I will go and talk to them today, I still need to find out about the price because they have raised it since I ordered mine, But not sure if I will still be paying the price I ordered it at, Or the new price.
Thank you EOS20 for knowing what the slider is on the bottom of the camera, and providing the link that shows the connector on the WFT-E4 that goes in to the camera at that point. This approach looks much nicer than the side add on WiFi for the 1D3 series cameras, leaving all the connection ports available while WiFi is functional.
So the L plate for the body only with no grip accessory can cover up that port, making the design of the L plate fairly straight forward. I guess I better get my order in to RSS, so that I get one eventually.
As a point of interest about how long this camera was announced before coming available, we can look to RED's new announcements. Other than the odd formats, mostly sized for film, and the very high prices, see when these things will be coming out:
What a hideous/ugly monstrosity! Not me cup of tea.
Mel Gross wrote:
As a point of interest about how long this camera was announced before coming available, we can look to RED's new announcements. Other than the odd formats, mostly sized for film, and the very high prices, see when these things will be coming out:
Mel Gross wrote:
As a point of interest about how long this camera was announced before coming available, we can look to RED's new announcements. Other than the odd formats, mostly sized for film, and the very high prices, see when these things will be coming out: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scarlet.shtml
It's the very last point in the final paragraph that is interesting to me...
LL wrote:
Frankly, I wouldn't want to be any one of RED's competitors at the moment, in either stills, medium format, or video. But I am also glad to be a photographer at this time, because our tools are about to get a whole lot better.
After trying to digest all that, it still seems that a full frame, 21MP still, video-capable camera (albeit not shooting RAW video), for $2700 <OK, here's where I acknowledge the aforementioned price discrepancies> seems to be a reasonable buy for the times. My $0.02.
bobbytan wrote:
What a hideous/ugly monstrosity! Not me cup of tea.
Bobbytan, you're just not thinking outside the box. I mean come on! How much of current DSLR design is really to keep the cameras looking and operating in a mostly traditional fashion? RED's products are what you get when you start with a blank sheet of paper. My initial reaction to adding video to the 5D2 was, "who cares? What a waste of resources and my cash!"
Previous digital camcorders produced digital stills that ranged from awful to downright embarrasing. Conventional wisdom was that the conflicting demands of video and stills were irreconcilable.
Then comes RED. If you don't know what a video recorder is supposed to be, and you don't know what a still camera is supposed to be, and you want to create a box for both...you get RED's products. Yes, they are priced way beyond the reach of us ordinary people, but most of what we use now started out that way.
I don't care what it looks like. I'd just like to see an in-depth test and review of one of their cameras as a still camera. And that cinemascope model...wow! If could just win the lottery.
Mel Gross wrote:
The only RED of real interest to higher rez shooters is the FF35. But that's $12,000 and won't be out until—end of 2009.
Yup! End of 2009!
Now, that's telegraphing!
I wonder if the chip is even completed?
very exciting stuff for serious cinematographers or VERY well off photographers, especially that hand-held IMAX rig!, but yeah the prices are a 'bit' steep for the average person on all but the lowest model and that affordable one has too low of a still camera resolution to interest almost any still photographers these days, so at most, it might steal away some of the pure video people who were thinking about a 5DMkII or some higher-end consumer video camera. I don't see it affecting any person who is even slightly more still than video oriented away unless they have TONS of cash floating around and in that case it wouldn't go against the 5DMkII anyway.
Anyway, nothing here to interest me unless my income doubles and even then I'd still need an SLR, maybe with a much upped income, the like sof whihc not so many have, it would all be some wild fun though.
But yeah, for filmakers of a serious level in the upper eschelons it's got to rather exciting, but I don't see much here for the typical DSLR shooter, at least not beyond a subset of the 1DsmKiii level shooters or those who have been buying serious camcorders as well as DSLRs.
Yeah, but not red for me, 5DMkII is a much more sensible seeming combo for my needs and means.
burychka wrote:
Bobbytan, you're just not thinking outside the box. I mean come on! How much of current DSLR design is really to keep the cameras looking and operating in a mostly traditional fashion? RED's products are what you get when you start with a blank sheet of paper. My initial reaction to adding video to the 5D2 was, "who cares? What a waste of resources and my cash!"
Previous digital camcorders produced digital stills that ranged from awful to downright embarrasing. Conventional wisdom was that the conflicting demands of video and stills were irreconcilable.
Then comes RED. If you don't know what a video recorder is supposed to be, and you don't know what a still camera is supposed to be, and you want to create a box for both...you get RED's products. Yes, they are priced way beyond the reach of us ordinary people, but most of what we use now started out that way.
I don't care what it looks like. I'd just like to see an in-depth test and review of one of their cameras as a still camera. And that cinemascope model...wow! If could just win the lottery....Show more →
Yes. But what's interesting here is this philosophy of what's best, ergonomically has pretty much been solved.
When digital cameras first came out, there was article after article about how manufacturers were liberated from the "conventional" camera shapes because without film, any shape could be used that was better.
Guess what? The camera manufacturers had already gotten it right after 75 years of making cameras. Where are all of those quirky shapes now? GONE!
Why? Because they didn't work. We now have the two shapes that do work. The flat point and shoot designs, and the SLR type designs.
We have them because they just happen to be the most ergonomic designs out there, and users LIKE them!
Cinematography is different. Because of the clumsy nature of the business, operators have been willing to accept terrible camera design for over a century.
I'm sure the REDs will sell well for what they are, but I really don't think the big still manufacturers will have to worry too much. Especially at those prices.
And with people here arguing about another couple of hundred extra on an already cheap high quality camera, RED is giving themselves to a very small market, measured in the thousands, as medium format is today.
burychka wrote:
Bobbytan, you're just not thinking outside the box. I mean come on! How much of current DSLR design is really to keep the cameras looking and operating in a mostly traditional fashion? RED's products are what you get when you start with a blank sheet of paper. My initial reaction to adding video to the 5D2 was, "who cares? What a waste of resources and my cash!"
Previous digital camcorders produced digital stills that ranged from awful to downright embarrasing. Conventional wisdom was that the conflicting demands of video and stills were irreconcilable.
Then comes RED. If you don't know what a video recorder is supposed to be, and you don't know what a still camera is supposed to be, and you want to create a box for both...you get RED's products. Yes, they are priced way beyond the reach of us ordinary people, but most of what we use now started out that way.
I don't care what it looks like. I'd just like to see an in-depth test and review of one of their cameras as a still camera. And that cinemascope model...wow! If could just win the lottery....Show more →
Sorry .... the look just doesn't do it for me and I won't buy it even if its priced at $1,000. But I will pay more than $3,000 for the 5D II. YMMV as always.
Can we talk more about the WFT-E4 and BG-E6 grips ? I haven't seen any real reviews about these grips. I, personally do not like the extra grip like on the 1 series. Would I be able to just replace the current grip on my 5DII with the WFT-E4?
rbraun wrote:
Can we talk more about the WFT-E4 and BG-E6 grips ? I haven't seen any real reviews about these grips. I, personally do not like the extra grip like on the 1 series. Would I be able to just replace the current grip on my 5DII with the WFT-E4?
According to the PDF 5D mkII manual that can be downloaded from the Canon site, yes, you can use the WFT-E4 or WFT-E4a.
It looks like Ritzcamera is the only place that currently accepts pre-order of the 5D MKII. Has anyone placed an order with them? Before I go to them, just want to check. Thx.
I pre-ordered from Ritzcamera 2 weeks ago and was told that I was #300. I have nothing positive or negative yet to say about them yet. They did say that I was within the # that they were getting as first batch, so I can only hope. I received an email from them Tuesday saying it would be "another 1-2 weeks of time or even earlier than that."
mico wrote:
It looks like Ritzcamera is the only place that currently accepts pre-order of the 5D MKII. Has anyone placed an order with them? Before I go to them, just want to check. Thx.
onecall.com is also still taking orders ... I've purchase some big items from ritz in the past and all transactions went well.
mico wrote:
It looks like Ritzcamera is the only place that currently accepts pre-order of the 5D MKII. Has anyone placed an order with them? Before I go to them, just want to check. Thx.
