# overnight flight next to Canon engineer...



## TravelShooter (Sep 7, 2011)

...recently, who opened up just a bit:

1. prototypes constructed constantly regardless of price
2. all are built around the sensor
3. sensors are most expensive camera piece
4. video has taken over as driving force despite still advances, too
5. most prototypes do not go to market because it cannot be figured
out how to bring down costs to sell enough units

Summarizing: your "dream" cameras exist as prototypes
but are too expensive to become market models


----------



## ontarian (Sep 7, 2011)

Really interesting stuff, thanks for sharing the good insight. The video part makes me sad, the sensor part happy.


----------



## jseliger (Sep 7, 2011)

The video comment does make sense: for non-pros, the image quality difference among major dSLRs is so low as to be negligible. Occasionally I point friends to this article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm on the subject, although I think Rockwell understates the value of cropping. Nonetheless, for most people, cameras became "good enough" a long time ago. Hence the popularity of cell phone cameras among so many people. 

But video is still the "developing" phase, and it can be used to differentiate between dSLRs. Video drove me to sell an XTi and buy a t2i. That, and high Craigslist prices on the former and relatively low eBay prices on the latter, but still.


----------



## Fleetie (Sep 7, 2011)

I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.

Just sell me a 5D3 without any video functionality, commensurately cheaper, please!

Or, spend the same money enhancing the stills functionality.

If I wanted a camcorder, guess what: I'd go out to a camcorder shop, and buy one.

Sorry to repeat the same old rant.


----------



## motorhead (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie,

Well said, I could not agree more. Video cameras are a completely different animal and should stay that way.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 7, 2011)

jseliger said:


> The video comment does make sense: for non-pros, the image quality difference among major dSLRs is so low as to be negligible. Occasionally I point friends to this article:



quoting rockwell as a source .... lol.. good joke. ;D
that guy says tomorrow the opposit of what he said today.
as long as he makes a few bucks out of his website.

he will tell you that 12 MP are enough for most people (something i can agree too... and better photographer then him said that before) and on the next page he will tell you how great film is and how he can scan ~40MP out of analog film and how superior film is over digital.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.
> 
> Just sell me a 5D3 without any video functionality, commensurately cheaper, please!
> 
> ...



do you still resent the video aspect when you realize that, without video functionality, there would be no 5D3 forthcoming?

a lot of the success of the 5D2 was canon's successful ability to integrate new functionality in multiple vectors _while reducing the cost of the body from its predecessor_. without video, products simply would not be coming to market at all, at any price, because they would not be competitive in today's market.

this common rant to me is something like if someone were to complain about anti-lock brakes in cars. how often do you truly use the anti-lock brake function in your car? how often do you really need your seat belts? or airbags for that matter? or high-beam lamps? or the spare tire? heck, cars worked fine before variable-valve timing and direct fuel injection, why should we as consumers carry the cost of research into fuel-efficient technologies?


----------



## bwhitz (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.
> 
> Just sell me a 5D3 without any video functionality, commensurately cheaper, please!
> 
> ...



This just shows a sever lack of understanding about why the 5D became popular for video. The video you can capture is MILES ahead of any "camcorder" in terms of aesthetics. The 5D is one of only TWO digital camera systems in the world that records FF35 video. 

As far as to why people would want that for video over a regular camcorder at the camcorder store... well because it DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CAMCORDER. If you think that going from FF35 to APS-C is bad... try FF35 compared to 1/3" video camera chip... then come back and talk about video on the 5DIII being nonsense. It opened up a completely new look for cinematographers and directors that was, no more than 5 years ago, only available on $250,000 camera systems.


----------



## torger (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.



Since 5Dmk3 will be a mass market product I don't think the video development costs will lead to that much extra cost in the product itself. Similar type of hardware would still be required for a stills-only product. And if I've understood correctly, live view exists partly thanks to video development, and I surely love my live view for still life photography.

I'll start complain when they start optimizing EF optics for video rather than stills though...


----------



## Fleetie (Sep 7, 2011)

bwhitz said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.
> ...



If the 5D2 is so great at video, then why do I keep seeing people on here whining about serious video problems in the 5D2 that Canon "really should have fixed by now, and had BETTER fix in the 5D3!"?

Based on that, I will not accept that the 5D2 is such a dream for video.

So yes, I do have a "serious lack of understanding" of why video is such a good thing. Video in a DSLR is something I do not want, and that I think just adds useless and unwanted purchase cost to the many of us who buy them for stills only. And I bet that the majority (I do dare say "majority") of 5D2 owners do not use the video functionality at all, or to any significant extent.


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.



And as I've also said it before, it is not evident that including video features would make the 5D3 more expensive. If video features contribute to sell more units, they may actually make the camera _less_ expensive.


----------



## Chewy734 (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> And I bet that the majority (I do dare say "majority") of 5D2 owners do not use the video functionality at all, or to any significant extent.



I would have to agree with that statement as well. Although I know this cannot be considered a good, randomized, worldwide sample size, but most people I know with a 5D2 use its video function rarely (if at all).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2011)

torger said:


> I'll start complain when they start optimizing EF optics for video rather than stills though...



Oh, you mean like the new Power Focusing mode on the new MkII supertele primes, intended specifically for pulling focus during video shooting?


----------



## papa-razzi (Sep 7, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> And as I've also said it before, it is not evident that including video features would make the 5D3 more expensive. If video features contribute to sell more units, they may actually make the camera _less_ expensive.



This really is true. I have been product manager for several consumer electronics products - volume is the largest factor in driving down manufacturing costs. Fixed costs get allocated to larger numbers of units and the per/unit allocation becomes smaller; parts are much cheaper when purchased in large volumes, the factory can be more efficient, etc. If video features leverage existing parts and most of the work/cost is firmware, then yes, video will drive the cost of your still camera down - to the extent it drives volume up.

The concept of video R&D driving up the cost of your still camera, and not wanting to pay for the extra video features may seem intuitive at first, but it is missing the bigger picture with all the other things that impact the cost of the camera.

Personally, I rarely (as in I've used it twice in a year) use the video on my 7D, but it doesn't get in the way of anything I use the camera for, so I don't care about it.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 7, 2011)

papa-razzi said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > And as I've also said it before, it is not evident that including video features would make the 5D3 more expensive. If video features contribute to sell more units, they may actually make the camera _less_ expensive.
> ...



Excellent points, especially about the firmware. In my experience, there are constant negotiations between Marketing who wants to add features to drive volume up and Engineering Management who wants to keep NRE (Non-Recurring Expenses) down. But I'm talking about things that cost $100,000 with volumes in the hundreds and low thousands.


----------



## willhuff.net (Sep 7, 2011)

Did the engineer say what happens to those prototypes, are they just left at Canon?
I wish I could buy one.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 7, 2011)

willhuff.net said:


> Did the engineer say what happens to those prototypes, are they just left at Canon?
> I wish I could buy one.



someone from another technical industry pointed out on the forums once that these prototypes, while they seem like dream cameras to us, probably have minimal or limited firmware implementation and less-than-ideal software algorithms, as well as possibly non-functional interface with your workflow software.

to some people that might still sound appealing, but to me, I'd much rather pay for a finished product.


----------



## lee_hom (Sep 7, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> bwhitz said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetie said:
> ...



I, I, I, I, I....thanks God you are not the only customer Canon has.

If the new 5d3 didn't have any video feature, it'll be the last 5D in Canon's product line, there won't be a 5d4 in the future.
They need to consider what features the majority would buy, and make profit. If you want one custom made, it will cost 10x more than the one with "wasted video function" for you.
At the end of the day we are all and have to take advantage of the cheap price from mass production.


----------



## steven63 (Sep 7, 2011)

I bought a 5dmii in June for the FF and low light abilities. I've yet to switch it over to video mode. I couldn't care less about it.




Fleetie said:


> bwhitz said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetie said:
> ...


----------



## Dave (Sep 7, 2011)

> Summarizing: your "dream" cameras exist as prototypes
> but are too expensive to become market models



My "dream cam" is a 7D with a flip screen, WLan and GPS. And that's definetly not expensive. Every 100-Dollar mobile phone has features like that.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 7, 2011)

Steven63: have you ever used Live View? If so, then you *have *used video mode, you just haven't recorded your video. Video Mode is little more than saving the data used for Live View. 



steven63 said:


> I bought a 5dmii in June for the FF and low light abilities. I've yet to switch it over to video mode. I couldn't care less about it.


----------



## Freshprince08 (Sep 8, 2011)

I've just ordered the 5dii.

Therefore expect a [CR3] post within 48 hours.....!


----------



## Dave (Sep 8, 2011)

> Mobile phones get GPS information from base stations, not GPS satellites and that's only on newer phones. So a 100 Dollar mobile phone isn't a GPS receiver in the same way that a GPS navigator is



Nope, I mean a REAL GPS phone. I've just saw an Android phone with GPS for 129 Bucks (tax included). Okay, a no name cellphone, but 129 bucks!
So why does a camera who costs more than ten times that much NOT have this really usefull feature?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Sep 8, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Dave said:
> 
> 
> > > Summarizing: your "dream" cameras exist as prototypes
> ...


That's not true. Most smart phones will aproximate a position using the cell network and then lock in a position with the GPS. But- there are apps that are network-independant and will give you a GPS position even when you're off the grid. I've tried this for myself way out in the Canadian wilderness.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Sep 8, 2011)

Orangutan said:


> Steven63: have you ever used Live View? If so, then you *have *used video mode, you just haven't recorded your video. Video Mode is little more than saving the data used for Live View.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I too highly value Live View to compose the image, meter zones (approx.), and magnify the image 10x to get pin point focus without having to move the camera and change the composition. I just recently added the 60d to my list of bodies and I'm very impressed with the Canon implementation of the the tiltable screen. I plan to generate a new thread about the advantages of having a tilt screen. I'm hoping only people that either own a 60d or have rented it and used it for at least a week will add to the discussion. I way swayed against the tilt when I saw so many commenters talk about making the lcd more fraile. Now that I've actually used it for awhile, I think that is a very empty argument put forth by people who haven't used the 60D in the field and seen how the rescessed frame that the lcd sits in protects the lcd when seated. Great Implementation!


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 8, 2011)

bwhitz said:


> It opened up a completely new look for cinematographers and directors that was, no more than 5 years ago, only available on $250,000 camera systems.



Only to those who had no clue in the first place. Adapting a normal HD cam to offer the same look as a 35mm, of MF/LF/anything artisticly desired for that point, shouldn't challenge a DoP who is worth his salt.
OTOH none of the VDSLRs offer even basic features, like trouble free interaction with most of the better lights. What good is a cheaper cam if the additional rental and fuel bills exeed the costs of a dedicated movie cam? And that doesn't figure in costs for pick-ups/reshoots caused by camere quirks.


----------



## Macadameane (Sep 8, 2011)

wellfedCanuck said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dave said:
> ...



I can confirm that the Android has ways to operate both. I write android software for work, and the phones do pick up both from cell provider nets and GPS.


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 8, 2011)

to all those stating "if I wanted to do video I'd get a videocam": maybe with the recent sony FS100 and F3, and panasonic AF100, that may start to be the a good idea, but prior to that, it was definitely no; it's just shows you have no idea what you're talking about

searching IMDB, for number of films shot using...

5D2 = 1640
7D = 1290

DVX100 = 1620
EX1 = 772
EX3 = 338
XL1 = 156
XL2 = 32

if you don't know WHY, you can ask

http://www.google.com/search?q=canon+5D+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=canon+7D+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=dvx100+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=sony+ex1+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=sony+ex3+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=canon+xl2+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
http://www.google.com/search?q=canon+xl1+site%3Aimdb.com%2Ftitle&hl=en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=


edit: oh, and you might say: "yes, but that means 20K bodies sold for video, tops!"
the answer is that there's much more video shot with these cameras besides movies big and small
nearly every ad or music video you see today was shot using a DSLR


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 8, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> the answer is that there's much more video shot with these cameras besides movies big and small
> nearly every ad or music video you see today was shot using a DSLR



Show me the data please. And what about the home improvement and science documentaries that I watch, not to mention weddings, events and corporate training videos? These people seem to move way too fast to use anything with manual focus. Plus there is so much DOF that either the lens is stopped way down or they are using a relatively small sensor.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 8, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Show me the data please.



Thats where something funny happens: use a VDSLR for a single shot an it shows up in the IMDB query. Even if the shot was redone due to moire/aliasing/fringing isssues making it unusable.

Also I was quite surprised to see some music videos declared as having been shot with a VDSLR - yet I'm quite positive we made(but not released) them before the respective cameras where available. It seems DoF can be misleading.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 8, 2011)

I think people are exaggerating the issue to either direction, but the reality is somewhere in between.

the 5D Mark II was revolutionary when it came out and even well into its lifecycle now it remains a highly functional tool that offers unbeatable creative potential for its price.

for those who think everything is shot with a DSLR nowadays ... that's just out and out wrong.

but for those who think it 5DII video isn't worth a damn ... apparently it was good enough for portions of Iron Man 2 http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/29/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-for-iron-man-2/ I watched it in theater and at home in HD, and those scenes look pretty darn good to me

with the new large-sensor video cameras with proper video form factors being released by Sony and Panasonic, the reliance on the 5DII will wane. but, that being said, any of those systems are still several times the price of a 5DII, and so there will still be a market for cheap 5DII's from indie filmmakers and DPs who want to be able to destroy their equipment


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 8, 2011)

all I tried to prove with those IMDB numbers was that people making movies, even when they have the budget for shooting with film*, usually turn over to DSLRs when they need a smaller form factor; and they wouldn't "just use a camcorder" if you paid them $1.000.000 to do so

* yes, Ironman2, but also Black Swan, Captain America, 127 hours, Red Tails... and that's just from the first page in the google search

I know not everything is shot with DSLRs nowadays; as I said, just most of the stuff

and yes, some wedding videographers are also moving to DSLRs (this summer I attended one where they were shooting with three 5D2s)

this is one big budget music video shot with a 5D2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frv6FOt1BNI
you can search youtube for the BTS, where you'll see no cameras except DSLRs

and in the end, this is what all this boils down to: you can't say the 5D3 will cost you more because it will come with improved video; me (and lots of people like me) buying that camera will pay for those development costs


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Sep 8, 2011)

We seem to be heading off topic with all the video, no video talk. But I'm going to head that way too.

I agree that the opinions are a bit biosed, but both are very true, but are taken out of context to the point of no longer reflecting truth. Confused yet? Time to simplify...

Side A: SLR video is better than camcorders
Side B: SLR video is worse than camcorders.

A: True; Because the quality of the video exceeds what most camcorders are doing. I give some of the credit to the sensor and some to the optics. The software may also have an effect since it was designed with professional in mind (remember, it was intended to give pro-photographers/photo journalists a video option).

B: True; Because SLRs don't come close to supporting the features like auto focus, auto-apatuer, auto-everything. Most camcorder people want the video version of point-and-shoot. SLR cameras are very manual.

Curiously, many camcorder "semi-pros" have been complaining forever that their camcorders don't give them manual controls. This makes SLR cameras seem like the perfect thing. However, even video pros, often want the simplicity of automation.

I think the fairest thing we can say about SLR video is that it gives video quality that rivals much higher end profesional video cameras, but does it without much of the automation that most people want/need most of the time. When SLRs can deliver more automation, we should see complaints go away except from those who feel like its adding cost to a device they only use for photographs. That camp will be getting smaller all the time as more of us use the video, at least occasionally.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 8, 2011)

CanineCandidsByL said:


> since it was designed with professional in mind (remember, it was intended to give pro-photographers/photo journalists a video option).



Thats the problem - it wasn't designed with professional use in mind, most of the problems are actually caused firm-/software. A 5D2 can deliver good quality, but for example breaks down completely the moment someone wearing the wrong fabric moves to close to the plane of focus. Inacceptable even for the consumer camcorders you refer to, and certainly nothing I'd bet five figures on.


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 8, 2011)

@CanineCandidsByL: fair enough

about the "designed with professionals in mind" thing: actually, it wasn't, it was just an accident that they happened to build something pro videographers would dig so much; Canon definitely didn't expect such success, it took them totally by surprise (the original 5D2 didn't record 24 fps, which made it awesome but of very limited usefulness in the movie world; they added 24p in a firmware update; I don't think that's something Canon does very often...)

still, even if it was by chance, it was an absolutely awesome accident

but that was february 2009; 30 months later, it's a very old product that can no longer compete with things like the AF100, FS100, A77, A65, NEX-7, and even NEX-5; that's why us videographers, even though we're deeply in love with our canon DSLRs, can't wait for the next generation to arrive


----------



## philHolland (Sep 8, 2011)

I'll jump in here. I use HDSLRs and shoot content that ends up in major motion pictures.
We have never used the imagery straight out of camera.
There is a great deal of post work that needs to happen to bring it up to a 2k standard. Even then it's not perfect.
Since 2008 we have used it for shots "here and there" and VFX elements.

The 5D Mark II is great camera that shoots decent quality HD video. It's not the best camera out there, but you can't argue the price/size/value ratio. Especially if you are a filmmaker. Indie through pro.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 9, 2011)

philHolland said:


> I'll jump in here. I use HDSLRs and shoot content that ends up in major motion pictures.
> We have never used the imagery straight out of camera.
> There is a great deal of post work that needs to happen to bring it up to a 2k standard. Even then it's not perfect.
> Since 2008 we have used it for shots "here and there" and VFX elements.
> ...



Phil, by the way, I love the video you created for lucent dossier using kraddy for the soundtrack... I have got to get out west for coachella sometime


----------



## Cornershot (Sep 10, 2011)

Whining about video capability is silly. It's a great feature to have. Every professional photographer I know uses the video function on their cameras. It's an easy and cheap way to add a new revenue stream. And photographers need every bit of help they can get to generate more income. This is a very tough market for pro photographers of all stripe. It's like arguing about Quark and InDesign. Why pay a lot for Quark when you can just buy the Creative Suite for not too much more and get everything? Especially since you're going to buy Photoshop anyways. Canon would be dead without video, just like Quark will be in not too long of time.


----------



## philHolland (Sep 10, 2011)

kubelik said:


> Phil, by the way, I love the video you created for lucent dossier using kraddy for the soundtrack... I have got to get out west for coachella sometime



Thank you. It's been a great deal of fun shooting their big performances over the years. Very physically demanding. Especially at the festivals.

It sounds like Coachella 2012 is going to be massive. I think they are doing two weekends.


----------



## leGreve (Sep 10, 2011)

Fleetie said:


> I know I've said this before, but I really dislike - resent, even - the idea that a significant part of the cost of the 5D3 that I'll buy will have gone into developing video functionality that I will never, EVER, use.
> 
> Just sell me a 5D3 without any video functionality, commensurately cheaper, please!
> 
> ...



Quoted for truth... That's the reason I parked the video function of the 5D and went out and got a Sony for those kind of jobs. The zone of 5D filming has reached its peak and I actually don't see the charm of it anymore. It's more of a poor-man-would-be-film-maker's excuse to call himself a videographer or filmmaker.


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 10, 2011)

here we go again...

@philHolland (& @kubelik)
I hadn't seen that Lucent Dossier clip from 2010, and yes, it was great, BUT... the one from 2011 is freaking AWESOME!!!
of course, I'd only put half the blame on you, the other half being deserved by the performers themselves  but... WOW!!
http://vimeo.com/26876870


----------



## catz (Sep 10, 2011)

Stop whining "I don't want video" - it [the whining] is stupid - video is a software feature. It makes the camera zero dollars more expensive. To not include video; consider this: To produce two versions of 5D, one with video, another without, would cost significantly more, because two different variants will cause overhead for not only R&D, but also marketing, logistics, sales, service etc. In fact it would be idiotic to release today new SLR from Canon without video and it would be very uninformed to wish one to happen.

I need one camera which does both video and stills, because I can't carry both stills and video camera around on my travels, and I want it to be as small as possible, so I can pack more lenses to the carry-on luggage (and still meet the stringent weight and size limit).

I have successfully utilized 5D mark II for both video and stills for few years now. It is not perfect for video due to line skipping which causes aliasing and loss of resolution, that's why I am looking for the next model. However, other than that, it is a very capable for doing both. It has every function I need from a camcorder, I don't need other functions (such as pumping autofocus, only less informed consumers who shoot their vomiting shaky zooming family videos care about autofocus and motor zoom). I record audio separately with audio recorder. 

In every other aspect than the moire, it outperforms my previous camcorder. It even has better resolution than the camcorder, because something being fullHD does not mean that it resolves the full hd resolution despite it would be storing 1920x1080 pixels. 5D mark II resolves quite ok enough for me to find it usable. I am going to even shoot a short film with it (I would not do that with my old camcorder, that is a piece of junk in comparison). What it comes to workflow and everything, the 5D mark II with the file based video format is so superior to the old camcorder that there is no moving back. There are better camcorders these days on the market which will clearly outperform 5D mark II in video, yes, however, these are not exactly affordable, here is the list: Arri Alexa, RED One, RED One MX, RED Epic M, RED Epic X, RED Scarlet (unreleased), Sony F35, Sony F65, and Sony F3. Sony FS100 and Panasonic AF100 outperforms 5D mark II with small margin. The list pretty much ends here. There are some less expensive camcorders from Sony and Canon out which resolve more few more lines than 5D mark II but have at the time small sensor (large depth of field, wide angle performance poor) and poor low light performance. 

5D mark II is still a super deal for someone looking for camera to do cinema style work and your budget for a single camera body is not on the realm of professional camcorders. Of course these days it is possible to get a bit better results if you pay 3.2 times more, you can get Sony FS100. Or if you pay about 3 times more, you can get Panasonic AF100. The video quality will not be 3 times better yet. To get 3 times better video, you have to go for RED or Alexa really or the super high end Sony which costs something like 100K.

I can do very professional looking videos with my 5D mark II despite of the downsides (like aliasing, if I want to fix that I can these days buy anti-aliasing filter that comes in front of the sensor), however, people that I have made videos for haven't even seen the aliasing despite it irritates my eye personally so much. I have to point them with finger that "there on this place if you look closely, you can see some rainbows, that's caused by aliasing due to line-skipping instead of pixel binning". Anyway, if you are super irritated with the aliasing, here is a example video how video looks with the antialiasing filter installed on 5D mark II: 

http://vimeo.com/27069461

To my eye the video looks very good and professional, despite being shot on DSLR. Shooting it with higher end cameras such as RED or Arri would have given very negligible benefits. Also even if there was no antialiasing filter, the same commercial would have looked almost exactly the same, but people like myself would have found few places where there would have been some extra fake details that should not be there. This being a TV commercial, most commercials have worse quality (e.g. SD resolution), and interlace and aliasing effects even worse (SD has typically horrible aliasing when displayed on a sharp 1080p display due to stretching the lines to fill the screen).

Those people who say "get a proper camcorder instead of DSLR" and complain about lack of autofocus and motor zoom tend to typically do videos that look so bad that I would be needing 1) someone forcing me with gunpoint to watch them and 2) vomit bag to put my vomit when I would get sick from the pumping shaky picture which also looks like jumping soft jelly in motion due to the combined shakiness, zooming, pumping autofocus and non-time aligned reading of the sensor. And then this video would have block artifacts and would have gradients cut because there is not enough latitude to capture the dynamic range and then there would be comb artifacts due to interlaced source material in movement looking super crappy and there would be lots of work in post to try to deinterlace it in attempt to making it look proper. 

Why DSLR is a good cinema camera substitute? Because a motion picture camera really is a still camera that takes 23.976 stills per second. It is very similar to SLR and it is very different from some interlaced crap camcorder.

The argument by the way that "you need all kinds of rigs, dollies, sliders, steadicams etc." to make DSLR footage to look great is invalid, reason being that you need those same things for camcorders as well to not make vomit-inducing footage.

If you have budget for RED, by all means, go for it, you will not be disappointed. However, if you can't afford RED, DSLR is still today (despite Canon has been extremely slow in doing the 5D3) an option that is good for photographers who also want to shoot video and also for videographers on limited budget. Of the video DSLRs, after all these years, 5D mark II still is the best overally. GH2 resolves a little more and has less moire, but still overally, 5D mark II outperforms in overall image quality the competition, including Canon's other models such as 1D mark IV, 7D, 60D, 600D etc. 5D mark II still has best latitude and best resolution, and least aliasing of the Canon DSLR gang. I have also 60D as a second body, but I use it only for stills because the video quality is worse than 5D.


----------

