Who needs a videocamera.....
 

Wow, that is all I can say to the quality of this piece of footage shot with an SLR.....

Lets hope photographers dont know what it can do!

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample Video: EOS 5D Mark II

Its amazing, I just don't want to walk around a wedding with a still camera. I like having a cameras that looks like a video camera so that people know a video is being shot.

I also don't want the photographers to think that I am invading on their turf.

I dont think its intended to replace what we use, lack of inputs and other features. But there is no denying the image quality is outstanding. SLR's will create some amazing images and the lenses no doubt help.

Very impressed and thats raw footage, no post production apart from cutting. Amazing, really is.

try to hold that thing stable hand held..... not likely to work like a big shoulder mount ENG rig. And of course it only gets 20 minutes per 4GB CF card. Though changing a CF card is almost sure to be faster (and quieter) than a tape change.

To be honest the title I added was meant tongue in cheek.... but you have to admit the footage is fantastic as you say....amazing

Canon has now proved that they can do it. All they have to do is now put that sensor and a CF card reader in an A1 form factor like camera with interchangeable lens system (EOS would be amazing) with XLR inputs and the swivel LCD and people will buy that thing up like crazy.

Wow, I hate to buck the common opinion here, but after viewing those images, I wasn't really all that impressed with the video quality. That compared to a typical 3-chip videocamera looked inferior, albeit respectable considering the source of the shot.

I look at it this way, if what they were releasing were a videocamera and those are the shots they were using to advertise them, I don't think it would be that interesting. The only thing that makes the discussion evne worthwhile is that those shots are coming from a still digital camera. From that standpoint the quality is great. But I don't see this being anything more than a tool for photographers to use to grap alternate stills from or perhaps give the flexability of youtube/vimeo uploads, etc.

The added features is very nice, yes.... but I wouldn't think a videographer could take this tool and feel as though this could get the job done overall.

My two cents..

Jon

I agree, that was sort of my point that I was amazed with what came off of a SLR...

here's what's going to happen.

1. there will a run on these cameras. most videographers won't feel threatened for what the camera isn't - but photographers will see the camera for what it is!

2. photographers will start shooting a lot of video, (over)using it because they have it. many videographers are guilty of the same when they make a new purchase (glidecam - using it on every shot).

3. photographers will post a lot of what they're doing on cutframetv and [b] school, mostly promotional stuff. they'll also be discovering that editing takes effort, and editing something that makes sense takes more effort on the shooting end. those that don't study videography 101 or outsource their editing will more than likely not develop a sellable product. so right off the bat, for many, it becomes a fun family camera.

4. many will attempt to create a sellable product, but most are swamped in backlog and don't have time for the R&D to develop the product, and others will realize that selling the product might be more difficult than they imagined - it's new, and not all brides like new.

5. a select few will create a sellable product that fits in the flow of their business. they will succeed magnificently, then they will teach others to do the same.

6. once others see a solid way to develop a product start to finish, this product will have mass appeal.

7. 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. there will always be varying percentages that wants a super8 film, a nice documentary edit with sharp ambient sound, or nothing at all.

Something I stand by: Most high end clients want excellence in all disciplines they hire. I believe that two separate people, photographer and filmmaker, will always be able to make better products separately then trying to make two at once.

Yeah, I just watched it again... this time a little more critically and I think I might be being a bit too harsh.. the quality is there... I'll be curious to see how much of a "must-have" feature this becomes though and what this does to shakeup the vid-cam market. It's all good and I can only think this is going to be a plus for the industry as a whole..

Jon

Yeah I see the quality really is there. Its lacking a good amount of function, but what I was saying is Canon proved it can get HD video out of a 35mm sensor and use 35mm lenses, right now all we need is Canon to put those sensors and the EOS mount on a video camera. Give us more professional level control over the video and that camera would sell among people like us like hot cakes.

Especially because of the amazing new Digic4 & low light ISO features (where the entire sensor determines what ISO to apply to localized smaller segments of the chip to achieve better overall detail)

Jon, how can you NOT be amazed by the footage? it blows low-light footage from most of our camcorders away in an instant!

absolutely no worries for any videographer, i can hardly imagine people replicating multi-cam films with whole ceremonies, speeches etc :)
but yes, i'd love to have one, but ultimately have a day with that and with a dof adaptor first...compare them, and their ease of use

Just a thought - I can take reasonable stills with the two video cameras I use most (Canon XH-A1 and HV-30). OK they do not compare in resolution with a decent DSLR, but the lenses are better than compact cameras with higher pixel count and certainly any mobile phone camera. I could (and have) come away from an event with better still pictures than anyone else present, taken on video equipment just for fun.

My point is that when I carry a camcorder, I think video. When I go somewhere with my canon 40D, I'm a still photographer. But the technology already exists in many present video cameras to do both jobs. I know some people who can attend an event and produce pretty good stills AND video on the sort of video equipment I have.

The new Canon takes us forward from the other camp - designed for stills, but with interesting video capabilities. There is a "coming together" whether we like it or not, lead by the manufacturers, who are putting these capabilities in to their gear, maybe to see what happens. At the top end, stills and video will probably always be separate, but the ordinary punter's digital camera and mobile phone have been able to to both in a limited way for some time now. Perhaps the time will come when prosumer equipment will be equally spec'ed for both. If the market appears to be there, someone will make and sell it. Look how the iPhone has taken off when some technology pundits previously ridiculed the idea of multifunction devices. Interesting times.

Colin: i like your thinking, but it isn't like that at all. i sell framegrab stills from my HD footage (XH-A1), and they are really great as small photos, but absolutely zero match to the high-end DSLRs, and i always tell my customers that before they order them.
Also, to get anything SLR-like (i.e. video has that annoying infinity-range look), you'd have to have a letus/brevis and some good lenses continually attached...

That was some beautiful imagery, although I have to say that a lot of that "look" can be attributed to the lighting that was used. The scenes are obviously professionally-lit, so I would love to see footage from this camera in action "on the fly" at a wedding without all of the nice lighting. I tend to believe that if this director was given a Canon A1 the footage would have looked just as amazing.

Still, having this level of video capability built into a still camera is an interesting move.

Most inspiring is that the video was shot with a 35mm sensor and recorded to a solid state media. I hope this means Canon is developing a videocamera with this tech.

And the end result was cheap. You can pick it up for $2300 :)

This is the "behind the scenes" of Reverie shot with the Canon XH A1 camcorder, the quality of the A1 does not even come close (in low light) to this new dslr, amazing really.
Behind The Scenes Video Vincent Laforet’s Blog

Also check out Vincent's write up on his blog, he mentions only using one strobe light and a small Led light! link below (the stills on this blog post are actual video grabs from the film)

Something Very Interesting is coming…both to this blog and to our industry Vincent Laforet’s Blog

That's the body only. You guys need to see all the lenses used to produce that clip. (listed at the bottom).

And I can't believe some of the naysayers here are slamming the footage. I've never seen DOF like that from a DSLR. This is a major breakthrough and is most likely the reason RED scraped the Scarlet and is starting over from scratch.

Will it replace us? I seriously doubt it. At least not until they put a swiveling pop-out LCD on that thing. :) But not to worry... the "imaging industry" is going to be shook up over the next 2 years. Video cameras will soon have DSLR's inside them as well.

That blog post is interesting, particularly the information about low-light....

Hmm... Sounds like all Canon needs to really do is put this camera in the frame of a video camera, add some inputs/outputs (XLR's, firewire, etc, etc) and we're set... Would be nice to have a video camera that could "optionally" take stunning 21Mp stills!

Jon

The list of lenses are worth just over $26,000, with the 200, 400 and 500mm lenses taking up $16,600 of it! Also Panasonic have a new video camera which is a micro four thirds dslr with flip out lcd. Panasonic shows HD Micro Four Thirds prototype: Digital Photography Review

Dvinfo thread here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-v...deography.html

Awesome footage, one thing I wonder is though rolling shutter, I saw some on the car shot and I think these were all controlled situations and mostly locked of on cam.

Use the right tool for the right job. The way things look with this technology I am sure Canon will be coming out with a much better Video Cam in the next few years.

Scarlet is only being redesigned not starting from scratch again and as stated on scarletuser.com delivery times won't be effected and price still will be similar, their sensors are awesome so I don't think they would change anything on the sensor part.

I am going to be honest I don't know what rolling shutter is or what it looks like. Can you explain to me what you are seeing that is rolling shutter.

rolling shutter is explained here CMOS Rolling Shutter once your read this all I can add is that at this stage even high end CMOS video cameras can still exhibit this issue as there hasn't been a full proof solution done for this but getting there slowly, so I doubt Canon would have spent heaps of money to develop a still camera to get rid of these issue when its designed for stills.

Hence I say that having "controlled" situations you can reduce the risk of the likes of rolling shutter but for wedding videography there are a lot of different situation you will encounter that you can't avoid like FLASH which looks horrible on CMOS cams (I have seen this plenty on my hv30 and hv20) and I think with the 5D, it would need a real world testing like that and as others have pointed out, lens size and weight would just not be practical, other then for short films and any other situation where every shot can be controlled and have a few takes and sits on tripod/dollys etc..

This sure makes the whole scene interesting. Now all those Photographers who were sitting on the side due mainly handling two separate equipment Camera & Camcorder separately will be crossing the fence. Of course they will have to change their ways of jumping around all over the place, and stick to one spot for their pictures because of video.

Or is it going to be other way round, using this camera you will get superb video and still pictures. Thus you will be able to offer both.

Btw, which one to get, since I don't have XH-A1 and have been contemplating of getting one for long time. Will this EOS 5D Mark II, fit the bill? Since I do all my capture from Tripod, this camera should fit the bill.

This is pure mind boggling, with all those fantastic lenses you don't need to invest in Video and Still lenses anymore. DOF was simply outstanding. Even though Vincent's Lens array were expensive, you also less expensive options which give you similar results.

Some really insightful points here Chris.

- Not to mention the computer horsepower required to edit HD might deter some photographers

- There's a tendancy to see this type of thing as a threat to us as videographers but I think that anything that shakes the industry up, plus educates brides as to the value of a wedding video - it can't be all bad

Sounds like "from scratch" to me - especially since it never existed to begin with other than as a mysterious looking device behind sealed glass.

And what does, "similar" pricing mean? $4k, $5k? Real stupid to put the price of the camera in the name before it's even made IMO.

I really don't see that happening. Taking stills and shooting video are still two different disciplines. What works for stills doesn't always work for video and the other way around.

Say I have a video camera that I can grab stills or equal quality to the best still camera. Will some of my stills look great? Sure, probably. But will I end up with as many good stills as a still photographer that exclusively shooting 2000 stills at wedding, or course not.

This is just a tool. A very cool one. But, you are what you shoot. The talent comes from the eye behind the tool.

The boundaries between photography and video have suddenly become very fluid, and the pace has just gone to a walk to a gallop.

Having just bought a Letus and associated lenses I was like.....dang! I can't imagine that this development is going to make any of the dof adapter makers day.

And, as for the future for us guys holds when you they get the same low light performance into our video gear....exctiting times!

This is going to be REALLY exciting to watch how this develops and rolls out.

Try not to lose sight of the fact that this was a pre-planned shoot with professional lighting and professional actors/models, and that the whole thing was shot by a team of highly-experienced professionals. Canon could have easily given these guys an HV30 and they could have created a video that we would all be blown away by as well.

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?