Canon - the REAL technical and political reasons behind the lack of decent video

[wolf33d]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

 

Out of curiosity, when you were asked to review the 5D4, was it inferred they were looking for a fluff piece? Or were they genuinely interested on your take of its video? Did they seem open to suggestions, or just looking for online coverage?

Yep would like to know more too. Interesting that they sent you a unit for review. Did you actually made them a feedback? What did they say?

[Andrew Reid]

Canon have been open to dialogue all along and their team got in touch, they didn't give any pre-conditions for it at all. One day, they got in touch and that was it. I have the 5D4 review half-done, but I don't think there is anything I can add about this camera that hasn't already been told... It's not a mysterious black box and since it's been out for a while now on the market, the review wouldn't be very fresh or a surprise. It's MJPEG 4K, big crop, Dual Pixel AF, good stills, not much else to say at all.

That's the thing, if Canon really were serious about 4K and consumer video on a stills camera again, I'd be more interested in doing the reviews. But their kind-of lack of passion (in Japan with the top management at least, not with the hard-working PR people and those elsewhere in the company that ARE interested in DSLR video) results in a lack of passion in me as well.

[OliKMIA]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Canon have been open to dialogue. I don't think there is anything I can add about this camera that hasn't already been told...

Their kind-of lack of passion (in Japan with the top management at least, not with the hard-working PR people and those elsewhere in the company that ARE interested in DSLR video) results in a lack of passion in me as well.

Well, I guess it's the PR/Marketing people who sent you a unit ? They know who you are. They don't expect any DPR "golden award" from an independent voice like yours. So why did they send you a unit ?

Looks like they are probably as frustrated as we are about the situation and I think it would be worth to give them a little feedback. Perhaps they are trying to "use" you to pass a message like: "if we are not heard internally, let's back our position with external voices". Who else can they use ? Some hairy clowns on youtube or the usual bunch of corrupt press giving 5 stars rating and pre-order links ?

Most of the job is halfway done with your previous articles. You could do a mini review/article and send the link over to the Canon folks.

[Andrew Reid]

I did give them some feedback and they passed it on down the chain, so that's good of them... and yes - I think there are people at Canon who would like great video as much as we would do, and I am sure some Canon staff are actual enthusiasts and film for a hobby outside the main job.

I will always carry on the crusade to get them to listen, and I will always be in the market for a Canon that does interesting stuff. Just bought an EOS M for Magic Lantern raw video with c-mount lenses. Canon Japan owe Magic Lantern a big thank you for the way they have kept the flame of passion alive somewhat for us in the absent of official video features.

[Michal Gajdoš]

14 hours ago, mercer said:

 

. For example, focus peaking on the XC10 and the EOS-M models is the best peaking I've used.

 

Have you ever touched NX1 or Panasonic GH4/GH5? if that what you are saying is true, it proves again canon is delusional. They offer according to you the best Focus Peaking, but the worst 1080p till now (to the point nobodywants to use it for video, then again remember how everyboyd is saying that ergonomics of mirrorless cameras are awful and blah blah you wouldn't use it for video or any paid work, why offer the state of art focus peaking on such camera?). Wow that makes a lot of sense. No point in arguing with you. 

[Michal Gajdoš]

To be honest i cannot understand myself why i am even replying to you. your arguments are pure trolling, let me ellaborate on that:

16 hours ago, mercer said:

The real problem is, that no matter what argument I, or others, bring... you will not accept it. In your mind, cell phones will ruin all camera sales, so what's the difference?

The problem is professionals purchase cameras based on lenses and until Sony, Panasonic, Fuji and Olympus build their lens line up, Canon and Nikon will be selling to the professional and cater to the professional stills camera shooter.

And if a professional needs video, they hire a camera suitable to the job.

And your irrelevant references to Kodak, Nokia, etc... will not change the facts.

Mirrorless still only accounts for 25% of sales and I am sure Canon is aware of trending markets. The idea that some guys on an Internet forum knows better than the leaders of a billion dollar company that has been in the lead with sales for decades is quite frankly laughable. 

1. "The real problem is..." you have not brought a single argument which was supported by any data nor logic. If you think cell phones will not ruin all camera sales think again, i bring you the lastest evidence, feel free to read it (i know you won't, cause you probably can't read or something) http://www.businessinsider.de/gopro-woodman-smartphones-competition-2017-3?r=US&IR=T, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/dec/13/death-of-photography-camera-phones , http://www.economist.com/node/21542796, http://www.businessinsider.de/chart-the-smartphone-destroyed-the-consumer-electronics-market-2017-6?r=US&IR=T mind you i didn't post articles from petapixel and alike.

but hey if only me, the economist, business insider and the guardian think this way, there must be something we are not seeing. @Trek of Joy have a look at these if you think my cahrts are outdated (the most recent ones i could find, feel free and prove me wrong with other research, you know it takes time though to make one  )

the difference, you asked for it, is that I showed you the point why is this happening (fuck if I have enough time, at my departement, i will make a survey on why people dont want to buy DSLR anymore and i guarantee you that OVF is one of the reasons) and that most of the companies continue to ignore it. but after seeing your comment I am pretty sure if canon makes turd you'll be the first to buy it

2. "The problem is professionals purchase cameras based on lenses..." wait so what are we talking about right now ?! LOL dude. So at one point it consumers at other point it's "pros" sony has you covered from 10mm to 400mm aperture wise from 0.95 (1.4 AF). The same more or less applies with m43 and to certain degree fuji (remember these manufactures exist in this mount how long ? 4 years ?) so IDK what the hell you are talking about but if professionals in your point of view are the guys with 600mm+ lenses let me teach you the word sports and wildlife photographers, which i would really love to see the numbers e.g. how much of these pros are comapred to pros (archiutecture, landscape, portrait, wedding and blah blah). IF you want to compare the quality have a look at the latest sony GM lineup and compare it to 10 - 20 year old canon nikon lenses. |

This whole debate about PROS is so useless. this is a blog for enthusiasts with honest reviews, you talk irrelevant shit, and clearly having that many comments proves you are no "pro" to have that much time on your hands, so why do you care about others. A pro can have phaseone while you will use t2i 

3. "And if a professional needs video.." i cant understand the stupidity of this argument. IF I need a pizza I go and hire a cook, or i go to the nearest kebab restaurant... wtf are trying to say ? is 6dii a PRO camera ? no. 

4. "And your irrelevant references to Kodak, Nokia, etc... will not change the facts" . JESUS mary, it's not trying to change the facts :D it is a fact, and the circumstances duyring which the events happened are very similar. how is that irrelevant ? irrelevant would be if i told you i had a ham and eggs for breakfast. 

5. "Mirrorless still only accounts for 25% of sales.." LOL... "ONLY" if 25 % of the market (not sure if it's that much) is only for you well... let's rephrase it. APPLE has less than 15% marketshare on smartphones YET they account for 83% of the all the profit of the market. that is also irrelevant isn't it ? :-D http://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/vendor

anyway i didn't even say anything about mirrorless, you jump, as @Andrew Reid said, from one point to another without any added value. I invested time to write this, please be so kind and don't make me write such a long story again. 

16 hours ago, Arikhan said:

Both are dead now...

Sadly... but it was due to their mistakes. What is more sad, is that customers, executives, companies in general, and of course some members of this blog, do not want to learn from this. 

 

16 hours ago, Arikhan said:

Personally I don't like this idea at all, but nowadays general economic power and market share sometimes just kill innovations / an innovative attitude....

Not in all cases, think of Tesla, SpaceX they are now rewarded, although you are right the road was far from easy. Let me think of another example. What about the microsoft surface line ? the studio and book PCs (although with crappy Video Card) are an innovation worth talking about and people respond to it.

What about the fidget spinner hah :-D

[mercer]

Well here are some facts for you @Michal Gajdoš ... of your last 14 comments on eosHD, spanning over a year, 13 of them were a negative response to a positive or negative review, article or comment about Canon. In most of these responses you were either 1. sophomoric 2. rude or 3. outright insulting. So I believe you are the definition of a troll.

To the matter at hand, your entire argument is based on two things that you reiterate over and over and over and over again. If someone shows you proof against those two things, you declare it is old data or ignore it completely. Just so I am not lumped into the 3 other arguments you've created in this post, let's break down our discussion...

1. You claim that cell phone cameras will kill the entire camera market.

~ I agreed it is having an effect on the consumer market.

~ I also stated that you aren't taking into consideration how much middle aged enthusiasts will spend on a hobby.

~ I furthered my point that cell phones cannot completely destroy the entire camera market because of the professional photographer.

Are you following the progression of events, or should I make my argument simpler for you?

2. Your biggest "evidence" for the future demise of Canon is Kodak and Nokia

~ This argument has been repeated and refuted over the years, ad nauseum, and I'm unsure how many times Kodak and Nokia can illogically be used in this discussion?

~ Kodak and Nokia made one product... film/film services and cell phones, respectively

~ Canon is a multi-national conglomerate with divisions that span cameras, lenses, medical imaging, medical leasing, printing... they have money to lose and money to spend, so your Kodak and Nokia analogy is not an accurate analogy.

That was our discussion and I am unsure why you decided to get so hostile and insulting? I'm unsure how many times I need to say that I don't completely disagree with this article.

In fact...

~ I have agreed on multiple occasions that Canon needs more innovation.

~ But I refuse to say that Canon hasn't innovated at all in the past 10 years or even 5 years because that would either be a lie or an ignorant statement.

~ I would like to see Canon do more with video in the DSLR/DSLM form factor. It is absolutely ridiculous that the 6D2, a $2000 camera, doesn't have better video. I don't understand it... but I bet you Canon does. 

~ Do I agree with their strategy? NO.

~ Has their strategy been working for them? YES.

So what does that tell you? Please I would love to know your market analysis on why Canon, the laziest, least innovative company in the world, still is the top earner in camera and lens sales?

While you're at it, could you explain to me why in their home market does Canon beat Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji in mirrorless sales and are only second to Olympus? How is that possible? I mean... they have horrible 1080p video?

And you are correct, I am not a professional, but I have never claimed to be... hell some may say I am a pretty mediocre amateur. And you are also correct that I do have too much time on my hands, but I choose to spend my free time attempting to learn, yet you solely come here to bash Canon and insult any person who disagrees with you.

So let me ask you one more question... is that really a productive use of your spare time? I mean, did Canon steal your girlfriend from you? Did they bully you on the playground and take your lunch money? Did Canon get drunk and smack around you and your mom when you were a kid? 

No...? Then why are you so angry at Canon and anyone who disagrees with you about Canon?

In conclusion, I really don't care about this topic. I made a few comments throughout, but I didn't realize we were following some kind of sanctioned, debate rules. If you want to believe that Canon will go out of business because Kodak and Nokia did... I really don't care. If you want to believe the camera market will be destroyed by the cell phone market... okay whatever.

Have fun.

[AdrParkinson]

I was at a Canon Roadshow event earlier this year and in the section where they talk about new products they discussed the 4K on the MkIV, and basically said all other manufacturer's 4K video was useless because they don't have Dual Pixel AF. I just thought that was ridiculous as cinematographers have been pulling focus manually far longer than they've been using AF. The only other thing they could seem to think of in Canon's favor was the fact that Sony and Panasonic don't sell their cameras here in South Africa.

[alanpoiuyt]

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 Just bought an EOS M for Magic Lantern raw video with c-mount lenses. Canon Japan owe Lantern a big thank you for the way they have kept the flame of passion alive somewhat for us in the absent of official video features.

I also just bought an EOS M for $149 & an FD adapter. My first foray into Canon. Colors are killing my A7s & A6500.

[Andrew Reid]

4 minutes ago, alanpoiuyt said:

I also just bought an EOS M for $149 & an FD adapter. My first foray into Canon. Colors are killing my A7s & A6500.

What about trying EOSHD Pro Color?

[alanpoiuyt]

46 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

What about trying EOSHD Pro Color?

My SmallHD Focus came in yesterday & it's making my A6500 a monster handheld rig. I'll spring for Pro Color but that EOS M has a vibe more than just color. 

[Andrew Reid]

EOS M with Magic Lantern I take it? The raw picture is what I'll be using it for. The image quality in stock mode for video is crap. The stills are lovely though.

[alanpoiuyt]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

EOS M with Magic Lantern I take it? The raw picture is what I'll be using it for. The image quality in stock mode for video is crap. The stills are lovely though.

Yes, ML for raw, crop mode &Technicolor cinestyle. Stills are great. I like the touchscreen zoom focus mode. Too bad it doesn't work while recording like a Sony. It's a fun little experiment for $149.

Put EOS Pro Color on my A7s. Surprised - thanks.

 

[Michal Gajdoš]

15 hours ago, mercer said:

Well here are some facts for you @Michal Gajdoš ... of your last 14 comments on eosHD, spanning over a year, 13 of them were a negative response to a positive or negative review, article or comment about Canon. In most of these responses you were either 1. sophomoric 2. rude or 3. outright insulting. So I believe you are the definition of a troll.

To the matter at hand, your entire argument is based on two things that you reiterate over and over and over and over again. If someone shows you proof against those two things, you declare it is old data or ignore it completely. Just so I am not lumped into the 3 other arguments you've created in this post, let's break down our discussion...

1. You claim that cell phone cameras will kill the entire camera market.

~ I agreed it is having an effect on the consumer market.

~ I also stated that you aren't taking into consideration how much middle aged enthusiasts will spend on a hobby.

~ I furthered my point that cell phones cannot completely destroy the entire camera market because of the professional photographer.

Are you following the progression of events, or should I make my argument simpler for you?

2. Your biggest "evidence" for the future demise of Canon is Kodak and Nokia

~ This argument has been repeated and refuted over the years, ad nauseum, and I'm unsure how many times Kodak and Nokia can illogically be used in this discussion?

~ Kodak and Nokia made one product... film/film services and cell phones, respectively

~ Canon is a multi-national conglomerate with divisions that span cameras, lenses, medical imaging, medical leasing, printing... they have money to lose and money to spend, so your Kodak and Nokia analogy is not an accurate analogy.

That was our discussion and I am unsure why you decided to get so hostile and insulting? I'm unsure how many times I need to say that I don't completely disagree with this article.

In fact...

~ I have agreed on multiple occasions that Canon needs more innovation.

~ But I refuse to say that Canon hasn't innovated at all in the past 10 years or even 5 years because that would either be a lie or an ignorant statement.

~ I would like to see Canon do more with video in the DSLR/DSLM form factor. It is absolutely ridiculous that the 6D2, a $2000 camera, doesn't have better video. I don't understand it... but I bet you Canon does. 

~ Do I agree with their strategy? NO.

~ Has their strategy been working for them? YES.

So what does that tell you? Please I would love to know your market analysis on why Canon, the laziest, least innovative company in the world, still is the top earner in camera and lens sales?

While you're at it, could you explain to me why in their home market does Canon beat Sony, Panasonic, Nikon and Fuji in mirrorless sales and are only second to Olympus? How is that possible? I mean... they have horrible 1080p video?

And you are correct, I am not a professional, but I have never claimed to be... hell some may say I am a pretty mediocre amateur. And you are also correct that I do have too much time on my hands, but I choose to spend my free time attempting to learn, yet you solely come here to bash Canon and insult any person who disagrees with you.

So let me ask you one more question... is that really a productive use of your spare time? I mean, did Canon steal your girlfriend from you? Did they bully you on the playground and take your lunch money? Did Canon get drunk and smack around you and your mom when you were a kid? 

No...? Then why are you so angry at Canon and anyone who disagrees with you about Canon?

In conclusion, I really don't care about this topic. I made a few comments throughout, but I didn't realize we were following some kind of sanctioned, debate rules. If you want to believe that Canon will go out of business because Kodak and Nokia did... I really don't care. If you want to believe the camera market will be destroyed by the cell phone market... okay whatever.

Have fun.

See, only thing YOU do is insult, you never post any data to support your argument. even Andrew called you a guy who jumps from topic to topic and that there is no point in arguing with. What I can't understand is why @Mattias Burling could upvote your comment which had zero added value.(BTW unfollowed you just right now, when you support people and arguments like this) " I mean, did Canon steal your girlfriend from you? Did they bully you on the playground and take your lunch money? Did Canon get drunk and smack around you and your mom when you were a kid? " and you have been reported. 

"smack my mom" ? how low are you bro? it seems you are amateur in various fields not only photography...

 

[jonpais]

Enough's enough guys.

[Go Scrub]

My point is that Canon is 3 or 4 generations behind Samsung on fabrication technique. They are not going to catch up.
 And to jonpais who thinks outsourcing is the way to create profits. Read this article about Samsung making more profit than Apple while being a supplier for Apple.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-is-making-samsung-rich-2017-7

 

 

[bertholddiederich]

On 7/2/2017 at 7:34 PM, jonpais said:

I think it does merit pointing out how Canon is intentionally crippling their cameras year after year. And how can anyone seriously claim that omitting 4K in a usable codec in their DSLRs is a good strategy for any company in the year 2017? 

I don't work at Canon but I could imagine they've decided it's a good strategy for them because it enables them to make their low-end camera cheaper and doesn't cannibalize sales of higher end cameras. Also, what other full frame DSLRs do 4k? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The A7 II doesn't; the D750 doesn't; is there one that does? Perhaps Canon thinks it's more important to maintain a sub-$2k price point then to include video features that they think their target audience (i.e., full frame still photographers) won't want. 

 

[jonpais]

I'd almost be willing to concede that if the 6D Mark II shot beautiful 1080p.... pretty sure though that a headphone jack wouldn't eat into their profits... I don't recall seeing so many references to sales figures and profit margins in discussions of any other camera brand, wonder why? Anyhow, I've kind of lost interest in this topic myself, since after all, this camera is targeted to consumers as an upgrade to a smartphone, not to enthusiasts or professionals.

[OliKMIA]

To be confirmed but that would be surprising

http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-6d-mark-ii-seems-less-dynamic-range-eos-80d-eos-6d/

[Clayton Moore]

It cannot be argued that when technically they do what they want and don't, that its a marketing / political decision.  Canon today could have dominated the LSS camera space at $1000-$3000 but the simply chose not to. Every year they keep passing on it.  I do feel there is one element to it, camera manufactures (across the board) are struggling to move product right now.

The market is moving so fast that people are to some extent sitting on their wallets.