November 22, 2014, 11:53:03 AM

Author Topic: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!  (Read 7311 times)

samueljay

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
  • 5D Mk III
    • View Profile
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2011, 08:42:17 AM »
Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually.

So professional wedding photographers, documentary photographers and sports photographers are not "filming seriously"? You seem to be assuming that photography is always (or maybe just mostly) at the center of the whole situation, something that is absolutely not true a good percentage of the time. Very often, we're just there trying to get the best images we can, in the middle of chaos.
Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures. People here seem to assume that features that are made for still photography (auto-focus and exposure) should be included in cinema styled cameras, and end up assuming that the product is bogus because it's missing these 'standard' features, when the reality is, cameras in that price range are not for the market you're describing at all, these are cinema camera's with cinema lenses, for people shooting films, where every shot will be on a shot list, set up, exposed and focused manually (and pulled during the scene). Of course wedding photog/videographers, doco makers, and sports videographers are shooting seriously, but they won't be using a camera like the C300 ;)

Also as many people here have mentioned before, I don't really know anyone myself that actually buys a camera or lenses like this to use just for themselves. Most people will be renting them / renting them out. 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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 08:46:34 AM by samueljay »
Gear: 5D Mk III <> 70-200mm ƒ/2.8L IS II USM <> 50mm ƒ/1.2L USM <> 8-15mm ƒ/4L  USM <>  100mm ƒ/2.8L  Macro IS USM <> 40mm ƒ/2.8 <> 24-70mm ƒ/2.8L II USM

canon rumors FORUM

Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2011, 08:42:17 AM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2202
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2011, 12:07:50 PM »
Quote
Sorry, 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.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

TexPhoto

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 971
    • View Profile
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2011, 12:24:55 PM »
CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!

I laugh at myself for being poor.

So canon has prodced some new products that are out of your price range.  They have not stopped selling the EOS line of cameras that opened HD video to so many users.  The fact that the T3i is a better video camera than the 5DII speaks volumes about the future of low cost high quality video.   And this new high end (or low pro end) will pay huge dividends to the low end in the near future.

Ask yourself what you can do with the equipment you can afford, and then think about why you have not done it yet, and change that.

Bob Howland

  • Guest
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2011, 12:38:56 PM »
Quote
Sorry, 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.

samueljay

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 127
  • 5D Mk III
    • View Profile
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2011, 05:55:02 PM »
Quote
Sorry, 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.
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.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 06:01:10 PM by samueljay »
Gear: 5D Mk III <> 70-200mm ƒ/2.8L IS II USM <> 50mm ƒ/1.2L USM <> 8-15mm ƒ/4L  USM <>  100mm ƒ/2.8L  Macro IS USM <> 40mm ƒ/2.8 <> 24-70mm ƒ/2.8L II USM

AprilForever

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
    • AprilForever.com
Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2011, 02:07:09 AM »
If you want fun, google how much a set of panaflex lenses would cost...
What is truth?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2011, 02:07:09 AM »