7D used for Feature Film

<p><em>"...Budgeted at only $250,000, the production offered no trailers for the actors to retreat to, and cinematographer John Gulesarian shot the film on a Canon 7D DSLR, a camera any consumer can buy on Amazon for less than $2,000. "</em></p>

<p>Less than $2K assuming you don't need a lens.<br>

The film here in mention is Drake Doremus' <strong><em>"Like Crazy,"</em></strong> this year's Sundance Film Festival Dramatic Grand Jury prizewinner.</p>

<p>FYI. First time I've read about a 7D being the primary camera for a feature film. I can only imagine later next year that several movies will be shot with the 1D-X for 2013 release.</p>

Very cool. Canon has really created something special, even if it was not intended. Really shaking up the movie industry

and helping out the little guys as well! Can not wait to see where films and TV go with it.

<p>At PhotoPlus Expo this year, Canon had a loop running of the SNL opening credits, which were apparently shot with a 5D and 7D (according to the photographer).</p>

<p>Pretty cool. I know one of House's episodes was completely shot on a 5d II.</p>

<p>Both 5D and 7D, and also 1Dmk4 are hugely competent and getting a lot of use in the movie industry.</p>

<p>You might enjoy this

and have a look at the making of video too here which shows why small dslr's are popular, and how useful they are.</p>

<p>Does this mean Panavision and Mitchell and Arriflex will disappear down the rabbit hole and Eastman Kodak with them? Just like downloading music killed the big record companies and ebooks are killing bookstores and libraries? Are we happy about this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does this mean Panavision and Mitchell and Arriflex will disappear down the rabbit hole and Eastman Kodak with them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eventually, yes. Even for movies digital will replace 99% of film use -- when? By 2016? before that?<br /> I remember the first full length feature film, shot stop-action by Tim Burton with about 22 1D Mk II's -- CORPSE BRIDE (2005).<br>

More info:<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpse_Bride">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpse_Bride</a></p>

<p>(also look up the photonet discussion about this back then)</p>

<p>On a somewhat related note, I read here on photo.net that Canon may soon be announcing a new video camera that will use EF lenses.<br>

<a href="00ZYC7">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ZYC7</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does this mean Panavision and Mitchell and Arriflex will disappear down the rabbit hole and Eastman Kodak with them? Just like downloading music killed the big record companies and ebooks are killing bookstores and libraries? Are we happy about this?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you own stock in those companies, I see no reason to be particularly unhappy about it. If companies cease to be competitive in an ever changing market, this is what happens. I wasn't happy about Polaroid going under, but technology and the march of time made their product redundant. It's the job of management to think two steps ahead and keep a company relevant, viable and on the cutting edge.</p>

<p>In this case it opens up new possibilities for artists, and it casts the net a lot wider regarding who can compete in the motion picture industry - that has to be a good thing.</p>

<p>Just as an aside; if you miss Polaroid instant film like I did, you can always visit the good folks at The-Impossible-Project.com. What they've managed to pull off, in my opinion, is nothing short of remarkable.</p>