Canon, Canon Canon….. Please help the video stars

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
Aug 15, 2014
1,646
244
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
Sony is what Sony always has been. A lot of flash in the pan specs on paper with comparably lacking performance. I used to sell Sony ES audio gear 20 years ago and nothing has changed. The Marantz and Denon products (Amplifiers and Home Theater devices) always lagged on paper in terms of max power and bells and whistles.... but they sounded so much better in the real world. Canon can compete based on real world performance against the likes of Sony, because Sony still puts actual performance and results second place behind bright lights and shiny objects. Canon needs to be mindful that people are highly susceptible to shiny objects. And when they shank features without cause, these shiny objects become more appealing. If Canon continues to base their entire business model on stills shooters, they may have a rude awakening down the road. People clamor for Canon quality, but they can’t be forever expected to ignore the lack of desire by Canon to accommodate reason and sanity. The RP really bit hard. Canon needs to address this because too many Canon video die hards who have defended them for years were insulted with this.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,377
793
Boiling those features down to "it's just readout speed" has some truth, but it's really reductive. It's the chip architecture, having the fab capability to do it and do it cost effectively, the processor and god knows what interconnects and then actually implementing the features (like eye tracking) in software/firmware to work reliably. I mean how many years of engineering to both Nikon and Canon have behind their PDAF+metering sensor motion tracking algorithms?
LOL! Aren't my posts long enough without diving into the engineering issues with sensor fabrication? :ROFLMAO:

I don't mean to make light of it. I'm sure Canon has been working on it and yet we are still probably a year off from a next gen architecture that can handle the required readout and processing speeds. It's obviously a difficult engineering challenge. I alluded to that when I mentioned that we are talking about the absolute state of the art and that even Sony bumps up against limits and they're arguably the best right now on this aspect.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
I wonder how important ergonomics, color, menu ease of use and lens selection mean to people any longer? Those are my reasons for staying with the Canon Ecosystem.

I have looked into jumping ship, tried a couple other brands as supplementary/travel cameras and each time those things listed above were boxes the other companies simply could not check.

I can't imagine giving them up for video features and a stop of DR.
A lot of companies catching up to Canon ergonomic, color, menu, fully touch screen etc. I think some companies has match or exceed them in some of those area. Panasonic and Nikon doing that and providing more with IBIS, better eyeAF, 4K, etc.

As to their lenses, there are multiple other companies providing comparable quality to L lens if not better such as Sigma and Tamron.

I certainly do care about those intangibles but Canon isn't the only in the game that provide all that while behind on the tech side and price more expensive than the competitions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kharan

robotfist

5D Mk III, C300, C200
Oct 23, 2017
26
26
The only thing Canon will listen to is poor sales. I switched to Fuji 3 months ago. It’s not full frame but the camera does what I need a camera to do in 2019 and the image and colors are fantastic. Bye Canon. I’m done with your lazy innovation and intentional crippling of technology. I should of switched a long time ago but I held off for the Eos-R. After that announcement I made the decision to switch. Bye. I’m done with you.
 

ozturert

EOS T7i
Jan 16, 2019
95
74
This is why we criticize Canon. too many fanboys always find a way to defend them even when they pull crap like this. Then you got the "I dont do video" guys. No one cares about you guys. You are relics. Video is important in 2019.
In general Canon gives what the target buyers need most. Not everyone needs 4K@60p, hell not everyone needs 4K in the first place. I have only tried to take some videos of may daughter in 4K and gave up after I saw how much space they take. Just neat 1080p video is what I want. With the articulated touch screen and DualPixel AF, Canon's 1080p video implementation is one of the best for casual shooters. That may be why most Canon users are happy with what they have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RayValdez360

baldermort

1DX Mark-II, 5DS-R, M6, D7 Mark-II
Oct 2, 2018
3
5
IF you want a video camera ARRI and RED make some nice cameras, with a fairly extensive range of features. (Yes the prices are in the mega-ouch territory)
IF you are instead part of the snowflake generation who constantly upload all your uniqueness, there are a range of different choices from the GoPro to the RP
There are also people who want to have many other things in their ultimate device.
I myself am particularly disappointed that the RP omitted to include any form of in-flight/drone capability.
I had been hoping that the auto-focus, auto-stabilising, auto-everything-else might lead to automated target acquisition where the camera knew what I wanted to "follow"
I find myself at the Bass Rock, on a very unstable boat and throw my camera overboard in disgust.
The camera inherently knows using AI from some science fiction movie that I wanted some award winning pictures of the Gannets overhead.
Before hitting the water, my new fangled EOS RP+ (with most recent updates to firmware) deploys into "flight mode"
It identifies the most interesting looking of the 40,000 possible gannets and assumes auto-target-acquisition mode with follow-focus and live-tracking
Using the GPS, weather sensors, thermal sensors and find-the-sun sensor It calculates the best possible point for the ideal shot of the most interesting gannet.
Because hardly anyone really knows what the ideal video format might be, in addition to taking 300-shots/second, it also records in parallel 7 different video formats.
Everything from 8K to 640x480 at an assortment of different frame rates so that "later" when you decide what you want to do with this, all the right stuff has been captured at source.
Just because I was originally planning to take photographs, there is no reason that Canon should force me to ignore/avoid all of the possible video capabilities.
Everything from super-slow-motion diving for fishes to time-lapse that shows the evolution from an egg to a fully mature bird.
I had also been expecting that regardless of which lens I might have chosen, all the flight and video and photo capabilities would not be impacted by the different lenses.
I would expect that flight capabilities are similar with a 15mm fisheye or the 600mm F/4 lens.
The artificial intelligence and machine learning should be combined to provide (or learn to provide) whatever concept I had been thinking about at any given point in time.
Oh, yeah, I just read something about how "blockchain" is also an important and emerging technology, so it would be cool if they could build that into the camera too!!!!
 

Kharan

EOS M50
Nov 9, 2018
36
24
As an example, I would have preordered an RP if it had the 1DX2's sensor and video specs without any stupid compromises to "protect" the trickle of 1DX2-for-video sales. As is I will pass. For that matter, I would probably buy an R body at the R's price point if it had the 1DX2's sensor and video specs. Maybe Canon should have done that instead. Maybe they still should since they could throw it together fast and it would stop the bleeding of EF lens owners who want solid video.
You know, at some point I was stupid and naïve enough to think that Canon would do just that - finally move their best current sensor into the mainstream, by putting it into the EOS R (this based on the early rumors, which overpromised a lot). They'd have had a camera with fast readout, strong burst capability, and good 4K for the masses.
But of course, that could never happen. They'll probably use it in a $4,500 EOS R-pro that will have half the features of the A9 for the same initial price :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazyrunner33

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
374
200
www.diossiphotography.com
Maybe they don't, perhaps you are projecting what you think Canon want.

Certainly a 4000D user would look askance at a $1299 camera versus the $400 he paid for body + kit. That's car money!

A 7D2 user will laugh at the pitiful framerate and lower pixel density.
Canon reps have, verbatim, stated this camera is the perfect upgrade for those coming from APS-C.
 

Kharan

EOS M50
Nov 9, 2018
36
24
In theory, now that Sony has solid AF, they should be able to solve all outstanding complaints in one generation. How hard is it to adjust ergonomics and a touch screen?

In practice their engineers just don't get it when it comes to certain things, so I don't know if they'll ever be solved. Canon has always been a photography company so their engineers get it. Sony is what you get when an engineer who is not a photographer surveys photographers and designs a camera. Canon is what you get when a photographer designs a camera.

I have no idea what's holding Canon up on the hardware side so it's hard to say how long it will take them to overcome it. The interview with Canon execs and the RF lens announcements leads me to think (hope?) that they're only a year out (or less) from their next generation sensors.

FWIW, thinking about chip wars over the decades (CPUs and GPUs), it often seems like one company is 'down and out' for a few years, only to come back and leapfrog the competition. Canon could upgrade their fabs and next thing you know 4k120p full width FF readout. You never know.
Well, Sony certainly have stuck with some odd choices for their E-mount cameras (causing problems that were already solved in their A-mount bodies - how stupid is that?), but they've been shown to be receptive to user feedback for a lot of things. It can easily be seen in their three generations of A7 products. I don't think they'll get everything right in the next iteration, but they'll be a lot closer.

Investing in a new fab, on the other hand, is something that I'd outright discard for Canon. It's a humongous expense in a contracting market, and their decision to (finally!) sell sensors to third parties came way too late in the game, and it's unlikely that the top brass will approve such a move in the coming two to three years, at least.

So no, the best they can do for now is refine the 1DXII sensor, and move the existing architecture to as many bodies as possible.
 

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
374
200
www.diossiphotography.com
I'm not going to quote or call anyone out in particular, but there are some incredibly ignorant posts being made in the defense of Canon here.

Video features mean very little to me, as I am a photographer. It doesn't mean I can't take a step back and identify the videography market as an important feature in cameras that should be taken seriously and coexist with stills in some way. Having video features that are competitive with the market only helps to improve Canon as a brand and the potential of its future cameras. But, we're talking about 24 frames per second. If you're not aware of what the significance to this frame rate is because you "don't care about video," then you probably shouldn't be commenting about it. ;-) But I will briefly explain to you that 24fps is the industry standard for film. The overwhelming majority of movies and video are shot at 24fps because it still allows motion blur and provides and organic and natural look to video. This dates back to nearly a century of filmmaking.

The absence of this frame rate option essentially kills it from any consideration of being a video camera for basically anyone. A big problem is that 30fps video cannot be used in a 24fps timeline without frame dropping and 60fps will naturally be slow motion when imported or you lose the organic motion blur if it's speed back up to normal speed and it can look very strange alongside ture 24fps footage. Some on YouTube use 30fps out of personal preference, but they are a minority and it's not the cinematic look most seek.

If Canon had just included 24fps - an option available in the M100, M50, 4000D, M1, M3, M5, M6, T4i, T5i, T6i, T7i, 77D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D, 7D Mark II, 6D, 6D Mark II, EOS R, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and so many other cameras etc. - then it would challenge absolutely nothing in the lineup, but expand the usefulness of this tool to so many people.

So please get off the principal of "if you want a video camera....buy a video camera!" Because when you're talking about the most rudimentary thing in video established in the 1920s. Your argument is moot. This is laughably inexcusable. And this is coming from a veteran Canon shooter that loves this brand. Just because I follow a brand loyally doesn't mean I have to follow blindly.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,221
264
Davidson, NC
The absence of this frame rate option essentially kills it from any consideration of being a video camera for basically anyone. A big problem is that 30fps video cannot be used in a 24fps timeline without frame dropping and 60fps will naturally be slow motion when imported or you lose the organic motion blur if it's speed back up to normal speed and it can look very strange alongside ture 24fps footage. Some on YouTube use 30fps out of personal preference, but they are a minority and it's not the cinematic look most seek.
I can't recall ever using 24fps and can't really think of a circumstance where I would want to. OK, maybe if I were doing a Fellini parody I'd try for a cinematic look, so yes, I can conceive of my using it, but not in any likely scenarios.

I am really surprised to read that the vast majority of folks use 24 fps on YouTube. I don't think my iPhone even has that speed, though it does have 60 and 120. I'm not sure about 240. I think newer phones can do that.

Since I don't shoot 24, though my cameras support it—other than the phone, I don't have any experience mixing it in with 30 and 60 fps footage. But I know from my otherwise retiming experience in editing software that there are better ways to change frame rate than frame dropping and pull downs. Optical flow and even old-timey interpolation will usually give better results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhf3737

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
Aug 15, 2014
1,646
244
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
You know, at some point I was stupid and naïve enough to think that Canon would do just that - finally move their best current sensor into the mainstream, by putting it into the EOS R (this based on the early rumors, which overpromised a lot). They'd have had a camera with fast readout, strong burst capability, and good 4K for the masses.
But of course, that could never happen. They'll probably use it in a $4,500 EOS R-pro that will have half the features of the A9 for the same initial price :confused:
Would have loved the DX2 sensor in the RP and it would have made a lot of sense. 20MP offers more distinction from the R than 26MP. Would have also made the RP great for entry level video, which a lot of folks were hoping for. The crop would have been 1.3x just like the DX2. The sensor is great, but what you pay $6K for is everything around it. 14fps RAW shooting speeds with AF servo active and a buffer you really cant choke. CFAst2 and CF slots. The most rugged body built in a camera today, internal 4k60 and 1080p120, etc etc....

I’m not complaining about the sensor the RP got, but yes the DX2 sensor would be nice. That’s not a knock on the RP as is though. Lots of folks would love to see an EOS RC (cinema) body with something like that sensor in it to compliment the Cinema line. Right now the EOS R is the closest thing we have and I cant see how a future “Pro” model would be better as it would most likely be built to be more like the 5DS with a high res sensor
 

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
Aug 15, 2014
1,646
244
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
I'm not going to quote or call anyone out in particular, but there are some incredibly ignorant posts being made in the defense of Canon here.

Video features mean very little to me, as I am a photographer. It doesn't mean I can't take a step back and identify the videography market as an important feature in cameras that should be taken seriously and coexist with stills in some way. Having video features that are competitive with the market only helps to improve Canon as a brand and the potential of its future cameras. But, we're talking about 24 frames per second. If you're not aware of what the significance to this frame rate is because you "don't care about video," then you probably shouldn't be commenting about it. ;-) But I will briefly explain to you that 24fps is the industry standard for film. The overwhelming majority of movies and video are shot at 24fps because it still allows motion blur and provides and organic and natural look to video. This dates back to nearly a century of filmmaking.

The absence of this frame rate option essentially kills it from any consideration of being a video camera for basically anyone. A big problem is that 30fps video cannot be used in a 24fps timeline without frame dropping and 60fps will naturally be slow motion when imported or you lose the organic motion blur if it's speed back up to normal speed and it can look very strange alongside ture 24fps footage. Some on YouTube use 30fps out of personal preference, but they are a minority and it's not the cinematic look most seek.

If Canon had just included 24fps - an option available in the M100, M50, 4000D, M1, M3, M5, M6, T4i, T5i, T6i, T7i, 77D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D, 7D Mark II, 6D, 6D Mark II, EOS R, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, and so many other cameras etc. - then it would challenge absolutely nothing in the lineup, but expand the usefulness of this tool to so many people.

So please get off the principal of "if you want a video camera....buy a video camera!" Because when you're talking about the most rudimentary thing in video established in the 1920s. Your argument is moot. This is laughably inexcusable. And this is coming from a veteran Canon shooter that loves this brand. Just because I follow a brand loyally doesn't mean I have to follow blindly.
Now now, dont start talking logic and sense . That’s not fair... and to the “buy a video camera” argument, remember that a lot of C200, C300, etc users want a smaller companion body that can visually match up well to their bigger cameras. Canon I believe is losing a lot more in potential sales than they believe would be cannabalized from the Cinema line if they did. Full time Pros will still want all the myriad of additional features only a pro level video body can offer in an “A cam”. The more casual $1500-$2000 buyer is not going to drop $7000 on a C200. Different cameras for different markets.
 

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
262
80
I can't recall ever using 24fps and can't really think of a circumstance where I would want to. OK, maybe if I were doing a Fellini parody I'd try for a cinematic look, so yes, I can conceive of my using it, but not in any likely scenarios.

I am really surprised to read that the vast majority of folks use 24 fps on YouTube. I don't think my iPhone even has that speed, though it does have 60 and 120. I'm not sure about 240. I think newer phones can do that.

Since I don't shoot 24, though my cameras support it—other than the phone, I don't have any experience mixing it in with 30 and 60 fps footage. But I know from my otherwise retiming experience in editing software that there are better ways to change frame rate than frame dropping and pull downs. Optical flow and even old-timey interpolation will usually give better results.
There is 24 fps on your phone, but 30 and 60 is the way to go on a phone most of the time. As previously mentioned, 24 fps allows you to use motion blur by setting your shutter around 1/40-1/60(180 degree shutter rule). Since we're not carrying around neutral density with us at all times, 30 and 60 is a better choice to avoid the stutter look(see below).

 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
446
433
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
I'm not going to quote or call anyone out in particular, but there are some incredibly ignorant posts being made in the defense of Canon here.

Video features mean very little to me, as I am a photographer. It doesn't mean I can't take a step back and identify the videography market as an important feature in cameras that should be taken seriously and coexist with stills in some way. Having video features that are competitive with the market only helps to improve Canon as a brand and the potential of its future cameras. But, we're talking about 24 frames per second. If you're not aware of what the significance to this frame rate is because you "don't care about video," then you probably shouldn't be commenting about it. ;-) But I will briefly explain to you that 24fps is the industry standard for film. The overwhelming majority of movies and video are shot at 24fps because it still allows motion blur and provides and organic and natural look to video. This dates back to nearly a century of filmmaking.

The absence of this frame rate option essentially kills it from any consideration of being a video camera for basically anyone. A big problem is that 30fps video cannot be used in a 24fps timeline without frame dropping and 60fps will naturally be slow motion when imported or you lose the organic motion blur if it's speed back up to normal speed and it can look very strange alongside ture 24fps footage. Some on YouTube use 30fps out of personal preference, but they are a minority and it's not the cinematic look most seek.
I do not defend omission of 24p and truely believe that it was a bad decision for the consumers (but not apparently for Canon itself).
But as you mentioned, "there are some incredibly ignorant posts being made" not only "in defense of Canon" but also in the defense of 24p here that I believe partially shows lack of understanding or good research.
Those defending 24p, usually mention that (1) it is de-facto standard for film industry and (2) it delivers organic and natural film look.
Yes, it is historical standard for film industry, no doubt about it. But several award winning movies (Peter Jckson's for example) are shot in frame rates other than 24p and several real cinematographers are moving away from it.
There are tons of argument against the latter and 24p is not the magic potion for the "film look" that newbies seek after with their vlogging camera in hand and moving around assuming that they are delivering film look contents.
What constitutes that magical film look is: time, effort, talent, skill, technique, money, pro crew, lighting, solid camera support, glass, recording media, good editing, quality distribution, aspect ratio, depth of field control, color latitude, grain, sensitivity, projection and finally (perhaps) 24p!!o_O
 

Hornet

Canon 6D, Sony A7Rmk2
Jun 17, 2017
13
6
Vernon, BC
I believe the anger about the RP video modes is motivated by the belief that Canon intentionally crippled the camera for what are irrational reasons.
I think it's just the opposite. Photographers who are loyal to the Canon brand, and who want to continue to be Canon users, are upset that Canon management very purposefully omits features that are standard with other manufacturers. We can speculate forever about their motives, but the bottom line is that Canon users can reasonably feel that they aren't getting the best value for money.
 
Last edited:

cpreston

EOS T7i
Mar 22, 2014
97
40
If you need crop framed 1080p in a Canon full frame body, buy the EOS-R. Simple. Don't buy the 5D or 1DX since they don't include it, either. If the price difference between the R and the RP is too much for you to handle, then you don't have the resources for any of this discussion about frame rates and resolution to actually matter. Technical limitations on a camera are insignificant compared to the time and money required to get anything approaching "cinematic" in filmmaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluediablo