So a friend of mine just sold all of his cameras and bought a bunch of 5Ds. To this point I hadn't given them a lot of thought, but now I'm starting to wonder.

As for me, I'm finally ready to sell the old XL2 and move to HD. I'm excited about the XF cameras, but I'm now starting to question whether to go in this direction or move toward the DSLR route.

I'm looking for info on why to stick with a purpose-built video camera. What are the advantages over DSLR?

I may start a similar thread over on the 5D page if there isn't already something similar. Thanks in advance for your input!

Josh

Hi Josh,

I'm in a sorta similar boat, as we are ready to move to HD from our XL2. (Even the wife approves :)

But I am not in the market for a DSLR, unfortunately. Although I'm tempted by the specs and the videos I've seen from the 5D and 7D, we are and truly a "video" business. Which means that we dable into photography (we have a Nikon D80 for photo stuff), but we need to have a true video camera in our hands.

I am also looking at these new Canons, but I'll wait and see how they do first. I'm not in a hurry to purchase, so that's a luxury.

Best,

What are the advantages over DSLR? Here are ten advantages of the XF over a D-SLR:

1. Shot lengths much longer than four minutes per clip.

2. The ability to change focal length during a shot.

3. Longer focal length ratio (18x on XF). Most EOS
lens focal length ratios are on the order of 3x or so.

4. Always-on auto focus (critical for some applications).

5. The ability to operate the camera remotely (focus, zoom, record,
focus assist, etc.) via LANC controller mounted on the tripod pan handle.

6. Single-system sound with full audio controls and XLR inputs built in.

7. Headphone jack for monitoring audio (no D-SLR has one).

8. Image Stabilization (EOS lenses with IS create audible noise).

9. Superior ergonomics for hand-held work relative to D-SLRs.

10. Required video tools are built in (ND filters, WFM, vectorscope etc.)

I own three HD-equipped Canon D-SLRs -- an EOS 5D Mk. II, an EOS 7D
and a Rebel T2i. None of them can replace a real video camera, especially
the forthcoming XF series. They are excellent tools to add to your kit, but
they're not substitutes for your primary camera(s).

I enjoy using the 5D and 7D for my own projects, and for cutaways and low risk shots in corportate shoots. As a workhorse however, Chris is spot on.... if you try replacing a conventional video camera with a DSLR you can get stung.

Added to Chris' list are moire and aliasing issues, which are easy enough to work around on personal projects / indie film making, but not for daily work (unless you're happy asking cleints to change shirts because your camera is likely to go psychedelic on the collar).

That's why I always bring the 7D to jobs and use it opportunistically, but my next camera (to replace a Z5) will be the EX1r or XF300... that's the comparison I'm most interested in.

I thought so as well- but I have seen and spoke to several event shooters who are now 100% DSLR and while they claim it does take a bit more attention- they are producing outstanding work.
I'm currently considering this camera as my A to a 5D B or just buy another 5D.

A second 5D Mk. II body is certainly much less expensive than an XF 300, but consider this... with the XF 300 lens at full telephoto, you get an equivalent field of view of more than 500mm, and that's at f/2.8. You can't do that with a 5D Mk. II because there's no such lens for it. You can get close to it with a 7D due to the 1.6x crop factor with the EF 300mm f/2.8 lens, but that glass will set you back $4400. And it's a prime lens... no zooming.

Good points, thanks for elaborating it, Chris! They are the very factors which we often take for granted in a video camera.

Like a lot of us, I am very put off by the price. US$6800 is really not cheap! I'd be really happy if the price range falls on XH-A1/S area.

What would be ideal is if XH-A1S falls in price and XF series take over the spot. That way customers would still have a choice to either buy HDV camera at a more attractive price point, or to top up some premium to get the newer tapeless format camera.

The price of the XF300 will not go to where you hope....these cameras have a very tight margin and Canon has a long history of not lowering the cost. I agree with you that the $3500 price mark is very attractive and it has been the entry level price for around ten years (XL-1,PD150,170,XL-2,DVX100,etc)....I understand the hesitation but, by spending the additional money, you open the door for many more possibilites.....and I would argue the the small difference price between the 300 and 305, by going with the 305, you really open up your options.....with all the hard drive recorders out there and the higher codec levels that they offer (eg: NANO).
Its about expanding your employment opportunities by having a wide range availible to your clients...and the new ones you wouldn't have if you hadn't upgraded.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I believe you can use a nano w/ the 300 via its HDMI port.

Ok. How about a dumb question? What is Nano, and where can I learn about it in DVINFO?

Thanks.

Jonathan

Peter.....you are just smarter than me...actually, I always push SDI because HDMI is a dead end signal and on the set it seems someone always wants their own monitor so one must loop.....and loop.....and loop again....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Convergent Design nanoFlash Forum at DVinfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/convergent-design-nanoflash/)

Thanks for that. So Nanoflash is sort of a firestore, or P2 store storage device. Are these relevant since this camera and others that shoot to card and that you don't gain anything quality wise. In other words, isn't the image only as good as how it gets processed internally in the camera?

I realize that the nanoFlash hs much higher BR capabilities, but doesn't the camera dictate that?

And at 2800.00US....ow.

Learning something new...

Jonathan

As far as I know, coming out HD SDI on the 305 should be just like the previous Canons....1.48GB uncompressed.......the device you are recording on to dictates the codec and level...

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I thought so as well- but I have seen and spoke to several event shooters who are now 100% DSLR and while they claim it does take a bit more attention- they are producing outstanding work.

Oh I agree - my company has been producing beautiful work with DSLRs for 18 months - and for event shooting you could get away with them exclusively (albeit with work arounds).

However, I don't think DSLRs present a robust solution for all tasks - I can think of a number of corporate shoots we've done in the last year where for various reasons (attire, interview duration, required set-up time, audio limitations), we would have been left red-faced if we didn't have a conventional camera on hand.

In a year or two, particularly when run-time and moire/aliasing have been sorted, I think I may be ready to switch over completely - I'd much rather spend 7K on a set of zeiss primes for a DSLR than buy another camcorder :-) But at present, for my company anyway, I need a camera I can rely on in any situation, and the XF may be the one.

here is an interesting interview with vincent laforet, who has been a big user on the hd dslr side of things, but gives his views on the subject. PLUS i put this up because at 1:15 is a sweet reference to the XF camera =]. looks pretty big, which i really like. i am caught in this conversation too with my dad, and have been looking extensively into the topic. but i keep leaning to the one man versatility of a pure video camera to market myself more. plus, with the features of the XF, the codec and features are way above what you would spend on making a 5D work for video. Canon has made some outstanding images in the past, and this camera i do not think will disappoint.

dan
Vincent Laforet on DSLR news and documentary video shooting on Vimeo

The only vdslr i would buy at this point is the 2Ti/550D. You will want one of the large cmos video specific cameras that will start coming out in less than a year. We are currently in bizarroland when an episode of the worlds most watched TV show is being shot exclusively with a mid level Canon DSLR. These kind of events force Sony and Panny off the incremental upgrade path.

The 1/3 cmos chip shows the current state of the art - impressive even if just a small IQ upgrade from earlier models. The electronics package is what we will likely see in future cameras from canon.

Nothing you can buy in this price range will feel current a year from now. This is the end of the 3 CCD better videocam cycle.

I'm loving the dialogue here! Thanks for all of the great info so far. It's interesting to see the various perspectives in the midst of this ever-changing art form.

Thanks for posting the video, Daniel. He makes some interesting points.

Great thread, and thanks for posting the video above.

Totally agree with Chris Hurd and Vincent Laforet. The 5dmkii is a superb second camera IMO, but no substitute for a "proper" video camera.

When i have the cash i'd like the new XF camera, and a nice super wide for my 5D + Zoomh4. This would be a formidable combination for what i need to do. The 5d - or any other DSLR - has serious shortcomings IMO, but since the XF isn't out yet, and i can't afford it anyway, i'm loving my 5d, and renting EX1's for jobs that require "real" video cameras.

I also think the EX1 codec is far superior regarding grading latitude, than the 5D, and the 50mbps 422 Canon should be even better.

Bare with me here but I think it has a lot to do with the term "Video Camera"

If you want a "Video Camera" you go with something like this XF Camera it has the items that Chris pointed out and it behaves like the Video Cameras that have been produced for years. Long run times, large zooms, audio input etc. If the Video Camera workflow is what you need/are used to this is the type of camera for you.*

However if you you're used to a more Film style work flow, primes, separate audio, 35mm sensor etc, then you go with something like a DSLR which is more similar to a "film camera" (or a red or one of the other new cameras coming out...) and if that's what you're looking for then that's the workflow you should be comfortable with.

End DSLR/video cam rant

All that being said there is no way I can invision myself owning this xf camera. Four years ago I was one of the first owners of an XL-H1 it was at the time groundbreaking and awesome, it was also 9000 bucks but it was bringing HD to the consumer level in a way no other cam had yet (the z1u was sub par and the hvx hadn't been released yet) So Canon could pretty much name their price. Now however we have a camera that seems like an incremental upgrade and because of the switch to card based technology (not new) the division believes it can get 6800 for the camera, and I'm sure it will, but the price for this technology is entirely too high for the amount of innovation that it provides. I think a better buy will be the xh-a1 or xl-h1(s) as they will be way cheaper and still provide about as much Video Camera as the average user needs. Of course if you hate working with tapes then maybe this camera is right for you, especially if you have some extra money to burn, though I think the ex-3 may have it beat.

(for the record I own both a 7d and an h1 they both get about the same amount of work and fulfill their jobs admirably)

This camera knocks the ball out of the park on lots of levels: LCD (large and very adjustable, waveform, vectorscope), lens (Canon glass, hard stops), codec (4:2:2), convenience (solid state recording, batteries show their life).

It's a very nice camera, arguably better than an EX-1 save the chip size and low light performance.

But that's the rub, a lot of people want shallower DoF and better low light performance than 1/3 size chips can provide. In which case, this camera becomes a difficult sell. If they don't sell, I have think Canon will drop the price.

I will make a bold and completely unsubstantiated claim that within a year the XF300 will be selling for $4,800.

I will make a bold and completely unsubstantiated claim that within a year the XF300 will be selling for $4,800.

Which would be a great time for an XL version to come out at the XF's current price range.

I know that the Canon's shoulder mount/interchangeable lens line always shares the same chip as its hand held/fixed lens line but I can't help but think that the XL line will have a bigger chip this time around than the XF's since it's form factor is preferred by many for film making. Thus the XF line will be like their event videography line and the XL series will be their digital film camera.

I don't know, just a thought.

I have decided to go with the 5Dm2 because I work as a still photographer as well. I will be using the 5D to back up/augment my XH-A1 and HV-30 for video work and look forward to having the creative options. But i am also unsure about using the 5D in a run and gun situation... it will likely be more specialized (controlled situations! Low light!)
As to the limitations, is it possible that firmware can fix or minimize moire etc.(can it change how it reads the sensor and how fast?), make auto focus continually function (if you can focus by pushing a button, can't you lock that button on? or would it continually search and never find focus..???), and improvements to CF cards or file formats could increase recording time limits (Chris-did you mean 4 GB not minutes?)?
maybe stupid questions (i am certainly no technician), but wouldn't that be nice? of course they will likely address these issues in a new camera instead, but i do wish my upcoming substantial investment could have improvements that won't make me have to lu$t over yet another camera (for at least a few years)!

Hey Peter, Park cameras - who i bought my 5d from - seem to be selling the xf300 for ...... sit down, take a deep breath...... £10,000

That's 16 grand US$

I'm assuming this is a typo. Here's the link:

Shopping Basket - Park Cameras Online (http://www.parkcameras.com/ShoppingCart.aspx)

They must have read your post and just lowered the price...

to £9,999, LOL!

Crazy!

Thanks, that gave me a good laugh ;).

Peter

Park Cameras are a good retailer with competitive prices which is why i bought my 5d mkii from them. Not sure where this exorbitant price comes from. I could buy 2 EX1's for that.

Insane!

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

But that's the rub, a lot of people want shallower DoF and better low light performance than 1/3 size chips can provide. In which case, this camera becomes a difficult sell. If they don't sell, I have think Canon will drop the price.
..............

I wouldn't assume the low light performance is worse than the ex1/3. Considering the price it has to be fairly good.

Park Cameras are a good retailer with competitive prices which is why i bought my 5d mkii from them. Not sure where this exorbitant price comes from. I could buy 2 EX1's for that.Looks to like they are trying it on for people wanting to pre-order, to be sure of getting one of the first batch off the boat. That price will drop significantly once they are in stock.

For comparison, the latest newsletter from UK retailer Top Teks says "At about £6K it will compete with the EX3". My guess is that UK prices will settle to a little under £6k by the end of the year, depending on the cam's popularity and that all-important comparison with the EX1r & EX3. I'm guessing that XH-A1s prices will drop a bit, too, maybe to £2.5k?

I struggle to understand why someone would pay more for a first batch camera when generally the first batches have the most issues. I would want to wait and see how it performs and then make a decision to invest.

Not sure I should admit this here, but I have a pre-production XF305 sitting here beside me on the desk...

The camera arrived yesterday for me to test and review (no NDAs in place) and I have not had the chance to shoot much with it, except some low light stuff of the kids Chinese musical toy (Vimeo)

I'm a stills guy and know the Canon DSLRs inside out (except the 550D) + I have XH G1s here too. This camera is radical and very impressive to use. It is a quantum leap forward in terms of usability and function.

To anyone trying to make the choice of DSLR or XF300/305, it s seriously a no-brainer. Unless you need shallow focus, the XF is the way forward (or grab an XF & 7D?)

For those not familiar with the camera, the screen is stunning and gives plenty of information for focus, even outdoors. There is a magnify button by each zoom toggle / shutter release and the LCD features an edge monitor focus scope.In AF, there is a face detect / track option.

The lens seems, from my limited testing, to be a huge leap from the XH lens and the semi-shoulder mount position with the LCD out gives great stability.

I'll be writing a detailed review of this over the next couple of weeks which I can share, with admin's permission, once complete.

To answer the original point "Convince me to buy one" - I am going to struggle to give this back when the call comes....

So low light looks impressive?
Usability being much better than vDSLR is a given.
With you initial positive impression, I'm hopeful the image is dslr-like.

Don,

I think 'the look' is very appealing. I have cut a few seconds of my first clip and posted it to the link below. It is MPEG2 and opens in VLC or QT7. I transferred this via the Canon plugin for FCP, but set the format as 'native' which has obviously removed the MXF wrap.

The camera is pre-production model, so do not take this as final quality (it is likely to improve) + it was set on full auto, so I suspect there is a lot of gain + auto white balance etc. Nothing has been done to this clip.

I will be shooting a lot more over the next few days, so when I can I will post more clips. I'm also happy to shoot colour targets ( I have a bunch of XRite charts in the studio) and some skin in daylight if it is useful?

http://snipr.com/vx9oj-caj

Nick.

I'll be writing a detailed review of this over the next couple of weeks ...Nick, you've got mail! Thanks,

Hi, Nick!

Please upload the native .MXF-files.
There are problems when viewing the converted files on PC (both VLC, QT7 and NLEs).
Thanks.

Thanks for that. So Nanoflash is sort of a firestore, or P2 store storage device. Are these relevant since this camera and others that shoot to card and that you don't gain anything quality wise. In other words, isn't the image only as good as how it gets processed internally in the camera?

I realize that the nanoFlash hs much higher BR capabilities, but doesn't the camera dictate that?

And at 2800.00US....ow.

Learning something new...

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

The nanoFlash is quite different than a Firestore.

The Firestore and similar devices record the already compressed signal from the camera.

The nanoFlash uses the uncompressed HD-SDI or HDMI output. HD-SDI is 1,485 Megabits per second, as compared to the 25 Megabits per second signal from an HDV camera that goes into a Firestore. (Please note that some Firestores, for some cameras, use a higher bit-rate, up to about 100 Mbps).


The nanoFlash takes the full uncompressed signal, almost always 4:2:2, even on cameras that only record in 4:2:0, then compresses it using a bit-rate and flavor that you choose. You can also choose to record in Quicktime for drag and drop editing with Final Cut Pro, or MXF for Avid, Sony Vegas, and many others.

The image quality, as recorded by a nanoFlash can be outstanding. We typically get reports that the image quality is "Amazing".

So, if you camera can record at 4:2:0, 35 Mbps or 4:2:2 at 50 Mbps, or most anything else, the nanoFlash can record up to 280 Mbps, if you so desire. Typically our users record at 100 Mbps.

Disclaimer: I am the Director of Sales and Marketing for Convergent Design, the nanoFlash is our product.

Thanks for the clip nick. Though, i am still not impressed by this camera yet. Buy iy could be the auto settings for sure. I remember the first time i got the a1, auto gain was on the noise danced the whole image, i am hoping this is the case with the xf files?

To dan, thats very interesting, so nanoflash will take a 4 2 0 codec and create a 4 2 2 file? Also, with the hdmi on the 300 version, the option for hd sdi would not be worth it then?

I posted this in another post but maybe didnt get seen. Towards the end is the xf 305 footage on a theatre screen and from what i can see looks great. The sky looks clean, rich and unbroken in quality. My only speculation is if the used the hd sdi out and made uncompressed files to edit with and create this demo material, the xf 300 would not be as clear? Thanks for the help.

Dan

NAB 2010 - Inside Canon's HD theather on Vimeo

Ivan,

The clips I have are too big to upload - I will shoot some very short ones after the long weekend and upload .MXF

The auto settings are not to be judged - it is the only daylight clip I have. More to follow shortly.

Nick.

To dan, thats very interesting, so nanoflash will take a 4 2 0 codec and create a 4 2 2 file? Also, with the hdmi on the 300 version, the option for hd sdi would not be worth it then?

Dear Daniel,

Almost. We do not magically generate 4:2:2 from 4:2:0.

Many cameras record internally using 4:2:0. If they have HD-SDI or HDMI outputs, the camera puts out the much better (more color detail) images, 4:2:2 images, via the HD-SDI or HDMI outputs.

The Canon XF series records 4:2:2 at 50 Mbps internally, which is one of the very nice features of the camera. Most other cameras in this price range record 4:2:0 at 35 Mbps or less.

In other words, most cameras can not record the great images that they are capable of producing, but are capable of putting out their full image quality, via the HD-SDI or HDMI outputs. That is how we obtain the 4:2:2 images.

The magic of the nanoFlash is that it can record thsee 4:2:2 images, at a variety of bit-rates, qualities, and file formats. Thus, if you want to record at 80, 100, 140, 180, 220 or 280 Mbps with the Canon XF series, then the nanoFlash is for you.

The image quality from HD-SDI and HDMI are equal. HD-SDI is the more professional of the two, and HD-SDI includes timecode. Timecode is not part of the HDMI spec.

HD-SDI uses locking BNC connectors and inexpensive cables that can be used for long cable runs.

HDMI's connectors also work well, but are no way near as secure as HD-SDI, and the cable length is limited.

If the footage that you have seen was recorded in camera, using the XF series, then it is 4:2:2.

If the footage was recorded via the HD-SDI or HDMI output, then it is probably 4:2:2 also.

I hope this helps.

Finally, and as promised, a couple of XF305 clips. Please remember this is a Pre-Production camera. I'm not sure the WB is perfect, but it could be user error!

Apologies, these are not .mxf, but I will upload a few MXF files to Chris Hurd over the next 24 hours and they will be online shortly.

These clips were both shot at 0dB gain (camera range is -6 to +33dB) on a custom white balance at 50Mbs / 1080p

011 uses on camera audio, 003 uses the external Rode NT4 seen on the clip.

There are two versions: .mp4 - MXF converted via Canon plugin into PR422 and then Adobe Media Encoder into mp4.

The .mov file is the same as one of the MP4 but ProRes422 direct from the plugin. Mac only from memory.

MP4: http://snipr.com/w26my-zbd (2 short clips)


ProRes: http://snipr.com/w276c-plu (1 short clip)

Thanks so much Nick. You mentioned these cameras are a big step up from the XH series in terms of usability / functionality.

What's your initial feeling on how IQ compares... is this also a significant leap, and if so, in which areas? Anything you could share would be wonderful. Thanks in advance,

Josh

Image quality is good. I'm not sure I would say quantum leap, but definitely a very noticeable difference from the previous HDV cameras. Again, bear in mind this is a pre-production camera and it is likely to be refined before release.

I have not tested heavily in low light, but at +12dB, I am happy to use this for client work whereas I would not say the same with my XHs. One of the .mxf clips is of a child's spinning toy shot at +12 in no light, so there will be an opportunity for you to see what you think. The other clip is my boy shot handheld in evening room light at 0dB gain.

I am hoping to get a slightly quieter time this week to give me the opportunity to shoot color targets under different gain settings before the camera has to be returned.

There is some serious image stabilisation on board, with 3 different options - I do not have a manual, so again, I need time to evaluate.

I am enjoying working with this camera: very usable and nice looking results + playback on set, to clients is SO useful. Log and transfer is a stunning improvement over tape ingestion too.

Nick.

So a friend of mine just sold all of his cameras and bought a bunch of 5Ds. To this point I hadn't given them a lot of thought, but now I'm starting to wonder.

As for me, I'm finally ready to sell the old XL2 and move to HD. I'm excited about the XF cameras, but I'm now starting to question whether to go in this direction or move toward the DSLR route.

I'm looking for info on why to stick with a purpose-built video camera. What are the advantages over DSLR?

I may start a similar thread over on the 5D page if there isn't already something similar. Thanks in advance for your input!

Josh

This is a thread that is near and dear to my heart. I've been a commercial still photographer for over three decades. I have just about every lens that Canon makes including the first 800mm in the US. My bodies are always three or four of the top of the line pro Canon gear. My video work has always been done on Canon, currently an XH/A1. I have two 1D MKIV bodies and am awaiting the 1Ds MKIV rumored in the fall. When I received the first IV what interested me was the increased file size and the smoking fast buffer. I shoot a lot of aviation and my 1Ds MKIII's are great, but a little slow sometimes depending upon my subject matter. The video capability of the IV intrigued me, but I didn't think I'd use it all that much. I missed that call by a mile.

The capability to shoot HD clips with my still camera has turned out to be a much bigger advantage than I anticipated. Three different times since I've owned the camera my clients have decided at the very last second they would like HD footage of the assignment. All three times I was able to oblige them, with a hefty rate increase, and they were overjoyed. Much of my work is done from a vantage point that is pretty tight quarters so being able to eliminate/reduce extra cameras, batteries, stabilizers, media is an appealing proposition. Another definite plus is the fact that my air to air work is often done in very fleeting light at the crack of dawn and right after sunset at altitude. The light quality literally changes from minute to minute, cloud colors and formations are there and in the blink of an eye they vanish. The ability to be ripping through still images one minute, then go to live view, pop my ZFinder on the preview screen and be rolling HD with the same camera, same lensing, is just a dream come true and as I said before, a profitable dream at that.

All of your comments and questions really strike a chord because, as much as I love the DSLRHD capability, as Chris said earlier, I don't see it as an either/or proposition. The more I see these cumbersome "erector set" rigs popping up (and at prices that rival some of the camera bodies themselves)
designed to aid the DSLRHD videographer in achieving his or her "cinematic" style the more I like my XH/A1. Don't get me wrong, these adaptations all serve distinct purposes, smoothness, follow focus, adding monitors, etc., but man, you have taken something that began as a convenient, fairly simple alternative to an HD cam and turned it into the lunar rover, not to mention doubling your investment. I'm not saying I won't end up with a couple of those rigs, but I really hate the thought of having more stuff to manage.

My view of all this might change, heck it already has, but I see my HDDSLR capability as a blend with my XH/A1 and soon my XF305. WHile there are folks making some beautiful "films" with their DSLR tools, it's a cumbersome technology at present and I don't see it being a solution for every assignment that calls for video.

You might enjoy this clip, it's one of those instances where I was able to wow the client with the IV. The aircraft in the clip is a WWII B-25 bomber that I use frequently as my photo platform. The tail gun/cone is removable so I can crawl out to the open tail, secure my harness and shoot incredible, and unobstructed perspectives of everything from current day fighters and business jets to vintage one of a kind aviation icons like the P-38 Lightning.

Here's the link.........

North American B-25 Air to Air on Vimeo

Great footage James! Beautiful light.

Practically flying over my house although a few miles east in Arlington.

Thanks for sharing

The light was wonderful. Just as we were about to launch a plume of cirrus clouds blocked the setting sun so we waited on the ground about 30 minutes longer than we'd planned. The hourly operating costs of these aircraft is pretty substantial so circling around waiting for the right light isn't a good option. We had much less time to shoot because of the narrow window of magic light so the HD capability of the MKIV really was a life saver.

I think this new camera is an admirable successor to the XH series. I went from shooting with a 2/3" chip "broadcast style" camera to the XH A1 when they first came out. It served me quite well and I still have it. In late 2008 when I first saw "Reverie," I said, "OK, great look, awesome look...but that guy's an artist. He can take all day on a shot if he wants. Nobody will ever shoot 'real' video with one of those."

Then when the 7D came out last September, I got one because I needed a new still camera and thought it might be a good idea to have a backup to my XH A1 for out of town trips. I did a weekend test shoot with the 7D...and I haven't taken the XH A1 out of its bag since, except for two different Steadicam shots because I was having a problem with balance on the 7D (problem since solved).

In my day job I shoot mostly corporate things--training, sales, product knowledge type video. I also shoot local documentary things and footage to show on big screens to introduce a local film festival, etc. So, I am doing everything I always did with traditional video cameras with an HDSLR now. The only time I've had the moire problem is when I had a long shot of a brick building with strong sidelight. By moving to a slightly different angle, I worked around the issue.

I shot with the 7D from last October till last week, when I got a 5DMKII. My reason for going to the 5D was that I wanted to shoot mostly with primes, specifically my old Nikkors. I use wider angles more than longer lenses and needed the 24mm to be 24mm.

So, while some say the HDSLR is not really a full replacement camera, it has become just that for me. However, I'm still not going to sell the XH A1. If I ever have to shoot an event where I need long takes, the 5D won't do that. If I need a lens longer than my 70-200 L, I can add a telextender, or get a longer lens. The lack of auto settings doesn't bother me because I don't use them. I also don't use zooms (nothing says "corporate video" like a zoom, in my opinion).

Today I have pretty good control over all that I shoot, but if I were doing events, strictly documentary films, things like that, I probably would go for this new Canon. It may be the best 1/3" chip camera ever made (and maybe the last one too). As far as the hassle of HDSLR shooting--it's there, of course, but it's no more of a hassle than shooting film, which many of us did for years. In fact, HDSLR shooting is so much like film shooting that I've started saying "digital film" instead of "video."

One thing about HDSLRs, you should not go there thinking it's cheaper. The camera body is cheaper, sure. But you can spend $10K easily to get it the way you want it. That's still way, way cheaper than the nearest big chip video camera. I have about $3800 in my 5D, including a 50mm Zeiss and a 70-200 L. My primary lenses are my old Nikkors: 24mm, 35mm and 105mm. Those 3 lenses would cost about $4500 to buy today, or more. So you could say I have about $9K in my package, including the sound recorder, rails, follow focus, ND filters, etc. That's probably about average for what most people would spend if they plan to shoot "real" video with an HDSLR. The new Canon 1/3" chip video camera is a lot cheaper than that. You do the HDSLR thing for the quality and the look, not for the cost or ease of use.

interesting information here bill, thanks for sharing. and it is true that to produce quality work from the hdslr's, there is a lot more than body and lens needed. as a side note from the topic, would you say the 5D has proven to be sharper when compared to the 7D? i have not tried the 5D but my 7D footage from a friends camera was soft and i was not impressed. could have been the sigma lens as it was he only one he gave me to try.

as for this camera, i really like the codec and canon equipment is great, but as i only really have one time to buy a camera in this price range, i want to get it right. i will still wait and see what will come out in the near future, video technology is changing at a very fast rate.

dan

I don't think the 5D is significantly sharper than the 7D. The Sigma lenses aren't the best way to check for that. If you go to the Zacuto site and look at their episode 3 comparisons with 35mm film, the 5D looks more like Kodak stock while the 7D looks more like Fuji, to me anyway. HDSLR shooting is more about lenses than the camera now. There's a big difference in cheaper lenses and quality ones, and in primes versus zooms. The only reason I got the L zoom was for shooting interviews. I like to change focal lengths during pauses for questions, and that's difficult with primes.