Canon’s EOS 5D Mark II captures true 1080p HD Video with sound. Image quality and AF controls are minimal in video mode, but depth of field and wide angle views make this a hot feature.

Once DSLRs arrived with Live Preview modes, I knew it was only a matter of time (and several image processing advancements) before the video signal being pumped to the camera monitor would find its way directly to the memory card. I expected the first hybrid models would be from either Canon, Sony, or Panasonic—all DSLR players with a large stable of camcorders. Surprise! Nikon beat them to the punch with its 12.3MP D90 ($899 street) featuring a live view mode that could be used to record 720p video (1280 x720 pixels per frame, at 24fps) with mono sound. Word had barely spread about this camera when Canon trumped it with its more expensive ($2700 street) 21.1MP EOS 5D Mark II featuring a full frame sensor and true 1080p HD video recording (1920 x1080 pixels per frame, at 30fps), plus built-in mono sound and a stereo sound input jack.

You can bet that other video-capable models will be introduced by a variety of manufacturers in 2009 and beyond, just as a Live Preview mode spread from a single Olympus DSLR in 2005 to 80% of the current DSLR models. But the question that many serious still shooters are asking is whether a video mode is a must-have feature in a DSLR, or more of a gimmick designed to appeal to the horde of compact camera owners moving up to a DSLR?

For more commentary on video recording with a DSLR, listen to the October 25, 2008 McNamara Report segment on Inside Digital Photo (slide to the 20min 45sec mark for that segment);

After all, the demand for a DSLR Live Preview mode didn’t come from pros converting over from 35mm film DSLRs, but from a new generation of photographers weaned on compact cameras and their “live view” LCD viewfinders. Those same compact shooters take video recording for granted as well—so why not offer the same function in a DSLR model made just for them?

Ok, I admit there’s a flaw in my logic: The Nikon D90, and more so the EOS 5D Mark II, are really not aimed at compact camera owners looking for their first DSLR. However, the point is that there wasn’t a measurable pent up demand from pros and advanced amateurs for a video recording function in their DSLRs, and now that is being offered, these same serious shooters are trying to figure out if it’s a feature that will help or hinder their ability to make a living with their cameras.

Current state-of-the-art camcorder with high res still capture (including models from Canon, Panasonic, JVC, and Sony) deliver acceptable to fairly decent still image quality, and allow for still image capture that doesn’t even interfere with video and sound recording. When shooting video on most of these models, you simply press the still image capture and a 2-6MP high res still photo is stored on a memory card, while video and sound are recorded to tape or a hard drive. This seamless switch between video and high res still capture modes makes it possible for pro videographers to capture and sell still images of an events to newspapers, magazines, and even wedding clients. In fact, some news organizations are replacing their DSLRs with hybrid camcorders to capture content for multiple platforms.

Unfortunately, switching to the video mode in either the Canon or Nikon DSLRs takes several steps. To shoot video, both cameras must first be set to live view mode—thus reducing the benefits of using the DSLR’s super sharp and bright optical viewfinder, its super-responsive AF system, and most of its advanced image quality and metering controls. Sluggish autofocus can be achieved using contrast detection AF, or after a short black out and delay caused by the mirror swinging back into place for phase detection AF. But once video recording is started, neither camera will adjust focus to follow the action or subject–a staple on most camcorders. Despite the bright and sharp 3-inch LCD monitors found on both cameras, it’s hard to tell if the subject is in focus in the first place, especially in bright light outdoors.

Other video “failings” include fewer image quality controls, reduced battery life due to higher video demands, intensive memory requirements for HD (even short clips take up 100’s of MBs), and generally rotten sound. In fact, the built in microphones on both cameras tend to pick up all sorts of camera and environmental noises, and only the Canon offers an external microphone input jack for recording stereo. Then, unless you have an image stabilized lens or are shooting with a tripod, the video jumps all over the place when you are panning, and freezes for a moment when you take a still photo.

So, is a video mode in a DSLR a useless feature? Not at all! In fact, I’m all for it—and think that cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II will actually be on the HOT list for pro videographers who want its unique video capability, as well as still shooters who are primarily interested in its awesome full frame and high res still features.

For videographers, the APS-C sized sensor found on the Nikon D90 and full-frame sensor found on the EOS 5D Mark II make it possible to shoot HD movies using a wide variety of affordable wide and ultra-wide angle lenses. (Want a 14mm equivalent field of view on an HD camcorder? HA! It will cost you a fortune.) Those larger sensors also dramatically improve depth-of-field control so that backgrounds can be blurred out with unparalleled Bokeh. (The relatively small 1/3-inch to 1/5-inch sensors found in typical camcorders require lens focal lengths that deliver too much depth of field and make it impossible to blur out a background, even at widest apertures.) For more information regarding the still shooting and video capabilities of the Canon EOS 5d Mark II, check out the incredibly well-written Canon white paper on the EOS 5D Mark II.

Having a video alternative may allow traditional still photographers to capture video footage that would be impossible otherwise. For example, underwater photographers could switch to video mode at a moments notice to capture the fluid motion of the rare Pacific Mermaid, while mountain climbers could record the mating call and ritual dance of the Himalayan Abominable Snowman. In both cases, it’s impossible to carry separate still and video cameras.

Before those unique video segments ever appear in a National Geographic HD special, the video from cameras such as the D90 or EOS 5D Mark II will flood internet entertainment sites dedicated to capturing the latest celebrity outing or “Girls Gone Wild” moment. For example, one of the best nightlife and fashion photographers I know, Shane O’Neal, covers a number of top clubs in Las Vegas, including the Playboy Club and Club Moon at the Palms Hotel and Casino. (www.shaneonealphotography.com). With an EOS 5D Mark II in hand, he is able to switch to the video mode and capture dancers, celebrities, and “wild” patrons doing what they typically do at these clubs after a few drinks, and post short video clips to the club’s web site along with still photos. In the past, capturing video required a separate videographer on hand (at an extra expense). But now he can do both, and no one knows he’s actually recording video with sound. The result? Some unique, and wild video that helps increase traffic, and may generate sales of hot video footage.

What’s next? I expect the next generation of dual-mode DSLRs to improve on video ease-of-use, sound recording, and AF speed and tracking performance. Then I expect to see some hybrid accessories, such as a dedicated flash unit with a built-in stereo zooming microphone, an external 5-inch LCD monitor, external Firewire-connected high-capacity storage drives dedicated to video recording, and additional powerpacks to handle the video power drain. But don’t expect the camcorder crowd to go away. In fact, 12MP camcorders are on their way.

I got my first glimpse of the new Sony Alpha 900 back in January 2008 at the PMA show in Las Vegas, but I wasn’t really impressed. After all, it’s hard to get excited about a fake, plastic mockup hiding behind a sheet of Plexiglas even when all of the signs (and PR reps) around it extol its pro virtues and herald a Fall arrival. I’ve seen more than my share of early prototypes and wood-block cameras dissolve into the vaporware mist over the years, so of course I was a bit skeptical—especially since Sony had never built a pro-level DSLR and was trying to trump both the Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III.

However, Sony rarely makes a promise it doesn’t keep, and today (Sept. 9, 2008) it fulfilled its promised delivery date by releasing the final specs on the Alpha 900, along with several new accessories and tons of photos. (See press release). But did it fulfill its promise to design and build a professional DSLR? If the specs, photos, and press release were all I had in hand, I’d have to say “yes” based on the features listed on this camera and its relatively low price—only $3,000 for the body. (Yes, that’s right, in this case I think $3,000 for a DSLR is a super bargain, especially when compared to the Nikon D700, Canon EOS 5D, and Canon EOS 1D Mark III, all of which land close to that price point.)

For more of my analysis and initial reactions to the A900, listen to the Sept. 20 segment of the McNamara Report on Inside Digital Photo (slide to the 14min mark for that segment);

I’m not going to spend time describing all the cool features on the A900, just the one’s that I think give it pro potential and an advantage over the competition. For starters, a 24.6MP, full frame CMOS sensor should deliver the kind of image quality and resolution that medium format owners with digital backs are used to achieving. Only those photogs pay way more for a medium format system that’s not as portable, sleek, or versatile. On that note, Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III owners constantly bragging about their 21.1MP images should be wondering how Sony could deliver a DSLR with a full frame, 24.6MP sensor, plus built-in image stabilization (SteadyShot Inside) that works with most Konica Minolta lenses, a sharper 920,000 dot 3-inch LCD (vs. 230,000 dots), a similar 5fps burst rate, and a higher ISO of 6400 (vs. 3200) all for 5 grand less than the Canon!

New accessories also bring up the caliber of the A900. Most notably is the Sony HVL-F58AM flash unit with its unique Quick Shift Bounce system and wireless control compatibility (see photo gallery). This innovative flash will change the way you use bounce flash in the future, and improve results especially when shooting portraits. Sony will also offer a VG-C90AM vertical grip that houses 2 InfoLithium batteries, plus several new lenses. You can view images of the camera, lenses, and flash at Sony’s news site.

Ok, so the pro Canon and Nikon models all offer a live view mode—but is that feature worth several thousand dollars more? Not in my book. And I’ll take the image stabilization and extra resolution provided by the A900 shooting 5 fps over the Nikon D3’s lower 12.1MP resolution at 9fps any day. Of course, that D3 does do ISO 25,600, and both Nikon and Canon offer a greater lens selection–for now.

Sneak Preview:

Spec sheets and press releases are like movie trailers—if they do their job right they get you to take a look at the real thing when it arrives. But I guess I’ve been around long enough to attend sneak previews, and in this case that meant getting my hands on a preproduction Alpha 900 body, a look at some new Sony Zeiss zoom lenses, and an exciting new dedicated flash. It was only for a day—more than long enough to solidify my opinion about this camera’s performance and feature set, plus give me a clue about how it will rate in the image quality arena.

In my opinion, based on over 17 years of testing digital cameras, the Alpha 900 is a pro camera in nearly every respect, from its optical viewfinder (100% coverage) and magnesium-alloy, weather-sealed body construction down to the placement of most control buttons. It also offers a plethora of fine-tuning adjustments available via menus, removable focusing screens, HDMI video output for HDTV viewing, Dynamic Range Optimization, and dual BIONZ processing chips for fast startup and performance. While heavier than most advanced DSLRs in the sub-$2,000 price range, the Alpha 900 body, at 30 ounces, weighs slightly less than the Nikon D700 (34 oz), and ¾ lb less than either the EOS 1Ds Mark III or Nikon D3.

The A900′s viewfinder is a work of art, reminding me of the clear, bright viewfinders I treasured in my old favorite 35mm film SLRs such as the Canon A-1. Sony claims 100% coverage, and that’s how it appeared without lab measurement. I was also surprised at the speed of the AF system, and the speed and duration of burst mode (considering I had the camera set to RAW+Finest JPEG). About the only fault I found with the camera’s controls were the placement of the exposure-compensation button–which would be more reachable if it were swapped with the ISO setting button behind the shutter release instead of off to the side. Also, the top buttons would be easier to locate by feel if they had raised points (or nipples) instead of being flush with the surface of the camera.

Without lab tests to confirm, I still suspect that the Alpha 900′s 9-zone AF system won’t outgun the Nikon D3 or the EOS 1Ds Mark III, especially when it comes to tracking a moving object or one with vertical details in low light. But I had no problems locking onto fast moving butterflies, and the sharp viewfinder is one of the few that can be used successfully to fine tune manual focus. Also, the image stabilization system appeared to work well–although it wasn’t possible to see the effect through the viewfinder as you can with lens-based IS systems. Only tests will confirm if the IS system delivers the 2-4 stop advantage Sony claims, but designing an IS system that can handle a full frame sensor is quite an achievement considering the physics involved.

As for image quality, I can’t make a final judgment call based on the photos I took due to the pre-production nature of the camera. And while I shot RAW + Finest-quality JPEGs, I have yet to get my hands on Sony’s RAW conversion utility to take a closer look at the “pre-production” RAW files. I can’t wait till that software is available, since the image quality of the pre-production JPEGs blew me away, and I know the pre-production RAW files will look better when processed to 16-bit TIFF files. For samples shots I took with the preproduction version of the A900, check out the following photos:

123►

One thing is for certain, I am going to be pushing my 17-inch Canon and Epson printers to their limits with the photos I shot using the A900 that day. Until you zoom into a 24.6MP image and realize you are looking at a ton of detail that wasn’t even visible to the naked eye, you won’t appreciate this cameras amazing sharpness.

One last comment on resolution: I shot nearly all of my photos using a Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* lens and a Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G SSM lens ($800). I’m extremely impressed by the 24-70mm, and I can’t wait to use the new Vario Sonnar T* 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Series lens (approx. $1,800). Several times while shooting close-ups of butterflies and bees from a foot to 3 feet away I was approached by a Sony staffer and asked if I wanted to try out a 100 or 50mm macro lens. I declined for two reasons. First, getting within inches of a butterfly is nearly impossible no matter how stealthy you are. (Getting within inches of a bee is also not recommended.) Second, given the resolution of the captured image (and based on prior experience I had shooting with the 21.1MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III) I knew that I would still be able to crop and enlarge shots I took of these critters so that they appeared to be taken with a dedicated macro lens. Based on the number of pixels and assuming a very sharp lens, you should be able to print a full image as large as 20 x 30 inches at 200ppi. Crop the image down to ¼ size (the equivalent of using a lens with 4x the focal length, or getting closer with a macro lens) and you are still able to make up to 11×14-inch prints at 200ppi resolution. For nature photographers or paparazzi, that’s cropping power!

For more about my experience with the Olympus E-3 at the US Open listen to the August 30, 2008 Inside Digital Photo Radio Program (slide forward to the 11:00 min mark to get straight to this topic):

Olympus is a camera company that we all know and respect, but for years it’s lagged behind top tier DSLR manufacturers like Canon and Nikon when it came to advanced-amateur and pro-level DSLRs. The main reason? Sluggish autofocus systems that couldn’t keep up with action, especially in low light. I became acutely aware of the problem when Olympus introduced its first Four Thirds Standard DSLR, the Evolt E-1, back in 2003. After running a production model through AF-speed tests in the Popular Photography lab (where it didn’t do well at light levels below EV 5), I got invited to shoot with the E-1 at an Olympus-sponsored fashion show in NYC. The AF system was so slow and insensitive, despite spotlights illuminating the colorful runway models, that I switched the camera to manual focus—as did several other photographers in the vicinity. But manual focus wasn’t easy considering the tunnel-vision producing optical viewfinder on the E-1.

Olympus tweaked the AF speed and improved the viewfinder experience over the next few years with models including the Evolt E-300, and later models such as the E-510, but no model came close to the AF speed and sensitivity of competitively-priced Canon and Nikon systems until last fall. That’s when Olympus introduced its flagship 10.1MP E-3 (currently selling for about $1450 street price, body only) with a radically new AF engine and dramatically improved viewfinder.

Photo of Olympus E-3 used with permission from Olympus America Inc.

Olympus claimed the E-3 had the fastest AF system of any DSLR when shooting in bright light, and my tests on that camera, published in the December issue of Popular Photography magazine, confirmed Olympus’s claims. In fact, in that test report, I declared that the E-3 was the best camera Olympus had ever produced. But it’s been more than a ½ year since, the E-3 has dropped in price, and nearly every other DSLR manufacturer has introduced new DSLRs in its category—so is the E-3 still a bargain, and a top choice for photographers looking for a pro-level camera and fast AF system? I think so, and Olympus helped solidify my opinion of the E-3 by inviting me to photograph the high speed (and dramatic!) action at this year’s US Open Tennis Tournament in Forest Hills, NY. The best part was that I wasn’t left to shoot the matches from a nice, air-conditioned press suite or box seat, but was given courtside, all-access photo passes to get as close to the action as all those “pro” sports photographers shooting for national and international magazines and newspapers. Wait! Did I say not shooting from an air-conditioned press box was a good thing?

James Blake returning a serve from Steve Darcis at the US Open. A hard shot to get with older, slower-focusing Olympus DSLRs, but the top ranked E-3 was up to the challenge. Note the photographers in the “pit” behind Blake, and see more photos taken during this match and several other matches (copyright 2008 by Michael J. McNamara) in the gallery below.

I might have to rethink that decision next time I go to the US Open. After shooting from the sidelines, the pit, the roof, and on several of the surrounding courts, I now know why the pro photogs shooting these events always seem so grumpy and intolerant—especially if you happen to block their view with your lens or big head for even a split second. It’s really not as much fun to shoot one of these events as you might think. In fact, it’s a combination of grueling, hard labor—combined with a chance to get wacked in the face with a tennis ball moving faster than the eye can follow. The prize for all this? Incredible action shots of top ranked tennis players!!

Despite a relatively cool August day in NYC (only in the 80’s) sitting through a tennis set in direct sunlight while trying to capture the action can lead to heatstroke if you’re not careful or hydrated. When possible, I found myself moving out of the press shooting area on the sides to take shelter in the “pit”. That’s the area behind where the players serve the ball. In the pit, you are actually below ground shooting out an open window from about ankle-level. You face a much higher risk of getting hit by a serve (or having a ball bounce off your telephoto lens—as happened to a guy sitting next to me during a Venus Williams volley) but at least it’s protected from direct sunlight.

Because I didn’t want to get my camera bag searched every time I passed a security checkpoint (or police sniper patrol on the roof), I only took two zoom lenses and the E-3 with me. And since all of my shots were outdoors in bright sunlight, there was no need to carry an extra flash either. The two lenses were among my favorites: the Olympus Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 SWD, and the Zuiko Digital 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD. Together, considering the 2X lens factor, I had equivalent lens coverage from 24mm to 400mm.

Photos and description of Olympus lenses used with permission from Olympus America Inc.

Here’s what I discovered. The AF system on the E-3 is super-fast, especially in this kind of environment. It captured tack sharp images and rarely locked on the background audience once I had focus on the tennis player. Set to ISO 400 to 800, I was able to freeze most action using a 1/1600 to 1/2000 sec shutter speed, and didn’t even turn on the built-in image stabilization since at those speeds it’s not going to help (and just uses more juice.) The resulting JPEG and RAW images speak for themselves, with great color, contrast, exposure, and low noise throughout. I shot over 1100 images during my courtside experience, and didn’t need to swap out the batteries (2 in the optional battery/vertical grip) till I was nearly finished shooting.

The large, bright viewfinder made it easy to track the players during volleys, but it was so bright out at the court that I rarely used the LCD monitor to chimp my shots or adjust exposure settings. It wasn’t till I got back to my home office that I wished I had done some chimping, and that was only during the shots I took of players serving the ball. Why? Apparently, the E-3’s 5 frames/sec burst mode isn’t fast enough to always capture the point in a serve where the ball comes in contact with the racket. In fact, the overhead swinging part of the serve happens so quickly that in the first frame the racket can be seen behind the head of the player as it begins its forward motion, but in the next frame the racket is nearly at waist level in front of the player. By starting the burst at a slightly different moment, I was able to capture several shots where the racket came in contact with the ball, but now I know why several pros at this event relied on Canon and Nikon DSLRs capable of capturing 8-10 frame per sec in burst mode.

The bottom line? The E-3 is a great bargain and a great performer, with sought after features such as built-in image stabilization, live view, a super-fast AF, ultrasonic dust removal, a pro body with weather seals, and excellent image quality at most ISO settings. It also has a unique rotating LCD monitor. (By the way, since it utilizes a 10.1MP sensor with a 4:3 aspect ratio, it’s capable of delivering resolution equivalent to Nikon and Canon DSLRs sporting 12.3MP, 2:3 ratio APS-C format sensors.) Now if only the E-3 had a slightly faster burst mode it would rule on the tennis courts, but for most other purposes, 5 fps should do the trick.

Photos taken with the Olympus E-3 at the US Open 2008 (Click on the View Thumbnail Images to see individual photos. Then click on the thumbnails to view larger format images.)

12►

To listen to this topic discussed on the Inside Digital Photo show, July 26, 2008, click the play button and slide forward to the 11min mark to only hear this segment:

Almost overnight decent digital projectors dropped in price from thousands of dollars to under $500. Now the best projectors offer image quality that is compelling enough for photographers to consider as showcase for their favorite photos and portfolios (or use on the side.) They’re also more portable than a wide screen TV, and cheaper than making prints to show off. But just as until recently the digital camera industry focused too heavily on megapixels to determine image quality, there are misleading specs and several smoke and mirror acts that can mislead you into buying the wrong projector for showing photos. In fact there’s a war going on between the projector manufacturers, split nearly 50-50, and it all came to a head at the Projection Summit and Infocomm 2008 U.S. Marshals movie download trade show in Las Vegas in June, 2008.

The above image shows a display at the DLP booth during the first two days of Infocomm 2008. (DLP is a rival technology of 3LCD projection technology, by the way.) It supposedly shows LCD color fade on the left screen, and LCD burnout on the middle and right screens. However, by the third day of the show the color fade display was removed. Why? I’m told that lawyers from the 3LCD group threatened legal action against DLP for its tactics and unsupported conclusions–just part of the fun happenings at this show.