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

[andy lee]

Andrew was the one pioneer that pushed the GH2 to us Canon users and made us all sit up and see the light!

 

I remember watching some of Andrews hacked GH2 videos and thinking ....thats it my Canon is dead from now on .

Im now on my 4th Panasonic camera having moved on from the GH2 which really did start the Panasonic video revolution for me and many others.

[Damphousse]

Canon is one of the few profitable companies in the camera business while Sony, Panasonic & pretty much everyone else is struggling. They might be doing the wrong things in the eyes of a particular consumer segment, but they seem to do the right thing from a business perspective.

 
Yeah.  Profitable companies don't take their cues from companies hemorraging cash.
 

Well Panasonic is riding high on profit in recent years as whole group...

An obvious and kind of sad lie.

[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.

1) "A7S kills 1DC stone dead" - should i laugh or should i cry?  when you write "in my opinion i like the sony a bit better", thats accepted - but with a sentence like this, how should anyone take other statements seriously?

2) 1DC is 1.3x (and in between full frame and cinema), which is bad why exactly?

3) do i want to have the codec with the smallest file size, or the best image quality?

4) as an external monitor is needed for 4k anyway, all peaking etc options are solved on the 1DC

5) the 1DC can definitely be used without a monitor, or havent you been able to use a 5D2/5D3 in the last 6 years?

6) most enthusiasts certainly have spend more than 20.000 on their cameras and lenses, so why not spend 12.000 for a camera (that also includes 2000 VAT AND can be resold for 8000)?  right now you technically lose 2500 when reselling a 1DC, while you lose 1500 when reselling a 5D3.  whats the big difference?

7) no banding issues from ISO 400 on.  banding issues below ISO only in plain sky.  easily to be solved with ND filters that are needed anyway.

8) this "2 more stops" thing is a fantasy you can't see or prove in direct comparison.  take some pictures with these cameras and an amateur will see that the 1DC kills the panasonic and sony in all aspects of image quality.  or are 70% of all pro photographers on this planet just blind amateurs or canon fanboys?

[douglaurent]

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


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


Really? A7S not better in low light? Hmm.


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


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.
 

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.

many wrong ideas and facts. as the FS7 shows again, the E-mount has massive problems with EF mount lenses.  and yes, the epic DOES HAVE autofocus (and IS) with canon mount AF lenses.  you can even set the focus by putting your finger to the touchscreen (9" monitor in my case), which is a fast and great help.  it's also nice you have seen an expensive A7S demo film PROJECTED, but anything beamed to a wall even in full HD will look quite cool.  watch the difference of a comparison with the 1DC on large 4K tv screens, which is exactly how mankind will see content in the next 30 years.  amazon just sold 55" 4K tvs for 700 euros.

[douglaurent]

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 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! 
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

you completely didnt get anything or read carefully.  i'm also one of canon's biggest critics and want a perfect 4k 60p camera for $3000 tomorrow myself, but the style of criticism is completely counterproductive, as the blog and posts like this are full of obvious ego problems.  if you post aggressive and highly biased stuff like this, you shouldnt be surprised if some readers with different insights fire back in a rather direct and arrogant way.

 

90% of all electronic items i own are not canon and i'm certainly not a canon fanboy, but i am fan of fair and clever thinking.  this by the way makes me earn enough money to be able to test all cameras year round, while most of the "pros" often just can spend 5 hours total with a new product, which is not enough.    this is why i were able to make enough comparisons between the 1DC and A7S to KNOW that andrew reids hate about the 1DC and glorification of these other cameras is WAY over the top. 

 

now reading post #10 about this "canon and 1DC are a piece of shit" issue is simply absolutely annoying, and i'd even rather watch another experimental mushy retro berlin demo movie than reading more of this.  why don't you simply write about the positive aspects of all the great new cheap cameras, instead of making a hate fest out of it?   canon is in a completely different situation as kodak, whose main product category did disappear.  you can be sure that canon knows they are slow with innovations, and they know they do what they do just to press most money out of the consumers.  but why don't you start with hate blog posts about apple and other companies first? 

[jax_rox]

90% of all electronic items i own are not canon and i'm certainly not a canon fanboy, but i am fan of fair and clever thinking.  this by the way makes me earn enough money to be able to test all cameras year round, while most of the "pros" often just can spend 5 hours total with a new product, which is not enough.    this is why i were able to make enough comparisons between the 1DC and A7S to KNOW that andrew reids hate about the 1DC and glorification of these other cameras is WAY over the top. 

Yes, that's because most of the 'pros' are not testing cameras, and are instead out shooting! I do camera tests - yes. And I attend camera launches and I get hands on with the new gear. I read about cameras, and I have colleagues and friends who I trust to tell me their thoughts on cameras. I often call up rental houses and say 'hey I'm shooting this and this is what I need... what have you got?' or 'we don't have a budget for an Alexa but we need high frame rates preferably at 2k or 4k because it's for cinema - what do you suggest that's available?'
The reason is I'm busy shooting, rather than spending my entire year testing cameras.

I do have downtime every now and then, but most of it is spent with my family and friends, some of it is spent on camera tests for the next project, and of course some of it is spent on forums like this ;)
 

now reading post #10 about this "canon and 1DC are a piece of shit" issue is simply absolutely annoying, and i'd even rather watch another experimental mushy retro berlin demo movie than reading more of this.  why don't you simply write about the positive aspects of all the great new cheap cameras, instead of making a hate fest out of it?   canon is in a completely different situation as kodak, whose main product category did disappear.  you can be sure that canon knows they are slow with innovations, and they know they do what they do just to press most money out of the consumers.  but why don't you start with hate blog posts about apple and other companies first?

Now, I don't think Canon nor the 1Dc are necessarily 'pieces of shit' - however, I'm not making a habit of shooting with them, and certainly wouldn't buy one. I've only ever used the C300 when I've been employed as an operator and the DP has hired C300s because we didn't have the budget for anything else. I don't like the cameras. They suits some people's needs, just as the 1Dc does. But personally I'm not a fan.
I think it's silly to stifle conversation about how a company can improve their technology. Maybe things are worded too harshly, but hey - it's the internet.

If there's one thing Canon does better than Sony, they seem to listen to their customers more. I've never known Sony to bring out called for updates to firmware, but Canon does all the time. And I think it would be silly to talk only about how 'amazing' or 'adequate' Canon's cameras are, especially when there are cameras out there that are challenging them both on spec and price.

Now, of course it's easy to have your viewpoint skewed by what you own. And I see it a lot here, even though I've only been here a short time. People who own Nikon talk about how much better their Nikon camera is at everything. People who own Canon talk about how much better their Canon is at everything. I think that is an awful way to spur discussion. People often don't want to be told what's wrong with what they have. Which is part of human nature. But it's not helpful to anyone.
I think a healthy discussion about what cameras are capable of is helpful to everyone.

This is why I don't want to own an expensive camera - I don't want my viewpoint skewed. I want to be able to look at the image produced by a camera and decide whether or not I like with no reservations based on what I've bought. If I bought one, it would be to make money from renting it out, and I would still choose a camera based on the project for the things I shoot.

Canon is much closer to a Kodak situation than you would think. The product lineup of the entire company is not dissimilar to the way Kodak was. Kodak didn't anticipate or innovate. I don't think Canon is in the same danger as Kodak - at least for now. But if they fail to innovate in a way that's determined by the market - they could easily find themselves struggling in the camera dept.

Now, of course - we can give Canon the benefit of the doubt. But they just released a C100mkII that isn't really all that much better specced for video than an A7s. I mean the A7s does 4k at half the price. The GH4 does 4k for even less.

Why should we not talk about how they're falling behind the competition - just because they're the almighty Canon and we should trust what they say?

And why should we start with hate blog posts about Apple? Because you don't own any Apple products?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

No matter who's side is right or wrong on Canon bashing (the truth is usually somewhere in the middle) we have to agree on one thing: Canon has the worst marketing team ever existed.

Even when they brought out the best APS-C DSLR with unheard-of specs with the 7D mk II, it was met by a 90% negative response from the masses and gear-heads. When you make such a high quality product and get such response then something is definitely wrong with your marketing division (including the marketing-based selection of specs). For example if the marketing team had decided to implement a simple feature like a 4K window and a small add-on EVF or C-LOG, peaking/zerbas, imagine how successful and bright would it have been among gear lovers, and these are all marketing software omissions that Canon is clearly capable of putting in the 7D mk II easily.

On every single Canon news page there's tens of thousands of people absolutely frustrated and hating Canon, every single one, almost no single opinion positive about them, that just started 3-4 years ago and before that they were considered the most innovative and cool, something changed from then and now. If they continue that way they will lose their reputation, just because you are strong and profitable doesn't mean you can go down in a year. The internet blogs (Andrew) and thousands of internet commenters (dpreview) shape the companies' reputations and entire future, never under-estimate their power!

Canon, get you markering-based selection of specs right. You're doing horrible in this front!

[Astro]

Well...This is a very interesting debate...very interesting reading, I can sense a few feathers getting ruffled.

I am not on anyones side here, but I can almost gaurantee that if you took some really well shot footage from either

the 1DC or the GH4 or the A7s and did some nice color grading on each and played that downsized footage at 1080P to

an average viewer ...which is 99% of the people.

I would bet a thousand dollars that  they would see them all being roughly equal and not say that footage looks great, that sucks etc...

so in that sense as we are still mainly viewing in 1080P at best (ipads etc..are often hard to tell between 720p and 1080P).

 

So as we are mainly viewing in 1080P the differences would be negligable, but the price differences are not.

There are always differences in user experiences in any camera...for example I have had the GH4 for months now,

and I have had no problems with the so called (Noisy Image) that some complain about (in the shadows and whatnot).

Thats probably cause I have used it extensively and have done test after test and found the settings that worked for me,

(opposite to what James Miller suggests)and I get a very clean and workable image, even when its slightly underexposed and

at higher ISO's...so I am delighted.

All in just over $2,000 for the Cam and the 12-35 lens, I could not have had this type of quality at this price a year or so ago...and

I would not have it now if it were not for Panasonic, Sony and now Samsung, so kudos to those companies.

I can definitely say I would not have that type of quality if Canon were still the major player for video in DSLR cams.

So in that sense I agree with Andrew, I have no particular bias, we have 2 Canons as well and my son has a Canon for shooting surf vids,

great cams (obviously not in the class of the 1DC cinema line)

But hey a GH4 costs less than a 5DMk3 and as shooting videos is my main thing.  then I would rather have a GH4 anyday...

than a 5D Mk3 cause I for one care about detail, I can do whatever else I need to do in post if the camera delivers out of the box.

My 2 cents

[Andrew Reid]

Yeah.  Profitable companies don't take their cues from companies hemorraging cash.

 

Kodak was profitable once. Nokia was profitable and Apple was loss making. Now Apple are the wealthiest organisation to have existed in the history of Earth and Nokia are gone. So you do realise your statement means nothing don't you?

 

Besides I don't care how much profit Canon make. I care about the cameras.

 

Canon haven't made much profit from me in the past year!

[jax_rox]

Even when they brought out the best APS-C DSLR with unheard-of specs with the 7D mk II, it was met by a 90% negative response from the masses and gear-heads. When you make such a high quality product and get such response then something is definitely wrong with your marketing division (including the marketing-based selection of specs). For example if the marketing team had decided to implement a simple feature like a 4K window and a small add-on EVF or C-LOG, peaking/zerbas, imagine how successful and bright would it have been among gear lovers, and these are all marketing software omissions that Canon is clearly capable of putting in the 7D mk II easily.

It's hard to make a product that the internet is happy with!
 

The issue, as I see it, is still their Cinema EOS line and the fact that they do not want to cannibalise it. Bring out a 7D with C-Log, and why would you spend all that extra money on a C100?

Not to mention that consumer digital cameras tend to operate with very slim profit margins to begin with.

[Andrew Reid]

No matter who's side is right or wrong on Canon bashing (the truth is usually somewhere in the middle) we have to agree on one thing: Canon has the worst marketing team ever existed.

Even when they brought out the best APS-C DSLR with unheard-of specs with the 7D mk II, it was met by a 90% negative response from the masses and gear-heads. When you make such a high quality product and get such response then something is definitely wrong with your marketing division (including the marketing-based selection of specs). For example if the marketing team had decided to implement a simple feature like a 4K window and a small add-on EVF or C-LOG, peaking/zerbas, imagine how successful and bright would it have been among gear lovers, and these are all marketing software omissions that Canon is clearly capable of putting in the 7D mk II easily.

On every single Canon news page there's tens of thousands of people absolutely frustrated and hating Canon, every single one, almost no single opinion positive about them, that just started 3-4 years ago and before that they were considered the most innovative and cool, something changed from then and now. If they continue that way they will lose their reputation, just because you are strong and profitable doesn't mean you can go down in a year. The internet blogs (Andrew) and thousands of internet commenters (dpreview) shape the companies' reputations and entire future, never under-estimate their power!

Canon, get you markering-based selection of specs right. You're doing horrible in this front!

 

In my opinion it is completely the other way round to what you are describing :) They have an excellent marketing department. The 7D Mark II is not the best APS-C with unheard of specs at all. It's an old 70D in an old 5D Mark III body slightly rejigged and the AF updated.

 

The sensor is a generation behind Samsung's APS-C process. The manufacturing is behind.

 

The sensor cannot do 4K video. The Samsung one can.

 

Let's not mention the codec... that mushy codec, noisy at ISO 200 and a pale imitation of the raw sensor feed we all know it's capable of internally because of Magic Lantern. Mosquito noise at ISO 200... is that included in the "unheard of spec"!?

 

Resolution. Behind. Dynamic range. Behind. EVF, none. Proper timelapse mode, crippled. Continuous shooting rate, behind Samsung's 15fps. LCD, behind AMOLED. Peaking, none. H.265, none. 4K, none. 4K HDMI, none. 10bit HDMI! NONE! And then you blame the marketing department when it gets a bad reception with enthusiasts... pardon me, but this is just madness.

[jax_rox]

I can almost gaurantee that if you took some really well shot footage from either
the 1DC or the GH4 or the A7s and did some nice color grading on each and played that downsized footage at 1080P to
an average viewer ...which is 99% of the people.
I would bet a thousand dollars that  they would see them all being roughly equal and not say that footage looks great, that sucks etc...

This is exactly right. When the image difference between a $1500 camera and a $12000 camera is negligible, it seems silly to consider the more expensive option, unless it offers specific things that you need (and can afford).
 

 

Kodak was profitable once. Nokia was profitable and Apple was loss making. Now Apple are the wealthiest organisation to have existed in the history of Earth and Nokia are gone. So you do realise your statement means nothing don't you?

Not only that, but both Panasonic and Sony are much bigger companies with so many more arms to their business that it's almost impossible to compare unless you can isolate specifically their camera divisions, and even then it's not a fair playing field as Sony and Panasonic are relatively new players compared to Canon.

 

Panasonic are struggling with their smartphones, so it affects their bottom line. That has nothing to do with their camera division. Sony has a record company, a movie studio, movie distributors, gaming, pro audio, televisions, phones and tablets, computers.... as well as cameras.

 

It seems odd to compare the profitability of that company with one that only makes cameras, printers and photocopiers.

[Andrew Reid]

Sony and Panasonic's camera / imaging divisions are profitable.

 

Damphouse seems to be confused. It is the TV and phone businesses that have posed the problem. Firstly the products were just not competitive enough (or imaginative enough) and Samsung / LG entered the market and said "we'll do it better and cheaper". They did that in both LCDs and phones, so double whammy. Apple entering the phone market of course put paid to the Sony Ericsson / Panasonic high end phone business to some large degree as well - especially outside of Japan. Look at Motorola and Nokia, similarly screwed. Nothing to do with the cameras not being good enough Damphouse!

 

With DSLR shipments going down and mirrorless rising or holding steady depending on the market, I think Canon could do well to follow the example of Fujifilm and Sony, by introducing a high end mirrorless camera.

 

But they won't because they have the EF lenses to 'protect' just like Nokia had candybar feature phones to protect.

Similarly with Cinema EOS being protected from their DSLRs, that is the death knell of any kind of decent video on the consumer products.

[leeys]

If the T2i or T-rex 

That's it. I'm calling it the T-rex on USA boards from now onwards.

 

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

Ooo, are we playing this game? Can I play too?

 

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

I think they're slowly changing that now. All the new cameras have power aperture in them. Pretty sure the low-end (D5300 and below) won't have them though.

 

 

No matter who's side is right or wrong on Canon bashing (the truth is usually somewhere in the middle) we have to agree on one thing: Canon has the worst marketing team ever existed.

You're wrong on this one.

 

What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?

 

What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?

 

What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?

 

What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?

 

It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

[Astro]

What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?

 

What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?

 

What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?

 

What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?

 

It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

 

 

 

Ha ha ha ha   LOL!! This a brilliant post and very true!! :)

 

[tyger11]

But they won't because they have the EF lenses to 'protect' just like Nokia had candybar feature phones to protect.

 

Ouch!   :)

 

As for Canon's EF lenses, well, that IS the only thing they're protecting at this point, but if Sigma and others keeps coming out with equivalent (or much better) product than Canon does at substantially lower prices, it's game over for that part of their business, too.

 

I'm very interested in what Canon does with the 5d Mk IV, but only for curiosity's sake. If all they do is add 4k and only marginally improve the image quality, that's pretty much the most I expect from them - shooting to duplicate Sony technology from a year ago. If Sony gets their 21-stop sensor out in an A7S Mk II or A8S (and especially if they can put in 10-bit 4K recording in-camera), that's pretty much it for Canon in the indie video/film world as far as I'm concerned. If they can really go for it and do IBIS, that would be epic, but that might be too much heat dissipation for an IBIS sensor to handle at this time.

 

If the 5d Mk IV is what I suspect it will be, then they're so far behind the development curve, it'll be another 4 or 5 years before they can adapt to the new reality. They have a lot of VERY interesting-looking patents that have leaked over the last few years - which haven't made it into actual products. They're basically IBM from the early 90s, coasting on their R&D and reputation. They have the technical chops to do the necessary, but don't have enough vision to figure out that coasting only works until you get to the bottom of the hill - which they are approaching very soon, indeed.

 

The company I'm really wanting to jump in head-first to the cinema game is Sigma. I'd love to see some cine Art lenses...

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

You're wrong on this one.

What company is allowed to get away with 6 year old tech in their cameras?

What company only allows "positive commentary" to be posted in blogs and frowns on those with "critical tone"?

What company gets to sell cameras with less features at a higher price and still move them by the boat load?

What company gets to do all the above and still look like a leader?

It's a company with one hell of a marketing department. Global marketing department, I might add.

The fact that you, Andrew and pretty much every gear-related blog and every single commenter out there see Canon having a manipulative one hell of a marketing department that sells old technology for high prices to the ignorants, is pretty much why I see Canon marketing is absolute failure.

I don't believe it for a second the company is limited by technology or engineers or actual capability, if they wanted to put a 4K window, 14bit raw video, peaking/zebras/waveform, Canon Log, 4:3 mode, 10bit codec, I am 100% they can do it with a couple of firmware codes. They're only limited by marketing reasons.

It's their marketing depertment that's a complete failure, failure to the point of making the company hated by 90% of the community, and their behaviour and work is going to bring down the company's name very soon if it continues that way.

[tosvus]

The fact that you, Andrew and pretty much every gear-related blog and every single commenter out there see Canon having a manipulative one hell of a marketing department that sells old technology for high prices to the ignorants, is pretty much why I see Canon marketing is absolute failure.

I don't believe it for a second the company is limited by technology or engineers or actual capability, if they wanted to put a 4K window, 14bit raw video, peaking/zebras/waveform, Canon Log, 4:3 mode, 10bit codec, I am 100% they can do it with a couple of firmware codes. They're only limited by marketing reasons.

It's their marketing depertment that's a complete failure, failure to the point of making the company hated by 90% of the community, and their behaviour and work is going to bring down the company's name very soon if it continues that way.

 

Ebrahim, I take it you do not have a lot of background in sensor and processing technology. There is no given that a simple firmware update can unlock a variety of features, and 4K would be probably about the hardest thing you could think of "unlocking". The sensor needs to be capable, the bandwidth needs to be there, the processor must be powerful enough, and programmable to do this.

 

Doug Laurent, do yourself a couple of favors;

1. Try to realize that Canon is not God, and that defending a camera that costs almost 10x a camera like the GH4 is plain silly.

2. Using blue font is just annoying. Just because you highlight/make it bold or change colors doesn't make you right or cause anyone to believe you are.

[jax_rox]

Also speaking to a Sony rep, he told me the reason for no internal 4k is because it is far from easy, especially with the cameras size and form, lack of heat sink...

Think of how hot the BMPC gets just shooting ProRes HD with a s16 sensor, let alone 4k, let alone 10-bit internal!

It's a lot of processing power; Sony already require SDXC cards for XAVC-S, they require SxS Pro+ cards for 2k/4k XAVC in their F5/55 as the available media at the time wasn't fast enough.

Good codec, internal 4k, 10-bit internal etc. is not easy and far from a simple firmware update.

Now, I have no doubt Canon could build a camera with those specs - bit why would they? Build a $3k DSLR that shoots 4k internally when their top of the range cinema camera can't even do that. Makes no sense.

I wonder what will happen going forward with the cinema line. Surely the C500 and C300 will have to become one camera that shoots 4k internally.

[Xavier Plagaro Mussard]

Focusing on Canon "innovation" is watching the glass half empty, but who the fuck would have thought Samsung (samsung, is not a typo!) would have made a great 4K camera??? World is changing and we have to take the good of it.