Mike Mahoney wrote:
This Ralph Lauren clip for example:
It's a beautiful video and a great example of what a DSLR is good for and what it isn't: like I said, action that can be staged for the camera (as opposed to the camera needing to be ready for action to happen that can't be paused or re-enacted), shot MOS, not capably tracking motion or doing follow-focus, generated for the web as a final destination (as opposed to broadcast). This is the antithesis of how you've been saying that the 5D2 would sweep the video world: event and wedding photographers displacing event and wedding videographers.
You'll also notice that the video wasn't actually produced for Ralph Lauren...it seems to be for an online store called "Vente-Privee", which I've never heard of. They're trading on the Ralph Lauren name to bring eyeballs to their business. It's done all the time, and is certainly still professional work, but isn't indicative of what a company like Ralph Lauren would actually commission. If you click through that photographer's other stuff on Vimeo you'll see that she's doing the same thing name-checking a number of other brands...they're just fashion stills shoots translated into video, more than likely shot on spec or for the online store.
If you want to see a production that's more in-line with what brands at that level will commission, look at this behind-the-scenes video for Lacoste:
If you feel my posts are any less valid because of a lack of linked work, you're encouraged to ignore them with the "Hide Me" button.
I do. Bold assertions with no demonstrable experience or qualifications to back them up are absolutely pointless. If I started pontificating about wedding photography, wouldn't you ask how much experience I had shooting weddings? If I've shot one wedding ever, as a favor to a friend and didn't charge for it, wouldn't you think that my insights into that business might be a little less valid than yours?
You haven't been able to back up a single one of your assertions, whether with your own experience or the citation of others'. All you're doing is trading on anonymity in order to play agent provocateur for sport. It's a waste of everyone's time, yours included.
But sure, if you'd rather people hid you than expected you to behave professionally and with civility I suppose that's always an option.
shatterkiss wrote:
You'll also notice that the video wasn't actually produced for Ralph Lauren...it seems to be for an online store called "Vente-Privee", which I've never heard of.
I suspect you've not heard about a lot of the newer creatives, which makes them no less valid. But spending time directing PBS cooking shows and press conferences can have that effect.
I guess Vente-Privee will just have to shut their doors.
Is this how professional behave? Wow Mike you should take a step back and stop attacking a fellow FMer in such a childish way. Agree to disagree, but why behave so immaturely about this?
And I have to say...at least shatterkiss can man up and show his work to speak for his expertise...what can you show Mike?
Personally I don't own a 5D MK II so have no experience shooting video with it, nor do I intend to. While it may produce a decent quality video clip, I just do not see the commercial application without all the additional hardware needed to elevate the video to acceptable standards.
If you're looking at the 5D as a convenient and opportunistic way to grab quick video clips while shooting an event, then it should work fine but then you're really not gaining all that much as far as the final product than you would with a dedicated video camera.
As already pointed out several times, the various videos referenced by LaForet et al. were anything but opportunistic video clips shot randomly while on assignment. Hardly video clips taken straight out of camera.
I'm assuming that since I've admitted having no experience shooting video with the 5D that my opinions will be discounted as well.
For the record, I hardly view Shatterkiss as pretentious or unqualified. Although I don't participate that much in the same forums as he does, I do frequently check for his posts as I find them incredibly helpful, and above all else, professional and non-confrontational. Actually I think that despite being verbally assaulted in this thread, he's remained rather composed and professional. Can't say the same as others here.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
At times I have had my websites linked here, and at times I have not.
Often whenever some run out of valid argument they resort to the "let's see your's" tactic to divert attention away from their positions inadequacies. This thread being an example of that.
If you feel my posts are any less valid because of a lack of linked work, you're encouraged to ignore them with the "Hide Me" button.
I just wanted to see if I remembered your stuff accurately. Your the guy that shoots log cabin interiors right?
Brent Ward wrote:
I just wanted to see if I remembered your stuff accurately. Your the guy that shoots log cabin interiors right?
I have shot many chalets for many years, which at up to four million dollars and six thousand square feet each are hardly log cabins.
That particular part of my work has been published many times, has been an integral part of several award winning ad campaigns, and is an ongoing source of stock revenue for me.
PS .. I think a guy named Hawkins here shoots the log cabins in Yosemite, and I was involved in a discussion with him on hotel pricing. I did post a number of my chalet photos to that thread. I generally don't like to post stock photos on forums.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Does Canon have a in-body sensor based IS system in the works? .. some think it will debut with their next video capable DSLR. Are solutions to focus issues far off? .. after seeing the broad acceptance of DSLR video the manufacturers will not only include video, but continue to refine the product.
In a years time is it possible to see an DSLR with good video AF and IS? .. I think so.
Are you saying that pros are using the 5Dii for video now becuase the next model will be better? Good attempt at Orwellian Doublespeak.
The next model might be able to make me breakfast for all I know, but THIS model doesn't do what I need it to do for me to make a living off of it.
Seriously, why do TV stations use $20-$30 Digital Beta rigs when they can get a Mini-DV rig for easily a quarter of the price? Because the Mini-DV rigs don't DO what they need them to and the hassle of making them work isn't WORTH it. DSLR's will not fully take over any video market until they have evolved to the point where they bear little resemblance to the current ones.
Brent Ward wrote:
Sounds like you have some serious issues, but why don't you have any work on here at all?
Good observation, Brent. This poser...uh, I mean poster...dropped in on the Sports Corner a year or so ago, tossed around a bunch of BS, and didn't (or couldn't) post any examples of work...then disappeared back to the Wedding Forum. Seems like maybe the meds have run low?
For anyone to say that shooting something for PBS is not worth a damn in terms of "credible credentials" is a load of crap. PBS may be a publicly funded company, but it's still is a very professional outfit and anyone working with them deserves full credit for the final product gained in that medium - be it film, audio, or video.
I've had limited experience with the video feature of the 5d2, but I learned VERY quickly that it could never do the work of a dedicated video camera. It's fun to have on hand to take quick video clips, but I MUST use an external mic to avoid hearing the gears of my lenses and I MUST use a tripod to get anything worthwhile. It's hard to do something like that at a wedding, where you gotta be Johnny-on-the-spot to catch the action. Thus you can do only video OR photo and not both - unless you're doing just that - "catching small clips of people having fun" and then getting back to "work as a photographer"
I have seen some of Simon's work and based on that, view his opinion higher than my own. I would also hold that opinion higher than someone w/o an actual base for an opinion, on a matter rooted in experience with a given product. Basically, I wouldn't ask David Letterman on his opinion of video cameras, but his production crew. Nor would I ask Letterman for his opinion on Quantum Physics. Best poon on set... maybe, but not the others
Steve Ickes wrote:
For the record, I hardly view Shatterkiss as pretentious or unqualified. Although I don't participate that much in the same forums as he does, I do frequently check for his posts as I find them incredibly helpful, and above all else, professional and non-confrontational. Actually I think that despite being verbally assaulted in this thread, he's remained rather composed and professional. Can't say the same as others here.
I can't agree more, although Simon's work is not the greatest I have seen in the industry, I have a lot of respect for him as a professional photographer, and he's always kind enough to share his valuable insights, techniques, and help out newbies on this forum.
Jeez what a train wreck of a thread but fun to watch.
FWIW The5DM2 isn't as bad as Simon sez (haha) or as world changing as Mahoney sez. It fills a niche for some people and not for others.
The only person that camera has changed the world for Is Vincent Laforet. He did a video that could have been done using a half dozen other cameras and caught the attention of some people and moved to California and became a commercial director...pretty much overnight.
To dismiss Simon's background is just plain stupid...there is no other word for it.
PS I bet the people who own the million dollar cabins, call them cabins as in "Muffy, how about we hop in the Gulfstream and go up to the cabin for the week?"
...in EXACTLY the same way that I described earlier: shot MOS, short clips, no follow-focus, no tracking shots, action staged for the camera (rather than the camera following action), shot by professional DPs with more experience to draw on than any of us.
Your title is also misleading: it isn't NBC, it's the SNL production team...and it's not the production of the show, it's the opening title sequence.
You aren't proving your point, you're proving mine: it's great for what it's great for, but it's bad for everything else. As opposed to prosumer camcorders, which are generally pretty good at everything and great at nothing...or something more expensive like the RED One or a VariCam, which are fantastic at most things but excessively expensive for most things.
Might be beating a dead horse here. Obviously two very differing sides to this debate and neither is about to budge. Mike: if the 5D MK II works for you, great. Moving along .....
Now just how did they get that war footage "staged for camera"?
Now let's see .. PBS, NBC, BBC, etc., etc., etc thinks it's good enough to use, but some shortsighted news conference "director" doesn't.
Think I'll respect the big boys opinions.
