Wedding Photog giving the 5D M2 a workout...

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

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

[Rick Bolton]

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

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Thomas Richter

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.

[Konrad Haskins]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

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 :)

[Guy McLoughlin]

...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!

[Don Miller]

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.

[John Gayman]

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.

[Phil Holland]

Originally Posted by John Gayman

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.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

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.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

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.

[Evan Donn]

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.

[Jon Fairhurst]

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

[Don Miller]

deleted......