For the price, there is nothing that trumps the 5Dm2 for video – but it does demand a bit of creativity, expertise and a thorough understanding of its limitations (as well as a range of accessories) to get the most out of it. Thanks to its full frame sensor, tonal range, latitude, the 5Dm2 also trumps far more expensive pro video cameras in terms of image quality.

In terms of convergence, and the huge market for moving images in the media, there are quite a few photojournalists out there using the video capabilities of DSLRs. So for some, the camera is a hit.

However, I take your point – you don’t need any of these features and don’t want to have to pay for/ subsidise them – so as I suggested, maybe DSLR manufacturers will end up segmenting their product portfolio to cater for photographers, and ‘hybrid’ videographers – and potentially sell the VDSLR plus a lean & mean stills-only DSLR to the very same customer.

Convergence is nice or else I wouldn’t have gotten myself a smartphone.

But you got to agree, there are better tools out there that trumps the Canon 5DM2 if one really wants to do video. Of course if the professionals think that it can do a good job why not…sometimes that’s how creativity comes about.

I do question why can’t we get cheaper bodies with better ISO noise control more pro functions? Why can’t purists have even cheaper cameras with out the video function?

If the 5DM2 is such a miracle machine for video taking, I guess the mechanism should be transplanted into a video cam instead and market it as a pro level video cam and leave the DSLR alone.

Or better yet, give us a choice to have or not to have the video function by coming out with 2 sub models instead of getting us still photographers to pay for something we don’t need in the first place.

My point is purely this: I want to spend on something that I can use and there are still a lot of things that still camera can improve and video is an area that shouldn’t be included in the first place and it is really an opportunity cost.

as far as video cameras go, there is no ‘right tool for the job’. The 5D has many unique advantages for video – including its full frame sensor, low light sensitivity, interchangeable lenses, DOF, small size/portability – and in essence – the fact that it makes stunning footage that you can blow up on a 40ft cinema screen, rivalling far more expensive cameras.

Other prof or semi-prof video cameras have their limitations (e.g. sensor size).

From the point of view of the cinematographer, the 5Dm2 is a powerful, portable, affordable low light champion – not a gimmick. It’s being used for many ads broadcast on TV, and for example by DOP Rodney Charters on the TV show ’24′. The bottom line is: image quality – and the 5D happens to be the tool of choice for many prof video productions at present.

Mr. Bloom has been in the business for 20 years so I think your comment that he doesn’t know how to differentiate the tools is rather absurd. Equally, it is not a mark of genius: there is a large community of film-makers using the camera to make movies.

I can totally understand your frustration as a stills purist since you have no interest in making films – however the market is going through a rapid period of evolution providing technology and applications that were inconceivable just a few years ago. In 5 years, the video/still convergence may take another route, offering more specialised tools – but then what can one do but grumble.

agreed…there will be people who would say DSLR can make great films. And like still photography, it is not the tool but the person behind it. So put the DSLR video function in good hands and miracles will happen.

I would harbour a guess that Philip Bloom uses the 5DM2 as the ‘wow’ point for Quentin and George to check out his work. Imagine the ‘excitement’ he will get if he just use an off the mill semi-pro videocamera.

But that is not the point.

The point is what tools are being introduced to the DSLR genre but does nothing to still photography but actually make the camera more expensive because of the additional, ‘beneficial’ fucntion in the form of videography? In short it is marketing gimmick that makes the camera more expensive than it already is and yet does nothing in terms of value for OUR money.

As if that is not enough, the Liveview function actually causes one to hold the camera in such a way that the camera is not held on firmly, introduces image shake and then get people to think the solution is Vibration Reduction or Image Stabilization and pay more unnecessary money for the function in their lens and say kit lens is totally useless(see the marketing/sales conspiracy?)

For Philip Bloom to use a DSLR to film a movie is a double edge sword: either he is a pure genius by using the DSLR as the entry point to showcase his work or he don’t know how to differentiate the right tools to use.

Get the right tool for the right job and I for one won’t use a spanner to hit the nail into the plank.