fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
  

Archive 2008 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography

  
 
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


That was my point, the idea is there, it isn't there yet with the 5D mkII. If I can have video running in the background while I shoot then it would be great as long as I make enough to cover the processing costs afterwards. As it is at present you can only really concentrate on one or the other, especially as you are limited to manual focus, including for the stills, when shooting any moving subjects in video mode.

I can see putting a group together, focusing all the way out, tell them to shmooze while you slowly focus in and shoot your still. Tell the bride and groom to shmooze or kiss and film them for a few seconds before getting that shot. But it means a tripod which isn't the way I work, it means no verticals, it also means knowing that you get the shot first time every time to not interrupt the flow, tripping the shutter more than once which is pretty normal when trying to capture the perfect moment with shallow DOF and erratic canon metering is also out. I think it will work very well for very set up shots but not otherwise.

I also think it will go out of fashion pretty quickly, the whole stills mid video on a DVD slideshow or presentation. People want a proper video and they want an album, they also want photos on the wall not Bill Gates style moving presentations which can become tiresome very quickly, it's not exactly timeless is it? There have been lots of 'gimmicks' in wedding photography but the clients have always come back to the basics.

BTW, Fuji.



Sep 28, 2008 at 08:15 AM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


jcolman wrote:
The advantage of the 5DII is it's low light capability.


Apparently very well controlled noise at very high ISO's .. as long as the dynamic range is not compromised by the 21 MP count then lighting will not be as big an issue as some may think .. and don't forget the sweet collection of 1.2 and 1.4 lenses that we already have in our bags have performed well in low light and at much lower ISO's than the MKII offers.



Sep 28, 2008 at 08:50 AM
shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Mike, you're totally ignoring the most important points in Beni's comments...it makes me think that, regardless of how experienced a photographer you are, you're very inexperienced in video.

With the current implementations of video capture on DSLRs the most limiting factors aren't the technology, per se, it's the process and ergonomics. The focus limitations are a deal-breaker. The lack of a motor-driven zoom is a deal-breaker. Getting a steady single frame with a DSLR does not equate to getting a steady shot, let alone one that pans, tracks or zooms, in video with a camera that has the form factor of a DSLR. Photo tripods are not appropriate for video work: have you ever used a real fluid-head video tripod? It's designed for getting completely smooth pans and tilts, unlike the photo tripod which is designed to lock everything in place.

Being able to capture in low light doesn't obviate the needs for lighting: as a photographer you should already know this well. There's a reason why wedding videographers (let alone other types of event shooters) have sun guns on their cameras - a low-lit room will still have pools of light or sconces or the like elsewhere in the frame that need to be balanced out by putting additional light on your subject. So now, in addition to shooting video in between stills, you're also mounting a sun gun on your flash bracket and hanging an additional Quantum-style battery off your belt?

Yes, you've got those fancy lenses in your bag. Which happen to be primes. Keep in mind, when shooting video, things tend to move...be prepared for a LOT of sneaker-zoom. And what's your DOF at f/1.2? That might be workable when everything stands still, but again, the whole point of video is that things move.

Beni's totally right about this: it's definitely an interesting proof of concept but it doesn't yet have serious implications for event shooters as the process of using it will be way, way too problematic. If Canon or Nikon had stuck these sensors and processing engines into dedicated video cam bodies they'd have serious contenders. That's essentially what Red has done and their move is currently turning the video industry on its ear. Canon hasn't done anything revolutionary - just something interesting.



Sep 28, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


shatterkiss wrote:
Mike, you're totally ignoring the most important points in Beni's comments...it makes me think that, regardless of how experienced a photographer you are, you're very inexperienced in video.


I am very inexperienced in video, having shot just some aerial footage, perhaps several hours worth. Total newb.

But Canon is not a total newb to the video business, so answer me this .. if their new offering is so lacking why risk their reputation by offering it?



Sep 28, 2008 at 09:34 AM
shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Because it didn't cost them much to put one toe in the pool. It didn't in any way hamper the 5D's abilities as a still camera, so they had nothing to lose. However, that doesn't mean they had much to win either. They simply weren't risking anything.

Canon's been playing it very conservatively in the video market. The XL1 and XL1s were very, very popular cameras...10 years ago. They defined a new market (low-end ENG, pornography, weddings, low-end documentaries, etc.) but followed it up with more of the same: the XL2 and the HD version of it both have essentially fizzled. Panasonic has since taken the lead: the DXV-100/100A/100B totally supplanted Canon's offerings in record time and the HVX-100 is a force to be reckoned with. They are ground-breaking cameras, whereas Canon has offered only incremental upgrades. Canon may have a lot of experience in the video world, but not a lot of success.

In the professional realm, Canon simply isn't a player. Their asses are being (and have been for more than a decade) kicked by Sony and Panasonic, both of whom are doing very cool things at very aggressive price points, and Red is about to turn the bottom half of the market upside-down. Canon is the horse lagging ten lengths behind - that's why they've chosen to half-ass this, rather than do something revolutionary...they're not committed to the video market the way they were. At this point they're essentially making lenses for Sony and Ikegami and Panasonic broadcast cameras.

For reference, something like $260,000 of my annual gross is made from video work. I probably own $40,000 of video gear. I'm very invested in the video market, and would buy a video-enabled DSLR even as an impulse buy if I thought it would function effectively. These two current cameras simply aren't effective implementations...like I said, you're going to see some very cool YouTube videos over the next year and very few cases of these cameras being used to produce video with any kind of commercial application. Even in weddings and events, the process of using one of these cameras to achieve video that a client would find value from just isn't simple or cost-effective enough compared to tossing a $2,000 video cam in the kit and hiring an assistant that can run it.

Also, for events work: keep in mind that clean audio recorded in sync-sound is going to be a must...an area in which these cameras are non-players.

Edited on Sep 28, 2008 at 09:56 AM · View previous versions



Sep 28, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


shatterkiss wrote:
But it doesn't yet have serious implications for event shooters as the process of using it will be way, way too problematic.


Nobody is saying that the MKII will find it's way into the hands of full time serious professional videographers as a replacement for their existing equipment. Nobody has ever said that, so I'm unsure why that forms the basis for many arguments against the MKII.

Think of the MKII more as a beachead offering to videographers, yet perfect for many photographers wanting some high resolution video capability with their existing equipment. Which is exactly what it is, and exactly why it will be perfect for many photographers, and at a close to nil cost.



Sep 28, 2008 at 09:52 AM
shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Mike, I know exactly what it is. I'm not saying that it's going to replace a $20,000 VariCam or even a $5,000 HVX-200...I'm saying that it can't even replace a $1,500 used and 4-year old DVX-100 for value in an event photographer's kit. And I mean an event still photographer. If that person wants to offer even basic video to their clients, it's still going to mean having a video camera in their bag.

If you are in a position where you think video is of value to your client, you need to appropriately achieve that video. That means smooth pans, tilts and zooms when necessary, stable and balanced shots when necessary, clean sync-sound when necessary. That means maintaining focus and composition on moving objects. That means quickly adjusting exposure and white balance as necessary, often while in the middle of recording. Neither the 5D-II or D90 can do these things.

Seriously, even just look at it from a wedding perspective: of how much value to your client is a few minutes of video, with unusable audio and questionable stability and camera movement, focus that has trouble following a moving subject? Is it something they'll pay for, or is it just a nice little thing that you can throw in for free because it doesn't cost you anything extra to do? Do you think the client will actually do something with that, or will they just treat it as a nice little addition to the end of a slideshow that garners a smile? And when it comes to any part of a ceremony that's actually important, would you rather be shooting additional stills for coverage or shooting video instead? And if you're going to have a second shooter do it, wouldn't it just be easier to hand him a video camera and know you've got good audio, autofocus that works, live zooms that you can actually use? You can get pocket-sized 1080p HD cameras that shoot to solid state storage for less than $800 but have enough quality to be used in professional television: Alton Brown uses one for B-roll footage on his "Feasting on Asphalt" and "Feasting on Waves" shows on the Food Network...video that's intercut with the primary footage, which happens to be shot on the $5,000 HVX-200.

What you're not understanding is that the video that these cameras can capture is impressive under only tightly-controlled conditions...conditions that don't even remotely resemble the real-world, let alone the event world that this thread started out referencing. You will simply not be able to achieve usable video on the fly with these things at events - doing so is not about low-light capability or sensor resolution, it's about AF, motor zoom, image stabilization, form-factor for hand-holding, quality of on-board mics and auto-mixing logic, etc. All things these cameras can't offer. They'll be great for shooting table-top and tightly-controlled studio stuff but just aren't appropriate for being out in the world documenting events and live activity.

Look at it this way, Mike: take any of your current DSLRs and go to some sort of event. Set the camera to its fastest motor-drive mode and smallest image type...whatever gets you the largest image buffer. Pick a moving subject of some sort, turn off AF, and hold down the shutter release until your buffer exhausts itself. Are 80% of the frames you captured keepers, or do only a handful maintain focus and framing that you would be happy with? If it's the latter, then that video wouldn't be of value to your client, regardless of how free it was to them or how free it was for you to capture. Bad video is bad video, regardless of how economical or high-resolution it is. Point of fact: the higher the resolution the more apparent the lack of quality will be.



Sep 28, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Shatterkiss, all this is why I'm talking to a videographer with reference to working as a complimentary team. I get the best of both worlds, uninterrupted and pro coverage in both photography and videography, but with the combining of the outputs to give a new selling point with slideshows, video/photo highlights, etc as well as the full video documentary coverage and full unlimited PJ/documentary photographic coverage.

This gives the advantage of offering a new range of products, offering a high class photo/video team for coverage (I think it might work well given the coming nasty recession, packages will be popular) with fully complimentary but unique products.

If he's shooting over my shoulder and complimentary to my coverage then I can't see any advantage of shooting the video with a 5D mkII, he's shooting what I'm shooting anyway and with equipment designed for it and the end product will be the same, infact I think that it will be a lot better and wider ranging.

Just an idea I'm playing with at present...



Sep 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


shatterkiss wrote:
If that person wants to offer even basic video to their clients, it's still going to mean having a video camera in their bag.


Not many on the Laforet blog agree with your opinion,
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/

and not too many here will agree with you after seeing the early sample clips:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html#01

It's pretty clear that the newer generation of DSLR's can offer quality video. View the clips .. lots of moving objects like people, cars, bikes, etc. And in anything but your "tightly controlled conditions".

And why the heck do I want to go running around like you suggest with a high frame rate with my AF turned off looking for a keeper rate? Easier to look at this:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/movies/mov008.html

or this:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/movies/mov005.html

A picture is worth a thousand words.




Sep 28, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Oh dear oh dear. Clips of non moving people/landscapes or cars/bikes moving out of a very tight and shallow DOF.

Clip one seems to be entirely OOF. Clip 2 is fisheye and can be ignored. Clip 3 she doesn't move, Clip 4 she doesn't move, Clip 5 is mostly OOF, clip 6 is static, clip 7 is static, clip 8 they again move through a very small amount of DOF and are OOF the majority of the time.

See how carefully the model doesn't move, never seen such unnatural movement. The rest, they haven't even bothered trying to follow focus. I have little doubt it's intentional given how jerky it would look.

These videos are a joke which only serve to prove what ShatterKiss and I have been saying but you feel free to try videoing a wedding in based on videos shot on tripod of non moving or OOF scenes. Oh and did you notice that there is no sound?

Your comeback against what a pro videographer has been trying to tell you is worrying.



Sep 28, 2008 at 12:51 PM
shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Mike Mahoney wrote:
Not many on the Laforet blog agree with your opinion,
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/


I really can't use unqualified blog comments as definitive statements from experienced working professionals.

and not too many here will agree with you after seeing the early sample clips:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html#01


Canon's online forums are meant to be an unbiased source of response? How many of these people have even touched the cameras in question, let alone used them in working situations? Canon (and Nikon) has notoriously-rampant fanboyism, so just about any announcement would be received with joy and adulation.

It's pretty clear that the newer generation of DSLR's can offer quality video. View the clips .. lots of moving objects like people, cars, bikes, etc. And in anything but your "tightly controlled conditions".

As Beni pointed out, this is where your inexperience with video is showing: those are actually the definition of either tightly-controlled conditions (as was the Laforet video) or a failure of camera performance.

The camera doesn't move, tilt, track, pan or zoom. The focal plane doesn't shift or follow a subject. There's no audio. It's not about a subject moving through the frame, it's about FOLLOWING a moving subject - you need to zoom, pan, tilt, track, follow-focus...all at the same time and all while recording (this is why most camera operators working from a tripod use tripod arm-mounted zoom and focus controllers, even reaching up to a lens designed to do this is too awkward, let alone a lens that isn't). The camera sits still while objects move through a static frame and focal plane - how many event scenarios does that really describe? Bring it back to your wedding example: how many couples are going to be excited to receive a video of them moving in and out of focus, with a static composition and no audio?

The Laforet video was shot like any other narrative film would be: storyboarded or "scripted" (even just loosely) shots made without sync sound, rehearsed and practiced, shot with no limit to the number of takes that could be used to get any given shot, with a small cadre of assistants and helpers to achieve that footage. It's a great demonstration of shooting in low light with SLR lenses, and the video can result, but it's not in any way indicative of that camera being able to replace video cameras: the operational process is too different and can't be replicated in most situations, certainly not in documenting an event that doesn't allow you 10 takes or the opportunity to stop action and get a different camera angle.

Listen, you obviously need Canon to have hit a home run here, for some reason...I assume you're a Canon owner currently and find the 5D-II attractive for your own kit, and I can see why. It looks like a great camera. You're simply wrong about the video performance and its usefulness in working situations, especially event situations. Given that you've stated that you have nearly no experience in video, whereas I'm film school educated and have been working in video in one way or another for 17 years (everything from music videos and feature films that you've seen to documentaries and industrials and live events that you haven't), I'm not sure why you think that my perspective on this is so easily-discounted.

Honestly, I have no agenda here. I'm totally brand-agnostic and a firm pragmatist: I'll buy and use any piece of equipment that will make me money. Period. If I thought I could achieve video with the 5D-II that my clients would pay money for I would go buy one tomorrow, quite literally. Dropping $4,000 for it would be no impediment whatsoever if I felt it could earn even part of that back - I've made bigger impulse buys when I thought it could grow my business. Also, please note that I've been referring collectively to the 5D as well as the Nikon D90, as I think they're both in the same boat, having very similar designs in the video functionality...and thus the same design flaws. DSLRs simply do not make optimal video-capture machines.

Now, do I think that we'll see effective devices come down the pike for capturing both? Yes. Do I think Canon will spearhead that? No, not given their fairly conservative design approach in the last few years - the fact that they've throttled a 21MP sensor down to 1080p is another indication of that. Red, who currently have the highest-resolution video camera commercially available, is a much more likely candidate for shaking things up, then everyone else will play catch-up for a bit. We'll definitely see the effective convergence devices, but we haven't seen them yet.



Sep 29, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


shatterkiss wrote:
You're simply wrong about the video performance and its usefulness in working situations, especially event situations.


Sorry mate, but I'm 100% right .. based on the clips I've seen so far they are more than adequate for my purpose. Which is short clips of selected parts of a wedding such as the recessional, etc.

And for once can you make a simple comment without hauling out the resume .. here you have 17 years experience as a videographer, on another current thread (now an argument) on computers you claim to have countless years experience in the IT field.

Quote from Shatterkiss:
And, before you make your next point, I'm an expert-level user with several years of IT experience who otherwise builds and maintains his own machines and have run entire server farms. I'm, at the minimum, functional in all flavors of Windows, FreeBSD, multiple flavors of Linux and MacOS. I'm very comfortable telling the difference between user error and a product bug

Not to mention the continual references to your studios revenue, supposedly in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We get the point .. Shatterkiss is a big, big, playa across many different disciplines therefore his opinion is worth more.

May be easier if you just posted a link to your resume(s) and tax returns.

You seem to be a great guy and have some pretty extensive knowledge to share .. I used to respect your opinion around here quite a bit, but lately your bias is showing. Badly.



Sep 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM
shatterkiss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Mike Mahoney wrote:
Sorry mate, but I'm 100% right .. based on the clips I've seen so far they are more than adequate for my purpose. Which is short clips of selected parts of a wedding such as the recessional, etc.


Hey, I hope you're right if it's something you're planning on investing in. It's something I'd be pleased to be wrong about, as that'd mean it might be valuable in my own business. But my experience simply says otherwise.

And for once can you make a simple comment without hauling out the resume

I believe in qualified comments and advice. FM and every similar online forum is full of armchair quarterbacking - folks giving authoritative advice without anything to back it up. I prefer to know the context for advice I listen to and will give it to qualify my own comments. If someone walks up to you on the street and gives you advice without context or qualification, do you lend it the same weight that you do a source that's not anonymous and has earned some sort of credibility with you? Doesn't every "expert advice" column in a magazine give its author's credentials to prove that he/she has earned credibility? It's not ego - I'm the first to say that there are far, far more experienced and successful folks on FM. I've sat down to meals with some of them and consider myself firmly in their fan clubs.

.. here you have 17 years experience as a videographer, on another current thread (now an argument) on computers you claim to have countless years experience in the IT field.

Yes. Don't believe in cross-training, or jack-of-all-trades? I'm 34 years old, will be 35 in two months. I started college at 16 and paid for much of it by working as a camera operator for television and a PA and 2nd AC for film and television. In my last two years of school I was in classes 3 days/week while shooting for PBS, Bravo and documentaries or being a grunt PA the other 4 days. I started to split my time with still photography, mostly for the music industry, when I was 22 but I continued to work in television at the same time for another couple of years as it was more lucrative. I started producing and directing broadcast events for the music industry a few years later, but had a lot of trouble making ends meet in NYC on purely freelance income. I spent most of '98-'01 working in technology for a couple of dot-com creative agencies, notably servicing Ford Motor Company in both the US and the UK, as the lure of steady income was appealing at the time. I continued to freelance as a still photographer throughout that and was also the video expert at the agencies, working on accounts for Ford and the US Open/IBM, among others. After 9/11 I went back to the media world exclusively, producing/directing broadcast events around the world as well as shooting event stills, corporate exec portraiture, actor headshots, model portfolios, fashion lookbooks, whatever else came my way. That's continued to be the case until now.

Not to mention the continual references to your studios revenue, supposedly in the many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I'm set to end 2008 with a gross revenue of between $320,000 and ~$400,000, depending on whether certain contracts come through before the end of the fiscal year or not. That's really not that much money, all said and done. Do those numbers seem strange to you? Like I said, there are folks on FM making a lot more than that and with much higher levels of profitability. I'm probably netting $160k on the above, which is barely enough to support a family on in NYC. Our health insurance alone is over $15,000/year. You may feel it's gauche to be explicit about money, and I have mixed feelings about it myself. If you look at the PDN "50 States" annual issue you'll see that maybe half the photographers choose to not answer the question about their gross billings or rates. I guess I fall on the other half.

And I'm not a "studio". I'm one guy who is incorporated as a production company and employs a couple other people for maybe 3 months of the year and hires freelancers or subs out work on a regular basis. When I'm not on the road working for clients I'm sitting at a crappy little Ikea desk 20' from my bedroom, like I am now. Having grosses in the hundreds of thousands really doesn't mean anything - as a business owner you should understand that. It's all about the net.

We get the point .. Shatterkiss is a big, big, playa across many different disciplines therefore his opinion is worth more.

That's not the case at all. I am pretty experienced and have learned a lot in the time I've spent working for several different industries. Working on both sides of the client/vendor equation, as well as both within agencies and servicing them, has given me some really valuable insights. I also do my best to read trade publications and attend professional workshops when I can, which I don't understand why more folks in this forum don't take advantage of. But I'm not a big player - I'm just keeping my head above water in a very, very competitive and difficult business.

Do I feel like my opinion is worth more than yours in an area where I have quite a bit of experience and you have very little? Yes, I do. I assume that you think your accountant's opinion is worth more than yours when it comes to finance and your lawyer's is worth more than yours when it comes to legal matters. We all know experience matters. I really don't understand what issue you take with that.

I used to respect your opinion around here quite a bit, but lately your bias is showing. Badly.

I'd like to know what bias you feel that is? We've all got our biases (I think mayonnaise is vile, for instance, and think professional sports are the opiate of the masses) but I've always felt my advice on FM was fairly even-handed. It's been a source of personal pride thinking that I've been able to provide valuable information or perspective to folks on FM. If that isn't the case, I'd like to know.



Sep 29, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Mike Mahoney
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


shatterkiss wrote:
I've always felt my advice on FM was fairly even-handed. It's been a source of personal pride thinking that I've been able to provide valuable information or perspective to folks on FM. If that isn't the case, I'd like to know.


Your advice is very valuable and you're a great asset to this forum, and I've made my opinion on that clear, both in this thread and in other threads. So you know that already. But your recent habit of resume posting in every second thread to support your views is diminishing yourself.

And in the case of this thread you're very simply wrong and won't admit it. The MKII will do a great job within it's capabilities and that's my original and very simple position. It will record a bribe & groom walking down the aisle, or a candle lighting ceremony, or the first kiss. Which is all I want it to do, and you keep coming back to me with all the things it won't do but that I DONT NEED.



Sep 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Don't get all you PRO's arguing about a feature. If you can use the video feature of the 5DII in your line of work, great use it. If you don't have a need for it, simple...ignore it. Personally, being a landscape photographer, I don't see the need for high ISO capabilities in the camera. Should I claim this feature is useless?


Sep 29, 2008 at 08:21 PM
dkollander
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


With the video mode...Can you extract a photo from the video with the same quality as if you took the picture?


Oct 01, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


It will record a bribe & groom walking down the aisle

No it won't because you won't have them in focus the majority of the time and you can't follow focus fast or cleanly enough to do so even if you will be allowed to use a tripod which will be a must. Oh and forget trying to get any stills mid video as there isn't a chance that the contrast focus will work in such low light. You keep insisting that 2+2 will equal 5 and that anyone disagreeing is just not trying hard enough...



Oct 01, 2008 at 11:59 AM
jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


+1 to what Shatterkiss and Benji have said. My company has been in the video business for over 25 years. We own over a million dollars worth of video cameras, lenses and lights along with two high end edit suites. If I thought I could replace one of our "cheap" $25,000 HD cameras with the new 5D mk II I'd be all over it.

While this camera will find some people who will use the video feature, I simply don't see it making it into main stream video production.

Having said that, I will still most likely buy one, but not for video work.



Oct 01, 2008 at 03:23 PM
jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


dkollander wrote:
With the video mode...Can you extract a photo from the video with the same quality as if you took the picture?


No.



Oct 01, 2008 at 03:27 PM
pappawheely
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Video dSLRs & Event Photography


Why can't people disagree without getting personal? Thanks for your opinion Shatterkiss. I appreciate it.


Oct 02, 2008 at 01:48 PM
1              end




FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account