December 09, 2016, 12:20:57 PM

Author Topic: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?  (Read 13035 times)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5449
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2014, 04:38:35 PM »
DPAF and STM are for DSLRs, not cinema cameras.

DSLRs are a lower market than cinema cameras.
Autofocus is not for cinema cameras, just about everything is done in manual. DPAF and STM are for autofocus, therefore DPAF and STM are not for cinema cameras....
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2014, 04:38:35 PM »

jiphoto

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2014, 05:58:02 PM »
DPAF and STM are for DSLRs, not cinema cameras.

DSLRs are a lower market than cinema cameras.
Autofocus is not for cinema cameras, just about everything is done in manual. DPAF and STM are for autofocus, therefore DPAF and STM are not for cinema cameras....
I agree that AF is not a standard/to-be-expected cinema camera feature.  I personally would not think of using it regularly, as MF is so much better for my uses.  However, Canon recently announced that the C100 can be upgraded with DPAF (beginning in about a month I think).  Even though AF is probably not utilized for professional productions, it is an option for the cheapest cinema-dedicated camera.  If Canon thinks that it's worth giving a DPAF upgrade option, they must think there's a market for it.
7D, 50 f/1.8 II, 24-105 f/4L, 100-400L, 580EX II

Ellen Schmidtee

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 439
Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2014, 09:47:40 PM »
DPAF and STM are for DSLRs, not cinema cameras.

DSLRs are a lower market than cinema cameras.
Autofocus is not for cinema cameras, just about everything is done in manual. DPAF and STM are for autofocus, therefore DPAF and STM are not for cinema cameras....

My point exactly - DPAF & STM are for the lower end of the two markets.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5626
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2014, 10:47:34 PM »
No, if that was their plan Magic Lantern would be buried under a sea of cease and desist notices.

Modifying something you own is not illegal.

Doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Canon has enough money to troll them into the ground using legal fees at the courthouse.

Funny legal system you have there.

In comparison, over here in South Africa, the courts have the sanction to award extreme compensation to the defendant on the grounds of malicious action on the part of the applicant. So, as my father always says: "Sue me, I can use the money."

You are right, it is a funny excuse for justice. In the US pretty much any decent sized corporation has a big enough legal department to destroy an operation like ML, not putting ML down one iota, but they know, for instance, not to touch the C line firmware. It has nothing to do with "modifying something you own" and to say that displays a chronic naivety of the way the US legal system "works".

I have said it before but I think ML and Canon have a symbiotic relationship that came about in a serendipitous way. Canon have benefited from ML's work, the 5D became a cult camera not least because of ML, their continued "tinkering" is accepted by Canon as the price for that indie film makers niche, which they are happy to profit from, Canon could close them out of the firmware without too much difficulty, but have chosen, even with new releases of non C cameras, not to. Similarly the bad publicity of Canon closing down ML is just not worth it, and it wouldn't result in any additional camera sales.

I believe there is a similar situation with Yongnuo, though punishing Chinese companies through legal means that do mail order from trading zones in mainland China is much more difficult. Yongnuo have cracked the RT protocol, they have even added functionality Canon artificially reserved for post 2012 cameras into pre 2012 cameras and even third party cameras. What result does this have for Canon? They sell more 600 EX-RT's. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if there was a "deal" between Canon and Yongnuo to delay the YN-600-RT for a few months as the cost for loss of sales of the 600-EX-RT once the YN-600-RT comes out.

But, surprise surprise, the bottom line in all situations is more camera sales for Canon.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

flowers

  • Guest
True. Canon expressed "support" for ML
« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2014, 09:27:14 AM »
Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.

No, if that was their plan Magic Lantern would be buried under a sea of cease and desist notices.

Canon replied the question about ML voiding the warranty by saying (paraphrased): "Installing third-party firmware on top of Canon firmware does not void the warranty. The warranty is only voided if it can be shown that the malfunction to be repaired under warranty was directly caused by the third-party firmware."

That's a pretty vocal word of support from Canon for users of ML. I think the way ML works suits Canon just fine, it doesn't threaten their higher-end models, because most people will still rather pay more for their cinema models rather than risk damaging their camera, and if Canon gets their lower end cameras into Hollywood, what better advertisement for their suitability for professional video than that. It's a win-win for Canon, they have nothing to worry about.

Overpriced Arri isn't Canon's biggest competitor in the cinema market, RED is. Used RED Ones and new Scarlets are direct competition to Canon, they're also digital and in the same price bracket.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 09:30:25 AM by flowers »

mkabi

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2014, 02:53:51 PM »
Anybody watch the Wolf of Wallstreet?
Can anyone tell me what camera was used when they slow-moed the part where Jonah Hill was going to go off after the quaylude took effect during pool party. Just before he starts to jerk off in front of the blonde.

Epic movie by the way.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2014, 03:57:38 PM by mkabi »
Sold my Canon DSLRs waiting on my RED Raven preorder. EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L, EF 85mm f/1.8, EF 100mm L f/2.8 Macro, Custom Cine 50mm & Custom Cine 35mm.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2014, 02:53:51 PM »