ChungMedia

Canon Eos1DmkIV video – The skinny

I’ve been finding out as much as I can about the video mode on the Canon Eos1DmkIV. Here’s the latest info I’ve received from Canon Europe.

It has essentially the same video frame rates and data rates as the 7D but with a 1.3x crop factor. These rates include 1080/24p/25p/30p as well as 720p/50/60p. The ISO in video mode is ISO 100 to ISO H3 when shooting in manual mode (with custom function C.Fn I-3 setting enabled). Auto ISO is also available.

The audio remains the same as the 7D with no additional manual controls – such a shame. The 1DmkIV shares the same higher audio frequency range and sample rates as the 7D, besting the 5DmkII.

The 1DmkIV also shares the 4gb file size limit of the 7D and 5DmkII. This is due to the size limit of FAT32 file system.

Also missed is the opportunity to shoot to both card slots at the same time, sadly the 1DmkIV can only record to one card at a time. Also absent is any cropped sensor mode in video, surely this will come – but not yet it seems.

There is a new wi-fi pack for the camera but no new audio accessories like an XLR box as some had speculated. Looks like we’ll be using Beachteks, Juicedlinks and audio recorders like the Zoom H4n for some time to come.

In order to start video recording you need to press the FEL button or you can activate it tethered using a computer and EOS utility. It seems there is no option for IR start/stop like the 5DmkII and 7D, but I need to confirm this.

More as I get it.

Dan Chung

640x100-5

Posted on October 20th, 2009 by admin | Category: DSLR video news |

24 responses to "Canon Eos1DmkIV video – The skinny"

  1. Sam Morgan Moore Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 5:09 am

    Im not sure what this brings beyond the 7d really ?

    Certainly not ‘the real deal’ which I envision as needing a RAW recorder as a seperate black box in the first generations

    Of course there has still been no decent workout of the D3s

    S

  2. Jeff N Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am

    What this gets, I suppose, is 6400 iso and a very very clean image, see http://vimeo.com/7152063

    But not sure if I’m going to cancel my 7D order and go for this instead for the extra 3 grand…

  3. Jul Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 7:53 am

    and what about new firmware update for 5d mk2 that be published in 2010?
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102003eos5dfirmware.asp
    they wrote about 24 and 25p and what about 50/60 in 720?
    Do you have any info bout that?

  4. Bela Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 8:21 am

    Based on this rather pathetic description, this new Canon camera is strictly for the birds.

    Guys and gals, if you want to shoot real video, you need to get yourselves a VIDEO CAMERA. Or CAMCORDER, if you like. The DSLRs are obviosuly designed for taking STILL PICTURES. You know…. snapshots of life, not a continuum of life itself.

  5. Jeff N Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 8:26 am

    Hm…the Vincent LaForet video of the 1D IV I linked to above has been set to private… Wonder why. Maybe Canon hadn’t approved, since it was done with a loaner camera?

    Bottom line, this camera sees better in lower light than the naked eye, and is practically noiseless at 6400.

  6. Jeff N Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 8:29 am

    Yo Bela – can’t agree. I own and use several video cameras, and there are definitely a variety of uses for DSLR video, no question about it. These things can be used in many pro applications to give advantages only available in high end camcorders. Video cameras most assuredly are NOT dead. But the video world is different this year and that change is not a fluke, thanks largely to Canon.

  7. Andy Whitehall Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am

    Jeff, youre wasting your time with that one.. still havent figured out why hes here posting continuously!

  8. Bela Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am

    @Andy Whhitehall #7, I am here because I have just as much right to be here and comment as you or anyone else does, see? Unless you think that because your last name is “Whitehall,” you are somehow of a privilieged class? BTW, I haven’t see any decent blog addition with your name signed to it — why is that, you think?

    @Jeff N #6, for shooting video, I can’t think of ANY advantage that a DSLR would have over a normal video camcorder, save for the fact that they have a giant sensor when compared to most (but by no means all) video camcorders and D-film cameras.

    Of course, there is the little issue of in-camera downsampling and arbirtary recording of only every fourth of fifth lines of pixels. I would love to see Sony or Panasonic come out with a huge pixel count sensor in a video camcorder which then would only record up to a maximum of 1080 rows of pixels by the technique of line-skipping. It would probably be cursed, whereas a DSLR that does the same thing is adored and idolized?

    At least with something like the Red One (and other) camcorders, when you record at lower resolution, like at 2K, the camera records to every single row of pixels still, but it only records using the center portion of the image sensor. That is certainly would be easy enough to do withe the DSLRs as well. Use the center portion of the mega-sized sensor to record 1080 or 720 lines. Instead of skipping many lines befiore actually recording one.

    Have you seen the aliasing and moire effects that these DSLRs generate when you shoot video with them. Pretty darn nasty, eh?

    So Jeff, I guess I am not getting your point about any DLSR having “many advantages” over a dedictaed video camcorder costing many times the price. The only one I could even think of would be the oversized sensor (designed for still photography, of course), but then when only arbitrarily selected lines of these megasensors are being recorded in video mode, the advantage of “large is better” quickly turnis into an alisasing/moire FX disadvantage, IMO.

    I suppose there were photojoutnalists before the invention of the first video-capable DSLRs, correct?

  9. Jeff N Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Hi Bela: light sensitivity, depth of focus, incredibly low price…these are some of what DSLRs offer. I don’t know what kind of work you do, other than misquoting people and trying to create an argumentative atmosphere…but I can think of a number of situations where having a very cheap and lightweight camera capable of some very nice images can be useful for. I guess you have never put a $20,000 camera in a crashmo and had it come back toast, or you might think differently.

    I’ve also been in situations where video cameras are barred but stills cameras aren’t, done documentary work where even a small HDV camera attracts unwanted attention but a camera like this wouldn’t.

    As for aliasing and moire, yes, I’ve seen it and it’s a drawback on some shots/situations. But if you don’t believe there has been an evolution in video quality in this new crop of DSLRs, technical limitations aside, then Mr. Whitehall of the privileged class must be right, and you’re simply a troll.

    Cheers.

  10. Mark Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Don’t feed the trolls. I went there and it proved pointless.

    Back to the 1D…despite the great high iso, hopefully improved af and addition of video i’m still underwhelmed. I know i shouldn’t be but…

    I always wanted the mkiii to be full frame and was hoping this one would be. Plus they seemed to have missed out some of the nice little features from the 7D, like the transmissive viewfinder with grid and the electronic level. These are really nifty little features i’ve really liked when i’ve used the D3 and D700. for really formal compositions they’re really handy.

    I’m really not sure what to do now. Maybe a 7D would be better to get as a video dslr and backup/remote camera? I can’t seem to justify the price difference at the moment.

  11. Jeff N Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 10:41 am

    Mark, at the moment, I’m tending to agree. The whole thing from my pov is the super low price point of these things. With the extra 3 grand you can get extra glass and one of those Zacuto braces… And I’m feeling like we’ll all be getting something even better, newer, and also cheap within a year, the evolution here is coming pretty fast.

  12. Mark Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Yup…the addition of video means all the gear that comes with it. Shoulder mounts, audio equipment and whatever.

    There was a point where i was shooting quite a bit of sport (mainly swimming and athletics up to international level) though that has died down a little now. At the time i was having trouble with the mkiii’s af tracking…it just never worked as well as my older mkii’s. But for general news/pj work the mkiii was always ok.

    Before the whole video revolution i had a few lenses that were/are coming up for replacement so the move to Nikon was quite a tempting one. But the D3s doesn’t really offer the flexibility in terms of frame rates that the newer Canon’s do. So that isn’t quite so straight forward a decision now either. Especially as the D300s i tried seemed to have noticeably worse rolling shutter issues than the 5D i have been using.

    So yeah, really not sure what to do now. Replace one of the older 1D’s i have with a mkIV or get a cheaper 7D and some extra video gear.

    Having said that i think i’ll let the mkIV have a thorough testing anyway. I got one of the first batch of mkiii’s in the uk and got stung with the af problems.

  13. Bela Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    @Mark #10 and #12 sez: “I’m really not sure what to do now.”

    MY TAKE: But why bitch about a Canon camera, or any other camera for that matter, BEFORE it is even launched, I mean? And if you should indeed need all those nifty video features, get a video camcorder with the proper accessories instead.

    “…. the D300s i tried seemed to have noticeably worse rolling shutter issues…”

    MY NOD IN AGREEMENT: Yes indeed. Another advantage of 3CCD sensor cameras. You know — the ones that use the far superior ELECTRONIC GLOBAL SHUTTER technology.

    @Jeff #9 THROUGH 11: Regarding the alleged advantages of the DSLR method of videography….

    Light sensitivity = yes indeed.

    Depth of focus = in photojournalism, that would be probably one of the disadvantages of shooting fast-paced video with oversized sensor cameras having ridiculously shallow DOF. Unless you have a seasoned asst. cameraperson/focus puller following the DSLR shooter with a wireless follow focus system in hand.

    Incredibly low price – agreed.

    “…trying to create an argumentative atmosphere…”

    MY TAKE: Not really, but I also do not fancy people who are so rabidly blind, that they urinate blood every single time someone uses a level head and points out that for a $1,500 price of a still camera, you cannot really get a $50,000 dedicated video camera with broadcast-quality features. You know what I’m saying, Jeff? Or are we really to believe that a DSLR is the best video camera in the whole wide world right now, regardless of price?

    But hey, maybe some folks here have a secret temple hidden deep in some jungle, where they can freely fetish and idolize DSLRs on a 24/7/365 basis. I wouldn’t at all be surprised, as a matter of fact.

    “I guess you have never put a $20,000 camera in a crashmo and had it come back toast…”

    MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: No, actually I had never done that, Jeff. For starters, as I am not a cameraman or a cinematographer or even a photojournalist, why should I have done that?

    “a small HDV camera attracts unwanted attention but a camera like this wouldn’t.”

    MY TAKE ON THE ABOVE: An amazing fact, indeed.

    “if you don’t believe there has been an evolution in video quality in this new crop of DSLRs…”

    MY TAKE: Of course not. For starters, you have a major mis-match between sensor resolution and captured image resolution. I mean… you have let’s say a 21MP sensor that captures, at an absolute maximum, an approximately 2.2MP image (at 1080p) or an app. 1MP image (at 720p).

    I mean, what’s next? Will Nikon launch a 100MP sensor DSLR — you know, that one that will still only capture video at either 2.2MP @ 1080p or 1MP @ 720p? Wow! That would be really impressive, huh?

    Moving on, how is the attainable video quality really with these DSLRs? Not all that good, I’m afraid. You have got a troublesome, highly compressed codec of the prosumer type, interframe instead of intraframe recording, no 4:2:2 chroma subsampling, poor quality audio, and so on.

    But, like we have established before, a DSLR is indeed cheap, and the lenses for one are really, really cheap, so for the price, one cannot really expect miracles, right?

  14. Mark Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Deja vu.

  15. Mark Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    From Vincent Laforet’s blog:

    ‘The “rolling shutter” or “jello” effect – is significantly improved over previous models. So much so that we did not hesitate to handhold the camera and do “Bourne-like” moves. It’s close to being a non-factor – but the effect is still there when you shoot extreme whip-pans (that would be unusable on a 50 foot screen regardless of the camera it was shot with.)’

  16. Bela Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    @Mark #15, I am not sure who this Vince guy is, but I can take exception to a few things he is saying nonetheless.

    Let’ say you shoot at 1080/24p with a electronic rolling shutter camera. For each and every frame, you are recording app 2,200,000 pixels, all at different times separated by nanoseconds. As long as you have a CMOS camera with r.s., there is indeed precious little that the mfrs can do to reduce these artifacts.

    Jello is one manifestation of rolling shutter artifacts, others are wobble, skew, bent vertial lines, and flash banding. Some of these man basically the same thing, of course.

    “Bourne-like moves” did not work too well for most folks watching the Bourne movies in cinemas, even though those were shot with 35mm film cameras by a crazed director and DP, apparently. If you want to screw up your image bad enough and want to deliver nothing but a headache and eye-ache to your audience, you can do that with practically any film or video camera ever invented.

    For rolling shutter in the DSLRs, we do not need to talk about “extreme whip plans,” either. Lock down the camera on a tripod. If you then introduce fast or super-fast subject motion front of the lens, you will still have pkenty of r.s. artifacts to give you a headache. But yes, when you do any panning at just about any speed faster than dead slow, you will add more.

  17. Mark Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Deja vu

  18. Sam Morgan Moore Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    http://www.vimeo.com/5917230

    can you see any rolling shutter

    S

  19. Bela Says:
    October 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Sam, thanx for the Vimeo clip! Almost no noticeable rolling shutter-related effects, congrats are in order, for sure. I’ve no clue as to how you pulled it off — did you apply some third-part anti-r.s. massage to it in post?

    If you had shot this exacting footage with the $8,000 Panasonic HPX300 camcorder CMOS+r.s. sensor, for instance, you would have had beaucup de rolling shutter nastiness. Amazing how the EOS 5D2 can indeed handle this problem better than a dedicated video camcorder could. But alas, seeing is believing.

  20. Sam Morgan Moore Says:
    October 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Simple Im following my subject – the subject is not moving across the frame very fast

    no software

    watch the background and you can see it – there is one car to car shot where the barn behind is very very bent

    but did it ruin the experience of watching ?

    Oh another point on DSLR – I use a $700 ‘steadicam’ – flying your favorite cinema rig will need a $70000 steadicam

    hard economics to fight

    S

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Website by Kevin Woo Designs