I was really talking about the overall picture. Of course there are some CMOS users. I use one fairly frequently with the Phantom HD - but it's not an everday camera or suitable for every situation.
Steve

I am one of those diehard Canon fans and I still own my XL1 but I just don't see myself buying this camera. The price to me is a problem but only when you consider what you get for the price. 4:2:2 and 50 mbits is great but for me not that much more then AVCHD progressive scan. For me no matter what I convert to Prores so there is very little advantage to shooting mpeg2 over AVCHD. AVCHD at 24mbits is going to be about equal to 50 mbit mpeg2 except for the 4:2:2 color. Personally whenever I have a VFX shoot I always use live HDMI or HD-SDI capture anyway so the native 4:2:2 shooting isn't a deal breaker for me. Yes if the price was right I would like to always shoot 4:2:2 especially if I have to shoot interlaced. The reality of it however is that shooting native 4:2:2 isn't as important to me as it used to be. There have been a lot of VFX shoots done with 4:2:0 progressive cameras that have turned out very good so the argument that you can only key with 4:2:2 just isn't true anymore. Even 4:2:0 interlaced if filtered properly to shift the chroma fields back in order can give very good results.

I am kind of surprised Canon doesn't mention native Sony Vegas support. A few people at my work use it and I know it works very well with native 50 mbit mpeg2 and can even use it as a capture format.

With what you say Thomas, and comments from others too, it's hard to see many people choosing this camera over an EX1 with Nanoflash for sure.
Steve

I question it as well.

Why are you comparing it to the EX3? It should be compared to the EX1r which also has a fixed lens. And which is cheaper than the Canon. When Canon announces a removable lens version, then that should be compared to the EX3.


Canon's codec is likely EXACTLY the same as the codec in the EX1/EX3. Just using a different implementation. It will likely be susceptible to exactly the same failings. Yes, it probably uses the 50Mb/s 4:2:2 that Sony uses in the Optical Disk variants of it's cameras. Honestly, I've seen that variant, and I'd bet money that if you put 10 people in a room at normal viewing distances, you couldn't tell the 50Mbps variant from the 35. Been there, done that. Move that to a 100Mbps and you might have a case.

Also The EX1 and EX3 can shoot to SDHC which are cheaper than the CF cards the Canon will shoot. And unlike the CF cards in the Canon, they can be write write protected.

Yep. Awesome if you're looking for an ENG camera... only. If you want to take the camera OFF your shoulder then things get a bit more interesting with the news production style cameras.

If I was in the market for a camera in this price range right now, I'd buy an EX1 with a NanoFlash. A few more bucks, better sensor, better codec by miles.

That's definitely the contender Steve, if this can't match an EX1r as far as imagery goes, I don't see myself getting this camcorder. Low light and usability are the biggest things for me at this point. I can live with the 1/3rd chips if it somehow produces that much better imagery with the new codec.

You're right. It's not the ONLY high end market. But it is a viable and important one. And the statement that high end users aren't using CMOS, left unqualified, is patently false. Especially when paired with the comment that "CMOS isn't quite good enough." If it's good enough for the Academy to award it "Best Picture" I'd say that it's good enough.

To say that high end broadcast/ENG cameras aren't using CMOS would have certainly been a stronger argument.

Chris,

Red isn't just for digital cinema. We have a Sony F900 at work and we also have Red. We now use the Red for almost all video related projects. We are not the extreme high end either. We do corporate and broadcast work. In many ways Red has totally blown away the F900. My rule has always been if you are shooting something that looks bad with CMOS then chances are it is not being shot correctly. 99% of good production shooting will look perfectly fine with CMOS. A camera whip is bad regardless if it is skewed or not.

We have now seen amazing material not only from Red for cinema projects but the EX1 and DSLR's such as the 5d and 7d.

I still say the only problem rolling shutter has is that we are used to CCD. If we started out with CMOS and never had CCD then rolling shutter wouldn't be an issue for us. It is because of the perspective we all look at it that it seems bad to us. We see jello cam and say to ourselves there must be something wrong because CCD doesn't do that. Saying CMOS isn't good enough for the highend market is like saying water colors are not good enough for fine artists. If Canon had to use 1/3" then I am very glad they used CMOS instead of CCD.

Heck if you want full sensor get a Panasonic HMC40 with a Nanoflash. Yeah the low light sucks but that is one heck of a rig with decent lighting.

I just read a review of the new Panasonic 1/3" camera by Barry Green. He was testing the skew by shooting some semi trucks driving by.

The trucks were all diagonal in the frames. How can it be said that this is improperly shot?

If FOX sports was to shoot a nascar race with CMOS, would it hold up to the standards previously set by CCD?

I just don't agree that skew is from user error or that it is something we just need to get used to.

Whew! Glad I didn't jump the gun and unload my A1's. I was afraid this camera was going to devalue those but it looks like just the opposite could happen. In an earlier statement from Canon they described the Camera's new price as "amazing". (something like "amazing footage at an amazing price".) And to be honest, yes I am amazed, but not in a positive way. Like Thomas Smet in an earlier post, I find the quality fine for my workflow. I have been burning Blu-Ray since 2006 but truth be told I spend 10 times the amount of time downscaling footage than I do burning to Blu-Ray discs. I was hoping for better low-light capabilities and a tapeless workflow but not at twice the price.

Well I did mention Varicams and F900s.
Steve

Sorry Chris, post edited.

Easy does it, fellows... I insist.

I agree Tim. It's only user error when you're shooting things that you can control. Wildlife is a classic example, the peregrine just won't fly slow even when you tell it too! And it also won't come to within 10' so you can use a wide angle lens. Just for fun I tried some video on a Nikon D300 (I know it's at the poor end of the skew stakes) and it was laughable! I've saw issues immediately when I tried an EX3 that a production company I work for has.
Steve

I like Canon, but way over priced. Should be 1/2 inch chips. Get a Sony NX5. It's a great camera!

Other then us freaks on this forum are other people going to notice skewing trucks as much? I have seen lots of footage online of car races shot with CMOS and they usually look fine. Again it is all about our perspective of how we look at it. CMOS is always going to be different. It is us who have to come to terms with that. I would love to have a 2/3" CCD HD camera but if this new Canon at $8,000.00 is out of my budget then I really don't even need to think about CCD because it will never happen for me personally right now. I may be able to convince my work to buy a couple of these but not me.