Canon will come again

[jax_rox]

It's better than the C300.

 

Well, that's not really saying a lot is it ;)

 

It's Alexa lite.

 

And a better DSLR will not be coming soon, from any manufacturer.

 

Personally, I think an F5 is my 'Alexa Lite.' All without hacked firmware (admittedly at a much higher price point than a 5DmkIII), at both 2k and 4k in an extremely efficient codec, in addition to the option of raw and ProRes in a (forthcoming?) firmware update. Many are saying the A7s in an F5 lite - I'd be interested to see in my own testing and use how it holds up.
I've never personally used the 5DmkIII in raw mode, so I can't really comment on how it handles. The few test videos I've seen around the internet haven't really impressed me all that much.

I personally think with an SLR you're compromising basically everything else in order to get a decent image for a super cheap price..

 

They certainly have their time and place and I own one and shoot on it occasionally, but it would be a rare situation for me to suggest shooting on an SLR as an A cam over almost anything else.

[Andrew Reid]

I'm going to change the annoying name of this thread. Bit fed up of seeing the word Messiah now :)

[Guest]

I look forward to your 5DIV video-mode review "It is not the Messiah, it's a very haughty toy."

[tomekk]

Quality video is never coming back to the DSLR line.

 

That is precisely what the Cinema EOS line is for.

 

And you must pay the asking price for it, or get a Sony.

 

I think, it's reasonable to assume that canon at least have to compete with nikon's dslrs. Other than that, I don't expect more too.

[jax_rox]

Canon aren't even competitive with their Cinema EOS line!

 

Compare the FS700R with the (brand new!) C100mkII. They're both essentially the same price, and yet the FS700 can be adapted to PL mount really easily, it has 200fps HD internally, and up to 960fps in reduced resolution. The FS700 has built-in ND filters. The FS700 can record in 12-bit 2k and 4k raw with optional accessories.

 

Canon just released the C100mkII and its still not really comparable to the similarly priced (there's $500 between them) FS700R.

 

And then there's the C300 and the $4,000 cheaper FS7...

 

I think Canon are relying too much on the popularity of their lens mount, and an assumption that people want a camera with that mount natively.

[zenpmd]

Now the thread just sounds sexual...

[Matthew Marshall]

Canon aren't even competitive with their Cinema EOS line!

 

Compare the FS700R with the (brand new!) C100mkII. They're both essentially the same price, and yet the FS700 can be adapted to PL mount really easily, it has 200fps HD internally, and up to 960fps in reduced resolution. The FS700 has built-in ND filters. The FS700 can record in 12-bit 2k and 4k raw with optional accessories.

 

Canon just released the C100mkII and its still not really comparable to the similarly priced (there's $500 between them) FS700R.

 

And then there's the C300 and the $4,000 cheaper FS7...

 

I think Canon are relying too much on the popularity of their lens mount, and an assumption that people want a camera with that mount natively.

Ok lets be fair here, The FS700 is huge with the accessories on rail for raw. A most ungainly thing. Regardless I think what it really comes down to is the business.

Canon, is cameras, picture cameras. They are, they always have been. Its the basis of their business and what they cater to, specifically like most of their competitors, consumer cameras. Accessible, easy to use from film up to when they first started making film cameras, but also good quality. Their business model is frankly different than Sony who has their hand in all echelons of technology and even the high end production cameras like the CineAlta.

As such its an old holdover from film. EF is Canon, FD was Canon at the time. Picture Film cameras lived and died by their mounts. Setting theirs as EF from FD with autofocus and electronics and removing the bayonette mount is their claim. Canon is EF and for film, PL, thats mainly because if they didnt at least try to meet the standards of the industry nobody would use it at all. 

Sony doesn't have this holdover, well yes ok they have the Alpha aka the Minolta AF which was bought when Minolta closed its doors. It was bought, they didn't develop it themselves. Now they have the E-Mount okay, thats all good, they developed that but they don't live and die by their mount. Its not synonymous with their name like it is with Canon EF. Sony does all technology, not just pictures and video. They dont profit just from lenses and cameras. They profit from their various branches and overall sales and consumers in their brand name... Sony. Sony glass doesn't have this huge long history like Canon has and a bitter rivalry with other manufacturers and "survivors" *rip kodak*. I mean even on a film production level Canon PL cinema has to compete with Zeiss, although there are other contenders in there as well.

Hence the easy adaptation. Plus, rather smartly, they dont need to invest nearly as much R&D to lenses. Compared to what Canon and Zeiss probably invest. So they invest in the tech, the cameras, the 200fps bells and whistles and 4k, built in ND filters. To make the picture on very expensive highly R&D lens look great and satisfy the consumer in price. Plus Canon, they don't have as high end a quality camera as the CineAlta or the Arri. Sony has made movies, funded movies, had professionals paid by their company to make them and also are privy to their tips and advice and suggestions first hand from working on a movie production in house. Canon doesn't have this, at least not as closely integrated as... hey, im paying your checks... what works?

Not to mention their other branches. Sony is a survivor and a competitive one. Sony Gaming survived the Sega Collapse, the introduction of the Xbox and the rivalry with Nintendo. Theres Sony music and the music industry, has so far survived the collapse of CD (ok thats a stretch but whatever just go with it XD)

Here ill add a TL;DR

To be frank, Sony can take some risks, add those features on. Add a bulky peripheral that may not be what everyone needs, but if you want it, hey have at it. They've survived alot.
Canon, again, lives and dies by their lens, their cameras and thats it. You screw up, and dont make a return for all that R&D? You have nothing else to fall back on. I mean what else. I suppose their printers, however Fuji still has that cornered as far as im concerned. Anyways its not this way for Sony.

Ok that was alot longer than I wanted it to be sorry everyone.

[Guest]

What I want to know is why Polaroid haven't brought out a C100 competitor for $79.

[hmcindie]

Personally, I think an F5 is my 'Alexa Lite.' All without hacked firmware (admittedly at a much higher price point than a 5DmkIII), at both 2k and 4k in an extremely efficient codec, in addition to the option of raw and ProRes in a (forthcoming?) firmware update. The few test videos I've seen around the internet haven't really impressed me all that much.

 

 

Sorry but prores is not RAW. It's good and great but RAW is RAW. And you haven't seen good videos that have impressed you? Well boohoo, there's always someone crying about "I haven't seen a good video from that cam", from every single camera there is. Wasn't there a guy just here in this forum who claimed "I haven't seen a good video from the FS7, can't be good". There are GREAT little videos about the 5d raw here and there, everywhere. Cameras don't make a good image, the director of photography does. Cameras HELP. You think I can just point the a7s anywhere with it's slog and it will always look great?

 

Usability? Yeah well for documentaries RAW is overkill. For narrative films? It's just too good to be true. I still can't believe the image that the 5d raw puts out. No compression artifacts, extreme amount of color information, Canon color science. Pretty good lowlight (it's no a7s but it can still make excellent images in lowlight because the RAW cleans up extremely well compared to h264). Great to handle (yeah I actually think the 5d format is one of the best DSLR style handlers there is, a7s is a bitch compared. Just the record button placement on the a7s is ... it's just ... bad.)

 

And the FS700 is horrible. It really is. Okey, not horrible but it has serious issues. Without the 240fps capability, I would never use it. It's almost like a gimmick camera. We rent it often because it is one of the cheapest ways to go over 200fps but other than that... FS7 looks to be really improved from it though. Have you looked at the actual image quality coming out of the FS700? It's not ... that good. There can be the typical Sony white outlines over bright objects (same as a7s) and the image compression is quite heavy. A prores recorder like the Odyssey will help but then it's so bulky it's funny.

 

A professional can make the FS700 look good, a pro can make any camera look good. I'm just saying: "One of the best DSLR's for video is right here and it's thanks to Magic Lantern". It's really, really good. It takes a lot of work but once you get it running (and get the necessary pipeline for serious shooting with several fast CF-cards and drives for the material) it really sings. 

[jax_rox]

Sorry but prores is not RAW. It's good and great but RAW is RAW. And you haven't seen good videos that have impressed you? Well boohoo, there's always someone crying about "I haven't seen a good video from that cam", from every single camera there is. Wasn't there a guy just here in this forum who claimed "I haven't seen a good video from the FS7, can't be good". There are GREAT little videos about the 5d raw here and there, everywhere. Cameras don't make a good image, the director of photography does. Cameras HELP. You think I can just point the a7s anywhere with it's slog and it will always look great?

I like to look at the cameras output before I look into purchasing as I'm more concerned with the image it produces. You can have the highest specced camera in the world, but I'm more concerned with the image it produces. Without owning a 5D to test, I'm not going to buy one based on the fact that it has raw via a hack, and some people like it.

 

I've shot on the 5D before (when I've had to :(), and I've shot Alexa, F55, F5, RED Dragon et al.

Each camera has its time and place. If it came down to it, I would much rather have a truck full of lights and a Gaffer to put them up, and shoot on a 5D than shoot Alexa and be without lights.

 

I've seen some absolutely shocking looking RED Epic footage, shot by people who are not DPs.
 

I'm not going to say the 5D is the worst camera out there, but it's certainly not 'the best thing out there' for every one in all circumstances.

 

Also raw is overkill in a good number of cases. I've shot things for cinema in ProRes and even XAVC. Raw is nice, and in the case of the 5D seems the only way to get a not altogether terrible image out of it, but it's not the answer for everybody, and it's not the answer in a lot of cases.

 

Now, I'm not saying the A7s is necessarily better or as good as. I'm just saying you're compromising a lot to get even a half-decent image with any DSLR.

 

 

And the FS700 is horrible. It really is. Okey, not horrible but it has serious issues. Without the 240fps capability, I would never use it. It's almost like a gimmick camera. We rent it often because it is one of the cheapest ways to go over 200fps but other than that... FS7 looks to be really improved from it though. Have you looked at the actual image quality coming out of the FS700? It's not ... that good. There can be the typical Sony white outlines over bright objects (same as a7s) and the image compression is quite heavy. A prores recorder like the Odyssey will help but then it's so bulky it's funny.

 

Oh, look I don't disagree. I'm not a big fan of the image out of the FS700, but I'm not a big fan of the image out of a C300 either. I'm also not a fan of the plasticy build of the FS700, or the awkward size and ergonomics of the C300. If I have a choice, I won't shoot on either. I've had to shoot on the C300 more than I would have liked, but you can't always be pretentious ( ;) ) about cameras when you're trying to pay the bills. Luckily, I've been able to sway the decsion towards an F5 for almost all high speed stuff I do that would've otherwise been relegated to the FS700.

 

However, you can't say the FS700 is not more feature-rich than the C100. Or that the FS7 is not more feature-rich than the C300, especially if it gives images like an F5, and all at a price point that's $3k less.

 

 

I'm just saying: "One of the best DSLR's for video is right here and it's thanks to Magic Lantern". It's really, really good. It takes a lot of work but once you get it running (and get the necessary pipeline for serious shooting with several fast CF-cards and drives for the material) it really sings.

 

Well now, that's very different to when you said that the 5D raw is 'THE BEST THING out there' isn't it? I'm sure it's great. I've just never seen it be that great myself, and anecdotal evidence is not enough for me, especially considering the huge amount of misinformation around the web about cameras and Cinematography these days. I need to see it with my own eyes.

Honestly, the first test images from the F5 I absolutely hated, and I hated the images out of the F55 more! But when I used it myself, I did a total 180 on my opinion of it.

I'm still not sure what I think of the F55 as a camera, but I would sure shoot on the F5 if the budget didn't allow for an Alexa.

 

 

It does seem like Sony has really spoken to shooters. And not just SLR shooters. Things like built-in NDs that you only otherwise find on a camera like an Alexa Studio. Decent ergonomics on the F5/55 and FS7 and smaller, lighter bodies (finally! I was so sick of the cameras that were almost as big as a car - f65 or f35 anyone?).

 

I think Canon's potential mistake is that they've basically catered their entire line of cameras to SLR shooters. The C(x)00 cameras are slightly bigger SLRs with slightly better image quality. If someone's only every shot on an SLR, then they wouldn't know any different, but I like cameras that feel good on the shoulder, and that can be put on the shoulder relatively easily. I want something that's not ergonomically awful, and I think when you're paying upwards of $5k for a camera, it stops becoming something that's too much to ask.

 

Despite the fact that, in general, I like the colours out of their cameras, Canon have no camera offering that I would consider using as an A cam on a commercial or film at this very moment in time.

[zenpmd]

 

[fuzzynormal]

Who cares what Canon does until they do it? Brand loyalty when camera bodies only cost a pittace doesn't really seem necessary...does it?

Even FF lenses work across brands with adapters.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Unfortunately the only Canon will bring sharp video to the lower end line is after they replace both the 1DC and C300. Then we can have a C100-like image in a 5D mk IV or so, but not below the 7D, that was just released. If you want sharp looking video now get a GH4 or an A7s or a C100 or any of the avilable options just don't expect a rebel to ouperform the 7D mk II or a 5D mk IV to outperform the 1DC, they will have to replace those higher-end ones first.

[Danyyyel]

At least when Canon will put 4k on the camera, we will get 1080p video on the Canon dslr.

[Guest]

 

Check out the 20,000 ISO performance of the C100 MkII at "2:37".

 

I think it looks like an awesome camera. I think it should have 10bit hdmi-out and be about 2/3 the price it is. But I still think it looks awesome.

[Nikkor]

Everytime I see that camera with the cine lenses I have to laugh, it's the size and looks of a medium format camera but it's only aps-c and the lenses are 60% empty housing...

[mtheory]

7D2 and 5D4 will only be meaningful if ML team keep working on Canon cameras. I hope their latest switch to the Axiom doesn't mean they are abandoning Canon software hacking.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Everytime I see that camera with the cine lenses I have to laugh, it's the size and looks of a medium format camera but it's only aps-c and the lenses are 60% empty housing...

Well that's APS-C too 

[zenpmd]

Some people like the C300 and if I ever produced anything like Seabastian Junger Id be a happy boy!

[mtheory]

Yeah well for documentaries RAW is overkill. For narrative films? It's just too good to be true. I still can't believe the image that the 5d raw puts out. No compression artifacts, extreme amount of color information, Canon color science. Pretty good lowlight (it's no a7s but it can still make excellent images in lowlight because the RAW cleans up extremely well compared to h264). Great to handle (yeah I actually think the 5d format is one of the best DSLR style handlers there is, a7s is a bitch compared. Just the record button placement on the a7s is ... it's just ... bad.)

 

This. You can take this CINEMA PROJECTABLE LOW LIGHT FRIENDLY SUPER GRADEABLE CREAMY DOF baby underwater, skydiving, to a shady dark alley and shoot your film in places you could never take Alexa or F5 to due to permits crew, power requirements, etc. And if it breaks, or you get robbed, just buy another one...:D

 

Plus...the son of a bitch MLV RAW has onboard sound recording for easy syncing with external sound...*look, ma, no clapperboards*...it still boggles my mind how good we've got it, ( plus all the other great cameras available out there. )