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 :-)

[Dave Blackhurst]

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...

[Jeff Kellam]

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.

[Don Miller]

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.

[Oleg Kalyan]

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 : )

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Oleg Kalyan

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.

[Tyler Franco]

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.

[Bill Pryor]

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?

[Bill Busby]

Yea... what Bill said :D

[Brett Sherman]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

[Bill Pryor]

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

[Ethan Cooper]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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

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.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

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.

Originally Posted by Evan Donn

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.

[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?

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".