# Canon 5D Mark III/X Commercials Being Shot? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 16, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8911"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8911" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8911"></a></div>
<p><strong>New Commercials?

</strong>Received some detailed information that 5D Mark III/X commercials are being shot in England and France. One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera, the other is for Euro 2012.</p>
<p>Very few details were given about the camera itself.</p>
<p><strong>I’m In Ecuador

</strong>My internet may be wonky for the next couple of days as I move around Ecuador, but do keep emails and whatnot coming.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT+%40prettylink%3A++http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F+%28via+%40prettylink%29" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2F&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 16, 2012)

How long after the D800 commercial in Chicago was shot did we see the camera unveiled?


----------



## tt (Feb 16, 2012)

Motopod had an interview with Mark miller I think in a December podcast - when the host chatted with the rider of the Joy Rider advert. 
I think they give a rough idea and there was some more info as to when they were filming at the time. 
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/12/29/interview-with-mark-miller-the-person-who-rode-the-bike-in-the-nikon-d800-commercial.aspx/


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 16, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Received some detailed information that 5D Mark III/X commercials are being shot in England and France.



Seeing as how most rumors seem to be questionable specs at [CR1] I'm hoping that a commercial rumor at [CR1] translates as a new (one time) source who stumbled across or was involved peripherally in the production. 

I'm giddy with excitement. If a commercial is being produced... then an announcement is indeed imminent. Could my wait for the 5D3/5DX be almost over, FSM I sure hope so.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 16, 2012)

"One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera"

Not a good sign.

All commercials on DSLRs should be about photography. NOT about making films.

They are targeting the wrong customers. Save the video stuff for the HV-camcorder line.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 16, 2012)

So one is for 5dx and the other for 5d3? Cinema oriented commercial I understand for C product. But Euro2012? Another sport camera? Big fps, small MP etc.? Like small brother of 1dx?


----------



## SpareImp (Feb 16, 2012)

Has there been released a cinematic video by the 1DX yet? The 1DX was announced last fall, with the best video capabilities of any EOS camera so far(?), so these commercials don’t necessarily have to be done before the announcement. Or maybe I just missed it. That being said, I do remember that the 550D/T2i had a video close to its announcement. Still, I hope for February 28th.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

I can hear the collective groan coming from all the "stills only" photographers around the world... _Not another video dedicated DSLR!!!_ I could care less and welcome the addition as long as the stills camera part had some worthy upgrades to justify it's price. Yay


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 16, 2012)

SpareImp said:


> Still, I hope for February 28th.



If Canon's smart they will release the 5D3/X on the 29th, that way they can claim an accelerated development cycle... it will always be updated on it's 1st birthday.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 16, 2012)

Wrathwilde said:


> SpareImp said:
> 
> 
> > Still, I hope for February 28th.
> ...


+1


----------



## ChrisJackson304 (Feb 16, 2012)

I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

ChrisJackson304 said:


> I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.



I've seen interviews with a few wedding photographers adapting video into their work and having an additional thing to sell to their clients. I hope to be going that route with my clients as well and I fully agree.


----------



## Meh (Feb 16, 2012)

Ricku said:


> "One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera"
> 
> Not a good sign.
> 
> ...



Not ever? Not ever ever? Not even if the camera has great video features, not even if the 5D2 was highly praised for its video capabilities, not even a significant factor in the 5D2 success was because of video, not even if Canon expects or wants that trend to continue, not even if it drives sales and makes the product more successful for Canon which is good for us stills shooters as well?

Is there a single piece of evidence that having video features makes any DSLR a worse stills camera or makes the camera more expensive?


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

Meh said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > "One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera"
> ...



Exactly... and one of the target audiences of the 5d is photojournalists, who now, with the digital age, is moving more multimedia... We dont know if video costs any more or if it was an 11th hour change with a simple line of code allowing video recording. It is what it is... This is like the film to digital transfer... You can adapt (even if it means not using the feature) or get left behind in technology.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 16, 2012)

Is CR guy sure they not shooting anything in Equador? ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Flea (Feb 16, 2012)

Ricku said:


> "One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera"
> 
> Not a good sign.
> 
> ...



Can you imagine a commercial (usually a 20-30 sec spot) about shooting landscape or portrait photography? While the camera itself may be great for still photography, a TV spot is probably not the best medium to advertise that. It is much better suited for action photography and video features.


----------



## mccrum (Feb 16, 2012)

Flea said:


> Can you imagine a commercial (usually a 20-30 sec spot) about shooting landscape or portrait photography?


Yes, but it would have to star Ashton Kutcher. Christian Bale maybe.


----------



## pedro (Feb 16, 2012)

CR guy in Ecuador ? 

Is that a CR 1 or where is the evidence to CR3 it ? 8) I want a picture taken of you near the "mitad del mundo" monument :  

which is the wrong one. the step on the equator line go up to Cayambe. 2 miles before entering the city there is a place they call "la bola" (official name is "Guachala") on the left hand side of the Panamericana highway...;-)


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

mccrum said:


> Flea said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine a commercial (usually a 20-30 sec spot) about shooting landscape or portrait photography?
> ...



Naw... sex sells... lets bring is kate beckinsale to be the actress haha  I'd have to go by 3 haha


----------



## moreorless (Feb 16, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> So one is for 5dx and the other for 5d3? Cinema oriented commercial I understand for C product. But Euro2012? Another sport camera? Big fps, small MP etc.? Like small brother of 1dx?



If the 22mp rumour is correct then its certainly a camera with good potential for sports shooting, espeically if the 7D is phased out. Ultimately the 5D line is far more likely to benefit from advertsing and euro 2012 is the 2nd biggest sport event this year.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2012)

Ricku said:


> "One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera"
> 
> Not a good sign.
> 
> ...



This comment could have come directly from a top Kodak manager. "The photography world won't change to digital, lets keep making film cameras"

I'd like to see Canon stay in business.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

ChrisJackson304 said:


> I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.



+1 video in DSLR is here to stay and becoming an ever more important part.

(and even wedding photographers are sometimes adding in short movies too)

And don't think that video didn't help 5D2 sales a ton.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> lets bring is kate beckinsale to be the actress haha  I'd have to go by 3 haha



Ha.

Canon: "Introducing the new 5D3 featuring 2fps, 12.7MP 5D sensor and Rebel AF all while maintaining the 5D2's fabled video capabilities! (only $2999.99!)"

(press/audience murmurings: "BOOOOO!" "Much ado about nothing!" "There is a vacancy in Canon management!")

Canon: "Wait! But there is more, every 5D3 will be a special Kate Beckinsale edition!! And now.... Kate Beckinsaaaale to introduce her new ad campaign for the Canon 5D3!!!!!!! The Canon 5D3 uncovered!!!!!"

(press/audience murmurings: "omg OMG. OMGOMGOMG I don't even know what I am doing but I think I just pre-ordered ten copies, wow me too, yeah me as well, yeah same here, I think I just ordered 20 but I'm not real clear at the moment, me too....")

Canon: "Canon is proud to announce that the new 5D3 has become the all time best selling DSLR in history through first 15 minutes of pre-orders alone!"

(press/audience murmurings: "Hmmm, wow. Total recall now. You know. I think I'm broke. That's kind of a down. So long to the palace I had in Laurel Canyon. Ah whatever, got me 10 copies of the 5D3 Beckinsale edition arriving soon!! Maybe I can find some underworld area of LA and assemble the 5D3 boxes together and live in that. I'm good. Everybody's fine!")


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > lets bring is kate beckinsale to be the actress haha  I'd have to go by 3 haha
> ...



That's what I'm talking about... the kate beckinsale uncovered and unplugged version... where can i order my copies haha. Now i just need to explain this to my wife somehow lol.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 16, 2012)

It is Dickens Bicentennial so - 'Great Expectations'


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (Feb 16, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> How long after the D800 commercial in Chicago was shot did we see the camera unveiled?



The D800 commercials were shot in September. That may not mean anything though since if we are to believe "Nikon Rumors" the D800s original announcement date was late October or early November, IIRC.


----------



## tt (Feb 16, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> </strong>Received some detailed information that 5D Mark III/X commercials are being shot in England and France. One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera, the other is for Euro 2012.</p>



Start match of Euro 2012: 8th June
Final: 1st July

So now the question is - is that a teaser or trailer for it before release? Will the camera's be out in photographer's hands?

If it's just a teaser - then general release isn't for another 4-5 months.


----------



## takoman46 (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ChrisJackson304 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.
> ...



I wouldn't mind improving video capabilities in a dslr. I primarily shoot weddings and portraits and the 5dmkII has served me well. But I also am producing a spearfishing video as a side project where I film intensively with the 5dmkII. I don't really foresee myself getting involved with incorporating video with my photo packages for weddings though. Videography is usually hired separate from photography with the exception of those one stop shops out there. I think it's way too painful for a photographer to have to worry about shooting video at a wedding where there are already dedicated videographers. If a photographer chooses to go down the road of producing video, they should have a dedicated staff to handle all the video and evolve into a one stop shop for wedding photo/video for example. I vote for a 5dmk2 successor that can do both photo and video... preferably following in the footsteps of the 1DX but with slightly higher resolution (22mp).


----------



## distant.star (Feb 16, 2012)

ChrisJackson304 said:


> I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.



That seems to be where it's going.

My old manual focus brain resents video in a stills camera, but life goes on and the world changes. I used to be able to get away with saying, "I've never seen a video in a frame hanging on the wall." Now, I think the future is video in frames hanging on walls.

Still images at some point will probably be relegated to museums -- see you in the Mathew Brady room!


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 16, 2012)

distant.star said:


> ChrisJackson304 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been a pro photojournalist for 6 years and now my title is multimedia journalist. I produce just as much video content as I do stills. DSLRs should be marketed to the video crowd simply because that's where the industry is going. Sorry, if you shoot weddings, but the future is in video and having a cam body that does both seamlessly is what I need.
> ...



It used to be everyone who took a photo, with film, had it developed, printed, and if they really liked it, reprinted again larger... Now people photograph and rarely print, just keep them on their computer, websites, digital picture frame... It's a brave new world for working photographers.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 16, 2012)

distant.star said:


> I used to be able to get away with saying, "I've never seen a video in a frame hanging on the wall." Now, I think the future is video in frames hanging on walls.


Hopefully in a distant future when me and my camera are dead and buried.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it. 
When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so. 
Its a different medium and presents the subject completely differently


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 16, 2012)

distant.star said:


> "I've never seen a video in a frame hanging on the wall." Now, I think the future is video in frames hanging on walls.



Makes me think of those video tutorials - tell less while taking more time and bandwidth/storage.
THE argument pro dead tree newspapers...


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Feb 17, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
> When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so.
> Its a different medium and presents the subject completely differently



I agree, it's a different medium. I think there's a time and place for each. Something I'm curious to hear what people think about here--Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak). Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo. Will this change the way photographers work?


----------



## tt (Feb 17, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> I agree, it's a different medium. I think there's a time and place for each. Something I'm curious to hear what people think about here--Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak). Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo. Will this change the way photographers work?



See Vincent laForet article http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/06/17/vincent-laforet-the-future-of-photography-is-convergence/

In some circumstances (mining for the shot in post frame by frame) could be suitable. 
Primarily for a video camera that record in a format that records each frame. 

It's an interesting exercise to think about how videographers construct their shots etc - 
There are a few photographers hat at the least do video shorts - and many do video production as a part of their work whether they're on screen or not. Not like they just do blog posts with stills! 

Printing definitely helps with perceived value. Video screens and projectors are still a rarity to be used as frames for art content beyond studios and galleries/museums.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 17, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> Will this change the way photographers work?


Depending on the sujet and the skills of the photographer.
If you want to take a specific picture, you don't gain a thing, but loose a part of your toolkit. Substituting that cheap and easy to handle strobes with continuous lights isn't fun, esp. if sun joins the party.
Then we have the aspect of aestetics, frozen motion for stills vs. enough blur to get a fluid appearance in movie. Get both from the same source and you should discard at least one. And thats without considering the differences in visual grammar, having an additional dimension changes they way storytelling works - frames that work in both environments are rare.

And then there is the spray and prey shooter - they'd jump on that bandwagon,gladly taking the in camera HDR to compensate for sloppy lighting & exposure. They'll get better results, but hit a glass ceiling where a higher frame rate, or higher resolution for composition by cropping, can't compensate for deficies in other aspects. Cue holographic camera hysteria to change the camera position in post.


----------



## tt (Feb 17, 2012)

I'd imagine some sports photographers might look at an evolved slo mo camera - getting exact timing (having done lighting composition etc) might be very much worth it - to capture the connection of a baseball bat with the ball - tennis. 
When you know the frame is set and there will be a brief quick peak moment. 60fps beats 12-14 at that point. One other side could be if your focus and composition is sorted say for portraits for babies or reaction shots - it gives the camera person an ability to concentrate on creating the peak moment rather than being stuck behind the camera - sometimes there are serious where theres an assistant takin the shot for just this purpose. 
Nailing the timing is an art, I'd agree, but there is an attraction to seeing what other possibilities would be captured through stills of a video clip. 
(also with video you could have it constantly recording then trigger to note a time - and get footage prior to that moment).


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 17, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
> ...



culling high shot count shoots is a PITA now can you imagine going frame by frame through that to get the best shots out of it?
might sound good in theory but practicality of time invested vs how much you are charging would likely destroy this as an option for still shooting


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 17, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
> When cameras were invented did all the painters in the world cry that no one would be painting anymore in a few years? I dont think so.
> Its a different medium and presents the subject completely differently



I do agree and for that reason I do not think that still will ever completely go away, not by a long shot. That said video is here to stay and will be a lot more prevalent and certainly lots of stuff that used to be only stills will become done as only video or video and stills.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 17, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > While I kind of see what people are getting at, video is nice and all. I like to watch movies too but a still image is different in that it's a moment frozen, capturing a certain motion blur when panning, stopping a bird in flight all of these tangible things that happen in a blink can be frozen for a viewer to spend however long they want to look at absorb the detail. Video is kind of like life its there then its gone only you cen rewind and replay pause and slow down and speed up but that still involves a process but to look at a still image all you need to do is look at it.
> ...



perhaps to some degree for action and certain things (although it can be wasteful) but not 100% since the settings that might make a movie look good might be poor for a still so grabbing a still from something shot how you as a movie might not deliver the ideal still although, at times, it could


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 17, 2012)

Video on DSLR's is here to stay, regardless of what you may think.
I've found it very handy from time to time to take a video instead of stills, but it doesn't mean I'll stop taking stills 80% of the time.

I also have a very good Sony HD camcorder, but find that my 60D takes better video than the specialised camera. I don't mind focussing manually, as when I started taking photos 50 years ago, that's all that was, and I still take many of my shots using manual focus.
Once you're used to focussing manually, it can be pretty quick and accurate.

I like the fact that I only have to take one camera with me when I go out on a shoot, and be able to take stills or video with the turn of a knob and the press of a button depending on what I see and want to record.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 17, 2012)

tt said:


> When you know the frame is set and there will be a brief quick peak moment. 60fps beats 12-14 at that point.



Neither work for those impressive peak moment shots - thats where you use a 1000fps camera for slow action or a good trigger plus flash or some nice gadgets for the interesting stuff.

What remains? The need for illumination at least 2 stops above normal cine/video levels; much more if you aren't in control of the environment. From a practical standpoint: the price of that 24-70II or the next body just became irrelevant, as in (quite a bit) below either the consumables or electricity bill for the month. Or for outdoor works a single day cont. lighting costs me about as much as a full year of strobe usage, thats using quality strobes. Either economy or quality goes out of the window...


----------



## Noink Fanb0i (Feb 17, 2012)

I know I would need to post in any thread where Kate Beckinsale is mentioned.  She's the only reason I watched Underworld: Awakening in IMAX 3D and Contraband. 

Anyway, one detrimental thing about Canon concentrating more on DSLR video is that it takes time, money and employees away from developing better features for the stills aspect of those DSLRs. It's not as if Canon, or any other company for that matter, has unlimited resources to allocate on both aspects at the same time.


----------



## necator (Feb 17, 2012)

Lawliet, you are completely right. 
The power of even the small battery-powered flashes is massive, if compared to continuous lights: A 580ex-II (assuming it has about 60Ws) could be substituted by 12000W light bulbs. Now take some real studio strobes with >1000Ws. 
So flash is a convenient and very strong lightsource, specially dedicated to photography and not reasonably substitutable by continuous lights.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 17, 2012)

tt said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > </strong>Received some detailed information that 5D Mark III/X commercials are being shot in England and France. One film is about making a cinematic piece with the camera, the other is for Euro 2012.</p>
> ...



It doesnt of course mean that the adverts need to be shown during or near euro 2012, if Canon has paid a significant amount for sponsorship rights then they'll probabley look to exploit them as much as possible even on products that come out well before the euros.


----------



## avian (Feb 17, 2012)

Shooting hdvideo and using a single frame as a foto doesn't make much sense even when it's shot in raw.
The resolution of video is way lower than that of shooting single frame burst fullres pictures.
Your now using a 22Mpix camera to shoot 2Mpix resolution foto's.
Plus the pictures will have a 16:9 size.


----------



## tt (Feb 17, 2012)

LaForet was looking at what RED had on offer - a still from their higher end kit isn't that bad MP wise. It's more to think about at the future, but a possibility.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Feb 17, 2012)

tt said:


> Lyra Video Productions said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, it's a different medium. I think there's a time and place for each. Something I'm curious to hear what people think about here--Shooting on a RED camera you can essentially shoot video in RAW; each frame is like a RAW image. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this (it could just be their marketing speak). Someday, I don't see why most video formats couldn't advance to a point in which each frame is a very hi res photo. Will this change the way photographers work?
> ...



(sorry if this is getting way off topic...) Every professional on these forums should read the article tt posted from Vincent Laforet. Great article, tt. In the next 10 years we're going to see huge price drops in the kinds of technology RED cameras are using today and convergence is going to be a very real issue. Photographers will be shooting more video and, from the looks of it, videographers will be shooting more photos.

To those saying that picking out the best still from video stills would be tough, I doubt it would be as hard as you imagine; it would just be a different way of sifting through photos. You have to remember you're not comparing each frame next to each other, you'd be playing the video, scrubbing through looking for the "moment". I shoot video with plain old HD quality and from time to time I have been asked to give a screen shot for use on the web and in a few instances for small elements in magazines--it wasn't as hard to pick these out as I had feared. Remember, some RED cameras shoot 5k video--much higher resolution than normal HD.

These techniques are already being used today: http://www.red.com/experience/photography

As for the lighting argument--that cost and power consumption will go up with continuous lighting--I suppose that may be true--but there's an entire industry based on continuous lights--and it's very doable. Not to mention as time goes by light sensitivity will increase and improve as well.

Like Vincent Laforet, I'm not saying this is the future for photography--I'm just saying it's something to be aware of as a professional in the field.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 17, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> I suppose that may be true--but there's an entire industry based on continuous lights--and it's very doable. Not to mention as time goes by light sensitivity will increase and improve as well.



Doable - yes, we do it all the times. For a price. A backpack for photography, a 35t-truck for moving picture.
The old sensitivity fallacy.  No, its not sensitivity that causes the costs(using Dedos for photography works ok for quite a few cases, same for L7, Seladors, KinoFlo/Creamsources), its the ambient light. No matter what you dial in on the camera, getting a decent contrast ratio takes the same effort, thus a Max18 for a nice annual income to replace a strobe set that costs about as much as a spare bulb for the Arri.

We're repeating the same mistake we did with video: believing it makes anything less expensive. Sure it the bills went down, because they cut all the people and stuff that make film look good, thus the stigma of video looking cheap. Rinse&repeat in HD.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Feb 17, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Lyra Video Productions said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose that may be true--but there's an entire industry based on continuous lights--and it's very doable. Not to mention as time goes by light sensitivity will increase and improve as well.
> ...



Yeah, good continuous lights aren't cheap and they are heavier than carrying around flash equipment (though LEDs are changing the heaviness factor). If you're just talking about shooting outside in the daytime then sure... you need a boatload of light (or a little know how with big reflectors, etc.). I wasn't talking about that--I was talking about low light or controlled light environments (sorry I didn't clarify). In this situation light sensitivity does matter. Hear me out.
You're right, it is all about contrast ratio and quality of light. If you have a camera that gets great low light performance then that means your ambient light--your base exposure--can be lower. That means for your key light/back light/etc., those lights don't need to be as powerful. That's why now (as opposed to the early days of video) instead of doing a studio set up with a bunch of 2k fresnels you can get by with a lot less, without sacrificing quality. So depending on the type of shoot, yeah you can get by without a truckload. 

You shouldn't assume that I'm making "the same mistake we did with video." I wholeheartedly believe in spending time on lighting. there's no excuse for not paying attention to lighting (unless the client just can't afford it--and even then at least keep lighting in mind. Personally I'd probably do some lighting anyway...). If video looks cheap nowadays it's operator error as far as I'm concerned. With recent advances in dynamic range and shallow depth of field, etc. you can get a great image if you know what you're doing. A lot of other video people out there believe the same thing.

Going back to my original post then, like I said, I just think this new technology of RAW ultra hi-def video is something to watch out for. Weather it's good or bad (or easier or harder to get good quality), it will become more prevalent over time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2012)

avian said:


> Shooting hdvideo and using a single frame as a foto doesn't make much sense even when it's shot in raw.
> The resolution of video is way lower than that of shooting single frame burst fullres pictures.
> Your now using a 22Mpix camera to shoot 2Mpix resolution foto's.
> Plus the pictures will have a 16:9 size.



But, a 4K frame is 12mp, quite respectable. People buy cameras for their 10 or 12 fps, a 30fps that takes 12 mp frames is something to think about. I've grabbed fromes from my 5D MK II video just to see if I could. Its pretty quick and easy to pick a frame, because you watch the video at full speed first, then, you know within a second or two where the image you want will be found.


----------



## Lawliet (Feb 18, 2012)

Lyra Video Productions said:


> [I wasn't talking about that--I was talking about low light or controlled light environments (sorry I didn't clarify). In this situation light sensitivity does matter.


Beware - lets assume you can get the studio ambient level down to 1lx, you need about 4k-16k lx to use the whole range sensor. To actually reap the benefits you require light levels in excess of the good, old TV studio, no high sensitivity scenario unless you can cut light spillage and pollution by the equipment itself below moonlight levels. Not that working would be easy when the crew can't see a thing



> With recent advances in dynamic range and shallow depth of field, etc. you can get a great image if you know what you're doing. A lot of other video people out there believe the same thing.



Ironically neither DR or DOF were unsolveable problems in the first place - even that last millenium consumer camcorder could do wide angle/shallow DOF/TS-effects if you knew your toolkit. 
I don't see that many people taking actual advantage of raw video, quite some temptation to not do your homework but fix in in photoshop aside.


----------



## Lyra Video Productions (Feb 18, 2012)

"To actually reap the benefits you require light levels in excess of the good, old TV studio, no high sensitivity scenario unless you can cut light spillage and pollution by the equipment itself below moonlight levels. Not that working would be easy when the crew can't see a thing"
What are you even talking about? Did I say anything about getting things down to 1 lux? There are plenty of great things being shot in lower light now than ever before and it looks amazing. 

"To actually reap the benefits you require light levels in excess of the good, old TV studio," 

You're wrong. haha. people shoot things in TV studios every day that look amazing on camera.

"you need about 4k-16k lx to use the whole range sensor."

First of all--I'm talking about future technology... so it can be whatever we want it to be. But in all honesty, if you have data to back up those numbers I'd actually be interested in seeing that and what it means to "use the whole range sensor." 

"Ironically neither DR or DOF were unsolveable problems in the first place - even that last millenium consumer camcorder could do wide angle/shallow DOF/TS-effects if you knew your toolkit. 
I don't see that many people taking actual advantage of raw video, quite some temptation to not do your homework but fix in in photoshop aside."

I never said anything of the sort that you couldn't get good images out of older video technology. I used to shoot on IMX videotape and I'm well aware of how good you can make it look. But it's easier now. Highlights don't clip as badly. Sensors are bigger and so you can get a shallower depth of field more easily. A 2/3 chip only gets you so far.

Honesly Lawliet, I enjoy a good back and forth but please stop putting words in my mouth. A pissing contest isn't what I'm looking for.


----------

