Larger sensor camcorder vs DSLR/Mirrorless Hybrids

[NorthwestF]

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.

5D Mark II vs F3

http://vimeo.com/18331935

thoughts?

 

[redrunnertc]

I would say it depends on a couple things, the first being the intended use, and related to that the native resolution of the chip.

If the use is pure video, there is no real need to go over 2MP or so. You would have PHENOMENAL image quality, especially at low light, but your ability to print stills would be seriously compromised.

If the use is mostly stills, occasional video, then the higher resolution of a DSLR sensor will be required.

 

[Sean Nelson]

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.

I disagree. What you say may well be true for professionals, but there's a much larger market of people who want an "enthusiast" still camera and an "enthusiast" video camera, and I think there's always going to be a demand for a unified system of bodies and lenses that can do both.

 

[Dan Clark]

You're WAY off...

First, the large sensor camcorder already exists. The Panasonic AF100 is shipping and is under $5,000. The F3 looks like a decent camcorder, but is $16,000.

Second, Sony already makes a $2,000 removable lens, large imager camcorder (NEX-VG10) and it's generally regarded as a consumer toy. It takes a decent image, but it's fairly large and the audio is a joke. It doesn't even have XLR inputs for audio! It's generally considered a failure. It's too big and too single function for amateurs, and woefully inadequate for pros.

Third, there will always be a market for hybrid cameras like the GH2 because it meets the needs for many people (including me) MUCH better than a larger, single purpose camcorder. I do NOT want to carry a big single-purpose camcorder. I want one cam that does it all.

Fourth, Pros want large imager camcorder with XLR audio inputs and and lots of large, usable controls. And they want large batteries. And require the ability to use standard PL mount video lenses. To meet those needs will mean that the camera will be large, heavy, and more expensive. Few amateurs will buy that camera.

Regarding image quality, the GH2 already has video image quality that meets or exceeds that of many video cameras already. The Panasonic AF100 already exists and have video image quality that is somewhat better (but not excessively better) than the GH2. However the AF100 has the other, pro-level features that GH2 lacks. That's why the Pros buy it.

What WILL happen is that "video" cameras will generally fall into these camps:

• Video-only, small imager cameras that are very easy to use for the casual user. Think mom and pop who shoot birthday parties and soccer matches. OTOH, that market will get smaller and smaller as the large and small imager combo cams grab market share.

• Pocket small imager P&S combo-cams that shoot stills and video for the casual user who wants ease of use.

• Large imager combo-cams like the GH2 which shoot stills and video for the advanced amateur who want flexibility and small indie videographers who can't afford anything more expensive. This is a sub $1,000 (not $2,000) market.

• large imager video cameras for Pros with all the bells and whistles that pro's demand. They may drop as low as $2,000, but they'll never impact the combo-cam or other markets.

And if you want do demonstrate the superiority of these large imager, pro-level cameras, I suggest you reference the AF100 which is MUCH closer to your target cost. Here's the AF100 Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/channels/af100 . Check out the quality. For a MUCH better comparison with the 5D2, here's a video that was shot with the 5D2 and the AF100 side by side: http://vimeo.com/16007277 . That will give you a much better sense of the issues than someone whipping a camera around for a few seconds. Also, check out this GH2 video to get a sense of the video quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gof74TSBbK8 . Not bad for a sub $1,000 camera.

In summary...

You're right that the AF100 and similar cams will displace traditional OVF DSLRs like the 5D2 in the Pro market. At the lower level pro market, the GH2 is already displacing some OVF DSLRs. OTOH, the AF100 and it's future competitors will never touch amateur markets.

Regards,

Dan.

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.

5D Mark II vs F3

http://vimeo.com/18331935

thoughts?

 

[Dan Clark]

Sean,

What's the old saying about "Great minds..."?

Dan.

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.

I disagree. What you say may well be true for professionals, but there's a much larger market of people who want an "enthusiast" still camera and an "enthusiast" video camera, and I think there's always going to be a demand for a unified system of bodies and lenses that can do both.

 

[Franka T.L.]

Just as Video centric sensor are designed around cine / video operation and Camcorder are all for that. Large sensor for stills are for stills and so do the camera. Anyone is not likely to replace the others.

Hybrids like mirrorless that take video or camcorder that take photo is merely a side show of capability that can be included.

--

• Franka -

 

[John Carson]

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.

5D Mark II vs F3

http://vimeo.com/18331935

thoughts?

Who says they have to compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders?

There are a lot more people who take still photographs than there are people with video cameras. Thus the largest market is going to be for cameras that are primarily for still photography but do decent video as a secondary feature. Cameras that primarily do video are going to be a smaller market, however great their quality and features may be.

--
john carson

 

[NorthwestF]

You're WAY off...

First, the large sensor camcorder already exists. The Panasonic AF100 is shipping and is under $5,000. The F3 looks like a decent camcorder, but is $16,000.

Yes F3 is $16,000 but in a few years, these large video sensor camcorders would get very cheap. Already announced NXCam scheduled to be released this year has the same F3 sensor, but it would cost $6000. Next year this sensor might be in VG10 replacement model for $2000 (including a zoom lens) Pretty soon large sensor camcorders would cost just as much as a mid-level DSLR. Serious videographers would then abandon DSLR/Miirrorless cameras for video work.

 

[NorthwestF]

And if you want do demonstrate the superiority of these large imager, pro-level cameras, I suggest you reference the AF100 which is MUCH closer to your target cost. Here's the AF100 Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/channels/af100 . Check out the quality. For a MUCH better comparison with the 5D2, here's a video that was shot with the 5D2 and the AF100 side by side: http://vimeo.com/16007277 . That will give you a much better sense of the issues than someone whipping a camera around for a few seconds. Also, check out this GH2 video to get a sense of the video quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gof74TSBbK8 . Not bad for a sub $1,000 camera.

Does AF1000 has the same sensor as GH2 or is it a dedicated video sensor? I am talking about a dedicated video sensor that has very large pixel area (F3 sensor has 4 times larger pixel than 5D Mark II since HD video only requires around 2 MP on a larger sensor).

 

[NorthwestF]

right click and save

http://www.fxguide.com/qt/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/5DvsF3_H264s31.mov

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The 5D MKII is second rate for video now. The GH2 is second only to the AF100 and both of them are actually really close.

I shot tons of intricate patterns with the ETC feature on my GH2 in India this week. The GH2 rendered it perfectly.

Wait till I can post the video from our trip you will see how good the GH2 really is then.

--
GH2, GF1, & ZS3 Sample movies
http://www.youtube.com/user/mpgxsvcd#play/uploads
http://vimeo.com/user442745
GF1 Pictures
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4222674355/albums

 

[Dan Clark]

You're being disingenuous...

The large imager AF100 and GH2 are ALREADY replacing OVF DSLRs. At less than $5,000, the AF100 video camera is less than the top end Nikons and not much more than the 5D2 Canon - the poster child for OVF DSLR video.

And in case you missed it... AFAIK, ALL video cameras are mirrorless. So how are they going to replace mirrorless.

Your posts don't make much sense and starting to like a way to promote Sony video cameras.

Dan.

You're WAY off...

First, the large sensor camcorder already exists. The Panasonic AF100 is shipping and is under $5,000. The F3 looks like a decent camcorder, but is $16,000.

Yes F3 is $16,000 but in a few years, these large video sensor camcorders would get very cheap. Already announced NXCam scheduled to be released this year has the same F3 sensor, but it would cost $6000. Next year this sensor might be in VG10 replacement model for $2000 (including a zoom lens) Pretty soon large sensor camcorders would cost just as much as a mid-level DSLR. Serious videographers would then abandon DSLR/Miirrorless cameras for video work.

 

[Dan Clark]

First, it's the AF100, not AF1000.

Second, the exact nature of the AF100 sensor isn't clear. It is highly probable that the AF100 uses the base GH2 sensor. What is known is that the AF100 sensor has been optimized for video.

Third, regarding the 5D2 vs F3 sensor and this goes against my policy of being directly critical of people, but... You don't know what you're talking about!

The F3, 5D2, AF100, and GH2 all use the full sensor pixels and downsize them to the appropriate video size. The downsizing algorithms differ between the Pany cameras and the 5D2.

The F3 and 5D2 use a FF frame size imager, while the AF100 and GH2 use a 4/3 sized sensor which is close to 35mm video film . Whether the increased DOF (for a given F stop) of the first two compared to the second two is of value will differ based on the situation.

The AF100 and GH2 are unique in that they have Extra Tele Conversion (ETC) mode in addition the standard (downsizing the full imager) mode. ETC just uses the center 2K pixels in the imager. That's the best of both worlds - shallow DOF and (at the push of a button) 2.6X or 3.9X tele with deep DOF.

Canon was a leader in video world the caused a massive shift away from small imager, pro video cameras in many markets. A couple of years ago, people were reporting at trade shows that the traditional pro video camera booth were empty while the Canon 5DII booth was packed with videographers. While Canon still makes makes great cameras, the video market is shifting away from them. They are starting to lose market share to the the AF100 and GH1/2. They need to get their act together to provide better video competition to Pany.

Sony has a major problem because they are playing catchup to Pany - both in video cameras and combo-cams. It will be a year before Sony ships AF100 competitor and the Sony competitors to the GH2 are woefully inadequate in video.

You need to provide better quality information if you wish to prove your point about the demise of "mirrorless" cameras. So far you've provided nothing. That is, if you are referring to Pany and Oly mirrorless cams.

If you mean "mirrorless" in general, then you have no point. With the exception of OVF DSLRs, all video cameras ARE AND HAVE BEEN mirrorless.

Dan.

And if you want do demonstrate the superiority of these large imager, pro-level cameras, I suggest you reference the AF100 which is MUCH closer to your target cost. Here's the AF100 Vimeo channel: http://vimeo.com/channels/af100 . Check out the quality. For a MUCH better comparison with the 5D2, here's a video that was shot with the 5D2 and the AF100 side by side: http://vimeo.com/16007277 . That will give you a much better sense of the issues than someone whipping a camera around for a few seconds. Also, check out this GH2 video to get a sense of the video quality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gof74TSBbK8 . Not bad for a sub $1,000 camera.

Does AF1000 has the same sensor as GH2 or is it a dedicated video sensor? I am talking about a dedicated video sensor that has very large pixel area (F3 sensor has 4 times larger pixel than 5D Mark II since HD video only requires around 2 MP on a larger sensor).

 

[beomagi]

We're still waiting for *cough-pricecontrolled-cough* full frame sensor cameras to get below $2k, and APS-H is in the $4000 range. Why would large sensor video, be any different, especially if there is less competition?

Yes F3 is $16,000 but in a few years, these large video sensor camcorders would get very cheap. Already announced NXCam scheduled to be released this year has the same F3 sensor, but it would cost $6000. Next year this sensor might be in VG10 replacement model for $2000 (including a zoom lens) Pretty soon large sensor camcorders would cost just as much as a mid-level DSLR. Serious videographers would then abandon DSLR/Miirrorless cameras for video work.

 

[jwg63]

Once larger sensor camcorders become cheaper (under $2000), that would be the end of hybrids (for video) since DSLR sensors are optimized for stills. They could never compete with the video quality of large sensor camcorders.
thoughts?

I expect that large-sensor video cameras will replace hybrids for professional video production (television and motion pictures) because they will have the features to support that environment properly without the need for a cottage industry of adapters and jury-rigging.

I don't think this will mean the end of hybrids, though, as that was never the target market for hybrid cameras. I think the recent announcements of large sensor professional camcorders show the manufacturers are trying to rapidly adjust their product plans, as they were caught unprepared by the demand from this market.

I think hybrid cameras will continue to experience strong demand from the intended target market, which is people who wish to have the convenience of shooting video or stills with a single camera. I believe this is a much larger market than the professional video camera market, though the professional market likely has better margins.

--
Joe

 

[NorthwestF]

The F3 and 5D2 use a FF frame size imager,

Not true. F3 uses super 35mm sensor that is about the same size as APSC.

The F3, 5D2, AF100, and GH2 all use the full sensor pixels and downsize them to the appropriate video size. The downsizing algorithms differ between the Pany cameras and the 5D2.

Not true again. F3 sensor is designed for video. DSLRs havve to scale from 22MP to just 2K or 4K for video. F3 does not since the sensor is made for video. See

See F3 has 4 times light gathering ability of 5D Mark II

http://www.eoshd.com/content/437-Sony-F3-has-4-times-light-gathering-ability-of-5D-Mark-II

this is a dedicated 1920×1080sensor, large pixels, meaning no moire, no aliasing, minimal rolling shutter due to scaling.

 

[NorthwestF]

If you mean "mirrorless" in general, then you have no point. With the exception of OVF DSLRs, all video cameras ARE AND HAVE BEEN mirrorless.

By mirrorless cameras I mean hybrids like GH2 and Nex where the sensor is made for still photography with 14-16 MP pixels. HD video does not require 14-16 MP. Still photos do. A camcorder sensor only needs 2 MP for 1080p video. That means no downscaling that introduce ugly artifacts.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/436-Lowdown-on-the-Sony-F3-2k-cmos-cinema-sensor

Since this is a cinema camera, the sensor only has enough pixels for HD video, resulting in the following advantages over DSLRs:

•Zero moire
•Zero aliasing
•No line skipping
•Downscaling from 12MP+ not required
•Greatly reduced rolling shutter
•Increased sensitivity and dynamic range due to lower pixel pitch, larger pixels

 

[Dan Clark]

Not true. F3 uses super 35mm sensor that is about the same size as APSC.

I stand corrected.

Not true again. F3 sensor is designed for video. DSLRs havve to scale from 22MP to just 2K or 4K for video. F3 does not since the sensor is made for video. See
See F3 has 4 times light gathering ability of 5D Mark II

I stand corrected again.

this is a dedicated 1920×1080sensor, large pixels, meaning no moire, no aliasing, minimal rolling shutter due to scaling.

No. The article does not state that.

Rolling shutter comes because these cameras use CMOS sensors and not the sensor size. CCD sensors don't have that problem.

Moire and artifacts is a big issue with the 5D2. It is NOT an issue with the GH2 and AF100.

Which brings up the issue about why you posted this in the u4/3 forum. Most of the issues you keep bringing up are with the 5D2 and NOT the GH2 or AF100. Why did you post this here and not the Canon forums?

Also, while the F3 is a nice camera, it is $16,000! This is a specialty camera that is in upper end of the PRO market. Why are comparing a $16,000 camera with cameras that are 1/3 to 1/20 the cost?

This is starting to look like one of the silliest discussions that I've seen in a while. A waste of bandwidth!

Dan.

 

[Dan Clark]

Who cares!?! It's 20 times the cost of a GH2!!! A Ferrari is much better than my Audi, but it's 5 times the cost. It damn well better be very good.

As far as "ugly artifacts", it's obvious that you've not even seen a GH2 video.

This is a thread on crack! A dumb discussion!

If you mean "mirrorless" in general, then you have no point. With the exception of OVF DSLRs, all video cameras ARE AND HAVE BEEN mirrorless.

By mirrorless cameras I mean hybrids like GH2 and Nex where the sensor is made for still photography with 14-16 MP pixels. HD video does not require 14-16 MP. Still photos do. A camcorder sensor only needs 2 MP for 1080p video. That means no downscaling that introduce ugly artifacts.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/436-Lowdown-on-the-Sony-F3-2k-cmos-cinema-sensor

Since this is a cinema camera, the sensor only has enough pixels for HD video, resulting in the following advantages over DSLRs:

•Zero moire
•Zero aliasing
•No line skipping
•Downscaling from 12MP+ not required
•Greatly reduced rolling shutter
•Increased sensitivity and dynamic range due to lower pixel pitch, larger pixels

 

[Sean Nelson]

A camcorder sensor only needs 2 MP for 1080p video. That means no downscaling that introduce ugly artifacts.

High-end professional video cameras will need more than 2MP because they'll need to keep up with the ever-increasing resolution capabilities of theatrical projection systems (and eventually home systems) - see: http://www.barco.com/en/product/2310

And none of that has anything to do with consumer level cameras. Yes, professional production will prefer specialized equipment as it always has and always will. But consumers will prefer "best bang for the buck" as they always have and always will. And in a competitive market, most people will continue to choose a hybrid over a non-hybrid, be it a cell phone, point-and-shoot, MILC or DSLR camera.