Quirky

"Berating you?" "Every time?" Really? Well, if that's what you need to tell yourself, so be it. Nope, that's not what I said. When I said "not much point in beating that dead horse for eight more pages" I was not referring to you, or even your comments in this thread, Andrew. I thought it was clear enough in the given context. Suppose it wasn't, after all. So my mistake, poor choice of words, sorry about that. The topic appears to be more sensitive than I realised, too, for some reason. That's easy to fix. 460 posts sounds like a nice round number, doesn't it. Let's keep it at that, shall we. Cheers.

Yes, nicely done for a handheld job. It did trigger the wanderlust in me, too. Didn't care about the gear it was done with.

Surely you mean no one told the Canikon shooters yet. ;)

You're entitled to your opinions, but this thread has nothing to do with Canon or their fanboys base. Read the OP. It's about the woes of a wedding video maker trying to make ends meet with all the newbies entering the market. Not my analog.

Yes, I'm here like everybody else, with the same lame excuse. Since the question you asked above can be exhaustively covered with two short sentences, no wonder people tend to wander off topic and start chatting about everything but the proverbial high spec Canon video cameras under $5000 for the next eight or more pages. Just for the heck of it. Rather than purely technical or even commercial, it's an emotional topic which thus attracts chatter, and this is not the first throwing-a-tantrum-at-Canon thread you have started recently. Nuff said. That sums it up perfectly. Now we can all carry on chatting and bickering about something more interesting for the next eight pages. :P

double post due browser/server hiccup, deleted the duplicate.

Because Canon don't fancy doing such a thing and they can get away with it. Current product line is deemed good enough. End of story. Not much point in beating that dead horse for eight more pages.

Maybe not in business/marketing sense, but it would still be a technical compromise. A different one than, say, the Sony FE mount but still. The flange distance of the EF mount is shorter than most other (d)SLR's but it's still a system originally designed for an SLR for stills shooting. I believe that quite a few of the existing EF (as opposed the Cine) lenses have been made for the Canon (d)SLR bodies and have AF motors and lens arrays designed/optimised for stills rather than for video. Most lenses designed for video (and mirrorless) are slightly different in their internal design. Hence the slowness of the EF lenses even with Canon's own EOS M system. For optimal results, Canon would still have to come up with new dedicated mirrorless lenses for that new mirrorless EF body. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon came with an all new short flange distance FF mount and lenses some time next year or in the near future, after all. At least if those rumours about a new FF mirrorless Canon have any credit. They will have to update their lens line and let go of their dSLR milk cow at some point, anyway. Like they did when they launched the EOS line and dumped the FD mount in the late 80's. It might as well be soon rather than too late. For more or less the same reason I still believe that Sony made a mistake in rushing in with the FF models sporting an E-mount, instead of re-purposing the good old A-mount or launching an all new FF mirrorless mount. Hopefully Sony will change their policy once again in the near future. Not really. Looks like Minolta MD lenses won't fit without an optical adapter, for example. There are probably others, too.

I believe there has been a slight misunderstanding, JohnVid. I never implied you were trolling. Quite the opposite. What I said about your previous comment was that it "more or less sums up the whole topic." In other words, I agreed with you. ;) The rest of the comment wasn't about you, it was about the opening post of this thread.

In real life, the secret recipe of Coke is irrelevant. It may have got them started but that is not what has made Coca Cola so big. What Coca Cola has is massive brand recognition. The same thing that has kept Canon alive and on top of the sales figures despite their rather phlegmatic consumer camera line these days. You could take a bottle of Coke and relabel it as Acme Cola or whatever, and no one would buy it. Even though the taste is identical. The target audience like teens are not buying the taste, they are buying the brand and the associated tribe experience. They might even assert that your Acme Cola sucks. Or even if it didn't, they'd still choose Coke. Even if Acme Cola tasted the same and was cheaper. On the other hand, to a big audience including myself the taste difference of Coke is totally irrelevant, too, because I don't drink Coke, and I've never really liked it. I don't care about their alleged secret ingredients or other marketing memes, I'm just not their target audience. I don't care what Coke or Pepsi costs. It doesn't matter, because I'd still choose my own favourite beverages over any cola drink. Another case in point, Microsoft. MS Windows and Word dominated a big part of the desktop computer market in the 90's and early 2000's, but that doesn't mean they were the 'best.' Far from it. The underdogs at the time, like Apple and various flavours of *nix had their own devoted niches to whom it didn't really matter how popular Windows was in the mainstream. They preferred something different, even if they had to pay a bit more for it. It does kinda work with your wedding videographer concept, too, if we stretch the analogy a bit. I know it sounds like a cheesy cliché but in case your business is something like wedding videography, you are the secret cola recipe, the only ingredient hard to copy in such a business. Not your technical skills alone, because that's easier to copy, but your personality, your style, and how you interact with your clients. Your mojo is your secret recipe. As we noted, the secret cola recipe does not really determine who will buy the drink and who won't. You work your mojo to attract your own potential clients, and when you do, they won't care if some other wedding shooter is offering their services cheaper. On the other hand, there will always be a big bunch of potential clients who will never become your clients. Then there are the bottom feeders who want everything for free. Not much point in trying to compete for those. So, instead of agonising over the herds of newbies with 7D's you could use that energy more productively, like trying to find that niche of clients who value the kind of work and quality you're offering. Easier said than done, for sure, but that's probably more profitable than being a grumpy ork growling at the noobs. Suppose this novel-length comment could be shrunk into this; The newbies are already here, nothing you can do about it, so not much point in worrying about that, either. Not everyone is your potential client. Just try to find your own niche who love Stab Cola, and let the newbies with their 7D's handle the rest. Especially all the bottom feeders who only drink Cheapo Cola. ;)

No, not really. That was clear in the OP, too, and maybe you don't see it, but you're pretty much repeating the same talking points in this post all over again. The responses you got are still pretty valid. Whether it's about higher or lower end jobs is not that relevant. That's just how the cookie crumbles in the mid 2010's. Better get used to it. People do understand and even share your frustration, but looks like you're still missing the point presented in many of the responses above. As noted by yourself, only a few of the newcomers –yourself included back in the day– make it past the first two or so years, and only 10% or so make it past the five or seven years mark. That has virtually nothing to do with how easy it is to acquire basic knowledge (but not experience and perspective) these days. It just speeds things up a bit. Just forget about the gear and sharing your stuff for a moment, and think about your own CODB. After you're counted in all your expenses, I mean all of them, and even your profit margin, which are all likely to rise as you move forward. Do you still think fighting for the few 'good enough' clients against the undercutting newcomers is a sustainable business model in the long run? Do you really think those 10% that are still in business after seven years have made it by taking part in 'the race to the bottom,' or have they maybe found a way to do something different? My money's on the latter option. If they wish to succeed and grow, they'll just have to up the ante at some point, or find something else to do. People do know how frustrating it can be at times, but making ends meet is no easier than it was before. The playing field has changed quite a bit, but it's not about the gear. Today sharing and collaborating is the new norm, whether we liked it or not. It's essential for our success in the long run. It's way too late to worry about the hoards of newbies with fancy and inexpensive new cameras (or the tools of some other business).

What/how the XYZ colours look to you is subjective. It has little to do with science, apart from the science of human behaviour and sensory perception. Colours, things and events have no meaning or value per se. 'Horrible' is an emotional attachment. It's all up to your personal perception, so there is not much point in 'scientifically explaining' why something appears horrible to you. Just marry your Canon and get it over with. Let others be happy with their horrible colours. Each to their own.

Standard nerdytainment. Suppose they could, but they don't and they won't, for a rather obvious reason. Your argument doesn't take the social and emotional side of things into account. That's what this is all about. Besides, showing off one's work to make a technical/brand-related point wouldn't really change anything. Sometimes it's the opposite. Case in point, the latest 500 or whatever topics in this forum alone that do have video samples. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

I'm not quite sure what a t3i is, but I assume it's either a Canon 6x0D or 7x0D APS-C body. I don't see much point in spending your money in a 70D. That would be more like the same old same old with some new bling. In general, and especially in the long run, it would make more sense to invest in lenses, tripods, lights, light stands and stuff. The kind of stuff that you'll always need and stuff that will last a long time, regardless of your camera choices. As for the Tamron 24-70mm, why not going for the Tamron 2.8/17-50mm and/or some prime (like Samyang/Rokinon VDSLR) lenses instead? That Tamron ought to be good enough a lens for that system, it would be a more practical choice for the APS-C body, and you can easily trade it for something else, if/when you actually go for a full frame body at some point. Which may not even be totally necessary. Besides, the Samyang cine primes (with a couple of exceptions), for example, have big enough an image circle to fill the FF sensor. Think of your gear acquisitions as practical business decisions rather than GAS-induced wishful thinking. Think of what you need today and next week to get along and ahead, rather than what you'd love to have some time in the future. Or, if you insist on Canon gear and going for a FF system asap, and you're okay with the hassle and extra workflow of the Magic Lantern route, I think you might want to look for a used 5D3 instead of the 70D, like suggested above, and use one with or without the ML hack.

That's true, but the people who decide what goes into the finished product, in this case the camera, aren't usually photographers or videographers. They are more likely a bunch of computer geeks, spreadsheet pushers and easily intimidated marketing moguls who aim the cameras to the masses, rather than the relatively small bunch of audience who actually take the effort of editing their footage in PP. Therefore playback features via big TV's and cellphone screens are more important. At least that's how they see it. Offering a camera with just H265 as the only option for editing purposes simply doesn't make much sense at this point, but it sort of does for direct playback purposes. Just like H264 and AVCHD before H265, for example. Fortunately some cameras offer at least one route to bypass that mainstream-oriented feature and the codecs, like clean HDMI out. Yes, yes, the tighter codecs means less storage space needed, but that's beside the point from the pure editing point of view.