5DII video now up!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086

Wow....

And he did this over a weekend. After seeing this, many of us may rethink
the concept of DSLR video.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...


This changes everything.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.
Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?
Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need. The
5DII seems particularly suited to wedding photography ... it's great
in low light and can capture video clips to boot.
****, I may order a second one!

================================================== ==

I had planned on upgrading after Christmas, but it looks like I'll have to
wait, even then. This thing is pretesting and previewing so well, it's going
to be hard to get. I guess it's Nikon's turn to play catch-up. Damn....

Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:38*pm, Böwser wrote:

And he did this over a weekend. After seeing this, many of us may rethink
the concept of DSLR video.

This changes everything.

Nah.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.

How did they look?

Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?
Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.

Hmmm. A 2MP still from a video or a 25MP photo.

You can get cheaper HD video cameras.

--
Ray Fischer

Bõwser wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message
...

This changes everything.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.
Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?


I recall reading that there is a training school for photojournalists
in the UK that includes video training for all its PJ students. The
principal was interviewed some months ago and stated that video
capture would be an essential tool for PJs in the future, therefore
they needed to be prepared for it.

It seems the guy (and the college) were particularly enlightened.


Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.


But wouldn't the stills be in HDTV format?

It seems a waste of a 21 MP DSLR to produce stills of less than 2 MP.
However, I suppose that they would be suitable for some press use.


5DII seems particularly suited to wedding photography ... it's great
in low light and can capture video clips to boot.
****, I may order a second one!

I had planned on upgrading after Christmas, but it looks like I'll have to
wait, even then. This thing is pretesting and previewing so well, it's going
to be hard to get. I guess it's Nikon's turn to play catch-up. Damn....


I have no doubt that I will be ordering a 20+ MP DSLR to replace my 5D
early in 2009. However, I will be waiting to make sure that the
severe focusing problems of the Canon EOS 1D Mark III are not repeated
in the 5D Mark II.

For that matter, I would not want to have the same focusing problems I
had with my 5D with any new camera. It took weeks to solve them.
First the camera was recalibrated. Then the 24-105mm lens. Then both
together. Only after that was the focusing reliable.

This seems to be much less of a problem with Nikon DSLRs. However, I
had focusing problems with a Nikon F801 (N8008) I bought in 1989, and
they were never solved to my satisfaction, so I don't suppose Nikon
are 100% reliable either.

Bõwser wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message
...

This changes everything.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.
Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?


I recall reading that there is a training school for photojournalists
in the UK that includes video training for all its PJ students. The
principal was interviewed some months ago and stated that video
capture would be an essential tool for PJs in the future, therefore
they needed to be prepared for it.

It seems the guy (and the college) were particularly enlightened.


Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.


But wouldn't the stills be in HDTV format?

It seems a waste of a 21 MP DSLR to produce stills of less than 2 MP.
However, I suppose that they would be suitable for some press use.


5DII seems particularly suited to wedding photography ... it's great
in low light and can capture video clips to boot.
****, I may order a second one!

I had planned on upgrading after Christmas, but it looks like I'll have to
wait, even then. This thing is pretesting and previewing so well, it's going
to be hard to get. I guess it's Nikon's turn to play catch-up. Damn....


I have no doubt that I will be ordering a 20+ MP DSLR to replace my 5D
early in 2009. However, I will be waiting to make sure that the
severe focusing problems of the Canon EOS 1D Mark III are not repeated
in the 5D Mark II.

For that matter, I would not want to have the same focusing problems I
had with my 5D with any new camera. It took weeks to solve them.
First the camera was recalibrated. Then the 24-105mm lens. Then both
together. Only after that was the focusing reliable.

This seems to be much less of a problem with Nikon DSLRs. However, I
had focusing problems with a Nikon F801 (N8008) I bought in 1989, and
they were never solved to my satisfaction, so I don't suppose Nikon
are 100% reliable either.

Bõwser wrote:

At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it.

Just the same way as photography has signalled the death knell
to paintings, maybe?

Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

-Wolfgang

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

-Wolfgang


For now you are probably right. But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds. Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf) and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

Eric Miller

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds.

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?

and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

Pellicle mirrors are known, as are electronic shutters. Both
have drawbacks, which is why they are not used much.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to
"support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in this
area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty of
people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will
capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second. The camera companies
already make and sell cameras that have 1/3 of that frame rate at 10
megapixels. 10 megapixels at 10 frames per second is not even a new
development. 10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than
10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras
that have been on the market for some time.


But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds.

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.


Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't a
discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a problem
(or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video and
stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many
consumers. Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's
video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for
the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still images
to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given the
recent steady advances in this area of technology.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD . . .

or EVF

. . . give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?


Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up,
of course. And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a
camera "tripod only"? I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with
your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time? In any event, your "tripod
only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use
cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time.

and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

Pellicle mirrors are known, as are electronic shutters. Both
have drawbacks, which is why they are not used much.


.. . . hence my statement about the style of high frame rate capture that
could be possible with the mirror locked up.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along
that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video
or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I
saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher
speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read
only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago. Heck, I'll bet that if you take
photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will
probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that.


Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all
computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and more
and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer cameras
have smaller memory buffers too.


Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric Miller wrote:
How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

The Red One reportedly delivers 12 MP at 30 frames per second.

http://www.red.com/cameras

It does minimal compression, so relies on large and fast data storage.


--
--Bryan