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

[Francola]

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: 

[jax_rox]

after nearly 2 (!) years, theres no extreme lowlight 4k camera alternative on the market!  it's like as if someone urgently wants a ferrari and loves the ferrari brand, but as the car is too expensive, he says all volkswagen cars are much better anyway.  nobody at ferrari would listen to a person with such a statement.

 
There is no extreme low light 4k camera on the market period! Unless you count the A7s recording to an external recorder, or maybe the C500.
 
It's actually more like test driving an Volkswagen and an Audi and saying 'hey you know what, the VW has its quirks, but it's just as fast, just as nice to drive and costs like 1/10th of the price of the Audi!'

Likening Canon to Ferrari is not helping your 'I'm not a fanboy' cause.
 
 

--- by the way, how do you put lenses on a full frame camera that dont cover full frame?  i know my otus 55 and 85 do fit on the 1DC and work as master primes, which zeiss secretly admits.

A7s has APS-C crop mode - what's your point?
 
The Otus' outperform CP2s and CN-Es, but they do not outperform Ultra or Master Primes, though the 55 and 85 are nice lenses. Fine, I'll put Cookes on it then if I have to :P
 
 

--- i own and did own many apple products.  transfering files to and from an iphone/ipad is a pure nightmare and takes much longer than on android.  all apple users admit that.  where is the bashing there?  where is the bashing about their overpriced products and extreme profit margins, coming through extreme tax loopholes and underpaid factory work in asia?  quite often their products are behind competitors for 6-12 months, so why no canon style bashing there?    probably because people never bash stuff they own.

Are you kidding? Have you not the comments on a single article about Apple ever? Maybe read them sometime and watch everyone bash Apple for all sorts of things (not the least of which being 'behind the curve').
Those who own Apple products tend to defend them. That's exactly my point. Personally, I own a lot of Apple products, and I like them. I like the way they work and I like what I can do with them. Now, I know that you can do just as much, and in some cases more on other devices. And on other devices that are much cheaper. But I like the way Apple works. I wouldn't start talking about what a big deal I am and how Apple products are better than every other product on the market if someone said to me that their PC that costs 1/2 the price can do more than my Apple computer. I would agree with them, because I know it to be true. I just prefer the Apple.
 
You prefer Canon. That's totally fine - and if you are happy with your choice of camera, that's great. You don't need to defend it. But, there are cameras that are just as well specced, just as good (or better) for much less money. I'd be pretty pissed off too if I bought a camera for $12k and 2 years later a different company brought a camera just as specced for 1/10 the price. But that's another reason why it's silly to invest in an expensive camera unless you can totally pay it off on top of gaining an income for yourself in 12-18 months.
 
 

On the video world, which camera is the smallest, the best to handle and give you an amazing picture quality?

The Sony F5. Oh wait, you were trying to be rhetorical. F5 costs the same as a C500. It's light, small (compared to many others) and gives an awesome picture at 2k or 4k at super high frame rates in a super-gradable 10-bit XAVC codec, which would have to be one of the most efficient codecs out there.

You ever tried putting a C-series camera on your shoulder? No you haven't, because it's not possible to do unless you rig some ridiculous contraption.
 

Yes, a Sony A7 will do better in low light, but what about battery life is a real shooting?

What about battery life? I regularly shoot with Alexa. I was on a music video shoot recently where we didn't have access to any power. It was an 8-hour shoot day and I was panicking because we only had 8 V-Lock batteries. I spent the day trying to conserve power as much as I could, and nabbed two block batteries from the rental house in case of an emergency power situation.

Sometimes you can be lucky to get 30 minutes out of certain V-Locks. Power an on-board monitor from the RS port or D-Tap, and you'll struggle.

Even RED is generally a swap out every hour or so.

At least the A7 batteries are cheap.

 

You're right - the Canons have better battery life. But if the difference between a $2500 body and a $13,000 body comes down to battery life...
 

A GH4 can do 4K, but what about XLR input or ND?

Oh, you mean the XLR input on the add-on 'box' that was specifically designed for the GH4? You mean the box specifically designed to add XLR inputs and SDI outputs?
 

Each time I try to find a competitor to the C series, I will have to give up on one feature.

How? The FS700 has internal ND, XLR inputs, adaptable lens mount, viewfinder, cheap batteries, cheap cards, Slog... Ability to shoot 2k or 4k raw, super high frame rates....

I personally don't like the FS700 (in fact I really dislike it), but I also dislike the C-series cameras. You gotta say though, the FS700 is better specced for the same price. There's no feature you're giving up on, it's just that you like Canon better. That's totally fine - just say that rather than trying to suggest that there's no other camera on the market that's as good as it.
 

There's so much hyperbole being thrown around everywhere. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion on a camera. A lot of people here are blinded by their investment, and that's human nature. But the fact that you own a different camera does not make it an objectively better camera than others out there. It may be better for you. That's great. You should pick cameras based on your needs and wants in a system. But it doesn't mean everyone else has identical needs or wants from a camera system, and it doesn't mean every other camera out there is worthless.

 

At the very least stop throwing around ill-informed comments.

[sudopera]

A L set of lens, a 5D mark 3 with a grip to hold it firmly on my hands. What beat that? According to many users, I could do better with another camera + a lens adapter + an external screen or... But wait, in real life work, you don't want to mess up with too many weak point under the rain or on a ladder.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but only few camera can do that. If I put the lens availability and quality in the balance, I will say, only Canon can offer such versality.

 

 

If we forget about Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc. for a second, you even have Nikon that is almost the same as Canon in every aspect of your description here but they managed to improve on video side significantly(dynamic range, detail, D750 articulated screen).

So even if we put mirrorless cameras aside and just concentrate on DSLRs, Nikon is clearly paying much more attention(not enough) to videographers needs than Canon now and at least they gave us nice 1080p and 60p.

[zenpmd]

That's because Nikon are desperate and, I think, in the weakness position of all, whose margins will be much lower than Canon cos they're cheaper but also not all produced in house.

 

The future of Photography and video is with Canon and Sony I believe.

[Damphousse]

Kodak was profitable once.

The FILM division at Kodak is still profitable.
 

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?

That's an interesting analogy. Frankly I would consider Canon analogus to Apple... not Nokia. And when you say "Apple" you have to define that. When "Apple" wasn't profitable Jobs wasn't there. It was only when Jobs came back that they finally returned to profitability. When you bought Apple you definitely had some worth from the brand but what you were really buying was Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs has always been a good bet. Steve Jobs is a steady hand on the tiller... or was. And that is what you have at Canon. A very careful methodical organization that has weathered many storms and emerged as the preminent camera company in the world.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is Apple is mainly a phone and tablet company with some laptop action thrown in there. That's it. They have two or three main products. How many products did Nokia have? Nokia tried to be all things to all people. And as you pointed out they failed. Remeber the old Nokia product catalog? That thing was gigantic. They had a million different phones with a million different features. What did Apple do? They came out with ONE phone with a fraction of the features. And they sold millions of them.

It's only in the last few months Apple has and a 1080p phone. Think about it. The most profitable phone company in the world only came out with a super expensive 1080p phone a few months ago. Remind you of anyone? Like a company that came out with a super expensive 4k DSRL?

Can you pop a 128 GB microSD card into any idevice to expand your storage? No? Remind you of any other highly profitable company that releases devices missing certain features we like?
 

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

Without profit you can't make cameras. Some of these companies that are being praised for their innovation won't be in the camera business 3-4 years from now. The average user will not invest top dollar in a dead ecosystem. I'm not going to invest $900 in a Panasonic 12-35mm zoom until I see at least two or three full years of strong results out of their camera division.

I remeber posting my misgivings about Blackmagic. People really harangued me but what happened? Mere months later I was picking up a new BMPCC for $500.

I think your overall thesis is correct. Canon seems to have decided to cede the DSLR/hybrid market to other players. I'm not happy about it but from a financial point of view I can see where it may make sense. Cheap DSLRs for the masses. Expensive EOS Cinema gear for the pros and cede the video enthusist area to a fragmented market place serviced by several players... some of which have questionable financials.

I guess the thing is they know if they release a 4k internally recording APS-C camera for $1500 with a decent codec and no moire/aliasing several second tier players go out of business overnight. In a sick way it may be in our best interest for Canon to ignore this space for a few more years.

[fuzzynormal]

From the POV of an old fart:  Can someone explain brand loyalty to me if so inclined?  For some odd reason I seem to see people investing themselves in a brand rather than technique.

 

In my experience, I know this is kind of a legacy attitude among mid-level "pros" I've worked with.  (Corporate media types)  When you find something that solves a problem for you you tend to build a little trust with the brand...but these days gear development just moves so quickly and is acquired so cheaply that seems like an outdated notion.

 

If Canon doesn't offer what you want, why fret about it?  Move onto different gear.  There's always going to be something serving the niche' market in which we're all active.

 

If you invested in some camera body and you want to believe you made the right choice --and so you extoll the virtues every chance you get, what are you trying to accomplish exactly?  Some sort of piece of mind for yourself?  Affirmation of your superior shopping capabilities?

 

A list of impressive features don't mean a thing if you have no clue or directed ambition on how to use them.  I mean, I'd willingly hire someone with wonderful skill, enthusiasm, and an old 5DII than a self-righteous goof-ball and an FS700 shooting 4K. --I've made that mistake this past year.  A 22 year old out shot a mid-40's dude and all his toys by a creative factor that would make your head spin.

 

And, personally, I'd rather be the kid trying new stuff and busting butt to be creative rather than some jerk reading DxO Mark charts half the damn day.  

 

Here's a tangent:  you know what matters more when making an awesome film or video?  Superior Production Design.  Sets, Wardrobe, Cast, Location.  Do that on an impressive level and the work will almost always be better.  Yeah, but that's not tech-centric, involves hard demanding logistic work, interpersonal skills to deal with people, and is boring as hell, right?

 

This spec-centric stuff is really annoying me...but then, I'm old and cranky about everything anyway.  Maybe I should question less why people want to brag about their cameras and ask why I'm on a website that caters to them?  Dang, I'm really off the rails here!!  Oh well.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Nikon are not desperate or weak I only see these facts on forums by consumers (and the same on Canon being weak and desperate) Nikon are huge and successful. They are the defacto standard besides Canon in the entire photography/videography world. Canon, Sony, Panasonic are enormously successful corporations, for varying degree but all VERY successful.

(This has nothing to do with their policy or specs being discussed here, I am just addressing that specific point)

[Damphousse]

If we forget about Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc. for a second, you even have Nikon that is almost the same as Canon in every aspect of your description here but they managed to improve on video side significantly(dynamic range, detail, D750 articulated screen).

So even if we put mirrorless cameras aside and just concentrate on DSLRs, Nikon is clearly paying much more attention(not enough) to videographers needs than Canon now and at least they gave us nice 1080p and 60p.

 

And again Canon's net income is far higher than Nikon's.  We may not like what Canon is doing but they obviously have good reasons for doing it.

 

We need to separate what we want from what makes good financial sense for these companies.  I think saying Canon is losing customers in the video enthusiast market is reasonable.  I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate that it is going to cost them dearly financially in the long run.  I wish it would cost them... but so far it hasn't.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Fuzzy: on changing systems and not caring about Canon, the reason for our fruatration is that it's not easy to switch systems for many reasons. When you first invest in a system, you get used to the UI, the buttons, the feel in the hands, the customer support quality, you get used to the AF system behaviour, the speed and placement of changing settings, the colour science and sensor size and build quality and size/weight. You get used to the lenses system, their IS and AF and their optical quality. You also lose a huge amount of money selling the entire system and switching. So these are all factors. It's a very relevant discussion and important and I don't believe in those saying "why do you care there are other companies making better ones so useless article/discussion"

The more the other manufacturers make it easier for switching by eliminating these inconveniences the more we'll be able to switch and use anything. Panasonic with the GH4 are doing a great job on this front, also Sony with A7s and especially A7 mk II, also the Metabones company that deserves a medal. But they not doing quite a perfect job, not yet anyway.

[Damphousse]

Nikon are not desperate or weak I only see these facts on forums by consumers (and the same on Canon being weak and desperate) Nikon are huge and successful. They are the defacto standard besides Canon in the entire photography/videography world. Canon, Sony, Panasonic are enormously successful corporations, for varying degree but all VERY successful.

(This has nothing to do with their policy or specs being discussed here, I am just addressing that specific point)

 

In 2010 Nikon posted a net loss.  Panasonic posted a net loss in 2013.  Sony has their struggles.

 

The only major player who has been enormously profitable across that entire time frame is Canon.  That is what he is referring to.

[animan]

all these companies have a massive amount of business in other sectors so Net profit/loss doesnt tell you much about cameras, for example Sony make weapons components (used inthe recent Palestine offensive), one reason I like to avoid their cameras.. well that and their colours.

 

(Totally off topic sorry)

[Andrew Reid]

We need to separate what we want from what makes good financial sense for these companies.  I think saying Canon is losing customers in the video enthusiast market is reasonable.  I don't think it is reasonable to extrapolate that it is going to cost them dearly financially in the long run.  I wish it would cost them... but so far it hasn't.

 

How do you know? You don't.

 

DSLR shipments are down and compacts have plummeted. That has definitely cost them. If you look on the stills forums, people have the same complaint as I do about video. Not enough innovation, nigh on same sensor performance for half a decade and no high end mirrorless camera. If you look at the G1 X Mark II design in a shop... get your hands on it... compare it to LX100 or Canon's own G16... it tells you everything about how uninspired Canon's 2014 has been.

[Andrew Reid]

people don't read and don't seem to get it.  the only thing i'm saying it is absurd that this blog claims all the new cheap cameras are way better in all aspects than the 1DC. in fact in this moment, after nearly 2 (!) years, theres no extreme lowlight 4k camera alternative on the market!  it's like as if someone urgently wants a ferrari and loves the ferrari brand, but as the car is too expensive, he says all volkswagen cars are much better anyway.  nobody at ferrari would listen to a person with such a statement.

 

Do you shoot a lot in low light Doug? You clearly read a lot in low light!! I clearly said "overall" that the GH4 and NX1 offer more features than the 1D C. They are better all-rounders, better optimised for shooting video. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact. I didn't design the cameras. Don't blame me for delivering to you a bunch of nice facts from the world out there.

 

As for "there's no extreme lowlight 4K camera alternative on the market" to the 1D C, I think you'll find the 4K output of the A7S is better in low light.

 

Again I didn't just invent that... it's a fact.

[Andrew Reid]

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?

 

Doug! It's $12,000! Not an enthusiast market camera! Hello! Do you read me!? DOUG!?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

In 2010 Nikon posted a net loss. Panasonic posted a net loss in 2013. Sony has their struggles.

Yes of course any company will have a down point in their curve sometime, but my point is Nikon has been making hundreds of millions in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and employing tens of thousands for tens of years all over the world. They're certainly not an unsuccessful company or losing financially. Neither is Canon or Sony or Panasonic or samsung. In fact it's especially Sony and Canan and samsung that are stupidly profitable and huge.

Again that doesn't have anything to do with what I believe in their policies or specs I am just stating a fact. Neither of these companies is a failure or weak. It also doesn't mean they can't fall downhill in the future at some point. But the point is, for now, these companies are only failing/losing financially on forum boards and blogs. Believe me they're a happy group!

[Charles Maring]

The status quo isn't in the minds eye of next generation high tech storytellers, and mirrorless should be a wakeup call for legacy camera makers.

 

A lot of pros don't embrace change quickly as it is so damn expensive to constantly reinvest. It's never ending! However, as a very high end pro-shooter for 25 years now I am convinced, after experiencing it first hand, that mirrorless is the way forward, and 4K is a step in the right direction not just for video, but for printed stills as well. The next generation chips are only going to be better, and if you make a living with a camera, then it only makes sense to buy the brands that allow you to shoot stills, video, or both at the same time. Also, mirrorless cameras have features that make our lives easier. The camera does't make the photographer, but they definitely change the shape of the industry and how we survive or succeed in it.

[Oliver Daniel]

I shot a music video on a 1DC and the GH3. 50/50 footage between both cameras. The client loved it. The video was play listed on TV. No questions asked.

I preferred the image on the 1DC. But had more fun with the GH3. Who cares... The video had semi-naked ladies in it!

My point is, this fighting over brands is a complete waste of time. Knowledge of brands is not a waste of time. Spend more time with your favoured brand and carry on making stuff.

[bertzie]

From the POV of an old fart:  Can someone explain brand loyalty to me if so inclined?  For some odd reason I seem to see people investing themselves in a brand rather than technique.

 

Say you have a friend. This friend is maybe a little older, and a little slower, but every time you ask them to help you with something, they do it. They're there for you for the good times and the bad.

 

Brand loyalty is when you find a company like that friend.

[Damphousse]

all these companies have a massive amount of business in other sectors so Net profit/loss doesnt tell you much about cameras, for example Sony make weapons components (used inthe recent Palestine offensive), one reason I like to avoid their cameras.. well that and their colours.
 
(Totally off topic sorry)

 

Well this should cheer you up.  Sony posted over a billion dollars in losses a few months ago.

[Andrew Reid]

But not because of cameras or sensors, so your point is moot.

Nice try.

Some really ripe troll frying material on this thread so far