I am just wondering why they don't do it./
everyone (including me) loves the 5D mk2, and it's amazing images.
but there are a lot of limitations (we all know of)
so why don't they do a compact camcorder of the size of the XF100 with the same chip of the 5D, and maybe interchangeable lenses? this way you would get autofocus, stabilization, pro audio, XLR inputs, no length limit AND low light performance, amazing images and shallow DOF.,,,, the whole package.
impossible? why? is it a cost issue hence it would be way too expensive to manufacture? is it (still) too difficult to make from an engineering point of view?
even if they release the Mark 3, my guess is that a few of those limitations will remain...

I am just curious to understand: the only reason I can think of is that it would cannibalise all the other products they sell.
sure it's great to use a device that shoots amazing videos and BTW also amazing photos, but video pros want just the first of the 2

I think it's simply economies of scale. Much fewer pro level video cameras are sold than DSLRs.

In my opinion, Canon doesn't want to introduce a prosumer camcorder with as much aliasing and rolling shutter as we get from DSLRs.

They could easily lift the guts of a 5D2 or 7D, put it in a camcorder body, and tweak the firmware to provide a full set of video features. The development of the sensor and DIVIC IV chip have been paid for many times over by the DSLR market, so economies of scale for those parts are already taken care of. So, I can only conclude that Canon's video people don't want to dilute their pro-line quality with those parts. And if they have to design a new sensor and DSP, then all leverage is lost.

It's possible that Canon could develop their next gen DSLR chips to be amazing for video. But they might not enable all of the awesomeness for DSLRs. They might save some tricks for the pro video market.

While the video side might not be a huge percentage of DSLR buyers, I have no doubt that us video geeks help them sell cameras to photographers. If you want a killer still camera, how can you not be swayed by the fact that the 5D2 was used to shoot a season finale episode of House? Differentiating from Nikon in the stills world is like splitting hairs. Unleash thousands of video shooters with Canon cams and the differentiation is clear. Based on Canon's marketing and trade show speakers, this is not lost on them.

If Canon wanted DSLR guts in a camcorder body, we would have seen it by now. We can only conclude that Canon doesn't plan to do it with this generation of chips. But the next generation could tell a new story.

There's a very good reason why this has yet to happen. I wrote about it extensively here:

Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam at DVInfo.net (http://www.dvinfo.net/uncategorized/canon-reveals-their-next-pro-video-cam.html#aps-c)

In short, the problem is the glass. Motorized zoom lenses that are optimized to record moving images while covering a full-frame or APS-C sensor are prohibitively expensive -- considerably much more so than still photo lenses.

Even for a video lens made for APS-C, consider what the widest focal length would be, what the maximum aperture would be, and the zoom ratio. Factor in the motors and the IS. Canon already makes these lenses in the 2/3" sensor size. They start at around $20,000. How much more expensive would they be, blown up to APS-C size, let alone full frame? The limitation here is the *glass.* Not the camera body. How do you make that glass affordable, without compromising quality? This is the problem, and it's the single most limiting reason why Canon hasn't done it yet.

One of my favorite all-time lines comes from that article:

"The short answer is no. The longer answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."

LOL

Both Sony and Panny have introduced cameras with sensors this size. Had Canon done so (and 1.5 years ago, at that), they could own the market.

I don't know why.

But while I was wishing for it, I thought to myself that they'd probably price it at $10k and I wouldn't buy it anyhow. So I didn't waste a lot of time wishing.

why don't they do a compact camcorder of the size of the XF100 with the same chip of the 5D, and maybe interchangeable lenses?
and who's gona buy XFseries after that?

and who's gona buy XFseries after that?

The same people who buy it today; event videographers, documentary makers, reality style shows, and anyone who shoots in conditions where shallow depth of field would be a hindrance.

Anyway, although the video lens issue (the cost of the glass) as pointed out above would be problematic for a number of shooters, I reckon the majority would be happy enough to carry on using their current photographic lenses (think of all the Canon DSLR shooters with vintage nikon glass), few of them would have a need for video zooms, rather they would stick with their primes.

and who's gona buy XFseries after that?

but that's precisely my point.
the XF series, to name one, cannot get close to the 5D in low light, or so I am told

Both Sony and Panny have introduced cameras with sensors this size.And they use still-photo lenses only, not traditional (motorized) video lenses.

Had Canon done so (and 1.5 years ago, at that), they could own the market. You have to understand that Canon is always the last one to market with any new video technology. They are never first. And they work that way intentionally -- in fact I would say that's one of their primary operating principles, to wait and see what the other companies do and how they do it, before making their own move.

History lesson: Canon was the last to market with DV, about 20 months or more behind Sony and Panasonic. Canon was the last to market with DVD, flash memory and hard drive consumer camcorders. They were last with HDV and MXF. They weren't last with D-SLR video, but they weren't first either (Nikon was). They were last with 24p integration. They were last to add HD video to still photo digicams. So if you look at their overall track record, then you will realistically expect them to be last in this particular area as well, never mind whether the lenses are motorized or not.

And when they finally do choose to come to market, you can expect them to over-price their products by about 20% of what they should be. I can say that, because I've been a customer of theirs for quite a long time, always paying full retail.

And actually, why would they really want to. They are selling a full frame and several APC chip cameras now that are being used for cinema shooting, successfully by many. And when someone complains about certain aspects, all they have to say is, "This is a still camera, not intended for film making."

If we look at the differences between a traditional, prosumer camcorder and DSLR, we get these categories:

* Aliasing and heavy rolling shutter due to the large DSLR sensors.
* Lack of motorized zoom and live autofocus
* Lack of XLR audio inputs
* Lack of on-screen exposure and focusing tools
* Ergonomics

Between Magic Lantern and companies like juicedLink, Redrock Micro, Zacuto, etc, the last three are largely solved for DSLRs. Sure, Canon could put all of this in a dedicated body and sell it for $5k, but many shooters would still choose a DSLR for the money saved.

The one thing that would justify the higher price would be a clean HDMI output. But we'd still have aliasing, so there is only so much value.

The first two items would involve new sensor and lens designs, which would be significant investments. And the price would still be high and DSLRs would still cannibalize sales.

Personally, I think that the sensor is the bigger issue than the lens. As a prime shooter, electronic zoom is a foreign concept. ;) Clearly, there is a market for camcorders that accept photo lenses. And Canon likes selling glass. :)

The same people who buy it today;
if camcorder with full frame sensor, ois, and power zoom would exist?
i don't think so :)

if camcorder with full frame sensor, ois, and power zoom would exist?
i don't think so :)

The OP asked about "why don't they do a compact camcorder of the size of the XF100 with the same chip of the 5D, and maybe interchangeable lenses" - no mention about the OIS and power zoom.

But you can go out and buy a RED or an Alexa today, but we're talking different prices here. A canon camcorder with full frame sensor, ois, and power zoom would be a lot more expensive than a current XF model.

The XF camera as it stands is selling very well, the AF100 and the FS100 (which for all intents and purposes fill the same niche as the imaginary 5D Canon camcorder would) wont affect it because it is aimed at a different type of shooter.

Too much emphasis is placed on DOF; some situations dont need it.

I'm shooting some run-and-gun hunting safaris in the wilderness next week, and the XF would be the perfect choice for that scenario.

If you want deep focus, there are many 1/3 to 2/3" cams out there that will do everything you need. Scarlet will compete in this category when you want cinema-style grading.

DSLRs are at the other end of the spectrum, delivering shallow DOF, but they require lots of support to do this well.

The hybrid - or cinema - camera looks like it shoots moving images rather than stills, but has the big sensor and may not have OIS, electronic zoom, and auto focus. IMHO, large sensor cinema shooters are content with simpler, high quality lenses. ONE, EPIC, Alexa, AF100, NEX FS100 all fit this category.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that none of these hybrid/cinema cams have DSLR line-skipping aliasing. They don't have ENG lenses either. That seems to be the way this category is heading.

It all depends on the kind of shooting. A full-frame videocamera for film shooting works perfectly with still photo lenses, as this kind of shooting almost never requires zooms. So I agree with Chris that making a full-frame true videolens ( with 12 or 20 times zoom) would cost an arm and a leg, but on the other hand, if Canon would have made a videocam with the 5D-chip, they would have taken the market share that Sony and Panasonic now have with the F3 and the likes.