Well Said. A LOT of people and gear went into making this look good. Didn't half work!

Honestly, about the only challenge I see in doubling up is that in video you're shooting 16:9 landscape, and some shots beg for "portrait". I can turn my camera on it's side... and I can crop and enhance in post... both still and video.

If you can frame and compose a shot (some people have an eye or can develop it, others simply don't), what is the difference between shooting 2000 stills (at 3-4FPS?) and maybe 10-50x that amount of "still frames" at 30 FPS? I don't think you want to try this with one shooter, but with at least two camera people, and some co-ordination... I don't see a huge barrier here, in either direction.

I think it's going to be harder for photographers to "think" video, for some of the reasons mentioned - some photographers simply aren't that talented or creative (and not everyone HAS to be - they still can make a living, OK, no offense intended), but for anyone with talent and creativity, the walls just crumbled...

I've been fiddling with the SR11/CX12 going the opposite direction... 7+Mpixel stills simultaneous with video, and this Canon cam really amazes me with what it seems to be able to do - sure it's all carefully stroked and polished marketing thus far, but if it proves itself in real world use... it changes things.

The Nikon was interesting, but has some fatal flaws from what I can see... the Canon looks quite a bit more promising... looks like Sony dropped the ball with the a900 - are they going to make the crossover... will they come out with a killer small format video/DSLR? That leaves "Scarlett v.2"...

What an interesting time it is...

There are several important differences between photography and video, especially for something like a wedding. Photographers tend to move around a lot and shoot briefly from many different angles, while videographers are more likely to want steady shots from one angle for extended periods of time. These are such different disciplines it doesn't make much sense for someone to try to do both at the same time with one camera, but two or more people working together with multiple cameras is a logical combination - and that can be done well now without a combined photo/video camera.

What a camera like the Canon could do is inspire some photographers to experiment with short-form, "cinematic" videos and try to sell those to customers, but even doing that much could turn out to be more of a chore than most want to tackle. And doing a full-length documentary wedding video is probably out of the question for all but the most determined photographers.

I agree - but the biggest question is, "despite the differences, can photographers develop a product that is sellable and will trump the videographers?"

I believe they can. There are about 50,000 of them thinking about it right now. That's a lot of brain power.

jones

Ha...I'm with you Alastair. I just purchased a Brevis and saw this and made me think of the love hate relationship we sometimes have with technology. IMO that Canon is not going to release this type of technology and leave the event video market out. I just can't imagine that from an engineering standpoint that they were not performing dual R&D for the two mediums. Next 2 - 3 years are going to be amazing. We will someday be laughing at the cameras we are now using.

Possibly, but I doubt this is likely to become a big issue. If it does, the obvious response is for videographers to advertise as photographers and offer the same set of services.

I'm not too worried about it. There may be 50,000 of them thinking about it, but roughly 49,950 will give up once they discover the complications involved in shooting and editing video. Of the 50 that remain, 47 of them will achieve creation of a worthwhile product, but will realize they can make more money from the photography side of things. The remaining 3 will be enigmas in the industry.

Or my math could be WAY off. d;-)

I think we need to come out of denial. With dSLR being present in every wannabe photographer guest's hand, photographers are having tough time as it is. And many of them have been thinking and advertising to get into video business.

Sure this was done by highly trained multiple professionals, and professional lightning was done. But those shots from Helicopter of the city skyline and shots from the hood were stunning.

It will require discipline and change in technique for photographer to avoid movement, but it can be done. And with two of them, it can be definitely achieved. Of course talent is always required.

One thing for sure, the way to go DOF at reasonable cost is going to be this camera or its kind. Especially when you access to those lenses.

Doubt my HV30 will ever produce that kind of shots, with any kind of manual control or accessories.

Don't think we have to fear photogs stealing our clients just because their camera can handle low light much better. It would require much more to replace us.
Only if a photog was hired in the evening and decides to film the first dance with his 5d just to give the couple something extra on film and if you would be there as well with your HD cam, the photog might embarrass you once the couple sees the difference on their tv. :)

Oh....now there's a thought!

I say we start an angry mob with pitchforks and torches and go to Canons Video Headquarters and demand they give us videographers the same low light capabilities.

Anybody got any catchy slogans for the banners?

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.