Well its hard to say that 1/3" chips are eating dust right now. Every manufacturer makes them and will probably continue to make them for some time coming.

1/3" does serve the greater whole more than a larger APS-C sensor would. And that's what Canon would be interested in most.

Again, awaiting what they will ultimately do.

Here's an interesting thought, and not to sway the conversation too far.

I am most likely going to upgrade to the next version of the Canon XL or whatever that equivalent would be, but have been toying around with keeping my XL H1S and using the money to buy a NanoFlash for it. What would you guys do?

... these 1/3" chips are eating dust right now.Sorry, but 1/3" chips are the key to getting a 20x zoom under $4K.

I am most likely going to upgrade to the next version of the Canon XL or whatever that equivalent would be, but have been toying around with keeping my XL H1S and using the money to buy a NanoFlash for it. What would you guys do?

The XLH1s w/ the Nano (100mbs or higher) is a great way to go.....In fact, you go to the head of the class.....so to speak.

Jim Martin

The suspense is killing me! ... as far as the specs for what Canon's new camera will have.

I'm still faithfully using my GL1 and XL1s in the meantime.

Based on what Chris said above, if the chips are 1/2" we sacrifice some zoom capability to fit in a simliar form factor... what would it go to? 14x or something? I could probably live with that if it meant better low light performance and better picture performance overall.

Right now, I've been distracted by this notion of building a DIY dolly system and also a DIY slider system. I figure I can go ahead an invest some $ in these options and help take my videos to a completely new level, and by the time I get that all ironed out, maybe Canon's new cam will be out! (Side note, also impressed with that kessler crane-light product!.. might get one of those too a little later.)

What I'm not looking forward to, is having to spend $$$$ on a computer system. Mine is about 4 years old! But by the time I get ready to upgrade to a new one to handle the new Canon camera, the Intel 6-core processor should be out, which may help things a bit.

.... waiting....

As I've explained in my article, there are two very important reasons why this "true cinema camera with 35mm sensors" concept won't materialize anytime soon... and they are highly significant roadblocks:

The AF System (must use the phase detection process, which isn't cheap)

The Lens (must be motorized with at least an 8x to 10x zoom, which isn't cheap).

Sorry, but I don't see any significant road block there.

True Cinema camera = manual focus and manual zoom.

So there goes the AF and the motorized lens. Problem solved.

People aren't using motorized zooms and AF on the 5D/7D, and they darn sure aren't doing it on RED, ARRI, Viper, SI2K, Genesis, DALSA, or any other True Cinema camera.

So get on with it...

True Cinema camera = manual focus and manual zoom.

Not true at all, sorry -- motorized ZIFs are used *all the time* in high-end digital cinema.

So there goes the AF and the motorized lens. Problem solved.

Take out the AF and a motorized lens, and you've taken Canon out of the equation.

RED, ARRI, Viper, SI2K, Genesis, DALSA

I thought we were clear about the target price range: around $5K or so. Not the high-end stuff like Viper, et al.

If it's Canon, then it'll have AF and a motorized zoom... just like the forthcoming 2/3" Scarlet with integrated 8x AF lens for less than $5K. That's what we're talking about here. Not the $15-$20K+ market. Canon won't ever go there.

Not true at all, sorry -- motorized ZIFs are used *all the time* in high-end digital cinema.


Ok, as you've alluded to later, we are talking different markets.


Take out the AF and a motorized lens, and you've taken Canon out of the equation.


Right. Which is sad and totally unnecessary.


I thought we were clear about the target price range: around $5K or so. Not the high-end stuff like Viper, et al.


So, putting a manual SLR lens on a A1/H1 replacement with a 7D sensor in it is undoable because the development of an AF and motorized zoom is not feasible. Even though the market clamoring for that camera is using non AF and non-zoom lenses on the 5D/7D to begin with... Does this strike you as odd?


If it's Canon, then it'll have AF and a motorized zoom... just like the forthcoming 2/3" Scarlet with integrated 8x AF lens for less than $5K. That's what we're talking about here. Not the $15-$20K+ market. Canon won't ever go there.

This I cannot doubt at all. Frankly, I'd rather see RED leave this market altogether. I have no doubt that in 1-2 years another vendor will be offering exactly what people are asking for, and doing it in the $6k-$8k range.

I'd love a 2/3" all-manual shoulder mount camera with great color and low light capability. They would take over the market from Sony, JVC, and Panasonic while using lenses they're already producing. Seems like if they can make a 7D for under $2k and a prosumer body with all the switches and knobs for under $4k, they could make a pro body that took AB batteries and B4 lenses.

I think the days of 2/3" shoulder mount cameras is coming to a rapid end. Every time I see a local affiliate out these days it's with a HVX200 or an EX3. I don't see anyone carrying the shoulder mounts any more unless its the rookie who doesn't yet rate enough to get a new camera.

...the market clamoring for that camera is using non AF and non-zoom lenses on the 5D/7D to begin with... Does this strike you as odd?No. Not in the slightest. They're using those lenses because currently there is no other alternative. And they've been complaining rather loudly about the lack of AF in video mode ever since the 5D Mk. II came out. You don't hear so much about motorized zoom because the folks that really need it aren't about to abandon their camcorders (because there is no kludge or workaround for that, or for the lack of long zoom ratios).

It might be a difficult realization for some of our readers to accept, but the fact is that the market clamoring for that camera simply is not that large. Vocal, maybe, but not that large. And they are grossly outnumbered, as I have previously mentioned, by the corporate / event video market that needs AF and long zoom ratios and an MSRP under $5K. That's the market that will be served by this new Canon replacement for the XH series.

It might be a difficult realization for some of our readers to accept, but the fact is that the market clamoring for that camera simply is not that large. Vocal, maybe, but not that large. And they are grossly outnumbered, as I have previously mentioned, by the corporate / event video market that needs AF and long zoom ratios and an MSRP under $5K. That's the market that will be served by this new Canon replacement for the XH series.

I don't doubt the major money market is the corp./event video market. I'm firmly in that market. By day. But the 7D side of me (my weekend/night work) is digital cinema. And that part of me could care less about AF or digital zoom. That is the part of me that is buying the 7D, rails, follow focus, remote iris control, and steadicam.

Maybe it's not economically feasible for Canon to address that market in their video division. That's ok. I think that's why RED decided to step in there anyway. And do what the others wouldn't. I didn't even realize the fixed lens Scarlet was supposed to have a motorized lens. Just never cared.

In ant event, I wish Canon well with whatever video camera they decide to bring out. I just hope it brings something more to the table than the "me-too" stuff that's been speculated about here...

Well other than the post by some who reckons they have insider knowledge I would be surprised if Canon release something with either a 35mm or AP sensor. They are a conservative company and I doubt that they are suddenly going to start competing with RED which runs as the completely the other end of the spectrum. Even just using the same guts as a 7D and making it more video cam like would still be expensive to put together the production line......

I'm still very interested to see what RED do with Scarlet and AF, it's gonna be a tough gig to get it right, some companies have spent years on it and still not cracked it.

Is it possible to split this thread in two? One for discussion of the Canon prototype and another for those who want to play "fantasy digital cinema cam"?

Sorry, that's been my fault primarily. We'll push this back to discussing the prototype. I'm starting to second-guess a couple of my predictions, so I'm going to update that article (today, hopefully).

I think the days of 2/3" shoulder mount cameras is coming to a rapid end. Every time I see a local affiliate out these days it's with a HVX200 or an EX3. I don't see anyone carrying the shoulder mounts any more unless its the rookie who doesn't yet rate enough to get a new camera.

The ergonomics of the EX3 aren't great and it would be better as a shoulder mounted camera. Above a certain size and weight shoulder mounting makes sense and the EX series are entering into that territory, plus the much loved feature of the JVC HD series is the shoulder mount.

The BBC has 2/3" shoulder mount cameras and there continues to be a demand for them. HD 1/3" chips (at least currently) have problems in low light. Videojournalists tend to be the news people shooting with these cameras rather than the BBC camera people. However, they do get used on documentaries and general programmes, often by directors and researchers.

The 2/3" Scarlet is sitting at the cross over point and how it's used my depend on how much hand held work you use it for. However, being hip and having a sore arm at the end of the working day does seem a pointless exercise.

The requirement for 1/2" and above sensor size by HD broadcasters makes certain requirements size wise in a camera and this will effect how you operate it. Body braces for cameras is so a 1950s concept, the great camera designers of the 1960s, 70s and 80s did away with them.

Sorry, that's been my fault primarily. We'll push this back to discussing the prototype. I'm starting to second-guess a couple of my predictions, so I'm going to update that article (today, hopefully).

Chris-

I knew you had a crystal ball !

...Jim

ps- give me a call today at FT

And they've been complaining rather loudly about the lack of AF in video mode ever since the 5D Mk. II came out.

Apart from shooting the kids at a birthday party who would use an AF lens on a video camera? Ever? I can't imagine anyone wanting one a even a semi-pro camera. In fact it makes me shudder just thinking about it hunting focus and ruining shots!
Steve

There's another feature that could be added with a DSLR sensor in a video cam body that does not exist in the DvSLRs - a KILLER digital zoom.

Consider that we have aliasing problems with the pixel skipping. A 3x digital zoom switch would get rid of the aliasing, and would extend the zoom range. A 5x optical zoom, like a 28-135, coupled with a 3x digital zoom gives an effective 15x range.

A digital zoom just doubles up the pixels though, so you'd get worse quality not better.
Steve

Normally, a digital zoom doubles up pixels. In the case of the 7D/5D2/1D4, Canon skips roughly two of three pixels. For the digital zoom, I propose that Canon window the sensor. They could do that without line skipping, and quality would increase.

OK. But that wouldn't be a digital zoom, that would be windowing, that's why I got confused.
Presumably there must be some reason why they didn't do that? Just to keep proper coverage with their lenses maybe? I suppose the other problem with windowing may be that you'd lose too much resolution?
I'm sure you'd find that it's not as simple as it seems.
Steve

Another feature that would be KILLER would be the addition of a pellicle mirror. That would allow vision through the optical viewfinder, as well as high-quality auto-focus.

Hopefully, we will see that on future Canon DvSLR technology cameras, whether in a still or video format body.

Pellicle mirror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellicle_mirror)

It's not my idea. Credit where credit is due:
SECHD: how it was shot... by Patrick Murphy-Racey on Vimeo

There was a Canon SLR that had a Pellicle mirror, think it was the EOS1RS, had super fast motor drive because the mirror could stay put. You lose some light though.
Steve

According to the video and Wikipedia, Canon has made at least three such models: the Pellix, the RT, and the F-1 high speed (or 1-RS, according to the video). That means that Canon would have minimal royalties to pay if it brought Pellicle mirror technology back to its lineup.

I am very much with Chris on this one - the issue is very much regarding the lens.

For a DSLR it's not necessary for the lens to track at all, and to keep costs reasonable they generally don't - they don't need to for stills work. Hence it's a question of zoom to frame, focus, then take the picture. For cinema type work, that may not be too much of an issue, you accept a fixed focal length during a shot.

General video work is a different story. It's firmly expected that it's possible to zoom from one end to the other and for the lens to hold focus throughout - and this the average still camera lens just will not do for very good design reasons. (They are commonly not real zoom lenses, rather variable focal length lenses. A true zoom holds focus throughout the range, with the latter you have to refocus every time the focal length is changed.)

It's possible to build a lens to meet various criteria relatively easily - to be wide angle, or to be fast at max aperture, to hold focus accurately throughout the range, to have a good zoom range. The trouble is when it's desired that a lens should have all of these desirable qualities *AT THE SAME TIME*.

And the bigger the chip imaging size, the more difficult (ie expensive) it is. That's before we even consider other factors like zoom servos etc.

Hence the popularity of 1/3" chips. It's not because they are good in themselves, it's because they mean that most of the desired design criteria can be met reasonably well at not too high a cost or size/weight.

It's also why the EX series have taken off so well. It's quite a triumph of design to be able to use chips with twice the area of 1/3", yet still keep overall size/weight/cost to the levels that have traditionally meant 1/3".

Bolex 16mm cameras had a semi-silvered mirror (same thing more or less as a pellicle I think). Can't remember whether there was a downside, but Arri and Aaton didn't use one, so they obviously didn't think it was the way to go.
Steve

Quote: who would use an AF lens on a video camera?

'Push to focus' is a very very handy thing to have!

True, but only if your viewfinder is awful (as it is on most small cams, notably the Canon XL1 types).
Steve

It's also why the EX series have taken off so well. It's quite a triumph of design to be able to use chips with twice the area of 1/3", yet still keep overall size/weight/cost to the levels that have traditionally meant 1/3".

More than a decade ago, Panasonic made a three 1/3" chipper that was really small - the EZ1 (and it even had a lens with a 10x optical zoom). Looking at the EZ1, I'm not so sure the EX cams are that much of a triumph in size.

Looking at the EZ1, I'm not so sure the EX cams are that much of a triumph in size.
If you take something like a DSR500 as representative of a typical 2/3" camera, and something like a PD150, PD170 or Z1 as typical of a prosumer grade 1/3" camera, then the EX cameras are far closer in size/weight/cost to the latter than the former, whilst having chip areas halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" in area terms.

Yes, it's possible to get 1/3" cameras smaller etc than the examples above, but I don't think you're then comparing like with like.

Yes, it's possible to get 1/3" cameras smaller etc than the examples above, but I don't think you're then comparing like with like.

The 5D/7D show that it's possible to get a 35mm sensor in something smaller than any of these cameras. That's not the issue. The issue is where to put all the connections (2-XLR, HDMI, SDI, large capacity battery, headphones, etc.) and all the switches (ND, gain, shutter speeds, zebra, etc.) when you have a smaller footprint. And you're going to need room for a the media to go. And a place to tuck away an LCD because no one likes the fixed one on the DSLRs.

There is only so much real estate to be had. A 35mm sensor in something the size of a DVX would be most welcome. From Canon or anyone else.

Another feature that would be KILLER would be the addition of a pellicle mirror. That would allow vision through the optical viewfinder, as well as high-quality auto-focus.

No, the killer feature is a mirror. So you don't lose much if any light. And it's already been done. Just not at this price point. If you want to see the newest iteration, Google "Arri Alexa".

Yes, it's possible to get 1/3" cameras smaller etc than the examples above, but I don't think you're then comparing like with like.

The 5D/7D show that it's possible to get a 35mm sensor in something smaller than any of these cameras. That's not the issue.

Sorry, apples and oranges... David refers to a three-chip block built around a prism, while the D-SLR is a single-chip camera.

I agree that single-CMOS is the Next Big Thing, but the topic of this particular discussion centers around a three-chip design.

but the topic of this particular discussion centers around a three-chip design.

Ah... yep.

No, the killer feature is a mirror.

:)

Maybe the key is to have the pellicle mirror retractable. Use it when you want to use the optical viewfinder and AF. Retract it when you want more light, don't need/want AF, and will use the LCD or other monitor.

Also, you could feature it as a built-in ND. :)

Bolex 16mm cameras had a semi-silvered mirror (same thing more or less as a pellicle I think). Can't remember whether there was a downside, but Arri and Aaton didn't use one, so they obviously didn't think it was the way to go.
Steve

The down side is that you don't have a bright viewfinder - Arri & Aaton V/Fs are in a different league with the rotating mirror shutter design. Plus you lose some light going through to the film.

I always quite liked Bolex viewfinders - the benefit over Arri/Aaton is that the image doesn't flicker due to the spinning mirror. You get used to this flickering after a while though.
Sorry, we've gone a bit off topic here - guess I'm just missing my old Arri!
Steve

Apart from shooting the kids at a birthday party who would use an AF lens on a video camera?As I explained in my article, manual focus -- if it's to be done properly -- requires a second person (the 1st AC) whose sole job is to pull focus manually while the camera operator does everything else. Many times it's not possible or practical to have a two-person camera crew; quite often the camera operator is working alone, and these situations can call for AF, or at least some way to drive focus remotely from the tripod pan handle or elsewhere. On this new Canon, remote manual control of focus will most likely happen through LANC, which calls for a focus motor on the lens, which means it will have AF. And as Graham Hickling has already pointed out, Push AF is tremendously helpful for quickly finding focus.

In fact it makes me shudder just thinking about it hunting focus and ruining shots!I think that's going to be very much a thing of the past, what with selective face tracking, zone tracking, phase detection technology (instead of contrast), etc. I think we're going to start seeing the high-end AF processes that are currently used on the broadcast side work their way down into the $5K class of cameras.

What broadcast cameras are you talking about that are using AF? None of the broadcast cams I use have it.
If you're talking about servo focus to allow the use of pan bar mounted focus demands then OK, but for serious video work AF is just useless. You talk about focussinf "if it's to be done properly", crikey AF is the least "proper" way to do it. In broadcast wildlife we've been focussing manually with massive telephotos for years and there haven't been many complaints. There is just no way AF on an HJ40 would work with fast action subjects like wildlife. With stills it's different as you only need focus to be spot on for an instant.
Steve

Lenses like the Canon DigiSuper 100AF are auto focus.

These are all AF:

Canon DIGI SUPER 100 xs AF (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/p_field_DIGISUPER100_93BIEDAF_intro.shtml)

Canon DIGI SUPER 86 xs AF (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/p_field_DIGISUPER86_93BIEDAF_intro.shtml)

Canon Canon DIGI SUPER 27 AF (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/p_studio_DIGISUPER27_AF_intro.shtml)

The HJ40 you've mentioned is Servo focus, not "just manual" (that is, it's motorized for remote focus control):

Canon HJ40 x 14B IASD-V (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/p_efp_HJ40_14_intro.shtml) (and anything else with an "A" in the model number is Servo focus, not just Manual).

I'm not doubting that AF is improper for wildlife videography. I'm only saying this:

The forthcoming Canon replacement of the XH series (that is, the topic of this thread) will *most likely* allow for remote focus control.

At the $5K price point, that remote control interface will *most likely* be LANC.

If it has LANC, then it will *most likely* have AF.

And also since it appears to be a "tapeless XH," then it will *most likely* have AF regardless.

The usefulness of AF for any pro videographer will be, again as Graham has mentioned, at the very least the ability to quickly find focus with Push AF. I'm also willing to bet that selective face tracking AF and selective zone AF will be included in the new camcorder, primarily for the benefit of wedding & event videographers. That's all I'm saying here.

I know the big box lenses are AF, but that's not to say they're used in AF.
I know all about the HJ40, it's one of my standard lenses. I find the servo focus doesn't work too well either, the lack of contact with the lens itself seems to lessen your control over fine focussing.
I have no doubt at all that the new Canon will have AF, all the semipro models do. Because the lenses use servos rather than helicals AF is incredibly easy to implement so why not.
Steve

I'll donate my 2 cents for filming wildlife with an ultralight tripod - too often more robust equipment would be just too much to carry. Focusing by hand while shooting results in shaky footage, then. While at it, I wish AF could be taught to follow a particular animal. These systems already detect shapes so why not. If AF would be better, I would use it in most cases.

The latest Sony face detection can learn a particular face for priority even if it goes out of frame and then returns!!!!!!
I use Spot focus all the time on the SR11 and XR500 and was a little disappointed it was not implemented on the NX5.

Ron Evans

Quote "The latest Sony face detection can learn a particular face for priority even if it goes out of frame and then returns!!!!!!" - yes, theoretically! It's the same principle as all the Nikon 3D focus tracking etc., but it's far from foolproof.
Steve

For a thread based on speculation this has taken on a life of its own.

I think the predictions Chris suggested in his excellent article will come to pass, and we'll see a new contender for the prosumer AVCHD market that could see off the competition at this price point. But it doesn't look like Sony need to feel too threatened re its EX range of cameras, and IMO, the most likely competition will come from Panasonic bringing out an AVC Intra version of the 171, a fixed lens hpx300, which i for one would be very tempted by, even with the 1/3 chips.

Having sold my XHA1 last year (for a 5d mkii) i'm interested in buying another video camera this year. I've a project coming up which ideally would require a small camera and i think the HMC40 looks like a bargain, assuming it would complement the 5d. But if i were looking at a larger camera, i can't see any real competition to the EX1. Also, there are dozens of EX1's on ebay going for less than Canon's new AVCHD is likely to cost, and you can always sell it for pretty much what you paid. So for the time being at least, the EX1 looks to me like the best of the bunch, and i'm mystified why none of the other big companies are attempting to match it, let alone better it.

Now P2 card prices are becoming a realistic alternative, any thoughts on the likelihood of a fixed lens hpx300 - along the lines of an hpx171 with AVC Intra- turning up in 2010?

... But if i were looking at a larger camera, i can't see any real competition to the EX1. Also, there are dozens of EX1's on ebay going for less than Canon's new AVCHD is likely to cost, and you can always sell it for pretty much what you paid. So for the time being at least, the EX1 looks to me like the best of the bunch, and i'm mystified why none of the other big companies are attempting to match it, let alone better it.

A year ago I said I wouldn't trade my EX1 for any camera under $10k. I feel the same way today. It's a HECK of a camera for what it costs. As to your comment about P2 becoming more realistic... I think Sony really caught them off guard with SxS and it's pricing. Now that P2 prices have fallen more in line with SxS, Sony dropped the bomb this week that they are supporting the SDHC option in the EX line of cams. So now you have manufacturer supported recoding in the EX line at about $45 per hour. Not sure how Panasonic plans on responding to that.

While I think Canon has had remarkable success in their DSLR product (seemingly by accident for the most part), they seem to be lagging badly in the prosumer video market and I really do fail to see how this new offering is going to find itself in the hands of anyone other than Canon loyalists. Those who prefer other brands already have viable options and honestly, looking at what is speculated for the Canon, doesn't seem to offer enough to compel someone to switch. Maybe I am wrong about that, but that's how it looks from where I'm standing.

As I explained in my article, manual focus -- if it's to be done properly -- requires a second person (the 1st AC) whose sole job is to pull focus manually while the camera operator does everything else. Many times it's not possible or practical to have a two-person camera crew; quite often the camera operator is working alone, and these situations can call for AF, or at least some way to drive focus remotely from the tripod pan handle or elsewhere. On this new Canon, remote manual control of focus will most likely happen through LANC, which calls for a focus motor on the lens, which means it will have AF. And as Graham Hickling has already pointed out, Push AF is tremendously helpful for quickly finding focus.
.

Even though I was brought up through the decades on a diet of MF stills cameras and prefer to use MF on my video cameras when I can, there are times, even in nature & wildlife photography & filming when AF can come in handy.
There is no advantage of having an MF-only lens when you can use the same price & quality AF lens which has a simple ON-OFF switch.

"A year ago I said I wouldn't trade my EX1 for any camera under $10k. I feel the same way today."

I don't blame you. I would too.

When Canon responded to the Z1 with the XHA1 i was a happy camper, but the EX1 has been out ages now, and though there have been some good cameras from Panasonic and JVC, none have really tempted me, particularly since there are so many used EX1's kicking about at half price. I think we were all hoping Canon would come to our rescue, and Chris's article - though based largely on assumptions - has left us feeling disappointed.

Having said that, Canon has always been great for glass, so it's possible that they'll come out with a camera with superlative 1/3 chips, some nice features and a fantastic lens and affordable media at an attractive price-point. If that camera produces a great image, then i'd buy one over the Sony.

Agree with that Tony, no harm in having it if you can, why not.
But for video of wildlife is a cmplete non-starter. Do you know anyone working on high quality broadcast wildlife progs that has used it? I certainly don't, and I just can't ever imagine it happening. If you look at all current wildlife output it's invariably Varicams with HJ40 or HJ18, and before that it was Arris with 300s and 150-600s, all MF.
Steve

If you had to design a camera as an upgrade to the excellent XL-H1 what would you do to it? Problems I see are these (not used one much but enough to see problems). Viewfinder is awful (related to the AF discussion going on here as it's needed becasue MF is nigh impossible - only sabing grace is massive depth of field because of 1/3" chips). No slomo, needs some way of getting at least 60fps. Tape rather than solid state - actually a mixed blessing! No true progressive mode, but Frame mode sort of is the same. No NDs on the body, so using 35mm stills lenses is problematic. HDV codec is hopeless, needs at the EX 35mb/sec codec. Lens controls - yuck, continually rotating focus rings etc. The EX lens controls are (for the price) excellent.
That's the list that springs to mind so far, and if all they do was rectify those things they'd get my vote.
Steve