Maybe it was a little tongue in cheek, but look at what Vincent Laforet did with the camera for 72 hours (and he is a self proclaimed still picture guy only). Now take Vincent Laforet's deal and make it an hour and a half with a quality story and good actors. All the audio is recorded separately, not in camera. It would look better than at least 65% of the no/low budget indie films I've seen. There are folks making feature length indie films with EX1/Letus combos that chew up and eat light leaving you to have to shoot at f/1.4 where everything looks blurry if an actor scrunches their nose. So, maybe I'm not joking!

I've never done anything outside of the broadcast television arena, but I'm definitely shooting my first short once I get my camera.

"I've never done anything outside of the broadcast television arena, but I'm definitely shooting my first short once I get my camera."

same here.

I still think think recording audio straight into the camera wouldn't be that bad. Unless I was using a cineform then I would send the audio into the recorder.

Fascinating thread. I hope the PR & Business Dev. honchos at Nikon & Canon and reading it carefully- including between the lines.
Over and over I keep heading a scream in my ear- "The Hybrids are Coming!"

Have you seen the output of this camera full res Steve or are you just offering a blank opinion?

Of course this is a serious tool and of course it can be used for real production.

The specs a re real and the DOF and FOV are better than any adapter will deliver even very expensive P&S adapters.

Why wouldn't it be used to produce serious work...because it doesn't look like what you expect an HD camera to look like?

I said right at the start of my post that I hadn't seen much from you, I did admit that. But clips that I have seen have been dreadful. I wouldn't pay much notice to specs, there's much more to it than that. The way people are talking you'd think that the Sony and Panasonic broadcast engineers must be sitting at home kicking themselves for not coming up with a camera that could do all that there's can, but be a fraction of the size and price and have loads much advantages too! There's a reason why they haven't and it's because it ain't good enough to do a top-level job. It'll do top-level stills, same as a Motorola Razr will do top-level 'phone calls, 'cos that's what it's for. But it's just like your Motorola owner thinking, "wow, I won't need to carry a big expensive SLR around now 'cos my 'phone'll do it!"
But you are right, as I admitted right at the start, I don't know that much about it, and am prepared to be proved wrong - but I won't hold my breath!
Steve

I don't agree with your assertions except your last sentence.

Trust me you'll be proven wrong.

Lets see what the next Hollywood blockbuster or Planet Earth for that matter is shot on, get the feeling it may not a 5D. But why not, if it's as good, a fraction a price and very compact, for the nature work at least it'd beat the competition hands down.
Steve

Steve, I think you may be missing what we are saying. We'd all love a 5 or 6 million dollar budget to film our new movies with. So of course "hollywood blockbusters" or Planet Earth are never going to be shot on a 5D Mark II. However, there is a whole world of anti-hollywood (thank God) independent filmmakers out there with excellent stories to tell shooting with camera like the EX1 and XLH1. They throw 35mm adapters on them to try to improve the look of their art. THEY are the people I think this camera is going to open up new opportunities for.

And you say clips you have seen have been dreadful... have you seen "Reverie"? No it doesn't look like it was shot with an arri... but then again the whole camera body costs about as much as 2 minutes of film stock!

But Planet Earth was shot on lowly Varicam, and a lot of the talk seems to be putting this in at least that class, and it's quite obviously not (even without having the seen the images I'd put money on that).
Steve

This is my opinion of all thats been writen so far, not just on this forum.

I think the winner of all the buzz on the 5D is Vincent Laforet, and he will or could probably shoot his next work with cinema camera and a much more big budget.
Me I am not decided on 5D or D90, and I know that improved version of those camera is
almost ready to be shipped by Nikon and Canon.
Its an interresting time to be a member of dvinfo

I agree with all of you:

- Steve, because the 5D2 is functionally hobbled by the video-mode being a mere adjunct to the camera's main function, which reduces it to just a promise of technologies to come;

- Jim & Tyler, because the image-quality of the sensor, not to mention the universe of available glass, compared to other available video cameras render those objections irrelevant—to some …

… like me.

Single sensor that has to be de-bayered. Also, how do they get down to 1920 res, if they window it you won't get your 35mm DoF anymore, if they down-convert then that has quality implications too. How good is that rolling shutter? Didn't look good from the (admittedly limited) shots I've seen.
If it's as good as a Sony 790/PDW700, or a Panasonic Varicam/HPX3000 etc. then I'd buy one (or several) straight away, but if it's not then it can't be considered a top-notch video camera. If it's as good as an XL-H1 then it may be considered a pro-sumer quality video camera, but I'm sure it won't even be close to that. How could it be, and just think how many XL sales Canon would be robbing themselves of.
Steve

However much they mask the frame the dof remains the same Steve. If they reduce the focal lengths to match the smaller gate then yes, the dof tables will be turned.

If you've got a smaller frame and the same angle of view you'll have more DoF. So for any given shot, say a head and shoulders, if you're 35mm frame say on an 85mm, at S16 frame you'd need around a 30mm lens and you'd have more DoF.
Steve

You're saying what I'm saying Steve. If you have the 'same angle of view' with a smaller frame, then you've reduced the focal length.