EOS 5D Mark IV Update [CR2]

LetTheRightLensIn said:
Anyway for all but a few the 30 min wouldn't likely ever matter.

A few??

davidhfe said:
Ceremonies, kids' plays and recitals, casual recording of presentations in the office, customer interviews, etc. These are exactly the sorts of events that people often will want to capture informally using the camera they already have. Pro events are going to be covered by dedicated gear.

^^ This.

In a professional setting, those responsible for recording the event will use the best tool for the project, which is often not a dSLR.

Rebel/xxxD bodies sell in far greater numbers than higher-end gear. It's that user base which would be more likely to benefit from elimination of the arbitrary 30 minute limit.
 
Upvote 0
About video on DSLR. Image quality is better than most ENGs, but there is that time limit.
And, in my strong opinion, it is best for filmmaking, where that time limit is a non-factor.
With that said, having the "best tool for the project" depends on the project.
Just to get things in perspective:
This is a RED camera body
weapon-centered.jpg


And this is a Arri Alexa Mini body
arri_alexa_mini_4.jpg


Note that neither have a shoulder mount, neither even have a viewfinder or LCD...
Everything is an add on, full-on cage/rig and railing system. Google it, if you don't know what I mean by full-on cage/rig and railing system...
The price of the body alone will trounce the 1DX2 that comes with viewfinder and LCD. And, if you are planning to use any of the above for an event... good luck. But it puts things into perspective, you don't use REDs or Arris for events... its overkill... stupid even...
For those that don't know, these are cameras that are used by Hollywood... ones that have a good budget.
 
Upvote 0
30 minutes time limit is not an issue for me. I'm a filmmaker and I do not film 30 minutes straight at a time. That's lame and kills the battery quickly. I usually record a few minutes at a time.

DSLR is great for filming events and weddings. I film with a Canon 5D Mark II. Most videographers will not be able to afford Arri, RED, and Canon's 1DX Mark II. I have bills. I have to worry about lens, memory, batteries, cases, insurance, and rigs. DSLRs are here to stay for awhile for filming.

I see short documentaries and weddings filmed with crappier cameras than the 5D Mark II and they manage to look good right now.
 
Upvote 0
scyrene said:
neuroanatomist said:
scyrene said:
The 29:59 recording limit is arbitrary and the reasoning behind the tax bands escapes me - but do many people shoot for 30 minutes or more continuously? I don't think I've ever seen a film or television programme that had shots even a few minutes long.

The reason you don't see that is called editing. Consider speeches, press conferences, sporting events, etc. – footage is continuously recorded, but only short segments are actually used.

Oh speeches, hmm. That's a good point. Editing was kind of what I was thinking of, you know. But yes, I guess some things like that must be recorded continuously. I suppose they use 'proper' video cameras! Or press record again when there's a pause :)

When I shoot my cooking show, or for my charity pub crawls around here in New Orleans..I only shoot short spurts.

BUT...I do helps shoot some bands in concert and that longer time would be VERY welcome on cameras...
 
Upvote 0
I could not find the 29:59 limit in the specifications:

https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/1d-x-mark-ii/specifications/canon-eos-1dx-mkii-specification-chart.pdf

Any thoughts?
 
Upvote 0
scyrene said:
tron said:
I could not find the 29:59 limit in the specifications:

https://downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/eos/1d-x-mark-ii/specifications/canon-eos-1dx-mkii-specification-chart.pdf

Any thoughts?

From the manual: "When shooting movies other than High Frame Rate movies The maximum recording time of one movie clip is 29 min. 59 sec." (p321).
OK, then the recorded time that is mentioned in the specifications is total and not continuous. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
dilbert said:
Sharlin said:
dilbert said:
Correct. Nobody can remember 30 minutes worth of lines.

I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of a "stage play"?

Of course... I wonder how many TV/film actors would be capable on stage in a play?

Which is to say that actors being filmed (rather than on stage) don't need to remember all of their lines in the same way.

it's interesting how UK SciFi in the 1960's took it's inspiration from the stage (Dr Who) and most shows were shot in a single live performance with a live edit between 4 cameras. Very few cuts and the sfx shots were engineered in the writing to allow the crew and actors to move to the next set. Where as in America, particularly Star trek, the whole show was a series of individual shots, shot out of order and assembled in the editing room like a jigsaw puzzle...a bit like a film. Every close up / conversation between two people was shot twice, with lighting and the camera set up for one half of the dialogue and then repeated but from the other guys dialogue / reactions...with his own lighting and camera.
So yes there is a huge difference between TV / film actors and stage actors. A stage actor has to remember all their dialogue and it's essentially one big take, except for scene changes.
 
Upvote 0