Vincent Laforet emailed me about this new Canon camera that supposedly shoots high quality video (his blog post here) because he thinks “It has the potential to change our industry.” My only thought was that other than the convenience of no longer having to carry a video and still camera, it seems rather insignificant to me.
Sure, I think in certain applications where you are gathering news the addition of video will be valuable, if not a requirement and certainly video will be nice to fill out an online magazine story. But, if you want to reach your audience using video then there’s nothing revolutionary here, you’re producing TV or a movie (and might need the equivalent budget with sound, editing and graphics).
And, the more I think about it the less dominant I feel video will be online because it’s just too slow when it comes to communication. If you’re offering the reader a headline with a lead photo and a story along with a video clip, audio clip maybe and picture slide show. The most hits will go to the headline and lead image and everything else follows depending on the time and interest of the viewer (headline writing is an underrated skill in the media world).
So, when I think about sending photographers out in the field armed with cameras equipped with video I can think of very few instances in the past (lets pretend magazines could even handle video for a second) where I would want the best shot they took to be on video. Now, I suppose if you can just pull a frame out of the video and deliver it that way you’d be okay, but the still frame moments seem to be rarely the same as the video moments on a shoot, so I’m not so sure about that.
I’m reminded of people who are writer/photographer and how at a certain level in this industry you do one or the other better and the result is always better when you put your efforts into one or the other not both. I think the same will ring true for photographer/videographer.
98 Comments
you are absolutely right..it doesn’t require the same skills. It is almost like saying a great painter is a great photographer because the mediums look alike.
Nikon’s D90 also does HD video. The problem is that if you’re gonna do HD video, you need decent audio capture too, something I seriously doubt any camera except a true videocam could handle. Plus you start to see problems with lighting and other issues that I doubt a dSLR can compensate.
It’s like trying to drive a screw with a hammer. If you want to produce HD video, get an HD cam.
I think it’s safe to assume that Canon would not endanger its own share and profits in the video market by releasing a dSLR that can do what the big boy cameras can do. It’ll be interesting to see how people start using the video feature.
But I’m in agreement with you, I think the industry will continue what it’s been doing to produce movies, mainly to use its mainstay equipment.
I think photojournalists are the ones who will really change how they work with the introduction of this camera. My deposit’s down.
Maybe wedding photogs too might benefit? Not sure.
But definitely there are plenty of PJs out there who will welcome this camera. Once they buy big enough portable hard drives to store all that video footage on. Loads of PJs have been carrying a Canon G9 to capture video on. It’s been run any some newspaper’s websites too. This is a major leap forward for them. My G9 stays…and here’s me, a Nikon shooter!
I think it would be awesome if we did have a technology that revolutionised the way the industry worked…could this be it? Not sure…time will tell…
“no, you can not enter with a camera, no videos allowed.” was the verdict of my last weeks blog entry…
and i also think do one or the other. doing both will make you look bad in both.
i’ve spent enough time working on moviesets to know it takes more than the flick of mode on the camera to produce great looking moving pictures.
No doubt it’s a wonderful camera. But I’m with you on this one. It might be a useful tool for the newspaper photographer under pressure to produce some video for a website. But serious video will continue to be done with serious video tools. I’d like to hear what Dirck Halstead has to say on the subject.
And I can’t wait for the fuss that “rights-holders” are going to make when they figure out that still photographers are turning up at NFL games, the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, Major League Baseball, NCAA games, concerts-the list goes on-with hybrid cameras capable of producing HD video. Should be interesting.
I think the camera will be a game-changer, but I agree that the combination will appeal to photojournalist types. But those seriously wanting to video will have a video camera with proper external microphone setup.
I work as DP here in Boston, as well as being a still photographer. Aside from a couple independent features, the majority of what I’ve shot is digital video for commercials, and web instructional videos.
The reverse situation of what you are taking about Rob, is what is most devastating to still photographers.
On more than one occasion, I have been shooting video on a set, and the clients will ask the producer or director if they could take still shots as well.
Now as much as I’d like to speak up and tell them I’m a still photographer as well, I can’t. I’m there in the capacity of a DP only.
So the director will come over to me, and have me shoot still frames from the video camera. Many have this option, but this particular camera, a Canon HD camera, writes its info onto P2 cards, essentially a 16gig flash card.
The still images it shoots are jpegs, and they are high enough quality for web and even small print.
Essentially, those that are savvy on a set, know that they needn’t hire a separate still photographer, because they can get stills for free from the video camera.
This turns my gut every time it happens. What can one do?
I’ve even seen some of these quick still takes used for national ads.
I agree with you on this one, this camera could potentially become a game changer in the realm of photojournalism and wedding photography, but offers little to no advantages for the commercial/advertising/editorial photographer. Additionally, retailers such as JCrew and Abercrombie and Fitch have been pairing video along side their still images on their websites for a number of years now. The effectiveness of the still image in these photographic niches will be hard to replace.
Spoken like a true photo editor, not a photographer, or a videographer. I can see why you’d want to bury your head in the sand, you are a photo editor and want things to stay just the way they are. I’m totally unconvinced by your rationale. National Geographic are proactively looking to hire photographers with video training. If you can’t see the proliferation of video on the internet then where are you looking?
The game is changing. What is interesting is the diminishing dichotomy of the two disciplines of still and moving image. Photographers may find it hard to learn the different mindset of video production. Video guys will love the low light capabilities and high end glass they can now utilise. Video on the D90 is nothing more than a gimmick. The Canon provides an amazing tool for those with an open mind, not at all “insignificant” as you pupport.
Take your head out of the sand and smell the coffee:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml
@2: I had the same reservations about lack of audio in the new DSLRs but audio is so important that you should use a dedicated recorder (just like hollywood…). Not a problem to sync the audio later – just clap your hand at the beginning – that is what those film clappers are for: to provide a sync sound to lock the video and audio tracks.
As far as the revolution it is happening quickly – the greatest benefit to creative use of video is the ability to regain true selective focus, depth of field and choice of lens. The Red camera had it figured out and is a game-changer for the serious independent cinematographer. These new units from Canon and Nikon openup the field in a big way.
@ 10. Paul: Shooting video to fill out a story is different then shooting a video that is the story. The internet is a level playing field so you’re competing with all the major networks when you produce something they’re interested in as well.
If you serve a small local audience or cover a subject like “model train building” then adding video to your photography is great but something that’s already been discovered.
As technology produces more hyphenates, e.g., photographer-videographer, and makes it easy (easier) for the same person to produce usable, quality imagery, both still and motion, someone is going to be deprived of a job. Nice for the clients/employers as they’re not going to be paying that same person a rate that reflects performing two, separate jobs.
I still don’t get your position PhotoEditor. I disagree that ‘filling out’ a story is what video will do. The successful ones will use video as part of the story as much as text or a photo. TV is dying, the level playing field of the internet is how people get their news. Why wouldn’t a local audience want to see the process of a model train being built as well as read about it and see a picture if they can do it all in the same space?
The 5D MkII makes this possible by streamlining the workflow down to the same level as a photographer would do. No bulky camera equipment or large lights, just great performance and fantastic looking moving images that can be cut NATIVELY in next to no time with no conversion times on relatively cheap equipment. Something not even RED can offer with their DSMC product line of 2010.
That’s the discovery here.
This commercial was shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark III:
http://tinyurl.com/5ghwzc
I love the hype in Laforet’s blog “This changes the industry”. I wish I had the sort of insight from spending two days with a camera and felt that I could proclaim that it changed an industry.
Being excited about a camera and the potential is cool. But come on, two days with a pre-release camera and you become a modern day oracle, the heir to Michel de Nostredame.
It is a new tool with great potential, but as Vincent pointed out there are huge bandwidth costs by hosting even small size videos. If the client demands it or the need comes forward, than yes, the two could merge and create a new medium.
I think it is an addition to the industry. I may be wrong. I think it adds to our arsenal but not replace any tool or change the game plan that much; other than adding significant time spent in front of the Macintosh rather than shooting images.
Video on DSLRs may not take over the world, but it’s just so frickin’ cool to have especially if one has a stable of unique lenses. I’ve shot behind the scenes stuff on shoots using my little P&S camera (aka G9) that always looks crappy and requires me to put my main camera down in order to fiddle with the little camera. The thought of shooting that kind of stuff without having to put my working camera down is fantastic.
@ 14 Paul: The argument that video will somehow become more important then an image as the way to communicate with consumers online is absurd. You have less than a second to convince me. Video or still image?
But I agree. The niche and local will benefit from the ease of producing video along with photography and words to make a complete story that didn’t exist before.
I didn’t suggest ‘for a second’ that video is MORE important than the single image. Far from it. (I am interested to know how the notion that you concocted strikes you as ‘absurd’, however!)
The amount of internet traffic that is circulating (over 90,000 hits in the first 24 hours) to Vincent’s blog shows that this camera is a hugely significant beast.
Vive la revolution…
Just remember folks, video plus stills means far more time in front of the Macintosh rather than behind the camera or just enjoying life.
“The amount of internet traffic that is circulating to Vincent’s blog shows that this camera is a hugely significant beast.”
mh, actually it shows that mr laforet has a respected name in the industry and knows a lot of people that post his name on the internet in a way that other people check out his page.. it says nothing about the significance of the camera.
…. or was that the canon marketing department?
On the technical side this is just the beginning.
On the professional side this doesn’t matter at this time.
The web offers a new way of distribution for video. This will soon be a similar situation as we have now for still images. Too much bad quality, here and there some random highlights.
If the content is not compelling, who cares what kind of equipment does what.
@Pim Milo
Timelapse is a whole different topic. The stuff you can with a DSLR is simply amazing. Try to get your hands on the snowboard movies “In Short” and “91 words for snow”. You’ll be blown away from the ones in In Short.
Bayer ( aspirin(r) ) *knew* that tylenol wouldn’t change anything: they were new, different, and people preferred to remain with what they knew, and what already works, AND Bayer/Aspirin OWNED the market.
Their rug was removed from under them, by the market’s moving on.
Tylenol *knew* that ibuprofen wouldn’t change anything: they were new, different, and people preferred to remain with what they knew, and what already works, AND Tylenol OWNED the market.
Their rug was removed from under them, by the market’s moving on.
See a Pattern there?
Remember IBM’s “there’s a market for maybe 10 computers, worldwide” line?
Remember Bill Gates’s “640kB is sufficient for anything” line?
This IS a game-changer, period.
It’s got stereo-microphone-in, so you can stick one of these on it:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/450170-REG/Rode_STEREO_VIDEO_MIC_Stereo_VideoMic_Camera.html
which gives excellent stereo sound.
It takes L glass.
It shoots at HIGH bitrate.
It does EXCELLENT low-light video.
IT’S ON YOU WHEN YOU NEED IT…
it’s unobtrusive, compared with pro camcorder.
“I love the hype in Laforet’s blog “This changes the industry”. I wish I had the sort of insight from spending two days with a camera and felt that I could proclaim that it changed an industry.”
I had exactly that kind of experience, in the ’70s or ’80s when given an assignment, machine-language programming, on mark-cards
( punch-cards, but pencil instead of holes ),
for a machine that had no RAM ( it had a few registers ).
It blew me away.
The POTENTIAL of this digital programming paradigm!
ANYTHING could be modeled with it: *WORLDS* could be created in it..
Apparently, nearly no-one felt that way, when encountering machine-language programming on something with a few 8-bit registers.
Their not feeling it doesn’t prove my feeling it was bogus ( DID digital computering become phenominally vast? ).
The logic of the argument is wrong.
Yes, sometimes, one encounters something, or someone, and one feels/KNOWS,
THIS Is IT.
In the Intertubes era, some call it Love At First Site…
There’s a significant difference between knowing, *from a blank slate* what is going to happen, and, alternatively, knowing *from the means you’re holding* that the game has changed.
The former is the realm of prophets & spooks;
the latter is the realm of any inspired perceiving.
As for the “video is supplemental” bogon:
That’s backwards.
Words are for depth.
( remember Watergate was newspaper, not TV fodder )
Stills are for detail, plus some emotion.
Video SHOWS the Story ( full emotion, full everything ).
Story is what we’re *wired* for.
As for the
You Must Specialize, Or Remain Mediochre & Umber…
Bullshot.
Do you specialize in switching lenses to achieve interesting “perspective”, telecompression, etc.?
Do you specialize in aperture manipulation?
Do you specialize in strobism?
Do you specialize in timing & shutterspeed?
Or do you specialize in all of ’em, and it is the WHOLE that differentiates you from the mundane snapshotters?
What’s the difference between specializing in a batch of things called “photography”, and specializing in a batch of things called “videography alternating with photography”?
It’s still specialization.
It’s still synthesis.
Both.
Bandwidth keeps increasing, so Good Enough Video becomes more and more available, worldwide.
Ogg Theora’s pre-1 version is now getting the kind of optimization that mp4 video’s had for awhile ( they’re in the same family of codecs, so it isn’t that Theora’s older, it’s that the algorithms from back then weren’t as smart as the ones now. Improving Theora’s algorithms, making a high quality compression that fits the standard IS happening. Read Monty’s blog on Theora & Xiph ). Therefore no-license-fee video-compression of high-def becomes available soon.
All the arguments “against” are just variants of
“it’s just a detail change”, and
“I don’t think it’ll mean anything”, and
“what already exists isn’t going to budge”, but
what already is, doesn’t need to budge: the world moves to a new/different moment, and the already-is becomes the left-behind.
Punctuated Equilibrium ( the invention of Iron was one Punctuation, Agriculture was one another, Steel another, Electronics another, Industry another… )
Remember when Nikon wouldn’t change from their mechanical-focus-connection, when Electronics happened, but Canon switched, to EOS.
/NOW/ Nikon’s switching, but it’s costing their customers MUCH more, as the established base is now much bigger.
Nikon thought tactically, and blew it, strategically.
( so now they do the Microsoft-RAW format thing? moronic. )
Just as establishment usually does ( see Bayer, and Tylenol, etc )
What RED is doing to the normal pro video market, the establishment considers to be “Butchery!”, but it was inevitable that *someone* stick a cell processor in a video camera…
Hell, we’ve got Radeon processors we could stick in ’em, and get 10x the performance!
Gamechanging does happen, and this time, we got to notice it before the mass of the market moved.
What an interesting moment to’ve experienced!
[…] Check it out here. […]
I have clients request video on my shoots about 1/3 of the time now. Many are national clients and campaigns. I was talking with a rep Friday and she said the same thing.
Again, these requests are from the big ad agencies not small local clients trying to save money.
The Canon 5DmkII does shoot high quality video in addition to high quality still images. It is the supremely high quality still images at a price of less than $2,800 that is the most important news here to photographers. The quality of the images this camera produces especially in low light are greater than Canon’s $8,000 flagship camera the 1D mkIII. The fact that it also shoots high quality video is a bonus. It gives still photographers the chance to really play with and eventually learn the language of motion pictures without any additional investment beyond a decent sound recorder. That is pretty radical.
Some photographers make pictures. Some photographers make pictures in order to tell a story. Video is just another tool that can be used to tell a story. The best tool for the job depends upon the story. Having another tool on your belt extends your ability as a story teller.
It’ll be interesting to see just how useful the video feature proves to be.
I shoot a decent amount of video using a dedicated HD video camera and can’t see using an SLR camera for any serious video work. For daily PJ assignments it’ll be nice, but beyond that I’m not sure how useful it’ll be.
The audio input is nice to have, but what about trying to mount my shotgun mic along with a wireless lav on top of that?
Handholding video doesn’t work either unless you’re into that shaky YouTube kind of footage. So does that mean you’re bogged down by having a tripod or monopod on your camera?
I still have a lot of questions, but I guess the answers will come with being able to use the camera hands-on.
I also don’t think it’s about video and stills competing it’s about both complementing one other to bring an audience a storytelling package that combines the best of both worlds. How you achieve that is up to you. For me it has worked by doing both videos and stills myself and working as a team. Both have their pros and cons.
Excuse me for hyping the work of people I know, but this is a great example of what’s possible when you combine the power of stills and video:
It’s about mental illness in America’s prisons:
http://www.indepth.jennackerman.com/trapped/feature.html
The piece wouldn’t have nearly the impact it does without combining the two mediums.
@ 21,22 bernd gruber
Those figures were expressed in surprise by Mr Laforet himself, not Canon. He clearly doesn’t receive that much traffic to all of his posts.
Personally I’m really hyped on the video mode for a couple reasons….
There are more and more photogs transitioning into directing music vids and commercials and i think this cam creates the opportunity for someone to put together a reel on an affordable budget or no budget.
1. it will look legit b/c of sensor size and lens options…..no more hokey ass small sensors w/ everything in focus. …this sensor is bigger than any other digital video format and it’s bigger than traditional 35mm motion film
2. its not going to replace traditional hdcams but it makes highquality video more accessible to a lot of people….and i would personally spend 2800 on this before i bought any sony/canon/panasonic hdcam simply for the fact that I have the option of interchangeable lens w/ wide open apertures and such a large sensor……most prosumer hdcams are what? 1/3 to 1/2 inch? anything bigger you are spending something like 10grand no? plus I’m going to bet the Dynamic Range on this 5d is a lot better.
3. There are plenty of photogs in the commercial realm who will take this new technology and turn it into a money maker. People who want to create will and they will offer that to their clients.
sound i don’t see as a problem…..there is a mic input or you can get a sound guy…..or if you wanna do music videos the track is laid on top separately anyway.
the choice of having all those canon prime lenses with HD and 21 mpx still photographs for that price has my mouth watering. it’s two totally different worlds, but the option of HD is kind of amazing. as far as sounds goes, i’m sure you can easily output good mics and sound equipment.
The ground is always shifting isn’t it?
My initial thoughts are that it may shake up the low to mid budget shoots but that capturing a great still image will always be different than capturing a great moving image.
The equipment will change and skills may merge somewhat, but in the age of specialization, it’s hard for me to imagine a print campaign emerging from a video/film shoot or vice versa.
You guys do realize that the 5D M2 Video feature is almost useless right?
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr134/jamesmel9/?action=view¤t=DSC_0012.flv
This is a wobble test on a Nikon D90, and from what I hear the 5D2 is almost as bad. Notice how most of the marketing shots so far have been locked down on tripods? The reset time on both their chips is WAY to slow.
Also the 5D’s frame rate is 30 fps only, making is useless for a lot of high end work, like say transfer to film.
This is not the game changer everyone thinks it is, but it is a step towards change. Nikon and Canon better hurry up, the red camera can already do 120fps, no wobble, and a very similar chip is going into RED’s DSLR killer.
Bruce said:
“it’s hard for me to imagine a print campaign emerging from a video/film shoot or vice versa.”
Imagine it b/c it’s already happening. Plenty of ppl are shooting commercials and then stepping aside to do stills on the set. I’ve seen it multiple times in the past year and I’m not talking small clients…these are jobs for Walgreens, Home Depot, etc… Maybe it’s not being done w/ the same camera but the two are definitely being packaged together already and it’s occurring more and more often.
If you want to survive in print, what’s the message? -> quality content!
Same counts for moving picture. Soon there will be the better YouTube and video will be more accessable. What makes you go to the movies, spend money on iTunes or for a DVD? I think that’s quality content.
The tools for photography changes dramatically and so they will for video. You can’t be afraid of new tools.
For all those Platypus folks, this is beyond perfect. I used to shoot video, but found myself at the editing station too much! And there was more of a challenge and much more satisfaction in finding that one 125th of a second that makes you just want to stare and stare and stare…..
Another web site, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml , has a spoken a bit about convergence (movie features coming to dslr’s). I don’t think it’s an industry changer myself.
Many new features on cameras come from the top down, higher end cameras to consumer cameras. This feature is the opposite. It has been a staple of many p&s cameras to also shoot movies and it’s now on more pro-level cameras from Canon and Nikon. Yes, this adds features like great high iso video capture and the use of your own lenses which no p&s or consumer digital camcorder can do but it can’t shoot video and still at the same time and more importantly to do each well requires that you concentrate on that one thing (still or video) not on both.
Over the past few years I’ve never heard fellow pro’s clamoring for their cameras to also shoot video. No one has been demanding it as a need. This doesn’t mean it can’t bring something to the mix, open doors for those looking to move into video capture, but it also doesn’t mean that its existence is proof of something bigger afoot.
In the short run all I see it doing is cannibalizing digital video camcorder sales. In that sense I could see myself as a customer but only in consumer mode not as a professional. My mini-dv standard def. camcorder is 5.5 years old. I’ve toyed with getting a high def. camcorder. Now, I’ll think twice before I get a camcorder and maybe look to something like the 5D Mark II. What do I shoot with my current digital video camera? Family stuff. What would I shoot with the video feature of a 5D Mark II? Probably family stuff.
I am with you Rob. I think it’s a bit of over kill and think many great photographers will be distracted by this new, unnecessary feature.
Gonna have to disagree with you on this one Rob, big time..
The Supply and Demand of Text vs. Multimedia Content:
http://www.lightstalkers.org/the-supply-and-demand-of-written-content-vs-multimedia-content
“Advertisers love video ads and pre-roll.”
“..realize that video content can get a much higher ad rate
than printed content can.”
Building a better and cheaper camera is cool. Combining video and stills in the same camera is cool.
Telling NYTimes photographers to produce video of all news they cover so they can compete with CNN and ESPN for eyeballs seems like a waste of money.
Somehow I find the idea of turning the internet into a TV station not that revolutionary.
I wouldn’t say HD video is unnecessary, Nikon and Canon have both done good. Before this post I was worried that as a student I would miss out on learning video however that anxiety has now passed. The world wants everything NOW, there’s little time to watch a video when we can say so much with a single still.
“Turning the internet into a TV station” is an oversimplification.
TV is not very interactive whereas the web is.
Here is an example of a 360 degree video panoramic I did in June 2007:
http://www.patrickyen.com/skate360REDUX/
And yes, you can program these to run pre-roll video ads.
I respect your opinion but I also think that a lot of people in this industry are understandably afraid of all this new-fangled interactive multimedia because it’s so different from what everybody is used to.
Number 14 – I posted a memo to several of my clients that this camera was an industry changer long before I handled one. The specs reveal plenty and a hands on confirms this.
It is blatantly obvious that HD video combined with a small, low priced and high quality still camera is going to have a major effect on the way that images are both captured and disseminated.
If you are a news editor, are you going to run video on the site immediately or wait until the evening press run for dissemination of the world shattering news announcement?
Are you going to let TV break the story when you have the ability to compete directly?
The D90 is interesting, but lacks the polish; the EOS-5D MkII has all that it takes (except a built in audio pre-amp) – this will be an industry changer, without question.
Finally! A group of shooters that know how to shoot vertical images can shoot video! I guess I’ll need to turn my HD TV on it’s side. Will the “Flash” pulse at 30fps as well? Perhaps I can deploy my Al Frankin helmet sat dish as well and transmit at the same time?
Sorry to be silly. Nice add on, but really a needed tool? That remains to be seen.
Honestly I rather have someone make my Nikon D3 place a cell phone call.
My 2¢ – Bill
@ #25…
“…….I love the hype in Laforet’s blog “This changes the industry”. I wish I had the sort of insight from spending two days with a camera and felt that I could proclaim that it changed an industry……”
I’m not sure why this is, but whenever still photographers are presented with new technology, more often than not they tend to look at it with a negative eye, rather than try to embrace the benefits. I know I’ve been guilty of this, but I try real hard to be as open-minded as possible, especially since I changed over to all-digital, whenever ANYTHING new gets tossed out there. Film guys seem to be the exact opposite…there are some great vid’s on YouTube of big-time directors Steven Soderburgh, Doug Limin and others, who talk about their experiences with the new RED ONE camera and how excited the technology is for them. The best line from Soderbergh was “What difference does it make (how they do it)…it’s magic!” and he genuinely is amazed that he can do things that he never would have dreamed about only a few years ago. I, for one, am truly looking forward to RED’s ‘DSLR Killer’ when it hits next year. If they can crack into still capture half as good as they have with digital video, then Nikon, Canon, Leaf and Phase had better watch themselves, ‘cuz this could get ugly! I have just about zero brand allegiance any more…show me a better mousetrap and I’m all over it!
But back to the original topic…so what if Vincent only spent two days with the camera? Everything I know about him tells me that with that kind of enthusiasm, he WILL find a way to make it change the way he does things. He’s already thinking of how it will improve & benefit his business. Why so many negative comments to the contrary, especially given that he’s actually used the thing and the rest of you haven’t?
BT
I think the danger in this, as Rob says, is the expectations of employers to have photographers now shoot video so that they can have both.
“Just pull the still from the video.”
But anyone who has done both knows, as Rob also points out, that by not focusing on one or the other you get mediocre results with both.
I think where this camera becomes interesting is in small, niche shoots where creative thinking shooters can exploit the potential of shooting with a variety of lenses available to them and produce short, aesthetically pleasing videos.
I don’t think it will shatter the paradigm for still photographers, but instead I think it opens up another door of opportunity for those who understand how to implement these features.
I do however feel sorry for those photographers who are asked to now shoot both video and stills.
Move along, nothing to see here . . . Really, convergence of video and stills has been happening for quite a while already. The unfortunate thing is that the ergonomics of the cameras needs to be different for stills and video, with video capture being the tougher approach. These stills cameras with video will really only function well when tripod mounted, because they will not be able to be held steady enough for much video usage.
I see one really great benefit of this feature combination, and that is for sports photographers. Now that lay-up or great football catch can be a short video clip, and soon to get onto the web as video content. Anything shot from enough distance will not require much in the way of quality sound, so the microphone becomes less of an issue.
I largely agree with what many already stated, that if you want to shoot video, then get a dedicated video set-up. The approach is very different. Great video is planned on story boards, and still moments happen in that, but the end result is way different than stills.
My take on all this is that it is yet another feature to sell cameras to amateurs, and it is a feature that will be seldom used other than when the camera is very new. It is something that will not go away, so I would expect more in the future. A more likely proper approach to this for professionals might be that future RED camera coming out next year.
It seems even RED are scared of the effect this camera will have. They’ve just announced that their Scarlet camera is now to be totally redesigned. Coincidence that this happens in the same week as everybody’s buzzing about the Canon? I couldn’t be happier that the new kids on the block that frightened the big boys are now questioning what they do.
I for one am glad that the community has an irrational mistrust of new technology. If everybody were to jump on this bandwagon then there would be no space. The notion that the 5D mkII will be used by every photographer to make video is missing the point entirely, but to those with a keen eye on the near future, the possibilities are astounding.
I can’t wait to pick up this conversation a year from now…
Ape on #18.
For a period I thought convergence and video would take over the world and now I’m not so sure, at least not in the traditional sense of telling a 90 minute or even a 30 second story.
I do think there is a place for this but in ways we don’t forsee.
We are moving away from the 30 second spot, the 10 minute infomercial and now it’s a 4 second world.
Can I prove this to you in one second, no . . . but I can in 4 and I think that is where we are going.
Actually, you’ve mentioned it many times. How long do you take to review a print portfolio per image, 1 second, 4 seconds, probably 4 seconds tops and to review a complete book probably under 5 minutes.
That’s just the way we all work view and learn, in a 4 second world.
The thing is, photography is expensive and not because of digital or technique, but just because life in general is expensive and marketing is much more sophisticated today than it was even 5 years ago.
Now a 6 figure print shoot is not even close to abusrd numbers, in fact low 6 figures is small for a lot of projects so when shooting for commerce when a client is paying those type of numbers, even a series of 4 second web spots can add real value.
That’s what these cameras allow with not a lot of learning curve or equipment investment.
JR
@33 Rory, where are you getting your jelly info? It seems diametrically opposed to what everyone else is saying
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5dmkiipre.shtml
“As for the Canon 5D MKII – I see no jello-ish artifacts. I’m not saying that they may not be there, but in the day of shooting that I did, taking quite a few shots to specially look for it, I didn’t see any.”
@34 – slight misunderstanding. You said, “step aside”. That’s what I meant: it’ll take a lot to convince me that pulling a frame from a video camera – no matter how high quality – will effectively replace still shooting. There is not doubt that there are plenty of clients that will forgo quality for budget but those quality minded clients will prefer to shoot video and then shoot stills. It makes perfect sense to shoo them on the same set if production values are similar, but it’s still apples and oranges in my opinion.
This isn’t about video replacing a still image. It’s about still cameras and video converging. And guess what, dedicated still cameras are going to go away in time.
Here’s the thing, 10 years ago, and even 5 years ago, photographers said digital would never replace film. Look where we are now, look how much has changed. Quality is way, way up, prices are way, way down.
Now, imagine 5, 10, or 20 years in the future. Knowing quality and technology are just getting better and prices are going to just get better.
As the sensors get bigger and bigger – look up RED’s epic – you are going to take the STILL image you need from the VIDEO shoot. The epic promises a 5K/frame capture in RAW (albeit proprietary). It won’t be too long until every frame is plenty big enough to just grab what you need to get that decisive moment. Right from the live action shoot. No more still campaigns. There isn’t a single commercial application that isn’t going to be effected by this evolution. Advertising, catalog, editorial. The RED Epic, 5DMII and d90 may not change it today but it’s offspring will.
And to be honest, it’s not that hard to imagine. Alot of big time photographers and not so big time photographers are more directors than shooters anyhow these days. The know NOTHING of digital or the digital cameras. They hire Digital Tech’s and Retouchers. Most can’t even set the aperture or shutter or the focusing mode themselves. Hell, how many “photographers” have you come across that were formally tired art directors? I know, I’ve got a digital tech company as well as shoot myself. And you know what? Their clients could care less if the photographer knows that stuff. As long as the process delivers…
The 5DmII is actually better than alot of prosumer video cameras already. It’s be mentioned before, but it’s sensor right now (digic 4) shoots video in low light better than almost any video cameras out there. It’s ability to control depth of field with the lenses and sensor size is HUGE. Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-of-field_adapter
Now I’m not saying the 5dMII is where it’s all at and the zenith of technology. But the first affordable digital cameras were still capturing in kilobytes just 10 years ago, remember.
To say that live action and video are not going to converge into one entity is short sighted to say the least. I’ve been mulling this convergence for well over a year and been blogging about it since the d90 was announced.
http://slamdigital.tumblr.com/
In fact, I bought a Canon HV30 a month or so I can start becoming fluent in video workflows and the technology surrounding it. Why? Because my clients (both my shooting and capture clients) are starting to hint at it more and it’s an additional revenue stream to boot.
So Rob, the still image is not dead. But it’s just not going to come from where you think it will.
There is no way I can read this entire thread, but I have to chime in.
Rob, you’re missing the point, judging by your current blog entry. Laforet is right, even if the potential role in our current marketplace for this new palette is in its nascent stages.
dSLRs with high ISO capability are capable of producing moving imagery more akin to film equipment than anything we’ve ever seen from the tiny sensor, $3 — 4k digicams, with their static rendering and endless depth of field, no matter the lens. The dSLRs will be able to wrench truly romantic imagery out of heretofore prohibitive situations.
Footage from this new breed will definitely find it’s way in to television commercials, but it also heralds the advent of a very sophisticated means of expression for those on a leaner budget, meaning … youth. Without too much effort, it is easy to imagine a movement of some kind that incorporates all the buzzing variables — social networking, blogging, fashion, reality — but with shockingly evolved “production” values.
I’m not the genius who’s gonna do it, but the kid that does emerge with the “new vocabulary” is gonna change what’s expected from the rest of us by our clients, and there won’t be no going back.
Is this Canon the greatest thing since sliced bread? I will wait and see until a month or so after the camera hits the streets and see what the first round of owners say. While Vincent and the other “masters of light” are great photographers, I take anything they say with a grain of salt about a new or pre-released product until it hits the streets. Where were their comments on the Canon Mark III when they shot pre-production models? Certainly the focusing problems were evident in these bodies before they ever hit the street; but these facts did not surface until the cameras were sold and used by non-endorsing photographers. So until the Canon is used for a month or two by a lot of photographers, the performance is hype until proven otherwise.
Are the new Canon and Nikon D90 bodies “game changers?” Well this depends on what game you are playing. If you are a newspaper shooter required to produce content for the paper’s website, then yes, this will help fulfill the demands now placed upon you.
If you are a sports photographer for a newspaper, magazine or photo agency, the odds are slim and none that any major sports organization or their broadcast partners allowing you to shoot video and posting the video on your employer’s website.
However if you are shooting a feature story, whether model train builders or an elite athlete training for an upcoming event, these cameras will have their place.
The ability to pull a singe frame out of a video is nothing new, it is just getting easier. The ability to shoot a single frame – a decisive moment – is far more difficult than shooting 24fps video. And while it is not easier, it is certainly not going away anytime soon.
Game Changer: 12-500mm f2.8 IS with high end glass & < 1.5 lbs.
Now that cosmologists have determined there was a Big Bounce & not a Big Bang, the above should be available ~1 year…?
@54-
No, pulling a frame from a video still isn’t new but it’s also not “just getting easier”, it’s getting better. That was the issue. And when that frame is eventually equivalent to a 20+mp RAW file, it will be better. And it will be pulled.
The notion of the decisive moment is romantic, but I’d wager that continuous shooting at 24fps over 5 minutes will garner more decisive moments than traditional shooting. You just weren’t getting them before.
Simple- You’ll get great video footage OR great stills. Not both.
Technology is not the issue here, it’s the thought processes required, the head space of the person using it.
3 points here:
1) I think the really significant story about this camera being released is that Canon is really biting the hand of their biggest brand evangelists (pro photgraphers) by canibalizing the 1DS’ position in the product line. I question the wisdom in effectively devaluing the 1DS M3 by $5,000 only 10 months after many, many pros spent a lot of money buying what they assumed would remain the top-of-the-line Canon. Canon could have still easily trumped Nikon in the megapixel wars with a 16MP sensor and retain the same product hierarchy. I think there will be a lot of pissed off photographers out there.
2) I disagree with Rob, but I also fail to see the groundbreaking significance of a camera with 30p HD video for many reasons. 24p is ideal for film transfer, but 30p isn’t terribly useful. DVDs are inherently SD and I have yet to see a single blu-ray reel, so it’s not a very remarkable tool for building a reel. HD is generally overkill for online use. Most online “HD” video is really SD (ie: 480 pixels high or smaller). I really don’t see how this is any more significant to most non photojournalists (who need to travel light) than the advent of relatively inexpensive dedicated HD cameras.
3) The reason editors and art buyers hire (and will continue to hire) is based primarily on the quality of the work. This camera won’t make you a better photographer. It’s only (yet another) tool for picturemaking which performs functions which are already performed by other tools (with more flexibility and higher quality).
@50: in many situations, shooting single frames at 1/500 or higher shutter speeds will garner more usable still images than shooting 5 minutes at 1/48 (the shutter speed most 24p footage is shot at).
Man, I’m on the super late train. But only one person (that I caught) brought up the point that sticks out to me the most. How the hell are you going to get your strobes to fire? Is everyone going to switch back to constant light sources? No effing way. Not a chance. I like being able to fire off frame after frame at 1/125th cranked down to f16+ if I need to. . . especially for doing comp work. Video isn’t going to do a thing. The only thing it’s going to do is change the video market. Stills ain’t goin’ no where, Smalls.
Chirp.
One thing I can see using the video on the 5D MKll, is location scouting, maybe for some casting sessions along with stills, wardrobe too and maybe just as a way to sketch ideas or get sound recorded info with visuals about a location or subject when doing research. Instead of writing notes about the location, actor/model or ideas I may get when scouting/researching.
Not that I need HD video for this but at least it’s on 1 camera, less stuff to carry.
I’m looking forward to working with one when they hit the streets… They keep getting better!
Bruce Hershey
@40
“Somehow I find the idea of turning the internet into a TV station not that revolutionary.”
Yeah … you don’t.
But there are countless newspaper execs who think differently.
So photographers working at newspapers are now being forced to become videographers.
I use the current 5D. What is good about the new version is it is probably all you will ever want or need in a digital camera. Actually the 5D is pretty much all you need. . . but the MK II with a 20+ megapixel sensor and anti-dust and even less noise at a high iso will be the ultimate. As long as you can make 3×5 foot prints to hang on a gallery wall you are set(!) I don’t know if I will use the video. . . I am interested in still pictures not moving ones. . . somehow I am not excited by this whole shift in the newspaper industry to have staff photographers shooting video. . . I don’t quite understand how just because thee is a video option you are instantly converted to videographer?! I would like to see Vincent’s piece though.
Oh, and I must add that I probably won’t buy the MK II. I am waiting for a full sensor Leica M.
How about $40,000 for the new Leica S2 ?
Just crazy.
@50 Paul Williams
Well, I’ve been following the release of the 5D MII though the “lens” of the RED forums and from reading reviews and specs, just like everyone else, except for Vincent :)
The difference is I am coming to different conclusions as to what all this data means.
Let my first state that I think a PRO camera that can shoot video is a VERY good thing and a game changer, in a good way. I am also going to be buying a 5D MII for stills use at least, once I confirm the Dynamic Range is equal too, or better then the original 5D.
All I am saying is that I don’t think this, or the D90 is the “Video + Stills” camera we are waiting for. The sensors used by Canon and Nikon have a very slow reset/refresh time, this is what causes the wobble. Even if the 5D MII has little or no wobble, it is still locked to 30 fps, which means it is useless for motion picture/Pro TV/ or high-end work.
Also, as much as I respect Vincent as a stills shooter, by his own admission he has shot almost ZERO video in his life. With out a knowledge of the work flow used it is very hard to judge how useful a 5D shooting video is. Since Vince has little Video work flow experience, it would be like asking a cinematographer to review Aperture or Lightroom, having never used a digital stills camera before.
Also, Vince is an amazing shooter. Problems don’t phase this guy, if there are issues with the video that make it nonviable for real-world use, he might not even notice.
Plus the man is under a strict NDA with Canon USA.
On the other hand, I REALLY REALLY hope I am wrong, I can’t wait to shoot stills and clips on the same body, with the same lenses.
This whole discussion is starting to amuse me. I originally studied film and worked in TV for many years before transitioning to photography. Once I get my 5D Mk II I’ll gladly use the video function to shoot some behind-the-scenes for my blog. End of story. For these reasons:
– Shooting motion is an entirely different type of operating. (smooth panning, tilting, zooming… ever heard of a focus puller anyone?… thought so!)
– Having said the above, a DSLR-body (and to some extent lenses) are of the least practical design to perform these tasks.
– Lighting with strobes for a single instant and frame is completely different from lighting for motion, where the light is continuous, the camera moves and you’re still not supposed to see the light stands
– 5D Mk II shoots HD at 30 frames/sec. Try bringing that home in Europe where HD runs at 25 or 50 fps. Happy transcoding, dear friends!
– TV on the web (IPTV) is going the you tube way. Amateur users with amateur equipment produce amateur content (at least in terms of production value). And they do it for free. This is not the game professionals want to be in. Be it with a 5D Mk II or some other tool.
These just to name a few concerns. It’s a nice and fun feature. But if you know your stuff and clients hire you to shoot motion, you’ll bring the proper tools. If I was the client and I was told that my motion project was going to be shot on a DSLR I’d hang up the phone, because I’d realize that the guy on the other end doesn’t know what he’s talking about…
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSANDS FRAMES :-)
If it can be done (in a technical way) our beloved industry does produce it and never cares if we really will need it.
Neither the new Canon 5Dxyz (or whatever cryptic digits they put at the end) nor the Nikon D90 are professional cams. Pro-cams are usually kept very puristic (e.g. still lack of a flash, etc) – guess why? And personally I hope these video-gimmicks will never make it into a pro-cam. But I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Looking back in history usually the ‘newer’ and more ‘sophisticated’ mostly did replace the ‘older’. Horses and coaches have been replaced by motorbikes and automobiles (just for example) simply because the latter did offer more advantages and usability (maybe one day we will be back on horses again *smile). There could be numerous other examples called up.
BUT, there was one exception.
One day photography was born and later the still images learned to move. Well, the latter could be seen as ‘better’, more sophisticated, fancier … Actually, the movie invention should have killed photography – but it didn’t happen.
I know, the discussion isn’t about video vs. stills in general. The discussion is about if it makes sense to put video features into a DSLR.
Well, why didn’t ‘motion picture’ kill photography ? …. Both seem to be similar but they are different – quite different. That’s it.
Btw, there are still good old-fashioned painters out there (for the art stuff) and illustrators (for the ‘other stuff’ *smile) …
“A picture is worth a thousands words” : a photograph is able to transfer a message (let’s assume there is a message in the picture *smile) within a matter of a second. Video can’t do that.
You can’t use video in a printed magazine. Maybe one day a company will run an ad with big bold letters ‘Watch our video attached on the magazine’s back’ (that could even work at the first time, does any company have tried this already ? *smile) …
What are images used for ? … To catches attention, make the viewer to stop by and (hopefully) to read the text (to get the message).
For sure the web is a good platform for videos. But how would you get the attention and the message transfered ? How do you make a user to start the video and to invest his time to watch the video-gig ?
And maybe the most important point :
Mr. James Russel has stated it in his post already. A day consists of 24 ‘frames’ (usually *smile). Especially in the virtual world everyone expects to get informations within seconds.
WHO would ever look at all the videos ???
WHO would ever invest minutes (or some seconds) to watch all the videos ?
People do not even invest time to enlarge thumbnailed images.
Just observe yourself when watching a web-video. How often do you move the slider forward to ‘speed up’ the whole thingo ?
What are you actually doing when moving the slider ? – You are cutting down the movie into single (still) frames (again).
………….
Since the digital aera was introduced to photography the manufacturers did overhelm us with a lot of useless stuff and features. Not to mention the stupid megapixel race.
Actually the very first digital DSLR introduced to the market back in 2002 – the Contax N Digital – would have done it . 6 MP, full frame, AF … packed into a full-pro body. Some refinements over the years – and Voila. We all could be very happy and doing pictures instead of reading new manuals. (let’s assume there are people who do read manuals *smile)
A friend of mine is Austria’s largest cell phone dealer. He operates 155 outlets. (that’s a huge number for small Austria *smile). Guess what most customers are asking for when stepping into one of his stores ? Please, please sell me a cell phone that can do only ONE thing – doing phone calls, and phone calls ONLY. Large, readable digits … large buttons … no functions buried in endless menus …
Of course, such a cell phone isn’t available (anymore). He always states ‘Maybe one day a manufacturer will listen to the market and produce one .. it will for sure be my best-seller’
Fortunatelly the cam market offers such a ‘jewel’. It’s called Leica M. And most ‘masterpieces’ are done with such a cam, still not outplayed.
Why ? Because a Leica M is puristic. Few buttons to operate . That fact enables the photographer to concentrate on the sujet. And on the sujet only.
Fondling with 100’s of buttons and menu functions ??? … The lioness has eaten the antelope already and the model has slept away …
Ok, a bit too much cam-philosophy now :-)
( Btw, I’m not related to Leica and in my opinion this cam is excessive overpriced … )
Don’t get me wrong. The industry shall feel free to produce, and fortunately everyone can decide what to buy. (ok, it’s a matter of money as well …)
But maybe you like to think twice before you produce endless videos. Ask yourself if anyone will ever watch it.
And the time you leave your cam-store with the ‘brand-new’ bride it’s matured stuff already. The next innovation is just around the corner. Not to mention the lost value (moneywise)
sorry for mispellings and bumpy english .. . I’m not a native speaker :-)
Best, Reini
[…] or wonderful, well rounded in-depth pieces..? Here is a good level headed response from (again) A Photo Editor Rob Haggart. Comment #68 also weighs in with a good few […]
For the vast majority of photographers shooting hi def video is going to be more of a novelty than anything. Yes I am looking forward to the new camera but I am going to buy the it for the HUGE sensor and superior rendering -anyone want a slightly used EOS1ds markIII?
Certainly some photojournalists will use the camera in Dirk Halstead “platypus” mode. But does it even do sound?
No doubt I will make a little movie -or more likely try to make a movie- and in the end return to the power of still images.
Is there some rule against 1600 word posts?
I just tried twice, and both times “disappeared”…
Right, I’ve tried posting in parts, but even that is thrown away?
What are the rules for throwing-away versus displaying postings?
Attempt #6, Part #1:
( fifth attempt at posting, please delete the previous attempts, if they appear later
.. this attempt is split into several parts, because there seems to be a Big Posts Are Thrown Away rule in the blog’s web-code, hm, maybe it’s because I’m direct-linking to things that undo the “problems” this discussion has claimed? )
Someone wanted Shotgun + Lav plugged in, so the audio wouldn’t suck:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/335809-REG/Beachtek_DXA2S_DXA_2S_Dual_XLR.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264990-REG/Sign_Video_XLRPRO_XLRPRO_Universal_Audio_Adapter.html
Attempt #10, Part #3 ( skipped part about sensor formats: it won’t post )
Cheap Shoulder/Body Mount Rig:
Monopod Belt Pouch
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554102-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_080_080_Monopod_Belt_Pouch.html
belt + suspenders ( or beergut :)
Monopod
Mini Ballhead with resistance adjustable
“Bino/Cam” harness to steady the camera to your shoulders
( non-elastic version )
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/170290-REG/Op_Tech_USA_5301412_Bino_Cam_Harness_Binocular_or.html
( elastic version )
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197145-REG/Op_Tech_USA_5301422_Bino_Cam_Harness_Binocular_or.html
== something that gives you some of the benefits of a “steadicam”, but at around $100.
The monopod + belt-cup holds the weight, and the harness holds it to your shoulders, at a distance that lets you “sing” the controls of the thing to make it know the capturing you want known.
As for the “oh, it’s worthless, you’d have to use a tripod to equal the tripod shots of video-cameras”, uh, yeah?
How does that count against it?
You have to use a tripod to get tripod-still shots, right?
Whether it’s this camera or another?
-shaking head- I don’t understand how that argument works…
The reason the RED chip doesn’t wobble at 120fps is because the movement you do in 1/120sec isn’t visible!
( OK, there’s another part of it: CMOS chips don’t come down all the way to 0 so quickly/easily, and if they *aren’t* branged down to 0, then you’re seeing what happened before-this-frame, in-this-frame. *They*, who have Things To Do With Sensors, worked on that problem, and apparently got some results :)
Many are saying 30fps is unusable?
Digital Cinema is 24p for 2k & 4k, 48k for 2k, BUT because many of the items of content that need to be monetized are 30p, 50p, 60p, damn near any other format, too
( RED Epic = 5k, RED ONE = 4k, Dalsa = 4k, 2k, many others HD, some 120+ with alternating polarization for 3D, … ), many projectors can do those too.
The Nikon has BAAD wobble, from what I’ve read.
According to Luminous Landscape’s pre-production review the Canon hasn’t any.
ah, someone above gave that link.
Attempt #10, Part #4
Cluetrain Manifesto!
Markets are CONVERSATIONS, not broadcast-assert/population-receive.
While “institutional-mentality” WANTS to turn the internet into TV, the reverse is what’s happening
( which is why the rights-cartels are pushing law+gov’t to become their enforcers, to eradicate “fair use” from the law, and to criminalize all nonlicensed content use from *decades* past what the original law dictated –
– fck the community, fck culture! property is law!, and god-given worth must be controlled by it!
.. morons ..
The original law was 14 years.
Someone has published that 14 years is *mathematically* the most effective balance, providing income to the creator ( not to some cartel that took their stuff, like the blues artists we geezers remember — $50 for all rights? real “fair” contract to push on someone you won’t allow to be equal to a white, uh, huhnh ):
There IS some mathematical balance between rolling growing
( producing new content, gaining from it, it becoming “family” property of our race, us producing new content ),
and world being immobilized corporate controlled property
( you produce something, but you don’t own it because you’re an “employee”, so ALL you produce is owned by the corporation that ditches you shortly, you have no right to use YOUR work for the rest of your life, and if you do you’re thrown in jail for it ).
Bizarre, stupid paradigm.
One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that the committee-gangs that rule our laws are *threatened*/*offended* by individual human rights, but push, relentlessly, corporate rights.
I Wonder Why(tm)?
Because they can’t produce any worth themselves?
When the “artificial persons” that “corporations” are are harnessed, so that god given life is recognized to be more valid than them, THEN I’ll consider law to be getting correct, but when bogopersons make the world’s law extract all resources/worth from world/humanity for the bogoperson’s benefit, I don’t see the “validity” there…
“just pull the still from the video” == mediocre
wrong question!
if you are looking at grubbing as much money from as little as possible, then fine, that’s your equation.
IF, however, you’re looking at Doing It Right, then how does the committee-mind quality limit you?
Do the video right, do the still right, with your means, in your hands.
Where’s the problem?
Some have said the Canon puts out interlaced video, but that can’t be, because you CAN’T pull stills from an interlaced stream, yet the reviewer did.
( I could be rong on this: it was pre-production, and I don’t know the details involved, or if they changed themselves since )
Attempt #10, Part #5
“anything shot from a distance won’t require quality sound” try a good shotgun, dude… Sennheiser makes ’em ( although I hear Audio-Technica’s shotguns are also quite good, and less than $1k )
Who is saying *everyone* who has this *must* shoot video?
How many of you have cell-cameras that you don’t use?
or cell-video, for that matter?!??
Or cars that can pull trailers?
This is CAPABILITY, not enforcement-of-use.
Sony is @ 24Mpx, right?
Nikon’s got really good low-light, right?
Yes Canon’s pissing off a LOT of 1Ds photogs, but, they had to:
Canon intends that the Jan/Febbish refresh of the 1Ds scare SoNikon sockless.
Film Transfers are GONE, people.
Digital Cinema?
Anyone?
4k? 2k? heard of it?
24p is a *tradition*, a “look”, not a benefit, requirement, or even *worth much*
( some people aren’t getting continuous motion with 24p: I’ve seen the separate frames and the jump-motion between ’em, sometimes in cinema. It completely destroys your flow. )
lights: These things should equal about 2k of halogen:
http://www.adorama.com/AZV2000WCHR.html
$700 or so, GE makes bulbs you can replace the Daylight balance bulbs with, if you want 4100 kelvins.
Speedring on it, takes 3x 150w HID bulbs, has a switch for each.
( PS, you could use ’em as a torchiere, lighting up your ceiling, saving DRASTICALLY on electricity, for you home/office — I’ve seen some places that do that with HID. The GE bulbs are rated 20 000 h )
You want something for Run-n-gun?
Get 11 NiMH AAs, and string ’em, and wire ’em to this:
http://www.niterider.com/prod_slickrock.shtml
and put some diffusion material around its face.
cheap bright-as-hell ( for battery ) light.
IMAGE QUALITY.
it costs about 50k for a Panasonic 60p camera, *without* lens ( Canon glass costs about $13k ).
This 5D Mk II does some things better
( small dof, low light ),
does some things as well ( good glass ),
and some things more worser ( sound; Transcoding to 24/25/50 only matters for TVs that can’t do all HDTV formats, it’s irrelevant for computermachines & cinema. )
Most “takes” aren’t that long, so the 13min limit isn’t much of a problem, for many many situations.
Magazines can’t do video…
1. who says ground-up trees are viable, nowadays?
2. e-ink: you obviously don’t get out much…
( some magazine did a battery-powered cover, just recently –
– expect all your magazines to be through the 3rd-gen “kindle”, or some equiv, soon )
you don’t need to “read the text” to “get the message”, if you did, then textless TV ads wouldn’t have worked, would they?
Archaism is a religion/culture, not anything else.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s Leica M, or Film archaism,
or whether it’s woodworker’s Imperial Measurement System BS,
it’s the same thing:
the comfort of Glorious Worn&Worshipped Habit.
I remember reading a review, 1Ds Mk II, iirc,
comparing against, iirc, 4×6 & med format.
Not against 35mm film…
It was scored against small large-format, as Getting There…
as for
“Oh, Yes, *technically* digital is much superior,
but with our Golden Eye,
we see the Magical Quality(tm)
that you cannot see…”
MegaBS.
Audio’s “Absolute Sound” is full of that, too.
I loved reading John Carver’s debunktuation of such gunk:
he put 2 identical amps in different cases, one minimalist, one with more cluttered front panel ( graphics only, iirc ), and had some Golden Ears compare the sound.
“Oh, Significant Difference…” after they all agreed & worked themselves into a corner, he unscrewed the fasteners & uncovered ’em…
showing the identical circuits…
it got real quiet, then…
If someone finds “film-grain” comforting, then fine, they can have it, and be comfortable.
Some find vinyl comforting.
Some, however, find clarity to be keen, dynamic range to be dynamite, & accuracy to be excellent.
Few distractions?
This point is interesting…
Apple, Leica, Bridge City Tool Works, and a few others do that paradigm.
IF one can move the distractions out of one’s mental way, however, then the alternatives give greater flexibility & capability.
Some prefer the 1-button mouse, the damn Menu Lifestyle, etc…
I prefer a very customized version of Linux, where everything I frequently need is 1 click away, either on a different desktop, in a different tab, or in one of my favorite apps, or is in the command-line.
So long as I *use the points-of-leverage that matter*,
then the purism is mine ( in result ).
If I use the points-of-leverage that *don’t* matter, or ignore the ones that do, results’re blown.
It’s got nothing to do with *minimalist-means* creating worth,
it’s got to do with not being distracted.
It’s why I use a text-editor for my writing: the words-stream matters, the formatting isn’t what I need to be working-with.
Turning simplism into a cult, however, seems pointless.
Cheers,
Captain Fairly-Obvious
:)
Attempt #12, Part #2
( it isn’t the links: this portion won’t post with only 1 single link.
It isn’t the quotes, I don’t think, capitalization, is there an arithmetic filter? I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t working. )
1/3 inch and 1/2 inch sensor *isn’t* what you think it is!
The “size”, is the *diameter of the Vidicon tube* that contained the sensor!
Therefore 1/2″ = 6.4mm * 4.8mm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_format
( it’s one of those
“why couldn’t they have used standard measures in standard ways?”
things: you know, like “80x” flash-memory, instead of MB/s )
I wish I knew what the dear Captain was saying. I am having a hard time following this thread.
Today, I’m shooting at Multnomah Falls in the Columbia Gorge, Oregon, and I’ve got my 1Ds and 70-200 on a tripod pointed toward the falls. Along comes a woman who asks me, are you shooting stills or video? Any other day I would have said back, “isn’t it obvious?”. Not so anymore, my friend. Wasn’t too long ago we heard the question “is it film or digital?”. How long before we stop hearing “is it still or video?”
One of my friends is a photojournalist for a local newspaper and he now does it all, write, shoot (film and vid, but he carries a small digicam), edit, produce…that’s the trend as I can see it. For those “reporters” out there, carrying one beast makes more sense than two, I would imagine.
In addition to my post # 68…
Oliver Peoples (Eyewear) did celebrate it’s 20th anniversary with a cinema advertising campaign. A 30 seconds spot called ‘Mind Games’, featuring legendary film producer Robert Evans and Kate Nauta….
At http://www.oliverpeoples.com/index2.html you can compare both, the stills (slideshow) and the movie itself.
Make your own conclusions, please.
At a website … which one does transfer the message more successful (and faster) ?
How many people will start the movie spot ?
And WHY did Oliver Peoples add still frames in addition and not show the movie only ?
Btw, it’s worth looking at both … enjoy. (loudspeakers on )
Best, Reini
Lets just put all of the tech talk to the side for a moment and give a nod to Vincent and his ability to take advantage of an opportunity and create a viral sensation. Hats off to you Vincent! I don’t think this camera is going to change the world, but you did a stellar job convincing us otherwise, gaining 200k+ new fans and backing for your next video project. Lets all learn from Vincent and stop debating the merits of a new camera and get out there and find new ways to make some $.
@ Captain Obvious: If you put 5 or more links into a comment it is held for moderation. Additionally Akismet spam protection seems to be thinking your comments are spam and holding them for moderation.
I haven’t read this slew of comments but Rob I have to disagree with comments about this not being an issue we photographer need to worry about.
I just breezed over the Luminous Landscape article and that’s the EXACT same mantra I’ve been saying for the last year and I’ve been warning on ePaper for 5 years now.
Print aside, the one thing that I see as a negative to the new still/video cameras is that it continues the tradition of technology making photography “easier.” When the RED cameras first came out I knew it wouldn’t be long until prosumer version did. And what I see is in this “anyone can be a photographer” era that digital has ushured in, is these cameras making it worse.
Sure it take real skill to take a quality photo, BUT just like digital allows you to snap hundreds of photos until you get lucky, so will it be easy to get “the right moment” by shooting 10 seconds of video and pulling the hi-res still that best captured it.
It looks like evolution is upon us once again.
Also, as a photographer who makes a considerable amount of his income off of CD packaging shoots, I’m really sad to see the nations largest retailer of CD’s (WalMart) announce they are phasing out selling physical CD’s.
Yay us who make our living off of print (sarcasism.)
A friend of mine shot a tv commercial with a Nikon F3 20 years ago. So much for Laforet’s and Canon’s hype.
There is an unwritten law that says everytime a new media with exciting possibilities is invented, somehow a bunch of conservative bussiness people will make it lose those and behave like old media.
I am developing a pet hate against video on the net. I think internet offers a comunication channel particularly well suited for multimedia efforts and find extremely frustrating that newspapers ignore them -save for a few honorable exceptions- and transform it in some sort of third rate tv station with the same footage and programming you can watch on tv only smaller and shorter.
It’s impossible to do video and stills at the same time unless you don’t care about the outcome. Still, if I can find a way to shoot 25 fps video controlling the focus, with good lenses and a large sensor with a device that costs under US$ 3,000, I’l be very hapy.
Finally, a voice of reason.
I always found it laughable when one tries to do the other and claim they can do it equally well.
Each has it’s own nuances and I respect each sides skills set. It’s to the point of idiocy to assume as a still photographer, I can shoot video just as well as someone who has been doing video for as long as I’ve been doing still.
Granted, it’s fun to play around and experiment, but I don’t think one or the other will be taking each over’s job anytime soon.
I’ve heard videographers say that they will put still photographers out of business, hasn’t happend yet. And that was at least 10 years ago when I heard that stupid statement.
[…] a similar note, Rob Haggart at A Photo Editor has a few things to say about motion capture from a still photographer. It’s an interesting perspective at a time […]
i firmly believe that photo editors with content hungry online platforms at their publications will jump at the chance to have shooters deliver video content for the same day rate, as well as stills. how this will work practically for photographers in the field is difficult to say but a day spent at any newspaper photo desk will tell you that as soon as an editor feels the spot they have is adequately filled it’s job done. whether that is a video grab or a still is irrelevant.
What is interesting to me is lenses and chip size
I have nikkor lenses from 10.5 to 400 including legends like the 50 1.2 – to replicate that in video would I beleive cost an arm and a leg
The D90 opens up those to me in a video use
I would buy the camera even if it didnt take stills – I have a D3 for that
S
I have a very hard time believing a 5D shooting HD video “has the potential to change our industry”, especially if it’s coming from someone sponsored by the company releasing the “game changing” camera. No matter how good of a hybrid still+video camera is invented, comparing professionals who shoot stills and motion is like comparing apples and oranges. I think the biggest demographic effected by this release are the hobbyist photographers, newspaper staffers, and professionals who like the 5d as a travel body that they can now shoot HD video to document their vacations. Maybe I’m hanging out with the wrong crowd but about 99% of the legit professional photographers I know aren’t too fired up to shoot video, and I am included in that lot. I guess we will be seeing a lot of videos posted in the coming months by other photographers who want to get traffic to their site, and now have the right to call themselves DOP’s but won’t be able to get consent from Moby for his music.
Is this the death of the “decisive moment”?
No.
“The medium is the message”; multimedia and video communicate differently than static images simply because of the medium used. Not all stories can be told the same way.
We were really excited about the project and what Vincent had actually accomplished. Impressed so much so that we were able to coordinate a podcast interview with Vincent and also get a Q&A session to boot.
Very interesting!!
http://videopia.org/content/view/257/229/
We really enjoyed the whole process, was fun hope you enjoy!
Thing is…. I love film and photography. With the 5D MKII I can film and do photo’s without having to buy all those lenses. I can use the same lenses for both applications.
So a nice addition? For the smaller freelancers: yes 100% sure.
[…] a lot of people are focusing on the video capabilities. Rob Haggart gave it the big “so what?” Read through the comments, it’s worth it to gauge the community’s division about this […]
[…] from sill. Browsing round in the web about video and the still discussion I found a post from APhotoEditor he believes that top shots with a good headline are more successful as videos. On top it takes much […]
[…] from sill image? Browsing in the web about video and the still discussion I found a post from APhotoEditor he believes that top shots with a good headline are more successful as videos. On top it takes much […]
Very nice……..
This is a function of quick release camera….
picture quality is execilent
nice work
Very good idea! Congratulation!
i’m using dv camera.
Comments are closed for this article!