Thanks Chris, I appreciate your, and all the other thoughtful comments.
I get the niche here that thebrothersthre3 mentions, after all it's the eos forum. I've been a camera geek for a long time and have a large collection of all ages and kinds. most are things of beauty... except for the plastic stuff with microscopic buttons and menus from the past 20 or so years which barely got used before being replaced by the next best thing - DSLRs and HDV etc.
I understand these cameras form the majority of profits for these companies and offer the flexibility of shooting both stills and video - although we are quickly approaching resolutions that offer a 4k+ frame grab sufficing for a photo - depending. I started as an assistant photographer, became a photographer and mostly shot medium format and have used them all. I then became a commercial director and have used all the great cameras along the way (even owned a 435 package) and forced to sometimes shoot on video... back in the day... we all knew the main problem was interlacing and sensor size. Those problems have been addressed along with many others and color space is really getting there. I rode the DSLR wave, but didn't try to bring that to anything serious as it just isn't built for it. Occasionally only if a super small camera was needed for some reason. I've had many chuckles watching the proliferation of cheap gear suddenly available to bolt on and "build" these DSLRs into cinema style rigs... often just as large... scratches head. Arri got it right and as soon as they could ditch the mags and add the sound - moved to the ENG style. It almost feels to me that there is a generation of videographers who grew up on DSLR form factor and have never thought to try anything else.
But Skip77 is right and the 5D was the inflection point.
I love wonderful production design and deeply crafting an image, however recently I had to do a small documentary job in Paris with lots of interviews and run and gun street stuff, and shoot it myself, traveling with just one other writer, so I had to be very self contained. I chose to rent two of these small newer 1 inch cameras I think they were Canon FC405 or something like that. Cheap consumer crap... BUT, actually perfect for this job. Never had to dig for a lens, used the hell out of all 4 of the ND filters, the really good auto focus and always had great mics plugged directly in. I did all the research, talked to my AC and DP geeks who tended to always want to over complicate it.
I guess this sensor is somewhere between full frame and APSC but Low light performance was weak and there supports my argument to just put the DSLR guts into this form factor. If they actually ever made one with a great build quality (the old JVC GYHD ?? series made of metal with everything laid out logically comes to mind) they could just offer basically the "VIDEO" version of these new twin pairs of cameras in a form factor that is friendly to video instead of these outwardly identical R or S or whatever... it's just confusing. Imagine if you have both in your bag.
That's what I thought Canon would do as they were launching the C - series... but they should have kept price (and sensor) identical to the 5D at the time. Everyone would have bought it. I guess Black Magic is the only one really trying to fill that space, but for whatever reason... I've never used one either.
I'm not actually sure which kit of those two you mention you'd rather carry. I mean weight is just one consideration... and a big one for this Paris job, but usually much lower on my list. Any job with at least one AC mitigates that for anything but remote adventure. But if you mean needing to respond and react quickly... I don't know what could beat these tiny ENG style cameras. Like most of these kinds of problems... it's about marketing and tiering and not really building the ultimate tool... because that might last for a few years.
Because photo/video hybrids sell in numbers many times greater than dedicated video cameras, and get far more coverage than something like a Varicam or EOS Cinema camera. Plus the two worlds have been converging for quite some time, its a natural progression. If you shoot stills and video, in many cases carrying two different kits really makes no sense these days. With the S1R/H combo, you have both bases covered and there's easy backup/B-cam capabilities with each.
I just worked with a a couple guys from the Matador Network, one was carrying a FS5/28-135 for video and a 1dx plus the f/2.8 zoom trinity for stills. The other had the a73 and a few GM lenses, plus a Ronin S mostly for video, but also grabbing stills. I know which kit I'd rather carry.
If Panasonic had a competent AF system, I'd be all-in on the L-mount since I fall into the photo/video camp. As it stands I'm waiting to see what Sony does with the a7s3 before doing anything, since the various E-mount bodies serve my needs well.
Two different bodies means it's not a hybrid and they can do video and stills really well. The super fast A9 does great looking video, etc, etc.
The day it happened and Canon introduced good video in a DSLR it was all over. We can't go back.
I think its because all these new features are more geared towards the prosumer and run and gun market. People in a professional setting tend to see cameras as just tools. I think its geeks like the people on here, me included, that are cumming over every new release.
For someone like myself who is often doing 3 jobs at once shooting with a 2 person crew, these type of advances are automatically useful for me.
In a professional setting you are shooting on say a RED or Arri, all kitted out. You have a 1st AC pulling focus. That type of system has been in place for a long time. I think that's why you hear people saying, auto focus is useless if you are a professional. Why fix what isn't broken.
Of course when people actually use new tech and discover that you can do a three man job with just one guy that starts to change things.
Can someone please explain to me why all the new VIDEO features these days make their debut in DSLRs... and then tend to migrate toward video style cameras?
Still cameras are/were purpose built for one type of usage, (though I could argue holding one is still not ergonomic as the hand is forced forward at the wrist) holding and rigging while the modern digital cinema camera layout has evolved mostly from ENG style because everything is where one would expect it and is just so much better to operate and work with without the need to rig a small awkward DSLR body out for this.... for example the ever useful top handle, zoom control handle in natural ergonomic position, ND filters and xlr inputs to mention a few. And a long camera doest require as much stabilization.
Lens coverage need no longer be an issue and new full frame lenses are released constantly now.
Why don't all the big makers (canon sort of tries to) simply make two body choices with essentially the same guts?
Please someone give me an answer that makes real pro and marketing sense.