December 12, 2017, 07:10:19 PM

Author Topic: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira  (Read 8595 times)

horshack

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2017, 10:16:37 AM »
Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband Progress Report, 37% of Americans have active broadband internet connections of 25Mbps or more. Here's the breakdown by state - states with an asterisk do not report the information:

Alabama 25%
Alaska 3%
Arizona 45%
Arkansas 24%
California 43%
Colorado 52%
Connecticut 43%
Delaware *
District of Columbia *
Florida 37%
Georgia 35%
Hawaii *
Idaho 25%
Illinois 40%
Indiana 30%
Iowa 6%
Kansas 26%
Kentucky 8%
Louisiana 36%
Maine 13%
Maryland 59%
Massachusetts 68%
Michigan 40%
Minnesota 42%
Mississippi 26%
Missouri 27%
Montana *
Nebraska 34%
Nevada *
New Hampshire 56%
New Jersey 58%
New Mexico 30%
New York 39%
North Carolina 16%
North Dakota 45%
Ohio 11%
Oklahoma 34%
Oregon 49%
Pennsylvania 46%
Rhode Island *
South Carolina 23%
South Dakota 40%
Tennessee 40%
Texas 26%
Utah 41%
Vermont 51%
Virginia 53%
Washington 52%
West Virginia 46%
Wisconsin 24%
Wyoming 46%

Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.

So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #30 on: December 04, 2017, 10:16:37 AM »

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2185
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2017, 10:22:36 AM »


Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.

So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.
[/quote]

So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.
 

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6589
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2017, 10:24:56 AM »
How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size.

But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.

Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!
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.

jayphotoworks

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2017, 11:46:37 AM »
How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size.

But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.

Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!

That's not entirely fair. I've delivered finished 4K content for local distribution within hotel elevator/guest suites and 4K content for live events, etc. It isn't strictly just about streaming formats. Granted, that's just one use case and won't apply to all, but not everyone is strictly delivering for streaming media. In regards to streaming media, local markets may also differ. In Toronto, I can get up to 90Mbps on LTE via Telus on my smartphone and 150Mbps at home and I'm not using our local ISP's highest tier either which goes up to 1000Mbps.

But beyond the discussion for 4K delivery, there are other creative advantages acquiring content in 4K for delivery in 2K as mentioned in this thread. Some of the higher end systems are multi-aspect and multi-format in excess of 4K in the case of Red's 8K Helium sensor and Sony's 6K Venice sensor. This allows maximum latitude in the acquisition process and subsequent editing suite when deciding your final aspect and delivery format.








jeffa4444

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1248
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2017, 12:00:51 PM »
Here in the UK I have Virgin Media (Liberty Media) 200Mbps service and averagely I can watch Netflix 4K content without issue. There are exceptions however if a number of my neighbours are equally watching the same content I can get drop outs but this in practise is rare. The real issue is the limited amount of content that is actually 4K all new Netflix Originals shows are but most old ones and most movies are definitely not 4K.

As to Canon I'm a Canon fan but I do have frustrations such as when you mix shooting with the 5DS and the 6D MKII as I did yesterday different control layout and a d-pad rather than the joystick slow you down when fighting daylight & in a hurry I think all full frame cameras should have the same control layout the cost difference is really not an issue at that level (7D MKII and 6D MKII the latter is more expensive yet the 7D MKII has a joystick). I find that kind of hobbling irritating.
Canon 5DS, Canon 6D, Canon 6D MKII,16-35 f4L IS USM, 17-40 f4L USM, 28 f2.8, 24-70mm f4L IS USM, 24-105 f4L IS USM, 100mm f2.8L IS USM, 70-200 f2.8L IS USM II, 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM, 50 f1.8 STM, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM II, 1.4EX III, EOS 760D, EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM & others.

Talys

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2017, 01:53:35 PM »


Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.

So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.

So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.
[/quote]

It's less about 100Mbps as it is about sustained data rate and buffer size.  Especially on cable modems, both advertised and benchmark speeds are a representation of burstable speeds rather than sustained speeds, and publically available benchmarks rarely tell you how bad your internet transfer speed can be over a 2 hour period (the length of a movie).

With cable, you are dealing with a decent pipe that is shared with a large potential number of users; the problem is that, especially at peak times, it's possible for your service to periodically drop below whatever data rate your streaming service needs, briefly.

This is less of an issue with fiber, though of course, congestion is still possible anywhere along the route.

It also depends greatly on your equipment and your ISP's: even with a gigantic pipe, if you're streaming Netflix, you can flood your network with legitimate traffic (like backing up a 6TB hard drive full of photography over the network.  To prevent that, you need a QoS (quality of service) switch, which will ensure that certain routes get what they need.  The easiest way to achieve that is to be watching 4k TV over your internet provider's TV service, because usually that uses bandwidth reserved for television.  Otherwise, you need to set up a QoS channel on your router, if it's supported.

blackhawk

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2017, 02:21:55 PM »
I have a 5D Mark IV and bought it for the stills first! and video second!...That being said I have no problems with the camera for the video use that I do use it for. I have seriously stopped worrying about the people out there saying canon should have made this the next best thing after the much applauded 5D mark II video beast!

Frankly, don't care! If I want to shoot video I will either get a full blown video camera or deal with what comes out of my Mark IV! I am glad to see that some people have their priorities straight and they have embraced the camera for what it is. This is not to say it's perfect! it's not! it gets the job done! Plain and simple! Looking at the Sonys and Fujis out there and seeing the churn that they are causing in the market makes me sad as people are jumping on the "New hotness!" to make up for their lack of skill! Low cost throw away cameras is what I call them.

I think we should all be on Canon to improve its photo game and push them to get back out ahead of the pack in innovation there. In the end, none of us are going to buy their cameras just for video alone. Give us tools with more features and YES! But remember  we are photographers first! Simply put I would be happy to have 4K  if I had better dynamic range out of my Mark IV Give stills cameras that and give the Cinema line something like 8K and that will draw a line in the sand! Canon gets to keep its Cinema line prices and we get our DSLR back to shooting at the top of the game again.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2017, 02:21:55 PM »

stevelee

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2017, 02:40:20 PM »
My dumb question for the day: If a professional is buying a camera to shoot video, why wouldn't he/she buy a video camera instead of a DSLR? Are there advantages to using that still camera for video that outweigh the advantages of a video camera?

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2185
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2017, 02:44:07 PM »
The Sony 4k-lovers do People do seem to be missing the main point of the video. The video guy loves shooting 4k (note: 'loves' not 'needs') but as a pro he has to balance the different strengths. And for him, the ease of Canon colours, Canon DPAF and menus override (for him) any advantage of 4k. It is compromise he is happy with.
His needs override the desire of the technology.

stevelee

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2017, 03:00:45 PM »
I don't recall viewing 4K streaming ever, unless it was on YouTube.

For Netflix et. al., how well does the compressed 4K compare to compressed 1080p at similar bitrates? Has anybody seen any measurements? How about satellite and cable?

At some point the compression artifacts would negate (or more than negate) the advantages of more resolution. How near that point does the present real world results come?

My TV is a 46" 1080p set that I watch from 10+ feet away. I don't want anything bigger hogging up the room. Just the regular 1080i and 720p compressed feeds on cable look fine from that distance. (They are mathematically equivalent anyway in terms of data.) I can tell some difference when I watch a 1080p Blu-Ray, and maybe even when I see the less-compressed 1080i OTA. I do sometimes watch YouTube videos at their highest resolution full screen on my 5K monitor from two feet away. Upscaled 1080p doesn't look bad at all, usually.

I ask these questions out of some curiosity, not so much as making a case for or against any format on one's camera. But I do think it is reasonable in the discussion not to ignore bitrates and the level of compression that all media will have, however it gets to our screens.

When I shoot video with my iPhone 6S, I always shoot 4K. Since it is a fixed focal length, I need the resolution to zoom in on things in the editing process. The result is not as good as shooting 1080p with one of my Canons in the first place, but often close enough for my purposes.

3dit0r

  • PowerShot SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2017, 05:00:11 PM »
This post made me laugh as I read it, since I’ve recently come to a similar conclusion. I moved away from Canon 5Dmkii to go ‘mirrorless’ a few years ago. Went to Sony initially, but hated the colours, even for stills shooting RAW (Yeah, you can almost get whatever colours you want RAW processing, well, you sort of can, but it’s actually extremely complex to try and replicate a particular colour science and Canon’s colour science is fantastic and probably took a lot of research over a long period). Also it takes a lot of time, when you could get that colour by just shooting Canon or whatever your favourite colour flavour is. And for video in the prosumer grade cameras the colours are more baked in so it’s more of an issue.

Then I switched to Fuji for stills, who also have great colour science, although different to Canon’s. But I didn’t have much video to produce so this was OK.

Now, gearing up for a short film, I took another look at the market and had several conversations with my DP, and came to a decision: I’m moving back to a 5Dmkiv for my daily use stills and ‘casual’ video cam. When I want to do serious filming, I’ll hire a C200/C300mkii, and I’ll already have nice glass from my stills cam. I came to realise that not all Canon’s choices are as mad as they seemed, including separating their DSLR video from their C-series.

 Some of the logic of my choice is -

1. Above-mentioned colour science
2. Depth and quality of lens catalog (even including tilt/shift, L-series are mainly weather sealed, optical quality really is excellent usually, quiet fast AF)
3. Sensor crop and mjpeg don’t actually worry me for non-serious work. In fact I prefer S35 for film work and mjpeg apparently grades quite well
4. DPAF is unmatched and actually works to replace MF a lot of the time. This carries forward onto the C-series, making an investment in Canon AF lenses worthwhile and saving on, e.g., a dedicated remote FF and puller when working on a gimbal
5. Canon have always been reliable for me
6. These cameras have proven to be tough
7. C200 has RAW, built in ND and other ergonomic essentials for serious filmmaking when I do need it
8. Mature system of flash and other accessories
9. Huge compatibility (astrophotography equipment, RAW processors (unlike Fuji))

That said, there are some things I’ll miss from mirrorless -
- on sensor AF accuracy
- lack of sharpness robbing mirror movement/slap when shooting handheld
- smaller, lighter bodies
- WYSIWYG viewfinder sometimes, but not always

So I’m gambling Canon introduce a pro grade mirrorless/hybrid which will take EF lenses soon.

Just my 2p worth.

IglooEater

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 785
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2017, 06:01:13 PM »
Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec.

I’m at 15 Mbps/sec and can’t reliably stream HD. If one can stream 4K at 25 it must be so compressed as to make the quality bonus somewhat of a moot point.

But to PBD “deliver” is very different from “stream”. I can’t stream full HD without glitches, but if I give it some buffer time it’s fine.  In the case of 4K I’d just set the movie downloading before leaving for work in the morning.  And yes, that makes 4K you tubers of no value to me. (Asides from not having a 4K display in the house.)

jedy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2017, 07:04:47 PM »
My dumb question for the day: If a professional is buying a camera to shoot video, why wouldn't he/she buy a video camera instead of a DSLR? Are there advantages to using that still camera for video that outweigh the advantages of a video camera?
Dedicated cine cameras are designed to create the quality output for big cinema screens and to follow strict guidelines from major TV networks. Quality at this level isn't really needed for the web and content mostly viewed on smaller screens. DSLR's a lot more compact, waaay less expensive - a few thousand $ vs tens of thousands of $. DSLR's, in the case of the 5DIV have autofocus and touch focus features that you wouldn't see on dedicated cine cameras. Also DSLR's are great at handling lowlight situations - cine cameras need a proper, professional lighting setup. Bear in mind, smaller film crews may not have the budget for lots of extra film equipment (carry cases for lighting equipment can be really expensive) and may also need to travel light, run and gun a good example, so the lowlight capabilities of a DSLR would be perfect. Also buying two or three cameras for a multi cam setup or as a backup is a lot more achievable with cost effective DSLR's.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 07:08:38 PM by jedy »
Camera, lenses, blah, blah, blah!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2017, 07:04:47 PM »

stevelee

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 224
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2017, 09:17:28 PM »
Dedicated cine cameras are designed to create the quality output for big cinema screens and to follow strict guidelines from major TV networks. Quality at this level isn't really needed for the web and content mostly viewed on smaller screens. . . .

Thanks. I have not looked at cine cameras, so I didn't know all that. I think of a DSLR as something I have anyway, and so the video is gravy. I had not thought of one in terms as first choice even for some pros, for the reasons you gave.

dak723

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:24 PM »
The video is pointless, he's preaching to the wrong group. None of the Sony fanboys will give two hoots about what he says. He's the equivalent of the one climate denying scientist to them. Canon's entered a point where the media aren't even listening anymore, nothing they do is really good enough now. They had better hope their mirrorless camera is brilliant or the trash we get now against them will be nothing to compared to what will happen if it's another feature lite, ho hum offering.

Some folks don't mind a feature light offering.  The fact that the "media" aren't listening anymore is only proof that the media (especially internet media) is basically ignorant and has totally different priorities compared to most consumers.  I think most consumers would give Canon the edge over Sony when it comes to color, ergonomics, lenses, ease of use, reliability - you know, those boring attributes that are far more important than those sexy specs that Sony loves.  It's no accident that I returned both Sony mirrorless cameras that I bought over the past few years and kept my Canon M5.  If only Sony could make a mirrorless as good as the M5 - or even as good as my other mirrorless, An Olympus E-M1 - I might consider switching!  But as long as all the aforementioned attributes are still subpar, Sony will have to wait. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2017, 11:13:24 PM »