Will the DSMC still camera compete with cameras such as the Nikon D3X ?

[doondoon]

Sorry if this has been covered before... and yes I know the DSMC isn't even out yet so it is speculative.

Perhaps more directly from those at RED working on the DSMC. My question is (regarding still images) will RED be targeting professional photographers as well as professional cinematographers? Or will the still photos from DSMC be more of a "hybrid" function (similar to video on a Canon 5DMK II).

thank you.

 

[bobaandy]

I believe the goal is to make a product that satisfys both professional photographers and cinematographers. That can be used either way, or both.

 

[doondoon]

I believe the goal is to make a product that satisfys both professional photographers and cinematographers. That can be used either way, or both.

So if they want to compete or better the current "king" of dynamic range and resolution (in the DSLR world) then I guess we can assume the DSMC will deliver 24 megapixels and at base ISO just over 13 stops of dynamic range.

 

[Scott Watts]

So when do we get a real DSLR killer?

 

[Jannard]

So if they want to compete or better the current "king" of dynamic range and resolution (in the DSLR world) then I guess we can assume the DSMC will deliver 24 megapixels and at base ISO just over 13 stops of dynamic range.

That just happens to be the spec of FF35 Monstro. Only at 100fps instead of single digit.

Jim

 

[Christian Edwards]

Bring on Red Digital Negatives :thumbsup:

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I can't wait to build a medium format still portfolio with the 645!

Give me my 65 mega pixels!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

That just happens to be the spec of FF35 Monstro. Only at 100fps instead of single digit.

Jim

If it squints and concentrates really hard can it improve those stats for a still frame?

 

[doondoon]

That just happens to be the spec of FF35 Monstro. Only at 100fps instead of single digit.

Jim

that's crazy.

 

[Lee Saxon]

That just happens to be the spec of FF35 Monstro. Only at 100fps instead of single digit.

Jim

Absolutely for people who are interested in stills & video.

But I think this thread is specifically about the camera's attractiveness to stills-only photographers.

The stills photography community is full of people who are furious that the FF35 24mp D3x (at $8000) costs $3000 more than the DX (~S35) 12mp D3 because the actual production cost difference between the two sensors is apparently much less than that. They also expect their camera to come with a viewfinder, a card reader (or two, in the case of the D3x), an LCD, a battery, a battery charger and a neck strap. Are they going to buy a $33000 camera that doesn't even come with a battery?

The stills photography community is full of people who handhold their cameras, sometimes for hours at a time, and place a very high value on ergonomics. And even with the well-padded and carefully-shaped grips of the D3 many are buying the D700 instead because the D3 is too big and heavy for them. Are they going to buy a hard ribbed metal cube that, once you stick battery, card reader and whatever other modules on back is going to be awkwardly shaped for handholding as well as larger and (I'd imagine) heavier than a D3?

The stills photography community is used to having electronic interfacing, apterture control, and autofocus with any lens that comes in a mount for their camera, whether they can afford an $1800 Nikon, a $700 Sigma, or a $11 Tamron (yes I know the 'Zeiss' - by which I mean Cosina - ZFs are an exception). Are they going to buy a camera that only autofocuses with the Red Electronic FF35 lenses whose prices I must imagine will be higher than I can count?

I don't mean to be a jerk, Jim. I think you make the greatest cine/video camera on the planet. I just don't think it doubles as a still camera as ably as everyone thinks.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think it depends on how much you want to shoot motion vs stills. DSMC will be heavier, but it can be ergonomically configured like a DSLR. I wouldn't necessarily want a 6lb still camera hanging around my neck all day either.
I still think of these as motion picture cameras primarily, but there will certainly not be any compromise in image quality for stills. Any frame from a motion sequence will still be a full RAW frame. I wonder if the stills only mode for RED will be an uncompressed RAW format.
I have handheld 15lb+ ENG Betacams for hours at a time too, but the ergonomics for that scenario are very different than a DSLR still camera.
Maybe the aftermarket lens MFG's will eventually make lenses that conform to RED electronic control protocols just as they do for Canon, Nikon, and others.
With RED you are paying a premium in cost, size and weight to support RAW motion capability. If you don't need high speed RAW motion frame rates, meaning faster than about 5 or 6 fps, you don't need the camera.

 

[Tom Lowe]

One area that will be tough for Red is ISO sensitivity. The big boys like Canon and Nikon are making huge strides on ISO ratings -- huge leaps in fact.

 

[Michael Totten]

One area that will be tough for Red is ISO sensitivity. The big boys like Canon and Nikon are making huge strides on ISO ratings -- huge leaps in fact.

That and Nikon's unbelievably fast 51 point autofocus that can practically see in the dark.

 

[Lee Saxon]

That and Nikon's unbelievably fast 51 point autofocus that can practically see in the dark.

Ya know, I actually liked the 12-point spread across the whole frame system of the D2 generation more than the 51-points-all-in-the-middle-of-the-frame-so-why-not-just-have-one system of the D3 generation. The new one is faster though. And the D2 generation multi-point groupings mode sucked HARD.

 

[David Rasberry]

I wouldn't count RED out on the ISO issue. The same new gen chip fab processes that are contributing to the lower noise floor of Canon 5DII are available to RED too.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I wouldn't count RED out on the ISO issue. The same new gen chip fab processes that are contributing to the lower noise floor of Canon 5DII are available to RED too.

are they? i don't know much about that, but i thought Canon's strides in ISO performance were mainly based in the CMOS sensors themselves - hardware noise reduction at the photosite level? in other words, that Canon has proprietary manufacturing breakthroughs in noise reduction, coupled with software breakthroughs. would these really be available to Red?

i don't know if that's true, though. the D3X is rumored to use the same CMOS chip as the Sony FF35, but the Sony has utterly disgraceful ISO performance. who knows.

 

[doondoon]

are they? i don't know much about that, but i thought Canon's strides in ISO performance were mainly based in the CMOS sensors themselves - hardware noise reduction at the photosite level? in other words, that Canon has proprietary manufacturing breakthroughs in noise reduction, coupled with software breakthroughs. would these really be available to Red?

i don't know if that's true, though. the D3X is rumored to use the same CMOS chip as the Sony FF35, but the Sony has utterly disgraceful ISO performance. who knows.

Where did you hear that the Sony FF35 uses the same sensor as the D3X? That sounds just weird enough to be true.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Where did you hear that the Sony FF35 uses the same sensor as the D3X? That sounds just weird enough to be true.

Sony manufactures the D3x sensor. It's based heavily around the sensor Sony designed for the A900, even using the same die, but supposedly features significant Nikon-designed modifications. What they are I have no idea.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sony manufactures the D3x sensor. It's based heavily around the sensor Sony designed for the A900, even using the same die, but supposedly features significant Nikon-designed modifications. What they are I have no idea.

I'm guessing noise reduction! The D3X has excellent noise reduction, but the A900 is a complete disgrace in terms of noise.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I'm guessing noise reduction! The D3X has excellent noise reduction, but the A900 is a complete disgrace in terms of noise.

No, beyond the obvious that if you made photosites larger (which they didn't do) they collect more light and you get less noise, noise reduction is all done in software/processing. Changes would be to things such as the type of microlenses going over the photosites, the type of anti-aliasing filter going over the sensor, etc.

I wouldn't count RED out on the ISO issue. The same new gen chip fab processes that are contributing to the lower noise floor of Canon 5DII are available to RED too.

It's not that I doubt the Red COULD do high ISO, it's that I wonder if they WILL. At least on this board it seems like people consider ISO320 or so on the Red One so noisy it's unusable. To sports/news guys like me who have to shoot their DSLRs at ISO1600 or higher quite a bit, ISO320 Red One clips appear to have NO noise. So will Red bother enabling the quality-compromised super high ISOs like 1600-3200 that guys like me would use when the cine community is hyper-sensitive to noise problems and wouldn't go above ISO320?