Considering video/still convergence and Sony’s NEX-VG10 interchangeable lens camcorder

Back in May I wrote about the vexing mix of features in Sony’s new NEX interchangeable lens digital cameras. While visiting a big Chicagoland electronics megastore I finally got my hands on the NEX-3 and NEX-5 cameras and came away liking them more than I expected. Though I only got to play with them for a few minutes I didn’t find the user interface to be as frustrating as I predicted. I rarely shoot in full manual mode, generally preferring aperture- or shutter-priority. So changing aperture or shutter using the back control dial was fairly intuitive and easy.

I was truly blown away by the form-factor. These are tiny cameras! Without the lens they’re the size of a typical compact point-and-shoot. With the lens they’re no bigger than so-called “bridge” cameras of the sort that look like mini-SLRs. The fit and finish is very nice, and the lens casing feels top-notch. Some of my initial concerns still remain, especially the lack of true manual exposure control when shooting video along with the lack of a microphone input for video. Nevertheless, I came away more intrigued than before when I’d only read about them.

Answering some of the concerns about the video capabilities of the NEX-3/5 Sony is releasing a camcorder using the same large APS-C sized image sensor and interchangeable lens mount, named the NEX-VG10. The Luminous Landscape just published a hands-on review of the camcorder, giving it a qualified recommendation. It seems like most of the weaknesses of the camera lie in firmware — that is, features that are programmed in rather than part of the physical mechanics of the camera. In particular, there’s limited exposure monitoring making it difficult to see when you’re clipping the highlights. I find that omission particularly surprising, since it’s included in nearly every pro-sumer Sony camcorder I’ve used in the last decade.

The idea of having a still camera and a camcorder that can share lenses is quite exciting, as is having a true video camcorder–not just a still dSLR with video capabilities tacked on–sporting a large high-quality sensor that’s nearly the size of 35mm motion picture film. All the more amazing is that the still camera costs well less than a grand and the camcorder costs just under $200 with lens. This approach promises to be a game-changer in many of the ways that video dSLRs shook up the digital video world.

Panasonic has also announced its own version of an interchangeable lens camcorder based on still-camera sensor, the AG-AF100. Panasonic’s version is based around the micro 4/3 standard behind still cameras like the Olympus Pen series and the Panasonic GH-1. The AF100 is still a little further away from stores, and looks to be a bit more pro oriented than the Sony, with the inclusion of XLR mic jacks and more exposure options. It also looks to be more expensive, at a price around $6000.

I find the Sony cameras to be so interesting because of their price, and because I’m already an owner of a Sony dSLR. While Sony dSLR lenses don’t mount directly on the new cameras and camcorders, there is adapter that lets you use them.

I’m not quite ready to jump into a new camera, camcorder or lens-mount system, but am seriously considering taking the plunge with the NEX-5 or its successor. To add more grist to the mill, dSLR News Shooter has a short review of the NEX-5 as a video camera for the working journalist.

In any event, I will be keeping close watch to see what develops. Exciting times, indeed.

Interesting new Sanyo flip-style camcorder

Sanyo just announced a new Xacti camcorder that looks interesting due to the way it breaks from the company’s typical pistol-grip style camcorders and due to its lens. The VPC-PD2BK has a form-factor more like the Flip-style cams, but with a 3x zoom lens that looks like it came from a compact still digicam, therefore also featuring a faster maximum aperture of f/3.1 than on their pistol-grip style cams which usually start at f/3.5. Every little extra bit of light gathering helps.

As I’ve noted before, while I really like my Xacti VPC-GG10, I find that it’s lens is not up to the standard of the average digicam. In everyday use this matters less for video than for still pictures. But this better looking lens on the new PD2 gives me some hope that perhaps this cam will deliver better stills alongside full 1080p HD video (alas, only at 30 fps, rather than the cinema standard of 24p).

The PD2 also doesn’t include a mic jack or optical image stabilization–two features which would be very welcome. But at a pre-order price of $169 over at Amazon, if the quality matches or betters the VPC-CG10 (which is what I’d hope), the PD2 may still be a very appealing option for videographers looking for more flexible image control than available with the typical Flip-style cam.

Hey Sanyo, if you’re reading, how about sending me one for review? I promise to send it back ;->,

Film’s not dead, either

Oh, no. I’m not ready to give up on the anti-planned-obsolescence rant just yet…

The world of photography has been much less chaotic than the worlds of audio and video over the last century. There’s really only been one significant technological disruption–from film to digital. Yes, there have been multiple formats of film over the century, but they mostly boil down to differences in size. But it is nevertheless the case that you can still buy new film for the vast majority of film cameras made since 1909.

Digital, of course, was supposed to be the death knell of film, but things didn’t quite work out that way. Instead, digital photography sparked new public interested in photography as an art and hobby, which ended up leading a lot of folks back to film. Like the vinyl LP vs. CD debate, there are plenty of passionate photographers ready to argue that one or the other is inherently superior. As one of those people who never took a strong interest in photography until getting my first digital camera, my perspective is that is has less to do with better than different–qualitatively different.

Still, the film business isn’t at all like it was a decade ago, when digital cameras were $1000+ investments yielding the kind of resolution you now get from a $10 keychain digicam from the drugstore. But there still is a film business.

The Rochester, NY Democrat and Chronicle recently published a story about a local business you might have heard of, that’s still hanging on to the film business: Kodak. The article quotes Kodak’s marketing manager for professional film, Scott R. DiSabato:

“We call it the ‘and’ world,” DiSabato said. “We know the professional use will be significant enough the next couple years, we’ll get the investment (into those film lines) back.”

In fact, Kodak introduced a new color film formulation this past year, a time when film still makes up a third of the company’s gross revenue.

Again, I’m not arguing against technological innovation. I have nothing against digital cameras, and I own several. I also own a pile of film cameras (that I picked up for next to nothing). I’m just pointing out again that obsolescence is a business process and a social process. That is, there’s nothing inherent in film that should make it obsolete, so much as that the combination of the need to find new products to sell, the fact that some of these new products actually do offer new and significant benefits and a social shift to embrace that new technology.

The social element is important–Kodak is still making and selling film because people are buying it and using it. They’re finding value in it, whether it’s due to nostalgia, the belief that it is superior to digital, an affinity for film’s aesthetics, or simply because using disposable film cameras when you need them makes more sense than dumping several hundred bucks into a digital cam.

If people choose not to accept the supposed inevitability of obsolescence in significant numbers, then we can interfere with that process. Moreso than with VHS videotape, film has a certain unavoidable market dynamic — someone has to manufacture the film stock and developing chemicals if the medium is to stay alive. I’m certain that the medium can survive even with smaller “boutique” manufacturing, but film’s not something the vast majority of people are going to be able to make at home. So a certain critical mass of buyers and users has to be maintained to keep film viable as a non-obsolete, if niche, technology.

Videotape, on the other hand, is reuseable. Certainly if all manufacture were to stop today eventually the tapes in use now would eventually wear out. But the true death of the medium would come more slowly than if film were to be no longer manufactured.

As (electronic and chemical) media makers we are still dependent on a consumer economy, but that doesn’t mean we are utterly subject to its whims, nor without feedback mechanism. We do not have to buy up every new so-called innovation because it’s supposed to be better, nor do we have to abandon a technique, method, medium or tool just because the industry, press or blogosphere now declares it dead. In fact, fantastic personal innovation, ingenuity and creativity can be sparked in the continued embrace, or reembrace of a reportedly obsolete technology. Whether it’s audiocassette, VHS, film, vinyl LP, laserdisc, minidsc, 8-track or daguerreotype, it’s not dead for you until you don’t want to use it any longer.

Thanks to Ken Rockwell, the most entertaining photography writer on the internet, for pointing me to the Kodak article. For more about practical, technological and qualitative strengths of film, read Ken’s essay, “Why We Love Film.”

DIY Spiderlite and Softbox

This one’s for the video/photo geeks. Back at my last gig we used a pile of Spiderlites, which are pretty easy to use and relatively inexpensive lights that accommodate five bulbs, switchable in banks, that can be either incandescent or fluorescent. They’re not super-cheap–several hundred dollars–but for flexible continuous lighting they’re not bad.

Lighting is really the key for anyone who wants her indoor video (or photos) to take the next step up in quality and go from looking like a home movie to something shot on pro-grade cameras. Too many people stress about getting the best HD camera without realizing that without decent lighting your so-called HD footage won’t look any better than half the videos on YouTube shot on cheap camcorders.

But you don’t have to break the bank to get decent lighting, especially since Spiderlites use essentially the same compact fluorescent bulbs you can buy at the discount store. One way to go about it is to simply get an inexpensive reflector lamp from the hardware store, with the caveat that you can only get one bulb in a lamp, which may not be enough light.

So I was impressed to see this DIY Spiderlite put together by blogger Alex Campagna. It does require some woodworking skills to replicate, but I bet with a little ingenuity one could work up something similar from different materials. The base parts — the sockets and bulbs — are inexpensive and easy to get. (via DIYPhotography.net)