Canon White Paper Claims.

thats not aperture control.. its tilt shift or done in post

t

You misunderstand my point, I mean to say that if he wanted to move towards his subject in this kind of scenario he could not.

Lee, have you advised Canon that this conversation is being followed by hundreds perhaps thousands of 5D2 users and potential users? It would good for them to understand that their answers are being scrutinized and that most of us are stunned by the response...especially as it moves up the ladder. You're not some crank with an aberrant concern. This is THE concern that nearly all of us shooting the 5D2 HD share - and many of us feel deceived by the White Paper promises. We're certainly not impressed with the explanations so far.

Lee, have you advised Canon that this conversation is being followed by hundreds perhaps thousands of 5D2 users and potential users?

No, everything I have written to Canon along with their replies appear here verbatim (aside from the courtesy of name removal).

Although I might throw your point into the conversation if the need arises.

It would good for them to understand that their answers are being scrutinized and that most of us are stunned by the response...especially as it moves up the ladder. You're not some crank with an aberrant concern. This is THE concern that nearly all of us shooting the 5D2 HD share - and many of us feel deceived by the White Paper promises. We're certainly not impressed with the explanations so far.

Thanks for the support (although don't be so sure about the not being a 'crank' part )

When you read descriptions of such superlative depth-of-field control, and even if you held the very lowest conceivable expectations, you would at least expect a functioning aperture priority (Av) mode that appears even on cheap consumer camcorders. Being told that this DOF control is 'amazing' and 'professional' would not necessarily lead you to think that not only is full manual control unavailable but even the consumer compromise of an 'Av' mode is disabled !

I found it quite funny that Canon seem to suggest that it might also be their lenses that offer control over depth-of-field.

And that is entirely my point, they do not. For instance take the lens recommend in response to my enquiry . . . .

"And few video cameras in existence can match the narrow depth of field of Canon’s EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM lens used by many top-end portrait shooters."

. . . . so, you set up the shot looking out of your window into the park, people jogging by, picnics in the far distance, lovely sunny afternoon, but . . . . f/22 !!!! "No good" you think to yourself, you want the shallow depth of field you know you can get from such a large sensor and the wide f1.2 aperture you have on this lens.

So what is their recommendation when comes to controlling the depth of field with this admittedly fantastic state of the art lens that is more than capable of delivering that desired shallow depth of field ?

They recommend removing it from the camera !

Really, that is their advice. Take the lens off and use one with a different focal length. Or move towards or away from your subject, which is obviously not always possible and compromises your creative freedom enormously as your shot composition will be entirely different.

It would good for them to understand that their answers are being scrutinized and that most of us are stunned by the response...

Can't we do a group hug and say it will be alright if we manage to save our own poor jobs at C Inc? Or are we trying to make films about that ...
Art is considered by masses to be as stupid or abstruse as an ordinary consumer respectfully is, just read all the responses to "W" to get a glimpse of it.

The 5D MKII could have been a state of the art tool but unfortunately it is as stupid and linear as the most of the consumers are conformed to. Ever wondered why some of the artworks mean a lot and other are like "just as if I've felt it already"...
... no one risks his life to get french fries @ two o'clock.

T

my latest back and forth...

canon:
>>the feature of "depth-of-field control found only in professional video models" seems to refer to a specific function/feature of the camera, not any part of the lens or where i can move the subject to camera distance to change the depth of field. <<

That's why I mentioned the size of the 5D Mark II's image sensor, which is larger than other HD camcorders. This feature results in shallower depth of field at any given combination of focal length, aperture and angle of view. The EOS 5D Mark II in movie mode therefore provides more control over depth of field in that context than other HD camcorders.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall



me:

I understand why the video functions have been hobbled like this (to save the canon video camera department.) I purchased a set of fast nikon prime lenses this past weekend and I am getting some of the control that canon said that i would have.. I dont see myself buying another canon eos lens for a long time to come.

i still don't understand your argument. by saying the camera has depth of field control like professional video models implies that there is some feature of control. photographic techniques cannot be added to a camera as a feature. the fact that the sensor is large and provides a shallower depth of field is by no means any form of control it is a feature.. When the camera decides to shoot at f16 and 3200iso in the day time, that is not control. Control is "to have power over, or to direct influence over." I really feel that canon used the wrong wording to explain this camera. The definition of control is very clear and this camera has no control over anything when in video mode.

The 5d is not part of the rebel line, its a high end camera and more is expected of it than the rebel cameras. automatic video is what i would expect from a rebel, not from the 5D, and especially after reading the white paper on the 5d camera. Your argument so far is fallen flat in my opinion. The only way to make an effective argument is to apply it to the still functions of the camera. Advertising full control over depth of field and then telling me that to achieve that kind of "control" i would need to put a different lens on, or change the subject to camera distance instead of changing the fstop is insulting. When you are out shooting images do you normally put the camera on green square and try to control the depth of field the way you have explained to me? is that the professional way to do it?

I know it was a business decision to do what canon did, but the camera should have never been implied as a professional video camera replacement. I think that the market for the 5d camera is much, much larger than any previous DSLR that canon has ever produced. The possible effects of that decision in the next year or so in regards to massive sales of the 5d and non existent sales of the EOS lens line will hopefully open the Canons eyes. digital SLR bodies are disposable. Lenses are not.

thanks,
xxx (me)

-------------------
response:


>>Advertising full control over depth of field...<<

Neither the 5D Mark II white paper or any other piece of Canon literature did that. To assert otherwise is misleading, in my opinion.

I'm sorry to hear that the truth insults you.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall

Lee-
so Chuck Westfall wrote:
"The EOS 5D Mark II in movie mode therefore provides more control over depth of field in that context than other HD camcorders."

It's pretty amazing...this feels like playing stupid. Doesn't he realize that the truth would look like this:
"The EOS 5D Mark II in movie mode provides more depth of field in certain sitations than other HD camcorders."

From Canon


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Good XXXXXX (me)

Thank you for contacting Canon via email regarding your EOS 5D Mk II.
Your emails were forwarded to the Customer Relations department for
further follow-up.

Even though you have several questions you would like answered,
unfortunately I am not a technician. I will speak with my Camera
Technical Support engineers and contact you back as soon as I have
information to share.

Regards,
XXXXXX
Canon USA Customer Relations


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chuck Westfall: "I'm sorry to hear that the truth insults you."

That's why I mentioned the size of the 5D Mark II's image sensor, which is larger than other HD camcorders. This feature results in shallower depth of field at any given combination of focal length, aperture and angle of view. The EOS 5D Mark II in movie mode therefore provides more control over depth of field in that context than other HD camcorders.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall

"The EOS 5D Mark II in movie mode therefore provides more control over depth of field in that context than other HD camcorders. "

Not at all ! His statement unequivocally states only that the 5D2 has a innately shallower depth-of-field - not that the camera offers any 'control' over it.

>>Advertising full control over depth of field...<<

Neither the 5D Mark II white paper or any other piece of Canon literature did that. To assert otherwise is misleading, in my opinion.

I'm sorry to hear that the truth insults you.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall

This naturally leads to obvious question:


Canon have claimed that the 5D2 has depth-of-field control of the kind found only in professional camcorders.

They then also (above) state that the 5D2 does not claim to have "full control over depth of field".

So we can conclude that Canon believe that professional camcorders do not have "full control over depth of field".


?