That was my point... Then again its simply my opinion. The point of online forums is not to bash other individual's views.
By this logic, the only successful cameras will be the cheapest ones and there is no market for more expensive cameras. Scarlet will "compete" by being good value for money, by being better than its competition. It doesn't necessarily have to win just by being the cheaper option. It's competition isn't necessarily the AF100, or the Canon 5D, or whatever. The market is big enough to support a range of cameras, features, and price points so it's silly to say that a camera will fail unless it beats all other cameras on price. That's like saying there is no market for a $10,000 camera or a $50,000 camera for that matter.
There are other ways to measure a camera's success than sales volume. Profitability for one thing, dominance within an industry may be another.
If the image quality of Scarlet is dramatically superior than the AF100, I don't think it would be unreasonable for it to cost more and for some people to be willing to spend the money for that quality. Sales volume may be lower, but that doesn't mean that the camera won't be a success. After all, consumer gear in general has a higher sales volume than pro gear.
A complicating aspect in comparing Scarlet to its competion is 3K RAW. The flexability (and complication) UHD RAW provides in post is part of the Scarlet package.
It may come down to which you value more, thin DoF and WYSIWYG colors or wide lattitude for image grading and resizing in post?
Red isn't only a camera, it's also a different way of working with moving images.
There haven´t been really positive news for a customer since 2 years. People do loose patience and believe. Just announce double the price you expect it to cost and add 5 times the development time you expect it to be and you will have much more positive news for people ;)
Also its the internet don´t ever ever take things personally. People bitch and moan its a good way for some to get frustrations out.
Also this "teaser" post was in my opinion a tiny bit misplaced with nothing to go on for your potential customers - so its a lot of wild guessing and speculation and people are expecting the worse - its human nature.
As others mentioned, the raw codec, the dynamic range (hello HDRx), the whole RED platform, 120-150fps (hope that's still in), and the resolution. At 1080p the AF100 supposedly can produce ~800 resolution lines, but I think the images are way too soft. Even using this same 74% bayer ratio with the scarlet would provide 1200 resolution lines. A better comparison to competition would be the EX1, but scarlet blows that away too.
Any one of those features would warrant a far greater price than the DLSRs or the EX1/3, but we get all of them for a nominal price.
Scarlet 2/3" was not made to compete with AF100. If anything, it was the AF100 that was made to compete with Scarlet 2/3".
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|