Or another way to look at it is that with the same lens on, to get the same shot size you'll have to move back from say 10 feet when shooting full frame to 30 feet shooting windowed to 1080, again, more DoF.
Steve

So in other words, you ARE losing your 35mm DoF that a lot of people love and seem to be thinking they'll get from this camera.
Steve

I don't think so, I think that would have been mentioned by this time by Vincent or several other people that have had it hands on. Plus, the video shot is evidence enough that depth of field control is remarkable. Have you downloaded the raw straight from camera "Reverie" clips yet, Steve?

I'm assuming the camera is using the entire sensor area and downsizing the image much in the same way that it uses the entire sensor area even when you take a JPEG image at it's smallest size with the camera.

Also, again I don't think anyone on earth is thinking this $2700 DSLR camera is going to kill or even be equal to a F900 or Varicam!

"I don't think anyone on earth is thinking this $2700 DSLR camera is going to kill or even be equal to a F900 or Varicam" - why not, spec's as good plus you get 35mm DoF apparently, and much cheaper.

If it's reading the whole sensor area then down-scaling surely this has implications for the compression scheme, as it'll be working with vast amounts of data? This is why the RED can do 120 fps in windowed mode and only 30 in 4k mode, 'cos it's about the same amount of data (120 x 2000 x 1000 vs 30 x 4000 x 2000 roughly?)
Steve

Well, one reason I don't think it will kill the F900 and Varicam is because the pros that can afford to own an F900 or Varicam aren't going to be able to wrap their heads around this little thing. :)

Besides, I think the Red already killed them.

As for scaling down. Digital SLR cameras have been doing it just fine for.... well, ever. They have menu settings to change the size of the photos taken from RAW to large, medium or small JPG. They can even take a RAW + a medium or small JPG. So it shouldn't be an issue. I admit though, I don't know all the technicalities behind it.

The exiting moment will come when Canon throws the stuff in the 5D Mark II into a proper video camera body with proper video camera controls. NAB maybe... hopefully!

I believe that the 5D is ganging neighboring pixels together with simple addition. That keeps the full frame, and reduces the data to the processor/compressor. Unfortunately, it introduces aliasing artifacts. If you downscale to 720p or below, that will help deal with the aliasing to some degree.

In a professional environment, specs and even price take a second seat to reliability, proven workflow and compatibility. Right now, if an organization hires a local shooter in a distant city to shoot on HDCAM or DVPROHD, they pop in the tape and start working as both are mature media. The RED workflow is constantly evolving and still showing growing pains.

I haven't yet heard of anyone shooting with a B4 mount on the their RED, but there are certainly many projects currently being shot on the 2/3" systems that would require the flexibility and speed of a 2/3" zoom lens--even a Super16 lens on the RED in windowed mode would not have the same range.

For feature and narrative style shooting, I would probably want to go with a RED over the other two formats at this point, although I'd want to make sure we had two bodies to insure against issues on set (which, frankly, there are still quite a few being reported with the RED, from overheating to mystery crashes).

Bottom line is that when time=money, the camera gear has to be as bulletproof as possible and also have the appropropriate form factor/ergonomics etc. to get the job done efficiently.

You sure are sure of a lot of things.

I'm a full time producer using both Canon and JVC HD and both Letus and P&S adapters.

I've seen the output of the 5DII in a pre-production model as have thousands of other photographers, and film makers and videographers and every one else who's seen the straight footage from Reverie (that I've heard from) was blown away by the quality and, in fact, several HD shooters compared it directly to top HD output.

You're really making a lot of noise with no visual reason to do so - just supposition.

There's very good reason to expect that the 5DII output could exceed HDV output.

THe DOF and FOV make it superior as a film making tool to any current HD/adapter system.

I think we understand that you doubt it - that really doesn't mean anything to people who've already seen it's early quality.

So what's your point?

I'm not making a lot of noise, just a little bit - putting forward my thoughts and opinions, kind of the point of a forum, no?
I've no axe to grind, it's not a camera that I'd ever buy, nor is shallow DoF, drama work etc., what I do, I'm just surprised at how much interest this seems to be generating, and really would be shocked to find out that it rivals even Z1, XL-H1 etc., let alone top-level cameras.
Steve

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'rivals' - in terms of sheer image quality you just need to watch Laforet's behind-the-scenes of Reverie to see back-to-back shots of the XHA1 and the 5DmkII under the same lighting conditions... based on that I wouldn't use the term 'rivals' as it tends to imply that they are close when in fact the gap between the two is huge (in the 5D's favor).

If you are referring to ergonomics and standard features on pro video cameras then it's a different story - the 5D doesn't really rival the cameras you mentioned as it's lacking several important features.

The question is really whether the gains in image quality are sufficient to outweigh the inconvenience of missing pro features, and that depends a lot on the type of video you shoot. I think the biggest market will be those who are currently using 35mm lens adapters on various cameras. For those using them on things like the HV20 it's a no-brainer, as you're already working under the same limitations as the 5D in terms of controls... if you're using an adapter on something else (HVX200, EX1, etc) losing some of those controls may be worth the tradeoff to eliminate the cumbersome adapter and gain significant low-light sensitivity.

I talked to a photographer who shoots with an early version 5D (not sure which one), and he said you really need "L" series lenses to get the full benefit of the 21.1 mpixel sensor on the Mark II.

Those aren't cheap. The difference in a 50mm L and regular 50mm is $1,200.00

Can anyone confirm whether you need that level of quality in glass.

L Series glass is amazingly nice, but in no way necessary to achieve great photos. The L Series is about more than just higher quality glass. They have better insides, better focusing, tougher build, ect. However, Canon makes great mid range glass that looks really nice.

I've read in more than a couple reviews that people have mentioned that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens that costs $79.95 tested as taking more detailed photographs than their 24-70mm f/2.8 L series lens set at 50mm. Granted it's a plastic lens and doesn't focus as fast. Reading that made me go out and get one. Here's a photo from a shoot I just did a couple weeks ago with it.

http://www.sybilludingtonmovie.com/i...ast/micah1.jpg

My point is, no, you in no way need to spend $20,000 on L glass to make great pictures. However, the nice thing to know is that when you do drop a couple grand on a lens, it's for life as you'll use it for years and years.

You do to impress other photographers David, but you most certainly don't to impress clients. For that you need skill, imagination, experience and the ability to get the job done, on time and within budget.

tom.

That's the answer I has hoping for.

Thanks

And you definitely don't need L-Series glass for video. 1080p is roughly 2MP.