The new EOS 5D Mark II has the ability to shoot video in Full HD (1920 x 1080 @ 30 fps) continuously, only skipping one frame if a 21-megapixel still photo is taken in the midst of the video.
As a hobbyist, I find the video feature to be mildly interesting --- but ultimately useless. My hobby, of course, is photography. Not videography.
But I do wonder what professional event photographers think about the feature.
I think there are a few things that will keep it from being used in any serious way for events work:
Lighting. I think most event photographers will tell you that the available light is rarely, if ever, sufficient for good images. If the light's bad for stills it'll be bad for video, but you can't just add a flash to video. Sure, you can stick a sungun with outboard battery on the hotshoe of a DSLR, but you can't adjust or disable it automatically for stills.
Sound. If the video is actually desired as video, and not just a long chain of still frames to have selects made from, then the audio from a tiny on-camera mic will quickly become a problem. In a noisy event you need spatial separation to isolate your audio source, which generally means a more-directional mic.
Form factor. A handheld DSLR is not an optimal shape, size or weight for shooting continuous video. Try this exercise: put your camera in small JPG mode, depress the shutter release to fire a constant stream of frames and walk around the house without releasing it until your memory card is full. How was your focus throughout that? Framing? Did you have issues maintaining good compositions while turning corners or deciding where to go next? Did you have to drop the camera from your eyes to adjust zoom or focus? Did your hands and forearms start to shake or get sore?
The addition of video to DSLRs is going to result in a rash of very arty and interesting videos cropping up online, doing cool things with bokeh and DOF, but I think it's going to be longer before it has an impact on the professional world. The first place I think you'll see that impact is newspaper photojournalism, where you already have papers transitioning some shooters in the opposite direction: shooting HD videocams like the Panasonic HVX-200 entirely and pulling stills from it for print while also generating web content. I suspect Canon and Nikon were looking to stem that tide.
I think we might see some of the pros that blog to help out use newbs(ie chase jarvis, david hobby) using the feature to show us what they see through the lens during a shoot... could be interesting.
I think the video mode is logical and when I use my camera personally the video mode would be great to have. I carry a small P&S for the video mode.
It would be great to use the video mode to document what you did during a shoot for lighting posing etc then go click.
It is useful but I think all of us would rather them eek out every bit of quality they can. Maybe we assume they did not tweak it as best as possible and think the video mode was just marketing hype.
I also think from a Wedding standpoint I might grab some video and offer it as a surprise especially since most couples I photograph do not hire a video crew. It might not be the best quality but it beats no video.
I will not purchase a dSLR based on video mode, but certainly welcome it on my next dSLR should it happen to have it.
Josh Evilsizor wrote:
I think we might see some of the pros that blog to help out use newbs(ie chase jarvis, david hobby) using the feature to show us what they see through the lens during a shoot... could be interesting.
I believe Chase has already done this with the D700. Or did he just shoot a video with it? I forget.
When I first heard of this feature I thought it was a waste of time and they should have put in a dual card slot or something useful and left video to video cameras, but doing a lot of events and runway shows I can see how a video mixed with professional photos could be a great selling point. Lots of companies want short videos for web sites or utube sites. Taking 2 minutes between shots may not be a bad idea.assuming the light is already there for the show. I can't believe I am thinking about this but you have to keep up with the times or get left behind.
Since I'm trained to do both photography & video. I'm thinking about getting 2-3 of these babies & moving on to DPing TV commercials and low budget films to complement my income as a PJ. I'm getting rid of my XL2 and opt for a portable DAT, mic, boom and turn my assistant into a sound guy. The 5D Mark II has 90% of what I'm looking for in a digital version of the 1V. I don't think I would care for the 1 series that could shoot movies since it'll add more to the weight of the ENTIRE rig including the lenses, Glidecam/steadicam, weights, & the crane. As far as lighting, rent a few 2000W HMIs with generators, or hire an electrician with his own rig, hire a few grips to help you setup, and you're set.
Mike1 wrote:
Since I'm trained to do both photography & video. I'm thinking about getting 2-3 of these babies & moving on to DPing TV commercials and low budget films to complement my income as a PJ. I'm getting rid of my XL2 and opt for a portable DAT, mic, boom and turn my assistant into a sound guy. The 5D Mark II has 90% of what I'm looking for in a digital version of the 1V. I don't think I would care for the 1 series that could shoot movies since it'll add more to the weight of the ENTIRE rig including the lenses, Glidecam/steadicam, weights, & the crane. As far as lighting, rent a few 2000W HMIs with generators, or hire an electrician with his own rig, hire a few grips to help you setup, and you're set. ...Show more →
2000w HMI's what are you trying to light to?? f/22 The advantage of the 5DII is it's low light capability. I've shot video for nearly 30 years and can count on one hand the number of times I've had to use a 2k HMI for interior work.
Yeah, I'll light sit-downs and stand-ups for both HD and SD video with small packages of 650w and 300w lights, maybe 1k's for washing wider areas. Even KinoFlo 4x4's can be more light than I want at times.
As much as you'll be able to get some very cool, very cinematic effects using a DSLR for video there are way too many disadvantages to keep me from ever unloading my HD camera package. You going to record all your production audio to outboard DAT? So you're going to manually-sync every single take, since a DSLR won't be able to slave or generate timecode? The lack of gear- or motor-driven zoom and focus controls would make even the simplest follow-shot a real challenge - you might be able to manage it for narrative filmmaking where actors are reliably hitting rehearsed marks, but forget doing anything spontaneous. The lack of variable shutter speeds/framerates means the only way to get several very popular looks will be in post with software like Magic Bullet.
It's not that the video coming off of these new DSLRs isn't impressive, it's that achieving that video in any kind of actual production situation is going to be way more hassle than it's worth...professionals are going to keep using the adapter kits for mounting SLR and cinema lenses on their small HD cams instead.
looking at the duration limits of a clip, it becomes clear that the intent of the video in dslr's isn't to replace video cams, but to simply give dslr users another potential tool. in early august, i shot a couples wedding pictures in central park, and as they were walking from one location to another i remarked to my assistant that this walking sequence would make great video footage...but neither the 1ds3 of the d700 i was carrying had that capability....while i am a "still" photographer at heart, i acknowledge that we live in a multi-media environment, and as such, welcome these tools, and embrace them...but at the same time regcognize what they are and are not. they are not going to make any of us videographers, and they certainly are not going to replace video cams...
i think that as far as canon goes, we might see a further refined version in their entry 1 series replacement sometime next year...
as for lighting these video capable dslrs, i have seen little discussion; people may want to look at a unit like the lite panel micro...i carry two in my camera bag and have been using them with my "non-video" capable "still" cameras in situations when i do not want to use flash...they are fully dimmable, led lights (3.3x3.3), run on 4aa batteries, weigh about 4 ounces, and can be placed in the camera hot shoe or on a light stand, and they simply rock!
My humble prediction .. in 5 years, maybe less, the words "photography" and "videography" will start to become obsolete, and both will be replaced by a single word ... "imaging".
The line between still and video will become blurred as both photographers and videographers experiment with each others medium, and continual advances in equipment will make that easier. Right now it's a no-brainer for Canon shooters .. most will upgrade to the 5DMKII because of the high ISO and megapixels but soon will experiment with the video feature.
And so far we've only just been exposed to the concept of a DSLR offering high quality video .. wait until these have been in the hands of creatives for a while and you start to see what multi-media can do to broaden your product shelf.
I welcome the change, and the challenge .. and yet another chance to prove Darwin right. Every time I see a "Bah, we photographers were never meant to shoot video" comment I know that is potentially one less competitor in a few years. The early adapters of video for event coverage will be rewarded.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Every time I see a "Bah, we photographers were never meant to shoot video" comment I know that is potentially one less competitor in a few years. The early adapters of video for event coverage will be rewarded.
There are already people shooting video, they're called videographers. You cannot shoot both video and still with these DSLR's, you need to hold a mike or at least have one mounted, you won't be able to focus recompose and even choosing a focusing point will give too much vibration, forget shooting verticals, forget shooting wide open (focusing is marginal at best, try that at f1.4 in low light), limited IS ability, I could go on.
That leaves shooting either/or, or shooting in a highly controlled enviroment (such as the lafortet video), everything that event shooting isn't. If you're shooting video then you're a videographer and incidentally not shooting the stills you were paid to shoot at that time. Oh and if you're shooting both you are probably not being paid any more especially if the market starts to demand it as a given. Just what we want.
My photographic compositions do not work for video and if I'm shooting video at the time I'm not shooting the stills. If I'm shooting video only then I'm using a machine very badly designed for the job.
If I was to be paid to shoot wedding and video then I would do it intelligently, a 2 man crew with tools designed for the job. Getting excited about the ability to do both at the same time for event photography seems to me to be masochistic in the extreme and very bad business sense. Yes it will pull in clients if you get it right. If I cut my prices in half for the same quality and package then I'll also clean up the competition - I don't see that there is any difference, I'm not volunteering to become both photographer and videographer at the same price point and having to work even harder (plus editing time!) than if I'd shot both with two different machines.
Seriously, the videographers I usually shoot alongside are using multiple cameras, shooting far longer than 12 minutes at a time and are commanding a similar price point to my own even without having album expenses because they have far more computer and editing time to deal with after the event. If I was to shoot video then I would be charging double and of course providing a service which was as good. That means full video coverage and full photo coverage. Not a bit of each and not complimentary as I would have to be doing one or the other! If I want video clips for slideshows then why not give my assistant a video camera, who needs that kind of quality for a slideshow?
If a photographer uses a 2nd shooter with a 5D mkII to shoot video then to my mind that is no different from hiring a videographer to provide a double package. I can't see why the camera has changed that. The idea that suddenly photographers can do both is IMO dangerous for the industry, from a simply financial point of view, and as a photographer, the 5D mkII does not provide the ability to do both at the same time for event work period, not if you want to provide a quality service for either.
This is the pro forum, not the over excitement of the gear forums. Since the advent of digital we have been expected to provide more for the same price. If you don't believe me think of how much time you spend in front of the computer! Think of the expected deadlines re the film days, etc. I have little doubt that if video becomes combined with photo it will be at the same price point as a world in potential recession starts to demand the service as standard. Maybe not at the beginning but pretty soon. Again from a business point of view there are better ways of doing this, a 2 person team makes far more sense than trying to do everything at once. As such you can provide a truly complimentary coverage rather than the either/or the abilities of these DSLR's suggest with all the business benefits that people are only starting to imagine.
Instead of clever comments do you want to weigh in with a detailed analysis of how you think it is possible to shoot event photography at the same level of competence while trying to shoot video on the same camera, especially one that needs an external mike?
Everyone thinks the Laforet video is great. It's what, a couple of minutes of video shot over 3 days and with plenty reshoots (see the background video stuff) and with pro models. It's manual focus and mainly tripod and the panning is pretty jerky. When I see a wedding photographer putting up their coverage of a wedding shooting video and stills without it being detrimental to their still work then I'll start believing it.
I want to hear from real event photographers how they can do this, not prophetic gear excitement with absolutely no foundation rather than a strong assertion that it must happen.
I can talk on the cell phone while driving but there is a reason why it's illegal. You can't concentrate on doing both at the same time, not to the same level of efficiency of doing either alone. I think this might become a great tool once refined for niche video coverage, the quality is very very good, the implementation to date sucks and if canon had worked out putting the chip in a top end video camera they would have cleared the video market in one swoop. As a one solution fits all the 5D mkII is a joke, one which a lot of videographers are having fun laughing at as they imagine photographers really thinking they can shoot stills and video coverage of a wedding at the same time.
I think video coverage of still shooting has a very viable place in advertising photography, tutorials, studio work, etc. For event work? Not if you expect to do photography seriously, not in the main camera.
Don't get me wrong, I've been racking my brains for a way to to use this for my wedding business but I keep coming up against serious problems. As the Laforet video shows, the 5D mkII gives incredible quality video if you manually focus, don't zoom, have time for retakes, work off a tripod, don't use the onboard mike and have 72 hours (for about 5 mins of video), pro models and a $5000 budget, nevermind being a top storyteller. It's far more akin a film making peice of equipment than a video camera.
Beni wrote:
Instead of clever comments do you want to weigh in with a detailed analysis of how you think it is possible to shoot event photography.
I was not trying to be clever but it's hard to discuss any new development with someone who has a very strong bias toward that development when it has yet to even be in the hands of the majority of shooters.
So you won't be offering DSLR based video because it's beyond your abilities or imagination. That's fair enough, yet some see many profitable applications for event shooting. But to roll in the mud arguing about a product that has not even been released is stupid, and to dismiss it entirely is narrow minded.
Your negativity is welcome to those who see the opportunity .. one less competitor.
So why won't you even begin to start suggesting some solutions? Maybe because you have none? I've laid out some serious issues and all you come back at me with is generalities and predictions. Why not answer some, why not show me how it can be done?
Until you come up with some concrete answers to my serious questions I don't see why I have to take you at all seriously. Did you bother to read my last paragraph? I'm not against it I just fail to see how to implement it. Personally I don't think that you have the faintest idea yourself, you just believe in the concept, great but don't call me negative because you can't start to explain how to impliment your concept to one who is interested but can't see past the issues I've lain down.
It was not that long ago that I heard " Digital will never take the place of film. They will never get the quality." There was even a time when you had to convince people that digital was "good enough". The advent of video on a still camera should be seen as part of an evolution. We have larger and faster flash cards. We can wireless download to computers. We have ever increasing ISO. Although I am not as versed as some of you, it does appear that lighting has started to evolve. THe picture frame is even becoming high tech with slide shows and yes video. I see this as an evolution. I have no doubt Mike is right. We will pose people and take a video, and from that video take a single frame for a still. Is this possible today? No. (well I think someone said PJ's are doing now) But then again how many photographers used film ten years ago? How old is the Mark I? How long ago did we argue Fuji & Kodak?
what are you trying to light to?? f/22