Quote: Slr's are meant for taking Pictures, and TAKING PICTURES ONLY, and if you want Video, Buy a Camcorder.
.
Oh ok, so when I buy my consumer camcorder for Ģ800 i'll also buy a 35mm depth of field adaptor (so I can make shots that dont look like crap), a decent lens to fit on that 35mm adaptor, and a gym membership, so I have the strength to carry around such a heavy and cumbersome rig. Anyone that says DSLR's are not ergonomically designed for video, ha- ever hand held an ex1 with a 35mm mount?
(tbh neither have I but it sure looks heavy...)
While i'm at it i'll invest in some 1k lights as i'm going to have to light my scene pretty well to avoid the noise i'm gonna get if I shoot anything above iso 640 on my small chip camera (not to mention i'm gonna lose 2 stops with my depth of field adaptor)
so there we have it, either I get pretty poor (and kinda expensive) results from a consumer camera like the hv40, or I spend Ģ8k on an EX1 and have to carry the bloody thing round
or I buy a HDSLR for under Ģ1k and use the lenses i've already got, including fish eyes, macro's, and super telephotos, giving me shots I could never get with a standard camera- maybe i'll put a follow focus/matte box on it when I have time to set it up and make it more weildy with a shoulder rig, or maybe i'll just stick a 40mm pancake on it when I want something that can fit in my pocket for some run and gun shooting (I like the thought of having one camera which is always in my bag which can shoot stills and video)
it surprises me how much everyone seems to be adverse to video- maybe it's because i'm in the 10% of people who not only will use the video feature, but will buy an SLR purely because of it's video capabilities, and it surprises me that people would equate HDSLR video to point and shoot
If I want to shoot, I don't know, a boring video with some children running around disneyland then yeah I might use a camcorder, but for something more cinematic, i'm going to use a DSLR- DSLR's have been described as 'digital film', not video, film.
So "get a 5d mk2 I hear you say"
Yeah, would love to, but
1. I have a few nice pentax lenses, dont really want to have to spend Ģ100's on every new lens, where as now I can pop down the camera shop with Ģ50 and get a really nice pentax M
2. I like pentax bodies, more so than canon. I wish the 5d had wireless flash control, wish the 7d didnt have 18mp, wish the T2i wasn't so awful to hold, and don't really like the feel of the nikon d300 I also shoot with, and besides nikon are awful for video on anything other than the D3s
3. shake reduction- not only does it significantly reduce the cost of glass, it also means my primes and old school M glass is stabilised, shooting with a 50mm 1.4 stabilised means I can shoot basically in no light at all (noise control on kx much better than canon 7d too) or I can get interesting shots of people moving about in the frame (which funnily enough is what got me into videography)
stabilization also works really well for video
I dont want to jump ship- but I might have to, i could get a GH1 in a month or so and a K mount adaptor, but the K8 will really say what pentax's plans are in terms of video, and if it doesn't completely rock my world then I will have to get a 7d (which will inevitably be discounted by then)
Pentax have really shot themselves in the foot, manual control on the k7 would have stopped so many people jumping on the t2i, personally I couldn't cope with a t2i, and the 7d was too expensive- but the k8 will have to be some camera to stop me from jumping, and if it doesn't have 60fps, then see ya
Pentax could (and should) have more market share within video if they'd released a 7d grade video camera and marketed it as a shake reduced video cam with a plethora of cheap M lenses, but they didn't, and it pains me to think what pentax could have been right now, photokina can't come quick enough, but it will still have to be something impressive to stop me jumping
Last edited by clark; 06-08-2010 at 04:10 PM.