For an alternative take on why DSLR video is fine for large Hollywood productions but not for amateur use:
You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.
>When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder!
That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.
"If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs."
and
"If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR.
DSLR video is for serious professional production, which is why you'll see it promoted as being used on big productions."
I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.
> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.
People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.
Amateurs can get a Panasonic GH1 with the 14-140mm lens. This lens is optimized for video work and will autofocus, with a performance on par with regular video cameras.
You have to take his writing with a grain of salt.