Does Cinema EOS mark the end of high spec Canon DSLR video?

[douglaurent]

Key word is "overall". Some facts my friend...

 

Sony A7S with a monitor on top kills the 1D C stone dead for image quality.

1D C is not full frame 4K. The active imaging area is barely any larger than Super 35mm in 4K mode, thus NX1 and GH4 with Speed Booster give a similar rendering of Canon full frame lenses

The codec is from another time, when dinosaurs ruled the earth. 4K MJPEG takes up 6 times the space on my drive that H.265 4K does.

Monitoring on the 1D C bare bones is a nightmare. No EVF, no peaking, in fact virtually nothing to help you focus

The GH4 and NX1 can be used bare bones without a monitor, far more pleasing to shoot with

The 1D C is $12,000... how many times do I have to mention ENTHUSIAST MARKET for you to get the point of the article?

The 1D C's codec has banding issues at low ISOs

The 1D C's sensor is rated barely 12 stops, the GH4 for 13 stops and the A7S for 14. So in that sense the raw stills aren't the best either

 

Like I said... Sony A7S with Shogun on top or 1D C with monitor on top just so you can focus... It's a no brainer. Image, usability, size, portability... everything is better on the Sony.

i also have an epic dragon and 75", 65" and 55" 4K monitors where i can compare all these tools, plus 150 lenses.  shoot the same things with all these cameras and watch it on a big screen and then talk.  unfortunately hardly anybody does this comparison.  the a7s is a toy feeling camera with nice results, but definitely won't top the 1DC - not with a necessary $2000 external recorder and not in lowlight, when all settings are optimized in both cameras.  only the high price speaks against the 1DC.  big minus for the sony cameras is that most of the great array of canon, nikon, tamron, sigma lenses lacks stabilization, fstop control and of course autofocus.  which means for an a7s aside from the recorder you can spend another $5000-$10000 for sony lenses.  

 

definitely an a7s is enough to shoot full hd videos and watch them on small full hd monitors, or small 4k monitors who will not tell you what real 4k looks like.  to date nobody has proven in a 1:1 comparison with external recording that the a7s or another of the mentioned cameras tops the 1DC in anything in real world footage.

 

the main points are:  if someone is happy with so many so great cameras of other manufactures, why whining 10 times about other products by canon that might suck?  did anybody write such articles in 2009 about why samsung and panasonic suck regarding cameras and can't keep up with the 5D2?  i can't remember that. 

 

i also don't see how canon should listen to you if you virtually tell them they are complete idiots, when in fact their business and business numbers seem to work great.  the normal human reaction would be to do the exact opposite of what the person who thinks you're an idiot wants.

[dafreaking]

Canon is a lost cause. Masses are an even "loster" cause. Andrew you choosed a bad name for this site!!! But we love your reviews, so who cares??

 

Err..the name was chosen when Canon were the flavour of the month. That's how most have come to this site. Maybe he should register anythingbuteoshd.com or something like that. These articles every month are getting quite lame. Some sound as if while remembering his ex (Canon) he has drunk a bottle of vodka and written a 'hate' letter (THE SENTIMENT) 

[Andrew Reid]

i also have an epic dragon and 75", 65" and 55" 4K monitors where i can compare all these tools, plus 150 lenses.

Which makes you perfect placed to comment on the enthusiast subject at hand.

shoot the same things with all these cameras and watch it on a big screen and then talk.

I've shot with the 1D C. Type EOSHD 1D C review into Google when you have a spare moment.

unfortunately hardly anybody does this comparison.  the a7s is a toy feeling camera with nice results, but definitely won't top the 1DC - not with a necessary $2000 external recorder and not in lowlight, when all settings are optimized in both cameras.

Really? A7S not better in low light? Hmm.

only the high price speaks against the 1DC.

No I think you'll find the ergonomics suck as well. Perhaps the most unintuitive camera for video I've ever shot with.

big minus for the sony cameras is that most of the great array of canon, nikon, tamron, sigma lenses lacks stabilization, fstop control and of course autofocus.  which means for an a7s aside from the recorder you can spend another $5000-$10000 for sony lenses.

Does your Epic have AF? Thought not. There's a reason for that.

You have your facts wrong. ALL the Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses have f-stop control and IS via the Metabones adapter to Sony E-mount.
 

definitely an a7s is enough to shoot full hd videos and watch them on small full hd monitors, or small 4k monitors who will not tell you what real 4k looks like.  to date nobody has proven in a 1:1 comparison with external recording that the a7s or another of the mentioned cameras tops the 1DC in anything in real world footage.

I have seen the A7S's 4K projected at Pinewood Studios. I can tell you what it looks like. It looks superb and it is full frame 4K not 1.3x crop on a 2 year old sensor aka 1D C.

[Andrew Reid]

Err..the name was chosen when Canon were the flavour of the month. That's how most have come to this site.

Actually most people who came initially to the site were interested in my Panasonic GH2 coverage.

You have just reinforced your ignorance in the eyes of the entire forum. Congrats!

Anyway... if the posts from now on contain a more constructive form of negativity, it'd make my day.

[tosvus]

well,well. Andrew you are bound to step on a few toes (not that many anymore though...).

 

I think your article is spot on. I think defensiveness on the part of a few commenters trumped them paying attention to the segment you were addressing.

[Andrew Reid]

Indeed. What's interesting is that none of the defensive posters are actually enthusiasts. One owns an Epic and one's simply just an idiot with a keyboard instead of a camera. The problem with Canon is not the pro $12,000 stuff it is the enthusiast $1k-3k cameras that aren't giving us the innovation we want on the video side. Nobody can defend it, not even Canon themselves. Which is why they are so quiet about it.

[Andrew Reid]

Brand loyalty is a severe blindness in our society. I see it with Mac vs PC, iPhone vs Android and with Canon vs Lumix. The article is on the side of enthusiasts and anyone around $1000-$3000 who want to see better stuff from the market leader Canon.

 

Yet still some people will battle against their own interests, because of their chosen life-parnter, the logo.

[jax_rox]

i also have an epic dragon and 75", 65" and 55" 4K monitors where i can compare all these tools, plus 150 lenses.

Do you also have many leather-bound books and an apartment that smells of rich mahogany? C'mon, I've shot Alexa in Arriraw, RED Dragon, F65, and shot a lot of 35mm and 16mm. Commercials, TV and even films. I generally view 2k and 4k footage I've shot on calibrated monitors, and in some cases on cinema screens. But I'm not going to get into a pissing match about whether a $12,000 camera is better than a $1500 camera and try and prove to everybody that 'I'm kind of a big deal' because I'm not. Im a guy who shoots things and uses the best camera for the job.

I also don't invest in expensive cameras because I prefer to choose the camera that suits the project, rather than get overzealous about the camera I have purchased, and force it on every project because I need to justify my purchase.

I own an A7s because it's cheap and gives me a good picture. If I only shot corporate stuff, and shot it on a daily basis, maybe I'd invest in a camera - but I work regularly for many of the major production houses here, and very few own a camera. Many have invested in some lenses, but they rarely purchase their own camera, because even a production house that makes film or commercials every single day of the year knows that every production has different needs.

 

the a7s is a toy feeling camera with nice results, but definitely won't top the 1DC - not with a necessary $2000 external recorder and not in lowlight, when all settings are optimized in both cameras.

The A7s isn't really toy feeling. Compared to an Alexa or Epic, maybe - but IMO, even Blackmagics (as well as most/all video SLRs) feel like (and sometimes perform like) toys, especially when you compare them to an Alexa or a 435, for example. The A7s has some of the best low light performance on the market. Sure, maybe it's a tad noisier than other cameras, but I'm yet to see a single other camera that can see in the dark like this one can! You can't even rate a RED higher than about 320ISO without getting unacceptable noise. I push my A7s to ISO3200 in Slog and I'm relatively happy - not like the Epic which I'm cautious of rating at 800, let alone any higher!

Of course the Epic has other uses and features. I wouldn't use an A7s as my A cam on a high budget commercial. But man it gives a damn good image for such a cheap camera! 
 

big minus for the sony cameras is that most of the great array of canon, nikon, tamron, sigma lenses lacks stabilization, fstop control and of course autofocus.  which means for an a7s aside from the recorder you can spend another $5000-$10000 for sony lenses.

Oh right, you mean unless you get the necessary adapter to put those lenses on the camera which contains electronic control...
Also, I know you have 150 lenses - did you know that you actually don't need to buy every single lens on the market available for a camera to actually be able to shoot with it? I have 8 primes for my A7s that all up cost me much less than $5000-$10000! Suits me fine - I've never had autofocus, electronic iris or lens stabilisation when shooting with lenses on any actual cinema camera (I know - shock, horror!).

Also, I've got a PL adapter for my A7s so I can put Master Primes on it if I wanted! I'd take an A7s with Master Primes over a 1Dc with Canon still glass any/every day of the week.
 

definitely an a7s is enough to shoot full hd videos and watch them on small full hd monitors, or small 4k monitors who will not tell you what real 4k looks like.  to date nobody has proven in a 1:1 comparison with external recording that the a7s or another of the mentioned cameras tops the 1DC in anything in real world footage.

The fact that a comparison doesn't exist does not mean the 1Dc is inherently better. It just means no-one has looked to see if it is or not.
 

the main points are:  if someone is happy with so many so great cameras of other manufactures, why whining 10 times about other products by canon that might suck?  did anybody write such articles in 2009 about why samsung and panasonic suck regarding cameras and can't keep up with the 5D2?  i can't remember that.

Man, you sure sound like a Canon fanboy.

Kodak went down the same path. They failed to innovate with their cameras, and coasted along thinking they would be fine, and they failed! Kodak invented the digital camera, and in 2005 were the number 1 selling camera manufacturer in the US! But they failed to anticipate, failed to innovate, and look where they are now.

[MattH]

 I didn't even need to read the article or the forum responses as the answer is obviously yes.    The only thing is, you got tense in the question wrong.  It should have been:  "DID cinema eos mark the end of canon dslr video in 2012?"

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

A commonly available, easy to use, affordable, reliable camera.

 

Oh the horror!!

 

 

Exactly my point - there are much better video cameras in the same price bracket as the T3i without the problems of the Canon APS-C line. 

 

Panasonic G6, GM1, GX7, GH2, GH3; Nikon D5200, D3300, D5300; Sony a6000, a5100

 

I'm going to assume you're a defensive T3i owner? Your negativity may be better directed at Canon. I owned a T3i at one point - it's a nice camera, but moving to the G6 and D5300 made it look pretty grim.

[jax_rox]

Exactly my point - there are much better video cameras in the same price bracket as the T3i without the problems of the Canon APS-C line. 

 

I think the point he was trying to make is that it actually doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, what camera you use - especially if you're starting out!

 

Cinematography is more about the way you use the camera, not as much about the camera itself. 
Camera selection is important, but the reality is people get too bogged down in the technical side of things, rather than going out and simply shooting with what they have. I know I'm saying this on a blog that talks all about camera technology.. But still! The point remains ;)

 

If someone can get an image out of a T3i that looks good, or that suits what they're looking for in a camera - then that's great for them. Personally, a T3i doesn't suit my needs or wants in a camera. But that doesn't make it all-round a bad choice.

 

Someone with a keen eye, who can light beautifully, frame incredible compositions, use focus in a creatively pleasing way, and has a good Production Designer to design the frames will get better results on a T3i than someone who has never used a camera before shooting on an Alexa.

 

Yes there are better cameras than a T3i. But if someone wants to learn to be a Cinematographer, I'd rather they pick up a T3i and practice their lighting, than spend time researching marginally better options.

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

Do you also have many leather-bound books and an apartment that smells of rich mahogany?

 

How dare you talk to a man with so much expensive equipment in that way! He has paid good money to be superior to everyone here and he deserves our deference! 

[Andrew Reid]

If the T2i or T-rex from whatever era still floats your boat then fine. Nothing wrong with that. Some like the low-fi look! Sometimes so do I! But if the low-fi look was all we had... it would be very creatively limiting. No insane high ISO shoots like with the A7S which look so beautiful without requiring an Arri truck full of lights and a crew. No creative re-framing in post from 4K. No colour correction fun with raw (Canon still haven't officially ratified Magic Lantern's genius on that one). No stealth shooting bare bones with a built in EVF rather than a clunky loupe. No 120fps slow mo and no crisp details like we've enjoyed ever since the GH2 gave us proper 1080p and not line-skipped mush.

 

Creativity through technological innovation is a beautiful thing. DJI Inspire One - beautiful innovation. Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve - beautiful. Sony 12MP on a full frame sensor - incredible. Canon - just plain fucking boring. Good job there are some creative filmmakers around making so-so equipment look good purely through excellent story telling and lighting. But I want more than this. I want the technology to make new stuff possible that wasn't before. I want to tell a story with moon light or candle light. I want to tell a story with sequences at 120fps. I want to add drama and visual appeal. I just cannot do that with a Canon DSLR in the same way I can on other cameras for the same price.

[Guest 560a4aedcb80685284629074497fdc75]

I think the point he was trying to make is that it actually doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, what camera you use - especially if you're starting out!

 

Cinematography is more about the way you use the camera, not really about the camera itself. Camera selection is important, but the reality is people get too bogged down in the technical side of things, rather than going out and simply shooting with what they have. 

If someone can get an image out of a T3i that looks good, or that suits what they're looking for in a camera - then that's great for them. Personally, a T3i doesn't suit my needs or wants in a camera. But that doesn't make it all-round a bad choice.

 

Someone with a keen eye, who can light beautifully, frame incredible compositions, use focus in a creatively pleasing way, and has a good Production Designer to design the frames will get better results on a T3i than someone who has never used a camera before shooting on an Alexa.

 

Yes there are better cameras than a T3i. But if someone wants to learn to be a Cinematographer, I'd rather they pick up a T3i and practice their lighting, than spend time researching marginally better options.

 

 I completely agree with you, but my point was that, on NFS for example, people are actively recommending the T3i. I can assure you, you will learn a huge amount more about shooting video from a G6 than a T3i (I did) because it works like an actual video camera. And the images it produces are technically superior too. And it's cheaper. 

 

What you're saying could be interpreted as "don't waste your time thinking about what camera you buy, just do a minimal amount of research and go with the first decent looking option, particularly if you're a beginner". This is exactly why Canon continue to be lazy, exactly what Andrew's article is criticising and exactly why it bothers me when people recommend the T3i. Canon are always the first choice because they are omnipresent, not because they are necessarily the best.

 

FWIW - and to illustrate my agreement with your point that it's what you do with the camera that counts (whether that be good or bad!) - this is a reel I put together recently that was shot on a mixture of T3i (600D as tagged in the film), G6, D5300 and BMPCC. I've tagged each shot with subtitles so just click the CC button on the Vimeo play bar to see the cameras used: 

[johnnyd]

Video on a stills camera is an afterthought for Canon.

4k is not mass-market yet. It's not even enthusiast level. It's professional level. How many 4k televisions do you see at Walmart? How many methods of 4k delivery are there? 4k is at the present moment largely a capture format, not delivery format, and even in that regard it is by no means necessary.

Most people that are buying stills cameras are buying them for their intended purpose: Taking still images. Losing 1% of their market because people chose a different stills camera for their video purposes isn't going to hurt Canon enough to make a difference.

Nikon doesn't have any camera that shoots 4k, but how often do you see people taking a shit on them?

My thoughts exactly.

If you are on a level where 4k capture is something you REALLY NEED, you are not one of these "enthusiasts" and you most likely are not buying a camera in the 1000-3000$ price range anyway. Dslrs are mostly used for web content so eventually you won't be able to tell the difference.

If you don't think Canon stills cameras are good for video purposes, don't use them. I certainly don't.

[bertzie]

Exactly my point - there are much better video cameras in the same price bracket as the T3i without the problems of the Canon APS-C line. 

 

Panasonic G6, GM1, GX7, GH2, GH3; Nikon D5200, D3300, D5300; Sony a6000, a5100

 

I'm going to assume you're a defensive T3i owner? Your negativity may be better directed at Canon. I owned a T3i at one point - it's a nice camera, but moving to the G6 and D5300 made it look pretty grim.

 

Did Nikon ever figure out how to let people change the aperture in live-view on what, over half their cameras?

[jacksonfilm]

As a long time DSLR Canon video guy I now typical roll with a A7S & GH4 in the kit bag, as I do a wide range of work (and I like to have some contingency in my kit). No one camera at the moment quite does everything I need, so multiple bodies is my solution. I'm even holding onto the 5DM3 as well, as it's far and away the best for stills.

[Andrew Reid]

If you don't think Canon stills cameras are good for video purposes, don't use them. I certainly don't.

 

Why the f*** are you here then? :)

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I would take flicking out of liveview for Iris control over horrible aliasing and moire ANY day. I made a comparison between all Canon and Nikon DSLRs lately on the forum, look for it, just hard facts and no optinions. For someone starting out and has no lenses, the t3i is a bad suggestion because there are better options for the same price, get a d3300 or a d5300.

[andy lee]

Actually most people who came initially to the site were interested in my Panasonic GH2 coverage.

You have just reinforced your ignorance in the eyes of the entire forum. Congrats!

Anyway... if the posts from now on contain a more constructive form of negativity, it'd make my day.

I shot on 5D for 3 years then because of Andrew and his GH2 work on this site I came over to EOSHD and wholely switched to Panasonic for all my work ,my Canons now only get used for a few stills.