EOS has one of the shortest FF distances of any SLR, only FD is shorter. It's only "huge" in relation to micro 4/3. My main beef with Canon is that they didn't keep the FD's FFD.
Dave
But this actually is the beginning of the end, right?
- Thread starter Chamber005
- Start date
EOS has one of the shortest FF distances of any SLR, only FD is shorter. It's only "huge" in relation to micro 4/3. My main beef with Canon is that they didn't keep the FD's FFD.
Dave
TimTheFoolMan
Well-known member
That's rather the point. I'm unclear how one can shove audio into a camera's XLR input, ask the camera operator to watch the recording levels, and expect to get the same results you get with separate audio. Why then would separate audio not always be the goal? - Tim
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
A sound man and dedicated recorder is obviously a good thing for the finest quality
Whats this camera going to be used for - low end corporate, weddings, and 10% indy flicks
Now not many low end corporate or weddings customers are going to fork out for a sound operator especially if a plane ticket and some hotel nights are involved - sad but true
I can tell you there is no fun trying to operate a DSLR and sound recorder when alone
Dual batteries, wire tangle, two start buttons - it sucks
And then the $ per hour implication of added post time which again the client is going to struggle with paying for
Onboard sound is very important
The only counter to this argument is the proliferation of virtually free people you can get along to a shoot who want to get into the industry again sad but true
S
Whats this camera going to be used for - low end corporate, weddings, and 10% indy flicks
Now not many low end corporate or weddings customers are going to fork out for a sound operator especially if a plane ticket and some hotel nights are involved - sad but true
I can tell you there is no fun trying to operate a DSLR and sound recorder when alone
Dual batteries, wire tangle, two start buttons - it sucks
And then the $ per hour implication of added post time which again the client is going to struggle with paying for
Onboard sound is very important
The only counter to this argument is the proliferation of virtually free people you can get along to a shoot who want to get into the industry again sad but true
S
Chamber005
Carbonite Member
I think technology has been "slow" for awhile now in the 5K+ market. It's down on the consumer level (you mentioned the HV40 and the 7D) where things will always, always stay in mad flux, because as things get cheaper and easier to mass produce, they'll eventually trickle down to the consumer. On some level, things have been "slow" since the HVX200, only recently has the DSLR market invigorated the larger companies into new invention.
I think it's been compared before, but I think we'll liken the AF100 to the HVX200 in terms of overall impact.
Regardless, I think we will indeed see a "slow down" on the consumer/prosumer level (sub 10K) at the end of 2011. After that there will be marginal improvements on already existing products.
Burritoclock
Active member
This has been said every year about every technology since the 40's I believe, hahaha
That's funny considering all cmos videocameras have rolling shutter.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
As long as there is money to be made selling new cameras, you will see an increase next year, and every year after that. It's called profit.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
What is the technical difference between AVCHD, AVCCAM, and H-264 mov.? Quality?
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
h.264 is the codec. It can be implemented in many different ways; there are several "toolsets" for the h.264 programmer to choose from, including 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2, 8-bit or 10-bit, intraframe or long-gop, and in long-gop there's predictive frames and bi-directional frames to choose from (so you can have a group of IIIII, IPPPPPP, or IBBPBBPBBP). All sorts of different levels of implementation. Plus you can choose your bitrate, etc. So just because something's "h.264", that doesn't mean it's equal. The GH1's h.264 is pretty much the lowest-quality codec ever released in an HD camera, and AVC-Intra is pretty much the highest-quality codec ever released in an HD camera, and they're both h.264.
AVCHD is a specific implementation of h.264, specifying frame sizes, bitrates, color sampling, etc. It's 8-bit long-GoP at 4:2:0. AVCHD is the standardized format that was agreed to by Sony and Panasonic, and has since been adopted by everyone else (JVC, Canon, Samsung, Sharp, etc). However, even within AVCHD, there are varying implementations. There's AVCHD-Lite (which means no 1080, only 720) and there are better implementations of AVCHD. The GH1 has the weakest implementation (because it's IPPPPPP instead of IBBPBBPBBP). The AVCCAM camcorders have the best implementation of AVCHD, with their "PH" mode.
AVCCAM is a brand name of AVCHD used in a professional camcorder. If it says AVCCAM it means that it's AVCHD on a camera from Panasonic's professional broadcast division. It also means that it has the highest-quality PH mode.
.mov is a file wrapper. It, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything as far as quality goes. The Canon's particular implementation of h.264 is a weak implementation, it's the same as the GH1's AVCHD with only an IPPPPPPP GoP, but Canon overcomes a lot of that limitation by throwing a lot of bandwidth at the problem; the 7D uses 50 megabits, which is about 3x as much as the GH1's 17mbps.
But you can't compare megabits without comparing everything else. The PH mode of AVCCAM is only 21 megabits, whereas the Canon's is 50 megabits, but the AVCCAM PH mode is FAR superior to the Canon's 50 megabits. It's because the IBBPBBPBBP structure of PH mode is much more efficient than the Canon's IPPPPPP structure.
AVCHD is a specific implementation of h.264, specifying frame sizes, bitrates, color sampling, etc. It's 8-bit long-GoP at 4:2:0. AVCHD is the standardized format that was agreed to by Sony and Panasonic, and has since been adopted by everyone else (JVC, Canon, Samsung, Sharp, etc). However, even within AVCHD, there are varying implementations. There's AVCHD-Lite (which means no 1080, only 720) and there are better implementations of AVCHD. The GH1 has the weakest implementation (because it's IPPPPPP instead of IBBPBBPBBP). The AVCCAM camcorders have the best implementation of AVCHD, with their "PH" mode.
AVCCAM is a brand name of AVCHD used in a professional camcorder. If it says AVCCAM it means that it's AVCHD on a camera from Panasonic's professional broadcast division. It also means that it has the highest-quality PH mode.
.mov is a file wrapper. It, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything as far as quality goes. The Canon's particular implementation of h.264 is a weak implementation, it's the same as the GH1's AVCHD with only an IPPPPPPP GoP, but Canon overcomes a lot of that limitation by throwing a lot of bandwidth at the problem; the 7D uses 50 megabits, which is about 3x as much as the GH1's 17mbps.
But you can't compare megabits without comparing everything else. The PH mode of AVCCAM is only 21 megabits, whereas the Canon's is 50 megabits, but the AVCCAM PH mode is FAR superior to the Canon's 50 megabits. It's because the IBBPBBPBBP structure of PH mode is much more efficient than the Canon's IPPPPPP structure.
TimTheFoolMan
Well-known member
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I'm with you on this Barry
Whoever figures this one out will sell like hotcakes as it will be an all in one camera, but then we might have problems from trying to do too much in one place just like the DSLR's do now. It would be great though.
Lenny Levy
Whoever figures this one out will sell like hotcakes as it will be an all in one camera, but then we might have problems from trying to do too much in one place just like the DSLR's do now. It would be great though.
Lenny Levy
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Are the 7D, 5D and 550D the same?
Barry_Green
Moderator
The 5D uses the same mode, but has fewer megabits, I think it averages about 40 megabits, whereas the 7D and 550D are about 50 megabits, but ... I haven't kept up on exactly what they all use, so if I get this wrong, I'm sure someone will come along and correct it.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
It will be very interesting to see what the next 5D will have. Right now it's the most expensive of the 3 with the weakest features. It's due for a hardware upgrade sooner or later. I still predict a new 5D will be launched about the same time the mystery firmware arrives within the first half of this year. There must be another reason they are stalling it so long.
The impact of image quality from the FF sensor is still the one for me as soon as they work out the frame rates. It may not be the same animal, but I worked with a Pentax 6x7 and a Fuji 6X9 in stills for years and 35mm couldn't hold a candle to those formats side by side.
From the samples I've seen, the difference between FF and APS-C is a similar comparison.
The aliasing and moire will also be good to see improved, but now that I've been working with the 550D for a month, it hasn't been a problem. If you go looking for trouble you will find it, but is is usually easy to avoid.
For client projects I'll still continue with the EX-3 and the DSLR as a B cam, I'm protected by the EX-3 to not loose my client, and the 550D with rails and a matte box is good enough to keep me from having to rent a 2nd camera.
The new Panasonic looks great but a year away may as well be a decade.
Last edited:
What mystery firmware are you referring to? And what do you mean by "Canon sorting out the framerates..."?
Canon has already done the firmware update for the 5D and it's framerates six weeks ago.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Sorry, I guess I wasn't following 5D news since 550D was released 6 weeks ago. Been a little preoccupied lately testing the new unit and following 550D posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they added 50p/60p which is still a deal breaker for me. Did they add manual audio control? If they didn't add these 2 standard items then they are still holding out on 5D users. The only reason is either the hardware won't support it, or they are saving it for the next version.
What I'm waiting for is the next generation of 5D with new hardware and new software integrated from Canon, same as the 7D and 550D units released including 50p/60p.The 5D hardware is already outdated after a year and a half compared to it's siblings. Perhaps they will include audio control next version.
Even Magic lantern warns that the software may cause problems as a disclaimer. However good the hack may be, it is still a hack and I would go for external audio solutions over a hack. If Magic Lantern can achieve manual audio control then Canon should just belly up to the bar and include it next round.
Last edited:
Ben_B
Veteran
Yup! And FD was out for 20 years before they decided to switch mounts...guess how long EOS has been out? 20 years. Wonder how long it will be before they decide to screw all you guys over again. 5 years? 10? I'll stick with Nikon mount stuff
Ben_B
Veteran
Barry, thank you. I understood this before thanks to you and others but I am surprised to see how many people on this forum and everywhere have such a lack of understanding about things like this...hopefully this clarification helps.
I am not such a big fan of Canon's "solution." Yeah it does better on movement than the GH1, but it still can compare to AVCCAM's PH or with XDCAM EX and my god would you look at those FILE SIZES. Huge (for h.264.) Less recording time on cards. Longer to dump cards. Larger archive. Annoying. One of my favorite things about using the GH1, the HMC-150, and the EX1 vs the Canon SLRs and even P2 cameras is that I get to keep a nice small archive of my footage...the card data...tiny, compressed, and easy to restore from.
One thing that drives me nuts though. Panasonic AVCHD cameras (as opposed to the Canons which use the MOV wrapper and the XDCAM Sonys) number their clips sequentially instead of with some other method like absolute # based on the camera's lifetime or the naming convention P2 uses...which means unless you keep meticulious logs (which I do when working with AVCHD) or slate everything (which we do) and are willing to relabel all your clips if restoring (not so much), you can't easily reconnect media....because you either have a few dozen Clip #1 or your clips get renamed in your NLE based on which card it is.....drives me nuts. Fix it!!!
EDIT:
I am aware of the irony of misspelling meticulous....but I left it
My understanding is that Canon couldn't get the AF stuff to work with the FD mount so had to change it. There's no realistic reason to scrap the EF.Yup! And FD was out for 20 years before they decided to switch mounts...guess how long EOS has been out? 20 years. Wonder how long it will be before they decide to screw all you guys over again. 5 years? 10? I'll stick with Nikon mount stuff
But then, why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. :laugh:
Dave