Digital BW, The Print

My take on this camera is that to some extent the moving picture community was excited by the 5D Mk II.  But they perceived a problem with using it as for motion picture making.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 5d Mk II capture HD video at the frame rate of 30p, rather than the 24p used by movies?

Ed

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> 
> There was a thread some time ago where a few posters complained
> that Canon went to the trouble to include HD video capture in the
> 5D Mk II.
> 
> The assumption, apparently, is that adding the video capability
> to the 5D Mk II substantially increased the price of the body while
> adding a feature that "still" shooters would never use.
> 
> Just comparing the 5D to the 5D Mk II, it looks like the price
> went from ~$2000 to ~$2700 for the body - jumping from 12MP to
> 21MP in the process, substantially improved noise performance,
> substantially improved LCD viewscreen, same overall weight.
> Superficially, it doesn't seem like the MkII comes at a much
> greater cost.
> 
> What provoked this email, though, was hearing that a *real*
> motion picture professional recently commented that the 5D MkII
> was ideal for video-capture which didn't quite call for rolling
> out a whole crew.
> 
> The point being, by adding a capability to the camera, Canon
> seems to have expanded the market beyond *just* "still" shooters.
> By expanding the market, the increased cost of development to
> Canon is likely to have been offset in increased sales.
> 
> Dana
>