brad_trostad

Actually it makes a lot of

sense that they partnered

with Sony. Sony can develop

the these niche large imagers

and then sell more than if

they only put them in their

own cameras. The means

volumes increase and they

mitigate risk in their huge

semiconductor investment.

 

If you we're a investor

looking to buy hasselblad,

all you would see is a money

put if you had to go it alone

in designing and producing

those large imagers.

 

Canon seems like the odd man

out these days with nothing

in the field to match the

Sony based imagers.

 

I suspect you will never know

the true cost to make the

hssselblad or phaseone

cameras. If you find a

credible source it would be

very interesting to know the

actual numbers.

<p>Its Brad vs Brad (how often does that happen!)</p>

<p>I agree with what you said, but I look at this this way. Apple believes their watch is worth $350 so they will charge that much but only if they think they are going to make some money after all is said and done.</p>

<p>Lets say it cost them $200 to make that watch, I don't know a whole lot of electronics manufacturers who would even take this on unless the volumes were assured to be in the millions. Or if related sales (ie the phones) would also increase. My guess is that Apple has already worked with (putting it nicely) its suppliers to get that cost of goods down to below 1/3 the selling price and know apple it may be below 1/4.</p>

<p>And there is also the fact that you are often not first. Hasselbad does this, Phase one does that, Leaf comes out this, Hasselbad responds with that. By then pricing is more established (unless it is a totally new market - such as the first iPad).</p>

<p>So if you are Hasselbad and about to come out with another high resolution camera or back, you know you can't just price it at $1,00,000 and get it (well maybe NASA will by 10). So you have a more realistic upper number in mind. Then you look at your costs to produce. If that ratio is anywhere near 1:1 I don't know many companies that will move forward unless they have hug sums of money off shore (Apple!) to subsidize it until the volumes increase and costs drop. </p>

<p>If I had to guess, it's probably cost Hasselbad $2,500-$6000 to make a $40,000 camera. That's probably 7x-10x COG's to final price to buyer. I bet they would love to sell 1,000,000 cameras a year and charge $9,000 but until there is a demand, they need to make a lot more money of each sale to recoup initial investments. So they can't really go that low on the number either.</p>

<p>Also, the people in the middle to make some money on these products as they will be expected to support them and they aren't selling 50 a day. So their sale channel is getting a decent cut as well. </p>

<p>I know there is no magic ratio. But in complex electronic devices these ratios are not uncommon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought lack of WiFi in this camera is due to its construction (all the metal inside)?</p>

<p>Its too bad Canon does make one of the plug in Wifi modules like Nikon has. Price it at $50. That would get the antennae outside the body interference. Actually, just include it with the body when sold new.</p>

<p>Its not just about the name (although that clearly plays some part in it). It is supply and demand. It is a function of the cost of goods(the price of all the components), the cost to assemble, costs for R&D, etc. </p>

<p>If the world only demanded 10,000 iPads, they wouldn't be $400 (unless their competitors were selling 5,000,000 of a similar thing with many shared parts). The price would be much higher because someone would have to make those LCD touchscreens but their volumes would be so low they would have to charge more to recoup their fabrication costs.</p>

<p>I'm sure the Hasselblad and Phase costs fall into this same bucket. They aren't producing 5,000,000 of these larger imagers. And no one else is either. So let's say they only sell 10,000 on 2-3yrs, then the cost to make those not so common imagers will be quite high. And because it is such a large imager, better colors, etc then the surrounding processor(s), memory, etc are also more expensive than a typical DSLR.</p>

<p>Often you will see the price for gadget run about 3-6x (or more) the cost of the goods to make it. Any less and it just won't be profitable enough to justify making them and supporting them later on.</p>

<p>Finally, there is demand. What if they could only make 5,000 of those cameras a year and 10,000 agencies / photogs want them Then they can charge even more.</p>

<p>I just wish there was a 50MP back for my old 500cm (which there is) for under $3000 (which there is not)</p>

 

<p>Hasselblad 500CM + 80CF + Tri-X 400 + DSLR Scan<br>

<img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0009.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Tree Hugger</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hasselblad 500CM + 80 CF + Tri-X 400 + Scanned with DSLR</p>

<p><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0008.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Hanging Around</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback so far.</p>

<p>Re: Why compare 35mm vs MF. Yeah, in a way its silly. However after having just started with MF and using the Zeiss 80mm 2.8, I find that I really, really like it. As I read more about the Zeiss lineup for Hasselblad I read how the 100mm and 180mm are such good lenses. So it I was wondering if the C/Y lineup was made with the same optical formulas, coatings, same micro contrast and punchy look. Or did Zeiss do something unique for Hasselblad.</p>

<p>I was wondering (in general) if the Hasselblad versions and the C/Y versions are basically the same designs, same micro contrast, same saturation, same bokeh characteristics, etc. If having a specific lens to compare helps, I guess I would be interested in the 100mm and 180mm lenses as the Hasselblad versions are said to be incredibly sharp.</p>

 

<p>I think I bought that same one. I got the one that adapts b60 to 77mm. It does work. But the material is quite flimsy so its a bit hard to get the filter threaded onto it. At this cost it is worth it and lets me use my polarizer and nd filters. I'm thinking it might be easier to put the filter on the adapter first and put them on the lens last.</p>

<p>I have been doing some more reading after Joe's comments. The first thing I have learned is that my trusty old 5D2 is probably not the weapon of choice for DSLR scanning of MF negatives. Its resolution comes in at 78.6lp/mm vs resolutions of 102lp/mm for the 36Mp Sony imagers and 128lp/mm for the Sony 24Mp imagers.</p>

<p>I took a peak at the photozone lens review for my Canon 100L macro. They show the charts for MTF50 in lp/ph.</p>

<p>How does a person determine the lp/mm number for this lens (or any lens)?</p>

<p>I am curious, does it resolve well enough to hit the 45-50Mp number that Joe indicated would be more realistic?</p>

<p>And I think I now get the part about the lens needing to producing those resolution figures across the entire frame. I guess I probably knew it was somewhat of an issue but hadn't got far enough along yet to see it's effects. For my case using the least number of stitched images meant there would be more regions where the sharper part of the image from one frame would meet the lower resolution portion of the image from another frame. Now I wonder if that may have even been noticeable printed at 13x19?</p>

<p>So to mitigate this if one only has standard lenses, then many slightly overlapped images would be required and then force the stitcher to use the sweetspot (ie center) of each (good luck there). Or shoot all the images, crop to the centers first and then stitch.</p>

<p>Which brings us back to Borys proposal. He proposes to use his Zeiss MF lens on the APS-C DSLR. In doing so he is effectively pre-cropping (quite significantly for that matter) on the APS-C imager to use the highest and most consistent resolution portion of the len's image circle.</p>

<p>Given he intends to use a high enough resolution APS-C imager: is the Zeiss MF lens good enough (in its center when stopped down) for a final stitched 50Mp image? </p>

<p>If not, is there another cost effective lens option (which through cropping) might give acceptable even resolution across the APS-C frame. Perhaps an older Medium Format macro lens?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you for that info Rodeo Joe!</p>

<p>I know Ken gets beat up pretty bad from time to time however I had read this article on his site (<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm</a>). The claim is that Velvia 50 will require about 320 pixels per millimeter. For 6x6, that would greatly exceed the 45..50Mp you stated.</p>

<p>That being said I just tried an extension tube (for 1.3:1) on my 100L and I don't think the image looked really any better than it did at 1:1. So I definitely believe I will not be getting any more detail from my 6x6 slides unless there is something else I am missing.</p>

<p>I am a bit bummed. I had hoped there was more detail in there and I had hoped I would be able to get it with a macro lens, tubes and a fairly modern DSLR.</p>

<p>Now I am wondering something, other than dynamic range - is a drum scan going to be any sharper than a DSLR scan with a macro lens?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the feedback E.!</p>

<p>Camera: HB 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF, Velvia 50.<br /> Scanner: 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched<br /> Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass)<br>

Converted to B&W in PS (wish I would have had tri-x for this shot) <br>

<img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0007.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Cowgirls</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Borys,</p>

<p>I think I understand, you want to be able to scan your MF negatives using as much of your Hasselblad kit as possible and want to minimize your investment in the digital portion (the DSLR).</p>

<p>First a question - are you scanning all types of film - color negative, B&W and slides?</p>

<p>I am using my Canon 5D2 and 100 macro lens. It requires a minimum of 6 RAW shots and I end up with images of about 8500x8500 pixels or about 72mp (after cropping out the film border). That is about 25MB as a high quality Jpeg or about 195MB as a tiff file with no layers and no compression. One nice thing about using the Canon is that I can shoot tethered and can us the Eos utility to micro step the focus while watching a 10x live view image on the PC for both focus and framing.</p>

<p>Since I have started with slide film I have been very impressed with the colors, saturation, etc. I feel that the DR of the slide isn't that much beyond the old Canon (I know it is but just doesn't seem to be a big deal).</p>

<p>What I do find lacking is the sharpness. When I look under a loupe I think I am seeing more resolution that my DSLR scan. So I will be trying a extension tube on the macro lens to see what more I can get from it. I think I have ruled out camera shake, etc.</p>

<p>If I can obtain the sharpness I am after, then the next issue will of course be dynamic range for color negative and B&W film. That I believe is a place where just any old crop DSLR may not be ideal. This is where the Nikon D800's, D810's come in. But it is also where the Sony NEX 6, NEX 7 and the A7's come in. Those Nikons and Sony can capture more DR. Just one problem - all of those cameras listed above will set you back $$$$ except the NEX models.</p>

<p>So if you are okay with APS-C / crop take a closer look at the Sony NEX-6 or NEX-7. I currently have a NEX-6. Its a camera that has a fantastic image, just kinda crappy menus and speed. For slide scanning none of these issues should be a big deal (especially if they can be tethered). The good part, with Sony's throw anything and everything out there are fast as you can marketing approach, the NEX's are now going for around US$400 used these days! Then get a manual adapter to get your Zeiss to E-Mount (or use Zeiss to Canon and Canon to E-Mount).</p>

<p>Here I too would recommend following the sage advise of the others regarding the lens. Get one of the cheap, great macro lenses mentioned above. Maybe with one extension tube. Mount the NEX on your copy stand and shoot sony raw files. Perhaps you could get the NEX 6 or NEX 7, a great old manual focus macro lens and one ext tube for about US$600.</p>

<p>I think the bigger issues with going after more resolution is that when you have stitch so many images (say anything 6+) on photos that have large featureless areas (eg. blue sky) the stitching becomes a pain in the rear. To date, my nemesis slide is just a simple flag against the blue sky shot. There is so much nearly featureless blue sky that the stitcher never produces an image I like. I find that this is the only distraction on my mind when shooting film. This is where the D800, D810 and Sony A7r would come in handy since they are full frame high resolution so less overall images to stitch. I think I once calculated that using one those three cameras would yield something like 12500x12500 images or about 150mp!!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (with ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<br>

<strong> </strong><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0005.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Cruiser At The Drive-In</strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0004.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Summer Smiles</strong></p>

 

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br />Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br />Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table<br>

<img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0003.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /><br>

<strong>Wine On The Patio</strong></p>

 

<p>Please welcome a film virgin! I started with digital and this is my first time with film.<br>

Picked up an old Hasselblad kit and after seeing the first slides a few weeks ago I am hooked!</p>

<p>Camera: Hasselblad 500cm, Zeiss 80mm CF f2.8, Velvia 50.<br>

Scanner: Canon 5D2+100L, 6 shots stitched for 8200 x 8200<br>

Mount: Gepe slide frame (w/o ANR glass) on cheapo LED light table</p>

<p><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/H500CM_0001.jpg" alt="" width="668" height="700" /></p>

<center>

<p><strong>Remove Before Flight</strong></p>

<center>

<p> </p>

</center></center>

<p>Cost = 0$ + time to learn the new menus (about 20..60 minutes).</p>

<p>Hi JDM,</p>

<p>I have Magic Lantern (ML) installed on my 5D2 and T3i and think it makes for a nice addition to the camera's firmware. I know there are photography features but I tend to only use it for capturing video. Here are some various things I like and don't like:</p>

<p>- I like that it preserves its installation when doing in-camera card reformatting</p>

<p>- If you shoot on a crop body you can have it display FF equivalent focal lengths</p>

<p>- It has a fast white balance feature (just one touch on some cameras) that I have found useful for underwater photo / video</p>

<p> - The RAW video is darned impressive (and will need that "super new computer") but being able to adjust all frames in camera raw for exposure, noise removal, final color correction is awesome</p>

<p> - If you pull out the CF or SD card too quickly after opening the card door the battery will drain down quickly.</p>

<p> - If you are shooting video (especially with an external monitor) it is really nice having audio levels, focus peaking and any other histograms, waveforms, etc</p>

<p> - The focus peaking is pretty good (though not as fancy as Sony's A7 or Nex)</p>

<p> - I tried the dual-iso to extend dynamic range but really didn't have much luck. I know I probably wasn't using it the right way as some of the forum photos look awesome. I also wasn't a fan of having to run the Raw file through another utility but Alex at ML has done a great job on processing those images back into normal file.</p>

<p> - The audio monitoring and mic options are perhaps its biggest "need" for shooting video with the 5D2 and older cameras as they didn't having anything on screen and several of these cameras had yucky audio gain issues anyways.</p>

<p> - I shot a wedding video (5D2) using ML and found it very useful and reliable.</p>

<p> - If you shot some RAW video get a very, very, very fast CF card. Add me to the masses that tried the Komputer Bay card with success</p>

<p> - Their biggest issue is not coordinating stable releases to the masses. There are who knows how many repositories of code out there each with tweaks and even though they make it back to the ML there just never seems to be a "release" any more. So you need to get comfortable reading through the forums and learning where the build is with what you want to try and how to go about installing it. If ML would just empower one developer to take the lead here and coordinate releases I think even more people would try it.</p>

<p> - If you fully reformat your CF card in your PC you will loose the ML software (your camera will be fine) and need to prepare the card again (although they have a nice PC utility for this).</p>

<p> - I often us SD cards in the 5D2 via CF->SD adapters. This then lets me use these cards in the T3i as well. You can actually leave the files for all the Canon ML builds on the same card which is handy.</p>

<p> - Shooting RAW video on the rebels is not as easy as they have SD cards which can not support the data write speeds needed for super high resolution.</p>

<p> - There has been some very nice video out of the 50D via ML which is amazing considering the camera never had video!</p>

<p>...if you start to do video beyond dabbling, especially with the 5D2, I think ML is a no-brainer.</p>

<p>Right now a 5D3 with ML (especially shooting RAW video) is a incredibly capable, professional video capture setup. If/when I get a 5D3 I will put ML on it straight away.</p>

<p> </p>

Lots of great input, I appreciate the different perspectives regarding the emerging mirror less trend!

 

I guess I fall in the camp of desiring a EVF nowadays vs traditional OVF, even for a future full sized large camera. That is partly

driven from being as interested in video as photography. When it's sunny outside I want to be able to review my photos via the EVF. I

really like focus peaking to pick a very specific area of focus. The mirror slapping away is getting kinda old. It would be nice to be able

to shoot Full frame video with the body held to the eye vs holding 5lbs of camera at arms length struggling to see live view (yes, I

normally use a tripod, but to be able to hand hold would be a welcome relief).

 

So, as a few have mentioned, the new Sony A7 is at the head of the pack (the Panasonics are also very appealing to me). But, just

like the smaller "wee" mirror less offerings, Canon isn't in the game with a FF camera with EVF either. As I mentioned in the initial

post, I really like Canon I just wish they'd make a statement to clarify their strategy.

 

Let's say Canon does roll out a NEX 6 like camera. I'd be kinda silly to walk around with a 135L on it - but at least I could dabble if I

wanted to. I'm sure I'd normally have a M mount smaller lens on it. But it would be nice to know those FF primes would still be useful.

If I go with another brand for mirror less that means expensive adapters just to get aperture control for the EF lenses and probably

slow AF at best.

 

Plus I also have a hunch Canon is up to something interesting. I am starting to think they will roll out a mirror less medium format.

Perhaps if done properly, all our Full frame lenses via an adapter would cover tje inner 35mm area of the imager so it could be used

as a FF camera. Then remove the adapter and use MF lenses for mega resolution when needed. I know that takes this discussion

another direction but thinking along those lines and given the market trend for EVF and no mirrors I am quite sure Canon wil go mirror

less. It would just be nice to have some guidance regarding any future "wee" version.

 

Otherwise, I really liked trying out the NEX 6 the other day. The new A7 looks awesome but at that price I would like to see Canon's

move first.

 

As several of you have mentioned, the 5d2 (and obviously 5d3) is such a wonderful camera. I recently took several family photos with the 135L on it, all wide open just to have fun with it. People really comment on the "look" of those photos. I'm not giving up that combo an time soon - unless it's a 5Dx with an awesome EVF :)

<p>I really, really like your products. My old 5d2 is an amazing camera, even by today's standards. The rebels (I have a T3i) are tremendous photo and video camera's given their current prices. Some of your glass is just plain magic. Over the years I acquired a 35L, 85 f1.8, 100L macro, 135L and the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS. I still long for the 85LII and a 24 ts. And what you've given us to produce gorgeous looking video is amazing!</p>

<p>But times are changing and I (like so many others) am longing for that compact mirrorless solution. Something much lighter, yet responsive and up to today's standards when it comes to high iso performance and dynamic range. I'll most likely buy into a new mount if there is commitment to provide a family of standard 35mm equivalent lenses.</p>

<p>I did consider your EOS-M when it was first announced. But my friend's Fuji(s) were so far ahead of it (except video) that I decided to wait. Then you lowered the price on the EOS-M and once again I considered your mirrorless but by this time the Sony's, Olympus and Panasonic's seemed like a better place to go.</p>

<p>So here I am wondering if you will roll out what am I wanting to buy right now today. If it helps any, here's what I think would be a mirrorless product that would grab the market like the 5D2 did (tell me that didn't make you some serious money):<br>

<br /> - About the size of the EOS-M (or just a bit smaller)<br /> - EVF (upper left placement like Sony and Fuji, quality like the NEX 6,7)<br /> - EOS-M mount (with announced commitment for several lenses at acceptable prices)<br /> - 70D (or better) phase detect focus built into imager<br /> - 13+ stops of Dynamic Range <br /> - M --> EF Adapter included with the base package (big mistake of EOS-M rollout)<br /> - Rear LCD is touchscreen<br /> - Mic input<br /> - Raw video sharpness at or better than Panasonic.<br /> - 1080/60p video capability (and encoding similar to the 5D3)<br /> - Built in wifi would be nice but not that big of a deal <br /> - Open development support (or just give Magic Lantern the build files)<br /> - Announce it at $850 (or $950 with the 22mm STM lens)</p>

<p>....I can wait to buy this camera. I just need to know it's on the way. Even if you need to announce it now and it won't be available until next summer I would rather wait and get this than switch to another mfg.</p>

<p>Otherwise it looks like Sony or Panasonic for me. A friend (Canon for decades) has already switched to Fuji. What is going on Canon - where are you?</p>

<p>....and I am very curious as to what other people on the forum think Canon should do next w/r to mirrorless. Is this where you will give up on Canon too?<br /> </p>

I filmed a wedding this summer (as a favor). It took me over two months to make the final 10 minute highlights video. A lot of work.

Not many views. Lesson learned - wicked fast turn around times are already the expected norm. I think their photographer quoted

around 6-8 wks so that was also more than I expected.

 

 

I think Brides will eventually expect to see a HD highlights video the next day while sitting with family, friends and wedding party

before everyone heads home. For the SDE to become financially possible the life touch model will probably apply to videos. Hire

competent crew, dump footage to servers and others will SDE.

 

 

Back to photography, I suspect rapid turn arounds will also win business. I would think the photographer who can shoot a wedding and

using built in camera wifi, select in camera jpegs every few minutes and dump direct to Facebook will win great accolades and

referrals. That buys them time to ps a hiigh quality gallery later on.

 

 

I do think a rolling video camera (eg 1DC) with non-video shutter speeds (say 1/320) could be used to grab some great micro

expression - which would be a differentiator - but that camera roll won't provide any useful video.

 

 

Maybe the convergence will mean a small team (say 3) can bid an entire package of quality stills, immediate social network up loads

and a quality video for a price between the typical stills and video package. I think a quality video needs two camera operators

minimum. And neither of those two can really capture wedding worthy stills - while also doing video. Ideally one of those operators is in an assistant role so the majority of the profit would split between 2 individuals vs three.

 

 

What is interesting to see in weddings nowadays is that the wedding photographer brings all that equipment, lighting, posing and directing experience, etc. She shoots a thousand photos. Six weeks later you will see their photos. Meanwhile, the next day 20 people have posted photos of that same wedding, some very high quality, some shot while standing right next to the photog while they directed and posed people. a day later it is fresh. Six weeks later, the bride, her mom and her sister look once.

 

I could see a tipping point one day (say 10 years) where the preferred wedding product is a gorgeous HD 15 minute wedding highlights video vs stills.

The Canon 200mm f2.8L is a very sharp lens, very nice bokeh, fast AF and can be found used for around $525 or so. There are a

few more 200L's which are very expensive, but awesome image quality.

 

 

Why not rent a 7d or 70d or 5d3 or 6d and use a adapter to kick the Canon tires a bit using the nikon glass you are comfortable with?

Perhaps the buttons on the body, grip, ergonomics, etc will drive you nuts and all you're out is a rental.

 

 

There are a lot of great 17-50 choices now so that one shouldn't be too difficult. I used the Canon 300mm f4 IS for about 4 years and

loved it - even wide open. The IS was kinda clunky and loud but worked great and it focused very fast. I'd spend another $50 and get

the 40mm over the 50mm f1.8 unless it's mainly for low light or shallow dof.

 

 

I have a hunch the new 70-200mm f2.8 would cover most of your needs quite well - amazing lens.

 

 

The real gems for Canon glass for the ranges you listed are the 85L and the 135L.

 

 

I'll second photozone.de for great reviews.

 

Add to that "the digital picture" website with decent reviews and a awesome lens comparison tool.

 

And it's nice to peruse "the photography on the net" website's sample lens archive pics to get a better feel fo the lens. Check out the

85L, 135L, 200 f1.8, 17t/s sample pics just to mention a few for a glimpse into the Canon way.

The Canon 17t/s, the Canon 24L II and the Zeiss 21mm come to mind first - but pricey - yet perfect for future full frame upgrade.. I'm

not sure about crop only lenses - perhaps the tokina 11-16 f2.8 would be a good overall choice as it's quite sharp and gets you even

wider if needed.

<p>If you have larger hands, consider the 60D or 70D. They also have the control wheel on the back vs the 4 arrows buttons on the Rebels.</p>

<p>If you are okay with the slightly smaller bodies, consider the T3i. The odds are you can find a T3i body in the $350 range (gently used).</p>

<p>For a lens I would suggest the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-IS) or any other 17-50'ish f2.8 lens today that scores well and is under $500 (the lens I listed can be found in the $300 range used). This will be like a 24-70 f2.8 lens on a full frame camera. The f2.8 will let help give your more options in low light conditions and will also help a bit for blurred background photos.</p>

<p>If you are really serious about video the first thing you will learn is that all of the cameras basically have no camcorder-like automatic focusing speeds. In fact, you will usually be recording video Hollywood style - manual focus, etc...with one exception....the 70D.</p>

<p>The Canon 70D has an entirely new sensor designed to assist in fast[er] video focusing. I tried one out the other day - I was a bit ho-hum and wasn't wowed by it (and that was with a STM lens). Then again I tested extremes and my understanding is that tracks extremely well once locked on.</p>

<p>Another note, the T2i, T3i, T4i, T5i, SL1, 7D, 60D pretty much have the same sensor, ISO, video compressions, etc. Hence the T3i being such a good deal right now... and it has an articulating screen - once again - nice to have for video.</p>

<p>If you think you will be taking lots of actions shots (still pictures), then you might want the 70D which has the more advanced standard DSLR auto focusing system of the group mentioned.</p>

<p>If you're trying to keep this kit small (to be closer to point and shoot sizes) then consider the SL1 or a mirrorless offering (but Canon isn't your best option right now for mirrorless - bummer Canon).</p>

<p>If you weren't so set on video and not necessarily requiring a DSLR, the Fuji X-series line is quite impressive, a bit smaller, excellent image quality and dynamic range and a very nice set of lens shaping up. However, one of their better camera bodies and lens or two will probably be more than the Canon items listed above. If you have a decent camera store around give one a try, you might not care for it but who knows? </p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

<p> </p>