The Red DMSC System

[termina3]

And I would argue the middle-ground.

Some types of photography demand a certain level of equipment, and photographers greatly benefit from even better equipment. Take, for example, sports photography. Trying to shoot in that poorly lit high school gym with a D40 and kit lens? Forget it. You need at least some lighting, if not a D300 or D3 and fast glass. The best shots in SI come from photogs with thousands upon thousands in arena lighting above them.

But on the other hand, you have the artistic photography (that's been mentioned). There's even an argument that certain effects can be only achieved with crappy equipment (effects like... "hey, I'm using crappy equipment!" -jk-). I love my pinhole photos, and know that I'd be hard-pressed to create a similar effect with my D300.

The mistake is when photographers think that they "need" better equipment when in reality they don't. In economic terms, if you aren't getting any shots you were missing before you upgraded (or saving a considerable amount of time), then it was a bad "upgrade."

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

I would probably argue the opposite. I mean that with my 40D & L glass I can get some tremendous shots if I know what I'm doing with it artistically and technically, but take someone with real talent and a Brownie and their shots would make mine look like the crap they generally are.

I was always taught that the three most important components of a photograph were, in order, what's behind the body, what's in front of the body, and the body. Obviously, given equal skill, better equipment provides the means to a better shot, but skill levels are rarely equal, while equipment can be a easily fixed-in-place comparison.

I do agree though, that the best equipment available is preferable. I would rather have my gear being better than me, than the other way around. In my case, that's likely going to be the case for a long while.

Were talking about 2 different things. Your talking about artistic talent and I am talking about photographic quality. I agree 1000% with what your saying. Someone can have the most expensive gear in the world and if they dont have a good eye will shoot crap pictures while people with a lot of talent can make great pictures from pinhole cameras. again that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about overall quality of the picture. A sigma lens cannot create a sharper image than a L series Canon lens no matter how talented the photographer is shooting the pictures. 35mm will never be sharper than 4x5 no matter who is shooting the picture. Its the difference between artistic talent and image quality.

In certain aspects of my photography I am always striving for higher image quality while in other aspects of my shooting I am purposely degrading the image quality. For instance I am constantly looking for old view camera lenses that give a unique yet flawed image quality yet at the same time I buy Schnieder XL lenses. It all depends on what I am shooting.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I am betting the handle and lens mount will be cheaper than that. IMO they are going to want to keep the price of those items down as that will get more people to buy into the system. If they price those essential add ons low then they can actually keep the price of the camera Competitive with the top of the line camera's by Nikon and Canon. Price them too high and you lose that edge and from what I have heard, going after some of the top end 35 mm users is something they are very interested in. Again you price those essentials too high and you lose a lot of them. Those might also be MSRP's which means that we might be able to find prices like 10-15% cheaper.

Again I am well aware that its going to be a bit more expensive but that is not really an issue if its just 1 or 2 grand. If it starts getting to be 3-5 grand then that can be an issue as I have a lot of other equipment to pay off over the next 3-4 years.

As for your last statement, I am looking at this as a replacement for my 35mm however as I have stated I have always wanted a professional level video recorder and would be more than willing to pay a bit more to get that ability especially since that is the direction all professional SLR's seem to be going.

One thing you seem to be overlooking is the actual quality of the sensor and not just the size. From my understanding the Mysterium-X and the Mysterium Monstro are significantly more advanced than the single plate CMOS sensor in the Mark II. Until it gets released and tests are able to be conducted we wont know the extent of it but I am betting it has better DR and a lot more pixels.

The bottom line for me is price, functionality and quality. I have no problem paying a bit more for something if its worth it. This is of course if these camera's live up to their hype. If that is the case then I have a hard time spending 6500 for a Mark II when I can a little bit more and get a Red one system. The advantages of the system are worth the price imo. The question is do you go for the S35 of the FF35? Thats a tough one.

I am not overlooking the quality of the Mysterium. I have seen the RAW footage from the RED One and know that it will be a performer. The Scarlets, however, are a moot point for me since I haven't seen the images from them just yet and can make a better "it's worth it" statement once that time comes.

But as I said, if you are adding greater than 2k capture to your repertoire along with still then the Scarlet system may be for you. I am considering if for that sole reason, being a freelancer for HD production and stills I would love to have a camera system that is interchangeable between the two.

Along with that though I won't cut myself short by getting the S35, it'll be the FF35 or nothing at all. The FF35 being the one body I can use with my Nikkor glass.

Just make sure you aren't getting it for "I have the money" sake. Research and make sure you are spending the cash on the gear you need, and not the gear you just want. And make sure the income from your business can keep up with such a high end system. All systems have overhead and from the news of the RED gear it can be quite high regardless of quality.

 

[FX120]

Someone has been drinking WAY too much RED Kool-Aid...

First off, the latest pro-body full-frame DSLR from Canon is the 1Ds Mark III, not the Mark II as you have said time and time again in your posts. Even this body is over a year old now, and both Nikon and Canon have advanced their systems further with the D3x and the 5DmkII respectivley.

Secondly, the Canon body is feature complete as it sits with a street price of $6500, meaning you can throw a lens on it and go shoot. The only comparable RED Brain that offers the full-frame 35mm sensor is the $9750 Scarlet FF35. Right there you're at a price difference of $3,250. And for your hopes of it having a lower street price, good luck, because the RED One is still thousands more than it's original MSRP. Unlike Canon and Nikon RED does not sell through the normal retail chain. And this price only gets you the sensor brain. Existing RED prices would lead me to believe that in order to get a functional body will cost at LEAST $5,000, the EFV being the most expensive part because unlike a traditional DSLR you're going to need a very presice and high resolution display which is also offers reference-quality color, it will not be less expensive than the EFV for the RED One which I believe sells for close to $3000 by itself. Either way, the RED system is MUCH more expensive than comparable systems from Canon or Nikon, less years of ergonomics advancements.

Thirdly, the technology is unproven, untested, and at this point still nothing more than rendered pictures and specs on a tackboard. No one has had a hands on with one, no one has even seen a functional camera. If the release of the RED One is anything to go on, if you buy one you'll be spending the first year of ownership with a buggy and feature-incomplete camera even if you do buy one. All of your comparisons between the proven, tested, and currently available Canon bodies are absolutley idiotic. There are no specs available yet for what is the most important part, the sensors themselves. I want to start hearing about dynamic range, noise, color rendition, antialiasing, ect. You know, the things that have an affect on how well the images produced actually look. For all we know, the FF35 won't have **** on a D3 in terms of dynamic range and noise performance, and the images from the 1Ds MkIII or 5D mkII will be more detailed because and produce more faithful colors Canon has years upon years of development into their image processors. What about metering, how does it do AF, there is no mirror assembly so all of these will have to be done by the sensor, and we all know how well that typically works. What about the flash system? Will it be even usable with the portable strobes you already own? Is there even a PC-Sync out? There are so many unknowns, and we just don't know, so in the mean time if you want to masturbate publicly over the published renderings, go join REDUser.net, you'll fit right in.

So calm down, and quit being so defensive about a camera system that isn't even out yet and is compeltley unproven. You've insulted other users in this thread for no good reason, ironically calling them ignorant when you yourself are so blinded by hype you've pretty much been defending the RED system even though there is really nothing to defend thus far.

Oh:

Unfortunately photography is an equipment based medium. You cant just buy a 10 dollar brush and make a masterpiece.

And some people throw house paint onto canvas and it sells for thousands upon thousands.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

I am not overlooking the quality of the Mysterium. I have seen the RAW footage from the RED One and know that it will be a performer. The Scarlets, however, are a moot point for me since I haven't seen the images from them just yet and can make a better "it's worth it" statement once that time comes.

But as I said, if you are adding greater than 2k capture to your repertoire along with still then the Scarlet system may be for you. I am considering if for that sole reason, being a freelancer for HD production and stills I would love to have a camera system that is interchangeable between the two.

Along with that though I won't cut myself short by getting the S35, it'll be the FF35 or nothing at all. The FF35 being the one body I can use with my Nikkor glass.

Just make sure you aren't getting it for "I have the money" sake. Research and make sure you are spending the cash on the gear you need, and not the gear you just want. And make sure the income from your business can keep up with such a high end system. All systems have overhead and from the news of the RED gear it can be quite high regardless of quality.

I have never purchased a single piece of equipment for "I have the money" sake because quite frankly I dont have the money to throw away like that. I make good money with photography but I certainly dont make enough money to make 10,000 dollar purchases for the sake of it. Not even close. The bottom line is photography is my life. Its what I do for a living, its my single favorite hobby and I probably spend at least 6-8 hours a day doing something photography related. I use everything I buy and I would definitely put one of these to use.

One of my single favorite things to photograph is storms. I go storm chasing every year and I am pretty much the only chaser I know who doesn't have video capability. As I have stated before I have always wanted a high end video camera, I just haven't purchased one because I simply cannot justify spending that kind of money on a video device when that money would be much better spent on photo gear. If you factor that into my current situation then I would be a fool not to take advantage of these systems. This is a perfect opportunity to fill a still photography requirement while getting the video ability as a bonus. Sure I am paying a bit more for it but again I dont have a problem with that because I will definitely put it to good use and its something I have wanted for a very long time.

This purchase is a lot of things, what it most definitely is not is a for the sake of it purchase and the more I think about it the more you are correct. If your going to spend the money you might as well get the FF35. You see that is why I made this thread. To discuss the system and see what people thought about it and it has already changed my mind about what model to get. In all honesty I was unaware that the S35 had a smaller sensor than the FF35 and once you filled me in on that, well I simply have to agree that the FF35 is the only way to go.

As for the quality of the sensor, you may not be overlooking it but it wasnt brought up in regards to the differences in price and in all honesty this one thing alone may make that extra money extremely worth it. While we dont have any data to go on right now, its a 2nd generation sensor so there is no doubt that its going to be a much better sensor. The question now is just how much better. So on top of everything else we have discussed you have a far more advanced sensor and that is an extremely important aspect to these cameras and their price differences and imo it certainly would justify the additional money required.

 

[Digital Skunk]

FX120 brought up a good point. Are you comparing the REDs to the Mark II or the Mark III? Just curious to know since those two bodies are worlds apart.

The sensor in the RED One is on fire, but just because the Scarlet is a Rev 2 doesn't mean it will be better than the current. It may or may not have some improvements, but as you can see in the current DSLR world that may come with some caveats. Even the D3/D300 sensors have some things to take into account with noise at certain ISOs and long exposures.

I am still going to wait and see for the IQ on the Scarlet's before I start comparing them to the D3x/1DsMkIII only because that's where the real fight is going to happen between these high end bodies. As well as the attachments which WILL cost you a pretty penny over the DSLR bodies from Nikon/Canon. Owning the Scarlets will put you well over the cost of the traditional bodies, but having greater than 2k capture will be worth it on the high end.

Now that we've established that HD and still capture are required for some photogs, I want to see what you think about putting together the video brains and still brains for the FF35. I am sure it will be possible for you to strap on the DSLR parts and shoot video, but do you have any plans for audio capture? Where you'll need XLR input.

Also, for me anyway, I really want to know about the ergo of the body. I was always a 35mm shooter, since the F5/N80/F100 days and I want to know how the REDs handle being pulled in and out of a bag, carried around crowded venues and events, and such things. I am sure it will be on the MF side in terms of size. With you chasing storms, do you think it will do well, or be unwieldily?

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

FX120 brought up a good point. Are you comparing the REDs to the Mark II or the Mark III? Just curious to know since those two bodies are worlds apart.

The sensor in the RED One is on fire, but just because the Scarlet is a Rev 2 doesn't mean it will be better than the current. It may or may not have some improvements, but as you can see in the current DSLR world that may come with some caveats. Even the D3/D300 sensors have some things to take into account with noise at certain ISOs and long exposures.

I am still going to wait and see for the IQ on the Scarlet's before I start comparing them to the D3x/1DsMkIII only because that's where the real fight is going to happen between these high end bodies. As well as the attachments which WILL cost you a pretty penny over the DSLR bodies from Nikon/Canon. Owning the Scarlets will put you well over the cost of the traditional bodies, but having greater than 2k capture will be worth it on the high end.

Now that we've established that HD and still capture are required for some photogs, I want to see what you think about putting together the video brains and still brains for the FF35. I am sure it will be possible for you to strap on the DSLR parts and shoot video, but do you have any plans for audio capture? Where you'll need XLR input.

Also, for me anyway, I really want to know about the ergo of the body. I was always a 35mm shooter, since the F5/N80/F100 days and I want to know how the REDs handle being pulled in and out of a bag, carried around crowded venues and events, and such things. I am sure it will be on the MF side in terms of size. With you chasing storms, do you think it will do well, or be unwieldily?

The Mark III. My continuing to write Mark II is just the beginning signs of old age and senility. I looked into purchasing a Mark II for a very long time so even when they upgraded to the Mark III, I still find myself writing Mark II.

As for the sensor I disagree completely. I dont buy for a second that the new sensors will not be significant more advanced. It isnt out yet so neither of us can know for sure however I just dont buy that Red would put this much hype into a sensor and base their entire new line of camera's off of it if it wasn't significantly more advanced. This will just have to be something well agree to disagree on. Personally I am expecting the sensors to be significantly improved especially in the pixel count and DR dept. So I am actually taking this into account when looking at the price difference. If I end up being wrong then so be it. Ill factor that into my thinking and my decision when that becomes a reality.

I am also waiting to see how they perform as well. I will not be 100% sure and will not place my order until they are on the market and have been put through some serious testing. I can say that I am absolutely sold on the fixed focal length model and will at the very least be getting one of those.

I understand fully that the Red add ons and accessories are going to be more expensive. I also accept that I am now going to be spending a significant amount over the canon body. I will simply put off a couple of other purchases I was going to make. It is important to note that while I have decided to buy the FF35, other people do not have to. This is still a system that starts out at 3000.00 and even if the grip and lens adapter are expensive, it will still be cheaper than the top of the line Canon and Nikons. The 2/3 size sensor is plenty of power for most people's needs including a lot of professional photographers. I just dont want this thread to lose sight of this fact.

As for my plans for the future, I really haven't given it much though beyond buying into this system. Who knows what I will be interested in a few years from now. I simply love the fact that I will be able to expand if I want to expand and that it opens up the door to video while filling a still photography requirement. Who knows maybe ill start producing professional storm chasing videos. I just know that video is something that I have wanted for a very long time and I now have the ability to buy a body that does both.

Some people have made comments in this thread regarding me drinking the Red Cool aid. Your damn right I have been drinking the Red Cool aid. This is an extremely exciting system and I openly admit that short of my recent TOYO VX23D purchase, I haven't been this excited about a new camera system in a long long long time. If you disagree then you disagree. That is your opinion and your entitled to it. My opinion is that this is an incredibly exciting system and I stand by that 100%.

They have a pictures of the body and grip over on the webpage. So unless they change it you can see exactly how its going to look. Its basically looking like its going to be like a 35mm but instead of a camera that is rounded and curved like canon and Nikon, this one is more blocky. I honestly dont see it being a problem ergonomically. I own a Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7 system and those cameras are also shaped more as a square than a rounded body and they are incredibly comfortable camera's to shoot with . Given those are rangefinders and not as big as the Red will be. Its just an example of a camera that doesn't appear to be comfortable yet is extremely comfortable to shoot with.

 

[Abraxsis]

Unfortunately photography is an equipment based medium. You cant just buy a 10 dollar brush and make a masterpiece. The guy who has the canon L lens is going to have higher quality pictures than the guy shooting with a sigma lens. Talent only gets you so far in photography. The rest of the way depends on equipment. Thats just the way it is. So imo if someone is serious about photography then again the too little sense part is buying lower quality equipment when you can save a bit more and get the higher quality gear.

Personally I disagree as well. A good photographer can capture amazing images REGARDLESS of what camera he or she is using. Knowledge and a "good eye" will get you 10x further than good equipment. It all depends on aesthetic. The most costly image sold went for 2.6 million dollars at Sotheby's (The Pond - Moonlight, if you're wondering) and it was shot on what was nothing more than a wood box and some ground glass by a person with skill and talent. You mention "higher quality pictures" ... so the question is what does that even mean? Image Quality? Clarity? Aesthetic? Good Communication of a topic? Etc etc. Where is documentation that the Canon L lens is better than the high end Sigma? Where is Nikon in your argument? Or Tamron? Etc. Good equipment is only as good as the photographer behind the eyepiece. Everyone can make amazing photos with any camera they pick up with some effort. Also, so no one gets me wrong, people who rely on technology aren't hacks like many people believe, they are simply misguided by the world we live in. Some of the best images ive taken, ones that have won awards, were captured with a 1956 Minolta TLR, or my Holga with a 35mm cassette shoehorned in there. Again dont get me wrong, I love my D80, and I could easily afford some D3x monstrosity, but I refuse to let some piece of equipment compensate for my ow shortcomings. Is that to say that if I were to quit my Art Director job tomorrow and go Pro that I wouldn't splurge on such equipment? Hardly, lol.

As for the RED system, I think it, like all Digital systems has its place in the A/V/Still world. Someone will be able to use it for day to day stuff, and some people will push it to its limits. This is the great thing about our digital age, there are always some people pushing the boundaries. If you like the Red DSMC then go for it, and shoot amazing pics with it. But me personally, while its interesting, would much rather have a years old company backing my equipment. RED is much more likely, from a financial POV, to go out of business than Nikon, Canon, or similar companies. Just something to keep in mind during this economic downturn. Cheers

EDIT: Sorry, The Pond - Moonlight is the SECOND picture with the highest auction value. 1st is Gursky's '99 cents' at 3.34 million. I just remembered that when I was proofing my rant, lol. My bad.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Personally I disagree as well. A good photographer can capture amazing images REGARDLESS of what camera he or she is using. Knowledge and a "good eye" will get you 10x further than good equipment. It all depends on aesthetic. The most costly image sold went for 2.6 million dollars at Sotheby's (The Pond - Moonlight, if you're wondering) and it was shot on what was nothing more than a wood box and some ground glass by a person with skill and talent. You mention "higher quality pictures" ... so the question is what does that even mean?
Image Quality? Clarity? Aesthetic? Good Communication of a topic? Etc etc.

What does it mean? If you had taken the time to read this thread you would have figured that out as I already cleared up this misunderstanding. I already explained that I was specifically referring to image quality. As for your auction example, who cares what a picture sold for. Since when has price ever dictated quality? By these standards Armageddon is one of the best films ever made. Sorry but the money some rich guy spent on a picture means nothing to me in regards to quality just as the money a film makes at the box office means nothing to me on that films overall quality.

Where is documentation that the Canon L lens is better than the high end Sigma? Where is Nikon in your argument? Or Tamron? Etc.

Your kidding right? Where is the documentation? Try any serious review site that does optical tests with lenses. Where is Nikon? Last I looked they were right where they have always been. Did someone misplace them? I didn't realize I had to list every lens manufacturer in the world to make a simple point. That would be pretty time consuming and ultimately would do nothing towards further explaining my point. If you want to live under the fairy tale that a Sigma lens has equal or superior optical quality than Canon L Lenses then that is certainly your right. Your still 100% wrong.

Good equipment is only as good as the photographer behind the eyepiece. Everyone can make amazing photos with any camera they pick up with some effort.

Absolutely and again if you would have properly read this thread you would have seen that I already said this, to the letter. While good equipment is only as good as the photographer, there are many situations where the photographer is only as good as his equipment or at least the pictures that that photographer makes. As for everyone being able to make amazing photo's, well just agree to disagree especially when you are referring to all genre's of photography.

Also, so no one gets me wrong, people who rely on technology aren't hacks like many people believe, they are simply misguided by the world we live in. Some of the best images ive taken, ones that have won awards, were captured with a 1956 Minolta TLR, or my Holga with a 35mm cassette shoehorned in there. Again dont get me wrong, I love my D80, and I could easily afford some D3x monstrosity, but I refuse to let some piece of equipment compensate for my ow shortcomings. Is that to say that if I were to quit my Art Director job tomorrow and go Pro that I wouldn't splurge on such equipment? Hardly, lol.

Why are people misguided if they rely on technology? I rely on technology every single day even with my photography. Thats the nature of the beast. You dont think Ansel adams was relying on technology? A Holga is still a piece of technology. It has a lens and a shutter mechanism. Dont get me wrong I think a lot of photographers today rely to much on their camera and not enough on their own skill but to make a blanket statement like that especially when referencing photography, well it just doesn't make any sense.

No matter what we do, Photography is an equipment based medium. Try and get a job shooting Apple products with a pinhole camera and see how far that gets you. Try shooting for ford with a Holga and see how far that gets you. Try shooting Architecture for any serious architectural firm with even a 35mm camera and see how far that gets you. Try shooting underwater with a holga or a pinhole camera and try getting that picture on the cover of Skin Diver. Try shooting medical pictures with those cameras and see how long you keep your job. Sorry but Photography as a medium is technology dependent and there are some genre' in photography that are extremely dependent on technology and the quality of your equipment and to suggest otherwise is simply being 100% unrealistic.

As for the RED system, I think it, like all Digital systems has its place in the A/V/Still world. Someone will be able to use it for day to day stuff, and some people will push it to its limits. This is the great thing about our digital age, there are always some people pushing the boundaries. If you like the Red DSMC then go for it, and shoot amazing pics with it. But me personally, while its interesting, would much rather have a years old company backing my equipment. RED is much more likely, from a financial POV, to go out of business than Nikon, Canon, or similar companies. Just something to keep in mind during this economic downturn. Cheers

Red isnt going anywhere. They have only been selling camera's for a little over a year and they already have a solid foothold in the filmmaking industry. Now in their 2nd year they are releasing a whole new line that puts them in the still photography market as well. Nobody can predict the future however Red going under isnt even a slight concern for me and I am not looking at that at all in regards to making my decision on whether to buy or not. If anything I see the exact opposite happening and I see Red becoming one of the big players in the camera market especially considering the fact that they are now making cameras that technically have no equal. They are vastly superior to everything else on the market. I may be wrong, only time will tell. Either way its not something I am worried about.

 

[NightGeometry]

I'd have thought their cash backing and ability to sell video cameras would probably keep them going, if nothing else.

However, as far as stills cameras go, I imagine they'll have a far harder time of it. The incumbents in video were just unable to match what they have (even if their cameras can be a bit temperamental...) For video they are stupidly cheap, comparatively, for the market they are in. Still cameras on the other hand are not nearly as expensive, and by the time you add the mounts and various bits and pieces to make a still camera, they just don't seem to compare.

As per a previous poster, if you need good stills and good video, then this could be a great market to be in. And by the sound of it journalist photog's are being expected to start being able to provide video, so who knows...

 

[FX120]

If anything I see the exact opposite happening and I see Red becoming one of the big players in the camera market especially considering the fact that they are now making cameras that technically have no equal. They are vastly superior to everything else on the market.

Wow.

 

[tri3limited]

Please could everyone saying that REd is the best thing since sliced bread please read the latest online magazine (it's free) from CreativeCow.net who do a decent spread review about 2k etc which mentions some of the technically behind RED and why it's not actually as good as top of the range CineAlta in terms of pixels and colour replication.

It's a really good read and in no way disses the RED cameras but puts alot of misconceptions right.

My personal opinion is that whilst there have been some great technical achievements made, the market is still too new. I do like the idea of adding digital effects to "56k" video (the magazine explains the "").

Very expensive regardless of the model though, unless you have some crazy bits of glass and some outsides of the brain.

EDIT: I do realise I'm talking alot of video here but it's still valid for the most part... I definitely feel there is alot of misunderstanding about the achievements RED have made not to mention people ignoring competitors with superior products doing similar things, if not quite "56k" they're still achieving better colour replication that fully utilises lenses.

 

[ChrisA]

I would probably argue the opposite. I mean that with my 40D & L glass I can get some tremendous shots if I know what I'm doing with it artistically and technically, but take someone with real talent and a Brownie and their shots would make mine look like the crap they generally are.

I have some great photos that were taken with a Holga. No I didn't take the shots they were done by a friend who was along on a weekend trip.

And then for more examples look at any of the older "masters" and know what camera were available back then, None had auto focus or even built-in light meters or zoom lenses.

It's all to common to fall into the trap where you think "If only I had a better lens,..." The way out of that is to go out and shoot with just one lens and learn to "pass" on the shots that don't work well with that lens. You will get just as many good shots per day by selecting only the shots your equipment can do well as if you were to haul a ton of gear with you. You will get different shots but no more good ones

If you are willing to let your equipment dictate the genre then a Holga will do good work. This is what makes being an amateur fun. A pro can't work that way he has to shoot what his client pays him to shoot in a style that will please the client.

 

[rroback]

This thread is a bit out of control, but I feel like I've got to jump in a for a little. I'm primarily a photography, for a hobby, but run a photo business that helps pay my way through school, so I consider myself pretty decent at what I do, and certainly competent enough with my gear. I've got a little video experience ( used version 1.0 of premiere waaay back), and I've been looking to get into video, so I bought a sony fx1, and have had a sony hc1 for a while, and my canon gear is a 5d, 5d mk2, and various L and non L glass.

I contemplated a lot switching to red, but there's a few big issues. Canon is proven. I wasn't the first to buy the 5d ( or mk2), but I made sure there were tons of samples for me to scrutinize, and then I looked at pros/cons ( res, high iso performance/noise, ergonomics, sensor cleaning, movie mode, cost for batteries, etc).

In order for me to upgrade from the 5d ( before I bought the mk2), I wanted FF ( I'll never go down..), similar or high resolution, movies, possibly highier DR, and good high iso stuff. Red seemed to promise this, but the price was ~8000, for the body. I definitely would need an EOS lense adapter ( $50, yah right, but just for giggles) battery, charger ( comes with... hmmm.. sure...) some sort of viewfinder/lcd ( $75 hahahaha).

With that in mind, we're at a minimum of 8125, but those numbers were obviously way low. Lets say ~10,000, and the product isn't proven. It might be great, I hope it is, but you can't argue with not proven. It is not proven. Let's repeat. it is not proven. Red is a new company, that looks to have great products, but CAD renderings feel way different then holding an actual camera in my hands.

 

[Lovesong]

Sorry... this thread is ridiculous. Am I the only one that thinks the OP is Jim Jannard?

 

[FX120]

Sorry... this thread is ridiculous. Am I the only one that thinks the OP is Jim Jannard?

Naw, Jim isn't that retarded.

RED's "uber super duper mega high tech sensors" haven't even had white papers released, let alone demonstrated, and I for one seriously doubt that they will have anything to offer against a Nikon or Canon sensor of the same size.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

Wow.

Ill tell you what, you find me another camera that is offering 6k-28k quality and ill take that statement back. The bottom line is you will have a hard time finding anything above 4-5k. as I stated they are simply making cameras that have no competition.

As for your name calling and your insensitivity to mentally handicapped people, well that in itself speaks worlds about just what kind of person I am talking too.

 

[OreoCookie]

Naw, Jim isn't that retarded.

RED's "uber super duper mega high tech sensors" haven't even had white papers released, let alone demonstrated, and I for one seriously doubt that they will have anything to offer against a Nikon or Canon sensor of the same size.

RED knows full-well what they are doing. My cousin, a pro photographer and producer of car commercials has worked with them* a while ago. (It was quite early when their first product was still in beta, so he said the camera was a bit buggy. Very good price-performance, though, he said.) It's a real company that does pro equipment, so I doubt they'd release a product that can't hold a candle against offerings from the competition.
Their products aren't vapor ware, they are in use by professionals -- and judging from their apparent success, they're doing a good job. (I'm talking about existing products here.)


I'm not sure why you're all bashing away at the OP for considering to switch away from the holy brands Canon and Nikon to a company that hasn't made a dent into the (professional) dslr market yet. Do you have that much at stake here, personally? In the worst case, the OP is wasting his money.


* I mean not with the company, but with their products.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

RED knows full-well what they are doing. My cousin, a pro photographer and producer of car commercials has worked with them a while ago. (It was quite early when their first product was still in beta, so he said the camera was a bit buggy. Very good price-performance, though, he said.) It's a real company that does pro equipment, so I doubt they'd release a product that can't hold a candle against offerings from the competition.
Their products aren't vapor ware, they are in use by professionals -- and judging from their apparent success, they're doing a good job. (I'm talking about existing products here.)


I'm not sure why you're all bashing away at the OP for considering to switch away from the holy brands Canon and Nikon to a company that hasn't made a dent into the (professional) dslr market yet. Do you have that much at stake here, personally? In the worst case, the OP is wasting his money.

A very logical and sensible post.

While I fully agree with the idea that we need to wait and see just how good their new line of camera are before getting too excited or giving them to much credit, to blow them off like they are vaporware, like some have clearly done in this thread, simply doesn't make any sense. The people behind this company do know what they are doing and they have been successful this far. Hell I have been shooting with Canon for over 15 years so I dont take switching lightly however I have no problem admitting my excitement for this new line of cameras and given the specs I really dont understand how someone can not be excited. At the very least these things are going to make some BAD A*S films that many of us will be dying to go see.

 

[MacNoobie]

You can interpret my post however you want to. As for what I know about the camera. I know just what the promo material on the website tells me which anyone in here could read in about 2 minutes flat. As for the rest of your post, time to take a look in the mirror.

Just another totally inaccurate and utterly ridiculous post. You make a post about Red and the idiots come out of the woodwork.

I only call it as I see it sir so if you don't want other "idiots" that "cannot afford" either of these bodies then don't come into macrumors and post, simple as that take it to dpreview.com.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

I only call it as I see it sir so if you don't want other "idiots" that "cannot afford" either of these bodies then don't come into macrumors and post, simple as that take it to dpreview.com.

LOL, What? Coming from the guy who has a Mark II & 3 Canon L Lenses. Sure thing buddy. Forgive me, I didnt realize there was a price limit in regards to posting about equipment. I guess you better head over to the Canon 400MM L lens thread and start attacking that guy next and considering some of the Red camera's in the line I have been dicussing are below 3500, well if these are off limits then so are just about every other piece of high end gear. In fact when looking at the world of digital equipment these Red camera dont even begin to compare price wise with some of the Hasselblad and sinar offerings. I guess those are off limits in here too huh? I guess we should just change this forum to the No-High end gear forum.

Sorry, I just call em like I see em as well and this was just another ridiculous post.

 

[ChrisA]

Secondly, the Canon body is feature complete as it sits with a street price of $6500, meaning you can throw a lens on it and go shoot. The only comparable RED Brain that offers the full-frame 35mm sensor is the $9750 Scarlet FF35. Right there you're at a price difference of $3,250. And for your hopes of it having a lower street price, good luck, because the RED One is still thousands more than it's original MSRP. Unlike Canon and Nikon RED does not sell through the normal retail chain. And this price only gets you the sensor brain. Existing RED prices would lead me to believe that in order to get a functional body will cost at LEAST $5,000, the EFV being the most expensive part because unlike a traditional DSLR you're going to need a very presice and high resolution display which is also offers reference-quality color, it will not be less expensive than the EFV for the RED One which I believe sells for close to $3000 by itself. Either way, the RED system is MUCH more expensive than comparable systems from Canon or Nikon, less years of ergonomics advancements.

This was exactly my point above. If you only need still images and you have the money to afford a RED camera then you will get a much better quality result if you gave the money to Hasselblad or Mamiya. Both of these companies allow you to upgrade sensors too.

 

[jaseone]

This thread reminds me of the old my camera has more megapixels than yours so takes higher quality pictures arguments....

Show me a sensor that can do HDR on a single exposure and then I'll get excited!

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

This was exactly my point above. If you only need still images and you have the money to afford a RED camera then you will get a much better quality result if you gave the money to Hasselblad or Mamiya. Both of these companies allow you to upgrade sensors too.

First I already own a a Leaf digital back so why would I buy another one from Hasselblad or Mamiya. 2nd, Hassleblad backs make these Red cameras seem ridiculously cheap by comparison. 3rd, I have already stated that the video is one of the main reasons why I am doing this so I am not just interested in still images.

This purchase is taking place of my 35mm camera purchase. This isnt about medium format or large format, its about my handheld 35mm format. I already have all my lenses so its either going to be a Canon or a Red. Nothing else is even an option.

 

[GotMyOrangeCrus]

This thread reminds me of the old my camera has more megapixels than yours so takes higher quality pictures arguments....

Show me a sensor that can do HDR on a single exposure and then I'll get excited!

Thats funny because a camera with more megapixels does take higher quality pictures than one with less megapixels. It doesn't take better pictures but it does take higher quality pictures.