What a great video.. who cares if it looks like an SLR body.. doesn't the image matter in the end?

OK, every HD video camera gets criticised for "low light" around here and everywhere else... this DSLR seems to do a "bit" better in low light... and has numerous other "features" many in the video community are asking for. That it does stills of substantial size is of course a bonus.

It's new TOOL!! And a mighty interesting one at that.


YES, it will change the business model for wedding photography and video, that's inevitable.

Will it be the "perfect" camera?? Probably not, and it may or may not lead to better things as the concept and execution mature... but it's a sign of things coming.

And about those "bumble bee" photogs... maybe it's better they learn to "pick their spot" rather than flitting around making a spectacle of themselves - and shooting video discreetly is of course one of our goals, and an smaller camera makes that easier.



One thing that I don't see anyone else mentioning is some of the "running" shots (as well as the car and heli segments) in that video - take a look at how they were shot in the "making of" segment... that's some pretty good stabilizing going on there, apparently all "in camera", no steadycan rig or anything I could see, just a guy running in front of the talent, handheld... with another guy leading him as he runs... HMMMM... does that impress anyone else? Did I miss something there?

I thought I saw a gyro unit screwed onto the bottom of the camera. Anyone else see it?

Kenyon Gyros were mentioned, so that's a possibility... I'll have to stuble around and find the link to the clip again! Still pretty impressive overall stability IMO. No "jelly" in the auto shots, and that looked like a pretty basic suction cup fixed rig...

Seems like Canon has managed to overcome low light, stability, and RS issues fairly well at a price point that is pretty competitive, I'm just waiting to see how real world reports come in...

I gotta say the whole sky is falling reaction is pretty amusing. First of all, when that camera is shooting video, it's being recorded on a different sensor that it does in still mode. The video resolution, while impressive is still of much lower quality than in still mode. That means that if the photographer chooses to shoot in video mode his photography product will suffer.

Also, as mentioned already in this thread, how many still photogs will want to make their still product suffer because they are being bogged down by the restraints of audio? Not being bogged down by audio is one of the things I envy about the still guys.

Also, the entire thinking process is different. Shooting stills is keeping an eye out for split second moments. We need motion and movements.

I shoot video and I also do stills, would I use a 5D mark II to film a wedding or other event NO would I use it to film some wildlife after shooting my stills yup!!!! And save my back in the process.

I think you have to take this at face value it does 12 mins on a 4 gig card it ain't going to replace a Canon XL-H1 it's not in Canon's interest to make a product that would render all there other products to the skip........It would to coin a phrase "be commercial suicide".

So basically we have a DSLR that does video just like the 1000 and 1 compacts on the market better quality of course but that's progress for you, The 5D mark II is a great DSLR but it IS a stills camera, the megpixel race has about run it's course there just looking at other things to make them shift cameras. All IMO of course.

What's the real reason for the 12 minute limitation? Is it just the CF capacity or because the sensors will fry?

I tend to think it's the heat issue as 4gb CF cards are pretty puny these days.

Actually according to the thread here on DVi discussing the camera, I believe the limitiation was discussed as approx 29 minutes OR whenever the 4G was filled up. Supposedly there's a Euro tax/duty related issue where a video cam gets taxed higher than a "still" camera - no doubt some government bean counters are having far less interesting and fruitful discussions about this camera than we are at this very moment <wink>!

The dual purpose nature of the camera is part of the intrigue - same as video cams that can do stills. If photography is catching a "moment", that's a limitation of the format... I shoot stills and find it very frustrating to see I "missed" by a hair... I'm finding that a frame grab with careful selection sometimes catches that "moment". Maybe you can't blow it up as large, but not every shot is meant for a large format.

Not sure about this, but I also believe that it's been reported that you can take stills while shooting video with the Canon, albeit with a "gap"... Since the Sony SR11 can shoot both simultaneously, with a bit of lag on the stills but no gap in the video, I'd say it's merely a function of buffer memory size and the size of the storage media - it should not be overly difficult for a camera to achive "both", although the stills might need to be a lower resolution.

And while the video may be "lower resolution" today, I'd guess that's so it displays in a "consumer" format, i.e. 1080... who's to say that it couldn't be hacked for higher res output? If the raw sensor output is there, it's software/firmware...

Again, I think the developments in the "tool" department are quite interesting, and they do pose some potential challenges as well as some opportunities - no panic involved, just some studious observations.

FWIW the aforementioned discussion has been turning towards the DOWNSIDE of DOF/fine focusing with a DSLR... so there may be minuses for wedding work with this camera too. I know I'm finding myself thinking about how my stabilizing setups would work with a DSLR format... I could see it working...

I wouldn't mind playing with one of these myself, as I enjoy both video and still work, I don't see it as competition, but rather as a natural complement in the audio and visual portrayal of a big day or moment in someone's life!

Since I've been shooting with the SR11 and CX12 (both of which do stills and video simultaneously) in "casual" use I find they work rather well together - the Canon just comes down the road from the opposite direction as it were... and I'm just as comfortable with a still camera in my hand as I am with a video camera, probably because I grew up shooting 35mm...

It's not like having another camera in the stable or at least available for consideration could be a bad thing in any way, though it may skew the toy budget a bit!

Hi Rick I thinks that's the excuse I've a Lumix FX 35 for RC aerial work and that records 10 mins+ HiDef (720i) but on the paper work the sensor is supposed to cut off at 8 mins to stop over heating. ;)

Makes sense Andy - that's what I thought.

I shoot weddings with an A1, while this camera wont be replacing that anytime soon I think this would be a great accompaniment to use during the bridal prep and for photoshoot footage at the park, of course switching back to my a1 for the ceremony and speeches where I need longer run times with good audio.

But for the price of this thing with some glass, you could just get another A1. :)

true, but I couldn't get the same shallow dof and low light capability in such a small package. .. I have some decent glass with my old 10D, so this seems just the ticket for me since I've wanted to upgrade my dslr for a while.

What puzzles me is whether photographers would devote their best still camera to shooting video, or buy two 5Ds to cover both, or what? Seems to me this camera makes more sense for videographers wanting to dabble in photography than vice-versa, but I suppose both will occur to some extent.

Excellent point. I think this camera could make still photographers feel threatened by videographers versus the other way around. Okay on typical wedding, I shoot between three or four hours of tape. If I shot with the 5D, that would translate to about 378,000 frames. Chances are a good bunch of them will make nice stills. We could offer them to the couple. and we won't be making our product - the video suffer.

On the other hand, a still photographer shooting in video mode will have to give up mobility - to accommodate audio. And they will have to give up their flash. Sure the camera is good in low light, but it won't be the same high quality. Then, many of the photographers I work with still do long exposures - 5 to 30 seconds. Will they want to give up this option?

As I said, if photographers want to shoot video, their main product will suffer. If a videographer uses this to grab stills, it won't change how we shoot - and we can offer some nifty still grabs too.

Also, why is everyone so afraid of 50 thousand photographers? Are videographers still the black sheep of this business? Based on the work I've seen here, the videographers shooting weddings today are just as talented as any other photographers working today.

I think the vast majority of pro photographers who shoot Canon and are seriously thinking about full-frame are going to rush to buy this camera even if it didn't record HD video. A lot of them will play with the video a bit, but it is first and foremost the *photo* capabilities of the 5D Mk. II which will drive most of the sales on this thing.

That portion of bridal photographers who see a commercial potential in this camera's HD video mode will buy two bodies (it's always a good idea for any serious, business-minded photographer or videographer to have two of the same primary camera, or at least some other substitute camera to use as a backup). That second 5D will go to an assistant (preferably an experienced videographer) and it will shoot some video when it's not shooting second-angle stills. A package including some HD video that a photographer offers won't compete with a full-blown wedding video production, but it will pick up some of the business that the more expensive full wedding video shoots were already missing.

So that was just my opinion... now here's a fact: for anything technical regarding HD video from D-SLR's, we have a new forum dedicated to that subject, covering the Nikon D90, the EOS 5D Mk. II and anything else including non-D-SLR digicams that record HD. The forum is located at:

Photo for HD Video (D-SLR and others) - The Digital Video Information Network

If it comes down to a struggle for customers between photographers and videographers, the photographers would win because customers usually contact them first. And for weddings in particular, if it becomes common for most couples to expect one company to provide both services, how many videographers are ready to handle that?

Look around on the internet and you'll find many photographers already offering video services, so this is nothing new - the Canon 5D has simply made the debate on this topic more prominent.

Right. But if you're a videographer and you start offering photography, you're now a photographer too. Advertise yourself a such and and you'll start getting those calls first.

Edited to add:

Maybe I'm dense, but I'd like someone to explain to me how photographer will now shoot video and not have his/her still product suffer.

True enough if you modify your marketing to address that and work your way up the search engines to compete with all the photographers who have been doing so for several years. Point being that competing with photographers won't be easy if that's the goal, so those wishing to pursue such a course of action should plan ahead.

A photographer can add video services the same way a videographer would add photography: by hiring enough people to make the shooting workflow effective. We have a slight advantage in that it's easier to add photo to video than vice-versa, but ultimately it's the same challenge either way.

Ahhh, now you're second paragraph gets to my point. The only way for still photographers to add video and not make their still product suffer is to add more people. They already can do that. As I see it, the only advantage this camera adds for them is that if they are all shooting with 5D's they all be able to share glass.

Quite easily I'd say. A photographer isn't shooting stills every single minute of the wedding day. They are already there with the bride when she's getting ready, at the ceremony, photo locations etc ....

In my opinion, all the photographer would need to do is gather enough footage to make a short highlights clip from the day and that would make a nice little add-on or upsell to their existing packages.

In fact, I've already heard some high-end wedding photographers talking about adding a video option like this for around $1,500.

As Chris P Jones said, "with 73% of brides not choosing to have a motion picture of any kind at this point, at least 25% of the untapped should go for this product." Not sure where he gets his stats but I agree with him. I think photographers adding on video shouldn't be seen as a huge threat. Looking at those stats, anything that educates brides as to the value of wedding videography is a good thing in my opinion.

But, I think it would be a mistake too dismiss the whole DSLR/video thing too quickly and put it into the 'photographers will find it too hard to make a video' basket. A few years ago putting video on the web was a pain, but now any person with a webcam can do it via YouTube. Technology has a habit of making things easy that were once quite difficult.

My thoughts are that as videographers we need to not be focusing too much on the 'now' when it comes to this emerging technology, but looking 2, 3 or 4 years down the track at the implications that this type of technology will have for our industry.

Practically speaking we all are ALREADY shooting "stills"... just ours come out at somewhere around 24-60fps, and have sound... quite the advantage really, when you think about it.

If you're shooting SD video, your resolution is not up to par, and even with HD, it's still fairly "low resolution" compared to most still cameras.

THAT is what makes this camera an interesting tool, and a sign of things to come. As visual communicators (don't forget the audio...), we are looking for the compelling, the emotive, the striking, and the stunning.

To me a dual purpose camera with serious resolution like this presents a powerful tool, but it can no doubt produce drek in the proper hands... if anything, we should be getting creative with how this can add another dimension, not worrying about the inevitable progress of technology.

I'm just as comfortable with a still camera in hand as a video camera, and in casual shooting with the SR11/CX12, I'm getting a sense of how one can "double up" and still get great results.

To use a wedding related metaphor... the two shall become one... It's up to US to see how to most effectively benefit from the obvious "union".

I'll just suggest that the advent of the word processor and cheap high quality digital cameras hasn't made everyone a Shakespeare or an Ansel Adams. The gear is agnostic, it's the vision of the man or woman using it that makes greatness or garbage.

Indeed, but that's not nearly the same as providing a complete wedding video including all major events with clear sound. Having done both video and photography for weddings I can't see doing both well with one camera except as a gimmick - and some photographers will probably try. What these combo cameras may do is get more photographers thinking about video and perhaps buying a proper video camera to stick on a tripod while they shoot stills, supplemented by a few artistic shots from the DSLR. Conversely, videographers can buy a DSLR and do the same thing, so then it just comes down to who wants to do what and how it's marketed to customers.

My brother predicted a while ago that photo and video services will merge for wedding purposes and be perceived as one product by many couples. (Not all, but some.) I've had several customers express interest in getting both services together, but I haven't pushed this too hard because it's a lot of work. My advice to videographers interested in this trend is to start taking some photography classes, offer a few customers a discounted photo/video option to see how that goes, and consider how you would modify your marketing to offer both services. If you currently get a lot of referrals from photographers you'll face a conundrum on how to maintain those relationships while offering photo add-ons, but don't assume they'll worry much about you if they decide to add video to their services.