nice video, greetings from sevilla

5D or 7D ?, I say both ! Love these little power houses. I honestly can't tell the difference between the two when used in the right hands..

Love and Aloha, iaKP-

yes

Yes what?

correct me if i am wrong but dan is simply using a stereo jack to stereo jack to feed the zoom recorded audio into the 7d

Dan blogs about the cable he uses on his web site: dslrnewsshooter.com/2009/09/26/pinknoise-systems-5dmkii-and-7d-audio-cable/

correct me if i am wrong but dan is simply using a stereo jack to stereo jack to feed the zoom recorded audio into the 7d

oh ya... no question

Right you are, Joe. I basically recently decided to forgo the troublesome CMOS + electonic rolling shutter technology altogether, and stick with 3CCD equipment only (Panasonic, JVC, Fuji, etc).

Who needs those pesty, omniperesent jellos, skews, wobbles, bent verticals, flash banding, etc? I sure don't. CMOS is a great sensor for STILL photography. Just not for video shoots, unless you do still life and bloomning flowers constantly. :-))

Shoot anything with a CMOS DSLR or videocam, and then project it to a larger screen, say 12-ft wide or larger. Especially if you had shot at 24p at normal shutter speeds. You will be almost guranteed to get a giant headache, assuming there are normal to fast movements in your moving images.

I couldn't disagree more. You're gonna see that you're completely wrong. go to Philipbloom.TV and watch his greenpeace video. Rolling shutter is a problem that can not only be fixed in post via plug-in, but can be easily mastered in production. The images out of these cameras in video mode is 200% better than any 3CCD camera I've ever seen.

Drew, with all due respect to Phil, Mr. Phillip Bllom did not invent the CMOS sensor, nor electronic shutters, last time I checked on Wikipedia.

All you need to do is pick a CMOS camera (rolling shutter) and a comparable CCD camera (global shutter), put them on the same rig or side-by-side and shoot the same demanding motion sequences with both. Make sure to shoot close-up hand-to-hand combat, martial arts fighting, boxing, street fighting. Then a fast moving bike, running person, or vehicle or boat, followed in a pan with various lens focal distances. Insert cars shots as well, if you can.

Then all you need to do is project onto a larger screen the results. Global shutter beats rolling shutter every time.

Note also that so far, most of the CMOS test footage has been serendipity, slow and dreamlike. Try to make a "Bourne Identity" or "Crank" or "Transporter" type of action movie with any CMOS camera, DSLR or otherwise. You audience watching on the big screen will have their eyeballs pulled out!

CMOS cameras are not in the professional category so far. This includes the Red One and SI-2K as well. We'll see what Arri will be able to do with their new Blue line-up next year. There is othing with the CMOS sensor. There is everything wrong with the fact that every single pixel gets exposed at minutely different times, left to right, top to bopttom, frame after frame.

If you already know full well up front that the camera will give you motion artifacts, why bother to use it in the first place? "Fixing it in post?" Now, that is talking like a true cinematographer would, right?

I could see spending maybe upwards of $5,000 for a CMOS+roling shutter camera, but not more than that. Anything past that much money would have to be a rolling shutter type 3CCD camera.

They are already shooting 30-40 million dollar movies with the Panasonic HPX3700 Varicam, the one with the sCCD sensor. Frankly, if I were able to make a movie in that budget range, I would not be allocating it to a CMOS sensor camera. We know it is much cheaper and simpler to make than CCD sensor, better in low light, and need less power to run. But the built-in disadvantages are just too severe to ignore.

There is not much you can do while shooting to correct rolling shutter. That is why they call it "rolling shutter."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but almost half of Crank 2 was filmed with a Canon HF-S100 -- and that is a CMOS consumer cam.

Nikon makes great products for still photography. Obviosuly, they have zero clue about MOVING images, such as videography, right?

Why ask them to come up with something, therefore, when you have plenty of prime choices out there for digital moving pictures made by companies with a video track record, such as Canon, Panasonic, Sony, JVC, et al?

Why ask them to come up something???? Because professionals aren't going to buy a product that is obsolete. Only Nikon fanboys would continue buying Nikon. Until Nikon comes out with a DSLR that can shoot video, sell their stock because it's going down.

Agreed. Either come to terms with the future or expect sales declines. And besides, considering their fan base, if they took the time and energy into making a video DLSR worthy of their name, they would make a shit-ton of money. Can't feel bad for a company with such an obvious opportunity smacking them in the face.

If you really must use a NIKON camera and no other brand, I would suggest that sticking with still photography might be a better option for now.

Nikon as a company just does not have the decades-long track record and reputation of a video camera maker when it comes to recording moving images like video. As do for example Canon, Panasonic, Sony, JVC, Arri, etc, etc.

I am not sure why you are all ganging up on Nikon, anyhow. I don't hear many wonderful stories about HD-SLRs being made by Sony, for example. I would believe that it is up to the officers of a company or some other big shots what they are going to be making for products and what they will not. I guess Nikon is comfy with being a maker of mostly still photography gear, no?

Nashville Music Row? How are things over there these days? Is Nashville still welcoming LA refugees, how is the indie film scene over there? I was considering moving there a few years ago, but back then there wasn't much of an infrastructure, especially in dramatic film work.