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

[wernst]

I have gone through Canon’s financial results of QII/14 published recently. In short:
Canon reported an increased profit despite decreased net sales volume. Canon is quite a healthy company. They have almost 0.75 billion $ cash. This might also be their main problem. Canon’s business structures have gained overweight and overhead, they can’t move fast anymore.

And we should learn that Canon doesn’t need to talk or listen to their customers as long as the shareholders are happy. The stock quote (in average) is healthy. None of the shareholders are interested in e.g. codecs or 4k resolution. They only have their investment in mind, if it is profitable it is fine. Conclusion: Don’t do anything then you won’t do anything wrong. (It’s an attitude which is commonly known from politicians)

This “rule of fool†holds true for selling whisk(e)y or bathroom tissues, sure not for high tech products.

Canon’s “rich man’s demeanor†overrules the common understanding that innovation is the primary force

that pushes a company to market leadership and keeps it ahead of its rivals. An increasing technology gap between Canon and competition may be compensated with money - for a while. But once this gap is wide enough the race is over. Canon then will not be able to catch up even with all their money they have.

I have come to understand Canon’s garbled marketing motto “SEE IMPOSSIBLE†as:
“We at Canon SEE that it is IMPOSSIBLE to catch up with our competitionâ€

[Cosimo murgolo]

Exactly Andy! It's just crazy! I'm so happy with my G6, but lot of bands asked me: "Hey, why you don't use a 7D or a 5D?", then I show them some clips I made with Canon and some clips I made with Panasonic... and they instantly know why G6 is better! Not to talk about GH4! ;)

maybe you should see this clip too, I think it's ok, don't you? I like it.

I think that in the right hands any camera can be a good weapon.

Ciao! ;)

[dafreaking]

[jmm]

I fully agree with the article. As an enthusiast who enjoys film making in many different genres, including documentary, action, drama etc as well as a very passionate wildlife photographer, I had a hard choice to make a for a new camera. 

 

When the 7D II was announced I was really excited only to find the video quality to be horrible. I love the A7 S in terms of video, but burst shooting and AF are not satisfactory for stills. In the end now, I found my compromise with a Nikon D750 that I will buy in Spring. As I am switching systems (my Sony DSLR is not video capable and my best friend owns the camera we used for film making, but I moved to London and he to Hamburg) so I was open to any system. If Canon had paid more attention to video, and 1080p is fine for me, then they would have gotten me for one DSLR now, a couple of lenses and regular new lens buys whenever deemed necessary, Now Nikon got the honor. Better Stills quality, better video quality, better low light, an almost step-less aperture in video mode. If they add peaking as well, Canon can close their factories in my opinion. 

 

And as soon as money lets me and need arises, maybe I will buy a native 4K A7 S successor. 

[Andrew Reid]

I think that in the right hands any camera can be a good weapon.

 

I should give up the reviews and just say that! Would be much easier!

[JazzBox]

maybe you should see this clip too, I think it's ok, don't you? I like it.

I think that in the right hands any camera can be a good weapon.

Ciao! ;)

I like it! 
But I prefer to work with Panasonic G6 over a 5D MkIII 95% of the times. It's a matter of taste, of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all works. 
Last week I worked with a Canon 60D because the DOP that called me has that and did not want to use my camera. Other times I worked with a 5DMkII and MkIII, I had a T3i and a 70D...
I admit I like Canon's menu better then Panasonic, but I like Panasonic image better then Canon because it's sharper and 60p in 1080 is something I use often.
With Panasonic I have a better quality in handheld shots thanks to the smaller body, I can use lot of lenses (FD are superb)... I have the EVF and the focus peaking... it's something I cannot work without.
 

[Cosimo murgolo]

I like it! 
But I prefer to work with Panasonic G6 over a 5D MkIII 95% of the times. It's a matter of taste, of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all works. 
Last week I worked with a Canon 60D because the DOP that called me has that and did not want to use my camera. Other times I worked with a 5DMkII and MkIII, I had a T3i and a 70D...
I admit I like Canon's menu better then Panasonic, but I like Panasonic image better then Canon because it's sharper and 60p in 1080 is something I use often.
With Panasonic I have a better quality in handheld shots thanks to the smaller body, I can use lot of lenses (FD are superb)... I have the EVF and the focus peaking... it's something I cannot work without.
 

Magic Lantern is the only reason that is keeping me working with the 5d  at the moment, I enjoy fiddling with raw, although is tiring and takes a lot of space, but the results are still worth it.

The 5d it's quite a bulky camera, not easy to take it around with you all the time, I would love to have something light that fits in my pocket.

I was thinking to get the panasonic GX7 when I get some money.

Ciao ;)

[Oscar M.]

 

So if you want to still make money in the (near) future, stop spreading the word about Sony and Panasonic. Stop talking about Filmconvert and explain everything to people. Stop making tutorials for everyone to see.

Do you want a future where everyone makes as good video' as you do?

 

We are making it too easy for beginners like this. We are literally raising competitors which will hunt us in the future.

 

I have stopped and I ask you to do the same.

 

Praise Canon! Praise pricey software. Never give any tips and tricks for free. That is how you get rich.

 

Spoken like a true 1%!

 

Hey! How about you compete? What a concept!!

 

So you want to keep the status quo in the filming world because you are afraid of competition. Perhaps your problem is not competition, you're problem may be lack of skills! (of course I don't know your work, but judging from what you've said, you do not project much confidence in your skills) Ask anyone today if they would rather deny someone education for the fear of having them become smarter than you. I would try to think stuff through before you commit it to a post. Shameful.

 

We live in the information age. The age of information sharing (The internet). Would you rather we abolish the internet? My friend, you are living in the wrong era.

[tomekk]

What/how the XYZ colours look to you is subjective. It has little to do with science, apart from the science of human behaviour and sensory perception.

Colours, things and events have no meaning or value per se. 'Horrible' is an emotional attachment. It's all up to your personal perception, so there is not much point in 'scientifically explaining' why something appears horrible to you.

 

Just marry your Canon and get it over with. Let others be happy with their horrible colours. Each to their own.

 

I'm not defending anyone here, but what you're saying is not entirely correct. Yes, how colours look is subjective but you can go deeper than that and take bigger sample to get more objective opinion which is what matters more a lot of times. If 6 billion ppl out of 7 billion will tell you something looks horrible you can assume it looks horrible to most of the earth population and go from there...

Of course this statistic doesn't say anything about if they're right or not... this is completely different topic ;).

[Andrew Reid]

When does a big sample of subjective opinions turn into an objective opinion?

[Andrew Reid]

Francis Ford Coppola liked the GH2 best in the Zacuto shootout. Are some subjective opinions more important than others in the opinion soup? I do believe they are.

[tomekk]

When does a big sample of subjective opinions turn into an objective opinion?

 

It doesn't completely and it depends on a lot of other things too but it's getting more objective than a smaller sample of subjective opinion. 

[tomekk]

Francis Ford Coppola liked the GH2 best in the Zacuto shootout. Are some subjective opinions more important than others in the opinion soup? I do believe they are.

 

Yes, they are, obviously. That's why I don't believe in democracy for example ;)... but we are heading towards more complicated topics. 

I've purposely added "..and it depends on a lot of other things too" to cover my back for questions like this one as it is quite long subject.

[Andrew Reid]

Fair enough! Now let's get back to talking about why there is no high spec video on Canon cameras under $5000.

[JazzBox]

Magic Lantern is the only reason that is keeping me working with the 5d  at the moment, I enjoy fiddling with raw, although is tiring and takes a lot of space, but the results are still worth it.

I really like the way ML opens up possibilities on Canon, even if it is not very comfortable to work with in situation where you are in hurry: 5D MkIII's RAW is probably one of the best image quality under 5000$, but - apart I prefer a more S35like look - it's too tricky for me to work with ML. 
 

What I dislike about Canon's philosophy is the way they pretend not to know what ML can do on their cameras. 

They clearly consider their DSLR just photo camera and want you buy a 10.000$ device for video. 
It's offending, because they started a revolution and now they act as they did not know it: â€‹it does bother me their way to ignore how 95% of people work today. Just that :)

[captou]

I'd like to add my 2 cents here - from a beginners point of view.

 

I can tell you a simple reason why I'm annoyed or, if I want to be sentimental, disappointed with Canon: I've still got my first camera, a 600D/T3i but I don't see a Canon option that I'd like to upgrade to.

 

Why is this a problem for me? I've got a bunch of lenses. And also, I'm just ready to upgrade because I'm tired of the low quality I get compared to what I could have for the same or not much more money.* So if Canon were to offer me a reasonable upgrade option, I would totally go for that because of the lenses. But at this point I would feel cheated for my money (say, if I were to get a 7DmII or 5DmII/III for video work and can't go through the RAW process). I'm one of those people who don't have a lot of money to spend because I'm still just dipping my toes into the world of video production but I also read and watch a lot of stuff online. So I'm not going to upgrade to another Canon camera and I'm gonna lose some lenses. That's ok, they're not super expensive compared to what's out there, but actually, for someone just starting out, it's still a freaking pain! 

 

I realize that I'm operating at a low level especially compared to some people here on the forum, but the point is, Canon is definitely losing me because they can't offer me an upgrade option that I'll buy into. They can probably live with that. But as people have said here, if there are lots of people like me, who knows, they might have a problem one day.

 

* Note: yes yes "it's just the person behind the camera not the tool" - yes no one doubts that, but there are undeniable issues with certain cameras (e.g. 600D) that I understand now that I've been doing this for a bit and didn't understand before. It's a good learning experience but I don't want to look at my image anymore and think: the resolution is poor, the image is falling apart when I want to grade it and there is moire where I never expected it. I think the tool does matter - if it's not up to the task, it's just not a good tool. Looking back, and if I could choose again, I wouldn't have gone for a 600D but for a GH2 or something like that.

[Paul Cryer]

To answer the original question. Yes, they clearly are protecting a pro range of cameras by neglecting video features on what they class as photo still cameras that do a bit of video. Saying that not to add a 4K option to the C100 MKII, even via HDMI only, was an odd decision.

 

Sony and Panasonic clearly see the video side of the cameras being as if not even more important than the stills side. They've seen Canon are neglecting this area of the market and are going for it. 

 

I was ready to upgrade from my 7D and have been looking around for weeks at the options and have plumped for the GH4 this weekend, for both price and the quality of the image plus the fact it has video features I really want to use and I can still, via Speedbooster, use my Canon EF mount lenses on it. So it's not a total system switch out and if Canon do release something in the future or I invest in a C series camera at some stage I'm not having to buy lenses again. 

[Quirky]

Fair enough! Now let's get back to talking about why there is no high spec video on Canon cameras under $5000.

 

Because Canon don't fancy doing such a thing and they can get away with it. Current product line is deemed good enough.

End of story. 

 

Not much point in beating that dead horse for eight more pages. 

[Andrew Reid]

Not much point in beating that dead horse for eight more pages. 

 

 

And yet here you are on page 8.

[Oliver Daniel]

Fair enough! Now let's get back to talking about why there is no high spec video on Canon cameras under $5000.

 

Because they have the Cinema EOS line. They position themselves in a different league.

 

Arri has no sub $5000 camera, neither does RED. Neither does, errrr.... well, that's it. 

 

Canon likely want seasoned, well paid professionals to use their professional cameras - and price them accordingly, so the "Vimeo Test" crowd doesn't make their cameras look bad. (Ok, that last part is a joke). 

 

They will move eventually, everyone needs to get over it. Use something else under $5000. Plenty of options. 10 years ago I had a Nokia now I have an iPhone. Maybe in 10 years all filmmakers will be shooting on Samsung and Canon will be making digital fish for virtual fishtank printers with a cupholder. Life goes on. :)