121
Lenses / Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« on: November 06, 2011, 05:55:02 PM »There's no need for that :\ Sorry if I upset you Bob. The fact remains that these camera's are not for that market or purpose, I never said that wedding or sports video taking was not serious, or the people doing it are not serious about their work, only that the features they want, won't be found in a camera like this, because it is a cinema camera, and these are cinema lenses, and auto focus and exposure aren't used in this nichè field.QuoteSorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.
+1
I have been avoiding this topic because I'm not personally interested in video. But, after people started attacking Samueljay I had to come to his defense.
I've had some experience with commissioning television spots and I can echo what Sam's saying. At least in St. Louis and Chicago, the two markets I'm familiar with, I've never worked with someone who owned their own equipment. I do know of a small, family production company in St. Louis that owned equipment and an edit suite and made their money by renting the equipment, themselves and their edit suite out to other firms in between their own jobs. But in their case, they focused on a couple of very narrow niche markets for their own work and used the equipment, their skills and the edit suite to help pay the bills.
I can't understand why anyone feels compelled to complain that Canon (or any other company) decides to expand their market and offer new, innovative products. Anything that extends the technology and helps their bottom line is going to mean more goodies for the rest of us at less cost.
You and Sam are changing the subject. Defining ownership is not the same as defining how the equipment is used. My objection, stated as clearly as I know how several times in this thread, was that some people seemed to think that automatic focusing and exposure had no place in "serious" filming. I was merely trying to point out that there are several kinds of "serious" filming that Sam had not considered. I didn't misunderstand Sam; I objected to his ignorance and arrogance, as politely as I know how.


)