Who needs a videocamera.....

[Vince Baker]

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

[Louis Maddalena]

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.

[Danny O'Neill]

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.

[Jason Robinson]

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.

[Vince Baker]

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

[Louis Maddalena]

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.

[Jon McGuffin]

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

[Vince Baker]

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

[Chris P. Jones]

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.

[Jon McGuffin]

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

[Louis Maddalena]

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.

[Jason Robinson]

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)

[Richard Wakefield]

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

[Colin McDonald]

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.

[Richard Wakefield]

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...