wow that was great info guys , thanks! I can discuss with my client now!
I would still choose the XH A1 mainly because of the ergonomics/manual capabilities and storage even though the DOF and the possibility of using different lenses is very very tempting indeed!

on any case, it seems weird to me that we've reached the level when an DSLR can be compared to a proper video camera and that some people would actually choose to use them instead when making films. Where do you think the audiovisual industry is going to? will there be still cameras and video cameras in the future or will we see 'big monsters' that combine all-in-one?

thanks

Hi Jon. No I didn't think about using the HDMI output when I had the D90.

The Singapore Grand Prix went very well, unless you are a Ferrari guy - their race was a disaster. :)

Richard

I think it's only valid to group the D90 with the 5DII when talking about features. Or rather lack of features and ergonomics in both cameras.

The 5DII has a high data rate - something between 35-40mbs. I don't remember the D90 rate, but the Canon is considerably more. But what truly sets the 5DII apart is the low light performance. Is there ANY, and I do me ANY, digital video that looks as good as the Canon in low light? I see a lot of noise/grain in network TV dramas and even feature films when there are actual night scenes. (As oppossed to 10 ft-c scenes that are lit to look like night).
All this comes "free" with a mid-priced DSLR.

So some great stuff, but its the video camera equivalent to a view camera. The future will bring real video cameras with this tech. These cameras probably require a whole new lens line and that's a big deal for Canon.

The 5DII is the size of a book, weighs less than 2 pounds, starts instantly, and has a sensor twice the size of Red One. It looks like cameras will be getting smaller, and lens bigger (for the larger image circle).

I think the issue is that to make a 5D a "real" cinema camera will involve a lot of work. And I doubt Canon is interested in doing it. Canon is a big company that has to behave rationally.

It's like the difference between 35mm format SLR lenses and cine lenses. Image wise they are very close, sometimes SLR lenses even look better. But their ergonomics blow for movie work. You can get them rehoused, use a follow focus that regears them, but these are all workarounds of varying effectiveness.

In the end, a real production doesn't mind spending the $ on Panavision lenses, Zeiss Primes or Cookes b/c that little bit of extra utility is in fact very valuable when placed in the right hands--and required to get a pro to work on the project. Also, the pro cine lens cost is a far-off decimal rounding error in the budget of major studio film.

Back to the 5D. Look at all the crap Red has to deal with to make 4 or 2K camera actually work for filiming. It's not the general concept that's so difficult, it's the little details that become a RPITA when making a cinema product.

There is no way that Canon will jump through all those hoops with the 5D or it future iterations. I don't even think you'll ever see 24P. They aren't going to make a digital cinema camera for $3.5K and they certainly aren't going to want to support such a product.

What I'm sure you will see is bleed through into their video division. As much as Red is feeling the effects of the 5D, the real emarassment will be to Canon's camcorder designers if they don't come up with some kick-a new products.

But making a DSLR for both pro still photograhy and pro digital cinema is losing proposition that Canon rightly won't touch, IMHO.

You know I am gonna boycott canon if they don't do 24p. I will literally harass them on the phone. It's just frustrating that the perfect indies cinema camera is just right there barely out reach.

Maybe I missed the response, but is it true there is a significant delay on the LCD screen when filming on the 5d? That would make it very difficult to film anything with movement (i.e a bride walking down the isle). She could be off the screen and I wouldn't know it -- and HD is VERY unforgiving on the tv.

No it's not true at all.

What makes you think Live View is not live ?

per Russ' quote on the first page. I haven't played with one myself.

There is so much wrong with that post I didn't even bother to comment.

I can't speak for the Nikon, but I can speak for the 5DMk2.

1. The live view is fine.

2. There isn't a film camera in Hollywood with an autofocus, so that fall flat on it's face

3. The codec on the 5D/7D is generally up to the task. Certainly more robust than any camcorder less than $10k

4. Film cameras record ZERO sound. So what's that got to do with the DSLR in narrative filmmaking?

5. Recording time.. The 5D records about the same length of time as a standard reel of film. Don't see an issue there either.


The HDSLRs (Canons) are poor choices for event video cameras. However, they make rather exceptional narrative cameras, especially for the price.

I may be wrong, but one thing you can't do with a DSLR is a slow, perfectly smooth zoom from extreme wide to extreme telephoto.

We do weddings, and have two HMC150s and an HMC70. I'm excited to replace the HMC70 with a 7D or GH1. It will give us some variety (DOF), flexibility (the ability to hang it around my neck for roaming once I've locked in camera 2 on the alter), and the ability to get the wide angle family shots along with tight alter shots from far away (for Catholic weddings). It's going to be a valuable tool. I'm starting to lean toward the GH1 for its LCD.

Of course you can. Why wouldn't you?

Which full size sensor lens can zoom from extreme wide to super telephoto?