Video Capabilities Will Be at the Heart of All Future Canon Prosumer Camera Bodies [CR2]

[PureClassA]

The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.

That is laughable, they could reverse that perception overnight with a couple of firmware upgrades. There is no reason on earth why the 1DX MkII couldn't be the first and only camera to output 4K 60P to ProRes RAW over HDMI, that would make it the forum darling overnight. Or they could open it up for C-Log, or maybe even just output 4K through the HDMI port. Etc etc... Oh, they could open up the touchscreen for anything instead of only focusing in video!

Absolutely! I have even called and emailed as a CPS member requesting just that about a year ago. There is zero reason that camera can't do that. The 6 year old 1DC managed Log and no one should think Dual Digic 6 and 7 (and beyond) processors could not sling out RAW 4K through an HDMI. Without a 1DC2, I can't understand why Canon would choose to lock such features out. The lower tier offerings of such devices from Sony and Panasonic for half the price of the DX2 can at least sling (non RAW) 4K out from the HDMI. Canon restricted the DX2 from doing even that. It absolutely can be made to do it. I'd be perfectly happy with even just taking the existing Motion JPEG codec via HMDI out at 4K. But nope. Not yet. C-Log? Nah, only the (far less useful for video thanks to a crazy crop factor of 1.75 or so) 5D4 gets it. It has become very frustrating as a Canon guy who is trying to do more simple video work. The DX2 does beautiful filming but it's cumbersome and irritating not be able to do it externally and more efficiently and with a Log format. Sony has indeed proven you can make a lower price video machine with great features and NOT destroy your dedicated upper range cinema line. They really are two different markets.

 

[MrFotoFool]

The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles. I have not once shot video on my 5D cameras, I don't even know how, and I have zero interest. None of my photographer friends shoot video either. Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.

 

[BillB]

Absolutely! I have even called and emailed as a CPS member requesting just that about a year ago. There is zero reason that camera can't do that. The 6 year old 1DC managed Log and no one should think Dual Digic 6 and 7 (and beyond) processors could not sling out RAW 4K through an HDMI. Without a 1DC2, I can't understand why Canon would choose to lock such features out. The lower tier offerings of such devices from Sony and Panasonic for half the price of the DX2 can at least sling (non RAW) 4K out from the HDMI. Canon restricted the DX2 from doing even that. It absolutely can be made to do it. I'd be perfectly happy with even just taking the existing Motion JPEG codec via HMDI out at 4K. But nope. Not yet. C-Log? Nah, only the (far less useful for video thanks to a crazy crop factor of 1.75 or so) 5D4 gets it. It has become very frustrating as a Canon guy who is trying to do more simple video work. The DX2 does beautiful filming but it's cumbersome and irritating not be able to do it externally and more efficiently and with a Log format. Sony has indeed proven you can make a lower price video machine with great features and NOT destroy your dedicated upper range cinema line. They really are two different markets.

And how do you know that Canon did what it did to protect its upper level cinema line? Or is that just paranoid speculation on your part?

 

[Orangutan]

The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles.

That would be a fair assessment

Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.

We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.

 

[jeffa4444]

If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own.
Ive no doubt people do shoot video with them but to me ergonomically a DSLR is clumsy for video shooting, the control layout poor and the codec, sound etc. all better in a dedicated 4K video camera.

 

[rrcphoto]

The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.

That is laughable, they could reverse that perception overnight with a couple of firmware upgrades. There is no reason on earth why the 1DX MkII couldn't be the first and only camera to output 4K 60P to ProRes RAW over HDMI, that would make it the forum darling overnight. Or they could open it up for C-Log, or maybe even just output 4K through the HDMI port. Etc etc... Oh, they could open up the touchscreen for anything instead of only focusing in video!

Absolutely! I have even called and emailed as a CPS member requesting just that about a year ago. There is zero reason that camera can't do that. The 6 year old 1DC managed Log and no one should think Dual Digic 6 and 7 (and beyond) processors could not sling out RAW 4K through an HDMI. Without a 1DC2, I can't understand why Canon would choose to lock such features out. The lower tier offerings of such devices from Sony and Panasonic for half the price of the DX2 can at least sling (non RAW) 4K out from the HDMI. Canon restricted the DX2 from doing even that. It absolutely can be made to do it. I'd be perfectly happy with even just taking the existing Motion JPEG codec via HMDI out at 4K. But nope. Not yet. C-Log? Nah, only the (far less useful for video thanks to a crazy crop factor of 1.75 or so) 5D4 gets it. It has become very frustrating as a Canon guy who is trying to do more simple video work. The DX2 does beautiful filming but it's cumbersome and irritating not be able to do it externally and more efficiently and with a Log format. Sony has indeed proven you can make a lower price video machine with great features and NOT destroy your dedicated upper range cinema line. They really are two different markets.

you clearly don't understand anything about hardware and anything about canon's CINI lineup if you really think that a 1DX is any sort of competition with a Cini camera, and if you really think that half the things you mention here are even in the realm of happening in simply "firmware".

 

[rrcphoto]

We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.

no it didn't.

the DF proved that a old fashioned analog centered stills camera doesn't sell as well as forum warriors think it should.

 

[rrcphoto]

The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles. I have not once shot video on my 5D cameras, I don't even know how, and I have zero interest. None of my photographer friends shoot video either. Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.

the amount of hand wringing about video is far larger than it's market IMO.

if the reverse was true, people would have left canon in droves for mirrorless cameras which no matter what video canon puts on a DSLR, they are simply better at it then a DSLR could be.

 

[crazyrunner33]

If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own.
Ive no doubt people do shoot video with them but to me ergonomically a DSLR is clumsy for video shooting, the control layout poor and the codec, sound etc. all better in a dedicated 4K video camera.

At the end of the day, a camera is a sensor with a recording device. The day live view was added to the cameras was the day video technology was enabled on a camera, hence why even the Canon 50D photography camera produces incredible HD RAW video.

If DSLR cameras were not handy for shooting video, then I'm really confused why all of the video shooters where I work are all using the DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras. We prefer the DSLR cameras for a few reasons, one is because they're small and more comfortable while being able to capture incredible pictures. The DSLR feels like an extension to our hands, they fit comfortably. Combined with holding the camera out and pushing against the neck strap, we're able to get very stable video footage. We can also shoot photos with the same cameras after an interview session and can carry less gear as a result. The more mobile we are, the better we can tell a story. If we need to, we can easily throw them on a small and cheap gimbal for incredibly stable moving shots. And the best part, we hardly raise an eyebrow walking around with a DSLR, whereas the video oriented 4K cameras always draw unwanted attention.

 

[unfocused]

...a camera is a sensor with a recording device. The day live view was added to the cameras was the day video technology was enabled on a camera..

I've been trying to get this through the heads of the "I don't want to pay for video on my stills camera" people for years.

All digital cameras are video cameras.

 

[bhf3737]

If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own.
Ive no doubt people do shoot video with them but to me ergonomically a DSLR is clumsy for video shooting, the control layout poor and the codec, sound etc. all better in a dedicated 4K video camera.

At the end of the day, a camera is a sensor with a recording device. The day live view was added to the cameras was the day video technology was enabled on a camera, hence why even the Canon 50D photography camera produces incredible HD RAW video.

If DSLR cameras were not handy for shooting video, then I'm really confused why all of the video shooters where I work are all using the DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras. We prefer the DSLR cameras for a few reasons, one is because they're small and more comfortable while being able to capture incredible pictures. The DSLR feels like an extension to our hands, they fit comfortably. Combined with holding the camera out and pushing against the neck strap, we're able to get very stable video footage. We can also shoot photos with the same cameras after an interview session and can carry less gear as a result. The more mobile we are, the better we can tell a story. If we need to, we can easily throw them on a small and cheap gimbal for incredibly stable moving shots. And the best part, we hardly raise an eyebrow walking around with a DSLR, whereas the video oriented 4K cameras always draw unwanted attention.

I think the argument that a video cam is a still camera in live view mode is a bit off and ignores the essential technology that are in a video cam. It is like saying that a car is essentially a motor bike but runs on four wheels!
A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video. And most of the time, you end up with an assembled system that is much larger and less flexible and less reliable than a dedicated video cam. But that is not the end, your assembled device also needs the processor, buffer, heat management and software (e.g. codecs, focus tracking, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, peaking, zebras, etc.) that are not native to still cameras, and even if added, they are implemented on a still camera in a bare minimum way. Compare the audio you get from a built-in microphone of a still cam and a shutgun and try to record a whole 2-hours concert with a still camera.
The typical video capability added to a still camera may be enough for casual and limited use but definitely not anything more than that. If the video shooters where you work with are all using DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras, they are either using it for casual work or they are sacrificing quality for the sake of lower investment/cost.

 

[rrcphoto]

I think the argument that a video cam is a still camera in live view mode is a bit off and ignores the essential technology that are in a video cam. It is like saying that a car is essentially a motor bike but runs on four wheels!
A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video. And most of the time, you end up with an assembled system that is much larger and less flexible and less reliable than a dedicated video cam. But that is not the end, your assembled device also needs the processor, buffer, heat management and software (e.g. codecs, focus tracking, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, peaking, zebras, etc.) that are not native to still cameras, and even if added, they are implemented on a still camera in a bare minimum way. Compare the audio you get from a built-in microphone of a still cam and a shutgun and try to record a whole 2-hours concert with a still camera.
The typical video capability added to a still camera may be enough for casual and limited use but definitely not anything more than that. If the video shooters where you work with are all using DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras, they are either using it for casual work or they are sacrificing quality for the sake of lower investment/cost.

can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?

 

[privatebydesign]

can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?

Why? It is naive and simply ignores all the good reasons many pros end up shooting video and the hybrid nature of many pros work. Ever try to shoot quality stills with a video camera?

 

[rrcphoto]

can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?

Why? It is naive and simply ignores all the good reasons many pros end up shooting video and the hybrid nature of many pros work. Ever try to shoot quality stills with a video camera?

if many pros did they would have already adopted mirrorless versus a DSLR that requires even more addons to do the functional job of a CINI camera.

and it's not naive at all. it's more reality than anything.

canon was quoted in a comment here on CR if memory serves me correct when the 5D Mark III came out as saying that video really didn't sell that much more units than the 5D Mark II did solely for stills, and they decided not to put alot of effort into video because of that reason.

Sony's had good 4K on full frame for two generations now, and what has moved the needle more? the stills and ergonomic improvements of the III series, not the video.

Panasonic has had great video for 2+ generations and they still are languishing as a afterthought in the market.

if a hybrid video and stills solution was SO important, the choices have been there for at least two generations of cameras, instead Canon's overall marketshare has increased with video as basically an afterthought.

why is canon spending more effort in video? because the reviews and commentary and the negativity is getting to be significant and Nikon has 4K running on just about everything soon, and Canon responds to Nikon, no one else really.

 

[3kramd5]

A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video.

That is as opposed to video cameras which come out of the box like this:

 

[bhf3737]

can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?

Why? It is naive and simply ignores all the good reasons many pros end up shooting video and the hybrid nature of many pros work. Ever try to shoot quality stills with a video camera?

I am not against hybrid work and actually I use both still (5D4, 5DSR, M5) and video cams (C200 and XF400) together, not as a replacement of each other, when needed. My point was that better know the limits of the tools we select and use them appropriately.
When we discuss users expectations and what picture/video recording tools exist, I wouldn't expect all video related features be readily available in a still camera (regardless of being mirrorless or DSLR) and all the still related features be in a video cam.

 

[Orangutan]

We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.

no it didn't.

the DF proved that a old fashioned analog centered stills camera doesn't sell as well as forum warriors think it should.

Yes, it did.

Otherwise, Nikon would have followed-up with a non-old-fashioned stills camera. You seem to assume that Nikon did no market research for the Df, which is absurd. Would Nikon have come out with the Df if they thought another stills-only design would do better? If you think Nikon doesn't know their market was well as you do, then....whatever...

 

[ahsanford]

no it didn't.

the DF proved that a old fashioned analog centered stills camera doesn't sell as well as forum warriors think it should.

Yes, it did.

Otherwise, Nikon would have followed-up with a non-old-fashioned stills camera. You seem to assume that Nikon did no market research for the Df, which is absurd. Would Nikon have come out with the Df if they thought another stills-only design would do better? If you think Nikon doesn't know their market was well as you do, then....whatever...

The Df, much like the RX1R II, are different cameras for different folks and I don't think using them as evidence of something working / not working in the market is a sound move. Hear me out.

I firmly believe they are in the Leica Q category of 'impressive thing for a wealthy person to take really pretty pictures with'. There is something unique about these two cameras -- the RX1R's uniquely small nested lens FF design and the Df retro swiss watch vibe -- that says they are aimed at people other than the enthusiast or working pro. I think they are going for the prestige crowd with money in their pockets but aren't collectors of gear like we are. They want a really nice camera to take better pictures than their friend's iPhones or (maybe) RX100s, Fuji X100, etc.

And both cameras are sitting at the initial very high asking price 3y and 4y+ after first offering! The Leica Q is as well. Our meat and potatoes ILCs -- even the high end ones -- dream of such price retention over time. But the catch is this: we don't know durable the demand is for the product at that price... or if Sony and Nikon have simply carved in stone that those products will never be sold under initial asking.

So it's difficult to use a $2750 super niche retro rig as some hard read on what the market wants. Yeah, it didn't have video, but that is far from the only thing it differed from w.r.t. the contemporary D6xx/D750/D8xx rigs beside it.

- A

 

[BillB]

no it didn't.

the DF proved that a old fashioned analog centered stills camera doesn't sell as well as forum warriors think it should.

Yes, it did.

Otherwise, Nikon would have followed-up with a non-old-fashioned stills camera. You seem to assume that Nikon did no market research for the Df, which is absurd. Would Nikon have come out with the Df if they thought another stills-only design would do better? If you think Nikon doesn't know their market was well as you do, then....whatever...

The Df, much like the RX1R II, are different cameras for different folks and I don't think using them as evidence of something working / not working in the market is a sound move. Hear me out.

I firmly believe they are in the Leica Q category of 'impressive thing for a wealthy person to take really pretty pictures with'. There is something unique about these two cameras -- the RX1R's uniquely small nested lens FF design and the Df retro swiss watch vibe -- that says they are aimed at people other than the enthusiast or working pro. I think they are going for the prestige crowd with money in their pockets but aren't collectors of gear like we are. They want a really nice camera to take better pictures than their friend's iPhones or (maybe) RX100s, Fuji X100, etc.

And both cameras are sitting at the initial very high asking price 3y and 4y+ after first offering! The Leica Q is as well. Our meat and potatoes ILCs -- even the high end ones -- dream of such price retention over time. But the catch is this: we don't know durable the demand is for the product at that price... or if Sony and Nikon have simply carved in stone that those products will never be sold under initial asking.

So it's difficult to use a $2750 super niche retro rig as some hard read on what the market wants. Yeah, it didn't have video, but that is far from the only thing it differed from w.r.t. the contemporary D6xx/D750/D8xx rigs beside it.

- A

We can assume that there is a niche market for these cameras, and that the size of the niche is greater than zero. We shouldn't assume that the size of the niche is large enough for anybody to break even, certainly we can't assume that anybody is making a killing with them. By that reasoning Canon is making a killing on all those lenses that it keeps in its catalog for years without reducing the price. There must be a reason why these cameras are still on the market at the same price, but I don't think the reason is to generate sales directly. It seems more likely it's about brand image, maybe with some stubbornness and inertia.

 

[ahsanford]

We can assume that there is a niche market for these cameras, and that the size of the niche is greater than zero. We shouldn't assume that the size of the niche is large enough for anybody to break even, certainly we can't assume that anybody is making a killing with them. By that reasoning Canon is making a killing on all those lenses that it keeps in its catalog for years without reducing the price. There must be a reason why these cameras are still on the market at the same price, but I don't think the reason is to generate sales directly. It seems more likely it's about brand image, maybe with some stubbornness and inertia.

Quite possible.

I'm just stressing caution in referencing the Df as proof a video-free camera must be more expensive -- I bet it was slated around that D800 price point the minute the project was green lit, possibly before getting specs selected.

Now, if a company would be brave enough to leave video out of a more standard line meat and potatoes rig with higher volumes, we've have our perfect test case. But I don't see that happening.

- A