gene_can_sing

After reading this article it just reminds me of all the drama that comes with Canon's greed and crippling of products. I just got my Sony FS700 last week and I am so HAPPY to be rid of Canon's drama and under deliveries. FS700 is a really good camera and I was happy to buy it because you get what you pay for, unlike Canon. As for the mirror-less mount making it into the C-Cameras, I wouldn't count on it. That's too forwards thinking for Canon and might impact their bread and butter sales of EOS lenses, and that is Canon's only concern is how to make money in the here and now, and not think about the future and what makes their loyal customer's happy. As for a camera that goes below the $15K C300? Not sure what can go below it as it's already so under-spec'd. They cannot add 4K or proper 60p slow motion because then it would over-shadow the C300, so that leaves them with very little options. The only logical thing to do would be to slash the C300s price and make that the low-end Cinema camera, where it really should sit. I'm so happy to not have to buy Canon's S#i+ anymore (unless they actually release something good).

After all the numerous Canon let downs, I think it will be like all the rest of their cameras where it's "Almost" right, but there will be a major flaw that just kills it. In fact, I can almost guarantee it.

Wow, that is a great looking Mod. Makes the camera look so professional and cool. Producers who are usually easily fooled, will be extra fooled.  8)

Hey Junius, I saw that low light clip also and really liked it. Very muted and understated which I like. Here's an example of something I think looks pretty video on the FS700. Just looks a bit saturated and plasticy and contrasty; especially the bamboo scene. Not as much character in the treatment as the Wellington clip IMO. https://vimeo.com/44265009 I actually thought the attached car racing clip suffered a bit from video-syndrome. Looked a bit too bright and contrasty, but different strokes for different folks. And since the camera is new, everyone is just trying to learn it. Great stuff will be made with this camera.

This article makes me want to bug my rep again today, despite my calling him on Friday. The wait is KILLING me. One thing I've noticed about all the FS700 vimeo videos is that the picture profile seems very important. I've seen some very plastic looking, over saturated FS700 tests that just scream video. I initially though the C300 had a better out of camera look, but then I saw this FS700 test which looks as nice as the C300 -- lower saturation, great skin tones, cinematic, semi-muted treatment. He shot it with a modified Cinegamma 1 on his first time out with the camera. https://vimeo.com/45059023 It's interesting how everyone is comparing the FS700 to the C300. I think the image is comparable for sure; maybe a slight nod to the C300. But people seem to forget that all the amazing, dramatic slow motion stuff you cannot even come close to achieving on C300. Maybe not so much for narrative, but for doc work and beauty shots, the slow motion is HUGE. Adds so much to the drama to the shot. Plus FS700 costs $7000 less  :)

Wow. That grass looks awful. I think I'll pass one this one. Canon's DSLRs give new meaning to the term: "Painting with Light," because...... well.... the image really looks like a painting.

I can't wait to get mine as I have it on Pre-order. But it's super popular already. Abel Cine told me they have over 300 pre-orders to fill at this point. The thing I've noticed about footage from the FS700 is that it's really, really clean, especially in well lit / daytime type shots. It's so clean that it almost looks plasticy, maybe that's why it looks more video like. I don't think it would be very hard with a quick bit of tweaking in post to get it to look like the C300 (which has a really nice image out of the box, but it costs way too much IMO). Plus, not being able to shoot real slow motion on the C300 is such a downer. Slow motion can just add so much drama to a shot, especially for doc type work. I think even just adding a bit of grain in post might give the image some more substance. Like the guy said in the video, I'm sure people will come out with good profiles for it

Regardless of whether the 1D-X is sharper than the 5D3, I'm saying "Seacrest Out" to Canon.  This debacle just further illustrates how insanely greedy Canon has become 1) T4i has moire / aliasing 2) Buy the 5D3 for no moire / aliasing, but still soft image. 3) Don't want soft image? Then shell out 2x more cash for the 1D-X. then you'll get real HD. I'm sure Canon has engineered the 1D-X with some major fault which will they hope will spur people to then buy a 1D-C, which will lack something major which will spur people to buy the C-500. At that point, you are one broke Canon Fan boy. As for me, I did the smart thing and pre-ordered my FS700. It's going to have a similar IQ to the C500 when they both have 12 bit 4K RAW recorders hooked up. The big difference is, the FS700 costs $8000 while the C500 is rumored to cost $30,000. A $22K price difference for similar IQ and RAW specs. The most insane part of the C500 is that it's going to come in 2 versions -- EOS mount and PL mount. So if you want to use both types of lenses, you will have to buy two C500 which is going to cost $60,000. At that point, the $8000 FS700 with a universal mount that take both EOS and PL on 1 camera starts looking really good. So for the Canon fan boys, keep on shelling out insane amounts of money for crippled, heavily tiered products with incremental improvements such as the 1D-X. For me, I am buying 1 FS700 that takes all of the features from 5 different Canon cameras (true HD, clean HDMI, 12 bit 4K RAW, HD 60fps and even higher frame rates, ND filters, continuous autofocus, no moire / aliasing, PL mount options, etc, etc...)  and combines them into 1 reasonable price of $8000 and into 1 camera. Now that makes sense.

Did they fix the Moire and Aliasing in those glasses? Or are the workers going to have wait another 4 years for that?

Thanks for taking a hit on the camera for the rest of us. I know I wouldn't have to balls to do something like that. It's disappointing for sure though, even more disappointing that people are resorting to drastic measures like this. It's so strange because if you bought a laptop, an iPhone or basically any other piece of technology from 2008 and compared it to what is out now, the latest version is leaps and bounds ahead of the 2008 version. That's not true with Canon, and I think that's why we are all so upset. Everyone expected Canon to follow the tech curve and offer a decent advancement, but we are all just left with an incremental update. It's like Canon realized they made a mistake by giving the masses large sensor cameras for a low price. So now that everyone has had a taste of the good life, they want to make up for lost margins by taking you for every penny you have. In the end, that greed is going to bite them in the ass.

It's a cool idea, especially since there's no HDMI cord dangling around, which is awesome. I wonder if there's enough of a market for Zacuto to make something like this for the 5D3. It doesn't seem like the camera is flying off the shelves to video people like the 5D2 is. Most people just aren't that excited about Canon anymore with all the let downs, and seem to be waiting on the Black Magic or moving up to a Sony. I think the real reason there is no flip screen is because of all the still Photogs at Canonrumors.com bitching about how a flip screen is for amateurs and a real photographer has no use for a flip screen or an LCD for that matter.

To the above comment. It's 2012, should 720 60fps even exist? I don't think so. So if Canon did shoot it at 720, then they are just highlighting their own incompetence. It's so strange, because on DVXuser, one of the Canon fanboys remarked that 720p is fine because vimeo mainly does 720p.  ??? Serious brainwashing there. I do like the soft look for close ups, but I'd rather have a sharp image and then just add a 1 pixel blur in post. Much better than having a soft image and trying to sharpen in post. As for the C-100, don't hold your breath. It's obvious that Canon is still not done milking their crippled 2008 tech. I heard that all future Canon cameras are going to come with a crutch.

This is such a joke. Canon is a complete and utter joke. What about the Moire and Aliasing on the new Rebel? Did they fix that at least? Well, for me, I have a good chunk of money saved and am eagerly awaiting the FS700. It's strange to think that the Sony FS100 came out 1 year ago, and in one year, Sony does an upgrade that is 3x better. Canon spends 4 long years and doesn't do crap. BTW, how is your Metabones working? Have you thought of changing the name of your website from EOSHD? I feel that it somehow gives Canon some un-warranted street cred. when they don't deserve any.

Yeah, that's a total joke. As for the Emmys being bought, it happened a long time ago. It's been all politics for years. An older guy that owns a studio that I freelance at sometimes here in LA, are voters for the Academy Awards. Him and his wife get so much free stuff around Oscar season to sway his vote. Good for them, bad for neutrality.

I think most people didn't have crazy aspirations for the 5D3 - No moire, no aliasing, higher resolution, 1080 60p, clean HDMI out. For a long 4 year wait, that's not asking that much IMO, and Canon did not deliver and the 5D3 really is a let down to most. Even people who are using it, aren't that happy with it obviously if they are constantly trying to hack the resolution and praying that Magic Lantern will fix a lot of things. Because of the 5d2, many people started associating large sensor video and video in general for that matter, with the brand Canon. Those days are over now and I'm sure the sales are going to reflect it. Even the fanatical die hard Canon still photogs at canonrumors.com seem bitter that the D800 is a considerably better still camera. Maybe for video, the D800 is a bit below the 5D3, but for stills Nikon D800 basically knocked Canon out. Canon lost big time this round to Nikon in stills, and in video the Black Magic and Sony. The BMC and the Sony FS700 are going to clean house around Canon. Canon cinema division is an overpriced joke and I doubt the C300 is flying off the shelf and the 1Dx has got so much negative press, I can't really see it selling well at $15K. Although I do get tired of hearing about GH2 (I don't use the camera), but I feel like just out of spite for buying too many Canon lenses thinking it was going to be a good video platform in the future, the more bad press Canon gets, the happier I am :)

oppsss... I meant to post this here, but accidentally posted to the Vimeo page. On thing I noticed on the Window test was that the FS100 had (what looked like to me but I could be wrong because I've only watched it once) a lot of internal reflections of the window (not good) off the sensor. The GH2 had it also to a lesser degree, and the 5D3, the least. The good thing is, I saw an Abel Cine low light test between the FS100 and FS700, and the internal reflections were a lot less on the FS700 and the highlights looked considerably better. But yeah, I was surprised by how well the 5D3 kept up with the FS100, but the FS still seemed a bit cleaner. I watched about 1000 vimeo videos this weekend since I'm debating between the 5D3 or the Sony FS camera. At first, I was really biased towards Canon, but the more videos I saw, the more I started leaning towards the Sony. The FS cameras has the better resolution and the aesthetics are somewhere between the Canons and the GH2. It seems like the FS cameras have a bit more dynamic range than both the Canon and the GH2 (I could be wrong). I was a big Shallow DOF fan, until I saw the Sony image. It actually felt a bit better because the blur was less overall. The 5D3 felt almost like it had too much blur a lot of times, something I never thought I would say since I love shallow DOF. My friend who is a huge 5D fan, also felt the same way about the FS cameras. He also started leaning towards the Sonys by the end of the weekend, saying that the image just felt much more solid, more RED like, and it still had a nice aesthetic to it. Strange how you mind changes

It almost seems a little too easy. Like the guy in charge of Firmware security knew that the 5D3 was so crippled, that in order for the camera to sell well to the video crowd, he needed to make it and easy ML hack. Or else, sales to video people would no be up to par. I seem to remember it took Vitality months to hack into the GH2 because the encryption was so strong. The 5D3 firmware just came out 2 days ago, and it seems like the ML team was in within a day. Well, I guess none of us are complaining.  :)

Thanks for the good suggestions jlev23. I will definitely give it 2 months until the FS700 comes out. Who knows, maybe Alex will work a miracle with the 5D3 in that time. The ML guys are amazing. And then I will save a couple thousand bucks which is nice. I really do love the Canon look overall, and the DSLRs are so fun to work with just because they're small. It's hard to give that up for sure. As for the BM, that probably is a great green screen camera with 2.5K RAW and super 16mm with deep DOF. I might just suggest that to the owner of the studio that I work at the most.

I agree with you jlev23 on the rental thing. The studio I work at does a lot of VFX / compositing type spots. We have a large, production level green screen where we want to have a camera in house for that, amongst other things. We've rented REDs on previous green screen jobs. I think the 5D3 would have been a good all around camera if it was a bit more enabled, and I would have gladly paid 2x as much for it if it were. My main concern is just that I'm not sure if ML can up the resolution, and it will be doomed to being a "soft" camera for it's entire existence, which would be terrible for the green screen that we have. The FS700 with it's super slow motion rates, HDMI clean and 4K RAW upgrade will future proof it for a while, unlike the C300 which is going to be obsolete pretty quickly, if not already, IMO. The only thing better that I can see than the FS700, is if it were in a smaller 5D3 style body. After feeling the liberation of the DSLR format, it's going to suck to go back to the lunch box camcorder format :( But I guess there no such thing as a perfect camera, yet. And with Canon's track record, we might be waiting forever for something like that. Believe me, I really, really wanted the 5D3 especially since I have a small fortune in Canon lenses; but as a company, they just keep failing over and over.

jlev23,  I definitely will feel the pain of the FS700 being 2x as much. But the thing is, I think there are a number of people who have saved money and were willing to pay 2x more for a better 5D3 oriented towards video in the $8K price range. But Canon completely under delivered in all aspects and left many people (myself included) hanging. It was either get a very crippled camera for $3.5K or cough up $15K for the next step up. Too drastic of a leap. As for the Sony FS700 not being out yet. Yes, that's true, but Sony did the RIGHT thing by having numerous people test the FS700 and there a lot of videos shot by the camera on the web, and it's not even suppose to come out for another 2 months. Everyone knows it's going to be good because the proof is already out in the form of numerous tests videos and testimonials from many shooters who have used it. Canon, with the 5D3, kept the video completely under wraps. Nobody saw hardly any 5D3 video and hardly anyone used one until it basically came to market. Canon obviously had a lot to hide with the 5D3, yet they were happy to take your pre-order. Canon is doing bad business IMO. But yeah, more power to Magic Lantern. Those guys are AMAZING.

This is great, except I'm not really sure that ML can fix the really soft resolution of the 5D3. That's the big deal breaker for me. Even though the chunk of change that I have saved up is probably going to the soon to be released Sony FS700 since it's far superior to anything Canon video is offering, especially for the price; I will probably donate to ML just because they are doing great things. If Magic Lantern can 1) Increase the resolution on the video 2) offer clean HDMI out 3) Can over-crank to at least 60fps at 1080p (hopefully 120fps at 1080p since Sony has raised the bar so high at 480 fps at 1080p); then Canon might retain me as a customer, otherwise, Sony it is. It's kind of sad that Canon video has fallen to such a low that they have to depend on a group hackers to save their dwindling customer base who are flocking to the much better alternatives offered by Sony, Black Magic and even the Nikon D800 has some huge advantages over the 5D3 like higher resolution, clean HDMI and crop modes; and that camera is $400 less. WTF Canon. Anyways, go Magic Lantern. You guys rule. In response to jlev23's comment about only real owners of the 5D3 should be allowed to complain. Well, the reason why there is so much complaining again Canon and why many people have not bought the 5D3 is because the the 5D3 in it's current offering is extremely crippled and not really worth $3500 IMO. Look at the Sony FS700, it's has some amazing specs and some really great footage on the internet, and everyone is singing the praises of Sony, kind of like people did when the 5D2 came out 4 years ago. And I know the 5D3 is about half the price of the FS700. But if Canon offered even something close to the FS700 for double of the price of the 5D3, I would have gladly bought it since I own some good L glass. But the only thing even remotely close to the FS700 is the 1D-C, which is pretty much a joke for $15K. Meanwhile, Canon is getting bashed to death because their latest video offerings are so over priced and underspec'd it's ridiculous. Moral of the story, if you plan great products (like the Sony FS-700 and Black Magic) people will sing your praises. If you release underwhelming and overpriced products like Canon, people will bash you. It's as simple as that.

For me, I think it's going to be the FS-700. I had about $7K saved up for a Canon, but now it's going to Sony (and what's a few extra $K when the specs are so amazing). The FS-700 and Black Magic have so many people excited because they offer something magical for the price point. Where's Canon? If the huge amount of negativity towards Canon on the internet is any indication, their Cinema division is going to tank before it actually ever took off. Who wants to pay those prices? Outrageous. I will say that the 1D-C is the laziest camera I've ever seen. You think for $15K they would at least put it in a different body with a flip screen and some video features like peaking! WTF? Meanwhile, people are singing the praises of Sony and BM. See what happens when you introduce something revolutionary? People will love you. I'm actually hoping that the when the 4K portion of the FS-700 comes to light, that there is a 4K Pro-Res option. The idea of true 4K RAW (what Sony is currently thinking) that requires 1Terabyte of storage per 1 hour is frightening. That's just too much space. So hopefully they will offer a 4K Pro-Res option or some kind of compressed RAW like what RED is doing.

Thanks for risking your camera for the community. You got balls! I was wondering if you could just replace the removed OLP filter with an IR-cut filter INTERNALLY. Just swap between the two, that way you won't need an additional external filter on the lens. This is a great work around. Thanks for taking this risk. But at this point, I think I'm just going to go the Sony route. Too many work around to make the 5D3 worth while, and that's also hoping that Magic Lantern will work :( Yes, Canon SUCKS big time. On the plus side, the D-800 have received much better overall reviews that the 5D3 and is selling a lot better because of it. Sony video is about to destroy Canon's over-priced, under spec'd video offerings. So maybe Canon will finally get the much needed wake up call.

[quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=600.msg4194#msg4194 date=1334699405] [quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=600.msg4193#msg4193 date=1334698640] The best thing Panasonic can do is come out with a Super 35mm format. The micro 4 3rds format just crippled them in terms of professional status, as it's just not seen as Professional. Might be OK for the GH2, but for the higher end gear, people want a minimum of APS-C. Just the way it is. I seriously hope Panny does a good super 35mm of some sort, maybe even a DSLR with a super 35 crop. With that said, it seems really hard to do because they've spent years trying to establish lenses for the M43 format, and those lenses will vignette like crazy on 1.5x crop. Plus it will piss off all those people who bought m43 lenses, some of which are expensive like the Voightlander. They are between a rock and hard place, but sometimes as hard as it is to do, you just have to abandon your old platform to move to the future. [/quote] ..then why do many pros consider s16 acceptable? [/quote] For every S16 project that is shot, there are about 100 shot in S35. S16 is more of a specific look that is requested when a different look is wanted. As for shallow DOF, the reason why it's commonly used in narrative is because it's a good way to tell the story, to isolate actors and key elements. Probably overused in this day and age, but it's is really good for telling stories.

The best thing Panasonic can do is come out with a Super 35mm format. The micro 4 3rds format just crippled them in terms of professional status, as it's just not seen as Professional. Might be OK for the GH2, but for the higher end gear, people want a minimum of APS-C. Just the way it is. I seriously hope Panny does a good super 35mm of some sort, maybe even a DSLR with a super 35 crop. With that said, it seems really hard to do because they've spent years trying to establish lenses for the M43 format, and those lenses will vignette like crazy on 1.5x crop. Plus it will piss off all those people who bought m43 lenses, some of which are expensive like the Voightlander. They are between a rock and hard place, but sometimes as hard as it is to do, you just have to abandon your old platform to move to the future.