Who else would like HD video on a Canon DSLR

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by tdigi, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. I would assume most wedding and other various pros could probably care less but for travel and walk around shooting would anyone want
    the ability to shoot HD video from an SLR? I certainly would.

    The Nikon D90 looks like an impressive kit with the 18-200 lens for around $1300. Is there any downside to having this ability in a DSLR?
  2. The only downside is the number of people who complain that it's 'killing photography' etc etc etc. I don't think it's "necessary", however i'll probably use it.
  3. Right now there is. You can't change exposure during shooting, you can only focus manually and you're limited to 5 minutes (with mono sound).

    A small digital videocam has about 100x the capability of the D90. DSLR video is only interesting because it's a novelty and it can do it at all. It's a very poor substitute for real video, though you could say that any video is better than no video at all. You can get a very capable, very small, dedicated video camera for a few hundred dollars.

    As long as I don' t have to pay extra for it and as long as it doesn't hinder the development of more useful features (like in-body stabilization), I don't care if Canon add video to DSLRs or not. I'd expect to use it about as often as I use LiveView, which is pretty much never.
  4. I did not know how limited it is, I guess having an little flip video or a small video cam would be better. its like anything that
    does it all, it never does it all well. Still seems like something most consumers would want but I am guessing you won't see
    it on a 5D or other pro bodies.

    I honestly never use live view I really don't see the benefit, I turned it on once to see if and how it works and said humm
  5. I might use it occasionally if the camera had it, but I wouldnt pick that camera for video. As Bob points out Nikons vid capture is pretty limited.

    If you really want to get into video with your Canon lenses, there is a video camera that accepts EF lenses by Canon. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=11544#ModelFeaturesAct
  6. If they are going to use AVCHD like they do on their other tapeless videocameras, then I for one am against it. AVCHD is still not ready for prime-time in my opinion. To many hassles importing and editing.

    As a concept, I'm not against it. Though there may be issues in that photographic lenses are not designed to look good "while" zooming.
  7. I have HD Video on my point and shoot(PAS) . Its more like a gadget than anything, but why not. On the downside, Video eats up allot of your battery and your card can get filled up pretty quickly. Then what exactly are you going to do with all that video, download it to Yutube ? If I was to shoot allot of video I would probably get an 8G card at the minimum.
  8. I certainly wouldn't mind it. It could be nice for simple multimedia vignettes, complimented with more impactful still imagery.

    Simple stuff like the amazing landscapes featured in Sigur Rós’ 'Heima' DVD come to mind...though, of course, there's a lot
    more beyond landscapes that can be done.
  9. If I wanted video, I would have bought a video recorder. That being said, my daughter got a lot of use of the video on her little Konica-Minolta Z6.
  10. The major downside is that if it becomes a "required" feature on all DSLRs (like Live View now is), it may squeeze out more useful functions. There's only so much stuff you can cram in there.

    One advantage of digital videocameras with small sensors is that it's pretty easy to put a fast high ratio zoom on them. For example the Sony Handycam DCR-HC38 has a 40x optical zoom (f1.8 to f4.1)! Try getting that on your DSLR
  11. If I wanted i video camara, I would buy a video camera. It seems to me, that most of the people using 5D or 1D (like myself) have little use for this supposed "feature". Granted, I don't think live view belongs on an SLR (the view finder provides a much richer view)...but I just old fashoned, I guess.
  12. I want a camera that shoots one format well rather than a devide that does two things badly.
  13. I think it's inevitable that there will be an effort to make a combined DSLR/videocam that does both decently well, at least in the consumer segment of the market.

    Once you've put Live View in the camera and you can use an electronic shutter on the sensor it's just a matter of messing with the software. You might need hardware modifications to just readout a subset of the sensor data if you want to speed things up a bit though. It doesn't sound like it would be all that difficult to do properly if someone really wanted to.
  14. I think it's inevitable that there will be an effort to make a combined DSLR/videocam that does both decently well, at
    least in the consumer segment of the market.

    Once you've put Live View in the camera and you can use an electronic shutter on the sensor it's just a matter of
    messing with the software. You might need hardware modifications to just readout a subset of the sensor data if you
    want to speed things up a bit though. It doesn't sound like it would be all that difficult to do properly if someone really
    wanted to.

    If I was Canon, I'd certainly be working on it for the next version of the Digital Rebel though. It's a feature. Cameras
    sell on features, not really on how useful those features are. If others have the feature and you don't, you're at a
    marketing disadvantage.
  15. I have video capability with my compact P&S but I don't use it. I guess with real good performance it would be a useful feature.

    In reality I would really like a cup holder on my DSLR. I hate having to juggle a drink in one hand and my camera in the other.

    Canon are you listening?
  16. I want an MP3 player. They have the memory card and the AV output jack. How hard could it be to put an MP3 player in there, especially if they're going to have stereo audio recording to go with the video.

    And let's not forget about GPS. You can get a GPS logger for well under $100 that's not much bigger than a CF card. Why not integrate it into the camera? That one will be here before the MP3 player I think.

    As for cup holders, would you believe that...."If you have strong feelings about your car's cup holders, you're not alone. In fact, 27% of car shoppers who participated in a recent Autobytel online survey(a) indicated that they would be willing to look for an altogether different make or model of vehicle to find the perfect cup holders". It's not always obvious what features will sell a product.
  17. Absolutely.
    I don't care about the 5 minute clip limitation. I wouldn't use it to shoot sporting events or birthday parties and whatnot. I'd
    probably use it to record snippets of scenes during travel, or short clips of friends... all to be edited later into something a bit
    more ambitious.

    As long as the 'feature' is implemented in a way that doesn't cripple any other features, WHY NOT? We should be used to it by
    now, having lots of features we never use. I actually didn't even notice the Print button on the 5D.
  18. I might be missing something but isn't it an advantage in the D90 to be able to shoot with SLR lenses? i.e. Macros, big aperture, ultra-wide lenses? From what I gather, most consumer grade video cameras (under $1000) can't interchange lenses and have pretty small apertures if you want to achieve that "cinematic" look.

    That seems like a real advantage even if it is mono sound.
  19. Aaron, you're absolutely correct. The D90 is just the beginning of a revolution. I find it amusing how some people diss
    the D90 because it has a 5 min clip length (how many 35mm film movie cameras have a longer clip length? how many 5-minute clips are
    interesting to watch?), no autofocus in
    movie mode (how many movies for the big screen do you think are actually shot with autofocus?), and limited exposure controls (this is
    actually a serious omission but it's a consumer camera so they had to cripple it somehow to sell the higher end models
    coming later). It can do things that no consumer camcorder can. And those things happen to be things that many
    amateur and low-budget film makers are dying to get in an affordable camera.

    And I bet that in 1 year it will be very difficult to sell a DSLR without a video mode to photojournalists - and those tiny
    sensor camcorders will be limited to people who are unable to focus the camera without help - i.e. people who would
    never buy a DSLR for stills because they'd never learn to use it to advantage. YMMV, as usual.
  20. Ilkka, I was in the skyview car on the Amtrak Cascade train heading north over the passes and through the
    tunnels a few years back. Drink on the table and a comfy seat. As I passed through tunnels and sheer cliffs and
    expanses of mountain, I would have enjoyed the ability to shoot a few video clips. At the specific time I think
    I was carrying my Konica Hexar AF (remember that little number? ?). Shots were not so powerfully great in
    stills.... Typical cut in video is perhaps 6 seconds (arguably of course). And as storage memory jumps up and
    up,well, there you are.... I have used the video feature in my little simple Nikon Coolpix P5000. I don't think
    of it is as anything but a little goodie for now in any serious DSLR. Still,that may change Illka.. Real video
    work takes time, yet it is important to have a recording device at hand. Was recently watching a special on the
    9/11 on scene edited from snips by amateurs with gizmos of simple motion recording as well as some gutsy
    journalists near the towers.
  21. I for one welcome our new video overlords. Srsly... I used the (very conveniently buttoned) video mode on my S3 IS
    and I found it positively smashing. No, I didn't make any great cinematic masterpieces, but it was nice to be able to
    record a clip from time to time with one simple touch of a real hardware button. Sure, a little consumer video cam could
    maybe do a better job, but I will never ever spend the extra money on one and I'd never have the presence of mind to
    carry it around.

    Bob....I get your point, but should we, say, take all the cameras out of cell phones? Yes, they are crappy, but look - I
    can add a contact to my phone and use it to take a pic of them so it comes up when they call me. Does it make sense
    to pull out my SLR to do this? Just pop a Raw file into Lightroom and export a pristine file to my phone?

    Sometimes it's nice to have one device that does a few related things at once.

    And cup holders would be *ossem*.

  22. I am for it. It's nice to have it. I do like to take a few minutes movie clip from my travel to add to my slide show. Some people don't like it but to use the video feature or not is up to the individule. Besides it the trend.
  23. I didn't suggest we shouldn't have crappy video in a DSLR. I'd just hope it doesn't replace something more useful. Since they've managed to get a phone, GPS, camera and MP3 player into a cell phone, why not have the camera in there. Same with DLSRs. Sure, put in Live View and Video. I won't use them much, but if they don't add to the cost and don't displace more useful features, throw 'em in there.

    I'd rather have a true auto ISO mode, sensor-shift stabilization, maybe focus bracketing and micro adjustment and other potentially photographically useful features, but for the time being I guess we'll just have to put up with an enhanced featured "direct print" button and video.

    My phone also has a calculator and several built in games. I'm not entirely certain that I want to see either one as a feature of my next DSLR.
  24. There is no doubt in my mind that we'll eventually see the worlds of video and photography merge in a lot of
    places. When it is ready I certainly wouldn't mind some video features on my DLSR. As it is I don't think of
    taking videos often but when using my digitcam I've found the video feature on it quite handy.
  25. What's wrong with you all? Of course you would use the video-on-DSLR feature of the D90. Why? Because it's there!
    As we all know, video is simply a faster series of fps. 5min limit - no problem. The ability to flip a switch
    and record some great event in video may capture the event of the decade. And, now we can do it without reaching
    into our camera bags. Good on the Nikon engineers for coming up with this feature - it is simply fantastic. I
    have longed for it for ages, despite making extensive use of mini DV on a camcorder. So, I rang my Nikon agent
    today and have my name on the waiting list.
  26. "What's wrong with you all? Of course you would use the video-on-DSLR feature of the D90. Why? Because it's there!"

    Ah dunno, I have it in mah point 'n shoot and have yet to use it even once after 2 years. I don't mind if it's there as long as
    I don't have to pay extra and I don't lose more useful stuff like DEP and ECF. I just won't ever turn it on...
  27. I'd wait till you can extract a 10mp image out of a 24fps clip. That is where the true intersection of video/still would be.

    Given that, there is already supposedly a hack for the 40D that will capture video (no sound of course)
  28. When I bought my D80 friend asked me if it takes video I told him no then he told me why would you want to pay $800 for something that doesn't take videos?
    I said that I don't really care about video mode on DLSR nor it's ability or inability to bake cookies, do the dishes or fly an aricraft.
    It seems these days like everyone wants all that stuff packed into small devices maybe soon they will come out with cameras that will tell us what to eat and when to sleep :)
    Technology progresses so fast that soon the DSLR will be the size of a computer mouse and will project 3D photos.
    back to the point I don't think DSLR should come with either live view or video mode.
  29. Some people think a cell phone is a camera too. I would expect that level of user would love to have an all in one vid/cam, but they would still wonder "why doesn't my picture look like yours".
  30. I disagree with those, that see this as a bells&wistles thing (like Bob):

    The movie mode on the D90 is spectacular. The reason however is not, that you have a DSLR and a video camera in one body, and take short movies during vacation. The groundbreaking novelty is that it gives you video recording capabilities, that where on the 20k+ side before the D90. (a digi-video cam doesn't come close to this)
    - a n almost full frame sensor (which is huge in the video world),
    - access to excellent lenses,
    - a look like movie, with shallow depth of field.
    - noone cares about the sound, because its recorded seperately anyway
    - noone cares about the 5 minute restriction

    I think the impact of this feature will not be in the classic DSLR market. The impact will be in the indy-film market. For 2k you can now buy the package, instead of renting it for at least the same price for a few days.

    So no, the D90 will not kill photography, it will hurt Arri, Panavision, probably RED, and for sure small movie equipment rental companies, who will have to come up with something new quickly.
  31. I'm all for Canon putting video in a dSLR as long as they also include a flip-out screen so I can use it to frame still
    shots in live view...
  32. I think that having video on a DSLR is probably not a big deal to most people, but then some people might really like it or use it. Have to remember these companies want to sell more cameras and if adding little things like that will sell more, then why not. Now if they stop putting in features that still photographers want, then leave it out. But I don't think you will see other useful features omitted because of the video mode.

    I also hear lot of people mentioning that live view is like that, they don't use it and so leave it out, gimmick. Well please remember there are lot different buyers out there with different needs. Myself after owning the 40D now for about year, as a landscape photographer I find the live view one best new features they could have added and wouldn't probably consider having a camera without it. If you shoot landscapes and use a tripod like I do about 99% of time, then try live view it is awesome. Focusing now with my TS-E lenses has never been easier or more of a joy with live view. Especially with the new models coming out with high resolution screens. I also like to check my composition my with live view, viewing the image on a 3" LCD I think is way easier to get my composition just perfect and seeing the way the camera will capture it WB, exposure, etc. is a awesome. Another example, while I was in Death Valley at Zabriski point shooting the wind was blowing pretty good. I had my 70-200mm lens on and was using my Gitzo series 3 tripod. Well it looked like my lens wasn't moving at all and I was ok, but when I put it in live view and magnified it 10x, I couldn't believe how much the lens was shaking from the wind. So I stabilized the tripod until the lens stopped shaking and got the shot. Without knowing the affects of the wind I would have gotten blurry image, so it saved me on that one.

    So until you explore all the uses of live view you might want to be little less critical of those new features most people think are useless. Outdoor photographer magazine not to long ago had an article on the new live view in the DSLR's and pointed out all things I have mentioned here, try using it like a mini view camera, you might be surprised how useful it can be. Sure it eats up battery power, but batteries are fairly cheap and having about 2-3 backups will take care of that problem.

    So the point is that even though up front might it might look like these new features are pretty much useless, remember there are lots and lots of other photographer out there that might find these new features kind of nice and useful.
  33. I don't think DSLR should come with either live view or video mode
    I've found that live view is excellent for tripod-based precision work. With no other method can you get this kind of focus accuracy and consistency. Focus on actual pixels of the image recorded by the primary sensor instead of just looking at a low-magnification viewfinder image (which may be off relative to the sensor).
    Among other things, live view helps with setting the tilt and focus on tilt/shift lenses accurately as you can zoom all the way in to see the pixel level detail.
    I know several professionals who take advantage of this feature routinely. Since it doesn't handicap the camera in any way, I would let the users decide what features they need on their DSLRs.
    I don't use live view for hand-held shooting nor all my tripod work, but when the focus needs to be just right then it's the tool for the job, and nothing else comes close.
    BTW. the Sony implementation reportedly uses a secondary sensor for live view and doesn't allow these benefits.
  34. I guess this is the nature of every electronic gizmo SLR's included ( Ipods, cell phones, PSP's, Point and shoots etc ) all
    do more then the 1 thing they are truly designed as. I agree as long as it does not take the place or limit the cameras ability
    to shoot stills I am all for it.

    Its also funny that people want 5, 6, 7 etc frames per second but don't want video. I must admit I thought wow thats so
    cool at first but there is something kinda cheesy about it. like its a gimmick but I am sure I would use it from time to time,
    especially for vacation.
  35. I just want to second what Ilkka said, when it comes to precise focusing there is nothing out there that comes close to the advantages of live view. If you shoot landscapes and use a tripod, just try using the live view you might be surprised how useful it can be.
  36. When I used my old video (DV) camera the other day I was struck by how well it handled high-contrast situations. It
    rarely blows highlights under normal, everyday conditions. That makes me think that photographic camera sensors
    will have to develop a bit further along those lines -- I am talking about dynamic range (again) -- to be really useful for
    video capture. And that, incidentally, is something I would welcome a lot more than a video feature as such.
  37. as many people said, this is just the beginning, the first test, sort of speak. it will be advanced very rapidly and will have all those functions everybody's talking about. it's definitely useful for travel people, especially amateurs like me who like to get into weird places and situations. <br>KN
  38. I think this may work like TV & VHS integrated... usefull? maybe the first month!
  39. This is the CANON forum. If you wish to discuss the capability of the NIKON D90, there is a different forum for that.
  40. It is marketing... as this would pull the attention of the P&S users who already have this feature... it is something
    akin to the face recognition feature that some DSLR have nowadays.
    Nothing about the capabilities of the DSLR.

    Nikon is playing it well I guess.

    Big big chances are that the rest will follow suit.
  41. So will CANON put video into future DSLR's?
  42. You know the answer to that is yes. There will be two major strands: in Rebel class bodies to compete with P&S models, and in a pro body for photojournalists (and maybe even wedding photo/videographers). Mind you, there is already the ability to use EF mount lenses on professional C-mount video cameras complete with programmable focus and aperture operation, although you still have to pull zoom):


    Of course, release timing of such cameras is far from certain.
  43. it feels *gimmicky*...
  44. Just my 2 cents, but it seems that more and more the DSLR market is driven by what the P&S people are clamoring
    for. Live View would be nice in situations where you have to hold the camera above, below, or outside of your
    line of sight, say in a crowd situation, but that's about the only use I really see for it. I see so many people
    using the viewing screen on their p&s cameras getting shaky/blurry images and then complaining about them. Give
    me a viewfinder and a camera pulled into your body for stability any day. I get asked on occasion how much my 5D
    cost followed by, "Does it do video?" Then I get the puzzled look and the next question is, "WOW! You paid that
    much money and it doesn't even do video?" Makes me want to scream. LOL! Maybe I should start telling them it
    doesn't do email or text or make calls either. I bought it to take pictures. The advent of the digital camera
    has made photography almost TOO mainstream. People on the lower end want a camera that does everything no matter
    how poorly. They just want convenience. I have always been of the opinion that devices that do everything
    generally don't do any of it very well.
    Video on a still camera is just another ridiculous feature that will see little or no use. It's just not practical.
  45. Alfred I understand and agree with most of your points but who says the video quality will be bad? I have a Digital Elph
    point and click that shoots video that rivals my first digital video camera that I paid $1000 for years ago. I would expect
    HD from an SLR to be a least a step up from any point and click so why not put the feature in the Rebels or even the
    40/50D series. I do not see this in the more pro grade cameras for the same reason you don't see a pop up flash.

    Also, I would not ever expect to have an SLR play MP3's or take calls but video and photo are closely related.
    I think the fact that it would be HD video makes it more appealing.
  46. Live view alongside a magnification function of the image is very nice to have if you have to precisely focus manually, e.g. for astrophotography. Considering astrophotography you do not have much other options: Focusing dim objects on the focusing screen is difficult and autofocus does not work with telescopes. Without live view all you can do is to shoot a series of test shots to analyze focus.
  47. Regardless of picture quality and features, the problem with combining video and stills in the same camera is that video and stills are two different art forms with very different ways of working. It ranges from the way you hold the camera to what you shoot and so many other factors. Still photography is largely about the decisive moment, and one image frozen in time can be a finished product unto itself (once it finds its way onto the printed page or a photographic print on the wall, etc.) One good shot in video is just one of many dozens, hundreds or thousands of shots that make up a finished product. And video is a multidisciplinary collaborative art of scriptwriting, photography, lighting, sound, on-screen talent, editing, etc. The bottom line is that your head is just in a totally diffeent place when you go out as a videographer than where it is as a photographer. At least if you're talking about doing either on a professional level. If you just want to take still and video snapshots I guess that's another story.
  48. Some people want both: video AND pictures on their wedding taken by ONE person. And there are photographers
    who do it. I don't know about results of doing both at once but it makes me wonder... if there was such function you
    could take pictures and make video at once and overall effect would be a lot better. You could stop the video for few
    seconds take some pictures and continue on filming. I know that such combination doesn't make a lot of sense but if
    there are people who want to hire such person on their wedding and if photographers could earn more money
    because of that... then I say: why not? It would be nice if there was such function - for some people camera is just a
    tool to earn money. Video function (provided that video is good quality) would let them earn more so it's not a useless
  49. The bottom line is that your head is just in a totally diffeent place when you go out as a videographer than where it is as a photographer.
    I completely agree - well coined. But people can be trained to do both, and professional level competence in both will be expected of journalists in the future.
    My interest in the DSLR movie feature doesn't come from the fact that they put both in one box - that's generally a bad idea because it clutters the user interface. If reasonably priced video cameras had decent size sensors and interchangeable specialized lenses, I would consider them. But there aren't any, so a new player has to come in and shake up the market until S/C/P realize that there are people who don't have tens of thousands to spend but want large sensors and interchangeable lenses.
  50. If they add a can opener too, I can't say that I would never use it, but I sure wouldn't want to pay extra for it, or have it
    get in the way of what I really want to do.
  51. "thre are people who don't have tens of thousands to spend but want large sensors and interchangeable lenses"

    True, but many of them want a 40x optical zoom like they can get for $300 on a real videocamera - and a 40x zoom that starts out at f1.8 too.

    At best you can maybe get a slow 12x zoom on a DSLR
  52. The really clever thing would be to add SAT NAV. That way it would encourage me to always have the camera in the car. If it's in the car I have to remove it when I leave the car thus ensuring I have the camera with me at all times just in case I need it. No need for a P&S then.
  53. If the D90 had come out when I was back in school, studying graphic design, I would have bought it for sure. Having the ability to capture
    DOF in motion using great lenses alone is well worth purchasing. Capturing design processes in low-light studios could also be done with
    the camera. While the video features on the D90 may not be perfect, it's definitely useful for many people--especially for graphic
    designers, in my opinion.
  54. Well, looks like it will be full 1080p. I know I was against it in my earlier post and still not a feature that will probably get much use from me, but now that it is a reality, I am willing to give it a bit of a chance. For those not still up, the specs are listed at:


    I came across the announcement on one of the modeling forums I frequent just before I was about to go to bed.
  55. Yep. Pretty much what people were expecting of the 5DII, but surprisingly it does have video. I'm not sure that's a strong selling point in a semi-pro camera, but it's in there, and will be used by some.
  56. Wow I am shocked they put it in a 5D. Looks impressive
  57. Heheheh. Give him the hand and he'll ask for he whole arm.

    Almost, if not all photographers, including wedding photographers, and myself, design, create and SELL slide show
    to clients.

    The world has changed my friends, accept and live with it (the video mode) or just turn it off and keep shooting.

    The main reason why I bought the G9 was not for its RAW capability but for its video function, now I have a Sony

    I have noticed that playing a slide show, during the reception, including video sequences has boosted my
    and having a camera capable of full HD, obviously with quality lenses... Yes, I WILL use it.
  58. Oh, have you noticed that when you hand over your D-SLR to someone, he/she would check the LCD instead of looking TTL ?
  59. Is there any VIDEOGRAPHER here who would complain about their camcorder can take photos as well?
  60. I don't shoot weddings but I am in the wedding business and I see less and less videographers I think now you will see
    even less. I always thought having short clips of special moments would be better then an entire wedding video and here
    we are.

    I must admit I had no intentions of getting a 5DII but the HD video capability kinda got me thinking. For me its really a nice
    feature for travel and family events.
  61. I'll admit this- I WILL use this feature should I get this camera (and Im leaning that way). First off using excellent lenses with the sharpness only some video cameras dream of. Secondly it has a larger sensor then most video cameras, so its most likely going to produce a better picture in 1080P. Thirdly it uses 38 megabits of compression which is WAY higher then most video cameras, so again the picture quality will be improved. And I've seen the samples it makes and they do look very good. I could even seeing indi film school people using this camera to make movies since the quality is up there. If I got this camera, the video it produces would be enough for me to leave my HDV video camera home on trips. And you can plug mikes into this thing which means you can select a better mike then what most video cameras have. I think the video feature is a usefull one on this camera. Set it to a high iso and get excellent low light video.
  62. Here is a 'Hell Yes' answer. I shoot autoracing 70-80 nights a year. If I had a button to push to catch 5 seconds of video some very close racing or an accident, I would be thrilled.
  63. I have a 9G, and took my first video clip at a sporting event, boy was I surprised how much I liked it. The quality was just ok but the addition of sound really adds an other dimension to the experience. The combination of the still photos and a few select videos is awesome. I now enjoy supplementing my still photos with the sound and motion of a few select videos.
    I will be getting a 5DmkII. The FF IQ and other improvements, plus the "small size and weight" make this the ideal travel camera.
    I am so glad I waited and didn't get an old 5D. The price differenece between the Old 5D and the New 5D mkII is insignificant vs the improved features. There is a regular self proclaimed sage on this forum who was pushing the combination of the 40D and old 5D. I knew Canon could do a lot better because of what Nikon was selling. That Forum sage was so wrong, and I'm so happy i didn't follow his advise.
  64. Still and video are totally different, and I fear having a DSLR do HD video will involve compromise in one or both functions, or price.
  65. I would love HD video on a 21 mp DSLR. I don't see any downside.
  66. "Still and video are totally different, and I fear having a DSLR do HD video will involve compromise in one or both functions, or price."

    Based on the video clips shown on the other post for the 5DII, the video looks very good indeed. I'd say it will give a better picture then a dedicated video camera. I mean 38 mbps compression- most video cameras are at best 25 mbps. So that is a lot of extra bits to give a better picture. Plus the better lenses as well on the SLR vs video cameras. The only problem I'd see is how to edit such video in Adobe Premiere/ Premiere Elements. This could be an issue.
  67. How a couple of days changes things, i am looking forward to shooting 1080p from the 5D mkII, I think there will be some great opportunities, I go places that every day people dont at the right time (light) and sometimes a single shot will not do justice to what you see. You cab take short videos between shoots, its just a differant form of media and I doubt it adds mutch cost to the camera.
  68. I'd rather see the camera priced lower without the video feature. Seems the feature adds to cost and complexity to some degree. Honestly,if I wanted to shoot video I'd buy a video camera.Does it come with a microphone for sound as well? Now that I've said that it probably does, or will on the next model. Then again look how cell phones have evolved. Heaven help me, it takes me enough time to learn and use all the camera functions and their consequences to their full extent, although it does get easier with time.
  69. Well I'm glad I picked up the "old" 5D a few moths ago for $1800 and did not wait for the new mkII. After all it was the talk of the town for 3 years and most people raved about IQ. So all of a sudden it is not? I won't miss HD video or 21mp for what I need a camera for. I'm not getting caught up in the "gotta have it" syndrome that companies prey on.
  70. How does the video work on the 5D2? Is the shutter electronic? Surely it doesn't open/close 30x/second does it? Like an adaptation of Live View but directly captured? If so the shutter must be purely electronic simply turning the sensor "on and off".
  71. "Who else would like HD video on a Canon DSLR?"
    Mmm..young, creative talents under 40?
  72. At first I thought having video was nice, but not something I would probably use. But after seeing a great sample video from Vincent Laforet, I myself am pretty excited about it. Boy how much nicer that would have been when I attended my son's graduation this year. So when I start thinking about times it would be nice to shoot video I realize that this is going to be a welcome feature to have. From what I have read and samples I have seen, it definetly DOES NOT take away from camera's ability to capture awesome stills, far from it. Anyone who hasn't seen the sample video Vincent produced you need to check it out, very impressive.

Share This Page