Canon 5D Mk II HD Video looks pretty good

yep, and nice to see something that isn't Vincent Laforet! Now I just gotta find a couple of Grand behind the sofa...
 
Yeah someone already posted that I think.

The video from the MKII looks insane.

Just such a shame about the poor AF and low FPS.
 
8utters said:
such a shame about the poor AF and low FPS.
Click to expand...

Care to demonstrate what you mean with your 5D Mk II ?

Or is it another case of someone who can't afford one reading any old rammel off the Internets and presenting said rammel as fact ? My 5D Mk 1 'only' does 4fps but the reality is that I don't rely on machine gunning it to get a shot. It's not that sort of camera and I'm not that sort of photographer. That said, it's paid for its self several times over in the 2 years I've had it and I expect the Mk II will have paid for its self within a month or so after purchase. /goes back to the real world of hands on photography.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Care to demonstrate what you mean with your 5D Mk II ?

Or is it another case of someone who can't afford one reading any old rammel off the Internets and presenting said rammel as fact ? My 5D Mk 1 'only' does 4fps but the reality is that I don't rely on machine gunning it to get a shot. It's not that sort of camera and I'm not that sort of photographer. That said, it's paid for its self several times over in the 2 years I've had it and I expect the Mk II will have paid for its self within a month or so after purchase. /goes back to the real world of hands on photography.
Click to expand...

For the field of photography that i'm going into, 4ps isn't enough.

For a £2,000+ camera, the FPS should be higher and the AF should be better.

If Nikon can release a D700 that will do up to 8fps and 51 AF points in a similar price range, then why can't Canon? It's not too much to ask for...

I'm not taking any arguments from the internet, I was hoping for at least 6 frames per second and 25 AF points. Had it had those, I would have pre-ordered one.

And I don't rely on 'machine gunning' to get the shot either. For some types of photography it's essential to have a faster FPS.

That being said, I am still pondering the idea of an MKII due to it's sensor which looks incredible.
 
That being said, I am still pondering the idea of an MKII due to it's sensor which looks incredible.

Agreed, some RAW files are surfacing and the IQ is WAY better than you'd expect from 21 megapixels.
 
8utters said:
For the field of photography that i'm going into, 4ps isn't enough
Click to expand...

Buy a camera which has a faster frame rate seems to be the obvious answer.

Getting Canon to redesign the MkII so that you don't end up buying the 'wrong' camera is a long shot but I admire your optimism.

8utters said:
If Nikon can release a D700 that will do up to 8fps and 51 AF points in a similar price range ...

For some types of photography it's essential to have a faster FPS.
Click to expand...

What you seem to be getting at is that to knock a nail in you need a hammer and to use a screw you need a screwdriver.

This is known in the trade as "right tool for the job".

8utters said:
That being said, I am still pondering the idea of an MKII due to it's sensor which looks incredible.
Click to expand...

I'll leave you pondering that idea whilst looking at the sensor.

If you want to get on in this game you'll find that looking through the viewfinder will serve you better ;)
 
Your missing the point.

Canon should be bringing out a 5D that CAN do everything. The 'if you want to do this, then you need that body' argument is completely stupid in my opinion. If you shell out over 2 grand for a camera, it should be able to have a full frame sensor and be able to shoot at higher FPS with a descent amount of AF points.

Why do you think Nikon merged the D2Hs and D2Hx? Because they made it possible for you do not need to have two different bodies for different types of photography, you could do it ALL with one.

Canon should be taking a leaf out of Nikon's book, the 1D and 1Ds should be merged to make a full frame, high FPS weather-sealed D3-beater. I hope they do, because i'd go out and buy one.

Your kit should not limit you to what photos you can take, particularly when it costs over £2,000. Full frame begs to be used for sport (especially indoor sports) and currently there's no Canon full frame body which will allow you do so.
 
8utters said:
Your missing the point.

Canon should be bringing out a 5D that CAN do everything. The 'if you want to do this, then you need that body' argument is completely stupid in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, clearly. Lack of understanding of the market is probably one of the reasons why you are not head of R&D at Canon. Or Nikon.

Whatever your opinion may be, if you want an 8fps camera body you have to buy one. Wishing one that isn't 8fps IS 8fps is pointless. Canon are serving an existing market with the MkII. A market they created with the introduction of the first affordable full frame sensor body. Those of us who didn't ponder the idea - we got it immediately and bought into it years ago - know that the Mk II will have as much of an impact on the market as the Mk I did and continues to do.

Until you have a Mk II in your hands and have 'pondered' the reality of how good a single 1920 X 1080 frame of 30 frames per second HD video may look as a still image, you're not in a position to decide if the MkII will suit your needs. The fact that you haven't considered that 30fps HD video might capture a shot that a 'lowly' ~8fps shutter would miss is a good analogy of how out of sync you are with the creative possibilities of the Mk II.

Reserve your opinion until the Mk II is out and in the hands of creatives :)
 
I don't understand why anyone would want a DSLR to shoot video....really don't get it :thinking: :shake:
 
I now have something to work hard towards. This looks like a fantastic piece of kit.
 
HuntingMartians said:
I don't understand why anyone would want a DSLR to shoot video....really don't get it :thinking: :shake:
Click to expand...

Indie film makers who don't want to shell out 5 or 6 times the price for a proper HD camera that'll do 35mm depth of field etc
 
Exactly, and it's another tool in the toolkit basically. No one is going to force people to use it. Digital cameras have had a video feature for years now, it was only a matter of time before DSLRs had the same functionality.
 
i find it strange how the AF is still the same, the sync speed is 1/200 , no gapless micro, and a few other features from other cheaper models. Focus and recompose using the centre focus point for lowlight lens doesnt work, yet thats the only reliable one to use.

as for the video i think its a great addition, but people have been using 35mm adapters such as letus for the cheap hd camcorders
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
The fact that you haven't considered that 30fps HD video might capture a shot that a 'lowly' ~8fps shutter would miss
Click to expand...

Don’t really want to get involved here but ill throw 2 pennies in and say you have contradicted yourself by saying that you don’t use a machine gun technique to get a photo and then the above comment.

I think its more each persons opinion, i was waiting for the mkII because it was the next upgrade from my 40D but as soon as it said HD video i binned that idea and decided to go for the 1D, why do i want a DSLR to do HD video. i take still photos if i wanted a HD video i would get a camcorder.

and now i will :runaway:
:exit:
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Whatever your opinion may be, if you want an 8fps camera body you have to buy one. Wishing one that isn't 8fps IS 8fps is pointless.
Click to expand...
Yes and i'm saying Canon should have upped the framerate and AF for the MKII. We are just going around in circles here... I shouldn't have to buy two different thousand-pound bodies to two types of photography. Technology has come to the stage where we CAN have both in a DSLR, and Nikon have proved that with the D700 and D3.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Canon are serving an existing market with the MkII. A market they created with the introduction of the first affordable full frame sensor body. Those of us who didn't ponder the idea - we got it immediately and bought into it years ago - know that the Mk II will have as much of an impact on the market as the Mk I did and continues to do.
Click to expand...
Yes they did, but just because they created a marked doesn't mean they can't improve on existing technology. It would attract more buyers.

Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Until you have a Mk II in your hands and have 'pondered' the reality of how good a single 1920 X 1080 frame of 30 frames per second HD video may look as a still image, you're not in a position to decide if the MkII will suit your needs. The fact that you haven't considered that 30fps HD video might capture a shot that a 'lowly' ~8fps shutter would miss is a good analogy of how out of sync you are with the creative possibilities of the Mk II.

Reserve your opinion until the Mk II is out and in the hands of creatives :)
Click to expand...
I don't have to hold a camera to know weather it would suit my needs. You don't get into a small 2 door family car and test it if you know you need a 4x4.

That being said, i'm sure i'd love it and would have a use for the HD video, but the fact remains, the AF isn't good enough for me to want to buy one and the FPS isn't high enough. I'm so dissapointed, i've been waiting for the MKII for ages and have been holding off buying a 2nd body which I desperately need.
 
blinkerz said:
i find it strange how the AF is still the same, the sync speed is 1/200 , no gapless micro, and a few other features from other cheaper models. Focus and recompose using the centre focus point for lowlight lens doesnt work, yet thats the only reliable one to use.

as for the video i think its a great addition, but people have been using 35mm adapters such as letus for the cheap hd camcorders
Click to expand...

Why can't you focus with the centre AF point and recompose? I do this all the time with my 40D and would be lost without this facility. :'(
 
I'd love to be able to use my quality lenses to record HD video. I probably woouldn't use it much, but a few clips of the kids growing up would be lovely. The cost of the equipment to do that would be thousands and beyond my budget but to have it thrown in for free? yes please.
 
jezza8 said:
Ah OK so are we saying that the limitation is just down to the high resolution across the full frame sensor, rather than a design limitation in the camera itself?
Click to expand...

No It has nothing to do with the sensor or the camera. It is a fundimental concept in focusing. When focusing on a subject with a certain focus point, and then recomposing, it is not always possible to keep the subject you have focused on in the same plane of focus. This is the whole reason why there is more then one focus point. This applies to all cameras, even compacts (when you use a long focal length).
 
FranchiseJuan said:
No It has nothing to do with the sensor or the camera. It is a fundimental concept in focusing. When focusing on a subject with a certain focus point, and then recomposing, it is not always possible to keep the subject you have focused on in the same plane of focus. This is the whole reason why there is more then one focus point. This applies to all cameras, even compacts (when you use a long focal length).
Click to expand...

^ Yup it's true. Had the same problem myself. The 9 points on my 40D should be adequate, but clearly isn't when I'm behind the camera :bonk:
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
The fact that you haven't considered that 30fps HD video might capture a shot that a 'lowly' ~8fps shutter would miss is a good analogy of how out of sync you are with the creative possibilities of the Mk II.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see how you bracket during a video at 30fps. Far easier to do handheld auto exposure bracketing at 8fps than at 3fps. Less chance of camera shake between frames. Not really possible to use 30fps video for that since each frame is going to be using similar settings, and each frame is going to be exported as a JPG rather than a RAW file. So theres no real chance of getting detail back from RAW either. FPS matters to some people and the fact that you haven't mentioned AEB shows how out of sync you are with the creative possibilities of modern photography :p

I have one pre-ordered but I agree with 8utters. Less MP, faster fps and better focusing and then I think everyone would be happy. D700 does it.
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Buy a camera which has a faster frame rate seems to be the obvious answer.

What you seem to be getting at is that to knock a nail in you need a hammer and to use a screw you need a screwdriver.

This is known in the trade as "right tool for the job".

I'll leave you pondering that idea whilst looking at the sensor.

If you want to get on in this game you'll find that looking through the viewfinder will serve you better ;)
Click to expand...

Tyrone your answers are pretty patronizing in my opinion, also if you fancy seeing 8utters 'getting on in the game' as you put it, have a look on the 6 o/c bbc news. Think a bit of his game will be appearing if i'm not mistaken?

In my opinion the 5D II isn't quite there but its good to keep the camera companies on their toes. I think the MKIII and the D4 will get the whole HD video thing down without compromising other areas.
 
8utters said:
They didn't credit me though, I specifically said they could use the photos if they credited me. Now they will get a nice invoice from me :)
Click to expand...

I did the same thing the other week. I stupidly, in a moment of kindness, said someone could use my pic if they credited me. They didn't. 3 photos on the page, 2 credited (in house staff) and I wasn't. Invoice sent and they started moaning. Have to chase it up with the paper too. People eh :)
 
FranchiseJuan said:
No It has nothing to do with the sensor or the camera. It is a fundimental concept in focusing. When focusing on a subject with a certain focus point, and then recomposing, it is not always possible to keep the subject you have focused on in the same plane of focus. This is the whole reason why there is more then one focus point. This applies to all cameras, even compacts (when you use a long focal length).
Click to expand...

I am aware of the concept of potentially losing the plane of focus when you re-frame. I guess I was trying to understand why blinkerz cited this as a particular problem with the 5D MkII?

Tyrone and RDH, thanks for the links, very useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top