Shockrr07: Maybe its just me, but why are we putting video on DSLr's ? For one the video isnt good at all and the sound is garbage, yeah it might be good if there was somehting you really wanted to get a video of, but why wouldnt you just take a picture instead ? I feel like its only going to make the cost of the camera more expensive for something that is obsolete. If i want to spend 6k+ on a camera thats going to shoot video then im going to buy a video camera, not a DSLR.
Please correct me if i am wrong. If the camera is recording video then the sensor is constantly working. Over the life time of the camera will this have more wear on the camera than just taking pictures ?
Finally, I am currently a nikon user and have been for a while. But does it seem like nikon is playing catchup with the MP ? I know nikon has amazing metereing and color realization but seeing as a shoot sports its would be nice to be able to crop a shot i wasnt perfectly framed on and not decrease my image qual as much.
Hi Shockrr - Video capability on DSLRs is the logical thing to do. I agree with you that if you were spending 6k on a video camera, you wouldn't buy a dslr - but the 5d mk ii is only 2 grand. It shoots full HD from a full-frame sensor with access to a massive array of beautiful lenses. Whilst it may never (yet) have the same footage quality as a film camera, it produces remarkable results. Nikon have never released a DSLR of the capability AND price point of the mark ii, and given this recent release I don't think they ever will.
Just search vimeo for 5d mark ii and you'll see some great results.
Sound is always garbage on inbuilt microphones. If you want good sound that requires external equipment, regardless of the camera.
Your comment about 'why wouldn't you just take a picture instead' is ridiculous and you should think that through a bit further next time.