Wired article hinting at a DSLR or a Digital Rangefinder

[Kevin]

You cannot shoot at its full resolution at full speed if you are using flash.

 

[Kevin]

Well I suppose then you could use single frame for flash pictures and video for non-flash action pictures, depending on the situation.

Event photographers, especially ones who cover weddings, need at least two cameras anyways.

 

[Kent]

All the talk about sense and possibilities aside, don't you agree that RED cams always look like a laser ... ahm, sorry... phaser gun from Star Trek?

These cams will not replace "our" kind of photography, not in the short run, that is. But they will add some great opportunities for some people. So, why not?

You see, there are plenty of excellent digital SLRs out there (and I really like my EOS cams), but still some guys - like us - love to use "old" rangefinder cams that shoot on film.
It is a different kind of photography and each one has all the right to exist. 😉

 

[jmarcus]

Actually video is shot at 29.99 fps.

 

[GrahamWelland]

A billionaire with the technology, resources and the drive to make it happen. Why not.

Jannard is the type to ignore the "it can't be done", and get it done. He doesn't have to answer to a board of directors or such to pursue a project like this.

You just have to convince him a DRF is what he wants to build.

I agree 100% - here's a guy who 'get's it' as far as imagery is concerned and has the resources to do something about it. Good luck to him. If I had a couple of billion to spend on my hobbies I'd hope that I could produce something like this.

... ah dream on ... 🙄

 

[jackal2513]

this is where its going

still content alone will soon become redundant

photographers who don't embrace this and who cant shoot and edit video well soon won't be photographers at all, they'll just be unemployed

 

[pesphoto]

This thread is giving me a headache....no offense. 🙂

 

[Kevin]

No, you're wrong there. People react differently when they are being video-taped - as opposed to being casually photographed.

The two media are really completely different. Video can ruin a good vibe if the situation doesn't call for it whereas a few well-timed snapshots won't stand between you and an authentic event.

this is where its going

still content alone will soon become redundant

photographers who don't embrace this and who cant shoot and edit video well soon won't be photographers at all, they'll just be unemployed

 

[jackal2513]

No, you're wrong there. People react differently when they are being video-taped - as opposed to being casually photographed.

The two media are really completely different. Video can ruin a good vibe if the situation doesn't call for it whereas a few well-timed snapshots won't stand between you and an authentic event.

you're talking about street photography right ?


I am talking about real photography that people get paid for

sports, news, cars, reportage, travel, the olympics etc..

clients are already asking for it

in many areas, video content is often just as important and stills

and the idea of paying one person to go out and get the stills and another person to get the video (when a single person can get BOTH for less money) will at some point become a bit preposterous

 

[willie_901]

this is where its going

still content alone will soon become redundant

photographers who don't embrace this and who cant shoot and edit video well soon won't be photographers at all, they'll just be unemployed

I agree that there is a major shift towards video. At the same time, the internet infrastructure and most viewers computer platforms are not ready for 90% video viewing. Eventually magazines and newspapers will be rare. Eventually the majority visual web content will be video. So, I would change the "soon" in your statement to "eventually".

 

[jackal2513]

I agree that there is a major shift towards video. At the same time, the internet infrastructure and most viewers computer platforms are not ready for 90% video viewing. Eventually magazines and newspapers will be rare. Eventually the majority visual web content will be video. So, I would change the "soon" in your statement to "eventually".

oh but i'm not saying that stills will die and be replaced

the two will happily coexist


i'm just saying that killing 2 birds with one stone will become the norm as the technology can cope

the Red epics of this world can already produce decent 4 or 5k stills... certainly more than enough resolution for most news work. A sony XDcam can produce decent 2k files.

how long before the EOS 1ds mk X can do the same..

everything is driven by cost and ultimately if a photographer can go out and deliver video AND pictures for not much more money, then he'll be the one who'll get hired