Here's a pretty cool Beachtek audio adapter that is made for this sort of camera:








http://beachtek.com/dxa5d.html

Beachtek audio adapter = wow!

I've seen some dreadful rubbish shot on the 5DM2. Then we have the BBC telling everyone that the 5D isn't fit for any serious production work.

Conversely there are stunning films such as those from Philip Bloom that teach us that it's all about the skill of the photographer and very little about the tools he uses.

Some of Phil's best work, IMO.

I personally see more crap shot using either 35mm adapters or DSLRs now because people don't understand DOF or how to use lenses. So many feel that now they can knock the background out of focus, they should. Isn't the case. There is a time and place for it and too many just ignore that fact.

I love the image from the 5DM2 - love the image from the 7D as well. Like Stuart said though, it's about the painter, not so much the paint.

cheno

... the BBC telling everyone that the 5D isn't fit for any serious production work.

They are referring to weaknesses in the codec implementation that can present real obstacles when you can't choose what you're shooting, as well as the pain of not having time code and having to use double sound.

For everyone else (outside the Beeb), it depends.

Better educate yourself about the bit beyond what the camera can do under handpicked circumstances.

"Better educate yourself..."

Who is this comment aimed at, exactly?

I think the comment is aimed at anyone who is getting too excited about this camera without realizing that it has some severe drawbacks.

Here are a couple of negatives that are common to SLR cameras with HD video modes:

1/ Substandard codec.
2/ Terrible rolling shutter issues.
3/ Awful audio.
4/ Overheating problems if used for more than occasional short bursts.
5/ bad ergonomics for video: screen at one angle, difficult to use manual controls while shooting smoothly, hard to hold steady without some sort of brace, etc.

Stuart,

No offense intended for anyone here.

It's just that I have seen so many people jump into whatever is the latest and most exciting technology, and they expect it to work as well under any circumstances as the stuff that has been honed and refined in professional use over decades.

Most recent example (before using DSLRs for video) of that is when some people insisted on using RED cameras over Sony F900s for Hollywood-level greenscreen work, because "the RED is the future." Unfortunately it isn't great in the present for this, which has been a surprise to many.

All tools are great for something, but it's key to have tested workflows.

Laurence's comments are spot-on!

Bjorn, I think we may be talking at cross purposes, because that was my point exactly (and no offence taken).

The 5D has quickly gained cult status and because of the exceptional skills of people like Phillip Bloom, everyone seems to think they can randomly point the camera and achieve the same thing. Conversely, there are reports such as the BBC's, who rule out a camera in a similarly arbitrary way.

I believe that if you handed a mobile phone to a select few people they could still create exceptional video, and that there are millions who couldn't regardless of how fantastic their camera might be.

Incidentally, an aside about the BBC here... their point about the 5D was that the down-conversion and aliasing was unacceptable, which could then play havoc with HDTV compression. Well as someone who views BBC HD on a regular basis, let me tell you that their broadcasts and productions are largely considered to be the worst of any of the UK's HD output. Smear, crushed contrast, compression artefact, you name it, even their studio programmes have excessive grain. This makes their assessment of the 5D even more ironic.

i'm more than happy for people to use whatever the latest 'gimmick' happens to be to create / make programs, indeed, it's the way forward, but please, let's not go overboard with the idea that these 'new' tools are anything more that protypes / pathfinders to more practical technologies.

if your idea of shooting is with a dslr (connected to a beachtec as shown above, or some other method for decent audio), then good for you. quite frankly i'm more than happy to wait till the technology becomes more practical and efficient, and in the meantime, hire a decent professional camera to do the job simply and fuss free.

then again, i am the archetypical old fart!

>Incidentally, an aside about the BBC here... their point about the 5D was that the down-conversion and aliasing was unacceptable, which could then play havoc with HDTV compression. Well as someone who views BBC HD on a regular basis, let me tell you that their broadcasts and productions are largely considered to be the worst of any of the UK's HD output. Smear, crushed contrast, compression artefact, you name it, even their studio programmes have excessive grain. This makes their assessment of the 5D even more ironic.

Actually this makes sense. The more data saving compression a network uses on delivery, the more pristine they want their source material to be. Pristine source material can take heavy data compression a heck of a lot better than stuff that already has artifacts and other problems.

Good imagery and editing; shame the content was such lies.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeWikipedia[/link]:

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided

Boy is this hard to resist. We have many people in this forum on both sides of the political spectrum. Some of my favorite contributers are way to the right of me and the last thing I want to do is anger them by spouting off my opinion.

I'll just refer to Wikipedia and say that 67% of scientists believe that global warming is real and a man-made phenomenon, 11% disagree, and the rest are undecided. Slam dunk science? Maybe not, but lying? Hardly.