Can firmware change these?

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

My guess is that the unlock option will be called the 5D Mark III, or the 1D Mark IV...

You're probably right... just most of us hope we don't have to wait 2+ years for a mkIII (based on the time between Canon high end cameras).

[Chris Hurd]

We'll probably see this HD video recording feature improved and moved to another Canon D-SLR (maybe at the Rebel or 50D level, not FF either), before we see an update to the 5D Mk. II. That's my guess anyway. There's usually some leap-frogging of capability among the various product lines...

[Marcus Marchesseault]

"The 5DII is not and doesn't need to be a universal tool."

Yes, but it is close enough for a video guy like me to buy one. I would sell my V1 if I could get continuous video capability (for at least 45 minutes). Perhaps this is Canon's way of getting us to buy two 5DII bodies? I can appreciate that. That is the sort of evil that I respect. Hmmm...maybe I'll keep the V1 and do two-camera shoots until I save enough to get two 5DII bodies? The problem with that is the dual tripod and audio systems needed for two cameras that costs a fortune.

[Paul Cascio]

I am so tempted to buy a 5Dm2, but there are some things that I have concerns about:

30p - Is shiftable frame rate 29.97, 24p, etc. possible via firmware?

Manual Exposure - possible via firmware?

Manual audio level - possible via firmware?

How about audio monitoring?


Is there a reason why Canon would not make these changes if they are technically possible?

How about a third party firmware option? Has it been done with other gear?

[Chris Barcellos]

"Is there a reason why Canon would not make these changes if they are technically possible?"

Because they don't want the SLR to compete with their video division, expecially at the cheaper price point !

[Paul Cascio]

But if Canon doesn't do it, Nikon certainly will. I believe the line has been crossed and there's really no going back.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I think the short comings are not due to evil business intent, but due to the imaging guys keeping the project secret from the video guys. They got the levels wrong in Quicktime. They chose a framerate that isn't used in any video system. They made up a crazy shutter algorithm from scratch. ...yet, they made beautiful pictures.

It's not a conspiracy. It's a matter of non-video people designing their first video product, and not asking the experts for help.

RED won't have this problem. They're getting input from EVERYBODY. :) (Not that they won't make mistakes too. But I expect them not to screw up the fundamentals.)

[Steven Thomas]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

"Is there a reason why Canon would not make these changes if they are technically possible?"

Because they don't want the SLR to compete with their video division, expecially at the cheaper price point !

RED is changing this market, they may have no choice.

[Paul Cascio]

Has Canon traditionally been receptive to FW changes suggested by their cutsomers?

Have they been known to add significant functionality, such as the things requested here?

[Don Miller]

No, never.
But the next camera they sell us will have more of what we want.
Hopefully Red is an option in 2010. Sony should be in this market at some point.

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas

RED is changing this market, they may have no choice.

Yes, but RED requires a whole different commitment in post production. And you can look at the the A1 - HV20 situation to get a glimpse of what Canon is thinking and will be thinking short term. After the A-1 came out to rave reviews, the HV20 came out. It had "crippled" exposure control, but enough work arounds, that many of us could ultimately exert pretty decent shutter and aperature control, and it had 24p to boot. Users screamed for direct exposure control in the next version. Meantime, a lot of pro wedding videographers were shooting the HV20 as a second camera. "Rebel" filmakers were outfitting them with all kinds of gear to adapt them to their film making needs. No telling how many A-1 sales were lost because of the HV20.

Then Canon does the HV30- did they give the direct control ? Nope. They added 30p and a few other changes, and that was about it. Still the same old fight to exert control.

I am hoping you are right, that they will be forced that direction, but it is clear that even RED is going to make us pay dearly for the 35mm sensor size we really want for video. Their "brain" only for that unit starts at $ 7,000, So in the video end, Canon could still push prices to at least that level for a full feature 35mm sensor camera.

[Don Miller]

I would like to have something like red raw.

But the vast majority of users want really controllable 1080p out of the camera. For now Red has turned doing less processing in-camera into a virtue. The processing of a big sensor in a little camera with a little battery by Canon is impressive. A lot of people blinded by Red don't get that.

The 5DII does everything in hardware. Red takes so long to start up because it BOOTS. There's an OS in Red One. The next gen will be done in hardware. Red has a ton of work to do.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

But if Canon doesn't do it, Nikon certainly will.

And yet Nikon already has a D-SLR with an HD video mode that's even more crippled (the D90) and it came out *before* the 5D Mk. II, so I'm not sure how you can say they certainly will when they already haven't.

Originally Posted by Paul Cascio

Has Canon traditionally been receptive to FW changes suggested by their cutsomers? Have they been known to add significant functionality, such as the things requested here?

Originally Posted by Don Miller

No, never.

Dead wrong! Canon has indeed been receptive to FW changes suggested by their customers, especially with things suggested here. The changes made to their XL2 and XH G1S / A1S camcorders were a direct result of wishlists contributed by DV Info Net members (and I learned this by way of Canon Inc., not just Canon USA). So yes, it has been conclusively proven more than once that DV Info Net makes a difference and successfully gets changes implemented into Canon's pro-line cameras. (OIS mapped to custom key, anyone?)

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

After the A-1 came out to rave reviews, the HV20 came out. It had "crippled" exposure control... then Canon does the HV30- did they give the direct control? Nope.

I don't understand how the XH series affects the HV series... those are two completely different lines. None of their consumer camcorders prior to the HV20 have ever had full manual control, so it is unrealistic to have expected it on the HV20 (or HV30 for that matter).

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Dead wrong! Canon has indeed been receptive to FW changes suggested by their customers, especially with things suggested here. The changes made to their XL2 and XH G1S / A1S camcorders were a direct result of wishlists contributed by DV Info Net members (and I learned this by way of Canon Inc., not just Canon USA). So yes, it has been conclusively proven more than once that DV Info Net makes a difference and successfully gets changes implemented into Canon's pro-line cameras. (OIS mapped to custom key, anyone?)

I was speaking of cameras, not camcorders.
Fortunately, this is all goofy enough that they may do a few improvements.
Clearly much of this was rushed. Canon can't be sitting back and saying 'yep, that how we wanted it to work'.

[John Vincent]

I do think Nikon is the wild card here. Clearly their D90 has given the company a lot of interest from places/people who would not normally look at Nikon - perhaps enough so that they look seriously at giving us our cake & letting us eat it too.

If they come out with a D90 "plus" the has 1080p, plus fix a few other bugs, it might very well help Canon issue some new firmware. Well, we can hope can't we?

:)

john