, but part of being a pro is not the camera you use, but the knowledge of how to use it. That not only includes technical and creative abilities, but the ability to work around the issues the camera has. All cameras have issues. Arguably the way the EX cameras rendered black clothing as brown was more irritating than aliasing, and it was just as hard to correct in post!

The other thing is that while video cameras catch up, the DSLRs will continue to improve too. The only thing that will hold them back is the manufacturers who might place artificial limitations to stop them imposing on their video lines. A recent interview with one of the top cheeses at Canon seemed to indicate that they are wondering where to go from the 1DX because of possibly taking sales away from their new video cameras.

This would be a shame. If they can produce a camera that makes professional grade pictures at a lower price then all it does is show that the price charged for professional video cameras is artificially marked up. It seems clear that the 1DX solves aliasing and moire issues, as well as rolling shutter to a degree. A the DSLRs get better then at the lower and even to the mid end markets the need for an over priced video camera becomes less and less.

I agree with the sentiment of many who say that the accessibility of the newer cameras means that skill can now triumph over your ability to pay for fancy equipment. However there is a caveat. The result is that many companies who were clients in the past can now make their own videos, and they do.

So personally I think that the low end video production market for corporates will get small and smaller, and may even disappear completely. The ability to make money at that level is almost non existent over here already. That leaves the higher end market which will expect the big cameras. There are no pieces of the pie left unless you can find something truly original to offer clients. I don't mean in terms of cinematography or raw talent, but in terms of what they actually get out of hiring you.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 4, 2011)

Today i'm happy. I've been reading for ages here and elsewhere about people complaining "oh my 7D does line-skipping", "my 5D2 has moire", "I want RAW video", "I want XLR inputs".
Well, now you can get one. But don't expect it to come on your $500, $1000, $2000 or even $6000 dslr. There's a price for all those features, and it's the C 300.
For the actual pros, not just the wannabes, there is professional stuff out there, and canon is now among them.

Like Simon just pointed out, there's a market for everything. People wanting to broadcast on youtoob, or add a video to their website or whatever, they can use their dslr, and will probably compress it to 640x480 anyway. Just the same as people who just use point-and-shoots for portraits and events. They don't care about the outcome as much as some of us would like to think.

example: There's a house for sale down the road from me (actually, more than one, different real-estate agents even). On the 'for sale' sign about 2/3 is taken up with a photo of the interior, maybe shot with a P&S, maybe shot with a hasselblad. Who knows, because they've shrunk it to 500 pixels wide or so for their website, then they've taken that shrunken photo and blown it up to 3' x 3' and printed it on a billboard.
It looks horrible when I walk past, maybe 15-20dpi, pixels are well over 1mm square. But will it impact on the sale? Probably not, one of them has sold already.
I was contemplating offering my services to the agent, rent a TS-E 17mm, maybe take some HDR shots from inside to show the garden in sunlight through the window and keep detail in the dim inside. But i'm not going to bother, they don't think they need the IQ, and adding extra cost (ie, paying me/anyone to shoot proper photos) won't increase their sales much and will reduce their profit if anything.

Basically, my point is, if you can't afford the pro gear, expect some drawbacks. If your life does not depend on the absolute best IQ (in photo or video), then it's up to you to calculate the trade-offs in extra money spent on cameras etc compared to the extra profit it will bring in.
These days, when everyone's trying to save a buck, consumers don't care that much about the last 5% of detail in advertising or whatever, they want the cheaper product. Sometimes i've walked into a shop and seen all the effort they've put into displays and whatever, all I can think is "wow, these shirts must be overpriced if they can afford as nice a shop as this". Restaurants i wouldn't mind paying for the ambience, but not a clothing shop.

Unfortunately, as Simon's mentioned, this is really fragmenting the market into the very-cheap "we just want a video / photo" and the very-expensive "we want the best video / 300-dpi-billboard visible from space".

And that's going to make the pro-market even harder to break into, everyone who's starting out can now afford a dslr and a good lens for $2k or so, but noone's going to hire you to give you experience. And the ones who actually do want to pay good money will expect cinema-quality video or Phase-One-quality stills, if you can't deliver that, why should we hire you when we can make 7D-quality movies and still ourselves?


Maybe we're just about to go back to the old days of cinema, like in the 30s. Noone had their own cameras then, noone could get experience without starting off getting the coffee in a studio for a few years before getting their big break. Will this stifle creativity? Maybe, maybe not. If you have a vision for a film, now you can shoot it well enough on a dslr as a demo to get producers interested, then when they lay the money down you can get real 'pro' equipment to re-shoot in better quality. Or just release the dslr version as another Blair Witch.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 4, 2011)

Totally agree - the semi pro market place has virtually disappeared


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 4, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Well, now you can get one. But don't expect it to come on your $500, $1000, $2000 or even $6000 dslr. There's a price for all those features, and it's the C 300.


For now, yes.

But you're kidding yourself if you think that Canon is going to hit the brakes on full-sensor sampling for cheaper DSLRs as soon as that processing power becomes affordable. It might not happen on consumer DSLRs in this generation, but it will almost certainly be a feature of most DSLRs by the generation after the 1D X (except for maybe the cheapest of DSLRs). If Canon doesn't keep up feature differentiation, other manufacturers will jump in and make that distinction for customers. It's that simple.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 4, 2011)

By no means. The 5D2 was the first that did what it did with a 4-figure pricetag. But then everything that followed has had a smaller and smaller price-tag (except the 1D4), and people still complained it wasn't good enough. Even then, features have gone up since the 5D2 (60fps in 7D, digital zoom in 600D).
Those features were relatively simple, firmware for digital zoom, extra cpu-power of the 7D for 60fps. But people asking for less moire, no line-skipping, even XLR inputs on a dslr-sized body were just a bit unrealistic. The features are avilable now, and the price has been set. 5 or 10 years from now we're going to laugh at the pitiful features the C300 has compared to something that costs $500 in the future. But for now, this is what you get.

(still, whatever camera is next, 7D2, 5D3, 70D, 650D, will have more features than the last model. But it won't have anywhere near the video performance of the C300 without its pricetag).


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 4, 2011)

Technology is supposed to get better with each new generation. DSLR Video is just finishing up generation 1.

If it continues on the path it was on, uninhibited, then yes it does threaten to cannibalize the high end cinema market over a long enough time. Is it there yet? No of coarse not and has a long way to go, but it's already a useful tool in the right hands and it's still only generation 1.


----------



## rmblack (Nov 17, 2011)

just to toss another opinion in -

I really believe that artists have so much potential, only part of it can be accessed through practice and experience. The impressions from other people give you so much more to consider, every second you're shooting a video or taking a picture there are a million others in your head, influencing you and giving the urge to make something even greater than what you've seen, by combining these ideas with new ones. It's such a hybrid environment that we live in. When the HDSLRs were introduced into the market, just think of how much more creative content filled youtube and other community sites, as the price barrier of a more professional market was knocked down. Although I'm a photographer, I love video and have always wanted to shoot it, but I couldn't justify buying a video camera for "just a hobby." 5DmkII? best of both worlds. I finally had something that would allow me to explore my potential. Every advance in the film and video community that lowers cost while making special equipment more available to the public. I know a lot of my friends that if they went out and bought a HDSLR, they could become the next big indy film maker after a couple years. Such potential was dormant when expenses were high, but now that you can film a sweet movie for maybe 700 bucks, all it takes is the will to buy it.


----------

