Here's a great example of video mixed with stills from a Wedding photographer using
the Canon 5D M2 in video and still modes....

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: A Three Act Play (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2327)

It don't get much better than this :-)

I'll be interested to see what StillMotion (regulars in the DVi wedding event forum) can do with this camera - they are a Canon shop, and I'd expect their work to be even more impressive.

This does answer the question of whether event photography and video are converging though... fairly definitively...

Nothing special for a professional demonstration shoot with $50K+ worth of gear.

I would like to see some handheld shots and hear some onboard sound too.

Video and still photography are definately merging though. I could also see a 5DII shoot some incredible tele shots with those expensive lens that most video cameras could never do.

It will be interesting to see how he does in a real wedding without actors. I don't think one shooter is going to be able to do both stills and video.
DOF control does give the short a nice look.

Nice video,
however I could tell it'd done by a still photographer... mostly by style of editing, choice of camera moves, visual story telling, more precisely absence of a narrative essence, camera moves seem random and unmotivated, imho.

Due to mellow nature of camera moves, rolling shutter is not present, too many dynamic shots done with the camera will show a jello like effect, that I've seen in the other sample videos done with the camera prototypes.
The resolution is stunning, yet the range of colors and the dymanic latitude seem quite limited, with some exaggerated contrast and easily crushed blacks and whites, evident in other CMOS video cameras.

My observation is done in comparing the camera to a hypotetic "The great camera" or the cameras that cost many times more. Considering that Canon EOS 5D Mk. II can take great still images as well : ), it's a breakthrough for sure for both still and video pros and amateurs.

Can't wait to put it to use : )

Nice video,
.................

The resolution is stunning, yet the range of colors and the dymanic latitude seem quite limited, with some exaggerated contrast and easily crushed blacks and whites, evident in other CMOS video cameras.

..............

Can't wait to put it to use : )

The colors and contrast are certainly "cranked up" in camera. I expect the blacks can be opened up in post, especially if a neutral contrast curve is set in-camera. With the low noise of the camera there should be a lot of real information in the low bit dark areas.

I've been noticing (and not necessarily liking) the crushed blacks as well. The contrast seems to change throughout the video depending on the lens in use. I hope you can pull those blacks up in post... or maybe there is even a setting in camera.

This camera seems to be finicky. I thought the shot in front of the fireplace was just great. The shot panning down on the shoe, not so good.

If canon can make a still camera that shoots video with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1, why can't they make an XH A1 with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1?

Yea... what Bill said :D

If canon can make a still camera that shoots video with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1, why can't they make an XH A1 with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1?

Probably because they can't sample the chip at more than 30 times a second (60 times a second would be required for interlaced video). I don't know if they think they can't market a 24P/30P only camera? It does seem like that's the next logical step though. Give it a year or two. In the meantime, I'm getting one of these.

I only shoot 24f anyway, so I don't want/need interlace. Just gimme that big chip.

If canon can make a still camera that shoots video with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1, why can't they make an XH A1 with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1?

Excellent question you ask there and the answer is... probably no reason at all. They've gotten us conditioned to paying certain prices for certain types of gear and that's the only reason. When they do release the XHA1 equivalent it'll cost $6000. I base this on no real info, just a guess.

If canon can make a still camera that shoots video with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1, why can't they make an XH A1 with a 35mm size chip for the price of an XH A1?

Lenses....

The XHA1 has a 20x (~32-650mm in 35mm terms) image stabilized parfocal lens which doesn't breath, has a smooth motorized zoom and zooms & focuses silently... I don't think there's anything even remotely approaching this in terms of a single DSLR lens, so to replicate the XHA1's lens capabilities you'd need several lenses which would cost far more in total than the camera - and you wouldn't get motorized zoom, would likely still have breathing issues with some of the lenses, and they would probably be noisier too.

I don't know what it would cost to make a similar lens for an XHA1 with a full-frame 35mm sensor, but based on this page I can guess:

HDTV & Cine Lenses | B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper%28ds%29&sq=asc&sortDrop=Brand%3A+A+to+Z&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&ci=2672&shs=&at=Brand_Canon&basicSubmit=Submit)

The cheapest is ~$8k for a 1/2" lens, the 2/3" lenses jump to about $18k and only go up from there. They're big lenses too, most as big or bigger than the XHA1 itself. How much bigger & more expensive than these would a 35mm lens need to be?

Maybe they could figure out a way to make a cheaper, smaller lens but they'll have to compromise something (most likely image quality) to do so and I don't see any way they could do it for less than several times the current XHA1's cost.

A more likely possibility would be an XL-H1 body with the larger sensor, but that's likely to cost the same as an XHA1 without a lens and you're back to using DSLR lenses... which might be fine for indy filmmakers but aren't ideal for the vast majority of users of these cameras - corporate, broadcast, industrial, & wedding videography.

EDIT: forgot about the cooke zooms, that might give us an idea of potential cost as well. Their 18-100mm 35mm cinema zoom runs ~$50k.

The XHA1 has a 20x (~32-650mm in 35mm terms) image stabilized parfocal lens which doesn't breath, has a smooth motorized zoom and zooms & focuses silently... I don't think there's anything even remotely approaching this in terms of a single DSLR lens


That's correct. I hope you don't mind if I add a more verbose explanation. The first reason for this is that telephotos are not limited by the sensor, but the aperture of the lens. Increasing the sensor size without increasing aperture doesn't improve light gathering ability.

The maximum aperture of the XH A1 is varies between 2.8mm and 26mm (4.5mm f/1.6 - 90mm f/3.4). Building a similar lens on 35mm would be 32-650mm f/11 - f/25. It is the same amount of light (26mm aperture) spread out over a much larger surface.

But the XH A1 has triple sensors, so you would need a lens that is about 1.6 stops brighter to get the same amount of light incident on the sensor. If you're shooting tungsten, where 3CCD gets 25% more incident light than Bayer, you need even a little more. Finally, the quantum efficiency of the XH A1 sensors is probably a little higher than the 5D Mark II, on an area basis, but who knows how much that is. All that gets you up to a 32-650mm f/11 just to get similar performance, and the lens aperture is already over twice as large and heavy (60mm).

But who would go to all the trouble just to get similar performance? (Not to mention the fact that no one even makes a high quality 650mm f/11.) To actually improve light gathering ability would require even more glass, which gets very heavy, very fast.


The cheapest is ~$8k for a 1/2" lens, the 2/3" lenses jump to about $18k and only go up from there. They're big lenses too, most as big or bigger than the XHA1 itself. How much bigger & more expensive than these would a 35mm lens need to be?


Those lenses need tremendous backfocus distances to clear the prism, have very small manufacturing volume compared to still lenses, and have much more engineering (motor zoom, silent focus, controlled breathing, better focus control, etc.). Of course, the physical aperture and MTF performance are major factors.

My main point is that if you care about super telephoto, the principle consideration will be the lens aperture (not focal ratio!). If the aperture you want is available in a small sensor, it will probably give better performance than the same aperture on a larger sensor.

But at focal lengths under medium telephoto, the small sensors have very, very tiny apertures. The XH A1 is just 2.8mm at wide angle. It's very easy to beat that with Still35 lenses.

For example, the 6X XL is 3.4-20mm f/1.6-2.6. An equivalent lens on still35 would be 24-140 f/11.0-16.0. Add in the differences from 3CCD, QE, and Tungsten, and you're talking more like f/5.6-8.0. The 24-105 f/4 is pretty close. If you really want to see a difference, the f/1.2 primes in these focal lengths will shine. But as you said, they lack the important made-for-video features.

I thought building ever more powerful zooms was a bit like the megapixel race. The extra utility you get out of it at the tele end is fairly small but it is an easy "selling point" for shop clerks or sales reps, even at the semi-pro level. After all, its cool to have the option, right?

Yes, there is a point of having a powerful zoom, especially for sports and wildlife. But similarly there is a strong case for shallow DOF even beyond Indy cinema. That corporate machine suddenly looks a lot more dramatic with the rack-focus.

Why have pro-photographers survived with a Canon 24-105 lens (a just over 4 times zoom factor) and call this a perfect walkaround lens? Who is using a 24mm and a 400mm in the same context? DOF differences will make it very difficult to cut between this footage anyway. 400mm for the wildlife photographer, a 24-105mm for me.

The two previous posts are very well argued, I just want to play a bit devils advocate and out myself as a "seldom beyond 150 mm zoomer".

Does it look like a still photographer - perhaps - but it is STUNNING. This is making me rethink the hardware once again - very well done :-)

I thought building ever more powerful zooms was a bit like the megapixel race. The extra utility you get out of it at the tele end is fairly small but it is an easy "selling point" for shop clerks or sales reps, even at the semi-pro level. After all, its cool to have the option, right?

Right, and that's actually my point more than anything - to do something like an XHA1 based on the 5D sensor you'll probably end up with something like the kit lens which is about a 4x zoom. From a marketing standpoint this is a huge step backwards when even the cheapest consumer cameras have 10x, and I'm sure Canon's marketing department has a lot of pull when it comes to deciding whether something like that is acceptable. On top of that the lens would have to be modified to make it suited for video.


...there is a strong case for shallow DOF even beyond Indy cinema. That corporate machine suddenly looks a lot more dramatic with the rack-focus.

Absolutely... assuming it's in focus in the first place, which will be a lot more difficult due to the shallow depth of field, and that the client isn't bothered by the breathing as you rack focus with a still camera lens.


Why have pro-photographers survived with a Canon 24-105 lens (a just over 4 times zoom factor) and call this a perfect walkaround lens?

Well, that's just it - it's a perfect walkaround lens, meaning if you have to choose just one lens to walk around with it's probably the most versatile. That doesn't mean most pro photographers don't have a whole collection of longer & shorter lenses which probably cost 10x the body so that they're covered for a variety of situations. I rarely use both ends of my XHA1's zoom in the same scene, but I definitely make use of the whole range fairly regularly. I ordered the 24-105 for the 5D, but I did so knowing I'll be buying and/or renting other lenses as needed for various projects... which is fine since I shoot half a dozen short films and a few corporate videos a year. If I was shooting week in and week out I'd probably stick with the XHA1 for the convenience of the single long zoom.


The two previous posts are very well argued, I just want to play a bit devils advocate and out myself as a "seldom beyond 150 mm zoomer".

I'm probably under 150mm much of the time as well in the final shot - but I use the full zoom range to focus on almost every shot. With the 24-105 you can't zoom in as close to check your focus - and it doesn't matter anyway since the lens isn't parfocal. Combine this with the greater depth of field and focusing could be a real challenge.

The 24-105mm kit lens adds $800 to the base price of the body. Assuming marketing let them sell a video camera with a 4x zoom they'd still have to modify it for video work - parfocal, no breathing , power zoom - which could double or triple that cost. Then add pro-audio hardware to the body and a larger lcd and you start talking about a camera that costs significantly more than the XHA1.

The point is simply that it's far more difficult (and therefore expensive) to make a lens optimized for motion work than it is for stills and that's probably the biggest barrier to a low cost video-specific version of the 5DmkII. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to have one - but I'm just not holding my breath.

Lenses....

I don't think there's anything even remotely approaching this in terms of a single DSLR lens, so to replicate the XHA1's lens capabilities you'd need several lenses which would cost far more in total than the camera

That only applies to those of you that don't already have a nice collection of Canon L Pro glass. Those of us who do are very happy :)

...The 5D MKII is never going to replace the XHA1, but a lot of video shooters will start using it simply for the 35mm DOF look. This is going to make my life so much easier when I have to shoot a run'n'gun talking-head interview and I want a simple way of making a hideous background disappear.

I am pretty certain that the 5D MKII combined with a pair of 24-70mm f2.8 / 70-200mm f2.8 zooms will take care of most of my shooting needs at a total cost less than $7,000. ( add on a BeachTek unit and a couple of good wireless lavs and I'm in heaven )

And the icing on the cake will be the low-light performance, which means I will be able to get by with a very small lighting kit. Can't wait to give this a whirl!

I thinks Guy's comment is "right on the money" and that people need to be realistic about the limited nature of the 5D as a video camera. DOF or low light quality appear to be the reason to use it. But its use will come without many of the features of even low-end camcorders.
What Canon will do with this technology is a very interesting question. As discussed in this forum, there is no obvious path for Canon to using this tech. in traditional camcorders due to lens requirements.

What I simply cannot understand is that if Canon can put this capability into a still camera like the 5DMkII, why can't they simply take the same chip and put it in a more conventional camcorder package and market a large single-sensor Hi-Def camcorder that takes EF lenses and price it in the $3000 range. For anyone owning a bag full of EF lenses it would be a no-brainer and the capabilities would completely blow everything else on the market away.

What I simply cannot understand is that if Canon can put this capability into a still camera like the 5DMkII, why can't they simply take the same chip and put it in a more conventional camcorder package and market a large single-sensor Hi-Def camcorder that takes EF lenses and price it in the $3000 range. For anyone owning a bag full of EF lenses it would be a no-brainer and the capabilities would completely blow everything else on the market away.

Including many products they sale.

They will release such a camera one day, but only when they feel it's time to do so.

If they simply made the camera chain 4Gig files together for continuous recording they would have a workable video camera. At 12 minutes, that won't shoot a wedding ceremony without putting in breaks. It will require interrupting the flow of an interview every 12 minutes. I can live with separate audio recording and/or a 3.5mm sound. My wireless lav is 3.5mm and it is great. Not being able to monitor audio is problematic but can be fixed by recording to a separate device. 12-minute clip length is where this camera really may falter as a video camera for events and corporate work. For artistic shots, especially in low light, it would take ten times the price to rival these images. Somebody hack this thing or I'm probably getting a Sony Z7. I can't afford a new camera unless I sell my V1 and the 5DII isn't a substitute for many things on a dedicated video camera.

Does image stabilization work in video mode? Stabilization makes the more expensive lenses sensible.

Does image stabilization work in video mode? Stabilization makes the more expensive lenses sensible.

It does, but I haven't seen an example posted where it was specifically demonstrated - so not sure if it's as smooth as a typical video camera. Mine's coming today with the kit lens which is stabilized, so I'll try to post a sample shot with it enabled.

Only had a few minutes to shoot with it so far - but the image stabilization does appear to work well. It smoothes out hand shake pretty well without looking obviously stabilized, certainly less aggressive than on my XHA1. It also makes enough noise to come through clearly on the built-in mic, but so does focusing and a lot of handling noise so the built-in mic won't be much use for anything. I don't think the stabilization motor is loud enough that it would be picked up by an external mic, although a very sensitive mic mounted on the hotshoe in a quiet room would probably get a little bit of noise.

The onboard mic is only useful for syncing the audio from your separate audio recorder. ;)

deleted......