Image quality is good. I'm not sure I would say quantum leap, but definitely a very noticeable difference from the previous HDV cameras. Again, bear in mind this is a pre-production camera and it is likely to be refined before release.

I have not tested heavily in low light, but at +12dB, I am happy to use this for client work whereas I would not say the same with my XHs. One of the .mxf clips is of a child's spinning toy shot at +12 in no light, so there will be an opportunity for you to see what you think. The other clip is my boy shot handheld in evening room light at 0dB gain.

I am hoping to get a slightly quieter time this week to give me the opportunity to shoot color targets under different gain settings before the camera has to be returned.

There is some serious image stabilisation on board, with 3 different options - I do not have a manual, so again, I need time to evaluate.

I am enjoying working with this camera: very usable and nice looking results + playback on set, to clients is SO useful. Log and transfer is a stunning improvement over tape ingestion too.

Nick.

Digital Crossroads
 

This is a thread that is near and dear to my heart. I've been a commercial still photographer for over three decades. I have just about every lens that Canon makes including the first 800mm in the US. My bodies are always three or four of the top of the line pro Canon gear. My video work has always been done on Canon, currently an XH/A1. I have two 1D MKIV bodies and am awaiting the 1Ds MKIV rumored in the fall. When I received the first IV what interested me was the increased file size and the smoking fast buffer. I shoot a lot of aviation and my 1Ds MKIII's are great, but a little slow sometimes depending upon my subject matter. The video capability of the IV intrigued me, but I didn't think I'd use it all that much. I missed that call by a mile.

The capability to shoot HD clips with my still camera has turned out to be a much bigger advantage than I anticipated. Three different times since I've owned the camera my clients have decided at the very last second they would like HD footage of the assignment. All three times I was able to oblige them, with a hefty rate increase, and they were overjoyed. Much of my work is done from a vantage point that is pretty tight quarters so being able to eliminate/reduce extra cameras, batteries, stabilizers, media is an appealing proposition. Another definite plus is the fact that my air to air work is often done in very fleeting light at the crack of dawn and right after sunset at altitude. The light quality literally changes from minute to minute, cloud colors and formations are there and in the blink of an eye they vanish. The ability to be ripping through still images one minute, then go to live view, pop my ZFinder on the preview screen and be rolling HD with the same camera, same lensing, is just a dream come true and as I said before, a profitable dream at that.

All of your comments and questions really strike a chord because, as much as I love the DSLRHD capability, as Chris said earlier, I don't see it as an either/or proposition. The more I see these cumbersome "erector set" rigs popping up (and at prices that rival some of the camera bodies themselves)
designed to aid the DSLRHD videographer in achieving his or her "cinematic" style the more I like my XH/A1. Don't get me wrong, these adaptations all serve distinct purposes, smoothness, follow focus, adding monitors, etc., but man, you have taken something that began as a convenient, fairly simple alternative to an HD cam and turned it into the lunar rover, not to mention doubling your investment. I'm not saying I won't end up with a couple of those rigs, but I really hate the thought of having more stuff to manage.

My view of all this might change, heck it already has, but I see my HDDSLR capability as a blend with my XH/A1 and soon my XF305. WHile there are folks making some beautiful "films" with their DSLR tools, it's a cumbersome technology at present and I don't see it being a solution for every assignment that calls for video.

You might enjoy this clip, it's one of those instances where I was able to wow the client with the IV. The aircraft in the clip is a WWII B-25 bomber that I use frequently as my photo platform. The tail gun/cone is removable so I can crawl out to the open tail, secure my harness and shoot incredible, and unobstructed perspectives of everything from current day fighters and business jets to vintage one of a kind aviation icons like the P-38 Lightning.

Here's the link.........

Great footage James! Beautiful light.

Practically flying over my house although a few miles east in Arlington.

Thanks for sharing

Thanks Tim!
 

The light was wonderful. Just as we were about to launch a plume of cirrus clouds blocked the setting sun so we waited on the ground about 30 minutes longer than we'd planned. The hourly operating costs of these aircraft is pretty substantial so circling around waiting for the right light isn't a good option. We had much less time to shoot because of the narrow window of magic light so the HD capability of the MKIV really was a life saver.

I think this new camera is an admirable successor to the XH series. I went from shooting with a 2/3" chip "broadcast style" camera to the XH A1 when they first came out. It served me quite well and I still have it. In late 2008 when I first saw "Reverie," I said, "OK, great look, awesome look...but that guy's an artist. He can take all day on a shot if he wants. Nobody will ever shoot 'real' video with one of those."

Then when the 7D came out last September, I got one because I needed a new still camera and thought it might be a good idea to have a backup to my XH A1 for out of town trips. I did a weekend test shoot with the 7D...and I haven't taken the XH A1 out of its bag since, except for two different Steadicam shots because I was having a problem with balance on the 7D (problem since solved).

In my day job I shoot mostly corporate things--training, sales, product knowledge type video. I also shoot local documentary things and footage to show on big screens to introduce a local film festival, etc. So, I am doing everything I always did with traditional video cameras with an HDSLR now. The only time I've had the moire problem is when I had a long shot of a brick building with strong sidelight. By moving to a slightly different angle, I worked around the issue.

I shot with the 7D from last October till last week, when I got a 5DMKII. My reason for going to the 5D was that I wanted to shoot mostly with primes, specifically my old Nikkors. I use wider angles more than longer lenses and needed the 24mm to be 24mm.

So, while some say the HDSLR is not really a full replacement camera, it has become just that for me. However, I'm still not going to sell the XH A1. If I ever have to shoot an event where I need long takes, the 5D won't do that. If I need a lens longer than my 70-200 L, I can add a telextender, or get a longer lens. The lack of auto settings doesn't bother me because I don't use them. I also don't use zooms (nothing says "corporate video" like a zoom, in my opinion).

Today I have pretty good control over all that I shoot, but if I were doing events, strictly documentary films, things like that, I probably would go for this new Canon. It may be the best 1/3" chip camera ever made (and maybe the last one too). As far as the hassle of HDSLR shooting--it's there, of course, but it's no more of a hassle than shooting film, which many of us did for years. In fact, HDSLR shooting is so much like film shooting that I've started saying "digital film" instead of "video."

One thing about HDSLRs, you should not go there thinking it's cheaper. The camera body is cheaper, sure. But you can spend $10K easily to get it the way you want it. That's still way, way cheaper than the nearest big chip video camera. I have about $3800 in my 5D, including a 50mm Zeiss and a 70-200 L. My primary lenses are my old Nikkors: 24mm, 35mm and 105mm. Those 3 lenses would cost about $4500 to buy today, or more. So you could say I have about $9K in my package, including the sound recorder, rails, follow focus, ND filters, etc. That's probably about average for what most people would spend if they plan to shoot "real" video with an HDSLR. The new Canon 1/3" chip video camera is a lot cheaper than that. You do the HDSLR thing for the quality and the look, not for the cost or ease of use.

interesting information here bill, thanks for sharing. and it is true that to produce quality work from the hdslr's, there is a lot more than body and lens needed. as a side note from the topic, would you say the 5D has proven to be sharper when compared to the 7D? i have not tried the 5D but my 7D footage from a friends camera was soft and i was not impressed. could have been the sigma lens as it was he only one he gave me to try.

as for this camera, i really like the codec and canon equipment is great, but as i only really have one time to buy a camera in this price range, i want to get it right. i will still wait and see what will come out in the near future, video technology is changing at a very fast rate.

dan

I don't think the 5D is significantly sharper than the 7D. The Sigma lenses aren't the best way to check for that. If you go to the Zacuto site and look at their episode 3 comparisons with 35mm film, the 5D looks more like Kodak stock while the 7D looks more like Fuji, to me anyway. HDSLR shooting is more about lenses than the camera now. There's a big difference in cheaper lenses and quality ones, and in primes versus zooms. The only reason I got the L zoom was for shooting interviews. I like to change focal lengths during pauses for questions, and that's difficult with primes.