Why Canon is Still Top Dog

[tugela]

 

You're right about Sony's lens ecosystem. It's not too bad if you have the money to invest in the Zeiss glass (and it is great glass), but there's not a lot of cheap full frame options (though in saying that, there's not a huge amount of cheap full frame Canon glass). I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L, but I do think the fly-by-wire focus was a mistake. It sounds like an engineer's decision (how good would it be if...) rather than a professional shooter (either video or stills).

 

​I disagree with that. If you are forking out thousands of dollars on a body, you probably are not going to be skimping on lenses. Cheap lenses are really for the entry level cameras. They are an inappropriate match for something like the a7rM2 for example. It is like saying that 5DIII owners want and are buying the cheap 75-300mm zoom, because it is cheap. No, they are not.

 

[tugela]

 

4. I don't agree. How many Canons, except the C line and the XC10 use different codecs? 

 

​Um....most of them. You are not that familiar with Canon cameras apparently.

[Damphousse]

 I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L...

​WTF?!  Do you have any links to objective evidence to back this up?  Don't be fooled by the Zeiss name.  I've had cell phone cameras that had Zeiss written under the lens.  I have nothing against Zeiss.  I own modern Zeiss medium format lenses and they are excellent in my opinion.  But let's not go overboard without proof.

[Damphousse]

​I disagree with that. If you are forking out thousands of dollars on a body, you probably are not going to be skimping on lenses. Cheap lenses are really for the entry level cameras. They are an inappropriate match for something like the a7rM2 for example. It is like saying that 5DIII owners want and are buying the cheap 75-300mm zoom, because it is cheap. No, they are not.

 

​I disagree.  Traditionally you spend more on your lenses than on your body for stills.  Lens cost is a big factor.  Canon has many attractively priced lenses compared to Sony, Panasonic, etc.  Look at all the reviews on the internet.  You are told what great value you are getting and the Canon competing body is $400 more.  Then you go look for lenses and Panasonic @$$ rapes you and makes up for the $400 difference and then some.  It's a valid point.  You have to step back and look at the whole thing holistically.  I mean if the $400+ extra you have to spend on  the lens is irrelevant then why mention the $400 supposed saving on the body?  Just do a review and never mention prices.

[sanveer]

​Um....most of them. You are not that familiar with Canon cameras apparently.

​Hahaha. I realised, immediately after saying this. 

 

[Andrew Reid]

​WTF?!  Do you have any links to objective evidence to back this up?  Don't be fooled by the Zeiss name.  I've had cell phone cameras that had Zeiss written under the lens.  I have nothing against Zeiss.  I own modern Zeiss medium format lenses and they are excellent in my opinion.  But let's not go overboard without proof.

​Why does he need proof? He says he prefers the Zeiss look, it's an opinion. Subjective. Proof not required!

[Damphousse]

​Why does he need proof? He says he prefers the Zeiss look, it's an opinion. Subjective. Proof not required!

​No he said, "I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L."  That is baloney.  The top end glass from the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc is indistinguishable from each other.  What is this amateur hour?  There is no way you can say Sony blows Canon lenses out of the water and Canon blows Nikon out of the water.  Are we on a playground here?  There are going to be individual lenses in each company's lineup that will excel in certain areas but the whole line up?!  WTF?!  Let's leave the marketing alone and have a rational conversation.  The only thing I will say is Canon has a bigger variety of lenses than everyone else and their native lenses are definitely competitively priced.  That is OBJECTIVE.

Someone says to me I want to shoot stills I say look at Canon and Nikon.  Check out their bodies and see which one is more comfortable/intuitive to you.  Then I say look at the system and see which system fits your long term needs.  The I say buy whichever one checks off the most boxes for you.  The ridiculous Nikon vs Canon threads of yesteryear were so dumb.  Now we are going to have Sony vs Canon lens threads?  For me it boils down to will I pay a price premium for the lenses I use?  And the answer is no.

From the beginning of the whole Sony/Zeiss thing I had high hopes.  Then the reviews started coming in.  There was no evidence of any Zeiss pixy dust sprinkled on the lenses.  In test after test they didn't supersede the Ls.  In fact there were plenty of Sony/Zeiss that underperformed.  Coming from the medium format world I thought we were going to be in for quite the show.  Honestly I thought I was going to be shooting a Sony alpha camera.  Alas, what was actually going on was just a boatload of marketing.

Someone can say I prefer the Sony/Zeiss "look."  But to say the lenses are "much better" is a bridge too far... Same with Canon L or Nikon premium lenses.

Full disclosure I use Nikkor and Schneider lenses on my enlargers.  I use Zeiss on my medium format camera.  And I use Canon L on my APSC digital, BMPCC, and 35mm film camera.  And of course Zeiss on my camera phone.  None of them are "much better" than the other.  Obviously my Zeiss lens camera on my phone is dog $h-t compared to everything else.

[Andrew Reid]

​No he said, "I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L."  That is baloney.  The top end glass from the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc is indistinguishable from each other.

​It depends on the individual lenses. Some in the Zeiss range are actually much better than their Canon L equivalent. Hell even Sigma destroyed the Canon 35mm F1.4L with their version recently. A lot of the Canon L lenses are decades old now. Yes they are beautiful but some of the models are long due a replacement.

If you take the Zeiss range as a whole especially the Otus and Batis lenses they DO blow Canon away in many ways.

We are talking orders of magnitude here and sometimes it doesn't make a massive difference in the real world but the highest end Zeiss glass - OTUS - yes that is definitely currently a step ahead of Canon's equivalents.

[Damphousse]

It depends on the individual lenses.

Yes that is why I said this...

There are going to be individual lenses in each company's lineup that will excel in certain areas but the whole line up?!

Still waiting to see the Sony/Zeiss OEM tilt/shift lenses.

There is a reason at every political, sporting, celebrity, event you see white lenses and red rings all over the place.  And it's not because on average Sony/Zeiss lenses are "much better" than Canon Ls.

[Mattias Burling]

No he said, "I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L." 

Just because you don't "bold" the entire sentence doesn't change that it's his opinion  

So again, no proof needed. 

I also prefer my old Zeiss m42 over the Canon-L I have used. I like the look, the feel, the build, the adaptability.

In other words, for me, they are better.

[tugela]

Yes that is why I said this...

Still waiting to see the Sony/Zeiss OEM tilt/shift lenses.

There is a reason at every political, sporting, celebrity, event you see white lenses and red rings all over the place.  And it's not because on average Sony/Zeiss lenses are "much better" than Canon Ls.

The reason you see Canon lenses is because they are attached to Canon cameras....or am I missing something? It doesn't mean that L lenses are better, it just means that the people using them are invested in a brand.

[Amro Othman]

No he said, "I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L."  That is baloney.  The top end glass from the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc is indistinguishable from each other.  What is this amateur hour? 

Anchorman fan detected

[Damphousse]

The reason you see Canon lenses is because they are attached to Canon cameras....or am I missing something? It doesn't mean that L lenses are better, it just means that the people using them are invested in a brand.

It means they view the value proposition of the SYSTEM as better.  That was my point.  Saying, oh look the equivalent Canon body costs $300 or $400 more and then ignoring the fact you can't get a native 50mm 1.8 for the Sony for $110 or less is a bit disingenuous.  You have to look at the whole thing holistically.  The only reason I said what i said is I've gone out and started pricing other systems because I saw an interesting body and then I began to realize there is more to it than just comparing the price of a couple of bodies.

 

And as far as Canon lenses I guess it is a personal thing.  My L lenses and primes are not what is holding back my art.  Some of them may not shoot the sharpest test charts but they hardly motivate me to go out and spend hundreds more per a lens.

[jax_rox]

 

In test after test they didn't supersede the Ls.  In fact there were plenty of Sony/Zeiss that underperformed.  Coming from the medium format world I thought we were going to be in for quite the show.  Honestly I thought I was going to be shooting a Sony alpha camera.  Alas, what was actually going on was just a boatload of marketing.

See - I never looked at 'test after test'. I've actually shot pretty extensively now with both systems. The Canon glass is pretty good, don't get me wrong. But I prefer the look of the Sony/Zeiss glass that I've used to the equivalent Canon Ls that I've used. There's a lot of Canon L glass out there, and it is good. In my personal opinion though, having used both, I prefer the Zeiss glass, and I think it's much better. I just prefer the look. I've never really been a huge fan of the Canon L look, but it can and does deliver great results for those that are.

Still waiting to see the Sony/Zeiss OEM tilt/shift lenses.

The fact that Sony/Zeiss don't have a competitor to every single lens that Canon has does not mean Canon make better lenses. Canon have a much wider range of native lenses for their cameras. Sony have very few, and to be fair - their full frame E mount is pretty damn new. They have a better (though still perhaps small) selection of A-mount, and APS-C E mount lenses, but their whole full frame E-mount system is very new, so it's probably to be expected that the lens selection is comparatively small.

 

There is a reason at every political, sporting, celebrity, event you see white lenses and red rings all over the place.  And it's not because on average Sony/Zeiss lenses are "much better" than Canon Ls.

The reason is they're attached to Canon cameras. Canon have been making cameras and lenses since the 1940s Sony, by comparison, have only really been making serious cameras for what? 10 years?

Canon are still #1 seller for stills use. The lenses you see at those events are probably the same lenses that specific photographer has been using for 5-10 years. Meanwhile, the Sony FE 70-200mm (which is also white, btw) only came out maybe a year ago?

It means they view the value proposition of the SYSTEM as better.  That was my point.  Saying, oh look the equivalent Canon body costs $300 or $400 more and then ignoring the fact you can't get a native 50mm 1.8 for the Sony for $110 or less is a bit disingenuous.  You have to look at the whole thing holistically.  The only reason I said what i said is I've gone out and started pricing other systems because I saw an interesting body and then I began to realize there is more to it than just comparing the price of a couple of bodies.

Of course - and this has always been true, and honestly is likely what's held Sony back in the past. It's also why there are many people buying Metabones adapters for the Canon glass they already own and buying an A7s or similar. Sony have released some really great bodies in the A7 line, but don't have the same lens line-up that Canon or Nikon do - and that will be the reason they won't penetrate the market in the same way. At least right now.

Eventually, when they build up their lens line-up, both cheap and expensive, and continue to push the boundaries in their body iterations - that's when they'll start to edge closer and closer to being a #2 to either Canon or Nikon.

[gelaxstudio]

Canon have been making cameras and lenses since the 1940s 

Yeah，and that is why canon lens are too old to catch up,take a look at E-mount and M43- mount lens ,they have silent motor and power zoom ,not breathing effect  .

While Canon have their STM for the video use,but STM lens are so  limited and only work with dual-pixel AF，not to mention there are no STM fast prime ,and not L-len quality STM lens 

Canon EF-lens are mostly for stills work ,not video and cine 

Lens are also the newer the better,new lens have better design,better coating，better len material，and that is why new lens keep developing and people keep replacing their old ones ！

 

[sanveer]

 

Ok, so Sony and Panasonic and doing a pretty stellar job of their Mirrorless Range, but, IMHO, these are some of the shortcomings with either system:

 

Panasonic:

1. Most lenses are not 'wide enough'. I am sure people would want something as wide as that Nikon 6mm Fisheye with 220 Degree of view, which lets you literally look behind yourself. I guess more wide lenses should be employed. Also, if Panasonic, along with Sigma and Metabones call Officially Collaborate on making an integrated lens system, that does super fast primes, and super fast zooms, that should help solve some of the issues regarding wide lenses and low light. 

2. Lovers of Full Frame will always be unhappy with the 'not enough shallow depth of field'. 

3. The low light needs to be Atleast 6400 ISO, not the 1600 ISO that is the Maximum that Panasonic cameras can go till.

4. I wonder if Panasonic can do an XAVC version, for getting some superb flat profiles, with lots of detail, without pushing a 300Mbps bitrate like on the 1DC. 

5. Higher MP count for cameras. A lot of people don't see 16MP as very ProSumer, especially if the professional work involves Indie Films. The GX8 seems to be heading in the right direction. 

6. Panasonic need atleast 1 real log profile in the Top 3 models of their mirrorless prosumer range (GH Series, GX Series and G Series. Maybe even in the next version of the LX100).  

7. Their Yagh units need to be redesigned to more on the lines of something made by Sony 

 

Sony:

1. Terrible Battery Life. They need Atleast to probably double that on their top end mirrorless range. 

2. Over heating issues. 

3. Price needs to be pushed south. Right now while the A5100, and A6100, seem to be good, they have their own shortcomings. Also, the price drops become very apparent on models which are as old as 1 year. Maybe Sony should start with more realistic prices, and expect large figures in numbers of cameras sold, instead of higher profile margins on each unit.

4. More lenses need to be introduced. They should also try and make cheaper lenses (which will be a task, considering their Zeiss collaboration).

5. I would have said that they should have internal 4k recording, but they seem to have done that, along with Log profile in the A7R ii. I am hoping they maintain this trend. 

 

 

 

Regardless of their ethics statements, a lot of Filmmakers get a lots of freebies from companies, whether they are camera makers, or sound companies, or accessory makers or whoever else. Panasonic and Sony need to hand out freebies, in terms of cameras ans equipment for most websites and blogs, that deal with filmmaking, especially the Indie Filmmaking and Gear sites. Also, Panasonic needs to provide equipment to atleast 10 Indies every year, even if it is only for the period of shooting. That way, they will have a presence in the Indie Film Industry, where their prosumer range is most likely to have a presence. 

 

[jax_rox]

 

4. I wonder if Panasonic can do an XAVC version, for getting some superb flat profiles, with lots of detail, without pushing a 300Mbps bitrate like on the 1DC.

 

XAVC is a Sony development, and so there wouldn't be a Panasonic with XAVC implementation. If anything, you're more likely to see some flavour of AVC-Intra (which I believe is something they should do - along with a log picture profile; even if it's in a more expensive body than the GH4).

Panasonic's problem is they're kinda flailing. They were way too late to the party with their large sensor cinema camera - Varicam and the Sony F900 were the digital cameras of choice, particularly for episodic television (or any production that was shooting digital and couldn't afford a Viper, Genesis or D21). Then RED came along and changed the game. Sony were able to push cameras like the F35, capitalising on technology that already existed in the F900/F950 (and assumedly what they learned in collaboration with Panavision). Then they brought out the F65 and discontinued the F35. The F65 didn't really catch on as most people had already decided on RED or Alexa (which Arri capitalised on their technology in the D21), both of which were smaller, lighter and easier to use with a similar (or better, depending on who you ask) image.

Sony then brought out the F3 and then eventually the F5/55, which now has found a market, despite strong initial competition from Canon.

Panasonic, meanwhile, during the time of change, has been almost nowhere to be seen. They brought out the Af100, which was a step in the right direction, but was not really even a competitor to the F3 - now it's discontinued and finally after many years of speculation and waiting, they've come out with their digital Varicam. Is it a great camera? Yes. Will it catch on? Who knows. Does it offer that much over REDs, Alexas, etc. to really help it catch on? That remains to be seen. I'm not really sure that Panasonic really know how they're structuring their camera line. At least, they don't have the structure that Sony, or even Canon do. They had such an opportunity, with the DVX100 and HVX100 that were so, so popular - and the Varicam at the top end of town and they seem to have just sat on their hands and let other companies take over their position in the market.

Pansonic make good cameras, I hope they can get back into the dominating position they were in in the DVX100 times.

 

2. Over heating issues. 

3. Price needs to be pushed south. Right now while the A5100, and A6100, seem to be good, they have their own shortcomings. Also, the price drops become very apparent on models which are as old as 1 year. Maybe Sony should start with more realistic prices, and expect large figures in numbers of cameras sold, instead of higher profile margins on each unit.

4. More lenses need to be introduced. They should also try and make cheaper lenses (which will be a task, considering their Zeiss collaboration).

Regardless of their ethics statements, a lot of Filmmakers get a lots of freebies from companies, whether they are camera makers, or sound companies, or accessory makers or whoever else. Panasonic and Sony need to hand out freebies, in terms of cameras ans equipment for most websites and blogs, that deal with filmmaking, especially the Indie Filmmaking and Gear sites. Also, Panasonic needs to provide equipment to atleast 10 Indies every year, even if it is only for the period of shooting. That way, they will have a presence in the Indie Film Industry, where their prosumer range is most likely to have a presence. 

I'm yet to hear of the A7 line overheating, but even Canon DSLRs overheat in video mode (and much moreso than the current crop of competitor DSLMs).

Sony's prices are pretty competitive, IMO. The A7rII is the first camera body to come even close to the price of a 5DmkIII, and it's paper specs absolutely smash it out of the park (of course we know paper specs aren't everything). They're more expensive than Panasonic, but I'm not really sure they see Panasonic as a competitor, at least not in their full frame line. IMO, the m4/3 line will always be a stalwart of consumers and prosumers, as well as video shooters (simply because the video features they provide you with). Most photographers are going to be drawn to at least APS-C, if not full frame. I couldn't care less, but there are many photographers (and video shooters) who think full frame is the only thing worth shooting.

I agree about more lenses. I don't think their agreement with Zeiss will be a hindrance - there are many SOny-only branded lenses, and for their other mounts (even APS-C E mount) there is relatively affordable decent glass available.

I personally think both Sony and Panasonic need to re-think the way they market their cameras. Sony do it a little better than Panasonic, but I'm not sure that the Japanese doco-style shoots as their launch videos for new cameras are really the best way to do it. Even the F5/55 launch had some pretty terrible launch demo videos. They need to send some freebies to some decent DPs and get some really ncie footage happening.

Maybe Panasonic and/or Sony should hire a really great crew and shoot some beautiful short films? Imagine a beautiful looking 3 minute short film online, or before a film festival screening for example. You look at it and think 'wow this is beautiful'. You get caught up in it, and then right at the end it comes up with 'shot on Sony A7s'.

Much more effective than tests or Japanese garden videos IMO.