July 24, 2014, 09:39:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Policar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1
All I'm saying is that at the DSLR level, Canon is no longer even a consideration.

Except for stills, which is, like, what dSLRS are made for.

And rolling shutter is a HUGE issue for most. If it's not for you... lucky you!

Yes, it's no fun buying a $6500 C100 and a $3500 5D Mark III (what I paid when I bought them) when an A7s can get close to both for $2500, but each Canon is the best in class for the price. Best price/performance... maybe the Sony.

But for me the rolling shutter is way too strong. Looks cheesy during pans. Gives a gross look. But if you keep the camera still and need low light it looks AMZING... I do want one.

2
If you are a pro cinema photographer, customer support is a huge factor.  Sony forces customers to wait weeks or months for consumer camera support, while Canon has set up shop in Hollywood for almost instant service.  They have not only not abandoned the segment, they are moving in in a big way.

Look for new dedicated cinema products, the consumer and prosumer stuff is fine, but they are indeed looking to bring in a lot more $$ by producing cameras designed primarily for video.
[/]

Spot on.

3
Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of.  So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it.  I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras.  But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it.  It's a little bit ridiculous.  The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price.  I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs.  Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K.  That would sell like hot cakes.  Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer.  Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.

Canon are currently market leaders in high end stills and low end professional "cinematic" video. Their current cameras already sell extremely well. The 5D Mark III, C300, and C100 outsell all direct competitors (based on what little reliable information is available regarding marketshare). Lenses sell great because bodies sell well. It's as healthy an ecosystem as any company can have in this difficult industry.

Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR. How much have you used the CX00 cameras to be such an expert on their feature set, which is extensive and really powerful?

Why would Canon undercut itself in markets in which it is already the leader and already selling cameras with high prices and presumably high margins? Sony and Panasonic are undercutting Canon and that is why you see the better price/performance there... If you want what they offer, buy it. Canon won't offer that line of video dSLRs you want until Sony and Panasonic start eating up their market share so, maybe in 5-10 years, not now. Panasonic already offers it. Why not buy it from Panasonic? At the worst it will encourage Canon to make the camera you really want.

If there's any market they need to address it's the high end. The C500 is not a serious Alexa competitor. The C500 Mark II needs to be. This is a high margin, mature market and it is completely controlled by one camera.

Indeed they are market leaders as of now, but as I pointed out the 1DC doesn't belong where it is and at the price tag, when you have an a7s and GH4 at a significantly lower cost producing great imagery.  It won't be long before one of these companies does get it right (much sooner than 5-10 years) with internal 4k , better codec.  Regardless of where Canon is now, and how well their gear sells everyone else is catching up quickly.  Sony arguably has better sensor technology than Canon as of now.  I do envision and predict that Canon will release an excellent video capable dslr in the near future, one that competes with the current offerings.  Canon has even stated itself that they need to improve the video on their dslr offerings.

The 1dc delivers built in 4k with acceptable skew and a standard lens mount with native cinema lenses. The gh4 has one of these things... A7s has none. And it's also a top of the line $7k stills camera. The only camera I'd take over my mark 3 is a medium format back... Only cameras I'd take over my c100 would be a c300 or Alexa/Amira. Canon offers the best gear for the price and it sells accordingly.

Fwiw Canon has been on top longer than Apple ever has. Windows and Android beat Apple's OS market share even now.

If you disagree, buy elsewhere. Not everyone can afford the best, fewer still are willing to pay for it.

4
Canon unfortunately underestimated the degree of innovation that companies like Sony are capable of.  So they started this "cinema" line, put in a few bells and whistles and the price tag to go along with it.  I don't mind that they charge a premium for the C100,300,500 because they are strict video cameras.  But when they take a 1dx body, and unlock it to do 4k and then charge 10k for it.  It's a little bit ridiculous.  The 1DC doesn't belong in the cinema line, its ergonomically not a strict video camera, and frankly will be squashed by the competition in the next year or so in specs and price.  I'd like to see them start a new line of video centric dslrs.  Let them do internal 4k, 4:2:2 for $4K.  That would sell like hot cakes.  Obviously they would have to cripple them in some way as to still make their cinema line attractive for the more serious cinematographer.  Ergonomically the cinema series would already be worth the upgrade.

Canon are currently market leaders in high end stills and low end professional "cinematic" video. Their current cameras already sell extremely well. The 5D Mark III, C300, and C100 outsell all direct competitors (based on what little reliable information is available regarding marketshare). Lenses sell great because bodies sell well. It's as healthy an ecosystem as any company can have in this difficult industry.

Also, what you consider bells and whistles most owners and operators consider to be awesome ergonomics, a great image, multiple professional gammas, and a ton of features (EVF, scopes, good audio inputs, etc.) that you'd pay a lot to add on to a dSLR. How much have you used the CX00 cameras to be such an expert on their feature set, which is extensive and really powerful?

Why would Canon undercut itself in markets in which it is already the leader and already selling cameras with high prices and presumably high margins? Sony and Panasonic are undercutting Canon and that is why you see the better price/performance there... If you want what they offer, buy it. Canon won't offer that line of video dSLRs you want until Sony and Panasonic start eating up their market share so, maybe in 5-10 years, not now. Panasonic already offers it. Why not buy it from Panasonic? At the worst it will encourage Canon to make the camera you really want.

If there's any market they need to address it's the high end. The C500 is not a serious Alexa competitor. The C500 Mark II needs to be. This is a high margin, mature market and it is completely controlled by one camera.

5
Quote
Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, upgrading to the C series is definitely an option, but my gripe/complaint is that Canon has stopped innovating their DSLR video capabilities. They teased us with the 5D2 and then continuously dropped the ball on every single DSLR since on the video front. Not everyone can afford C series cameras and cine lenses. Why couldn't Canon continue the revolution they started? What was wrong with making the 5D3 even more awesome for video? I do not believe Canon thinks video is unimportant. I think they're just protecting their more expensive products by gutting the lower-end ones. Our company is not a full movie studio so moving up to an army of C300's isn't feasible (a few C100's, perhaps). IMO, Canon has indeed abandoned the DLSR video market in favor of greener pastures (can't blame them for wanting to make a profit). If Sony and Panasonic can do this (and they also make pro cameras), why can't Canon?

When I referred to the A7S and GH4, I was purely referring to them as video cameras (serious still shooters would wisely go with other options). These two absolutely kill the 5D3 and have advantages over the 1DX (low light / continuous autofocus / better audio solutions / 4k 4:2:2 recording).

The 5D Mark III was definitely designed with decent video in mind. If it weren't for Canon's poor debayer algorithm (which plagues their JPEGS, too) it would have really great video, maybe the best of any affordable dSLR. You can see the potential in what people do with the raw video. It's not bad at all, just soft and without a lot of extra features.

Other leaders in the stills market have poor video, too: the D800 is by all accounts not excellent. Fuji makes amazing cameras, but they have poor video. Leica has poor video. I haven't heard great things about Pentax's video.

Canon had surprisingly success with the 5D Mark II and split its line: dSLR-style video cameras and dSLRs. Canon makes amazing cinema cameras... and clearly the form factor is inspired by dSLRs. Other market leaders make video-specific cameras, too. The Alexa is video only. The red (not doing quite as well) is marketed as both stills and video but is really just video. Sony's professional offerings are video only.

Sony and Panasonic are not market leaders so they have to make alternative and hybrid products. Both have major flaws... the GH4 has skew and poor audio; the A7s has TONS of skew and poor battery life. Both are ergonomically awkward. If you're a business and you can afford a $2500 camera but not a $5000 camera, that's a deeper issue than Sony having slightly better video quality than Canon. (Because the 1080p out of the A7s is not leagues ahead of the 5D Mark III; it has much, much more skew, slightly better resolution, and significantly better DR.)

Just get a C300. :)

It has a lot of awesome features way beyond what the 5D Mark II offered.

6
My company was an early adopter of shooting video on Canon DSLRs (5D2, 7D, then 650D, 70D...) and invested a lot of money into this for great results. But now our cameras are looking like Ford Model T's compared to the Ferrari's coming from other brands (Sony's A7S, Panasonic's GH4). It pains us to see Canon so complacent in an area that they pioneered. Now it's not even an option to stay with Canon. For less money we can get much better video with the GH4 and A7S, and we're going to switch soon.

Some may argue that these DSLRs weren't made for video in the first place. That's sour grape talk. Look at the huge market of video accessories that the 5D2 created and tell me it's not a segment that's worth exploring at a competitive price point.

We'll still stay with Canon for stills since there are no complaints there. But there are clearly better options for video.

Canon didn't abandon their video market at all. They have the most successful line of cinema cameras going (no, I don't have sales figures, but based on what I see at and hear from rental houses and owner/ops). The C300 is very affordable but if you are looking to buy multiple bodies the C100 is ok, too...

I don't see why people think Canon has abandoned this market. They haven't at all. The video quality on the next round of 7Ds is irrelevant, although they will be used as b cams, because they are already good enough for broadcast for stealing shots. The majority of the broadcast market will go to Arri with Canons on the low end and as additional unit cameras.

The video quality of the C500 successor and C300 successor will be what to watch... this is where Canon's "cinema" video market is and if the C500 is excellent they might be able to reclaim a bit of market share from Arri, which controls both broadcast and theatrical.

The C100 is the low end of its owner/op market, displacing the 5D II, which accidentally catered to this market, and is popular for wedding videography and low end corporate/web.

The A7s and GH4 are probably fine hybrid cameras, but it seems odd to switch when Canon has the healthiest ecosystem and best (and uniquely, delightfully single-purpose) products and by far the cheapest professional cinema camera with the C300. (The F5 is not cheap!)

7
People LOVED this lens (preferring it to the 50 f1.2 L) before the new version.

Interesting how spherochromatism was once heralded as improving bokeh (and built into lens designs) and now people hate it. The 135mm f2 AI-S, for instance, is intentionally a bit soft with spherochromatism wide open as a portrait lens. The 135 L seems to do this a bit, as do most fast primes. I like apochromatic lenses on large format for landscape, but now FF digital lenses are beginning to tend toward apochromatic, too.

I suppose now that people are printing much larger (since FF digital "feels" about like medium format film) the softer lenses designed for 135 film are going out of favor, but I'm not sure I like the look of these clinical new lenses.

Then again, I rarely print that large.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 135L F2.0 - Am I expecting too much
« on: June 28, 2014, 07:52:19 PM »
I believe what you are experiencing here is spherochromaticism... out of focus highlights will have a characteristic magenta outline in front of the plane of focus and green behind. Stopping the lens down a bit should reduce these artifacts.

Yes, and it's built into the design to improve bokeh (by making it softer).

9
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next for Cinema EOS?
« on: June 09, 2014, 11:15:18 PM »
If they don't get something out at Photokina to compete with the GH4, I suspect most of the low budget indie crowd will consider Canon dead in the water, and start migrating, unless they've already got too much invested in glass and already have a 5D Mk III.

Low budget indie crowd is generally shooting Alexa.

There's low budget, and there's LOWwww budget. My low budget crowd thinks I'm big budget with a 5DIII setup   :)

What content are you producing and for what client? For low end corporate it's absolutely a viable solution, but do those clients care about 4k vs 1080p or do you and are you looking for the opportunity to sell 4k to your client so you can try it out?

The issue is the GH4 might be great in terms of IQ, but the C100 is the rock steady wedding videographer/event videographer camera with amazing ergonomics and battery life and ease of use. (And the C300 one step above for low end TV/high end corporate.)

Canon can charge more and deliver less because they're targeting "pros" who care more about return on revenue (and have a revenue stream) than hobbyists, who care about image quality but don't have the cashflow to justify the expense. The C100 is a joke spec-wise as is the 5D Mark III for stills. Both are market leaders. They're easy to use and affordable enough, but too expensive for hobbyists to buy (unless they are committed, I guess).

10
EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next for Cinema EOS?
« on: June 09, 2014, 10:16:41 PM »
If they don't get something out at Photokina to compete with the GH4, I suspect most of the low budget indie crowd will consider Canon dead in the water, and start migrating, unless they've already got too much invested in glass and already have a 5D Mk III.

Low budget indie crowd is generally shooting Alexa.

11
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 23, 2014, 11:19:35 AM »
I'll start confessing mines.
 
In spite of the huge efforts made by the Research And Development Departments of most companies belonging to the Photographic Industry, aiming to offer us better products,
 
1) First of all, I don't dislike lens flare. I must be a true fetishist in this field, because I like the "flare effect" seen in digital cartoon movies (e.g. Pixar's "Up").
2) I don't dislike vignetting. I could be defined a moderate pervert with respect to vignetting, because I don't add it deliberately to pictures.
3) I don't dislike a reasonable amount of noise in pictures. Again, I don't add it where there's no OOC noise and I don't underexpose my pictures in order to get the maximum possible noise, so I guess my therapy shouldn't be so extreme.
 
And what about you, my fellow friends from CanonRumors? Are you shameless enough to confess that sometimes you like something that's not technically perfect?

I heard JJ Abrams likes lens flares.... Read the Kaminski document to get an idea of someone who loves weird grain (shooting 800T stock outdoors instead of 50D, for instance) and of course he destroyed Panavision's lenses and set the gate weave off to get the Saving Private Ryan look. I forget who it was that baked film stock in the oven.

Lots of large format shooters use old lenses for a soft look. Technical perfection has its place but is very boring. The shift from a focus on "look" (the old 135mm f2 AIS Nikon is optically poor but has amazing bokeh) to a focus on how well something performs on charts belies a trend in photography... No one cares about composition/subject/art anymore and now we are just getting people trying to shoot banal stuff with sharp corners... so boring.


12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 05:08:22 PM »
Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

Takes the glare off water and foliage just like it does windows.

Just wait for the right light.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 03:15:47 PM »
Nice "landscapes."

I use polarizers all the time. Never for landscapes.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Landscape Filters
« on: May 05, 2014, 11:09:28 AM »
Don't bother. GNDs are tacky and you'll outgrow them fast. Same with polarizers.

Find good light, capture it.

15
Lenses / Re: Canon IS Primes for landscapes?
« on: April 19, 2014, 10:42:00 AM »
90mm TS-E.

Wide angle landscapes look terrible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25