Skip Navigation

New Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Have you seen the footage?!

Travel Forums Travel Photography New Canon EOS 5D Mark II - Have you seen the footage?!

Page
  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

1. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 8y

This camera is really going to be a game changer. The quality in the video sample up on Canon's site is just phenomenal. Okay, at 2700 USD, it's not the cheapest SLR out there, but the possibility to get fantastic digital video out of an SLR at the same time is just nuts!

2. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4811 posts) 8y

I believe the Nikon D90 already was a game changer where video was concerned (and that DSLR costs only 1000 USD), but yeah, Canon upped the ante a bit further still. Exciting times; it'll be a few years yet until I buy my next DSLR, but when I do, it's going to give me options I couldn't even have dreamed of a year or two ago.

3. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 8y

Yes, I agree it's "exciting times".

But how would you use it ?

4. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4811 posts) 8y

Well, thinking about the recent past, moments I photographed that I'd love to have had on video were circling condors filling the frame at 200mm in Peru, or a 12mm wide-angle view of a helicopter ride over the snowy Southern Alps in New Zealand; I might've been approaching the ability to capture the awesomeness of the Lighting the Beacons scene from RotK!

5. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 8y

Couple of draw-backs:

1) Takes up more memory.
2) I'm not sure about the file size, but a good quality video is going to be really big leading to transmission problems emailing and uploading/downloading to/from the web.
3) Composing a shot and trying to shoot a video composition at the same time is next to impossible in my mind. I hold still for quite a long time while composing a still photo. And having to make a decision between still and moving image when something exciting happens is just another distraction leading to missing the scene entirely.

I have a movie mode in my little Canon P&S already. But I never use it. Mostly for #3 reasons. But also for the first 2 reasons to some degree.

I do wish I had liveview, but I hold the opinion that still photography and movie making are so completely different artforms that they should be kept well apart.

6. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5588 posts) 8y

Quoting Sander

I believe the Nikon D90 already was a game changer where video was concerned (and that DSLR costs only 1000 USD), but yeah, Canon upped the ante a bit further still. Exciting times; it'll be a few years yet until I buy my next DSLR, but when I do, it's going to give me options I couldn't even have dreamed of a year or two ago.

From the sounds of that blog post though, this camera will do the same as a professional camera in the 100 000 USD + market. It's not just another video camera, but one that actually appears to be better than 6 figure cameras in some regards (especially low light).

Quoting http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/

Keep in mind - this is raw footage (not RAW) from both Canon XH A1 camcorder - and a few clips for the Canon EOS 5D MKII - you’ll see that the two are toe to toe (not really) on bright scenes… but in low light - NO COMPARISON… so I’m not sure of how Canon feels about my trashing their top of the line XH A1 camcorder… but common sense leads me to state the following: if the Canon still camera team and the video team have come together to produce the Canon EOS 5D MKII - the next HD camcorder they come out with - may just floor us all…

I also like the fact that you can just shoot video and cut out the frame grabs afterwards in such high quality.

if only 100 people hit the video - we’ll hit 9 Gigabytes of streamed video… and that’s with the video that is downsized to 960 x 540 (which is 1/4 of 1080p!) in the Apple H.264 format from the full resolution 1080p RAW footage… the RAW footage that comes out of this camera is STUNNING - so much so that the entire video was cut with the RAW footage - untouched… in any way - no color, noise or exposure adjustment whatsoever… the images you are seeing on this blog - are frame grabs off of the video - those frame grabs were downsized from 1920 pixels wide to 700 pixels wide to fit the page width of this blog - and absolutely NOTHING was done to them either in Aperture/Photoshop or any other software.

Mind you, this sounds pretty painless too, which is bound to draw in people like me that might lug around two cameras and never ever actually bother with doing anything with the vids:

It produces Apple’s Quicktime .mov files btw - simply copy them off of your CF Cards - double click on them - and they open up in the Quicktime player w/o a single hiccup at 1080p… Drop them into Final cut pro and start your edit… no rendering is necessary. Oh - and realize that it took us less than 20 minutes to copy over more than 12 hours of footage off of the CF cards…

I just basically thought the video was pretty awesome for being untouched and coming straight out of a digital SLR

7. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4811 posts) 8y

Quoting Q'

1) Takes up more memory.

"Memory is cheap." :) That's the IT guy in me speaking, but it holds true here as well. Just saw on dpreview that 64 and 100 GB memorycards have been announced. Two years from now those sizes will be about to become standard. High end hard disks by then will be in the 10-100 terabyte range. Shooting a movie of a couple of hundred megabytes will be something you never worry about. (Though you might curse the slow transfer to your computer for a year longer until USB 3.0 has become universal as well.)

2) I'm not sure about the file size, but a good quality video is going to be really big leading to transmission problems emailing and uploading/downloading to/from the web.

Same goes for raw files already (or even original size JPGs). Just as you resize those and save them as JPG before pushing them to the web, you'd toss the video through virtualdub to get something reasonable for uploading (whether to youtube or something you host yourself).

3) Composing a shot and trying to shoot a video composition at the same time is next to impossible in my mind. I hold still for quite a long time while composing a still photo. And having to make a decision between still and moving image when something exciting happens is just another distraction leading to missing the scene entirely.

I don't think this would ever be a decision I'd spend more time on than, say, choosing the correct white balance. By default it's a non-issue for me (for white balance because I can correct it after the fact, for video because I'll shoot still image). It's only when I have taken the shot(s) I want and am not in any hurry that I'll consider what else I can do that I'll consider if it's an appropriate time to shoot a video...

I have a movie mode in my little Canon P&S already. But I never use it. Mostly for #3 reasons. But also for the first 2 reasons to some degree.

The main reason for me not to use the movie mode on my Canon P&S when I had it was purely the crappy quality. And even then I still made exceptions, such as turning 360 degrees when standing on a mountain top, or recording clips at live shows by my favorite artists, to remember a bit from of the ambience.
Taking videos will never replace photography for me as my main activity with a camera... but yeah, I can totally see myself really enjoying the ease of obtaining high quality video without needing to carry yet another device.

[ Edit: Edited on Sep 23, 2008, at 2:13 PM by Sander ]

8. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4811 posts) 8y

Quoting Sam I Am

Quoting Sander

I believe the Nikon D90 already was a game changer where video was concerned (and that DSLR costs only 1000 USD), but yeah, Canon upped the ante a bit further still. Exciting times; it'll be a few years yet until I buy my next DSLR, but when I do, it's going to give me options I couldn't even have dreamed of a year or two ago.

From the sounds of that blog post though, this camera will do the same as a professional camera in the 100 000 USD + market. It's not just another video camera, but one that actually appears to be better than 6 figure cameras in some regards (especially low light).

The same was said about the D90. It's mostly the really good ('cheap') existing lenses which do the trick, as those would cost most of the money on a large camera.

Now of course you can expect much better low-light performance from a full frame sensor like the 5D Mk. II has than from the DX-sized sensor of the D90, so obviously you see that difference in price back in the quality of the video, but the quality of the videos generated by the D90 is quite stunning in itself; the leap from that to the 5D's video isn't nearly as large as the leap from P&S video to D90 video, imo.

[ Edit: Edited on Sep 23, 2008, at 2:12 PM by Sander ]

9. Posted by Q' (Travel Guru 1987 posts) 8y

Quoting Sander

I don't think this would ever be a decision I'd spend more time on than, say, choosing the correct white balance. By default it's a non-issue for me (for white balance because I can correct it after the fact, for video because I'll shoot still image). It's only when I have taken the shot(s) I want and am not in any hurry that I'll consider what else I can do that I'll consider if it's an appropriate time to shoot a video...

Now is that because you don't have the choice rightnow or is it really something you wouldn't do ? New technology opens up new possibilities.

Avedon use to shoot video, then pick one frame as his still shot. It allowed him to focus on the model and worry less about pulling the shutter release. That still seems to tie my gear up in one setting for me to really see how I can use it effectively at the moment though. Granted I rapid fire enough shots sometimes that people say my film looks like a movie. But I still don't see it. You simply compose (a frame or a story) differently depending on the format. Even Avedon didn't do it that way very much I think. Another thing about switching between the 2 is the choice of lenses. A movie is frame differently than what would make a good still frame. Anyway, the more I think about it the more it gets me confused.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I just can't imagine how to put it to use. But theoretically, the images coming out of a DSLR should be MUCH higher quality than a normal video camera. So it's worth a try.

10. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 8y

Quoting Sam I Am

From the sounds of that blog post though, this camera will do the same as a professional camera in the 100 000 USD + market. It's not just another video camera, but one that actually appears to be better than 6 figure cameras in some regards (especially low light).

I wonder how much the list of lenses he used in the filming cost though:

FD 7.5mm f/5.6 (converted to EF mount)
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
EF 135mm f/2L USM
EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
TS-E 45mm f/2.8

But yes, a very exciting camera! At that price, it's actually a really affordable prosumer video camera, not just an expensive SLR. I wonder what the level of video features are on this though - ie, audio inputs, etc . I'm sure it will be popular in the short film and documentary filming market in any case.