September 30, 2014, 08:23:15 AM

Author Topic: Baffles the mind  (Read 9047 times)

takesome1

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM »

You can complain all you want, 

Yes we can

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #45 on: October 10, 2013, 04:42:52 PM »

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 981
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2013, 04:51:03 PM »
Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A)  5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)

OR

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set.

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost).

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone. :-)

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #47 on: October 10, 2013, 06:27:21 PM »
Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A)  5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)

OR

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set.

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost).

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone. :-)

Why would the 5D IIIs be cheaper?  The mic isn't expensive hardware and nor is the 3.5mm audio jack.  It may be more than 30 cents, but the ability to do video is software and not hardware as evidenced by the 50D + magic lantern now being capable of video. 

So why would NOT having video reduce the price of the body by $600?

Maybe if you reduced the ram and the buffer and processor speed, but then you probably have reduced performance in AI Servo. 

Maybe the frames per second is reduced by consequence to the reduced hardware... but I think what we are looking at is the 6D.  Which is $1500-2000ish for the body...

I'm not an engineer... so maybe I'm wrong... maybe all the performance of the mkiii can be kept while reducing costs by $600... but I really don't think so.

And would a $2400 mkiii without video sell well... yeah... as evidenced by the 5d mkii and the 6D which both have video and but are considered mainly a camera for stills. 

I don't like Colin Cowherd... but he has a theory about assuming other people are just like you (me).  It is a fallacy.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 06:33:19 PM by jdramirez »
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

roxics

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #48 on: October 10, 2013, 10:17:03 PM »
Thank you all for the replies. I do understand your position better now. I also understand that motion and stills are different disiplines to a certain degree.

I do both professionally and have been for the last seven years. For me DSLR's with video have been a great tool for the type of work I do. Corporate work that often includes web based videos, portraits, office/factory photography, etc.
The ability to carry one camera that I know well and one set of lenses, just makes the transition from video to photography work a little easier when going back and forth.

As for cost. I would guess that having video on DSLRs probably balances out. Whatever R&D cost that goes into these cameras for video functionality is probably paid for by the increased sales of people now buying these cameras primarily for video work, whereas before they would not have bought them but instead gone with a more traditional style video camera. But the market has now shifted and consumers aren't buying $1000+ dollar dedicated video cameras unless they are professionals or indie filmmakers.

There is also the benefit that someone like myself would be willing to pay more for a camera that can do both, than have to buy two different cameras, the other of which maybe not from the same manufacturer. I can use the same lenses and accessories. It saves me money overall.

Maybe I came off too strong in saying that the photography side is good enough and they need to just focus on video. Obviously there is no end to what can be improved for photography. That said, some of you pointed out dynamic range and better ISO sensitivity for low light. Something that is not just beneficial to photography but video as well. Good images are desired in both camps. That we can all agree on.

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range,  there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.

The difference between video and photography is that Canon now has a higher end product to protect on the video side. So a lot of video people feel that they are artificially crippling the video functionality on their DSLRs as a result. Whereas these are their high end stills cameras, so there is nothing to cripple to protect something higher up the chain. Unless they bring out a medium format system at $10K+.

For example, if Canon decided that you can only shoot raw photos on a 5D3 and above, a lot of screaming and yelling would be going on from the APS-C and 6D crowd. Yet that is exactly what they seem to be doing with the video functionality on these cameras. Leaving out little things like headphone jacks, better recording codecs, clean HDMI outputs, higher frame rates, etc. That is primarily why I say that video functionality needs to be their top priority right now. Not because they should stop work on improving stills functionality, but because they are starting to lag behind Panasonic and even Nikon in the video realm.

Why even include video?
I think the answer is simple. Both industries right now (Photography and Video) are struggling against cheaper alternatives like smartphones. By binding the two functions together on their top end cameras they can sell the same camera to both markets. Plus it does sound better to say "this camera can do both."
I would also think that would actually save them some money.

Someone above used a car analogy. I've often wondered if car companies could be more profitable by getting rid of all the by-to-order options and just including all the available features on every vehicle. It would certainly simplify inventory when the only difference is the exterior color of the car. I would think that it would streamline the whole process from design to manufacturing when you cut out all that extra time and work keeping the same model with different features on the lot. This process seemed to work for Apple in the late 90's when they streamlined their product line to just four models. I assume it works for camera manfuacturers as well. I can only imagine the headache of having to make and stock the same camera model in three types; video only, photo only and video+photo.   

   
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 10:34:03 PM by roxics »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #49 on: October 10, 2013, 10:27:23 PM »

But at least one of you pointed out that you can shoot raw photos on a DSLR however the video quality isn't that great. That's really where I was coming from. When we can buy digital rebels that shoot raw video at 1080p or 4K in variable frame rates and 13+ stops of dynamic range,  there wont be a lot of complaints on the video side.

The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.

I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel.  Wrong market.

I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?

Yep, more DR is always good, but how many folk who complain about it actually scrim filter and light a scene to bring it all within DR in any case?  Again, a forum feature that I don't really think has any bearing on how the majority of users actually work.   It's a bit like top trumps after a certain point...

roxics

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2013, 10:40:53 PM »

The video quality is fine for a lot of applications.

I doubt you'll ever see RAW video on a rebel.  Wrong market.

I don't shoot feature films, and I really have to wonder how many folk who shoot uncompressed actually benefit from it?


Well you can get raw through the magic lantern hack on a rebel. Granted it is standard definition, but it is available. I think eventually as processing and storage ability rise to a certain degree while cost plummets, it will become a no-brainer to have raw video as an option. Technically we could say the same thing about raw photo ability on rebels, wrong market. I know several people who own rebels and have no idea what raw even is, they don't even know what M mode is. They only shoot jpeg in auto mode. But it's cheap enough that it is there for the people who do. Plus it's expected. The same will eventually be true for raw video. It will be expected. Already the video world in in an uproar because these cameras have been proven to be capable of raw shooting and yet limited from the factory from doing so. 

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2013, 08:44:06 AM »
The uproar is misguided.

Off course the cameras have a raw conversion stage, so RAW is always there in any camera, the problem is a) getting an output at that stage, and, as pertains to the rebels, b) having a system architecture, data throughput and recording medium that permits this.

Do rebels need an SSD caddy?  Of course not.

Do most folk shooting RAW and slowing their workflow to a crawl really benefit?  I would argue probably not.  Nice to have the option, sure, but largely redundant.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2013, 08:44:06 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2013, 09:36:22 AM »
Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:



Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 09:38:12 AM by mackguyver »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4100
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2013, 10:03:00 AM »
Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:



Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.

It looks like a robot to me ;D
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1210
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2013, 10:03:14 AM »


Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

In that light...you aren't really paying for anything extra in that 5D3.

The video/stills thing..is software.....and I can't imagine that headphone/mic jack set would save you more than $0.30 if omitted.

C

$.30? really? I guess all the R&D that Canon had to do they just absorbed themselves?


Amortized over all the units they sell....for R&D to put in a couple of jacks?

I'd still say yes...$0.30....maybe up to $1, but sure, I think that's about all you'd save on stills only camera. realistically.

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1210
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2013, 10:06:31 AM »
Following up on my earlier post, here's why I'm not interested in video - this is Philip Bloom's rig from http://philipbloom.net/2010/06/28/zacuto-dslr-cage-jag-35-cage-view-factor-cage/:



Yes, even he admits it's overdone for fun, but still.

It looks like a robot to me ;D

Hmm...I always thought the quote was:

"He who dies with the most toys....................wins!!"

:)

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 981
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2013, 10:19:32 AM »
Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".     

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »
Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".   


I wish i understood your logic. 

 let's say the body costs 3000  retail.
1000  of that is profit for the seller and for Canon.

2000  is left for  the parts  which is broken up into r&d,  manufacturing costs,  marketing,  and parts.

 I'd personally prefer not to pay for the marketing costs.   can we make that happen? 

I don't have a point here...  I'm just exasperated.   I'm getting to see what can be eliminated to bring the cost down  because the parts and manufacturing costs aren't going anywhere.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2013, 10:55:38 AM »
Philip Blooms rig is hilarious.

This to me is the antithesis of what DSLR shooting is all about.  If I was going to have a rig like this then I'd use a red camera at the heart of it, or a Sony F at least.

I accept that Philip enjoys great success which he is always happy to share, but I also think sometimes he is plain wrong, and this rig is just one of those times.

Whats with the iphone?

He may be joking, but I have actually ran into folk like this, who have a followfocus and mattebox for a shorty forty.

Camera & lens. Audio interface. Headphones. Support.

Thats all you need.  Why follow focus via crappy plastic tip ties and horrible knobs without bearings etc when you can physically touch the focus ring.  Sure if you are working with a focus puller and mechanical lenses, otherwise, its just grandstanding, and it slows you down.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2013, 11:03:40 AM »
DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Sorry.  You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D.  It was called live view.  It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview.  Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view.  I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured.  The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong.  The R&D stage would have been prior to live view.  Bump your gums about that.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Baffles the mind
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2013, 11:03:40 AM »