Per Lichtman

[quote author=TC link=topic=574.msg3878#msg3878 date=1334289800] @Per Lichtman.  Interesting posts as always, thank you.  And, yes, Apple have been able to command a higher margin with good design.  But that is not what Canon is doing.  Canon is trying to demand a higher margin by artificially limiting the hardware they are selling you.  And that is what annoys people.  Compare the 1D X/C and the new iPad.  If Apple followed Canon's approach, they would release the new iPad for $500 to match the iPad 2.  But it would have the retina display limited to 1024x768 in software.  They would then release the new iPad PRO 3 months later for $1500 with the Retina display fully unlocked.  This is what Canon is doing.  This is why I and others are so angry. [/quote] Thanks, that is very gracious of you. And I do see what you mean, to be sure. I think many people would have preferred an approach more similar to what Sony did with the pricing of S-Log on the F3 - charging extra for the functionality but not requiring the customer to by hardware all over again. At the same time, back when I bought my Playstation 3, the Cell processor used shipped with only 7 SPEs activated with another on the die but locked. I never really had any qualms about that because althought Mercury and IBM did make use of 8 SPEs on product elsewhere, no competing gaming system ever used all 8 and Sony never tried to get me to buy a more expensive Playstation 3 that had all 8 SPEs unlocked. So I can see how many people are frustrated by what appears to be software side-limiting of the 5DMkIII or 1D X, and frankly the launch timing has exacerbated the problem, because the 1D X has not even released yet. If the 1D X released 6 months before the Cinema 1D, Canon could make the argument that they built upon their work with the 1D X and expanded the functionality with the Cinema 1D. That would make it seem like the 1D X had not been limited, it was just that they took things further after they finished it. But that is not the timeline. So yes, I do understand why people would be upset. The Cinema 1D vs 1D X relationship does seem a bit more like the way things were before the DSLR revolution. But at the same time, the 1D X is launching at the same price point as its predecessor while adding much better high ISO performance (clearly evident in even the earliest comparison pictures) and it does some unrealistic to ask them to add 4K performance without increasing the price. And even if they did go the "paid update" path, it might be a little hard to market a $7,200 upgrade for a $6,800 product. All in all, marketing the C500 should be a lot simpler. :) But I am still waiting intently for word on the 1D X and Cinema 1D regarding high ISO video performance. I just hope Canon unlocks they higher ISOs for both of them.

@miseducation Shane Hurlbut has demonstrated an excellent ability for getting the most out of the Canon hardware released to date. I have little doubt that he will be leveraging this next generation of hardware to great effect to accomplish things with it that he felt he could not with the last. Of course that neither means that it is better or worse than other tools for the rest of us, but it is great to share in the enthusiasm of those whose passion about their tools helps fuel their prodigious creative output. :)

@TC When Steve Jobs revitalized Apple during his second tenure with the company, one of the first things he did was to take it out of the "multiple manufacturers making Apple branded computers" approach that had been intended to drive down prices to PC levels. He used external design as a marketing tool to justify the premium over PC computers that led to greater sales and made people care about things they hadn't really voiced before (like what color their computer was). Looking at the components alone, they could have offered the systems at a cheaper price, and their competitors often did. But Apple charged more for their products and their customers often complained less than those buying PCs at lower prices. Years later, the iPod routinely outsold cheaper clones as well. Apple is a great example of many things, but they generally are not the best case for aggressive hardware pricing strategies. At any given point in time they have offered their hardware line-up (or at least segments of it) at a noticeable premium compared to their competitors, at least viewed based on parts alone. If the 5DMkII was their Apple II, then this approach is more akin to the Mac Pros: catering to a particular market full of people willing to pay for branding, style and familiarity rather than deciding based on component performance alone. I am not criticizing Apple, I just think some of the recent posts have painted a picture somewhat at odds with a longer-term view of them. I have had their business practices analyzed for me over and over again for decades now, and in the last decade done a fair amount of analysis on my own. Low prices are not a hallmark of their brilliance on the hardware side. Now if you want to talk about software, we can easily talk about aggressive pricing/bundling. :)

It is good to see more discussion of the camera in this context as opposed to exclusively in relation to the DSLR prices. I agree with many of your points. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it is also fascinating looking at what sort of package you could spec out for 1080P production based around a GH2. Such as getting 1 GH2 with 65 batteries and 65 SanDisk 64GB 95MB/s SDXC cards. That is for people that prioritize shooting time over shooting resolution. :) All a matter of priorities and it is good to see more options out there. The high ISO performance could be key. Did you get my e-mail about the testing my team will be doing with your GH2 settings this weekend? At last count we'll be shooting somewhere around 7 GH2s concurrently to see how they fare with different settings.

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=572.msg3851#msg3851 date=1334265949] It is a 1DX plus great video minus bells and whistles of the C300. $9k launch price stablalizing to $7k in 6 months after launch would have been right. However I think your $15,000 estimation is not right given the way Canon always matches the dollar with Euro so $10k launch would have been the price. [/quote] "The Canon EOS-1D C digital SLR camera is scheduled to be available within 2012 at a suggested retail price of $15,000." http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?type=news&maxRowCount=10&fileURL=selected&dojo.preventCache=1334239879592&pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480533ee2# Don't feel bad - I have made a couple mistakes like that earlier today myself. :)

[quote author=Tzedekh link=topic=569.msg3790#msg3790 date=1334240322] The C500 does 10-bit (not 12-bit) 4K raw up to 60 fps (not 120 fps) and up to 120 fps in 10-bit YCrCb 4:2:2 mode. [/quote] You may be right. Here is the press release. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480532b92 But it does support 12-bit 60 fps in 2K mode.

@biginvegas Apple charges more for their hardware than PC manufacturers do for the same technology. You pay a premium for their design and quality control and for having OS X instead of Windows. Sometimes you pay twice as much or more. I appreciate Apple a great deal and look to them to lead in many things, but I think they are a very poor example for the point you are trying to make about hardware pricing. :)

@JayBirch The 5DMkIII addressed some of the things people wanted and included a few great unexpected bonuses, but it did not really live up to the expectations in several key areas. Note, I am only discussing the video side here. People expected an improved downscaling algorithm that would be noticeably better than the older GH2, along with clearer video (without post) to go along with it. They also expected an improved ability to shoot continuously. What they received was a downscaling algorithm that was not noticeably superior to the GH2 and an approach to dealing with moire that did not result in the clarity increase many people expected and required post to get the most out of it. They did increase the ability to shoot continuously in a way that was consistent with the expectation most people in the E.U. would have (but that somewhat frustrated some cinematographers outside it). The improved high ISO performance was an unexpected bonus, as were the audio controls. The codec options also looked much better on paper than many people expected, but the i-frame codec results were much worse than many people expected from the specs. All in all, I could equally understand people being very happy about or very frustrated by the 5DMkIII if it were viewed on its own. The reason many people are frustrated is not because of how the 5DMkIII relates to the 5DMkII but rather how it relates to all the competing products, including those at lower price-points, and especially the way it relates to its most direct competitor, the D800. At the moment, the high ISO performance is quite attractive but it may not be as much of a "sure thing" upgrade for otehr 5DMkII owners. At least those are my perceptions. What is your read on it?

So what is the C500 missing that people wanted?

Because there is no competing product that does so at that price point and the company has no reason to lower the margins on the market segment.

I think that people had some rather unrealistic expectations for this launch. Canon's flagship DSLR, the EOS-1D X(with HD rather than 4K video) is set around $6,800 body only. To think that they would cannibalize its sales with a 4K camera at lower price point before the 1D X has even been made widely available seems a little odd. The fact of the matter is that what has been leaked about the Canon announcement is very much in line what most of us expected from the even where they launched the C300. Prices have come down a lot. To see competition in the 4K and slow-mo capable full-HD and up arena is very good for the industry in general. There has not been that much competition in that arena in the higher priced tiers to date. So why did people expect much lower-priced offerings?

Always interesting to look at comparisons. Thanks for adding more! Since I already have 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L series zooms from Canon, and especially since I spent a couple weeks using their 600mm F4 L series in December on both the GH2 and Canon crop bodies, it is hard for me to get excited about another 300mm telephoto, even if it is light. With a 600mm in EX mode on the GH2, the moon`s largest crater dominated the screen. As to Katon`s comment, I in know why mean to disrespect your experience or background when I say that there is no reason why more resolution has to look harsher. The biggest problems going from film to HD digital production was the high contrast and harshness and overly sharp look of things, not the (alleged) increase in resolution (which was really much more a situation specific question as some film prints were clearly superior to others and they wore over time). I agree that there are many times were a softer look can be beneficial and that having access to that option is very important for most (if not all) cinemaotgraphers. But while the GH2 (using the same lens as a 5DMkIII) will tends toward clarity, it does not have to tend toward harshness when used properly. The obvious solutions (finding faster lenses, etc.) are part of the solution, as are post options (just as surely as for the 5DMkII in the opposite direction) but the fact of the matter is that both theses lenses can skew towards desirable filmic looks, not just one or the other. If you think of anything from a classic like Patton, or Kubrick work or Blade Runner to more modern epics like Hero, you will find several gorgeous high detail exteriors. The GH2 lends itself beautifully to filming scenes of this nature and may have an edge in conveying their epic scope relative to the 5DMkIII just as the 5DMkIII may have  an edge in epmhasizing the depth of a more closely blocked scene while masking unwanted details. They are two different  cameras with a lot to offer any cinematographer, and neither one should be thought of as limited to "doing commercials" or "just not cutting it".  That is  my 2 cents  on the topic. Edit: Started typing this before the    last comment.

@Axel I neglected to ask. What is the reason that you believe that the 5DmkIII i-frame codec is superior? I am always intrigued by codec differences and while the current implementation clearly does not  demonstrate advantages, I would be intrigued by the reasons a hacked version could.

@Axel So far, the comparisons are showing the compression on the 5DMkIII as being lower quality than on the GH2, even when compared to GH2 720 50P at high bitrates vs 1080 24P 5DMkIII. If you have comparisons that show the reverse, I would strongly urge you to share them with others so that they can benefit from them as well. The GH2 was limited by the factory codec and has been hacked to exceed every consumer DSLRs native codec so far, as shown in comparisons to date. If the 5DMkIII is similarly hacked, it may also benefit greatly. It seems odd to rely on "updates" rather than hacks in this respect, however, since no official update for any DSLR or EVIL camera has added even so much as 10mbps to the codec bitrate while hacks have added over 120 mbps. If the hack were to unlock better codec performance for the 5DMkIII, then the primary issue would be the rescaling algorithim. The camera has a lot of poetential and I think what people want is to see more of the power it evidences on the stills side unlocked on the video side. I hope that this happens soon and in particular for unlocking higher ISOs in video mode. :) In short, until comparisons show otherwise, the 5DMkIII is not demonstrating codec parity against a hacked GH2.

I know the GH2 is much better at high ISOs than people expect (I've used ISO 12,800 a lot since it got unlocked in black and white as well) but it's still not able to reach the D3s can attain (though the latter is 720P). So the 5DMarkII and D800 aren't at that level either? Will the D4 and EOS-1D X represent an advancement from the D3s at least (as regards the highest ISO video)?

I may often prefer my 50D to my GH2 for stills, but the iPhone does not deliver the resolution, flexibility, lens choice, low light performance, etc., etc. that I very much enjoy when using the GH2 for stills. I have no qualms about using a GH2 on professional jobs for stills, as long as I work towards its strengths and away from its limitations. I would not say that about shooting stills on an iPhone.

@Andrew Reid - EOSHD Glad to see you emphasizing high ISO again. I cannot wait to start seeing some ISO 12,800 comparisons between the D800, 5DMkIII and the GH2 (though I expect the GH2 to perform very poorly by comparison, of course). It seems a shame that the 5DMkIII capped the ISO at 25,600 when the stills side gets two stops more. Any word on why that is the case? Will we need a D4 or EOS-1D X (or even the older D3S and 1DMkIV) to get higher than 25,600?

@Andrew Reid - EOSHD Thanks for the great article, Andrew, and for all the recent full-frame coverage I`ve been reading over the last week. I`m also looking forward to seeing you integrate my Pasadena Pulse Audio v2 Beta 2 settings as they seem to be really helping the other patch authors for the GH2 so far with essentially100% postive feedback as yet. Any plans in that respect? Also, I noticed a large typo in passing. Your recording time # seemed quite accurate for your Unified Hack but was off by almost 6 times for Orion. You said it "filled up" your 16GB card in 2 minutes, but it is electronically impossible to even fill up a 4GB file in that amount of time. Pushing it at max bitrate constantly, you would get over 12 minutes easily on that card and without spanning you would still get about 4 minutes per clip. I can easily confirm this based on the hundreds of files I created with it recently (and the nearly 1 hour record times on a 64GB card). I look forward to comparing your Unified patch in my tests in the coming weeks and best of luck with the continuing coverage!