[PentaxPoke]

And again, 99% of these "new" functions already exist on the cheapest of camcorders. The only thing new is the body they're putting it into (and half-assed at that).

You are forgetting the biggest difference between a camcorder, and a DSLR with video: The sensor size! Putting k-mount lenses on a camcorder is not going to do anything for you. The thin DOF possibilities of DSLR video come from the sensor size. The only advantage camcorders have over DSLR video is high-speed contrast detect AF. You know why that is? Sensor size!

Take a look at the following chart. Even in the $1000 top of the line Sony HDconsumer camcorder, the sensor size is smaller than the smallest one in the figure below (1/2.88"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

An APS-C sensor is over 18 times larger that the typical higher-end consumer HD camcorders! There is no comparison!

---

Last edited by PentaxPoke; 02-09-2010 at 12:04 AM.

[KungPOW]

You can't forget that which you don't understand.

Some people can't understand why anyone would use a DSLR and not a P&S. It's the same mentality, some people don't understand why one would use a VDSLR and not a handycam.

[LeDave]

I'm guessing the T2i will take videos better than it can take pictures? No really, people don't seem to give a ass rats about it's photo capabilities. I love overprocessed HDR that shows such a great much amount of lighting, extensive use of Photoshop in images to the point of manipulating pixels and removing elements of the original photo, and HD videos being more important in this new era of photography, really. Isn't that just great?

[PentaxPoke]

No really, people don't seem to give a ass rats about it's photo capabilities... HD videos being more important in this new era of photography, really. Isn't that just great?

I disagree. I'm sure people do care about photo capabilities. They assume they will be at least on par with the competition, or better. IQ improvements in APS-C cameras seem to be reaching a point of diminishing return. There are however, large leaps that can be made in video capabilities, because the technology is so new. It creates an opportunity for manufacturers to sell new cameras, and distinguish themselves from the competition.

[wlachan]

Let's face it, the majority of consumers buying any cameras based mostly on brand and written specifications. Though the majority of them insisted in quality, few of them knew what they were actually saying. Personally, I see little value in video because I know they would be forever forgotten afterward. Just like those wedding videos bore people to sleep when they tried to watch them, but people insist to have them shoot anyway.

[LeDave]

Hitler isn't happy

[Jodokast96]

Brit, I'm not speaking specifically of the Canon, but rather the overall implementation of it in DSLR's.

Poke, I commented on the sensor size in the other thread. I don't disagree with that aspect at all. But why does it cost 20x as much to get the functionality of a $1000 camcorder and the sensor of a $1000 DSLR? Put it all into a better body and make a better camcorder. Really, the technology isn't all that new. Putting it into the body of a DSLR may be a new idea, but better funtionality has been around for years. Better suited bodies have been around for years. But somehow using a larger sensor negates all of that? Someone in marketing came up with the idea that they can give people less for more, and then spoon feed everyone with "new" funtions, that have existed elswhere cheaply for years.

[pingflood]

I'm guessing the T2i will take videos better than it can take pictures? No really, people don't seem to give a ass rats about it's photo capabilities. I love overprocessed HDR that shows such a great much amount of lighting, extensive use of Photoshop in images to the point of manipulating pixels and removing elements of the original photo, and HD videos being more important in this new era of photography, really. Isn't that just great?

"The photographer, in the earlier days, at least, was a man who respected himself and his calling, the amateur was generally a man of some means, and this implies of education properly applied also. It is first the dry plate, then the great simplifying of the processes, the cheapening of the apparatus and finally the vast catastrophe of film that have popularised and wrecked photography, and by so doing have attracted to it hundreds and hundreds of men and youths whose sole mission appears to be to bring discredit on the ranks in which they have enrolled themselves. It is the "fatal facility" of modern photography that has cursed its parents by producing such offspring. A hundred times more difficult and its reputation would stand a thousand times higher. The snapshotting of women in bathing dress, of lovers, of the cat sitting on the top of the wall, or to go what we may call a step higher, the revolting "trick photograph", have contrived to bring the reputation of photography low down indeed.

Photographers, amateur and professional, who eleven months of out of the twelve are pillars of society, churchwardens who wear a black coat and take round the plate, fathers of families and all the rest of it, go on their holidays and forget themselves - some of them. So deeply has the hand-cameraist's want of respect for photography, this wicked poison, penetrated, that lantern slides have been made and exhibited at public meetings of subjects which cannot, in any sense of the word, bring credit to the craft. "Film is so cheap you know. Let us fire them off" they say. "Here's a fellow hugging his sweetheart, they don't see us. Lets take them and show it on the screen"

Good FF is getting so cheap these days it's amazing. You can get a new FF camera for under $2k (Sony A850), and a still-superb 1Ds for $800-900. While it'd be somewhat ironic to use non-AF lenses on a 1-series, a 1Ds + some good "alt" lenses like the OM 24/2.8 makes for an incredible and very affordable rig.

I don't think I consider Sony as an option, I'm not sure they know where they going with
DSLR's yet. They aren't one of my favourite companies but I wouldn't ever discount buying their product. I'm just not convinced they are in it for the long haul.

As for Canon/Nikon, I'm not quite there yet so I haven't reached the stage of researching the two systems to see which best suits me.

[er1kksen]

I don't think I consider Sony as an option, I'm not sure they know where they going with
DSLR's yet. They aren't one of my favourite companies but I wouldn't ever discount buying their product. I'm just not convinced they are in it for the long haul.

As for Canon/Nikon, I'm not quite there yet so I haven't reached the stage of researching the two systems to see which best suits me.

If Sony dropped out of the DSLR market tomorrow, I would consider that to be a prime time for anyone with a lot of M42 glass to grab a FF body or two and some adapters. Who cares if the company doesn't put out anything new to follow them up? They're fantastic cameras and they'll last a long time, and there's no other way you'll get a 35mm fov and in-body SR with your old screw-mounts.

[LeDave]

Sony may not be doing as well as some speculated, but the thing is they have tons of money. They make high-end televisions, dvd/bd players, mp3 players, cellphones with ericson, computers and laptops, speakers, and just about any other electronic devices you can think of. If anything at all this DSLR market to them is not the same as how Pentax would see it. I believe they are going to be in it for a long run. It's just that this new set of line-up may be a mistake because they did not include video recording, but that is only one new batch of line-up, maybe the next new line to replace the current ones will be completely different.

If Pentax were to make a mistake and slip on sales, it would hurt them by a tenfold more than how it would hurt Sony. I would choose Sony as my primary choice but the amount they charge for their lenses is ludicrous, just because of the Zeiss name they slap on it which isn't optically that much "Zeiss" better than Canikon versions.

I remembered when Sony first released the PS3, they were losing a few hundred for every PS3 they sold because the PS3 costs more than they retail, and for two years straight they've lost hundreds of millions. But however their strategy worked well. They decided to lose profit with the PS3 at first so they can regain money later on with Blu-ray Disc sales, nobody's obviously going to spend 1,000 on a gaming console.

[PentaxPoke]

My suspicion is that Sony is holding back on DSLR video in order to protect it's strong share of the consumer, and semi-pro camcorder market. This may prove to be shortsighted since it will no doubt hurt DSLR sales.

Here's a link to a video taken with the new camera - Sample HD Video from Canon T2i / Eos 550D | Nice Photography Magazine - The "Why To" Magazine about Creative Photography and Film Making

[er1kksen]

That footage looks pretty good, though I look forward to seeing some produced by someone who's got a little more creativity and knowledge of good technique (panning a wideangle landscape on a single point with the horizon not levelled? It could have been such a pretty shot, too...).

[dylansalt]

With regards to Sony & Zeiss lenses.

Look up reviews on the ff 24-70 2.8 Zeiss - negligible distortion and ca and sharp from wide open and gains from Sony's OIS.

Believe it or not this lens sells for less than the Nikons counterpart (non is) and Canon's is about the same price.

Look at pixel peeper and see also what a 35 1.4 G, 70-300G, 70-400G can produce linked to a Sony ff

Also I believe that nothing can touch it with re: the viewfinder experience.

I just wish I could get my hands on one to test.

Dyls