[er1kksen]

3D video pornography seems even more interesting. And the technology is becoming more and more accessible.

It doesn't get REALLY interesting until the sensory interfaces and solid-light holographic projection tech gets rolling...

[ozlizard]

Does this new camera take still photos? Havn't seen that mentioned anywhere....

[pingflood]

Does this new camera take still photos? Havn't seen that mentioned anywhere....

Sour grapes?

[jogiba]

It's funny how all of these things are ALREADY AVAILABLE.....


In video cameras...

Show me a link to a HD "video camera" with wide angle zooms like my K-7 with 10-24mm Tamron.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3GohLHY5Gs[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JH-K6kqtgA[/yt]

That also does in camera HDR.

@10mm

[RJRock]

It's funny how all of these things are ALREADY AVAILABLE.....


In video cameras...

Show me a video camera with an APS-C (Super 35mm) sensor that doesn't cost $50,000 as of this posting? It does not exist yet. The only way to get the control over DOF and the ability to use quality glass at a reasonable price is with a video capable DSLR. If I wanted a crappy 1/3" sensor, or even 1/2", then I'd go for a dedicated video camera.

I've worked with video cameras for 25 years. Always hoping something like this would come into existence. Unless you run up into the multiple thousands, or use a DOF adapter (which I loath by the way) This type of image control is not possible.

Besides, it will allow me to shoot quality stills as well, without the need for a second camera bag for the "VIDEO CAMERA".

You know what? I'm sorry I brought it up. I was hopeful that I wouldn't find this kind of attitude here. I guess I was wrong. Keeping ones mind open to the idea of new technology is important. relying on the "Status quo" is ridiculous, and short sighted.

[Rondec]

I have to agree with the comments about the Rebel line. I can think of at least twenty cameras I would rather shoot with. Canon's 40D, 50D class is far better in almost every respect. I don't own a camera right now that shoots video, so I have no idea how useful all things mentioned in this thread are, but I imagine that once one company offers it, it isn't too long before everyone does. Now, as to whether entry level people are really interested in that kind of control, hard to say, but probably not. As long as there is no real autofocus on dSLR video, I think most people will stick with camcorders.

And Rock, don't be so touchy. Most of the people here are photographers -- many for decades and so you can understand if video doesn't make them do hand stands.

[jogiba]

Most of the people here are photographers -- many for decades and so you can understand if video doesn't make them do hand stands.

I purchased my first SLR (Canon Pellix QL w/58mm F1.2) in 1966 and the main reason I purchased the K-7 is for HD video with my myriad of K mount lenses.

[Jodokast96]

Show me a video camera with an APS-C (Super 35mm) sensor that doesn't cost $50,000 as of this posting? It does not exist yet. The only way to get the control over DOF and the ability to use quality glass at a reasonable price is with a video capable DSLR. If I wanted a crappy 1/3" sensor, or even 1/2", then I'd go for a dedicated video camera.

I've worked with video cameras for 25 years. Always hoping something like this would come into existence. Unless you run up into the multiple thousands, or use a DOF adapter (which I loath by the way) This type of image control is not possible.

Besides, it will allow me to shoot quality stills as well, without the need for a second camera bag for the "VIDEO CAMERA".

You know what? I'm sorry I brought it up. I was hopeful that I wouldn't find this kind of attitude here. I guess I was wrong. Keeping ones mind open to the idea of new technology is important. relying on the "Status quo" is ridiculous, and short sighted.

So let's see. I can get a DSLR that does video for $1000, or I can get an equivilent video camera for $50,000? Sorry, ain't buying it. You're getting far more than a larger sensor, DOF control, and interchangeable lenses for the extra $49,000, or you are just a total jackass for spending that much in the first place. There's nothing stopping these companies from putting the same guts from a DSLR in a better suited body, that, oh yeah, actually works like a video camera, instead of the half-assed way it does on a DSLR. But I guess everyone needs to drink the Kool-Aid they're pushing.

[johnmflores]

I hate how new cameras make me feel less worthy...

[redrockcoulee]

My video camera has interchangeable lenses and cost a lot less than 50K. I can also get adapters to use Nikon, Canon EOS or Pentax lenses as well. If DSLRs were better video cameras than a video camera why does Canon still produce prosumer cameras like the XL and GL series (probably have newer names in HD)?

[RJRock]

And Rock, don't be so touchy. Most of the people here are photographers -- many for decades and so you can understand if video doesn't make them do hand stands.

I really didn't think I was being that touchy. I've been shooting for over two decades myself, and have always had to rely on a second system to get the stills I needed. Regardless of what anyone says, I feel that video on a DSLR is one of the greatest ideas ever conceived. Whether in ENG, EFP, or digital cinema, the advantages of having a dual capable camera are too numerous to discuss.

DSLR technology, though still in it's infancy, is taking media gathering to new and exciting levels. Feature films will be depending on them soon enough as well. Lucasfilm recently performed tests with the 5DII and 7D and transferred the footage to 35mm with surprising results. Lucas is planning to use DSLR's in places that cannot accommodate the F35 in his next feature. I dare any of the other consumer offerings in the "VIDEO CAMERA" realm to compete with that.

I used to be one of those that said; "If you want a film look, shoot film". My feeling on that included motion and stills. In some ways I still feel that way, but I know to stay competitive I need to have familiarity with as many formats and equipment as possible.

Thing is, I like Pentax, and always have. I have several lenses left over from my 35mm film days. For daily work though, I've chucked the film, the enlarger, the darkroom, the developer and fix, and have replaced them with digital cameras and computers with Photoshop. I've worked professionally in video, but have always been a shutterbug hobbyist. Now comes technology that handles both. I can't help but be excited.

Peace

[RJRock]

So let's see. I can get a DSLR that does video for $1000, or I can get an equivilent video camera for $50,000? Sorry, ain't buying it. You're getting far more than a larger sensor, DOF control, and interchangeable lenses for the extra $49,000, or you are just a total jackass for spending that much in the first place. There's nothing stopping these companies from putting the same guts from a DSLR in a better suited body, that, oh yeah, actually works like a video camera, instead of the half-assed way it does on a DSLR. But I guess everyone needs to drink the Kool-Aid they're pushing.

A modestly fitted Red One, which incidentally is the only dedicated VIDEO camera with a S35 sensor, starts at around $22,000. so I stand corrected. That is without glass though. If I'm a jackass for spending that much, then I'm happy to be in the company of Lucas, Cameron, Jackson and all the other jackasses that spend more than that on camera rentals and purchases. No, I am not comparing my work to them, so don't jump any guns. Point is, many professionals, including myself, are always looking for new, developing technology.

Since I'm apparently in the company a juvenile mentality that resorts to prepubescent name calling, I will take my leave. I will do what I do, and do it well. I however will not be including myself in further discussions here. Thank you so very much for the enlightening experience.

[Samsungian]

People are shooting comercials with Canon HD Dslrs


Philip Bloom - DP, Director, Filmmaker


Anybody got links to people shooting comercials with Pentax HD Dslr?


Guess no one will buy Pentax next wave of Dslrs if they have more HD function.

A modestly fitted Red One, which incidentally is the only dedicated VIDEO camera with a S35 sensor, starts at around $22,000. so I stand corrected. That is without glass though. If I'm a jackass for spending that much, then I'm happy to be in the company of Lucas, Cameron, Jackson and all the other jackasses that spend more than that on camera rentals and purchases. No, I am not comparing my work to them, so don't jump any guns. Point is, many professionals, including myself, are always looking for new, developing technology.

Since I'm apparently in the company a juvenile mentality that resorts to prepubescent name calling, I will take my leave. I will do what I do, and do it well. I however will not be including myself in further discussions here. Thank you so very much for the enlightening experience.

[PentaxPoke]

Show me a video camera with an APS-C (Super 35mm) sensor that doesn't cost $50,000 as of this posting? It does not exist yet. The only way to get the control over DOF and the ability to use quality glass at a reasonable price is with a video capable DSLR. If I wanted a crappy 1/3" sensor, or even 1/2", then I'd go for a dedicated video camera.

I've worked with video cameras for 25 years. Always hoping something like this would come into existence. Unless you run up into the multiple thousands, or use a DOF adapter (which I loath by the way) This type of image control is not possible.

Besides, it will allow me to shoot quality stills as well, without the need for a second camera bag for the "VIDEO CAMERA".

You know what? I'm sorry I brought it up. I was hopeful that I wouldn't find this kind of attitude here. I guess I was wrong. Keeping ones mind open to the idea of new technology is important. relying on the "Status quo" is ridiculous, and short sighted.

Hey Rock, not everyone feels the way some of these posters do. I'm with you man. Don't judge us all by what you read from some here. You are absolutely right about what you post above. You can't compare handicams with DSLR video from an APS-C sensor. This is called technology convergence, and some people just need to deal with it. It is not a bad thing that our cameras have more capability. With the simple exception of fast contrast AF speed, DSLR video blows away handicam video.

I think the resistance to your post can be explained a couple of ways:

1) Simple resistance to change: "Dagnabbit, I never had any video on my camera back in the day, so why does anyone need this newfangled video?"

2) "Little Brother" syndrome: Pentax comes out with a new entry level camera that is reviewed well, and Pentax fans are ridin' high for a while. So what does Canon do? Just what you said; they "up the ante." First reaction from some is going to be "well heck, who needs that feature anyway. It's just stupid..."

Competition is a good thing for us consumers.

[RJRock]

Hey Rock, not everyone feels the way some of these posters do. I'm with you man. Don't judge us all by what you read from some here. You are absolutely right about what you post above. You can't compare handicams with DSLR video from an APS-C sensor. This is called technology convergence, and some people just need to deal with it. It is not a bad thing that our cameras have more capability. With the simple exception of fast contrast AF speed, DSLR video blows away handicam video.

I think the resistance to your post can be explained a couple of ways:

1) Simple resistance to change: "Dagnabbit, I never had any video on my camera back in the day, so why does anyone need this newfangled video?"

2) "Little Brother" syndrome: Pentax comes out with a new entry level camera that is reviewed well, and Pentax fans are ridin' high for a while. So what does Canon do? Just what you said; they "up the ante." First reaction from some is going to be "well heck, who needs that feature anyway. It's just stupid..."

Competition is a good thing for us consumers.

Thank you. I just may reconsider my departure.