Canon 5D MKII Discussion--New Thread.

[BernardLanguillier]

What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The hype?

Cheers,
Bernard

[witz]

geez... what a bunch of debbie downers.....

don't you guys feel the need to take your craft to the next level?

We live in such a fantastic time.... technology is advancing at such a fast pace that we can create visually or audibly just about anything our talent and minds can come up with.

If your a musician, photographer, film maker.... there is no excuse to not create and distribute some amazing creations!

The 5d2 is the 1st of it's kind.... a BRIDGE to allow some photographers to let things MOVE! The concept is so unlimiting... just imagine every photograph in your portfolio with some movement.... a moment in time limited to not just a fraction of a second, but 12 minutes!.... shot with all the skills and vision that you now already have.

the smirk and gaze of a beautiful model
the steam coming off a plate of food
the birds flying through a landscape
a caterpillar munching on a leaf
a wave crashing against the rocks
a rotational view of a classic European automobile



chriswitzke.com

[Ray]

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.

I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?

There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.

What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What you are probably not getting is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are never going to buy professional level video equipment but who occasionally want to record something in video which will at least be high resolution and low noise and perhaps close to broadcast quality and not technically too disappointing on playback.

Speaking from my own experience, I find that I don't use much the couple of VGA consumer grade videocams I've owned. I've thought of getting the Canon HV20 tape videocam which can record 24p or 25p, but was discouraged by reports that noise in poor light was pretty bad, as one would expect from a tiny sensor with tiny pixels.

I think there will be a large number of people who will be attracted to the idea of being able to take short clips which are clean and sharp with low noise and which don't require any additional equipment. The 5D2 is actually less expensive than the original 5D was when it was first released. I consider the video capability as a wonderful bonus. Why look a gifthorse in the mouth?

[JohnKoerner]

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

I think you beat everyone to it  

Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.

Out of curiosity, what movies have you produced/directed/edited?

I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?

Apparently those who were making the decisions asked a better question: Why not?

There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.
What is it that I'm not getting?

In my judgment, there are two things you're not getting: (1) That your tastes/needs/desires are not representative of everyone on earth, only you; and (2) for precisely the reason you have to spend tens of thousands on video equipment/etc. ... and then tens of thousands on still equipment/etc. ... if a convergence of the two media into one tool ultimately becomes possible, not only will such technology enable you to spend less and do more, but it would also ultimately save an incredible amount of time as well.

If all the equipment needed can be contained in one tool, that fits in your hands, surely anyone but the most obtuse could see the liberating advantages of such incredible convenience? I mean, didn't you read what Vincent Laforet had to say?

It seems to me that not only did you not "get it," but you need help "getting" what you do not get. So I don't know if I have helped or made things worse for you  

Jack




,

[KSH]

...
If all the equipment needed can be contained in one tool, that fits in your hands, surely anyone but the most obtuse could see the liberating advantages of such incredible convenience? I mean, didn't you read what Vincent Laforet had to say? ...


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if Vince said it, who are we to disagree?

I am sure there are people, professionals, amateurs, who will put the new video feature to excellent use. I am equally sure that a lot of people who think they need or want it will find that they don't, be it because they don't have the computing power to contend with the amount of data that video shooting produces, be it because they discover they have less talent than, say, Vincent Laforet, to shoot video, or be it because they discover that more options actually stifle their creative impulses.

I, for one, do not believe that more options are always better. I believe that very often less is more, which is why I often shoot primes. Having less options often is a liberating experience for me. Also, I have a limited amount of time available for my hobby, photography. So, if I start dabbling in shooting video, I will have less time available for photography. Which means that I may become a so-so videographer at the expense of reducing my chances (slim as they may be  ) of becoming a better photographer.

So, I agree that I am not everybody, and that there are different tastes and preferences. But I think it's way too early to see whether convergence is the new thing or whether it just serves as a temporary differentiator that is useful in marketing.

Karsten

[Mike W]

Daws,

exactly what would you like to see in the 5D that's not there?

I think it's one hell of a camera, , but if I could make a wish-list;
crop-modes (1:1, 4:3, 4:5,....) in the viewfinder
higher dynamic range
more focus-points
higher fps
and better wide-angle leses (but that's beside the point)

Apart from the first, it's all take it or leave it. Having HD video is absolutely great. I concider myself a graphic designer first, a photographer second, and being able to make moving images with the same camera for 2500€ is absolutely mind-blowingly amazing.

I'm wondering though:
Is the video RAW? What format is it in, and how do you make changes to the images (color, exposure, etc..)?

[JohnKoerner]

Well, if Vince said it, who are we to disagree?

I am sure there are people, professionals, amateurs, who will put the new video feature to excellent use. I am equally sure that a lot of people who think they need or want it will find that they don't, be it because they don't have the computing power to contend with the amount of data that video shooting produces, be it because they discover they have less talent than, say, Vincent Laforet, to shoot video, or be it because they discover that more options actually stifle their creative impulses.

I, for one, do not believe that more options are always better. I believe that very often less is more, which is why I often shoot primes. Having less options often is a liberating experience for me. Also, I have a limited amount of time available for my hobby, photography. So, if I start dabbling in shooting video, I will have less time available for photography. Which means that I may become a so-so videographer at the expense of reducing my chances (slim as they may be  ) of becoming a better photographer.

So, I agree that I am not everybody, and that there are different tastes and preferences. But I think it's way too early to see whether convergence is the new thing or whether it just serves as a temporary differentiator that is useful in marketing.

Karsten
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really don't have a use for it either, but the flipside is what if I did have a use for it and it wasn't there? I would think a photojournalist would have the most use for this feature. They never know when they'll see something happen right in front of them, where a full video clip would be much better to capture than any still photo (and much more saleable).

I am sure George Lucas isn't going to be filming his next epic on a 5DMkII, but this does not make the feature less valuable to someone who might have a real use for it.

[TMARK]

We just pre-ordered 4 for our production company and for my stills business.  I ordered one for myself.  I sent the LaForet video link to my partner (the film/video component of our production company) and he ordered 3 without asking me!  It appears that the quality will be enough to slot into our Red and EX-1 footage.

Now with ZE lenses.  Wow.  $2700.  Wow.

[The View]

We just pre-ordered 4 for our production company and for my stills business.  I ordered one for myself.  I sent the LaForet video link to my partner (the film/video component of our production company) and he ordered 3 without asking me!  It appears that the quality will be enough to slot into our Red and EX-1 footage.

Now with ZE lenses.  Wow.  $2700.  Wow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can use it as a second cam for the Red One? You wrote "it appears"... referring to the Vincent LaForet video scenes?

[dwdallam]

I would say for purely commercial use, it will prove to be useful to those doing mostly commercial work, such as weddings. I doubt the still life, nude shooter will find it too appealing, since he or she has dedicated her life to a type of still photography. The two mediums are miles apart and take lifetimes to command. We'll probably see lots of mediocre photographers creating mediocre wedding movies as mediocre producers.

[dandeliondigital]

What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

IMO, cameras have always been made for marketing, and not necessarily for photographers.

Sometimes we like what they do and adopt it with enthusiasm.

Sometimes we wonder what is going on with those bozos.

Unfortunately, no matter what the end user always gets it in the end, as do taxpayers.

Be thankful for what you have, and really enjoy it while it lasts, because it's all over too soon anyway.

Be joyful, and don't obsess!

My 2 cents.

So long for now, TOM

[BernardLanguillier]

I guess that I am now finally seeing clearly the main problem with this.

Today, there simply isn't a good outlet for high quality videos out there. The very problem Vincent was facing with bandwidth when he tried to find a way to post his 5DII video is going to hit all of us for another few years.

Youtube is a joke qualitywise, and a D90 will be plenty if that is the target outlet.

So OK, you are a serious photographer, perhaps a semi-pro selling prints from time to time, and you want to try out video for art applications (waves crashing,...). Fine, but short of playing them at home for your friends on your HD TV, what are you going to be doing with these contents?

My view is that the 5DII concept will never really take off until there are sites like Zenfolio that accept to invest enough in servers (we are talking at least an order of magnitude higher investements than with stills hosting) so that high quality cheap video hosting becomes a reality. I am not saying that we need full HD streaming, even 540x960 or so would do.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JDClements]

RE: Video on the 5DII

I can't  wait. I used to love shooting video for *personal* use. I have DVDs full of it, and my family watches them on a regular basis. Problem is, I'm now loaded down hauling my camera gear on my back and I can't think of any situation where I would choose to carry the DV camcorder over my camera.

So, the 5DII is going to be fantastic. For example, the next time I am watching, say, a bunch of whales, having the video capability is going to be a giant bonus.

[dwdallam]

That's what I think too. For the hobbyist or person who wants video to shoot the kids, it's a great deal.

One thing people are forgetting is that still life is a different medium with different methods and the result is altogether a different medium. Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.

[The View]

Generally, if a camera is geared towards the professional, that professional wants his money invested in exactly what he is buying: still photography.

On the other hand: if you can produce professional quality video with it...

... if...

... it depends a lot on how you can handle a still camera for a video shoot, like focus pulling, etc...

You'd probably need to attach an external LCD - if there's an output to such a device on the camera.

[Ray]

Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've always been under the impression that movies consist of lots and lots of rather low resolution stills, shown quickly, one after the other.

[maxgruzen]

Call me stupid, but I don't get it.

Art school guy; pro video producing/directing/editing for 25 years; amateur enthusiast landscape photography for 3 years. My video kit and my photography kit don't share anything -- not lighting, not DOF, not post suite, not tripods, not shooting technique, not storytelling, not even my brain.

I'm sitting here with my 5DI, looking at the spec sheet for the 5DII, and asking... why?

There's a pile of stuff in the 5DII that I'd love to have. Video isn't one of them.

What is it that I'm not getting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't understand why people seem to be disappointed in the quality of the JPEGS. If you download 0716 and bring it into LR the quality and sharpness will knock your socks off. It's shot t 1/60 sec at f 2 ISO 1600. It's awesome.

[dwdallam]

I've always been under the impression that movies consist of lots and lots of rather low resolution stills, shown quickly, one after the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225433\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Which have a different effect than stills.

[The View]

Movies are not still and stills are not movies and each one is very different from the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225406\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It used to be that video sensors were poor in capturing stills, and still camera sensors poor in capturing video.

Looks like that's no longer the case.

When you look at Vincent LaForet's "movie" (credits are twice as long as the, ahem, story), the quality looks very promising. Especially when you consider that it was shot at high ISO at night.

[Paul Kay]

I currently use a 5D underwater. Has anyone actually seen the MkII alongside the original as I'd be very interested to hear whether the bodies are identical dimensionally and have the majority of their controls similarly placed? I am interested to know whether it is likely that the MkII will fit into a housing built for the original - as an example of previous model compatibility, the 1DS MkI and MkII were extremely similar but dimensions were in fact very slightly different; both could be used in the same housing with minor modification (a cardboard packer and slight adjustments to the control rods were required).