Canon interview at Photokina 2014 - 7D Mark II - Magic Lantern - and moire

[animan]

And you are ignoring Canon's own advertising. 

 

Good idea to ignore any companies own advertising

[leeys]

Nope. Only difference is it doesn't hunt when it snaps onto focus, but it snaps on a lot slower than the best contrast detect AF and is hopeless in low light.

 

What are you hoping to use it for? If it is casual holiday snap shot video time, then fine it works well. If it is filmmaking, then no, you need MF. And if it is stills forget it, just look through the optical viewfinder instead.

I don't know, I really didn't find it that much slower than the GH3. I timed it with a stopwatch and passed it around a couple of people to make sure reaction time wasn't an issue. It's not a lot slower.

 

I've used my GH3 in a few commercial videos for corporate clients and the AF works well enough. I disable continuous and use a remote to start AF. It's mostly fairly static stuff, with some simple focus pulls.

 

And it's really hard to use the optical viewfinder when the camera is on the floor. I usually don't fancy putting my face on most floors. ;)

 

I've never had the need for 14 stops of dynamic range in stills. For video, yes, which is why I'm a big Alexa fan, but for stills I just haven't found the need for more than 10 stops, 5-6 for most purposes. But I grew into the Mark III shooting 4x5 Velvia, which has 4-5 stops of dynamic range so I come at this with a different approach from most, I think.

Basically, if you don't post-process heavily, you might not see the difference, but if you do, wow. Cameras with less than 12 stops of DR usually get found out (at least for me. As an extreme example, I have a Nikon 1 V2 and boy that was really unpleasant the first time I got back after a shoot. I've learnt to shoot with a different style and technique with the V2, but that does mean there's less flexibility with that particular solution.

 

The only time this doesn't apply is in a completely controlled environment where you've setup the lighting to take into account your post-processing edits.

 

I just feel goofy carrying around this awesome 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma (and 11-16mm Tokina) and having no camera to use them on, except that dreadful EOS-M I’m now trying to unload. Which, btw, has surprisingly great image quality, significantly exceeding the 7D… but it’s basically unusable due to poor AF.

You could get a speedbooster and a GH4. :P

 

What surprises me the most about 7D2 is not the lack of 4K ( half-expected it ) but lack of low-light capability. Right now D4s, D810, Df and A7s are radically changing photographic conventions by delivering acceptable noise-free ISO1600 images.

 

You're seriously not comparing a 7DII with the above cameras, are you? All those are FF cameras! 

[mtheory]

You're seriously not comparing a 7DII with the above cameras, are you? All those are FF cameras! 

 

I am simply comparing current-gen cameras. A crop factor is not a barrier to great low-light performance, - ( remember 1D Mark IV ), - Canon could've kept the 7D2 at 18MP and optimized low-light instead, or given us a full-frame 7D2 with ability to crop the way A7s does, - the tech is there, the will isn't.

 

I am mostly renting gear for shoots these days because there is nothing to buy from Canon at the moment to replace my current gear. It will be mid to late 2015 before 5D4 and 1DX2 come out, that's almost a year of waiting. I was hoping to 7D2 was going to be my solution for stills or video, but it suits neither.

[bertzie]

I think you don't understand the whole concept of DSLR filmmaking.  And you are ignoring Canon's own advertising. 

 

Canons own advertising puts photography first. The primary focus of the advertisement is photography. The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.

 

You can use a DSLR as a video camera just like you can use a screwdriver as a hammer. That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.

[Policar]

I don't know, I really didn't find it that much slower than the GH3. I timed it with a stopwatch and passed it around a couple of people to make sure reaction time wasn't an issue. It's not a lot slower.

 

I've used my GH3 in a few commercial videos for corporate clients and the AF works well enough. I disable continuous and use a remote to start AF. It's mostly fairly static stuff, with some simple focus pulls.

 

And it's really hard to use the optical viewfinder when the camera is on the floor. I usually don't fancy putting my face on most floors. ;)

 

Basically, if you don't post-process heavily, you might not see the difference, but if you do, wow. Cameras with less than 12 stops of DR usually get found out (at least for me. As an extreme example, I have a Nikon 1 V2 and boy that was really unpleasant the first time I got back after a shoot. I've learnt to shoot with a different style and technique with the V2, but that does mean there's less flexibility with that particular solution.

 

The only time this doesn't apply is in a completely controlled environment where you've setup the lighting to take into account your post-processing edits.

 

You could get a speedbooster and a GH4. :P

 

Re: the speedbooster, I'm not looking to pay more money but the GH4 does look cool. The GH2 and GH3 impressed me... other than the awful interface. Maybe I'll pick up an SL1, it's cheap and cute.

 

Could you post some images where you found the extra shadow detail helpful in post processing? I don't doubt that it's useful for a certain kind of look, but someone once cited I think it was Marc Adamus as someone who got a lot out of the D800 and while a few of his shots are great, 90% of the post processing he does looks horrible to me. 

 

I do see the value in the D810 for landscapes, particularly if you want an HDR "look" or shoot wide dynamic range scenes with wide lenses. But I don't do that. :) I like Canon's skin tones for portraiture and autofocus and speed for sports, photojournalism, etc. If I had the money I'd buy both.

[mikegt]

> The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.

 

That has nothing to do with Canon leaving out features that would cost a buck or two to add (like a headphone jack) to try to force folks to buy much higher priced gear.  That is what we are discussing here.

 

> That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.

 

Your statement makes no sense.  Canon advertises their DSLRs as being suitable for recording videos, so they are "video" cameras, as you put it.

 

If you don't think DSLRs are suitable for use as video / filmmaking cameras, then why are you posting on a site devoted to using them for that exact purpose?  Are you just trolling here?

[dafreaking]

Canons own advertising puts photography first. The primary focus of the advertisement is photography. The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.

 

You can use a DSLR as a video camera just like you can use a screwdriver as a hammer. That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.

 

Canon DSLR's (teamed with magic lantern) are better video cameras than screwdrivers are hammers. :D

[Danyyyel]

I think people should just let go. It was an accident, they rode their luck and identified new opportunities.

 

At first the video implementation in the 5d2 was just a derivative of the live view and the fact compact and smartphone where shooting video.

 

Then with the success they just ride their luck by releasing video to all their models and see how the market would move. In doing so they quickly tied many people to their lens system.

 

Then they figured out that there was a group of professional that wanted more traditional video cameras and that were prepared to pay much more that. So they build the highly successful Cinema Eos line.

 

So now they just put very small incremental update to their DSLR line, just to be relevant and nothing more. Good enough for 90% of their photographers who will shoot some occasional video.

 

So in the end they did the contrary of what everybody was thinking by separating rather than convergence. Everybody thought that everything would converge when the dslr revolution started.

[Danyyyel]

I think you don't understand the whole concept of DSLR filmmaking.  And you are ignoring Canon's own advertising. 

 

I think you cannot believe in any corporation advertising. If else you would think that Mac Donalds care about your health.

[mtheory]

What's funny is 7D is literally one of the most popular cameras for independent films at film festivals around the world, with a track record of theatrical distribution in US and worldwide. ( More than 5D ) 

 

That's a hell of a market to walk away from.

[leeys]

Re: the speedbooster, I'm not looking to pay more money but the GH4 does look cool. The GH2 and GH3 impressed me... other than the awful interface. Maybe I'll pick up an SL1, it's cheap and cute.

 

Could you post some images where you found the extra shadow detail helpful in post processing? I don't doubt that it's useful for a certain kind of look, but someone once cited I think it was Marc Adamus as someone who got a lot out of the D800 and while a few of his shots are great, 90% of the post processing he does looks horrible to me. 

 

I do see the value in the D810 for landscapes, particularly if you want an HDR "look" or shoot wide dynamic range scenes with wide lenses. But I don't do that. :) I like Canon's skin tones for portraiture and autofocus and speed for sports, photojournalism, etc. If I had the money I'd buy both.

Don't have them handy (they're not on the web) but if you're the kind to push curves, dodge, burn, use a bunch of adjustment layers, you'll need all the help you can get. Some files just fall apart faster than others.

[bertzie]

> The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.

 

That has nothing to do with Canon leaving out features that would cost a buck or two to add (like a headphone jack) to try to force folks to buy much higher priced gear.  That is what we are discussing here.

 

> That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.

 

Your statement makes no sense.  Canon advertises their DSLRs as being suitable for recording videos, so they are "video" cameras, as you put it.

 

If you don't think DSLRs are suitable for use as video / filmmaking cameras, then why are you posting on a site devoted to using them for that exact purpose?  Are you just trolling here?

 

DSLRs shoot video, that makes them suitable for shooting video. A headphone jack does not affect the cameras ability to shoot video.

 

Simply being able to shoot video does not make something a video camera. The iphone shoots video, does that make it a video camera? (Hint: The answer is no).

 

The 7dmk2 is a stills camera. It was designed with stills in mind. You CAN use it for video, but video is not its primary function. Video is is not the primary function because it is not a video camera. It is a camera that coincidentally shoots video.

 

How difficult is this to understand?

[Andrew Reid]

The real successor to the 7D for filmmakers is the C300 and Canon knows this.

 

This is why they don't need professional standard video on their DSLRs. It really is that simple. C300 sold incredibly well. Job done.

 

Canon thinks the soft, mediocre 1080p on the 7D is good enough for 90% of their intended user base.

 

All I can say to that is... hahha... now get back to work.

 

They are royally underestimated their customers. We demand more. Hobbyists and enthusiast with high knowledge especially absolutely realise how Canon are falling behind on performance terms vs the competition, for stills let alone video. Nikon has refreshed very recently across their entire line and Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus have all innovated with high end mirrorless stuff. Canon has done none of that.

 

For stills performance look at the aged 5D3 vs D810 or indeed the D750, which is cheaper than both. Or the Sony A7R for resolution and the Sony A7S for low light photography. Dynamic range is also a problem. Canon are 2 stops short. Then for video, ignoring the abject mess that is the DSLRs, the Canon C300 just does NOT compete on equal terms with the Sony FS7. It looks like 7 years older technology and when you see the 10bit 4K of the FS7 next to the 8bit 1080p of the C300, and the 180fps vs 30fps, you will see it in your bloody work as well. I'm not paying money for that kind of shortfall no matter how good the ergonomics and lenses are!!

 

What I find deeply odd, is Canon's complacency in the midst of all of this.... Vs the big guys like Sony and Nikon it is baffling enough. But then you add into the mix out of left field, Sigma(!?) making significantly better lenses than Canon, and their 35mm F1.4 outselling the Canon 35mm F2.0 IS so much that Canon had to give it a price drop... and of Samsung making more technologically cutting edge APS-C sensors... Samsung!? OF ALL PEOPLE!! I mean come on, wake up.

 

Canon's whole success has been built on leading the technology race. Best sensors, best cameras, best lenses.

 

Stills shooters STILL (if you excuse the terrible pun) have no high megapixel sensor from Canon. Why not? Nothing to beat the 36MP offered by Sony and Nikon.

 

Sony have the best sensor for low light photography and it does superb video. Where's Canon's answer? They don't have one!

 

Sony have a medium format sensor actually already in cameras right now, getting sold, and Canon could but doesn't.

 

Sony has mass market 24MP and 36MP sensors which are better performing than Canon's and not only that but they are giving Canon's biggest rival on sales, Nikon, an image quality advantage. It's all very confusing.

 

If Canon don't fix this, their good karma won't last and they will remember the dissenters like me in a few years wishing they'd listened.

[mikegt]

> How difficult is this to understand?

 

I understand you are being a troll here, telling folks on a forum devoted to using DSLRs for filmmaking that we are using the "wrong" tool.  According to you.  Don't you have something better to do ?

[mikegt]

I think you cannot believe in any corporation advertising. If else you would think that Mac Donalds care about your health.

You may be right, but I'm not ready to be that cynical.  At least not yet...

[mikegt]

I think people should just let go. It was an accident, they rode their luck and identified new opportunities.

 

At first the video implementation in the 5d2 was just a derivative of the live view and the fact compact and smartphone where shooting video.

 

Then with the success they just ride their luck by releasing video to all their models and see how the market would move. In doing so they quickly tied many people to their lens system.

 

Then they figured out that there was a group of professional that wanted more traditional video cameras and that were prepared to pay much more that. So they build the highly successful Cinema Eos line.

 

So now they just put very small incremental update to their DSLR line, just to be relevant and nothing more. Good enough for 90% of their photographers who will shoot some occasional video.

 

So in the end they did the contrary of what everybody was thinking by separating rather than convergence. Everybody thought that everything would converge when the dslr revolution started.

 

You have a good take on what probably occurred.  Unfortunately this is a symptom of business practices that have been happening in the video camera market for a long time.  In the olden days you had television stations making tons of money, and therefore willing to pay sky-high prices for equipment.  At one time the prices may have been justified, but when the home video market took off, manufacturers of video gear had a problem - how to offer VCRs and camcorders at prices affordable to the consumer, while not risking the fat margins they were making on the professional stuff?  The solution of course was to deliberately cripple the consumer gear, by both cutting the resolution and color depth that could be recorded and played back.  Effectively both consumers and pros got screwed by this, while the manufacturers laughed their way to the bank.  Amateur and low-budget filmmakers got screwed worst of all - forced to make their creations on crippled formats (like DV), just so the manufacturers could protect their high profit margins on the pro gear.

 

Then Canon added video recording to the 5D, and low/no budget filmmakers rejoiced because it seemed like we were on the verge of finally being able to make movies as good looking as the pros were able to do with their $50,000 cameras.  Canon however saw it as an opportunity, as you said, to make something for the high margin crowd.  How high margin?  Well, the C300 came out with an 8 megapixel APS-C sensor that was likely just a mild re-spin of the original 8 megapixel APS-C sensor from the old Rebel XT.  They threw in a faster CPU that could handle the frame rate and some professional audio connectors, and presto they had something they could sell for $15,000.  With a parts list that probably doesn't exceed $500 in total cost.  This probably explains why Canon is making a profit while some other makers are currently losing money.

[tomekk]

The real successor to the 7D for filmmakers is the C300 and Canon knows this.

 

This is why they don't need professional standard video on their DSLRs. It really is that simple. C300 sold incredibly well. Job done.

 

Canon thinks the soft, mediocre 1080p on the 7D is good enough for 90% of their intended user base.

 

All I can say to that is... hahha... now get back to work.

 

They are royally underestimated their customers. We demand more. Hobbyists and enthusiast with high knowledge especially absolutely realise how Canon are falling behind on performance terms vs the competition, for stills let alone video. Nikon has refreshed very recently across their entire line and Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus have all innovated with high end mirrorless stuff. Canon has done none of that.

 

For stills performance look at the aged 5D3 vs D810 or indeed the D750, which is cheaper than both. Or the Sony A7R for resolution and the Sony A7S for low light photography. Dynamic range is also a problem. Canon are 2 stops short. Then for video, ignoring the abject mess that is the DSLRs, the Canon C300 just does NOT compete on equal terms with the Sony FS7. It looks like 7 years older technology and when you see the 10bit 4K of the FS7 next to the 8bit 1080p of the C300, and the 180fps vs 30fps, you will see it in your bloody work as well. I'm not paying money for that kind of shortfall no matter how good the ergonomics and lenses are!!

 

What I find deeply odd, is Canon's complacency in the midst of all of this.... Vs the big guys like Sony and Nikon it is baffling enough. But then you add into the mix out of left field, Sigma(!?) making significantly better lenses than Canon, and their 35mm F1.4 outselling the Canon 35mm F2.0 IS so much that Canon had to give it a price drop... and of Samsung making more technologically cutting edge APS-C sensors... Samsung!? OF ALL PEOPLE!! I mean come on, wake up.

 

Canon's whole success has been built on leading the technology race. Best sensors, best cameras, best lenses.

 

Stills shooters STILL (if you excuse the terrible pun) have no high megapixel sensor from Canon. Why not? Nothing to beat the 36MP offered by Sony and Nikon.

 

Sony have the best sensor for low light photography and it does superb video. Where's Canon's answer? They don't have one!

 

Sony have a medium format sensor actually already in cameras right now, getting sold, and Canon could but doesn't.

 

Sony has mass market 24MP and 36MP sensors which are better performing than Canon's and not only that but they are giving Canon's biggest rival on sales, Nikon, an image quality advantage. It's all very confusing.

 

If Canon don't fix this, their good karma won't last and they will remember the dissenters like me in a few years wishing they'd listened.

 

You're oversimplifying. Very short term thinking. Sony's, Nikon's or whatever other's company better products now don't mean anything in the long term. It's quite normal competition takes the lead sometimes. It doesn't mean they're better company overall AND will win in the end, though. You're looking at it from a very narrow minded point of view - few products they've released recently which are better at this point in time ignoring/forgetting everything else. 

[mikegt]

You're oversimplifying. Very short term thinking. Sony's, Nikon's or whatever other's company better products now don't mean anything in the long term. It's quite normal competition takes the lead sometimes. It doesn't mean they're better company overall AND will win in the end, though. You're looking at it from a very narrow minded point of view - few products they've released recently which are better at this point in time ignoring/forgetting everything else. 

The only thing oversimplified here was your response.

 

I took the time to read the financial reports for Canon and Panasonic. As someone else previously mentioned, Canon is making a profit currently and Panasonic is losing money.  It's starting to get clearer what Canon's strategy is here.  With the market for mass market cameras shrinking due to competition from cell phones, etc., they have evidently decided to preserve profits by cutting product development costs except for their high margin lines. So their APS-C cameras have shared the same sensor design for the last five years.  4K capability was added only to their two most expensive cameras.  The only real innovation added to any Canon model under $10,000 in the last few years that I can think of has been "dual-pixel" focusing on a few models.  Panasonic and Sony are doing the opposite - taking some losses to make cameras so advanced that they hope cell phones can't compete with them.

 

For the advanced videographer who doesn't have $15,000 or more to spend on a camera, currently the best choice of what to buy, I'm sorry to say, is probably a camera that doesn't say "Canon" on it.

[tomekk]

The only thing oversimplified here was your response.

 

I took the time to read the financial reports for Canon and Panasonic. As someone else previously mentioned, Canon is making a profit currently and Panasonic is losing money.  It's starting to get clearer what Canon's strategy is here.  With the market for mass market cameras shrinking due to competition from cell phones, etc., they have evidently decided to preserve profits by cutting product development costs except for their high margin lines. So their APS-C cameras have shared the same sensor design for the last five years.  4K capability was added only to their two most expensive cameras.  The only real innovation added to any Canon model under $10,000 in the last few years that I can think of has been "dual-pixel" focusing on a few models.  Panasonic and Sony are doing the opposite - taking some losses to make cameras so advanced that they hope cell phones can't compete with them.

 

For the advanced videographer who doesn't have $15,000 or more to spend on a camera, currently the best choice of what to buy, I'm sorry to say, is probably a camera that doesn't say "Canon" on it.

We're not talking about mass market products in this forum but if canon is moving away from lower end cameras (which 7d and higher aren't) then that might be a smart move. 

Panasonic and Sony aren't taking losses on purpose (this doesn't make sense, logically speaking). They are much more likely pushing their products because that's the way to stop losing money. So I'd argue reasons for doing what they're doing are completely opposite to what you're saying. They're losing money so they have to innovate. That's how it works usually. If you're a weaker player in this game, you have to give more for similar or lower price and rightly so. Buyers gain, bigger companies are forced to improve as well, bla, bla, bla. 

Of course, canon is not right choice now for videographer's and is lagging behind after recent releases from competition. I'd be pretty surprised if they don't at least match competition with their next releases though.  Time will tell.

[Oliver Daniel]

I don't understand what the obsession is with Canon "holding back" - sure the C300 is lacking compared to the FS7 and the 7D Mk II isn't great for video - but the C300 has been available for 2 and a half years, and the 7D II is for photographers. 

 

Canon will bring out their 4k cameras next year - so in the meantime, just use the other options and keep shooting. If a company is holding back on features, it doesn't stop anyone using another tool or shooting something interesting.  :D