Will canon produce an interchangeable lens video camera

[pixelbasher]

.....discounting current canon DSLR of course ;)

Reason being is I saw the sony NEX VG10 and it made me wonder. Why not canon? I don't have sony lenses, I have canon ones!

I'm in a situation where I'm after a video camera.......I absolutely love the vids coming off canons DSLR range nowdays, esp after using the bro in laws new 7D today, but hated the sloooow autofocus for the faster things in life, so would not buy one for video as such.

I don't even know if there are any drawbacks to the sony system, or my mystical Canon one, just thinking out aloud.

So how about it Mr. Canon? How about a video camera body with the same nice DOF effects one can get with a 7D or whatever your flavour of "D", and takes my current and future EOS lenses and is purely a full HD video camera.

[Chippy569]

dear god I hope so. It needs to happen. But will it? I dunno.

[Kolor-Pikker]

The only question is, how much video camera do you want or need? The Panasonic AF100 and Sony PMW F3 are both full-fledged camcorders with interchangeable mounts for almost any type of lens and have roughly 4/3rds and APS-C sized sensors respectively, but they also cost $4,800 and $13,000 respectively. This type of camera is already on the market, do you simply want one with "Canon" written across the side?

[peter nap]

Actually $4800.00 isn't that much. $13,000.00 is a little steep for the benefits I could use.
My guess is that a Canon would be somewhere in the middle if it were to come out.

[Sam6644]

All the good video cameras have interchangeable lenses.

[05Xrunner]

I guess they dont make a camera like the old XL2 that also could get the adapter to use EF lenses

[Kolor-Pikker]

All the good video cameras have interchangeable lenses.
Indeed, All the good video cameras can also use any lens via adapter as well, though I believe what the OP meant was "Is there a camera with a dSLR sized sensor that with native support for still camera lenses?", in which case there are four: The AF100, F3, RED and Alexa. (Though you wouldn't really want to be using Canon glass on the latter two)

[Chippy569]

Given his reference to the NEX-VG10 camera, I think he's talking about something that's a camcorder but with variable lenses. The price point would be similar to a DSLR, probably ~$1500-2000 for "body only."

[Kolor-Pikker]

Given his reference to the NEX-VG10 camera, I think he's talking about something that's a camcorder but with variable lenses. The price point would be similar to a DSLR, probably ~$1500-2000 for "body only."
I'm having a hard time getting why someone would want a camera like that. For $1500~2000 it most likely won't have much more than what you already get in a dSLR except maybe a few video-specific features, such as recording for over 30 minutes, and a more convenient form-factor.

[Chippy569]

and 3-color CCD with no rolling shutter, and a more editor-friendly codec...

[Kolor-Pikker]

and 3-color CCD with no rolling shutter, and a more editor-friendly codec...
Three APS-C size CCDs, pro codec, compact design and all for $2000? Maybe in 2020. The Sony PMW-500 has three 2/3" CCDs, a pro codec, and is a full ENG cam, but dang if it isn't $25k and you don't get a lens or viewfinder either.

[pixelbasher]

The only question is, how much video camera do you want or need? The Panasonic AF100 and Sony PMW F3 are both full-fledged camcorders with interchangeable mounts for almost any type of lens and have roughly 4/3rds and APS-C sized sensors respectively, but they also cost $4,800 and $13,000 respectively. This type of camera is already on the market, do you simply want one with "Canon" written across the side?

I thought I mentioned it in my first post. Quality of current DSLR, but with a focusing system that doesn't take a week to rack from MFD to infinity.

I couldn't care less what was written on the side of it, I just want to be able to use my lenses on it. Sony have the one I mentioned for about $3K (with a lens too I think, but admittedly prob "kit lens quality"), and I reckon I'd pay that for a video camera that allows the use of my current lenses. If Sony can do it why not Canon? I wasn't aware of the other two you mentioned, but $4800 is too much for my pocket, let alone 13K!!

I'm having a hard time getting why someone would want a camera like that. For $1500~2000 it most likely won't have much more than what you already get in a dSLR except maybe a few video-specific features, such as recording for over 30 minutes, and a more convenient form-factor.

how about the ability to fast focus the same as my DSLR? That is the ONLY thing I don't like about DSLR video.......and the fact you have to use it like a point and shoot via the screen or throw a chunky eyepiece on the back which is what the bro in law has bought. DSLR cameras make awesome qual vids, but only if you really want to film flowers blowing in the breeze. I want that quality with a focussing system my still camera has......I am obviously asking too much!!

If canon can make a still/video camera with the features of a 7D for $2K surely they can build a pure video only body for similar money?

[Trey T]

they're cooking up with something.

what's up with the ccd? let tell you, you're not going find large sensor ccd camcorder. read some articles why RED went with CMOS. now every big boy are using CMOS including Arri and hispeed cam phantom. when RED first release everybody was wondering why not ccd

[Kolor-Pikker]

I thought I mentioned it in my first post. Quality of current DSLR, but with a focusing system that doesn't take a week to rack from MFD to infinity.

I couldn't care less what was written on the side of it, I just want to be able to use my lenses on it. Sony have the one I mentioned for about $3K (with a lens too I think, but admittedly prob "kit lens quality"), and I reckon I'd pay that for a video camera that allows the use of my current lenses. If Sony can do it why not Canon? I wasn't aware of the other two you mentioned, but $4800 is too much for my pocket, let alone 13K!!

how about the ability to fast focus the same as my DSLR? That is the ONLY thing I don't like about DSLR video.......and the fact you have to use it like a point and shoot via the screen or throw a chunky eyepiece on the back which is what the bro in law has bought. DSLR cameras make awesome qual vids, but only if you really want to film flowers blowing in the breeze. I want that quality with a focussing system my still camera has......I am obviously asking too much!!

If canon can make a still/video camera with the features of a 7D for $2K surely they can build a pure video only body for similar money?

Well, ok, but autofocus isn't really something that gets any better in camcorders even with more expensive cams, in fact, it's the opposite. Anything over $9000 is strictly manual focus.

[Brian_R]

yea expensive cams dont have autofocus and the higher the price they all can have interchangeable lenses but at that price point when using cine quality lenses the glass is going to cost more that what i bet your car is probably worth.

[Chippy569]

yea expensive cams dont have autofocus and the higher the price they all can have interchangeable lenses but at that price point when using cine quality lenses the glass is going to cost more that what i bet your car is probably worth.

That's why most indie productions rent the camera ;)

[Luxury]

What about the sony alpha series?
The translucent mirror gives you that focus speed with video..

[Chippy569]

What about the sony alpha series?
The translucent mirror gives you that focus speed with video..

The pellicle mirror system is closer to ideal for sure, but still uses a separate sensor for AF. IMO the "ideal" setup will be when they figure out how to use the imaging sensor for AF also. One sensor, no mirrors. Someday.



As for why we're having this discussion, here are, IMO, why an SLR is not an ideal video camera:
1. Ergonomics. Using live view just simply isn't quite ergonomic, and using a viewfinder accessory is bulky at best.
2. CCD vs CMOS (and other sensory things). CMOS is great for stills but suffers from rolling shutter.
3. Legal limitations -- because an HDSLR is a photo camera and not a video camera (for legal reasons) there are limitations on its abilities.
4. Codec -- while H.264 .MOV isn't terrible, it is certainly not the best format for serious editing. (Sort of like shooting JPEG versus RAW.)
5. Audio on an HDSLR is limited to what you can fit on a stereo 3.5mm jack and monitoring abilities are limited at best. On-board is a joke.

I think myself and many others would like the versatility of lens choice offered from HDSLR's but without having to use an HDSLR body. How many camcorders could make use of something similar to a Tokina 11-16 (or other UWA)? How many camcorders zoom to 500mm? What if I just want an aperture of 1.2 for shooting in the dark? These are options that you can't get on a camcorder, but that videographers could benefit from.

It's sort of a weird adaptation when you think about it, since when using video, you don't really need the "SLR" part of an HDSLR. Personally I think the NEX-VG10 is the best option student filmmakers and small indies and documentary-run-and-gun whatever shooters could hope for. I do hope that the other camera makers pick up on that style, since it could potentially be optimal for a large chunk of the prosumer market.

[Trey T]

mr nichol do you know why corporation that have the resources to choose CMOS over CCD? it shouldn't be a wiki answer this time

[Chippy569]

I haven't used wiki yet, not sure why you bring that up, but mostly because CMOS is cheaper and uses less power. Given that the SLR is a still camera, things like rolling shutter will never be an issue for still photos.

[pixelbasher]

Well, ok, but autofocus isn't really something that gets any better in camcorders even with more expensive cams, in fact, it's the opposite. Anything over $9000 is strictly manual focus.

And that is because I assume most of the people using these ones really know how to use them, and they prob find autofocus to be a PITA for pro work. I am not one of them, I'm just like most punters out there.

What about the sony alpha series?
The translucent mirror gives you that focus speed with video..

That's all good and well, and If I had sony gear I prob wouldn't be starting this discussion.....Maybe that's the answer if it works well. Star buying Sony gear for video.......but I already have canon lenses, hence the question to begin with.

3. Legal limitations -- because an HDSLR is a photo camera and not a video camera (for legal reasons) there are limitations on its abilities.

What's that all about? Why would the legal system care about it?

[Kolor-Pikker]

And that is because I assume most of the people using these ones really know how to use them, and they prob find autofocus to be a PITA for pro work. I am not one of them, I'm just like most punters out there.
Not much to say here, really, it just seems that technology isn't quite there yet for SLR-grade autofocus in an inexpensive video camera. The biggest problem in such a system probably isn't it's feasibility, but how it will actually be used, because even if using only the center point to AF on a still camera, you can always focus & recompose, something you can't do in video.
The real holy grail in video AF would be an auto-tracking AF system that could smoothly shift the point of focus to anywhere in the frame or controlled via joystick.

What's that all about? Why would the legal system care about it?
In Europe a special tax has to be paid for anything considered a "camcorder", specifically, anything that can record for over 30 minutes straight. In the end, this would mean a higher store price and Canon doesn't feel like losing sales just to tout unlimited video recording.
The 4gb fat32 limit has nothing to do with it, most modern camcorders use fat32 and do file-splitting for long recording.

[Trey T]

it's not about pricing it's the performance. RED have mentioned about this, bc to them, the marginal difference is nothing compare to the way CMOS will perform. this topic has been beaten to death when Jim barely sold most of his share of Oakley and his words have proven today that CMOS is a better choice.