Good question Chris. I'm guessing here, but I'd say it has something to do with the larger sensor and whatever magic processing they employ that allows these cameras to shoot noise free stills at 2000+ ISO.

Maybe someone can come along with some fancy numbers and terminology to explain it better.

significantly larger sensor size, probably meaning the individual pixel sites are also larger meaning they can absorb more light, plus FAST GLASS makes a difference. I'm going to venture that those sweet night shots are with a 2.8 or better lens with a price well above $1K...

Noise reduction in software couldn't hurt either - if you can do it in post, no reason you can't do it in cam with enough processor horsepower and firmware.

Good points, Patrick. You're right about "certain" photographers putting together a highlights clip but I don't think a ton of them. As soon as they have to deal with the editing process I think they'll get turned off quickly. Now if they outsource the editing, that's another story - but I still think that this is most useful for videographers as long as there isn't the sticky wicket of the exclusivity clause that you mentioned. You're right about the footage too - it's absolutely stunning!

I should also mention the weird "pulsating" I was getting when I slowed the footage down but maybe that was just that I had it in the wrong sequence setting - who knows.

Anyone crazy enough to edit footage from someone who just shoots had better put a high price tag on it!!

IMO, the more you do post/edit, the better you are behind the camera! I learn more about shooting when I have to sit down and edit it into something good than any other way!

Your camera skill improves commensurate with how much of your own footage you have to "fix" <wink>.

From a photographers perspective I don't think you guys have anything to worry about, the studios that were going to get into video would do it with or without this camera.

I think most photographers that wish to venture into video will do it for the same reason that some videographers venture into photography and that would be marketing. If you are spending a certain percentage to attract a bride and groom that dollar value does not go up when you add additional features.

I think most of you are correct that most photographers are way too busy with their own editing and post processing, albums, etc, to ever seriously consider adding video editing to their daily task, not to mention most studios are also very busy doing high school seniors, family portraits, commercial jobs, executive portraits, all that bring in far greater revenue than the profit from a wedding video, although they may have no problem hiring a videographer to run that segment of the business.

I think I may have lost a few weddings over the years from couples that wanted a simple photography, videography package, I know many have asked me if we do both and were disappointed when I said no, even though I recommend two very good videographers.

I'm not unaware of how easy and valuable it would be for me to add video to my studio, but until I find that one videographer who is absolutely awesome, highly skilled with both camera and editing, is personable, loves weddings, keeps up on all the latest techniques, reads forums like this one constantly, and treats our customers like family and because I'm a terrible salesmen I would need their work to sell itself, until that point the concept of adding video will stay in the back of my mind.

The new Canon will allow me to add bits of video to my slide shows, but until I can find the perfect videographer I certainly do not need the headaches of adding video.

Competition may force my hand, videographers may start adding photography, or too many other photographers may adopt a one stop shop approach giving them a marketing advantage. Right now I'll concentrate on being the best photographer I can be, and trust to providence that should the time arrive when I have to add video, the right videographer will arrive as well.

Bill

Bill - I think you just posed your "videographer wanted" ad by mistake.

Looks like I was right... sorta.


Ok, so it's not the actual announcement, but it is a closeup 3D render.

What I will use the 5D Mk II for is for a few highlight shots, not that my XHA1's don't do a good job, but I have over 10K in Canon fast glass that I use almost every day, that I can now use a limited time when doing video.

Many have commented on you need to do either video or photography, I agree somewhat doing both at the same time is very hard, but if your only adding straight edit ceremony to your photography, it can be done. And for the weeks you don't have a photography wedding, doesn't hurt to have a video wedding.

I love both, make more money on photography, but since adding video has helped bring in some extra income. I think the key is making sure your customer knows what you can do, luckily in my area its better than "Aunt Sue" can provide.

That looks like the side of a DSLR directly to the right of the LCD. My guess...
BIll

I was foolin around with a d90 in the evening of my most recent wedding (after the photog left) and was pleasantly surprised at how natural people were while looking into the lens waiting for a photo to be taken.
Not realising of course that I was actually shooting video for the previous minute prior to taking the photo.
They can be very natural and also be fooling around in a way they never would if they knew.
I cut a sequence together showing the footage then the photo. Works well.