600D (T2i) Video essentials?

[gshort]

Hi all, Ive settled on a 600D for the time being until the GH2 is more readily available and a hack is a little closer. My question is, purely for video, What are the essentials for the T3i? In terms of filters/lenses etc. Also I have been looking at the Rode video mic Pro. Does anyone have any experience with that mic? Is there a similarly priced alternative? I intend to keep my current video tripod and invest in a Glidecam and Glidetrack somewhere down the line. What do you suggest I buy? I shoot primarily fast motion sports if that helps.

Thanks

 

[Samuel H]

this thread is about a similar question
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?236389-What-has-been-your-most-valuable-add-on-for-the-T2i
but I don't think there's talk about glidecam, glidetrack or videomic over there

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Hi all, Ive settled on a 600D for the time being until the GH2 is more readily available and a hack is a little closer.

I wouldn't count on a "hack" being available for the GH2. Panasonic halted shipment of GH1's because of the GH13 "hack" until they could incorporate encoded "lockout" of any unauthorized firmware "updates". When shipment of GH1's resumed, those would not take altered firmware. It stands as a "no brainer" that the GH2's would also not accept "unauthorized" firmware updates.

Canon "struck back" at the 7D development of Magic Lantern by incorporating a firmware update "counter" and a maximum limit for updates in a legitimate firmware update for the 7D. The individual working on ML for the 7D encountered that maximum limit in the course of updating the 7D firmware to test out each new code change. Once that happened his camera was still functional but would accept no more updates, meaning he was essentially "stuck" on the last one and could not go back to the last "official" firmware version.

I suppose he could have sent his 7D to Canon for service but they would have instantly "seen" the problem and would likely have been very unsympathetic.

The manufacturers don't really want anyone "monkeying" with their code.

 

[M. Gilden]

I wouldn't count on a "hack" being available for the GH2. Panasonic halted shipment of GH1's because of the GH13 "hack" until they could incorporate encoded "lockout" of any unauthorized firmware "updates". When shipment of GH1's resumed, those would not take altered firmware. It stands as a "no brainer" that the GH2's would also not accept "unauthorized" firmware updates.

Canon "struck back" at the 7D development of Magic Lantern by incorporating a firmware update "counter" and a maximum limit for updates in a legitimate firmware update for the 7D. The individual working on ML for the 7D encountered that maximum limit in the course of updating the 7D firmware to test out each new code change. Once that happened his camera was still functional but would accept no more updates, meaning he was essentially "stuck" on the last one and could not go back to the last "official" firmware version.

I suppose he could have sent his 7D to Canon for service but they would have instantly "seen" the problem and would likely have been very unsympathetic.

The manufacturers don't really want anyone "monkeying" with their code.

Interesting that only the 7D seems to have that attention from Canon. I guess they figure the T2i and 60D are cheaper and small fish users, but heck the 5D is high end and it started the hack.

I really don't think manufacturers should be allowed to pull stunts like this- we are buying the hardware as a tool, and we should be allowed to repurpose it however we see fit. Unlike pirating software or hacking a cell phone, there is no theft of intellectual property or attempts to steal services. We are merely using it as a tool. Heck, if I want to take apart the lens and use it as a giant magnifying glass, or disassemble the CF card port to make an internal reader for my desktop (thereby destroying the rest of the camera), that's my OWN prerogative, and they can't tell me I'm not allowed to do that!

But hey, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Nascency Chris]

Interesting that only the 7D seems to have that attention from Canon. I guess they figure the T2i and 60D are cheaper and small fish users, but heck the 5D is high end and it started the hack.

I really don't think manufacturers should be allowed to pull stunts like this- we are buying the hardware as a tool, and we should be allowed to repurpose it however we see fit. Unlike pirating software or hacking a cell phone, there is no theft of intellectual property or attempts to steal services. We are merely using it as a tool. Heck, if I want to take apart the lens and use it as a giant magnifying glass, or disassemble the CF card port to make an internal reader for my desktop (thereby destroying the rest of the camera), that's my OWN prerogative, and they can't tell me I'm not allowed to do that!

But hey, that's just my 2 cents.

Um, I could be wrong but if a hack accesses proprietary code within the firmware then they do have every right to say if it can be touched or not... its the whole reason patents are filed...

 

[deltoidjohn]

Unlike pirating software or hacking a cell phone, there is no theft of intellectual property or attempts to steal services.

Well actually, the code is their IP property. Any redistribution or appropriation would be illegal. I'm sure there are some blurred lines here as Canon probably knows the hack is increasing sales, so there's no sense in them trying to shut the ML developers down.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Interesting that only the 7D seems to have that attention from Canon. I guess they figure the T2i and 60D are cheaper and small fish users, but heck the 5D is high end and it started the hack.

Yes, the 5DMkII limitations started the whole ML bit. They introduced that model with no manual control and a rather stupid frame rate, 30p not 29.97. Because that was their high end camera the ML hack left them with little choice but to come out with a couple of firmware updates that included some of the ML added features. I guess the 7D isn't high end enough although I would not be surprised if eventually Canon did add some features in a firmware update should they not come out with a successor to the 7D soon.

As for the T3i and 60D, no telling what level of protection Canon might have included in the firmware. They are bound to have learned from Panasonic. In the case of the T2i, possibly they knew they were going to introduce the T3i quite soon and maybe just let it go. However we still don't know what might have been added in the last update.

Um, I could be wrong but if a hack accesses proprietary code within the firmware then they do have every right to say if it can be touched or not... its the whole reason patents are filed...

The ML developers claim they are changing nothing in the actual firmware (except in the case of the T2i a command to load firmware from the SDHC card instead of the camera ROM.

Well actually, the code is their IP property. Any redistribution or appropriation would be illegal. I'm sure there are some blurred lines here as Canon probably knows the hack is increasing sales, so there's no sense in them trying to shut the ML developers down.

The ML folks claim they are merely providing additional code the main part of which "disappears" when the camera is turned off. Were I high up on the Canon "food chain" I would be moving to hire on the ML team as consultants and use their code.

 

[M. Gilden]

As for the T3i and 60D, no telling what level of protection Canon might have included in the firmware. They are bound to have learned from Panasonic. In the case of the T2i, possibly they knew they were going to introduce the T3i quite soon and maybe just let it go. However we still don't know what might have been added in the last update.

The 60D already has an early version of ML. The guy in charge of the t2i version is in the process of porting it over, but since the hardware has some differences, it needs to be tweaked. There appears to not be any protection, despite it coming after the 7D.
The jury is still out on the T3i, but early reports that I've heard say it is extremely likely to get it as well. Its really only the 7D that has this restriction for some very odd reason.

The ML developers claim they are changing nothing in the actual firmware (except in the case of the T2i a command to load firmware from the SDHC card instead of the camera ROM.

The ML folks claim they are merely providing additional code the main part of which "disappears" when the camera is turned off. Were I high up on the Canon "food chain" I would be moving to hire on the ML team as consultants and use their code.

+1
Its true, the ML team is not "rewriting" or distributing any proprietary code.

It is similar to using an aftermarket lens- Officially Canon does not support the use of 3rd party lenses!
A few months ago, a wedding photographer was telling me some of his shots weren't focused properly, so he complained to Sigma. Sigma's response was something along the lines of "Canon does not officially support third party lenses and does not share the specifics of how the lens interacts with the camera", so Sigma has to reverse engineer and make a few educated guesses when designing their lenses. And sometimes it doesn't work properly for all cameras, but he could send his camera in to them and they offered to calibrate his camera with that lens (which is ridiculous).

I've personally noticed my Tamron lens sometimes doesn't autofocus properly when shooting stills, where I know the canon lens would have.
So, technically, if it were all up to Canon, we would be forced to only buy their own lenses (in fact I've been told using an aftermarket lens technically voids your warranty), but we buy the camera as a tool and are therefore allowed to use whatever accessories, etc, we want. They just don't have to give us their blessing or support it if something goes wrong. But imagine if Canon had some sort of security in place to only allow their own lenses to work? No more vintage glass or competitive products. How would you feel about the morality of such a decision?

Magic Lantern is the same thing. Its an accessory that makes our tool more useful to us, and while they don't have to like it, I think it wrong from them to actively block it like Panasonic does. It is extremely curious that only the 7D seems to have this kind of attention from them.