Two things I've noticed that are way over done in video these days (and I'm not picking on you,Edwin. Just my observation), are tilt-shift and focus-pulling. Brings too much attention to the technique rather than the content. Kind of like the wandering, shakey hand-held stuff that was popularized in the '90s.
But, if that's an indicator of things to come, then there's a clear path for purist videographer.
If you mean those "fake minature" videos all over Youtube and Vimeo, I'm not a big fan. I'd rather tilt-shift be used subtly, but since I don't watch a lot of TV, I can't really touch base with how it's used or overused. For me the purpose of TS lenses is to get multiple things in focus at once, or to throw that plane of field off an axis parallel to the sensor...it's not really an effect that could be "overused" any more than you can say "those durn flower and sports photographers and their out of focus backgrounds." If nothing else it lets the set decorator stretch the budget a bit further since they don't have to worry quite so much about distracting backgrounds (in the case of focus pulling). I do agree though, the overdrawn sort of pulling focus to remind the audience that this guy in the foreground is no longer speaking is pretty silly looking sometimes. Not a big fan of depth of field effects in video games either.
Okay, tell that to people like Philip Bloom, who would probably be all over this camera. Not to mention Sony, who has made not one, but two e-mount video cameras, which (optically) are Way inferior to the Canon L's.
I mean Philip Bloom no disrespect, but he makes it look too easy to do this and gets free publicity in the meantime for making video with equipment that is still just "not there yet." Close though. Personally, I thought the go-to guy for Canon DSLR video was Vincent LaForet. Nitpicking: Ls are the type of lens, EF is the lens mount...
The E-Mount was designed from the beginning as a movie mount in addition to as a still lens mount. You're right, it's not 35mm full frame, but if it is indeed doing well in professional work that can at least partly be blamed on the small sensors used up to this point in a lot of video cameras. It also can be credited to the cameras actually having a made-for-video lenses available - the Alpha-mount lenses don't replace actual video lenses.
I suppose that's a good way to wrap up my concerns about any EF mount video camera: It must launch with some lenses that work for video. Having the regular EF mount photographic lenses available as extras would be a great benefit, so long as one doesn't rely on them.
E-mount also has something else going for it that the EF mount doesn't - Sony released it as an open standard
(at least mostly) in April. While there are video lenses in EF mount (like the Zeiss CP.2 lenses and their zooms), the EF mount isn't wide open like that.
you're right, noone in their right mind would use canon L glass to shoot, say, a scene for an academy-award-winning film, or an end-of-season episode for a big TV series, or...If memory serves correctly, I think that next season of House was filmed with the 5D, too
The first time I ever saw an episode of House I ended up watching about five in a row (they had a marathon going)...good show, they know what they're doing. But they also have a lot of people working on it to make it work out. As a replacement for PL mount lenses on the one hand, or news /event cameras on the other, it is more or less a kludge and requires more kludges to get working right - have you ever seen what Canon HD video DSLR rigs look like? I would be all in favor of them continuing to put out small cameras with video but the EF lens lineup barely covers some of the basics (as evidenced by the link above) and as the format stands today its major benefits are maneuverability and cost. The points generally go to the more traditional formats.
(Note to self...never write anything that is provocative fodder for out-of-context quoting ever again!)