joe 1008
Veteran
Hope that's not true for Europe. 30p here is quite useless, 25p would do the deal. If I would live in NTSC land, though, I would consider the Canon even with 30p. I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU, BOYS!
5DII DOES 1080P footage!!!!!!
- Thread starter hungrych
- Start date
Hope that's not true for Europe. 30p here is quite useless, 25p would do the deal. If I would live in NTSC land, though, I would consider the Canon even with 30p. I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU, BOYS!
Why not? Does it make it an inferior still camera? No. It's basically a feature that's added for FREE. So why complain it's there?
And why should someone shoot their 'masterpiece' on a DSLR? Well... dynamic range, big sensor, shallow depth of field, interchangeable lenses and so on. That's why.
John Caballero
Veteran
What do you mean? Soap operas by example are shot on 60i a totally different format than 30P. 30P is closer to 24P than it is to 60i by nature. That is a fact.
And once again from wikipedia:
It's convergence, baby! Just choose your form factor!
Within a couple of years, my daughter's purple Hello Kitty SparklePhone™ will outperform today's Viper - it is INEVITABLE. The crappy chip-sets and limitations of today simply won't exist.
Of course, she doesn't ever get to have a cell phone, because I also like my little girl to be CancerFree™.
Within a couple of years, my daughter's purple Hello Kitty SparklePhone™ will outperform today's Viper - it is INEVITABLE. The crappy chip-sets and limitations of today simply won't exist.
Of course, she doesn't ever get to have a cell phone, because I also like my little girl to be CancerFree™.
wow, too expensive for low budgeters like me, at $2699 (estimated price US) for body only, I'd rather learn to make do with a D90 and its limitations. it's great that this Canon 5D MkII is more advanced than Nikon's D90, but it comes with a price which doesn't make it as exciting as the D90... or, perhaps that's just me.
i'm looking at some of the sample movies on the canon japan site right now, and for me they look good and crisp but video-ish compared to D90 footages on the vimeo channel.
i'm looking at some of the sample movies on the canon japan site right now, and for me they look good and crisp but video-ish compared to D90 footages on the vimeo channel.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
The ergonomics aren't there for it to be used as a "movie" camera.
The accessories aren't there, and what ever company decides to to try and make them, they are going to be horrendous...because again the ergonomics aren't there. Kinda like the "focus ring adapters" they make for the nikon lenses...they are the worst POS ever.
Not camera assistant friendly AT ALL...especially trying to pull any kind of focus on those lenses.
The software wasn't designed for people to go out and shoot films on...home movies yeah sure...that's about it. Yet here you guys are whining that is ONLY 30p, etc etc etc.
There is a market for the camera you guys want...its called RED, its call Sony, its called Panavision, Arri.......NOT Nikon, NOT Canon.
Oh, one more thing - imagine the kinds of shots we'll start to see that were formerly unpossible due to camera size limitations:
1. The old "Inside the Fridge" shot (without having to destroy/empty the fridge)
2. The "Inside the Mailbox" shot
3. The "Inside the (insert miscellaneous body cavity here)" shot, etc...
It's a brave new world, folks. Get ready for the gross and the wonderful and the even MORE gross!
1. The old "Inside the Fridge" shot (without having to destroy/empty the fridge)
2. The "Inside the Mailbox" shot
3. The "Inside the (insert miscellaneous body cavity here)" shot, etc...
It's a brave new world, folks. Get ready for the gross and the wonderful and the even MORE gross!
John Caballero
Veteran
But, like it happens so many times in this business, eventually everybody will jump in the bandwagon so they wouldn't feel left behind and outdated. Exactly the same thing that happened when DSLRs first hit the market, "Oh... it will never overtake film, the quality isn't there and never will be..." And now?
When the video DSLRs start shooting at high resolutions, with excellent file format and outstanding compression to small affordable media everybody will start using them. There is no doubt about it. The naysayers from now will quietly acquire them and of course will become experts on the new technology, simply because they will want to belong and think themselves as leaders. Ergonomics? There is nothing easier to hold a good size DSLR, specially up to your eye, and start shooting. There is no science to that.
When the video DSLRs start shooting at high resolutions, with excellent file format and outstanding compression to small affordable media everybody will start using them. There is no doubt about it. The naysayers from now will quietly acquire them and of course will become experts on the new technology, simply because they will want to belong and think themselves as leaders. Ergonomics? There is nothing easier to hold a good size DSLR, specially up to your eye, and start shooting. There is no science to that.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
I highly doubt it. You will never see a big budget movie being shot with a DSLR, unless its a particular piece that is looking for something specific. More than likely because the DP is tech head doing it for the hell of it.
Ergonomics...there is nothing easier for ONE person to hold and use a SLR by themselves.
There is nothing stupider than an DSLR on a dolly, on a big head, with an operator behind it, and a camera assistant trying to pull focus amongst the mess of poorly designed AKS that don't really work.
Meanwhile, the Op is being annoying because he is constantly bitching about not really being able to have his eye to the camera, and having to be behind the camera to operate.
Steadicam...He's bitching because the camera is too damn light to fly on his rig. The CA is unhappy because of the piss poor wireless follow focus solution.
ETC ETC ETC
As I said, these were not designed for making movies. You want to go shoot parts of documentary on them, be my guest.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
And my arguments stand for low budget/no budget as well.
I mean sure, why not make life 5x harder in a field that isn't easy to begin with. Especially when you don't have the funds to do much to begin with...
I mean sure, why not make life 5x harder in a field that isn't easy to begin with. Especially when you don't have the funds to do much to begin with...
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
You guys whine too much.
When will Canon get it right? They've been getting it right with their PHOTOGRAPHY cameras made for PHOTOGRAPHERS for years.
The 5D is expensive because it boasts amazing specs for photography - full 35mm frame shooting 3.9fps at 21 megapixels, ISO expansion 25,600 (which seems ridiculous, but amazing no less that the image would be remotely usable).
If you guys are looking for a cheap alternative to the RED, then start looking in the right direction.
Coming from a photography background, the 5D is hardly a let down when used for the job it was meant for.
Post-script.
It would be cool if it shot 24p and had a total manual control, but it is silly (foolish?) to be upset that a tool that isn't even marketed toward your profession is deemed inferior because it can't do the job it wasn't even created for.
When will Canon get it right? They've been getting it right with their PHOTOGRAPHY cameras made for PHOTOGRAPHERS for years.
The 5D is expensive because it boasts amazing specs for photography - full 35mm frame shooting 3.9fps at 21 megapixels, ISO expansion 25,600 (which seems ridiculous, but amazing no less that the image would be remotely usable).
If you guys are looking for a cheap alternative to the RED, then start looking in the right direction.
Coming from a photography background, the 5D is hardly a let down when used for the job it was meant for.
Post-script.
It would be cool if it shot 24p and had a total manual control, but it is silly (foolish?) to be upset that a tool that isn't even marketed toward your profession is deemed inferior because it can't do the job it wasn't even created for.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
Of course no Hollywood movies will be shot on a DSLR. I don't know about you, but I don't work in Hollywood. I'm just looking for the best tool for my purpose, which is low budget filmmaking. And for that DSLRs give some opportunities that was solely out of reach for the hobbyist until the 35mm adapters came on the market. I'm sorry, but I simply don't have $35k for a tricked out RED One. I'd love one though, but it's not going to happen. But I'll take 1/3rd of its performance for 1/20th of the price*.
*Numbers pulled from my rear.
EDIT:
Trudd, this is mostly a video forum, of course we'll be discussing the video capabilities. No one's saying it's a bad still camera, quite the opposite. It's amazing. But if you don't care about video, then stop "whining" about us discussing it. I mean, Canon put a video mode there, so we should be able to discuss it and its uses.
Last edited:
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
As you were typing that, I was typing this
I'm having post-posting remorse.
I do see the redeeming values in potentially being able to use this camera for indie productions - I can't deny how cool it would be if it shot 24p. I was certainly turned on with the D90's capabilities, and turned off by its limitations. The same goes for the 5D.
I was more rubbed wrong by the posts that claim the camera was too expensive, or of no value since it lacked a framerate in a feature that Canon probably views as as throwaway anyhow.
I think we're all excited about where this technology is going. We'll just have to wait until these companies realize the potential of tapping into this market so they can expand this seemingly throwaway must-kind-of-compete-with-Nikon feature.
Kegan
Spam Assassin Mod
Of course Canon put a video mode in there, but as it was mentioned - it was a freebie. Trudd's right in saying that the camera doing what it was originally meant to. Yes, this is a video forum and everyone's entitled to their opinion. The point, I think that he was trying to make is that Canon really doesn't care if its DSLR line is bashed because of a feature they put in that doesn't meet expectations of video professionals. It's a STILL camera - 1080p video is just a bonus.
-Kegan
-Kegan
Batutta
Major Contributor
I find this all very exciting. I am glad DSLR makers are finally getting into the moving picture business, as for years we've had video companies just continually building onto an old paradigm and trying to make video cameras look like film with varying degrees of success. DSLR makers are coming at the problem from the other direction and I have more faith that in a few years they will attain the dream - variable framerates including 24fps, 2-4k rez, 4:4:4 sampling, 35mm DOF, full exposure and shutter control, autofocus, mic input, mild I-frame compression, and no rolling shutter artifacts for under $2,000.
Last edited:
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
I do work in Hollywood. I do big budget, TV, commercials, etc.
I also still stick to my roots and do plenty of low/no/micro budget. Having had to shoot a short on a HV20 with a Brevis and Nikkor lenses is bad enough...To have to use a DSLR would be ungodly. WHat I am saying is I don't think its the right tool for the job at all.
I think still the top end DSLRs are great for shooting timelapse footage.
I think they are great for shooting still background plates for sfx.
I think its great for stop motion animation.
I don't think they are great to make a short film on.
Yeah, people have visions and want to create, or make a film, or play like they are a movie maker. great.
But if you're serious about really trying to make something, then do it right. Plenty of people with less/no money manage to do it everyday. And I think a DSLR is just asking for more time and trouble in the long run than its really worth.
The Sarlacc
Well-known member
As you were typing that, I was typing this
I'm having post-posting remorse.
I do see the redeeming values in potentially being able to use this camera for indie productions - I can't deny how cool it would be if it shot 24p. I was certainly turned on with the D90's capabilities, and turned off by its limitations. The same goes for the 5D.
I was more rubbed wrong by the posts that claim the camera was too expensive, or of no value since it lacked a framerate in a feature that Canon probably views as as throwaway anyhow.
I think we're all excited about where this technology is going. We'll just have to wait until these companies realize the potential of tapping into this market so they can expand this seemingly throwaway must-kind-of-compete-with-Nikon feature.
I rescind my thank you :angry: