Canon 5D ii, Washington Po$t, Nikon

[bill_tuthill]

For a mere $3500 (with 24-105/4 lens) the 5D mark 2 seems worthwhile,

although I'm not sure how often I would use a camera this big weighing

over 1200 grams. Also, what would I do with so many pixels?

At 300 dpi on a Fuji Frontier I could make great 15x22" prints,

if they had such a thing. Heck, even 8 Mp images from my digicam

are too big for posting on my website, but with a 5D I could

downsample even more!

 

The Washington Po$t has an 5Dii article touting movie mode,

although I wonder how many 12 minute movies people need to make.

Perhaps that's the limit of our attention span. Fortunately 12 minute

movies are more likely to fit on YouTube than those made with

a dedicated videocamcorder.

 

Does Nikon have a camera like this? I hate to admit I haven't kept up.

A friend loaned me a 40D and I didn't like the handling. The 5D

looks similar. In particular the on/off switch was a PITA especially

with gloves on. Does the 5Dii have only one control knob?

That's how it looks depicted on websites. Amatuer, as Scott Eaton

used to write.

[kari v]

"although I wonder how many 12 minute movies people need to make."

 

Of course you can make your movie as long as you like. 12min single take at 1080p and with 35mm sensor is great.

 

"Fortunately 12 minute movies are more likely to fit on YouTube than those made with a dedicated videocamcorder."

Well... No.

 

 

What's so wrong with movie mode in dSLR?

[Brad_]

>>> What's so wrong with movie mode in dSLR?

 

In principle, nothing. In execution, a lot.

 

No AF, really bad ergonomics, no IS (unless within lens), etc. Also, editing/processing the digital clips takes a good chunk of

compute power.

 

Almost any modern video cam will do better on the above.

 

Still, it might come in handy for very limited applications. And, the above concerns will no doubt be addressed in future cams.

Might be fun to play with.

[phule]

[[Also, editing/processing the digital clips takes a good chunk of compute power. ]]

 

Why would the editing be any more difficult than if you were shooting with an HD video camera?

[Brad_]

>>> Why would the editing be any more difficult than if you were shooting with an HD video camera?

 

You mean from tape, or AVCHD?

 

A huge difference..

[Brad_]

I just read the format is QT H.264 in a MOV container, so I guess that should be easy enough to edit and play.

 

Odd there's no 24P, just 30P. Also, I wonder what the max 4GB file size limitation is due to?

 

Is there AE in video mode?

[joshroot]

The one thing that will be absolutely RAD about movie mode on this camera will be the ability to have a shallow depth of field. This typically takes either high end HD or film movie cameras, or a Rube Goldberg type contraption on the front of a videocam to adapt it to use sill camera lenses. Depth of field is a tool we take for granted in the still photo world. video guys don't get to use it nearly as much.

 

I don't think it is a reason to buy the 5D mkII on its own, as there are plenty of other limitations in regards to using a DSLR as a videocam. But it would be a very cool bonus in my mind.

 

I'm also very glad that it isn't using AVCHD. As that compression is a real pain to deal with at this point in it's evolution. Not ready for prime-time in my opinion.

[phule]

[[You mean from tape, or AVCHD? A huge difference..]]

 

As your original statement did not address recording medium, I don't see how it matters. The statement was about post-production.

 

Any modern computer capable of editing a digital movie file from an HD video camera can edit the HD file from a DSLR. The arguments of compression algorithms and recording medium are academic at best, IMHO.

[joshroot]

<i>"The arguments of compression algorithms and recording medium are academic at best, IMHO."</i>

<p>

You are incorrect Rob.

<p>

Do some research into the annoyance of dealing with AVCHD. It is difficult at best and awful at worst. I decided against buying Canon's most recent tapeless HD-cam and went with a tape based one recently for that exact reason.

[Brad_]

>>> The arguments of compression algorithms and recording medium are academic at best, IMHO.

 

Absolutely not.

 

>>> Do some research into the annoyance of dealing with AVCHD. It is difficult at best and awful at worst.

 

Bingo on what Josh said... It's really tempting to buy a cam that records directly to flash cards (and AVCHD is the format that's typically

used).

 

After all, it's modern, the cam has no moving parts and is thus more reliable, cams are smaller due to lack of a tape drive. But...

Ingesting and

converting AVCHD via an editable intermediate code (at rates less than real time if you have a normal computer), and then

dealing with the huge memory expansion factor after the AVCHD is uncompressed (around 40 GB per hour!), and then thinking

on how to store and archive all of that (DV tape is self-archiving) gives a thoughtful person pause.

 

Many people debate those issues when looking at consumer video cams and deciding whether to go with, for example, a new

tapeless Canon HF100 storing directly to flash cards, or an "old technology" tape-based Canon HV20/30 that offers superior performance

and suffers no

archival and compute-related issues.

[joshroot]

<i>"deciding whether to go with, for example, a new tapeless Canon HF100 storing directly to flash cards, or an "old technology" tape-based Canon HV20/30"</i>

<p>

That was exactly my debate. I ended up with the HV30. Image quality is great with all of them. I just didn't want the headache of AVCHD.

<p>

I'm sure tapeless is the future, just like digital was for photography a few years ago. But as far as I am concerned, if tapeless = AVCHD, then the future isn't here quite yet.

[rjacksonphoto]

Same as Josh, I went with the HV30 to utilize the HDV format rather than the still-having-the-bugs-worked-out AVCHD

format. Works well as a second camera in support of my XHA1.

[Brad_]

All the above being said, I still think getting video on dSLRS is interesting in the long term.

 

When the ergonomics come up to what you can do with an inexpensive video cam, with AF and AE, and longer record times, that

will be better.

 

For subject matter that can be shot on a tripod, where your subject isn't coming in and out of focus and the light/exposure doesn't

change much (like on canon's 5DII demo videos), it probably does a good job.

[bill_tuthill]

The Canon 24-105/4 appeals to me more than any similar lens

from Nikon or Sony, but the Sony A900 looks very competitive

feature by feature: higher resolution, better burst, similar price.

<dl>

<table border>

<tr>

<td>model</td><td>cost</td><td>pixels</td><td>weight</td><td>speed</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Canon 5D</td><td>$2700</td><td>5616 x 3744</td><td>810 g</td><td>3 fps</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Sony A900</td><td>$3000</td><td>6048 x 4032</td><td>900 g</td><td>5 fps</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Nikon D3</td><td>$5000</td><td>4256 x 2832</td><td>1240 g</td><td>9 fps</td>

</tr>

</table>

</dl>

[berg_na]

The D3 is in a different league. The D700 is a better comparison.<br>

<table border ="1">

<tr>

<td>Model</td>

<td>Cost</td>

<td>Pixels</td>

<td>Weight</td>

<td>Speed</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Canon 5D</td>

<td>$2700</td>

<td>5616 x 3744</td>

<td>810 g</td>

<td>3 fps</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Sony A900</td>

<td>$3000</td>

<td>6048 x 4032</td>

<td>900 g</td>

<td>5 fps</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Nikon D700</td>

<td>$2900</td>

<td>4256 x 2832</td>

<td>1074 g</td>

<td>5 fps or 8fps with battery

pack</td>

</tr>

</table>

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks, Berg. I didn't realize the D700 was full-frame.

 

Nikon users, what lens would you put on the D700?

The 24-120 VR comes in a kit but doesn't seem very good,

and the excellent (for its design parameters) 18-200 VR

is a DX lens, not full-frame.

 

Sony doesn't have anything competitive except

the old, fragile (plastic geared) Minolta 28-135/4-4.5.

[tim_knight]

Bill, Nikon has a camera with video. It is the D80 replacement (D90) coming out in October. Just incase you are interested in the video feature? I could care less for the video but the abilty to shoot higher ISO is what I want.

[berg_na]

Hi Bill,<p>

The new<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/ProductDetail.page?pid=2164"> Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8</a>

lens is a good match for the D700. I'd stay away from the 24-120 lens, I briefly owned the non VR version once but

had to get rid of it because of its poor optical performance.<p>

<img src="http://www.nikonusa.com/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2164_AF-S-NiKKOR-24-70mm-f-2.8G-

ED/Views/353_2164_AF-S-NIKKOR-24-70mm-f-2.8-ED_front.jpg">

[vandit]

Bill, I am not sure I follow. In your first post, you say that you dont need the resolution of the 5D2. Then you say that you

prefer the greater resolution of the A900 (although I am not sure how great a <15% resolution increase really is, in practical

terms).

 

As for 12 min clips - a lot of people shoot short clips and put them together into a cohesive video. 12 min of unedited,

continuous footage is a lot.

 

Vandit

[bill_tuthill]

Vandit, at this time I have no need to spend $5000

on a relatively non-portable camera kit.

However I'm interested in options.

After looking at lens choices, the Canon 24-70/2.8

looks the worst. Not any sharper than the cheaper

24-105/4 and lacks IS. The Sony Zeiss 24-70/2.8

is very sharp but bokeh looks bad. Also

not weather sealed. The Nikon 24-70/2.8

seems virtually flawless, although no IS (something

build-into the Sony A900). Given choices, I think I'd buy

a Tamron 28-75/2.8 because it seems excellent

in all respects, and reasonably priced.

[vandit]

I had the Tamron 28-75 - optically great but the AF (or what passed for one on it) drove me nuts and I sold it off. I wish

Tamron would do something about their AF, b/c their optics are great (I also own a Tamron 180mm macro which I use

entirely in MF mode - it too has that noisy hunting thing going when you switch to AF).

 

I am surprised by your assessment of the 24-70/2.8 - let's just say it differs significantly from mine. But each to their

own, I guess.

 

The good thing is that we are definitely spoiled for choices now....

 

Vandit

[bill_tuthill]

Check photozone.de -- the Canon 24-70/2.8 has the lowest MTF of the big 3

(not counting Pentax because they don't have full-frame yet)

and I'm not wild about its bokeh in some web-posted images.

I concede that Canon has the best lens kit:

the 24-105/4 provides flexibility and the 70-200/2.8 offers

blurred backgrounds for portraits; both take 77 filters.

[vandit]

Mmmeeeh. I dont pixel peep and photozone.de isnt a website I ever care to look at. MTF charts exaggerate real world

differences, IMO. For me, crappy AF is a far bigger problem than whatever miniscule IQ differences there are in these

lenses. I think most people would be hard-pressed to notice a difference one way or the other in real-world prints.

 

Re bokeh - to me, it is going to be a function of not just the lens but also the lighting. Looking at the bokeh of one lens

in isolation makes it hard to isolate what caused the result. I've seen good and lousy bokeh with virtually all lenses.

 

Anyway, to clarify - I dont mean this as a defense of the 24-70. I dont make it, I dont sell it, so it makes no difference to

me one way or the other what others think, nor do I care to convert others to my point of view. :) I'm just putting forth

my 2 cents about bokeh and MTF charts and all that.

 

Cheers,

Vandit