Doing video on a DSLR is like going to Home Depot in a Prius. You're going to have a lot of stuff hanging off the roof, trunk & windows to bring home all the materials.

Perfectly Hilarious - well put!

B & H list the 1DX, no price listed. If I read correctly, 60P/60i is missing from 1080. A surprise for a journalist camera.

Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera 5253B002 B&H Photo Video

You're right, no 1080/60P.


Info from B&H site states:

Video Shooting File Size: 1920 x 1080 (Full HD), 1280 x 720, 640 x 480
Frame Rates: [1920 x 1080]: 30 fps / 25 fps / 24 fps
[1280 x 720]: 60 fps / 50 fps
[640 x 480]: 30 fps / 25 fps

Doing video on a DSLR is like going to Home Depot in a Prius. You're going to have a lot of stuff hanging off the roof, trunk & windows to bring home all the materials.

If you take a pickup, van or SUV to Home Depot & you won't spend an hour in the parking lot trying to figure out how to get your purchases home.

What is it that you put on you DSLR rig that you don't put on a "normal" video rig?
Before I started to shot video with DSLR I didn't pey much attention to the sound, I used the auto mode on my XL2 and it turn out ok. Now I need to put more effort in sound and I get a better result now. Before I didn't use an external monitor, I only used the EVF, but now when I got one I would use it on another video rig too. I got a matte box now, but don't really need it, but it is got to hold filters.
I don't know if you rig (maybe you don't shoot DSLR) your DSLR rig as a Christmas tree, but I keep my rig tight and no extra.
For me DSLR video is not over, I will shot on my 7D for atleast 6-12 mouth more, maybe upgrade when a 5DIII would be released. My 7D have made me a better shooter and my clients are accepting what I give them. During this last mouth I hade UW pic in two TV programs.
I love that I can shot high res still and got HD video at the "same time".
It's been proven so many times that DSLRs work, and it will still work...

T In one recent thread, in a post by Charles Papert, we saw how he rigged a Sony F3 for a shoot. That camera had more stuff hanging off of it than you or I have ever had hanging off my 5D. And I am betting, but don't know, that they also were shooting double system sound. .

Actually Chris, I generally have MORE stuff hanging off my DSLR than we currently have on the F3, and that will be even more exaggerated when the pending firmware update with the F3 occurs (capturing 4:2:2 s-log with only one SDI output on the camera is currently requiring a distribution amp to send video to the viewfinder and onboard monitors, but in the next version of firmware this will be alleviated).

Just for fun, attached is a retread of that F3 pic and also my 1DMKIV from the pilot of the very same show, earlier this year. I think that was the most gacked-out my1D has ever been. From the front to the back (2nd pic): O'Connor O-box, DP6 monitor for operator, Marshall monitor for the AC, Preston MDR for the remote focus, Blackmagic HDMI to HD-SDI convertor, Blackmagic downconverter to feed the Dynawave SD transmitter (just under the handle), wireless receiver for confidence track audio, p-tap power splitters and DIonic 90. While some may think "why do you need all of that stuff", the answer for me is that this is what it took to transform the 1D (or 5 or 7D, which I would also use depending on the shoot) into what I considered a non-compromised shooting package. For a doc-style setup, I might have a few less of those things but I might also have a Zoom H4N onboard for self-contained sound, and other times an HD transmitter, so it never got too much more stripped down than this.

What's essential for me may be Christmas tree lights for others, but it depends on one's workflow and working style. I do know that when shooting handheld or Steadicam with my 1D setup, the center of gravity was exactly where it should be (sat perfectly balanced on the shoulder, for instance) and still weighed less than 20 lbs, so kind of perfect. I'd rather have 20 lbs of balanced weight than 8 lbs of front-heavy weight.

Cool, Charles !

Point is, in any set up I've seen on most any narrative shoot, their will be a wide choice of things that will be hung from the rig to meet the particular needs of the shoot. Seems to be liberal use of tape, ties, and sticky back velcro. Its adaptation and ingenuity at its finest. And its rarely a pretty thing, unlike the pimped out rigs we see some proudly display some times.

Charles, if I could ask a question it would be much appreciated.

If you were to shoot the same shot with just the existing oem camera, what would suffer, I can imagine audio right off the bat, but image wise what would be wrong and how different would it be ??

Thanks

"http://vimeo.com/31175496" Canon Europe rep talks about 1DX and why somw features are what they are.

P.S. take out the quote marks on the link

What is it that you put on you DSLR rig that you don't put on a "normal" video rig?


Here's the about the bare minimum you need to get a DLSR up to speed with a "normal" pro video camera:

-External audio recorder, Zoom or whatever
-External monitor and/or LCD loupe.
-shoulder rig (debatable depending on camera)
-fader ND or mattebox + ND filter set
-shotgun mic + mount

That's $2000-$5000 worth of gear, and 4+ lbs, plus shifty ergonomics at best, since you have to figure out a way to add it all in and balance it. Yuck.

Don, I'm assuming you are referring to the 1DMKIV setup.

So, if I stripped this down to the 1D and lens (in this case the Zeiss ZE, what would be different? In terms of the actual image quality, nothing would change. In both setups, light goes through the lens and onto the sensor. Achieving the various shots themselves and incorporating the system into a working set is another story. An outboard monitor for the operator is important so that they can always see what they are shooting, whether the camera is on the ground or on a jib over their heads. The AC uses his monitor as a focus aid along with the Cinetape, Hilty, tape measure etc., and the Preston system gives him more range of motion and precision with the travel of the focus ring. I have long believed in limiting my "exposure" to the HDMI connector so the Blackmagic convertor is a must; feeding the onboard monitors and sending a signal to video village for the directors/producers (and my engineering monitor) is essential. That director likes using a handheld monitor so the downconverter and transmitter serviced that requirement. For efficiency's sake, everything is powered from a single battery (including the camera). The single item that potentially presents an image-improving aspect would be the mattebox; the use of creative filters as well as the eyebrow and side flaps to eliminate flare. Theoretically that could be achieved to some degree with screw-on filters and a french flag, but not as efficiently.

Working efficiency also translates into more time in the day for additional setups or takes. My rig took very little time to convert from studio to handheld to Steadicam mode, because everything was already incorporated (remote focus system, etc). For handheld, we just slip the handles on the front of the rods. For Steadicam, we pull the onboard monitors. We didn't even have to change baseplates.

So: all of the extra gear is required to integrate the DSLR into a true production environment with minimal disruption to the existing workflow. If there was something else I could introduce to improve the image, I would have done so. In fact, I make a slight compromise in using the 1DMKIV over the 5D in situations where the 1D's low light capability were critical; I think the image from the 5D is slightly better but the loss of HD monitoring when rolling was an ill-fit for many shoots (no-one can confirm critical focus) so I made the compromise to use the 1D.

I have shot a little bit here and there with a bare camera and lens, and while it is sort of liberating to have such a compact package, I instantly start to suffer with the little built-in monitor and having to get my eyeball to it (fine if you are at operator height but otherwise, uncomfortable). And the limited throw of the lenses combined with the monitor makes me nervous focus-wise. I'm never quite sure if I got it. It's great if I need to stuff a camera into a tight spot, or "steal" a shot, but for standard shooting, it's not a good fit for me.

and to clarify and add to Dylan's post, prior to the DSLR's we never saw HDMI outputs; every pro HD camera used the HD-SDI standard. So working within that standard, you will need an HDMI convertor and that will affect the choice of onboard monitor as well. Using the loupe on the viewfinder disqualifies because it precludes the option of external monitoring, a restriction that no pro camera presents.

It's possible to work with HDMI and use onboard splitters or the newer looping monitors (and many people do this), but one has to carry a stack of backup cables and go through them like expendables. HDMI is a headache!

Awesome. thank you Sir.

Do you think the LAN connection can be used for viewing in the future ??

and to clarify and add to Dylan's post, prior to the DSLR's we never saw HDMI outputs; every pro HD camera used the HD-SDI standard. So working within that standard, you will need an HDMI convertor and that will affect the choice of onboard monitor as well. Using the loupe on the viewfinder disqualifies because it precludes the option of external monitoring, a restriction that no pro camera presents.

It's possible to work with HDMI and use onboard splitters or the newer looping monitors (and many people do this), but one has to carry a stack of backup cables and go through them like expendables. HDMI is a headache!

Try renting HDMI cables out... :)

I was going to add "HDMI splitter" to my list but you're right on with the HDMI to HD-SDI converter.

Agreed, I go through HDMI cables like I used to go through video tape. I tried a couple of those hinged HDMI adpapters from mini HDMI to regular. Idea of hnge was to relieve strain on camera port, At least on the Canon DSLRs, I think it actually made things worse. And they tended to break up too.

Interestingly, I as of yet haven't had an issue with the HDMI port on my Canon's going bad. Has anyone ?

One of the issue with firewire on my Sony was that the ports there were easy to kill.

Here's the about the bare minimum you need to get a DLSR up to speed with a "normal" pro video camera:

-External audio recorder, Zoom or whatever
-External monitor and/or LCD loupe.
-shoulder rig (debatable depending on camera)
-fader ND or mattebox + ND filter set
-shotgun mic + mount

That's $2000-$5000 worth of gear, and 4+ lbs, plus shifty ergonomics at best, since you have to figure out a way to add it all in and balance it. Yuck.

New mic is something you "need" for any camera.
Most camera don't got a big screen for viewing or focus, so you need that for other cameras too.
Shoulder rig is depending on typ of shooting, not anything you need.
Filter holder / matte box is something you need depending on lens and you would need it for more than just DSLRs.
External audio IS something you need for DSLR, and you need to sync in Post. That is not something you need for most cameras, but it is good in some situations.

So it is not that much diffrents between a DSLR rig from a, say FS100

So: all of the extra gear is required to integrate the DSLR into a true production environment with minimal disruption to the existing workflow. If there was something else I could introduce to improve the image, I would have done so.


The key words here are "true production environment". And this is why I think the enthusiast like me and many otheres can put up with the DSLR to get the images we get. In many of the productions we do, it a one man band thing. Often, we shoot, direct and edit. I know what I can fix in the edit. I pull my own focus, either with a follow focus using a Marshall monitor, or without one, using a manual focus ring on my 35mm prme lenses and an LCD magnifier. Generally, I can tell if we got the shot right. Guy on the boom can tell if he got the audio right.

On occasions when I have a director to answer to, we can easily do one of several things. Pull the chip after several takes and play back at a monitor, take the chip to a lap top for playback, or connect the camera to a monitor and play back.

So this raises a question in my mind. Is the production workflow that Charles is used to and that has become engrained in the production community during the days of film, an efficient workflow in the age of digital capture ? Charles if you could change the production system in the digital environment and weren't stuck with someone elses dictates, what would you do ? Would there be any changes ?

I don't think it's anything to do with film as such. The chances are that film, before the days of video villages, could've had less people hanging around than modern digital sets. The costs are higher because you've got an expensive actor doing their stuff and producers want to reduce risk of losing a shot. There's also a lot more politics involved than if you're shooting something for yourself.

Doing most things yourself can also be done with film, although it's easier with Super 16 than 35mm. Certainly the costs are higher for the stock and processing, but theoretically you can shoot with just as small a crew as with digital. I've shot 16mm film drama with 3 people in the crew including the director and recording sync sound.

All cameras need additional equipment to meet specific production requirements. Sure, a DSLR doesn't provide everything you want with an ENG camera, but put it on a jib for narrative work and its small size can be an advantage.

What I really want is a camera that automatically applies make up and provides catering services. ;)

Ha ha that's right. And if anyone is planning a bank heist, Nov. 3 will be a good day to do it.

Cheers.

Some interesting information on the 1DX in this video from Dan Chung.

Canon Pro Solutions 2011: Audio Developments DSLR mixer on Vimeo

While we all would have liked clean HDMI out and 1080 60p I think the canon rep in this video makes it clear why we aren't seeing those features. With reference to clean HDMI out he says "we're still in discussions in Canon about conflicting between the EOS and video market".

So as a company Canon is still working out how to deal with these sort of features across their still and video divisions. They clearly still want to sell both sorts of cameras and so some features have been left off the 1D X.

The other interesting point in the Dan Chung video the Canon rep says that the new implementation of the H.264 codec "increases the file size by about three times". So if we do the math on the current bit rates that would mean around 150Mbit/s.

I have a hard time believing Dan will be putting a 1DX on a rig as the primary video camera in the future. If he's doing that, Canon has really screwed up its forthcoming video product.

The lack of audio out for monitoring on the 1DX is just bizarre. Talk about leaving out a simple improvement that would make life easier. They add time syncing over ethernet to satisfy a very small number of prestigious users, but no headphone jack. dumb.

It seems the 1DX is is scanning the whole sensor every frame. I guess that's why there's no 1080 60p. I can understand lack of 60p as a compromise to high quality 30p. But all I see with audio is frivolously crippling one product to protect another.


So as a company Canon is still working out how to deal with these sort of features across their still and video divisions. They clearly still want to sell both sorts of cameras and so some features have been left off the 1D X.


In ten years when they review how Chinese and American companies became so competitive in imaging they can think about how they spent their time not satisfying clear, specific customer needs and wants.

...... And if anyone is planning a bank heist, Nov. 3 will be a good day to do it.

Cheers.

Could kill two bird with one stone. I'd be able to afford the F3 and wouldn't need to hope Canon is going to sell a $3,900 F3.

I think that post Nov. 3rd, the discussion regarding the 1DX is going to dry up somewhat (he said, dryly!)


On occasions when I have a director to answer to, we can easily do one of several things. Pull the chip after several takes and play back at a monitor, take the chip to a lap top for playback, or connect the camera to a monitor and play back.

So this raises a question in my mind. Is the production workflow that Charles is used to and that has become engrained in the production community during the days of film, an efficient workflow in the age of digital capture ? Charles if you could change the production system in the digital environment and weren't stuck with someone elses dictates, what would you do ? Would there be any changes ?

Chris, it's fairly self-evident that the options you presented in terms of playback are all less efficient than directors being able to view the image as it is happening and keeping the shoot moving. It's well known that playback is a time-suck on set and the prevailing wisdom is that in the time it takes to check it, you can shoot another take. Sometimes it's unavoidable or specifically desirable (shooting a stunt or gag high speed and making sure you have it to possibly avoid having to do another risky or time-consuming reset). I'll also suggest that while pulling one's own focus is preferable in a few situations, most of the time it is best handled by an AC with the proper knowledge and tools, especially with a larger chip like the 1D or 5D and especially with fast primes, as many people like it. I've shot plenty of one-man band stuff over the years but I'm not fond of it with these cameras. The last thing I shot like that (for the lovely and hilarious Garfunkel and Oates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Qgp_rGJYM)) resulted in me missing focus a few times, and it makes me poopy. It looked OK on the DP6, but soft frontal light makes it hard to judge critical focus.

The current HD production workflow is actually very different from film, where the one person who has absolute say over what is or isn't in focus is the camera operator as he is watching through the optical eyepiece. Everyone else is seeing an SD video tap image that only approximates the final image. When the camera is physically separated from the operator such as on a remote head or Steadicam, nobody can say for sure if focus is dead-on. In an HD environment, a 24" engineering monitor becomes the final word on focus, and notes are given via radio from the DIT or DP watching intently from a, uh, tent. The 5D is something of a throwback given that the best it could muster when recording is a letter and pillarboxed SD image not unlike that of a film camera tap, so it is particular ill-fitting to a high-end commercial environment where the image is being scrutinized by director and agency people.

Basically what this all comes down to is that if one is used to a particular physical workflow, the DSLR presented certain challenges and almost no improvements over prior technologies, except for cost. Those who had no prior expectations were able to embrace the wonky stuff in return for the great images, and will continue to do so with the next generation of DSLR. I'm sure I'll continue to use them for additional cameras and pickup stuff here and there, but as a primary camera, I'm more than ready to move to a more conventional form factor and rely less on the tinker toy bracketry.

I get the feeling you've only ever shot on DSLRs, so allow me to elaborate:

New mic is something you "need" for any camera.

Not true at all. The mics that come with most pro-lite cameras are usable and isolate camera noise very well. You may want a purpose dedicated mic, like a specific range of shotgun, but the built in mics will get very good ambient sound. The DSLR mics are terrible and translate all handling noise. That's why you need one for a DSLR but not for a real video camera.


Most camera don't got a big screen for viewing or focus, so you need that for other cameras too.

It's not about size. The position of the screen on a DSLR is bad and lacks focus assist (like peaking) which most real cameras come with. The 5x/10x zoom in is disabled during recording, which is when you need it the most.

Shoulder rig is depending on typ of shooting, not anything you need.

Sure if you NEVER leave the tripod with a DSLR, you don't need a shoulder rig... but for the other 99.9% of DSLR shooters... you need a rig. DSLR ergonomics are terrible. An AF100 or EX1 is much more stable... and I won't even get into shoulder cameras like the HM700.

Filter holder / matte box is something you need depending on lens and you would need it for more than just DSLRs.

At this point I'm getting the feeling you've only used DSLRs... Most pro cameras have built in ND filters... so no need for either a set of screw on ND filters or matte box with drop in ND filters. (some exceptions like the FS100)

External audio IS something you need for DSLR, and you need to sync in Post. That is not something you need for most cameras, but it is good in some situations.

So it is not that much diffrents between a DSLR rig from a, say FS100

There's not much difference if you've never shot on professional tools and don't know the difference. For the rest of us, they are big time savers.

Interestingly, I as of yet haven't had an issue with the HDMI port on my Canon's going bad. Has anyone ?


No issues with the HDMI ports on any of my cameras either, though have lost a USB port on a 5D2.

For mini HDMI adapters, I've had some luck with the ones that are about 4" long. The ones that are just a snap on plug get about 1-4 uses before they are dead.

I get the feeling you've only ever shot on DSLRs, so allow me to elaborate:

Well, I do have shot on different cameras, DigiBeta, XL2 to name a few...

Not true at all. The mics that come with most pro-lite cameras are usable and isolate camera noise very well. You may want a purpose dedicated mic, like a specific range of shotgun, but the built in mics will get very good ambient sound. The DSLR mics are terrible and translate all handling noise. That's why you need one for a DSLR but not for a real video camera.

I have felt the need of better mics on the cameras I've used... But you are probably right about new cameras... For my type of filming the on board have not been good enough. Abient sound is just a filler and I have always hade the need of better sound in al my pro productions...


It's not about size. The position of the screen on a DSLR is bad and lacks focus assist (like peaking) which most real cameras come with. The 5x/10x zoom in is disabled during recording, which is when you need it the most.

I did use my 7D for one year without a ex monitor, but now I got one and for me the size make a big diffrent and it would have made a big difference of other cameras I've worked on... If it doesn't for you, that's your opinion. Not on super pro cameras got a big pivot screen.

Sure if you NEVER leave the tripod with a DSLR, you don't need a shoulder rig... but for the other 99.9% of DSLR shooters... you need a rig. DSLR ergonomics are terrible. An AF100 or EX1 is much more stable... and I won't even get into shoulder cameras like the HM700.

I have not worked with EX1 or AF100, but what I have read AF100 is not so good for hand hold w/out a rig (not fs100 or F3 ether). I do shot some hand hold, most low angle, so a rig would not help. I do use a rail system to hold my matte box so it is a bit more stabile than just the camera. Ofcourse if you going to shot eng style than you need a rig, but that is something you need for many new cameras...

At this point I'm getting the feeling you've only used DSLRs... Most pro cameras have built in ND filters... so no need for either a set of screw on ND filters or matte box with drop in ND filters. (some exceptions like the FS100)
If you can point me to a camera with build in half ND filter, it would be useful. That and for use of colour filter you need some type of filter holder. A matte box if useful for more that just filter holder, but I think you know that...

There's not much difference if you've never shot on professional tools and don't know the difference. For the rest of us, they are big time savers.
It is up to you to choose what camera that fits your type of filming. For me DSLR is the best for cost/money, I cam fill a raggsack with camera, lenses, sound gear etc and a tripod, slider and jib AND still I can take all that on my back for hiking with sleeping gear and food just by my self. The image IS good enough for me clients.
If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop bashing DSLRs!
Take the discution with Mr Hurlbut if the image is good enough for pro films...

A true hybrid camera will allow a photojournalist to hold it up to their face and take stills or video with sound. Sound without lens noise.
I actually thought by 2012 Canon and Nikon would have a pro product to meet this basic need. Silly me.
For all the great improvements, the 1DX is still a Frankencamera.
Or rather its a Frankencamera for the hybrid and video shooter.
Seems great for the still shooter.

In ten years when they review how Chinese and American companies became so competitive in imaging they can think about how they spent their time not satisfying clear, specific customer needs and wants.

I agree with the general sentiment that Canon have missed an opportunity here. If they just made sure that every camera that they make (in both stills and video division) is as good as it possibly can be I'm sure that they'd move more units overall. But I do understand how the people in the video division might be wanting to protect they're patch.

This is surely a case where you need a dictatorial CEO with a vision for the company as a whole and who is able to execute that vision without compromise, but it seems Canon doesn't have a Steve Jobs-type figure in charge.

Maybe if the video division has significant success with whatever they announce on the 3rd of November they will stop trying to protect their patch in the company and we'll get a DSLR with all the features we've been asking for.

I tend to agree with you Markus.

I have an XF300 and 5DII. I never use the onboard sound on the XF (in professional productions) except as backup/reference, and I don't rely on its LCD either (even at 4" it just isn't good enough).

So whether I'm shooting with a mid-sized camera or DSLR, either way I prefer two system sound and an outboard monitor (DP6 in my case).

I use a Vari-ND and rather like it, it provides more subtle graduations than the internal NDs on a camcorder - putting it on is no big deal.

In some instances (like when using a slider or blackbird), the DSLR has a much better form factor than the the mid-sided video camera.

For me, the big issues with the 5DII (and the reason I often choose the XF for safety) are:
* excessive moire/artifacting (by far the biggest issue for me)
* severe rolling shutter
* codec
* 4gb file limitation
* only 1 CF slot
* temporary black out on external monitor when you hit record
* only SD output to monitor

Apparently, these issues have ALL been addressed in the 1DX - to what extent with some of them (like moire) we'll have to wait to find out, but Dan's interview hints at a vast improvement. Notwithstanding what Canon reveals on 3 Nov, the 1DX looks like it could be a significant step up in video, taking care of the little issues that plagued the 5DII.

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

I think this really depends on what you're shooting. It's not that unusual for a sound recordist to switch on the camera mic to pick up some atmos sound when filming somewhere it's impossible for them to access. For example when only one crew person is allowed in the location, or it's too confined, However, the mic being used in this particular instance would be better than I suspect you'd find on a DSLR,

The camera mic is also part of one person filming (either news or documentary), when a radio mic is commonly put on the "talent" and the camera mic gives the wider perspective.

I'm not against the camera having no mic, after all film cameras rarely had them, although they were fitted on some CP16 news cameras.

Why should we want cameras to have mics? Camera mics are too far from the talent. We should hire talent with built-in mics and XLR outputs. ;)

Jon: How about a built in digital recorder. No wires....

Seriously. My current work flow requires a camera sound track to match sound with. In a recent shoot with another director, I was struck at how much time was wasted in doing the traditional clap board. With digital files that can be renamed or sorted in folders for each scene and/or take, and with ability to match audio tracks with various available software, I believe it to be pointless. I am sure others will disagree and want to maintain the ritual, but I usually do not use it in my film projects.

There are a number of techniques for putting a slate on. For drama or music videos etc the traditional clapper board is useful because it attracts everyone's attention, for other productions other methods can be used like mic taps, another way is the flash of a light that combined with a audio tone that can be used for syncing. However, to do this efficiently needs good team work and anticipation by the crew, which is the key to doing fast slates.

For most documentary type work, single system sound is the easiest.

It is up to you to choose what camera that fits your type of filming. For me DSLR is the best for cost/money, I cam fill a raggsack with camera, lenses, sound gear etc and a tripod, slider and jib AND still I can take all that on my back for hiking with sleeping gear and food just by my self. The image IS good enough for me clients.

That's swell... but this is not a discussion about what camera is better or image quality, it's about what tools you need to add to a DSLR to give it the same features as a real video camera.

If you don't like it, don't use it, but stop bashing DSLRs!
Take the discution with Mr Hurlbut if the image is good enough for pro films...

I'm sorry you took my list of DSLR add ons as a personal attack on your camera of choice, but:

1) Someone (you?) asked what tools you need to add to equal a pro video camera, I answered.

2) I've been shooting motion video on DSLRs (see my previous post on high speed still shooting) since before DSLRs shot video, and had a 5D2 probably before almost anyone on this forum. I own about a dozen 5D2s & 7Ds + AF100s, FS100s, EX1s, etc.... I'm objective about their strengths (which are few but great) and weaknesses (which are many).

3) I don't understand why you think Shane Hurlbut's opinion matters to me, or how what he thinks of DSLR images is relevant to tools needed to make them equal to video cameras. If I get tapped to direct Terminator Salvation 2, I'll phone him up for tips, but until then.... (Shane, if you're reading this, you can walk behind my actors anytime. Professionaly, we're all good baby!)

I'm sorry for attacking you... I have nothing against you or anyone... I just got sick, sorry...

Absolutely... my question was about what gear that you need to ad on you DSLR "rig" that you don't need to ad to another camera rig... and how I see it, it is not that much different that you need to ad to a DSLR rig from a AF100/FS100/F3

It was just a response to some that think "you" need to ad so many things to make a DSLR "rig" work... And I don't, but those things that you need, is not that different from other rigs, that was my point.

I'm all good... going out tomorrow and shoting Christmas trees, not with a Christmas tree ;)

No worries. Personally I love a stripped down DSLR and hate dumping all sorts of stuff on top of it. Light, fast, easy. Hate "building" one up, but sometimes you have to to make it work with the shoot.

Edit, as a counterpoint, I should post a pic of my FS100 rig with all the trimmings to make IT a "pro" camera. :)

Wouldn't it be neat to see a modular system of ordering what you want. The F3 and FS100 are already so boxy looking that looks do not matter. If you want USB get the USB port, if you need the HD SDI get that module. If you do not want the their lower resolution monitor don't order it and use your own. I wonder what kind of information comes off the sensor, In the Navy our radar systems had an information bus, you could attatch anything to it as long as it understood the language.

As far as a bus, look at Intel's Thunderbolt used on Apple machines. A interface like that on a video camera would be great.

We'll never have access to data off the sensor. We would be horrified at all the dead pixels.

The position of the screen on a DSLR is bad and lacks focus assist (like peaking) which most real cameras come with. The 5x/10x zoom in is disabled during recording, which is when you need it the most.

Yep, and to me that's one of the most annoying quirks of the 5D2 -- that it won't record with 5x/10x engaged. Anyone knows if the 1Dx will behave the same way?

-- peer

Yep, and to me that's one of the most annoying quirks of the 5D2 -- that it won't record with 5x/10x engaged. Anyone knows if the 1Dx will behave the same way?

To answer my own question -- I just got an email from Dan Chung regarding this:
"With the firmware they showed us it was the same as 5d."

By the way, Chris, do we have to wait until the camera ships (in March) before the 1Dx gets its own forum? I'm asking because I think it would be nice to have some discussion about this camera prior to its release in order to maybe inspire/influence Canon to get its video right, e.g., to take full advantage of the camera's rumored 355 mbps bitrate, etc.

-- peer

I just looked up the 1DX on Amazon, and here's the message they have put along with their availability notice:

"The EOS-1D X has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. These devices are not and may not be offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained."

Don't think I've ever seen an FCC message of this sort for an announced camera.

-- peer

I have seen it before, but only on press releases. The reason why you're seeing
it on Amazon is due to the unusually long (and for Canon, highly uncharacteristic)
lead time between the press release and the anticipated ship date. It is not all that
uncommon for press releases to be made prior to an electronics product receiving
FCC authorization. In this case, the long lead up to shipping has resulted in the
disclaimer making its way onto Amazon. The FCC process is standard operating
procedure and there isn't anything unusual going on here, except for the fact
that the camera was announced about half a year before it's ready to ship.

It is not all that uncommon for press releases to be made prior to an electronics product receiving FCC authorization.

Yea, that makes sense, (although my first thought was that this might had something to do with the 1DX now recording up to 30 min. videos..).

-- peer

To answer my own question -- I just got an email from Dan Chung regarding this:
"With the firmware they showed us it was the same as 5d."



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH.

I don't know what bugs me more, that or no clean HDMI....

I don't know what bugs me more, that or no clean HDMI....

Well, to me the lack of magnifying during recording is the most annoying of the two -- especially since I suspect that a record engaged 5x/10x magnifying would be easier to fix than a clean HDMI.

-- peer

Come on... its Canon... of course its easy to fix both! They just want to sell those features to you in the next Mk II.

...of course its easy to fix both! They just want to sell those features to you in the next Mk II.

It's been 2 years since the previous model. I would have thought they'd fix it in the top of the line model if it were easy. And of they couldn't fix in the top of the line, it would be a surprise if they fix it in the next Mk II which is the cut down prosumer version. A pleasant surprise however.

Apparently the 1DX will have quite a bit of extra horsepower, so hopefully it won't be that difficult to add such a feature. And since it's easier to estimate the framing of a shot than to estimate its correct focus (especially with the shallow DOF of a full-frame camera), an implementation of 5x/10x magnification during recording would be a VERY welcomed feature.

-- peer

I see that the 1Dx LCD is 3.2" vs 3" on 5D, 1D, etc... I assume that none of the existing LCD viewfinders will work on the 1Dx then or will some do? I heard a Canon rep on one 1Dx promo video saying that the camera has phantom power on the mic input allowing for a wider range of microphones to be used on this camera. Does anyone have more detaisl on this? I like the Q menu and controls that are available while filming in Live View. The silent and touch sensitive mode for dial wheel on the back is pretty slick too.

Cheers,

Apparently the 1DX will have quite a bit of extra horsepower, so hopefully it won't be that difficult to add such a feature. And since it's easier to estimate the framing of a shot than to estimate its correct focus (especially with the shallow DOF of a full-frame camera), an implementation of 5x/10x magnification during recording would be a VERY welcomed feature.

-- peer

I'd love to see color peaking too but at this point, any focus assist function will be most welcomed.

Thierry.

I hope Canon adds a headphone jack on the final release of the 1Dx. This is a serious oversight. That itself and a few other crucial features found on Nikon's D4 make it quite a better choice for pro video. Not to mention that the D4 is $1,000 cheaper.

T.