Who needs a videocamera.....

Andy Harding · September 26th, 2008, 10:19 AM

I shoot video and I also do stills, would I use a 5D mark II to film a wedding or other event NO would I use it to film some wildlife after shooting my stills yup!!!! And save my back in the process.

I think you have to take this at face value it does 12 mins on a 4 gig card it ain't going to replace a Canon XL-H1 it's not in Canon's interest to make a product that would render all there other products to the skip........It would to coin a phrase "be commercial suicide".

So basically we have a DSLR that does video just like the 1000 and 1 compacts on the market better quality of course but that's progress for you, The 5D mark II is a great DSLR but it IS a stills camera, the megpixel race has about run it's course there just looking at other things to make them shift cameras. All IMO of course.

Rick Steele · September 26th, 2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Harding

I think you have to take this at face value it does 12 mins

What's the real reason for the 12 minute limitation? Is it just the CF capacity or because the sensors will fry?

I tend to think it's the heat issue as 4gb CF cards are pretty puny these days.

Dave Blackhurst · September 26th, 2008, 12:38 PM

Actually according to the thread here on DVi discussing the camera, I believe the limitiation was discussed as approx 29 minutes OR whenever the 4G was filled up. Supposedly there's a Euro tax/duty related issue where a video cam gets taxed higher than a "still" camera - no doubt some government bean counters are having far less interesting and fruitful discussions about this camera than we are at this very moment <wink>!

The dual purpose nature of the camera is part of the intrigue - same as video cams that can do stills. If photography is catching a "moment", that's a limitation of the format... I shoot stills and find it very frustrating to see I "missed" by a hair... I'm finding that a frame grab with careful selection sometimes catches that "moment". Maybe you can't blow it up as large, but not every shot is meant for a large format.

Not sure about this, but I also believe that it's been reported that you can take stills while shooting video with the Canon, albeit with a "gap"... Since the Sony SR11 can shoot both simultaneously, with a bit of lag on the stills but no gap in the video, I'd say it's merely a function of buffer memory size and the size of the storage media - it should not be overly difficult for a camera to achive "both", although the stills might need to be a lower resolution.

And while the video may be "lower resolution" today, I'd guess that's so it displays in a "consumer" format, i.e. 1080... who's to say that it couldn't be hacked for higher res output? If the raw sensor output is there, it's software/firmware...

Again, I think the developments in the "tool" department are quite interesting, and they do pose some potential challenges as well as some opportunities - no panic involved, just some studious observations.

FWIW the aforementioned discussion has been turning towards the DOWNSIDE of DOF/fine focusing with a DSLR... so there may be minuses for wedding work with this camera too. I know I'm finding myself thinking about how my stabilizing setups would work with a DSLR format... I could see it working...

I wouldn't mind playing with one of these myself, as I enjoy both video and still work, I don't see it as competition, but rather as a natural complement in the audio and visual portrayal of a big day or moment in someone's life!

Since I've been shooting with the SR11 and CX12 (both of which do stills and video simultaneously) in "casual" use I find they work rather well together - the Canon just comes down the road from the opposite direction as it were... and I'm just as comfortable with a still camera in my hand as I am with a video camera, probably because I grew up shooting 35mm...

It's not like having another camera in the stable or at least available for consideration could be a bad thing in any way, though it may skew the toy budget a bit!

Andy Harding · September 26th, 2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Steele

I tend to think it's the heat issue as 4gb CF cards are pretty puny these days.

Hi Rick I thinks that's the excuse I've a Lumix FX 35 for RC aerial work and that records 10 mins+ HiDef (720i) but on the paper work the sensor is supposed to cut off at 8 mins to stop over heating. ;)

Rick Steele · September 26th, 2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Harding

Hi Rick I thinks that's the excuse I've a Lumix FX 35 for RC aerial work and that records 10 mins+ HiDef (720i) but on the paper work the censer is supposed to cut off at 8 mins to stop over heating. ;)

Makes sense Andy - that's what I thought.

Jaron Tauch · September 29th, 2008, 10:20 AM

I shoot weddings with an A1, while this camera wont be replacing that anytime soon I think this would be a great accompaniment to use during the bridal prep and for photoshoot footage at the park, of course switching back to my a1 for the ceremony and speeches where I need longer run times with good audio.

Rick Steele · September 29th, 2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaron Tauch

I shoot weddings with an A1, while this camera wont be replacing that anytime soon I think this would be a great accompaniment to use during the bridal prep and for photoshoot footage at the park, of course switching back to my a1 for the ceremony and speeches where I need longer run times with good audio.

But for the price of this thing with some glass, you could just get another A1. :)

Jaron Tauch · September 29th, 2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Steele

But for the price of this thing with some glass, you could just get another A1. :)

true, but I couldn't get the same shallow dof and low light capability in such a small package. .. I have some decent glass with my old 10D, so this seems just the ticket for me since I've wanted to upgrade my dslr for a while.

Kevin Shaw · September 30th, 2008, 06:42 AM

What puzzles me is whether photographers would devote their best still camera to shooting video, or buy two 5Ds to cover both, or what? Seems to me this camera makes more sense for videographers wanting to dabble in photography than vice-versa, but I suppose both will occur to some extent.

William Smyth · September 30th, 2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

What puzzles me is whether photographers would devote their best still camera to shooting video, or buy two 5Ds to cover both, or what? Seems to me this camera makes more sense for videographers wanting to dabble in photography than vice-versa, but I suppose both will occur to some extent.

Excellent point. I think this camera could make still photographers feel threatened by videographers versus the other way around. Okay on typical wedding, I shoot between three or four hours of tape. If I shot with the 5D, that would translate to about 378,000 frames. Chances are a good bunch of them will make nice stills. We could offer them to the couple. and we won't be making our product - the video suffer.

On the other hand, a still photographer shooting in video mode will have to give up mobility - to accommodate audio. And they will have to give up their flash. Sure the camera is good in low light, but it won't be the same high quality. Then, many of the photographers I work with still do long exposures - 5 to 30 seconds. Will they want to give up this option?

As I said, if photographers want to shoot video, their main product will suffer. If a videographer uses this to grab stills, it won't change how we shoot - and we can offer some nifty still grabs too.

Also, why is everyone so afraid of 50 thousand photographers? Are videographers still the black sheep of this business? Based on the work I've seen here, the videographers shooting weddings today are just as talented as any other photographers working today.

Chris Hurd · September 30th, 2008, 08:11 AM

I think the vast majority of pro photographers who shoot Canon and are seriously thinking about full-frame are going to rush to buy this camera even if it didn't record HD video. A lot of them will play with the video a bit, but it is first and foremost the *photo* capabilities of the 5D Mk. II which will drive most of the sales on this thing.

That portion of bridal photographers who see a commercial potential in this camera's HD video mode will buy two bodies (it's always a good idea for any serious, business-minded photographer or videographer to have two of the same primary camera, or at least some other substitute camera to use as a backup). That second 5D will go to an assistant (preferably an experienced videographer) and it will shoot some video when it's not shooting second-angle stills. A package including some HD video that a photographer offers won't compete with a full-blown wedding video production, but it will pick up some of the business that the more expensive full wedding video shoots were already missing.

So that was just my opinion... now here's a fact: for anything technical regarding HD video from D-SLR's, we have a new forum dedicated to that subject, covering the Nikon D90, the EOS 5D Mk. II and anything else including non-D-SLR digicams that record HD. The forum is located at:

Photo for HD Video (D-SLR and others) - The Digital Video Information Network

Kevin Shaw · September 30th, 2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Smyth

Also, why is everyone so afraid of 50 thousand photographers? Are videographers still the black sheep of this business? Based on the work I've seen here, the videographers shooting weddings today are just as talented as any other photographers working today.

If it comes down to a struggle for customers between photographers and videographers, the photographers would win because customers usually contact them first. And for weddings in particular, if it becomes common for most couples to expect one company to provide both services, how many videographers are ready to handle that?

Look around on the internet and you'll find many photographers already offering video services, so this is nothing new - the Canon 5D has simply made the debate on this topic more prominent.

William Smyth · September 30th, 2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

If it comes down to a struggle for customers between photographers and videographers, the photographers would win because customers usually contact them first. And for weddings in particular, if it becomes common for most couples to expect one company to provide both services, how many videographers are ready to handle that?

Look around on the internet and you'll find many photographers already offering video services, so this is nothing new - the Canon 5D has simply made the debate on this topic more prominent.

Right. But if you're a videographer and you start offering photography, you're now a photographer too. Advertise yourself a such and and you'll start getting those calls first.

Edited to add:

Maybe I'm dense, but I'd like someone to explain to me how photographer will now shoot video and not have his/her still product suffer.

Kevin Shaw · September 30th, 2008, 12:11 PM

True enough if you modify your marketing to address that and work your way up the search engines to compete with all the photographers who have been doing so for several years. Point being that competing with photographers won't be easy if that's the goal, so those wishing to pursue such a course of action should plan ahead.

A photographer can add video services the same way a videographer would add photography: by hiring enough people to make the shooting workflow effective. We have a slight advantage in that it's easier to add photo to video than vice-versa, but ultimately it's the same challenge either way.

William Smyth · September 30th, 2008, 12:58 PM

Ahhh, now you're second paragraph gets to my point. The only way for still photographers to add video and not make their still product suffer is to add more people. They already can do that. As I see it, the only advantage this camera adds for them is that if they are all shooting with 5D's they all be able to share glass.

September 30th, 2008, 08:11 AM	#56
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I think the vast majority of pro photographers who shoot Canon and are seriously thinking about full-frame are going to rush to buy this camera even if it didn't record HD video. A lot of them will play with the video a bit, but it is first and foremost the photo capabilities of the 5D Mk. II which will drive most of the sales on this thing. That portion of bridal photographers who see a commercial potential in this camera's HD video mode will buy two bodies (it's always a good idea for any serious, business-minded photographer or videographer to have two of the same primary camera, or at least some other substitute camera to use as a backup). That second 5D will go to an assistant (preferably an experienced videographer) and it will shoot some video when it's not shooting second-angle stills. A package including some HD video that a photographer offers won't compete with a full-blown wedding video production, but it will pick up some of the business that the more expensive full wedding video shoots were already missing. So that was just my opinion... now here's a fact: for anything technical regarding HD video from D-SLR's, we have a new forum dedicated to that subject, covering the Nikon D90, the EOS 5D Mk. II and anything else including non-D-SLR digicams that record HD. The forum is located at: Photo for HD Video (D-SLR and others) - The Digital Video Information Network __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 30th, 2008, 12:58 PM	#60
William Smyth Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 153	Ahhh, now you're second paragraph gets to my point. The only way for still photographers to add video and not make their still product suffer is to add more people. They already can do that. As I see it, the only advantage this camera adds for them is that if they are all shooting with 5D's they all be able to share glass. __________________ www.williamsmythvisuals.com

September 26th, 2008, 10:19 AM	#46
Andy Harding Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 82	I shoot video and I also do stills, would I use a 5D mark II to film a wedding or other event NO would I use it to film some wildlife after shooting my stills yup!!!! And save my back in the process. I think you have to take this at face value it does 12 mins on a 4 gig card it ain't going to replace a Canon XL-H1 it's not in Canon's interest to make a product that would render all there other products to the skip........It would to coin a phrase "be commercial suicide". So basically we have a DSLR that does video just like the 1000 and 1 compacts on the market better quality of course but that's progress for you, The 5D mark II is a great DSLR but it IS a stills camera, the megpixel race has about run it's course there just looking at other things to make them shift cameras. All IMO of course.

September 26th, 2008, 12:38 PM	#48
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Actually according to the thread here on DVi discussing the camera, I believe the limitiation was discussed as approx 29 minutes OR whenever the 4G was filled up. Supposedly there's a Euro tax/duty related issue where a video cam gets taxed higher than a "still" camera - no doubt some government bean counters are having far less interesting and fruitful discussions about this camera than we are at this very moment <wink>! The dual purpose nature of the camera is part of the intrigue - same as video cams that can do stills. If photography is catching a "moment", that's a limitation of the format... I shoot stills and find it very frustrating to see I "missed" by a hair... I'm finding that a frame grab with careful selection sometimes catches that "moment". Maybe you can't blow it up as large, but not every shot is meant for a large format. Not sure about this, but I also believe that it's been reported that you can take stills while shooting video with the Canon, albeit with a "gap"... Since the Sony SR11 can shoot both simultaneously, with a bit of lag on the stills but no gap in the video, I'd say it's merely a function of buffer memory size and the size of the storage media - it should not be overly difficult for a camera to achive "both", although the stills might need to be a lower resolution. And while the video may be "lower resolution" today, I'd guess that's so it displays in a "consumer" format, i.e. 1080... who's to say that it couldn't be hacked for higher res output? If the raw sensor output is there, it's software/firmware... Again, I think the developments in the "tool" department are quite interesting, and they do pose some potential challenges as well as some opportunities - no panic involved, just some studious observations. FWIW the aforementioned discussion has been turning towards the DOWNSIDE of DOF/fine focusing with a DSLR... so there may be minuses for wedding work with this camera too. I know I'm finding myself thinking about how my stabilizing setups would work with a DSLR format... I could see it working... I wouldn't mind playing with one of these myself, as I enjoy both video and still work, I don't see it as competition, but rather as a natural complement in the audio and visual portrayal of a big day or moment in someone's life! Since I've been shooting with the SR11 and CX12 (both of which do stills and video simultaneously) in "casual" use I find they work rather well together - the Canon just comes down the road from the opposite direction as it were... and I'm just as comfortable with a still camera in my hand as I am with a video camera, probably because I grew up shooting 35mm... It's not like having another camera in the stable or at least available for consideration could be a bad thing in any way, though it may skew the toy budget a bit!

September 29th, 2008, 10:20 AM	#51
Jaron Tauch Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 34	I shoot weddings with an A1, while this camera wont be replacing that anytime soon I think this would be a great accompaniment to use during the bridal prep and for photoshoot footage at the park, of course switching back to my a1 for the ceremony and speeches where I need longer run times with good audio.

September 30th, 2008, 06:42 AM	#54
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	What puzzles me is whether photographers would devote their best still camera to shooting video, or buy two 5Ds to cover both, or what? Seems to me this camera makes more sense for videographers wanting to dabble in photography than vice-versa, but I suppose both will occur to some extent.

September 30th, 2008, 12:11 PM	#59
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	True enough if you modify your marketing to address that and work your way up the search engines to compete with all the photographers who have been doing so for several years. Point being that competing with photographers won't be easy if that's the goal, so those wishing to pursue such a course of action should plan ahead. A photographer can add video services the same way a videographer would add photography: by hiring enough people to make the shooting workflow effective. We have a slight advantage in that it's easier to add photo to video than vice-versa, but ultimately it's the same challenge either way.