Why doesn't this camera exist? Good high ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode

[^catalyst]

We be filmin',
They hatin'.

[SgtCaboose]

Originally Posted by led_blind

One thing that is forgotten with 1080 is bit rate. Canon's new 7d has a slightly higher bit rate for 1080 than most and it shows in sharpness...

In a blind test I would be so impressed if someone could pick the difference between a 5D MkII and a 7D.

And also, regardless of BR @ 1080P, no consumer needs it.

[sir_bazz]

Originally Posted by SgtCaboose

In a blind test I would be so impressed if someone could pick the difference between a 5D MkII and a 7D.

And also, regardless of BR @ 1080P, no consumer needs it.

Or a blind test with any two DSLR's.

bazz.

[FB008]

Originally Posted by ^catalyst

We be filmin',
They hatin'.

I be shootin',
They hatin'.

[Mitch01]

I don't understand the fascination with HD video. 1080 in particular.

Lets say I record somethingg from my HD Set Top Box. 2 hrs video in decent quality = 14GB.

How in hell does one transfer that to disk?

Either:
1. Use Blu Ray recorder which costs a bomb and then only people with a BR reader can view it.; or
2. Downscale to DVD. Which means downscaling to 576.

Therein lies your problem. If you are intending to put the footage on DVD, there is no reason to need anything past 576.

Originally Posted by michael_

its an SLR why do they even need video, i would much rather get rid of video for lower costing or better ISO performance.

Amen to that!

If I want video I'll go splash out on a Sony HD handycam. If I want photos I'll use my DSLR.

The big issue I see is more complicated firmware on the cameras, and at the end of the day more things that can bugger up on it.

Interesting discussion I had with the girlfriend the other day who was talking about buying a video camera. She was going to get one but decided against it, because you look at photos more than video.

Video you watch once or twice and stick on a shelf to gather dust. Photos are memories you store for much longer.

She was saying that she felt video was limiting in example a wedding. You hang the photos of your wedding in your house. You dont hang screencaps from a video.

Video gathers dust, but the pictures become a keepsake.

[proffesso]

Originally Posted by Mitch01

I don't understand the fascination with HD video. 1080 in particular.

Lets say I record somethingg from my HD Set Top Box. 2 hrs video in decent quality = 14GB.

How in hell does one transfer that to disk?

Either:
1. Use Blu Ray recorder which costs a bomb and then only people with a BR reader can view it.; or
2. Downscale to DVD. Which means downscaling to 576.

Therein lies your problem. If you are intending to put the footage on DVD, there is no reason to need anything past 576.

Amen to that!

If I want video I'll go splash out on a Sony HD handycam. If I want photos I'll use my DSLR.

The big issue I see is more complicated firmware on the cameras, and at the end of the day more things that can bugger up on it.

Interesting discussion I had with the girlfriend the other day who was talking about buying a video camera. She was going to get one but decided against it, because you look at photos more than video.

Video you watch once or twice and stick on a shelf to gather dust. Photos are memories you store for much longer.

She was saying that she felt video was limiting in example a wedding. You hang the photos of your wedding in your house. You dont hang screencaps from a video.

Video gathers dust, but the pictures become a keepsake.

14gb is cheap...far cheaper than tapes. a 1tb drive is under $100...go nuts.

I have HD video of my daughter since her birth in 2006, so far only amassed about 500gb of photos and video, thats from 3 cameras. its great fun to watch the old vids again, especially when they are easily accessible in windows...cost to store all that today? $40, i spent far more than that on tapes a few years back. recorders arent expensive either, my CD-R and DVD-R were both more expensive than br recorders are now. your probably cant remember when kodak gold cd's were $25 a disc.

dvd is acceptable, although anyone with a hdtv, ps3, bluray player is going to want the best they can get...hence all the HD camcorders on the market. SD is long dead. stop beating that horse.

I just cant see why there would be any opposition to video capabilities in a camera, they arent taking features away. the sensor and processors can handle it just fine, and its one less thing you have to carry around.

I know some of you want to live in single-use-device land, but that time is long gone

[proffesso]

Originally Posted by deepspring

Who the heck uses a DSLR as a video recorder? seriously, bite the bullet and buy the highest spec JVC camcorder and be done with it.

and the quality still wont match, sensor size is too small and no interchangable lenses until you look at somthing like the Sony EX-3

[Dark_Ernie]

Im having trouble understanding why you could possibly have any problem with DSLRs taking video.

Take the 5DMII for example. Photographers blow their load over the thing because of its full frame sensor.

Guess what?

People in the world of video, aka. DOPs absolutely ADORE full frame for the same reason photographers do...the depth it gives is absolutely gorgeous...then combine that with the ability to throw a variety of lenses on for different looks and the sheer size...its a dream come true.

A professional video camera that shoots FHD (or 2k) that is full frame AND lets you change lenses would usually cost easily over 15k (RED comes in at 18.5, but shoots in a much higher quality).

Recently FxPHD, the training institution I study with did a course on DSLR Cinematography and it was crazy popular. They went to Japan and were able to shoot stunning video in areas they usually wouldnt be allowed to since the camera looks like...well like a camera, where as a dedicated video camera would have you officially told to move on. They were even able to shoot video inside an airport since it just looked like they were looking over photos.

These DSLRs that do video are pretty much getting to a point where if you want to shoot anything creative you are better off with one of them and some nice glass than with some so called "pro handycam" with a fixed lens and a 2/3 inch sensor at best. Sure, there are still some rolling shutter issues but these are not run-around cameras. You could quite easily put together a commercial or a short film simply using these and it would look AMAZING.

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by deepspring

Who the heck uses a DSLR as a video recorder? seriously, bite the bullet and buy the highest spec JVC camcorder and be done with it.

Thats a shit camera thats why.

Hasnt anyone heard of not telling video people of what they need or dont need?

Who the heck uses a dSLR to take photos? Just use a compact, since you dont actually use the capabilities of one.

Originally Posted by it_inspector

Has no one heard of 35mm DOF adapters ???

Put a $300 camcorder behind one and use old 50mm f1.4/f1.8

You get all the shallow DOF and 35mm look and way cheaper than 2.5K DSLR with same 50mm f1.4 lens. If DIY interests you, there are crap loads of kits floating around on egay. But to be honest, building a static DOF adapter shouldn`t be too hard.

To be honest i simply cannot understand how anyone can even make video with a DSLR without a proper follow focus system and shoulder mount.

Theyre rubbish in comparison.

You lose light from the reduction of a second lens, and the reduction at the ground glass.

Makes them even worse for low light than they already are.

Where these are the world's best low light cameras either film or digital for motion picture.

They have proper follow focus and rigs for these cameras, and the entire cost still adds up less than a shitty $10k HDV camera that lets you use "manual" (electronically controlled) controls.

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by SgtCaboose

In a blind test I would be so impressed if someone could pick the difference between a 5D MkII and a 7D.

And also, regardless of BR @ 1080P, no consumer needs it.

No consumer needs a dSLR.

You guys should take your own words and just buy Canon IXUS's or shoot with your iPhones.

[SgtCaboose]

Originally Posted by Athiril

No consumer needs a dSLR.

You guys should take your own words and just buy Canon IXUS's or shoot with your iPhones.

No, that is just being stupid.

Clear differences exist between a P&S and a DSLR (disregarding quality etc., purely control wise).

There are not many discernible differences between 720P & 1080P though.

60FPS+ 720P would make for some awesome shots though, have you guys seen some of the (good) home movies being produced with the 5D MkII and the like? The way the image looks is quite impressive (not quality wise, but simply a different feel to the standard video camera look).

[BigandY]

Originally Posted by Mitch01

Amen to that!

If I want video I'll go splash out on a Sony HD handycam. If I want photos I'll use my DSLR.

The big issue I see is more complicated firmware on the cameras, and at the end of the day more things that can bugger up on it.

Apparently that makes you a purist, Mitch.

[DaCrusader]

This thread makes me laugh and cry with angry at the same time.

Oh so you know the liveview thing? Yes, well to record all it takes is a little bit of code to record off the liveview feed. It was proven that the 40D could do it, so Canon thought might as well. And now professional movie makers worldwide are amazed by the 5D Mark II's image quality. for $3800 it is simply unheard of. all of you people quoting handycams need to go watch some of the video's being made my 5D Mark II owners.

TL;DR purists can go jump, video is here to stay.

[BigandY]

If the cost to implement video really is negligble, I couldn't give a fuck about it's existance. The only reason I am against DSLR video is if it requires anything except neglible resources to implement it - I'm not against it being there just because I don't want video in my DSLR. Mind you, if anybody had actually read my posts that would've been clear as day.

[DaCrusader]

Originally Posted by BigandY

If the cost to implement video really is negligble, I couldn't give a fuck about it's existance. The only reason I am against DSLR video is if it requires anything except neglible resources to implement it - I'm not against it being there just because I don't want video in my DSLR. Mind you, if anybody had actually read my posts that would've been clear as day.

I highly doubt that video has any effect on the quality of ISO performance, framerate or over all image quality. I am a firm believer in the fact it would cost Canon a total of $4 in parts for the speakers + microphone and a little bit of coding.