Dsmc..

[Sanook]

Is the sensor really the same 2/3" sensor from the Scarlet? Or (hopefully) it is at least APS-C sized...FF better still.

[Justin A. Lincoln]

I should not have used the the word "luck" in my original post. So, to a degree, I kinda agree with what supernovafilms typed and see where you're coming form. In fact, luck is actually the wrong word entirely. I should've used a new phrase, ready...photography by omni-inclusion. However, I hardly think luck was the old way. Though luck has a hand in everything, if you're a photographer relying on luck, you're not a photographer. Though there have been legit and compelling arguments for shooting "video" to get your stills, I'll argue that the soul of non-staged (event, sports) photography is the ability to be one with situation, and I believe, not to have to rely on grabbing a frame from a stream of photographs. I'm not suggesting that you take one picture and go home.

Here's my point...while the omni-inclusion approach has it's role, if you are relying on your stream of stills to capture your best photograph, then yes, I think there something less "legitimate" about the still, or maybe, it's just less romantic. To be more precise...of course you're going to capture that most excellent still when you're capturing everything.

[Jun-Dai]

I agree, and I think the concept of a single handheld professional imaging device is inevitable, but I worry about the implications for the photographer/artist. But there is no doubt in my mind that even more of the creativity of the artist will shift from the camera to the computer. And sometimes to the editor/art director. We will be required to spend vastly greater amount of time just finding these moments (I'm already doing it with the 9fps of the D3). This is neither good nor bad but does add complexity to the job, possibly at the cost of creative control. It will require those of us who have to use the tools to learn when the DSMC should be used in single shot or SAW mode.

So I was thinking about that. What if there was a feature allowing you to capture up to 30 seconds of footage into a buffer, and then scroll quickly through the buffer selecting the photos you wanted to save? This would obviously be a bit limiting if this was the only way the camera worked, but as a feature I can think of many places where this would be useful: all the benefits of being able to capture the right moment, but without the hassle of sorting through all the photos later and deleting most of them.

Or with a similar level of effort on the user's part, it seems like an obvious feature to allow you to look through the clips on your computer later with a program specifically designed for making it easy to select the RAW (or auto-processed JPGs if you prefer) stills you want out of the footage.

[BobSimon]

hehe... Bob. You are too funny. You are comparing Scarlet (a motion camera that shoots 3K) to a DSLR that shoots stills. Two different animals. Why not compare Scarlet to a Varicam or HDCAM and the Canon to the Nikon or Sony? BTW, have you actually held a Scarlet?

No one has seen our DSMC. When we post it, you can compare it to whatever you want... even though nothing will compare in performance.
Jim

I meant to say, if the DSMC look like that picture, I will not buy it. Because it is too bulky for a DSLR. I am used to the body of nikons and Canons. I think they are very ergonomic. They fit in my plam very well. That is what I meant.

I am in the waiting list for both D90 and 5D Mark II.
I am not fanatic about any brand. If DSMC is small like the D90 and has better features, I will buy DSMC too.
Sony DSLRs are bulkier than Canons in my opinion.
(Next, I would like to look at the new 3/4 form factor cameras.)

[Peter Majtan]

Bob, unless You have never owned a DSLR and are buying complete package of body with lenses (in which case it contradicts Your "being used to") - I know of very few people who would use professionally both brands. This is simply due to the fact that it is not the body (that every professional ends up changing every couple of years or so), but the lenses that You have invested in, that determine Your brand preference. I am a long fan, user and developer of Canon gear. I have nothing against Nikon and I am sure it is as good as Canon - any preference between the two is personal and in my experience based on one's investment into the respective glass...

I just don't understand how can You be in a wait-list for both the Nikon and the Canon and "decide" to buy which ever "comes first", no offense...

Having tested the 50D for about a month now and am actually deciding between the 50D and 5Dm2, the 50D is that good...

DSMC (when it comes out) will hopefully address our investment in glass, and if it does - I am sold. This would make the 50D or the 5Dm2 the last DSLR I will buy... :)

Again - I mean no offense, I just don't understand how can You be wait-listed for both the Nikon and the Canon, unless You are buying Your first package with lenses, which would contradict Your other statements...

I don't see Scarlet being any "bulkier" then my current DSLR's, at least not in any significant way. It looks really ergonomic to me. But maybe this could be attributed to my 6'4" hight (meaning I have a large hands...) :)

Peace... :red_bandana:

[David Rasberry]

Hopefully it will withstand being dropped without killing it. My wife dropped her Nikon D40 once and it was toast.

[BobSimon]

I just don't understand how can You be in a wait-list for both the Nikon and the Canon and "decide" to buy which ever "comes first", no offense...:

My interest in D90 and Canon MKII is the video feature. Either one would be enough, for limited video use. Both are good for basic still photography. These are the perfect dual purpose cameras, to date.

Hopefully DSMC would be more compact with better features and cheaper.

[Kellan O'Connor]

Jim,
Will this be more a tool for the cinematographer in me, or the photographer? Both are excited, and both are ready for whatever you've got, but are both going to be satisfied?
thanks
kellan
(first post)

[Jason Ing]

if you're a photographer relying on luck, you're not a photographer.

Carl, I get what you're saying. I guess you're really leaning on the word "relying". I guess if that's the only thing that creates a picture, then like anyone who went to Las Vegas will tell you, your luck will run out and so you probably couldn't make a profession out of photography.

But I do consider serendipity, happy happenstance, the fortuitous moment, as "part" of the creative process.

But preferring or wanting the option of having a series of images to choose from isn't an indication of lack of ability or craftsmanship, etc. It also could mean that the photographer has a discerning eye and subtle, discriminating tastes and wants to select only the best among the very best. For instance, when I setup a shot with a model/actress, I'll direct them like a scene, knowing that there will be a moment (not a split second), but still, a relatively brief moment in time that everything will come together and I'll need to press the shutter.

Have I got that "shot" with just one press? Yes. When you're a college student and could only afford ONE roll of film... LOL... you get very good at timing it right to make sure that one of those 36 shots is gold. I considered it a good shoot if I got 2-3 winners out of a roll. One was enough. But when I could afford more film, and I could actually go from single shot to high speed, I got more "winners".

I don't know if you ever tried shooting a series of images, but looking from milli-second frame by milli-second frame, there really is a huge difference if your tastes are discriminating (I don't mean that to be a knock on you... okay... maybe just a little upside your head playing... heh-heh.). So in those few seconds that I "choose" to hit the button, there will be a series of great shots... but one of them will be "fantastic" and more of a winner then the other winners. The flying hair will be just right, the furrowed brow just so, and the eyes... perfect.

Maybe the DSMC will change you. ;)

Just my 2 cents.

[twelve17]

I'll argue that the soul of non-staged (event, sports) photography is the ability to be one with situation, and I believe, not to have to rely on grabbing a frame from a stream of photographs. I'm not suggesting that you take one picture and go home.

These two sentences seem contradictory to me. You are arguing that the photographer not rely on a stream of photos, which to me implies that they instead rely on their "talent" to foresee the "right" time, yet you also deny suggesting that they take one picture and go home, which to me implies that they need to make multiple attempts to get the "right" frame. So does the photographer have this "talent" or not? Where does the threshold live, where one is applying the romanticized act of "knowing" about this magic moment, and not?

Here's my point...while the omni-inclusion approach has it's role, if you are relying on your stream of stills to capture your best photograph, then yes, I think there something less "legitimate" about the still, or maybe, it's just less romantic. To be more precise...of course you're going to capture that most excellent still when you're capturing everything.

I think that this argument is too narrow. If you, as a photographer, are using the metric of time as the only basis to get the right shot, then you are not thinking about composition, lighting, etc; you are not anticipating movements or reading body language.

In my opinion, a photographer's goal to get the "right" shot at the "right" moment involves being able to anticipate it, placing the camera at the appropriate angle, composing the shot, focus where desired, and then press the shutter. The stream approach only eliminates the last step. The ability to properly perform the previous steps will be the what that separate shots that catch the moment and those that do not, scenarios of dumb luck excluded.

I will concede that it's much less romantic to see a great sporting shot on a newspaper if it wasn't due to the split second intersection of when it happened and when the photographer pressed the shutter button. But this notion has been deteriorating for a while now because that limitation has been disappearing.

You can think of it as "less people will get the right shot by shooting at the right time", or "maybe we'll see many more 'right' shots that would have been missed by the 'single shutter action' approach".