And whats up with these companies providing you with a MONO microphone on a camera that will cost you $6000 ????

Film cameras cost a LOT more than $6000 and none of them come with any kind of microphone, let alone a stereo one.
They also don't come with zooming, autofocus, steady shot, etc. either.
Welcome to the world of high end video :)

Mike

Much of what you're complaining about isn't anything to do with the camera and everything to do with the optics.

For a VERY tidy sum of money you could buy a real zoom lens, fit it with a set of servo motors and hook it up to any form of controller. You're looking at not much under $100,000, camera not included although the vendor would probably throw in a F3 if you asked nicely :)

Sony have made noises about building a 35mm varifocal zoom lens (these are not true zooms, just like all the other zoom lenses mortals can afford) for the F3. It will be a world first if and when they pull it off.

Autofocus is also a major problem to get to work with these kinds of cameras. The generally lower frame rate and the shallower DOF makes autofocus even when the camera has it arguably worse than useless. Just try the autofocus on the EX1/3, absolutely nothing like the good old PD150. The EXs hunts like crazy.


As I see it there will forever continue to be two kinds of cameras:

ENG / EFG cameras with a maximum sensor size of 2/3"

Digital film cameras with 35mm + sized sensors.


You need to decide what your shooting style is best served by what kind of camera.


Bob.

I find the DSLR to be really good for static shots but not so great for anything else.

I use autofocus that only comes into play when I half press the shutter button. I can set my D5100 to detect faces or use a moveable focus point so that the half shutter press autofocus is focusing on the right thing. I use that for setting focus, and if the focus changes, I will half press the shutter button while video is still recording to regain focus. This is a very practical way to work with tripod static shots and the footage looks really good shot this way.

Have you looked at the Panasonic GH2?

I've had some buyer remorse and if I could do it again, I would buy the Panasonic GH2 over the Nikon D5100. The electronic viewfinder just makes more sense for somebody who is working primarily with video. Also, I've seen moire comparisons that show that the GH2 has very little of this problem compared to the Canons and the Nikons. Not that I'm unhappy with the Nikon. After a bit of initial head scratching, I have a pretty good work flow going with it and the footage I shot this past week looks outstanding.

Thank you all for your replies, keep the ideas coming! :)

I like the GH2 a lot from whats on Youtube, esp the autofocus and the price! Gotta look into that some more I think!

Because if this has autofocus, what really IS left of the differences between my 5D, this 750 euro camera and the Sony FS100EK that is about 6000???

Just pay 5000 more for looking better on the job with a bigger camera sounds a bit silly to me... :))

You might want to check out www.eoshd.com if you interested in the GH2. The guy that runs the site loves that camera and there is plenty of info about it in various articles.

Don't overlook the new line of excellent Sony Alpha and NEX cameras: NEX-5N, Alpha a65, Alpha a77, and NEX-7 (forthcoming). Sony is really adding some incredible innovation to the field.

Hey Marcel,

I'm not sure what your budget is but you should give the Sony FS100 a closer look. I checked out your website. Based on your work there, I think you're looking for the performance of a DSLR with the functionality of a camcorder. You have a broad range of projects but most of it looks studio based. Lock that baby down on a set of sticks and go to town. It outputs 4:2:2, is the best in its class for low light (purely opinion) and amazing slo-mo is right at your fingertips.

Again, purely opinion but Phillip Bloom also has a nice comparison of the FS100 against the 5D, 7D, Z3 and AF100. Not apples-to-apples in terms of price point but very informative. I was ready to pull the trigger on the AF100 until I watched his review.

Anyway, if you're ready to take the next step, you're going to have to cut the automated cord eventually and brave the world of manual control. Hopefully I'm not completely off base.

I've been playing with the NEX-5N, and it is very impressive. 1080-60p autofocusing HD at 28Mbps. Be aware that you'll probably have to send it back for service if you buy now -- some kind of click issue is plaguing the first run. And no external mic input is a big deal (but there is an optional accessory stereo mic).

But I say if Sony ever makes one these in a FF sensor, DSLR video will never be the same...

Both the GH2 and the Sont NEXs are 4/3rds cameras and of similar great quality video. The advantages of the GH2 are articulateable screen, electronic viewfinder, audio in with manual setting and VU meter.

The Sony Alphas look reallly good though. I think you're still stuck with AGC though.

The VEG 10 and 20 look good as well except that there is no RAW mode for stills capture, which is kind of a deal breaker if you also take stills.

Both the GH2 and the Sont NEXs are 4/3rds cameras and of similar great quality video.

Actually, the sensor size in the new NEX cameras is APS-C, not micro 4/3rd, so the NEX have a considerable advantage there. In terms of image quality, the NEX-5N is much closer to a 5D and possibly superior to a 7D. While the NEX-7 has yet to be released, it promises to do as well or even better.

Thanks a lot again for your considerations!

I think I'm gonna go for the GH2 for now and wait untill they come up with better 'videocams' because from what I've seen on Vimeo and Youtube , the picture quality of what comes out this cam is amazing for its price and even if an FS100 has better technical details, I go from what I see in the final video that comes out because that is what counts.

I do wonder if there is any difference in the way the focus works on a GH2 and a FS100, does anyone know exactly in what way they are different? Can I use a GH2 similar to a traditional videocam where autofocus works reasonably well to get the most obvious subjects in focus for filming a wedding for example? Or do I have to manually tell the camera what object I like to focus on?

Does a 6000$ camera deal with that in a completely different way? Or is it just 5000$ for a nicer looking cam that basically can do the same?

Thanks for your answers!

"I do wonder if there is any difference in the way the focus works on a GH2 and a FS100, does anyone know exactly in what way they are different?"

Link to review about exactly what you want to know about the FS100 here.


"Does a 6000$ camera deal with that in a completely different way? Or is it just 5000$ for a nicer looking cam that basically can do the same?"

I certainly wouldn't call the FS100 a "nice" looking camera. Ergonomically it is better then any DSLR but it is not an easy camera to live with. The LCD hinge system with the attached diopter thing suffers very badly from brewers droop. I would never feel comfortable shooting what I shoot with this camera for that reason alone. TBH honest even if Sony gave me a F3 and a set of Master Primes for free I'd probably sell it. Sure, wonderfull kit but I don't shoot set pieces with a big crew. I'd take the money and buy a PMW-350 with a good lens, that camera I can throw on my shoulder, the controls are in the right place, the viewfinder goes straight to my eye.

There's way too much weight given to charts and measurements, sure they are important, they tell us how good an image the camera / lens is capable of. What matters in the line of fire for most people here is how good an image they can get from the camera at the same time as trying to wrangle lighting, audio and heaven forbid, the talent.

Bob.

The 5D & 7D are a total failure compared to a real video camera.

The only video camera that clearly beats the DSLR crowd at a low price point is the Panasonic AF-100. However, you will probably need to rent a good lens.

Watch the 2011 Zacuto 3 part camera shootout. They test the DSLRs, AF-100 and high end cameras. Very interesting. DSLRs are toys compared to an actual video camera.

Welcome to the reality of mass production and the buying power associated with it.

DSLR with APS-C sensors and even full frame are selling like hot cakes these days. Slap on some decent glass and you are talking about a HUGE sensor compared to what you can get in the world of high end video where the customer base is measured in thousands compared to millions for DSLR. So you are getting A LOT of value in terms of video quality, ie sharpness, contrast, low light capability because of the buying power. Millions of people support the research, engineering, and production of those DSLR so each individual only pays a small part of it in the product they purchase.

Think of it this way. Intel can sell a 2600k processor in 1000 part trays for $300/each because they are selling tens of thousands of parts per year.

If they were selling 1000 times less chips then the cost would be ten times higher or more, assuming there was even enough market demand to subsidize bringing such a part to market.

As with most things as you climb the price/performance curve you generally get less increase in performance an equal increase in cost. You just have to decide where your business sits on that curve. Go too high and you have to overcharge for your product, go too low and your competition will out price you. It's one of the toughest parts to running a successful business.

The Sony NEX-7 looks to be a GH2 killer. The Panny's have always been poor in high ISO's territory, so the Sony will no doubt pull many sales from the Lumix series.

Thanks guys!

I totally agree with Hulks mass production story thats how I see it! I don't have the budget to buy any cam above 5-6k , and when I start comparing the videos that are available on Youtube, I even like most work they did with the GH2 MORE than the FS100, maybe if you measure the output with an analizer or go by technical specs the FS100 is better , but its not 5k better if you ask me, so I would really like to know if the focussing is totally different?

Did anyone work with both?

The 5D mark II does not focus automatically at all, thats why it's not suitable for weddings or shots where the object moves towards or from the camera fast

If you want autofocus during moving shots you need to make sure that the autofocus is phase rather than contrast sensing. Contrast sensing autofocus kind of overshoots then comes back into focus, making it quite useless for moving shots. The Sony cameras use phase sensing like camcorders. I don't know about the GH2.

My Nikon uses phase sensing if you are shooting stills through the viewfinder, but contrast sensing for autofocus using the LCD (which of course is the only way you can shoot video). This is good and bad. The good is that it lets you do tricks like facial recognition (which I use regularly), but bad if you are shooting something where you want the focus to track, since it is constantly overshooting.

I use the facial recognition regularly on my Nikon. You point the camera, watch a little yellow square form around the face of your subject, half press the photo shutter button to lock in focus on the highlighted, then hit the video recording button. It works really well so long as the subject is maintaining approximately the same distance. The trick is to not set the depth of field too shallow so that you have a little room for the subject to move around. This sort of thing is why I chose the Nikon over the Canons: a decision that I have not regretted.

The phase sensing on the Nikon autofocus is only when you use the viewfinder. This is only good for shooting stills. The point of this is that if you are shooting action stills, the optical viewfinder is much better for capturing action shots. The viewfinder lets you see what is happening as it happens (not a short time later like an LCD or EVF) and can maintain focus on a moving target.

As a few here have noted, it's not just the camera investment, but the investment in lenses. I have no doubt that Nikon (like all the companies) will keep improving and if I stay with the one make, any lenses I buy are a sound investment in spite of changes in technology. I see a time in the future where the lenses will be the deciding factor in a purchase, and not the technical specs, since all the cameras will have similar great technical specs eventually.

You might also want to think about how the camera is as a still camera. A Nikon or Canon is pretty good as a shallow depth of field video camera, but they are also absolutely amazing at their primary function of being still cameras. This is worth considering when you think that in a couple of years, the video functions of all these cameras will be hopelessly out of date, but they will still very much have value as still cameras.

Hi Laurence,

I bought the GH2 yesterday and what I've seen looks great, although I looked it up and this camera also uses contrast sensing. Hopefully it works better than your Nikon then, I have some hope because apparently the GH2 has really fast focussing, I read that somewhere.
But I gotta testdrive it first. If it is fast enough to trick the human eye the overshooting is no problem for me haha

I figure I can help myself with the GH2 and the 5D mark II for now, waiting on the newer generation models to buy an expensive camcorder maybe next year. It would be pretty painful if I bought the AF100 or FS100 now for 6000 euros and found out next year they come up with a cheaper consumer market camera that can do more, has a zoom rocker and can record 100 hours using the same battery onto a 10$ memorycard in HD! :D

Bottom line is: if you don't have a large budget you might be better off waiting for the latest technology to be introduced a year later in the cheaper mass products like Hulk said. Its the same with cars, if you drive the newest car you lose a lot of money and pay a high price for the latest gadgets, if you wait for a few years and buy the same car then, you drive the same car only a lot cheaper. That way you can work a little less and enjoy life a bit more. Thats my philsophy! PLUS my customers are more interested in the content of my films anyway, (And so they should) they wouldnt even see the difference between a very good and a perfect camera. :D

And after all, I'd rather have my customer totally surprised at the result afterwards after I showed up with a toy camera on the shoot than have him disappointed because the camera looked so big and cool and the result is crap.

Everything you might want to know about autofocus is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus

What I take away from this is that phase detection autofocus can judge which way something is going in or out of focus while contrast detection autofocus cannot. Thus phase detection is aware of whether something is coming towards or away from the camera and can adjust in the right direction to compensate. Contrast detection just sort of moves in both directions sampling contrast until it senses focus then stops when it finds the correct contrast.

On the other hand, contrast detection autofocus is more of a computer control thing and it lets you do tricks like facial recognition, or even recognizing certain faces and giving them priority over others. My manual has a section on this, where you can program it to recognize certain faces and assign them names and where it will pick them out of a group and set the focus to them. I haven't tried it and expect that it is easy to fool, but it certainly is a great idea.

You can see the limitations of contrast autofocus on my Nikon D5100 when you try to follow something like a kid playing or a skateboarder. It just constantly is adjusting going way beyond focus in both directions. The only way to use it is to have it make the adjustments only when you half press the shutter button. That way at least you can control when it is adjusting. Shallow depth of field in cases like this is pretty much impossible with this camera.

On the other hand, I shot a bunch of interviews yesterday. I set it up to focus on faces. As each kid got into position, I half pressed the shutter button and I was in focus on the current face. Very cool. The downside it was my first chromakey job with a DSLR and it is turning out to be a bear to key.

My advice to you is to THOROUGHLY test every aspect of your GH2 and return it if anything is at all wrong with it. I use a GH1 and GH2 at work and purchased another GH1 for personal camera.

The cameras can be very good provided that they work well out of the box. Our first GH1 underexposed every image. We exchanged it through B&H and the 2nd unit has been perfect.

We purchased our GH-2 locally and the dealer warned me in advance that Panasonic, unlike Canon and Nikon, will not allow them to do exchanges, even for initial defects. Right out of the box our GH2 had issues with noise and banding on still images (video is fine). The noise is always there, even at the lowest ISO. Banding is rare, you need a solid color like the deep blue sky.

My personal GH1 also has issues (stills: Heavy green cast; video: Certain skin tones become desaturated causing them to look gray. I sent it to Panasonic service, and after finally finding my camera (do NOT send it to the address listed in the manual!) the techs are unable to find any issue with it (I printed samples on an 11"x17" sheet with full captions and arrows pointing to the bad areas).

If your GH2 is working properly you will likely love it. If you end up returning it for any reason, you may want to take a look at Sony's newest line of Alpha DSLR cameras. They use phase detect AF even when shooting video and have upgraded their data rate and recording time to more closely compete with Panasonic.