<<"mstone: The sensor is much more than 4K. I think it is the internal processing that is holding it up. To save out 4K lossless at 60 frames takes a lot of horsepower. Anyway, DLSRs have never been all that great at video. Canon does sell some excellent high end video cameras that also take mediocre stills.">>
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fops or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
The Blackmagic Design Cinema 4K camera has a global shutter which avoids the "jelly" effect during panning (called "rolling shutter" in video). And it's about the same price as the 5Ds, around $4K. Anyone serious about shooting 4K is already long past Canon's 5D lineup.
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 a few months ago to photograph an event ( I work at the Reno Air Races), and to consider purchasing one of my own. It was an incredible lens. Super sharp and fast. It's one of the lenses on my to-buy list. I just don't have a huge need for it at the moment.
I'm renting the 24-70mm f2.8 USM II in a couple days to do an indoor photoshoot. This will be the next lens I will purchase and want to try it out in a real setting.
My photography up until now was limited mainly to underwater. My current lenses are 8-14mm f/4.0 fisheye, 24-105mm f4.0, and 50mm f/1.2 prime.
The two lenses I rented are going to be used for above-water life.
The two photos are pictures I took with the 70-200mm lens. The F22 Raptor was taxiing for takeoff and working at the air races gives me the best viewpoints to take photos. Does this qualify for "wildlife"??
I have to say I prefer a dedicated video camera for video and a dedicated DSLR for stills. For me the issue is outside of a studio environment I simply can't shoot video from an LCD and I sure as hell can't hold a DSLR using the LCD and shoot video. I did buy a great add on for a Canon body that helps a great deal [Kamerar VF-4+ Plus Universal LCD View Finder] but it still isn't quite the same.
I think that's true although I still like having the option of shooting video on my DSLR without having to carry yet another piece of equipment. I thought I would never use the video on my DSLR, but I find myself using it more and more. It's amazing how it's so easy to hold an iPhone and get smooth video, but stick a big lens on a DSLR and even using special straps and the like, I'm frequently shooting shaky-cam, especially for long shots like recording a song in a live performance without a tripod. There are mounts to get around that, but they're large and expensive. I also need a better view of the LCD as I find that even in a stable situation indoors, I'm frequently back focusing and not noticing it on the LCD. Ideally I'll eventually get a monitor mounted on the camera, but they're pricy and now I'm walking around with far more equipment. I had been looking at the Hoodman products, but this Kamerar looks like it might be better. These are all areas in which Nikon and Canon have failed IMO - they stick new functionality in, but they don't really understand how people need to use these products.
A 24 megapixel would not necessarily look better. You are assuming it would have less noise (and you might be right).
A 24 with this size sensor vs a 24 with the previous certainly would.
Originally Posted by mstone
I've read that the continuous auto focus is not as good as with high quality video cameras.
You know, I think I’ve heard that…
Originally Posted by sflocal
The 50MP is great if you're a photographer that does a lot of cropping. So even if you remove half the image, your subject still has a enough resolution to blow up.
It’s all about laziness these days… Don’t have to frame it right, just crop it later. Don’t have to light it right, just take another shot a few seconds later. Don’t have to focus it right, just take another…
It’s all about laziness these days… Don’t have to frame it right, just crop it later. Don’t have to light it right, just take another shot a few seconds later. Don’t have to focus it right, just take another…
Sure... because in every scenario you just wait until the subject is in a perfect position and time given whatever gear/lens you're using so you never have to crop anything out.
I hope to be a master photographer like you man! /s
You see the 4.4?m pixels being the same as the 6?m pixels in the 1Dx or in medium format digital backs? Do all the arguments such as smaller pixel size, increased sensor noise at high megapixels, etc. no longer apply since this is a Canon? You can argue about the price of medium format compared to "full frame", but don't we use the same arguments in full frame vs. point and shoot cameras, or Macs vs. PCs?
Then I should go back to the nice 10 micron pixels of my 1D with your warped logic. The 1Dx is a great camera that is optimized NOT for shooting on a tripod. It is optimized for high speed action work where high ISO will be commonly used. The 5Ds is designed to be used at low ISO, tripod mounted such as product, landscape and fashion. It is not a sports camera.
Combine that with the amazing 16-35 f4.0, and/or the new 11-24 f4.0 (notice the smaller open aperture) and you have a great option for landscape.
"the low-pass filter on the 5DS R to help photographers get the sharpest image possible." This is strange, really strange. As far as I know the main purpose of the low pass filter is to eliminates the moire effect but it will reduce the sharpness of the image. Exactly the opposite of what this article states. So, I looked up on Canon's website, and . . . the 5DS R has the option to cancel the built-in low pass filter, thus creating sharper images. Stephen, you should have known this better. FYI heeeeeere is Canon (not Johnny):
"With all the features and capabilities of the EOS 5DS, the EOS 5DS R camera offers the potential for even greater sharpness and fine detail for specialized situations. It features the same Canon designed and manufactured 50.6 Megapixel sensor, with the low-pass filter* (LPF) effect cancelled to provide even more fine edge sharpness and detail for critical subjects such as detailed landscapes, and other situations where getting the sharpest subject detail is a priority."
I just wonder how non of those who commented before me picked up this anomaly.
"the low-pass filter on the 5DS R to help photographers get the sharpest image possible." This is strange, really strange. As far as I know the main purpose of the low pass filter is to eliminates the moire effect but it will reduce the sharpness of the image. Exactly the opposite of what this article states. So, I looked up on Canon's website, and . . . the 5DS R has the option to cancel the built-in low pass filter, thus creating sharper images. Stephen, you should have known this better. FYI heeeeeere is Canon (not Johnny):
"With all the features and capabilities of the EOS 5DS, the EOS 5DS R camera offers the potential for even greater sharpness and fine detail for specialized situations. It features the same Canon designed and manufactured 50.6 Megapixel sensor, with the low-pass filter* (LPF) effect cancelled to provide even more fine edge sharpness and detail for critical subjects such as detailed landscapes, and other situations where getting the sharpest subject detail is a priority."
I just wonder how non of those who commented before me picked up this anomaly.
I own a Canon 5DM3 and I do tons of photography with it. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) of an "MKIII lens vs an MKII lens." The mount is the same. The speed of the AF has nothing to do with what the original poster is saying. He is saying there are lenses designed for high-megapixel sensors which to me is a not true.
It may be true that there aren't lenses which are specifically "designed for" high-megapixel sensors, but newer lenses may be more suitable for them. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is a good example. It's noticeably sharper than the mark I version of that lens so it will better be able to make use of all those tiny pixels. (I assume the lens you mentioned below was the mark II?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
The 5DMIII and 1D both use the exact same sensor chip. It's the other internals that differentiate between the two. The 5DMIII is a fantastic camera for sports and wildlife. It just doesn't have the faster frames-per-second of the 1DX camera, but it's still pretty good.
Both the 7DM2 and 5DS have a pixel sizes of 4.1. The 5D just has a larger sensor.
Frame rate and buffer are some of the aspects that make them better suited for sports and wildlife. The effective reach of the 7D is another example, but the increased pixel density of the 5DS will make up for that. The 5D III is an excellent camera and is capable of shooting sports/wildlife, but there are better cameras for those subjects if "moment of impact" composition matters (at the expense of the 5D's image quality).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 a few months ago to photograph an event ( I work at the Reno Air Races), and to consider purchasing one of my own. It was an incredible lens. Super sharp and fast. It's one of the lenses on my to-buy list. I just don't have a huge need for it at the moment.
I'm renting the 24-70mm f2.8 USM II in a couple days to do an indoor photoshoot. This will be the next lens I will purchase and want to try it out in a real setting.
I've used the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II, and it is another great lens. But it quickly taught me how much I've come to take IS for granted as it lens lacks image stabilization.
I<<"mstone: The sensor is much more than 4K. I think it is the internal processing that is holding it up. To save out 4K lossless at 60 frames takes a lot of horsepower. Anyway, DLSRs have never been all that great at video. Canon does sell some excellent high end video cameras that also take mediocre stills.">>
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic 6 processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fps or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
Kind of ironic seeing this announcement just two articles above "Apple to again stay out of megapixel race with 8MP camera in 'iPhone 6s'".
We laugh at phone and point-shoot camera makers that boast super high megapixels on small sensors. How is this any different?
Says there person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a professional DSLR vs a phone camera. You do realize there's a huge difference in the size of the sensor, right? You do realize that no matter how much people claim that a smartphone camera is "almost professional quality", it isn't.
The people who want/need this camera for professional work would never consider a phone camera adequate, and for many, the work produced will be blown up and printed quite large.
...Besides, these cameras will have a relatively limited audience (landscaping, advertising, art, etc.). It's good for taking photos of stationary objects, and probably only good at it.
The 5D Mark 4 will be the next big thing for sports, wildlife, etc.
This is, sadly, the most idiotic thing I've read today. The upside for you is, I just woke up and you have all day for me to find the next "world's biggest moron."
Their "limited" market is pretty much everyone who wants more than a point-and-shoot with the Rebel, and I know plenty of photographers who use both models for more than stationary objects.
I've used the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II, and it is another great lens. But it quickly taught me how much I've come to take IS for granted as it lens lacks image stabilization.
I agree on IS. Once you get used to it there is no going back. The fact I can hand hold my Canon 100-400L IS USM at the full 400mm and get images that are tack sharp is utterly astounding for me coming from the days of SLRs.
BTW for anyone with crop sensor Canons, I found a great lens for an APS body (only) hidden away in Canon's line up, the EFS 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM. It isn't an L but I can't tell it isn't compared to my L lenses in IQ and it has that nice 77mm front glass and F/2.8 throughout is wonderful. On an APS it is a very useful focal range in fact I keep one 70D body with it on at just about all times.
I think that's true although I still like having the option of shooting video on my DSLR without having to carry yet another piece of equipment. I thought I would never use the video on my DSLR, but I find myself using it more and more. It's amazing how it's so easy to hold an iPhone and get smooth video, but stick a big lens on a DSLR and even using special straps and the like, I'm frequently shooting shaky-cam, especially for long shots like recording a song in a live performance without a tripod. There are mounts to get around that, but they're large and expensive. I also need a better view of the LCD as I find that even in a stable situation indoors, I'm frequently back focusing and not noticing it on the LCD. Ideally I'll eventually get a monitor mounted on the camera, but they're pricy and now I'm walking around with far more equipment. I had been looking at the Hoodman products, but this Kamerar looks like it might be better. These are all areas in which Nikon and Canon have failed IMO - they stick new functionality in, but they don't really understand how people need to use these products.
I lost a screw no mine and contacted the makers, they promptly sent me a replacement free of charge. It is well made and works very well indeed. I used it extensively on a two week cruise around the Alaskan Glacier Bay National Park and found the ability both see clearly and have that anchor against my face gave me the 'using a dedicated video camera' type stability. My only regret of that experience was not having the 70D with dual pixel auto focus at that time as I had to manual focus everything. I also added an external mic, not an expensive one but it worked very well and is powered via the Camera but caused no noticeable drain. No audio monitor out ... hello Canon 'anyone listening there', pun intended!:
The resulting set up was twice the weight and very large compared to a semipro Sony video camera for sure, but as you say, ultimately far less to carry. The x3 digital zoom a 22 MP sensor provides for proved to be excellent paired with Canon IS lenses too, even hand held.
Please read the forum guidelines before posting. The world's greatest photographers predominately use Macs and Apple products. While you may not be interested in this subject, please respect the fact that we have many readers with a diverse range of interests and digital photography is a tremendous part of the Apple ecosystem. Canon makes some of the best cameras on the market.
This is a boring announcement for a camera that none of the worlds greatest photographers are likely to buy given even the top end glass isn't generally capable of 50MP resolution, doesn't have 4K video or even 1080p/60, a poorer sensor than the 7DMkII in terms of DR and any other metric other than MP and an arbitrarily limited ISO range because it's not a flagship model.
So readers with "diverse interests" will read this article and go "WTF?" and wonder how much AI got paid by Canon.
Comments
Great Album by the way ... The Joshua Tree that is
Yeah, Canon doesn't cannibalize it's own products.
The Blackmagic Design Cinema 4K camera has a global shutter which avoids the "jelly" effect during panning (called "rolling shutter" in video). And it's about the same price as the 5Ds, around $4K. Anyone serious about shooting 4K is already long past Canon's 5D lineup.
Should medium format camera makers and users be worried?
I recently got the 100-400mmL IS. It may not be the fastest but boy it is flexible for wild life and the images are amazing. Next I think I want the 70-200L f.2.8 do you have that one? If so what do you think?
I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 a few months ago to photograph an event ( I work at the Reno Air Races), and to consider purchasing one of my own. It was an incredible lens. Super sharp and fast. It's one of the lenses on my to-buy list. I just don't have a huge need for it at the moment.
I'm renting the 24-70mm f2.8 USM II in a couple days to do an indoor photoshoot. This will be the next lens I will purchase and want to try it out in a real setting.
My photography up until now was limited mainly to underwater. My current lenses are 8-14mm f/4.0 fisheye, 24-105mm f4.0, and 50mm f/1.2 prime.
The two lenses I rented are going to be used for above-water life.
The two photos are pictures I took with the 70-200mm lens. The F22 Raptor was taxiing for takeoff and working at the air races gives me the best viewpoints to take photos. Does this qualify for "wildlife"??
Jellybelly on the jelly effect.
I have to say I prefer a dedicated video camera for video and a dedicated DSLR for stills. For me the issue is outside of a studio environment I simply can't shoot video from an LCD and I sure as hell can't hold a DSLR using the LCD and shoot video. I did buy a great add on for a Canon body that helps a great deal [Kamerar VF-4+ Plus Universal LCD View Finder] but it still isn't quite the same.
I think that's true although I still like having the option of shooting video on my DSLR without having to carry yet another piece of equipment. I thought I would never use the video on my DSLR, but I find myself using it more and more. It's amazing how it's so easy to hold an iPhone and get smooth video, but stick a big lens on a DSLR and even using special straps and the like, I'm frequently shooting shaky-cam, especially for long shots like recording a song in a live performance without a tripod. There are mounts to get around that, but they're large and expensive. I also need a better view of the LCD as I find that even in a stable situation indoors, I'm frequently back focusing and not noticing it on the LCD. Ideally I'll eventually get a monitor mounted on the camera, but they're pricy and now I'm walking around with far more equipment. I had been looking at the Hoodman products, but this Kamerar looks like it might be better. These are all areas in which Nikon and Canon have failed IMO - they stick new functionality in, but they don't really understand how people need to use these products.
A 24 megapixel would not necessarily look better. You are assuming it would have less noise (and you might be right).
A 24 with this size sensor vs a 24 with the previous certainly would.
You know, I think I’ve heard that…
It’s all about laziness these days… Don’t have to frame it right, just crop it later. Don’t have to light it right, just take another shot a few seconds later. Don’t have to focus it right, just take another…
Back in my day, we had to know what…
Originally Posted by aplnub
Detail. Detail.
If you want detail, shoot film.
It’s all about laziness these days… Don’t have to frame it right, just crop it later. Don’t have to light it right, just take another shot a few seconds later. Don’t have to focus it right, just take another…
Sure... because in every scenario you just wait until the subject is in a perfect position and time given whatever gear/lens you're using so you never have to crop anything out.
I hope to be a master photographer like you man! /s
Combine that with the amazing 16-35 f4.0, and/or the new 11-24 f4.0 (notice the smaller open aperture) and you have a great option for landscape.
This is strange, really strange.
As far as I know the main purpose of the low pass filter is to eliminates the moire effect but it will reduce the sharpness of the image.
Exactly the opposite of what this article states.
So, I looked up on Canon's website, and . . . the 5DS R has the option to cancel the built-in low pass filter, thus creating sharper images.
Stephen, you should have known this better.
FYI heeeeeere is Canon (not Johnny):
"With all the features and capabilities of the EOS 5DS, the EOS 5DS R camera offers the potential for even greater sharpness and fine detail for specialized situations. It features the same Canon designed and manufactured 50.6 Megapixel sensor, with the low-pass filter* (LPF) effect cancelled to provide even more fine edge sharpness and detail for critical subjects such as detailed landscapes, and other situations where getting the sharpest subject detail is a priority."
I just wonder how non of those who commented before me picked up this anomaly.
This is strange, really strange.
As far as I know the main purpose of the low pass filter is to eliminates the moire effect but it will reduce the sharpness of the image.
Exactly the opposite of what this article states.
So, I looked up on Canon's website, and . . . the 5DS R has the option to cancel the built-in low pass filter, thus creating sharper images.
Stephen, you should have known this better.
FYI heeeeeere is Canon (not Johnny):
"With all the features and capabilities of the EOS 5DS, the EOS 5DS R camera offers the potential for even greater sharpness and fine detail for specialized situations. It features the same Canon designed and manufactured 50.6 Megapixel sensor, with the low-pass filter* (LPF) effect cancelled to provide even more fine edge sharpness and detail for critical subjects such as detailed landscapes, and other situations where getting the sharpest subject detail is a priority."
I just wonder how non of those who commented before me picked up this anomaly.
I own a Canon 5DM3 and I do tons of photography with it. There is no such thing (to my knowledge) of an "MKIII lens vs an MKII lens." The mount is the same. The speed of the AF has nothing to do with what the original poster is saying. He is saying there are lenses designed for high-megapixel sensors which to me is a not true.
It may be true that there aren't lenses which are specifically "designed for" high-megapixel sensors, but newer lenses may be more suitable for them. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is a good example. It's noticeably sharper than the mark I version of that lens so it will better be able to make use of all those tiny pixels. (I assume the lens you mentioned below was the mark II?)
The 5DMIII and 1D both use the exact same sensor chip. It's the other internals that differentiate between the two. The 5DMIII is a fantastic camera for sports and wildlife. It just doesn't have the faster frames-per-second of the 1DX camera, but it's still pretty good.
Both the 7DM2 and 5DS have a pixel sizes of 4.1. The 5D just has a larger sensor.
Frame rate and buffer are some of the aspects that make them better suited for sports and wildlife. The effective reach of the 7D is another example, but the increased pixel density of the 5DS will make up for that. The 5D III is an excellent camera and is capable of shooting sports/wildlife, but there are better cameras for those subjects if "moment of impact" composition matters (at the expense of the 5D's image quality).
I rented the 70-200 f/2.8 a few months ago to photograph an event ( I work at the Reno Air Races), and to consider purchasing one of my own. It was an incredible lens. Super sharp and fast. It's one of the lenses on my to-buy list. I just don't have a huge need for it at the moment.
I'm renting the 24-70mm f2.8 USM II in a couple days to do an indoor photoshoot. This will be the next lens I will purchase and want to try it out in a real setting.
I've used the 24-70mm f/2.8 USM II, and it is another great lens. But it quickly taught me how much I've come to take IS for granted as it lens lacks image stabilization.
A well known Canon USA spokesperson, Chuck Westfall, stated that with so many scan lines the "jelly" effect would be more of a problem than buyers of this caliber would care for.
The "jelly" effect is where panning is going on--or--the subject is moving laterally, and as the scan lines progress form top to bottom, the image has moved laterally during the scan, causing a sort of slightly leaning image of moving object. Smaller chips on dedicated pro video cameras do not show this effect.
In actuality, you could mitigate the "jelly effect using a faster shutter speed of say 250th of a second at 29, 30 etc., but then you will not have the frame-to-frame smoothness you need that you get from say a 30th of a second (where you match or go lower than the frame rate). The "jelly" effect can be seen on current full frame sensors ( to a logical lesser extent on C size "crop" sensors) and is the main weakness of video IQ in DSLRs.
Canon will likely leave video improvements for a 5D Mark IV sometime this year (perhaps 4K, maybe zebra stripping and most likely phase detect focus incorporated in the imaging sensor (as in 70D and 7D Mark II). I hope this helps you better understand that no single camera can satisfy a pro in all aspects of photography. That's why I have 3 bodies for my work, including a 1Dx (as close as I've come to a near complete camera -- so far.
btw: The dual Digic 6 processors could handle the task, at least at 30 fps or lower for 4K. Probably could handle at 60fps.
Kind of ironic seeing this announcement just two articles above "Apple to again stay out of megapixel race with 8MP camera in 'iPhone 6s'".
We laugh at phone and point-shoot camera makers that boast super high megapixels on small sensors. How is this any different?
Says there person who clearly doesn't understand the difference between a professional DSLR vs a phone camera. You do realize there's a huge difference in the size of the sensor, right? You do realize that no matter how much people claim that a smartphone camera is "almost professional quality", it isn't.
The people who want/need this camera for professional work would never consider a phone camera adequate, and for many, the work produced will be blown up and printed quite large.
...Besides, these cameras will have a relatively limited audience (landscaping, advertising, art, etc.). It's good for taking photos of stationary objects, and probably only good at it.
The 5D Mark 4 will be the next big thing for sports, wildlife, etc.
This is, sadly, the most idiotic thing I've read today. The upside for you is, I just woke up and you have all day for me to find the next "world's biggest moron."
Their "limited" market is pretty much everyone who wants more than a point-and-shoot with the Rebel, and I know plenty of photographers who use both models for more than stationary objects.
Thank you! I'll be sure to let you know when it's out!
I agree on IS. Once you get used to it there is no going back. The fact I can hand hold my Canon 100-400L IS USM at the full 400mm and get images that are tack sharp is utterly astounding for me coming from the days of SLRs.
BTW for anyone with crop sensor Canons, I found a great lens for an APS body (only) hidden away in Canon's line up, the EFS 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM. It isn't an L but I can't tell it isn't compared to my L lenses in IQ and it has that nice 77mm front glass and F/2.8 throughout is wonderful. On an APS it is a very useful focal range in fact I keep one 70D body with it on at just about all times.
I got mine here.
http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00D3551NU/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I lost a screw no mine and contacted the makers, they promptly sent me a replacement free of charge. It is well made and works very well indeed. I used it extensively on a two week cruise around the Alaskan Glacier Bay National Park and found the ability both see clearly and have that anchor against my face gave me the 'using a dedicated video camera' type stability. My only regret of that experience was not having the 70D with dual pixel auto focus at that time as I had to manual focus everything. I also added an external mic, not an expensive one but it worked very well and is powered via the Camera but caused no noticeable drain. No audio monitor out ... hello Canon 'anyone listening there', pun intended!:
http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0016ARZ9C/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
The resulting set up was twice the weight and very large compared to a semipro Sony video camera for sure, but as you say, ultimately far less to carry. The x3 digital zoom a 22 MP sensor provides for proved to be excellent paired with Canon IS lenses too, even hand held.
'Canonbolize' ...
Please read the forum guidelines before posting. The world's greatest photographers predominately use Macs and Apple products. While you may not be interested in this subject, please respect the fact that we have many readers with a diverse range of interests and digital photography is a tremendous part of the Apple ecosystem. Canon makes some of the best cameras on the market.
This is a boring announcement for a camera that none of the worlds greatest photographers are likely to buy given even the top end glass isn't generally capable of 50MP resolution, doesn't have 4K video or even 1080p/60, a poorer sensor than the 7DMkII in terms of DR and any other metric other than MP and an arbitrarily limited ISO range because it's not a flagship model.
So readers with "diverse interests" will read this article and go "WTF?" and wonder how much AI got paid by Canon.