Rumour surfaces of Canon 5D mk III bodies being field tested

[9designs2]

Interesting.... And here I am still making do with an old mk1 !!!! (and a 400D as a second body)
What puzzles me is what type of photography are people doing that demands to buy the latest new version the minute it's released. Are said people being held back and limited in someway in the pictures they can take? is there a style or type of photography so demanding that the recent crop of DSLRs can't cope with?
I kind of wonder how photographers of old managed with film cameras with out all the bells and whistles. Did that make them more skillful in the past?
With the exception of AF focus speed needed in say motorsport etc I struggle to see the need to regularly "upgrade".
Guess I won't be queuing on the day of release

 

[An Exception]

We'll you can't put the Video feature aside since its comes with, so it still stands that the 5D2 is still a popular camera and ahead of the competition due to its video feature compared to Nikon's range of HDDSLR.

I can, I'm a photographer, not a videographer. I have ZERO interest in video, like most photographers with a DSLR.

 

[ElDude]

The final episode of last seasons "House" was filmed on a 5DmkII. To be honest though, I considered it nothing more than advertising, why else would they do it with the equipment they have available?

Still, as far as I'm concerned the cameras might as well not have video. I'm buying a camera for the camera. They'll be putting phones on them next. Having the feature on lower end cameras I can understand, but I really don't see the need for it to be on the 5D series. To me that almost lessens the impact of the camera, or maybe that's the point. They don't want it looking too much like a pro camera?

I dunno, it's all very odd having video on a camera at all to me

 

[D.P.]

I can, I'm a photographer, not a videographer. I have ZERO interest in video, like most photographers with a DSLR.

Her, here.

What people don't realise is that even the bet DSLRs are still fr the most part utterly useless for making videos with. The major flaw is, as you might imagine, being designed for still photography and not video!

Also, the Panasonic HG2 (or is it GF2) has by far the best video implementation in any SLR so one can forget the Canon 5DMKII to be in the runnings here.

 

[D.P.]

The final episode of last seasons "House" was filmed on a 5DmkII. To be honest though, I considered it nothing more than advertising, why else would they do it with the equipment they have available?

Still, as far as I'm concerned the cameras might as well not have video. I'm buying a camera for the camera. They'll be putting phones on them next. Having the feature on lower end cameras I can understand, but I really don't see the need for it to be on the 5D series. To me that almost lessens the impact of the camera, or maybe that's the point. They don't want it looking too much like a pro camera?

I dunno, it's all very odd having video on a camera at all to me

IF there was option to save £50 to get a high end camera without video I would save the money. (and there are costs involved such as licensing fees).


What is odd is that a DSLR just isn't a video camera at all, so trying to use it as one just leads to a host of problems. The real deal if putting an APS-C or FX sensor with a Canon/Nikon/Sony mount in a real video body. AKA, RED.

 

[tbs]

I can, I'm a photographer, not a videographer. I have ZERO interest in video, like most photographers with a DSLR.

Okay, go into a shop and ask for a Canon 5D2 without video

 

[Rojin]

I'm not too fussed about video either, but I have been playing around with it lately. I prefer the ease of use of my HF100, but the 7D can give great quality results. A chap here put together a nice little vid:

The fact is, video is an important market segment that Nikon and Canon see as a requirement. The 5D and 7D have been used to shoot TV series and the rigs they setup are quite impressive and a fraction of the cost of a RED, which is why they are so popular.

The biggest problem for me with video though, is the editing. I just find it tedious and it's not something I enjoy.

 

[bigredshark]

Interesting.... And here I am still making do with an old mk1 !!!! (and a 400D as a second body)
What puzzles me is what type of photography are people doing that demands to buy the latest new version the minute it's released. Are said people being held back and limited in someway in the pictures they can take? is there a style or type of photography so demanding that the recent crop of DSLRs can't cope with?
I kind of wonder how photographers of old managed with film cameras with out all the bells and whistles. Did that make them more skillful in the past?
With the exception of AF focus speed needed in say motorsport etc I struggle to see the need to regularly "upgrade".
Guess I won't be queuing on the day of release

For me, it's mainly ISO performance which is currently driving upgrades though my general policy is to skip a generation between upgrades for my personal gear. My D200 (and I know the 5D classic is similar as my other half has one) isn't much good beyond ISO800 - even with a 50/1.4 and particularly with a 70-200/2.8 it's marginal in low light, I have to really push the limit of shutter speeds or accept a fair bit of noise in the images. A D300(s) wouldn't have been much improvement but a D7000 would be, though it's time for full frame for me so that's slightly off topic.

AF has also improved over that time, along with shooting speed which helps for any action stuff. Though I don't shoot much action personally and that which I shoot for commercial stuff (a fair amount of mountain biking, snowboarding and the like) I tend to hire a pro body for.

I still shoot loads of film and in some ways it's more flexible - Delta 3200 produces surprisingly good images for such fast film if you get a grip on how to handle it...

http://1pt4.com/blog/delta-3200-ilfosol-s/


but yes, I think it did teach you to be more creative and with less options available you turn to a tripod or similar faster rather than complaining you need a camera with better low light performance.

And partly it's the tech obsession with having the latest and greatest too...

 

[tbs]

Interesting.... And here I am still making do with an old mk1 !!!! (and a 400D as a second body)
What puzzles me is what type of photography are people doing that demands to buy the latest new version the minute it's released. Are said people being held back and limited in someway in the pictures they can take? is there a style or type of photography so demanding that the recent crop of DSLRs can't cope with?
I kind of wonder how photographers of old managed with film cameras with out all the bells and whistles. Did that make them more skillful in the past?
With the exception of AF focus speed needed in say motorsport etc I struggle to see the need to regularly "upgrade".
Guess I won't be queuing on the day of release

I agree, photographers back in the days ARE more about the photography, the composition and not about the equipment, only thing back then that needed to be taken into consideration is the lens and what type of film you're using.

Its like todays films, 90% CGI, 5% acting 5% story.

 

[Rojin]

Interesting.... And here I am still making do with an old mk1 !!!! (and a 400D as a second body)
What puzzles me is what type of photography are people doing that demands to buy the latest new version the minute it's released. Are said people being held back and limited in someway in the pictures they can take? is there a style or type of photography so demanding that the recent crop of DSLRs can't cope with?
I kind of wonder how photographers of old managed with film cameras with out all the bells and whistles. Did that make them more skillful in the past?
With the exception of AF focus speed needed in say motorsport etc I struggle to see the need to regularly "upgrade".
Guess I won't be queuing on the day of release

ISO performance and AF. I'd have a 1DmkIV if I could afford one! I like shooting in available and low light, so nice clean ISO is important, and is why I'd like to add a 5DmkII to the 7D eventually. I also like shooting sports, and also using a narrow dof on moving subjects (like my daughter) so AF speed is also important. I've actually been looking at the 1DsmkII lately, the files from that are lovely. Shame the ISO performance isn't really better than the 7D I have.

 

[tbs]

Her, here.

What people don't realise is that even the bet DSLRs are still fr the most part utterly useless for making videos with. The major flaw is, as you might imagine, being designed for still photography and not video!

Also, the Panasonic HG2 (or is it GF2) has by far the best video implementation in any SLR so one can forget the Canon 5DMKII to be in the runnings here.

I think some people are missing the point here. HDDSLR can give you similar DoF to 35mm film cameras used to shooting films, this is why they're popular amongst indie film makers, DPs and professionals and not the regular joe, ahem.

Panasonic GF2 might have better ISO performance, but its not popular because it doesn't have the quality of lenses available like Canon's L series. The House finale was shot entirely using L lenses, since they didn't have the Ziess primes widely available at the time. Also, ergonomically there are no rigs made to fit a compact sized camera, whereas a normal DSLR is easier to cater for.

 

[bigredshark]

I think some people are missing the point here. HDDSLR can give you similar DoF to 35mm film cameras used to shooting films, this is why they're popular amongst indie film makers, DPs and professionals and not the regular joe, ahem.

Actually, I think you're missing the point that actually, they're not really *that* popular. They're popular with people who can't afford a Red or similar to do the job which is actually a fairly niche market as a 5DII kitted out properly for video is still really rather expensive.

Look at some of the people who made their name using HDDSLRs, a large number of them have moved onto more traditional movie gear like the Red and the Phantom cameras because they're budget stretches to that thanks to their success. For all that the a single episode of House was shot with the 5DII (for specific reasons - it's a small platform which can deliver reasonably high quality and that suited the scenes they were shooting), the subsequent series wasn't.

I'd also point out that the GH-2 and it's predecessor were popular for video *precisely* because of their glass, the 14-140 was the first lens really designed for video and has stepless aperture control, which is a very nice feature to have.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to prove. You can ignore the video prowess of the Canon camera's if you choose to because most people (as you seem to admit) aren't videographers. Sure it's a nice HD camera if you need one on a budget but it's still an imperfect compromise as any HDDSLR is likely to be.

 

[tbs]

The point I made from the start was, the 5D2 got more popular because of its video feature, and hence why it was sold out or hard to get for a long time. It doesn't matter who uses what (which seems like a lot of you seem to think its all about) if its popular, its popular, if it can do the job for some people its job well done, it doesn't matter if you can afford a RED EPIC or not, RED is popular too but not everyone can buy one, but its still popular so what's your point?

People you're referring to I'm guessing are Vincent Lafloret, Chase Jarvis and Phillip Bloom etc. It calls for the tool for the job. Why shoot something with a RED EPIC if you can shoot it with a 5D2 with half of the cost and budget and crew? Since these people don't shoot feature films for the big screen, a lot of people can't and won't know the difference between what's shot on what. And might I just add, in Iron Man 2, the race track scene was partially filmed with a 5D2. Did you spot the difference?

If the GH2 was so popular for shooting video, why is it that most articles and interviews are about the 5D2, 7D and in some cases the D7000? I've only seen the GF2 being compared to the 5D2 and so on but never have seen anything shot with it properly in real world like the 5D2. If you want to check something out shot with a 5D2, check out "From Hell and Back Again", documentary shot ENTIRELY on a 5D2 in Afghanistan by film/news reporter Danfung Dennis. I dunno if he lives up to your expectations or credentials but he has shot for TIME, New York Times, Rolling Stones...

All I have said all along is that the 5D2 changed DSLRs with its video feature. Every camera and technology has it's flaws, I never said it was the be all and end all. Your work is only as good as you want it to be, so if the House episode didn't tell you that you can do something spectacular with a £1K camera (forget about the rigs and lighting, since we're talking about the quality of the video function) and some L lenses, they I don't know what else to say.

 

[An Exception]

I really doubt it was the video that was the 5D's success, of course it probably helped, but marginally imo, as most folks get a 5D Camera to take pictures.

 

[tbs]

 

[An Exception]

^^^
No need to get upset and personal, you sound as if this is a debate about CUDA or something. At the end of the day Videography is a marginal market for the 5D, as I'm pretty sure 99% of people with a 5D, got one to take pictures with, at the most they probably tested the video function out from curiosity, but if they are anything like me, they probably won't have touched it since.

I just think Canon/Nikon is going down this route as insurance in case Hi-Res Video camera's replace still camera's in the future.

 

[Rojin]

Canon and Nikon both think video is important and they have far better knowledge of the market than anyone in here.

 

[tbs]

Not getting upset or personal.

It's like reading the Daily Mail, you read it because its funny, but while you're at it you get frustrated from the commentators.

 

[An Exception]

Canon and Nikon both think video is important and they have far better knowledge of the market than anyone in here.

As I said, I personally think it's insurance for if Hi-Res video cameras replacing 'Still' cameras for photography, in the fairly distant future.

Of course it may generate good sales, if they can get the average Joe interested so he can video special family occasions, but the 5D isn't any good for Average Joe yet because it doesn't AF, and the price for this 'Cam-corder' is a little prohibitive.

As for the Movie industry adopting DSLR's, well can't imagine relatively low priced DSLR's would be that profitable, considering the lower sales volumes and low ticket price per unit.

 

[bigredshark]

Not getting upset or personal.

It's like reading the Daily Mail, you read it because its funny, but while you're at it you get frustrated from the commentators.

Just implying stupidity because people don't agree with you then?

You think that's less true of you by the way?

You keep repeating the same statement without any basis or evidence, the 5DII is a fantastic camera, the 5D was a fantastic camera too and was mighty popular despite it's lack of video. Yet you appear to be arguing that the 5DIIs popularity is completely and inextricably linked to it having video.

Have they sold a few more units because it has video - yes I suspect they've sold maybe 10% more units because of that features at least. BUT if you take that 10% of the sales figures then it would still be massively popular camera (the second most popular on Flickr - for a camera which was £2k at release that's incredible). It's popularity isn't as linked to video as you're making out - that's the sole point you seem unable to discuss, let alone accept.

The House episode doesn't really tell you anything about a £2k camera that you don't know already, that professionals can achieve decent results with consumer level equipment. Same as they could 5 years ago with Canon DV gear at the same price point. Now technology has moved on and it's in HD on a larger sensor, that's the innovation, that it's in a DSLR body today isn't actually important, that's an economy for Canon (and ergonomics nightmare for the user) but a DSLR equipped to shoot video isn't much usable as a still camera anyway, so it's not a dual purpose device in practice, it's just one product they can sell to either market.