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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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!")

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]

It is Dickens Bicentennial so - 'Great Expectations'

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

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]

</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]

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.

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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?

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]

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]

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?

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