Scott's Photo Blog

More Great HiDef Video from the Canon 5D Mark II

I've been skeptical about the utility of the HD video produced by the 5D Mark II and other high-end DLSRs. Sure, we all saw Vincent LaForet's incredible video Reverie, but he's a top-notch professional with oodles of equipment, lighting and resources (including a helicopter, which so few of us use on our shoots).

But over on SmugMug's blog, Don MacAskill, the company's founder, writes about his somewhat less privileged father's experience shooting HD video with the 5D Mark II. His dad wrote that he, too, was skeptical about the results he'd get:

“I had seen Vincent Laforet’s amazing short film, but only in 720p. I knew what an amazing photographer he is and wondered how close an everyman like me could come to footage like that. Could the clips possibly hold up to viewing in 1080p?”

“So with only an hour’s practice shooting my dog licking peanut butter and the neighbor’s kids running in their yard, I left for the city to compare myself to a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer with his helicopter, pricey stabilizer, models, set lighting, and post-production experts. I had a few hours and a tripod. What we had in common was the 5D.”

How did he do? According to the elder MacAskill

“I had just one secret weapon, same as Vincent: a Canon 200mm f/2.0 lens, not exactly an everyman item. It made a difference and I used it for maybe half the shots (snip). I also used an 85mm f/1.2 for scenes like the cable car, and toys in shop windows.”

“Dog and kid shots look amazing too, but I have to be honest: I missed many shots of fast-moving kids that I would have gotten with my video camera. Maybe I just need figure out how to juggle zooming, focus, and having the controls scattered across the back of the camera, but it felt like I needed three hands and the skillz of a Cirque du Soleil juggler.”

So, what's the verdict? Like I predicted, the Mark II isn't going to be as easy to use or as complete a solution as a less-expensive dedicated video camera. Still, the video looks amazing, and as Don's dad and other Mark II users get more experience - and maybe a third hand - the results will only get better. (Plus, I bet we see some kind of third-party solution for holding the camera while taking video - something like a Steadicam.)

And considering that there isn't a price premium for the video capability - the 5D Mark II's cost is actually lower than its two closest competitors from Nikon and Sony, enthusiastic amateurs and pros are going to have a ball trying to get the best possible video from what promises to be an outstanding DSLR.

Canon Rocks the House with the new 5D Mark II

Canon's latest and possibly greatest (even though it's not the cheapest) new full frame DSLR has revealed its specs: Let's herald the arrival of the Canon 5D Mark II. (What they didn't call it the 6D, I'll never know.)

I hate to pick on a specific journalist (see my post on the Canon 50D) but once again, Marty Katz of the NY Times amazes me by calling the announcement of the most-predicted camera ever a "September surprise." I can't think of an analyst or journalist, including me and Michael, who didn't foresee this camera arriving before the big trade show Photokina this year.

In any case, Katz breathlessly summarizes the camera's stats, although, once again, it's not clear if he's actually tested the camera, or if he's just restating Canon's press releases:

Cosmetically the same, the new version shoots full HD video and even better still pictures. The larger data stream from a 21-megapixel sensor is handled by more efficient amplifier circuitry and a new signal processor, the Digic IV, for a reduction in digital noise. Pictures are clearer and sharper, and a light sensitivity setting up to ISO 25,600 produces good pictures in very low light.

MPEG4 video can be shot for up to 29 minutes, depending on the content, at the high-definition resolution of 1920 by 1080 pixels at 30 frames per second. A stereo external microphone can be connected, but the built-in mike is mono.

Here's some other pertinent features of the 5D Mark II:

• Live view shooting has face detection AF, which is very cool, although I don't think there's much point to shooting in live view with a DSLR.
• A continuous shoot time of up to 3.9fps. This is low compared to its competitors, but some analysts conjecture that this is a more honest estimate than the inflated claims that have been made in the past. Nevertheless, Canon rates the more-than-$1,000 less expensive 50D at much higher 6.3fps.
• It has the same high-resolution LCD of other new DSLRs, but DP Review finds that "Canon do seem (sic) to have made it even better with improved viewing angles and no less that three layers for anti-reflective material."
• The viewfinder has an improved 98% frame coverage, a personal best for Canon (and just about everyone else (but short of the Sony A900's outstanding 100% coverage).

Quoting DPReview again, the 5D Mark II is  "a camera that aims to leapfrog both its direct rivals, either in terms of resolution (in the case of the D700) or features (in the case of the DSLR-A900)."

Over on Imaging-Resource.com, Michael R. Tomkins reveals that Canon has lofty goals for the 5D Mark II "Along with a Digic 4 processor, this results in Canon making some very impressive claims about the EOS-5D Mark II. It was described to us as offering the highest image quality of any EOS DSLR to date."

Is Canon really saying that the 5D Mark II has higher image quality than their top-of-the-line EOS 1D Mark III and it's big brother, the 1Ds? Maybe. Technology does keep improving, and I can believe that the photos from a next generation camera are superior to its more expensive siblings.

However, the 5D Mark III lacks some of the pro-level features of those cameras, including faster frame rates, tougher weather sealing and built-in vertical grips. (BTW, are there any conspiracy theorists out there who think that Canon purposefully retarded the FPS rate on the 5D Mark III to maintain a market for the 1D's?)

The 5D Mark III's price of $2,699 is pretty good, maybe even great, for a camera with these specs. In fact, it's even cheaper than its closest competitors, the Sony A900 and the Nikon D700, which list for $2,999. And it's a friggin' Canon, people.

I still would have loved to see Canon kick everyone's asses by bringing it in for $2,499, though. I keep waiting for a camera company to give us AMAZING deals on it's bodies, knowing it will make up the difference by selling more lenses, flashes and other accessories. 

All in all, my faith in Canon is renewed with the release of the Canon 5D Mark III. Even if I can't afford it, I can still love it from afar.

Love Before First Sight

If you've ever read personal ads online or in the newspaper - not that I'm saying that I have, mind you - you probably had the good sense not to fall in love until you, at the very least, actually met the author. If everyone was as beautiful and affable as their advertised selves, we'd have a lot of better looking people in this world.

But in an article on the upcoming Canon 50D, it seems to me that the author makes the mistake of becoming infatuated with a camera before they even date. In "An Upgraded Camera that Only Looks Familiar," writer Marty Katz gushes that "is a hot-rod sibling of the year-old 40D. It’s not just a cosmetic makeover. The 50D looks, feels and weighs the same, but the parts under the hood have been replaced with higher-horsepower components."

First of all, I have problems with that lede. It makes no sense. Katz writes that the 50D is "not just a cosmetic makeover," then explains that it looks, feels and weighs the same. If that's true, then it's not a "cosmetic" makeover at all.

But that's just style. I have a bigger issue when Katz goes on to write that the 50D gives you "faster, cleaner images" and that "the processor also focuses lenses a third faster." (Although, just to be bratty, I probably would have left the word "lenses" out of that sentence. What else would it focus? Its attention?)

My problem is: No where in the article is it stated or even suggested that Katz has ever used a 50D, let alone tested it vigorously enough to makes those assertions. My guess is that those claims came from Canon's press releases. So, shouldn't those sentences have started with "Accoding to Canon..." or some such?

This is the friggin' New York Times, people.

In truth, because the 50D crams a lot more megapixels onto a sensor that's the same size as the 40D's, I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new Digic IV processor can achieve what Katz calls "cleaner" images. If it can, more power to Canon. But I'll believe it when we see it in independent testing.

Take a look at the Times piece and tell me if you agree that it's a little too confident in presenting Canon's marketing claims as if they were proven fact.

New DSLR Rumors Abound

Engadget today ran a particularly fake-looking picture of the rumored successor to the Nikon D80 called...inspiringly...the Nikon D90. Even Engadget admits that the "D90" badge looks a little dodgy. This was originally posted on Nikon Rumors.

Meanwhile, Canonophiles are breathlessly awaiting word of a 5D Mark II. The rumor first appeared on Gizmodo back in March 2008, when they predicted an April 22nd launch. Uh, not so much.

But they later reported on May 25, 2008 that a book called Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital Field Guide appeared on Amazon.com, with a publication date of November. 

Well, the book doesn't appear there anymore. Also, the first version of the book appears to have been published on April 28, 2008, which means that Amazon would have had a listing for the sequel less than a month later. That author must work fast. Lastly, here's the shot of the book from Gizmodo - doesn't it look a little, uh, amateurish to you (the arrow and question marks are mine)? And the camera pictured on the cover is the original 5D!

 

While I'm sure there will someday be a new version of the 5D (I'm not so certain about the D80), I'm not convinced that these "clues' are anything other than the efforts of overzealous Photoshoppers. But, I'll hold out hope. What do you think?

My Love Affair with the Canon EOS 1D Mark III

Don’t tell my family, but I’ve fallen in love with a camera : Canon EOS 1D Mark III.

It’s embarrassing, really. I’m going to try and tell you why I’m smitten, but as you probably know, love is a hard emotion to put into works.  

Have you ever tried to explain why you loved someone? Was it his sense of humor? , Her crooked smile? The way she sipped her drink?

Describing love using words is like painting the Mona Lisa with eye shadow – you’re bound to fall short. 

In the following paragraphs, I’m going to try and tell you what I most appreciate about this camera.  But I know I’ll disappoint. So, I start this review with a disclaimer:

I don’t have the words to express just how fantastically responsive, immediately intuitive or powerfully built this powerhouse of a camera is. Nor have I the technical expertise to say why it’s pictures come out so rich and three-dimensional. All I can say is this camera feels more “right” in my hands than any other camera I’ve ever used, and that the pictures it takes are phenomenal.

With that out of the way, here of some of the things that have made me fall so hard. You can read them after the break.