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

[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.

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.

and you seem to assume that Nikon did market research and it was wrong.

 

[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.

and you seem to assume that Nikon did market research

Yes. I can't imagine any major company investing the effort needed for such a distinct product without substantial market research; to do so would be financially negligent.

and it was wrong.

Not quite: market research is about figuring out a (sufficiently) profitable product, not necessarily a cash cow. My guess is that the Df has at least broken even, and may have been mildly profitable. Assuming Nikon did market research, they probably asked themselves something like "what stills-only camera designs would be profitable, and which would be profitable enough to be worthwhile." Assuming the Df was at the top of the list, and its sales were mediocre, we can reasonably assume that the products below it on the "stills-only" list would be much less profitable.

 

[dak723]

Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous. Which is, unfortunately, about the usual level of argument here on CR.

 

[Orangutan]

Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous. Which is, unfortunately, about the usual level of argument here on CR.

And yet it's the one stills-only digital camera released in the last few years by a major brand. If you'd like to suggest a second data point I'd be willing to listen. Also, it could have been done retro with video, but it wasn't; that can't have been an accident.

 

[Ozarker]

there’s likely going to be an accelerated product development cycle over the next 18-24 months, and video will be central to it.</p>

Ok! But I need it now! In two years my business can be bankrupt if I don't move on, with the competition.

If that's the urgency, then best to move on now. Or yesterday.

 

[Ozarker]

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !

Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras.

BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.

We are both over 50 years old - as are just about all the local camera club members ... and most have diminishing eyesight.

Every time we pass the camera we have to reset the diopter.

Its difficult on our 5D and diabolical on the M5 ...

If you really want to get into the features war then why not find a way of adjusting the diopter without the trial-and-error-and trial-and-error-and-trial-and-on-and-on method ...

Some cars allow you to get into them and they "remember" your seat settings (presets) ... how about a camera which has preset diopter settings ?

This would save me hours of frustration every year ... and I strongly suspect I'm not the only person suffering !

Suffering. : Just spring for another camera. Is it really that hard to remember how many clicks left or right? I'm an older guy too, but my goodness, if it is so frustrating that you are suffering... buy a camera for the wife. Cars do what they do with plenty of room for the mechanicals. Can't imagine the internal real estate this idea would consume... even if just having a powered diopter. My guess is that not many people are suffering.

You'd have to spring for a new camera to get the feature anyway. Just buy a new camera for the wife.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

hehe. I remember starting a thread saying I just want a stills camera. I still do, but give it to me in medium format (great big sensor). ;D However, I know it ain't happening. Not a biggy. I just never flip the switch.

 

[unfocused]

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !...

I agree that the diopter is a pain. But...

Up until 2-3 months ago I consistently used the diopter. Did so for years. Problem was, I was forever mislaying my glasses. So one day (I think I was shooting a baseball game) I decided to try just wearing my glasses and setting the diopter back to zero.

Worked great. The thing I discovered is that the eye relief on all my Canons is sufficient that I don't need to take my glasses off.

So, while Canon needs to make diopter adjustment easier, try wearing your glasses instead. You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

[unfocused]

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!...

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.

More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.

Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.

 

[johnhenry]

Gee after getting left behind for years they noticed "Maybe people want a 4K + video" on a prosummer camera.

They didnt think the 6D II was worthy of this?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

This is the reason I bought mine USED, not new. And then watched as my decision looked good as they started dropping the price for its various letdowns.

 

[ahsanford]

Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous.

This is what I was trying to say (perhaps a bit more gently than Dak did ).

- A

 

[bhf3737]

More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.

Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.

IMHO, there are some common technologies shared between still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, and perhaps focus peaking and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and costly.
Some companies, including Canon, may offer a subset of consumer-oriented implementation of these features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. But today, there is no hybrid camera that has full and professional implementation of all these features, and I guess it will never happen. That is why Canon has two separate Cine and EOS product lines.

 

[dak723]

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !...

I agree that the diopter is a pain. But...

Up until 2-3 months ago I consistently used the diopter. Did so for years. Problem was, I was forever mislaying my glasses. So one day (I think I was shooting a baseball game) I decided to try just wearing my glasses and setting the diopter back to zero.

Worked great. The thing I discovered is that the eye relief on all my Canons is sufficient that I don't need to take my glasses off.

So, while Canon needs to make diopter adjustment easier, try wearing your glasses instead. You might be pleasantly surprised.

It really helps of you actually read the entire post by someone before commenting. The problem the poster mentions is that there are TWO users of the camera. Each needs a different diopter setting.

Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras.

BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.

We are both over 50 years old - as are just about all the local camera club members ... and most have diminishing eyesight.

Every time we pass the camera we have to reset the diopter.

 

[dak723]

More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.

Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.

IMHO, there are some common technologies shared between still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, and perhaps focus peaking and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and costly.
Some companies, including Cannon, may offer a subset of consumer-oriented implementation of these features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. But today, there is no hybrid camera that has full and professional implementation of all these features, and I guess it will never happen. That is why Canon has two separate Cine and EOS product lines.

I would think - in terms of cost - that the biggest difference between a still-only and stills/video camera is the heat management designs needed for video. Seems like it would add substantially to the cost, but that is just a guess.

 

[scyrene]

Gee after getting left behind for years they noticed "Maybe people want a 4K + video" on a prosummer camera.

They didnt think the 6D II was worthy of this?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

This is the reason I bought mine USED, not new. And then watched as my decision looked good as they started dropping the price for its various letdowns.

People have said this before, but it's worth addressing whenever it comes up. What other full frame camera in the same price bracket as the 6D2 (what did it come out at? ~$2.1k?) had 4K at the time the 6D2 was released?

 

[ahsanford]

People have said this before, but it's worth addressing whenever it comes up. What other full frame camera in the same price bracket as the 6D2 (what did it come out at? ~$2.1k?) had 4K at the time the 6D2 was released?

Sony A7 II didn't.

Pentax K-1 didn't.

Nikon D610 (now a completely abandoned segment by Nikon?) didn't.

I can't think of one. A7S II was in a pricier segment when it was released.

- A

 

[zim]

More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.

Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.

IMHO, there are some common technologies shared between still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, and perhaps focus peaking and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and costly.
Some companies, including Cannon, may offer a subset of consumer-oriented implementation of these features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. But today, there is no hybrid camera that has full and professional implementation of all these features, and I guess it will never happen. That is why Canon has two separate Cine and EOS product lines.

I would think - in terms of cost - that the biggest difference between a still-only and stills/video camera is the heat management designs needed for video. Seems like it would add substantially to the cost, but that is just a guess.

I'd think that too but wouldn't that heat sink also be advantageous to stills, reducing sensor noise?

 

[Hector1970]

The video capabilities of these cameras continues to surprise me.
Personally I think its a nice to have for users but that most camera owners use it very little for video.
I know lots of people who take photographs but very few who regularly take video.
I find very few people at all who are capable of editing video especially 4K as you need a fair bit of computing power. 5K, 6K or 8K would increase those requirements.
It must be a dream for people who are into video making as between the cameras and lens you can produce very high quality video - good enough for film making or TV programme making.
It's a great option to have but I use it so little it shouldn't be part of my decision making on purchasing cameras but nonetheless it has an influence.
I think we would save money as photographers if the cameras didn't have video capability.
So I would be surprised if "video capabilities will be at the heart of all future Canon prosumer camera bodies" but Canon are better at knowing consumers decision making processes than I am. Video capability must be high on peoples list even if I think they won't use it much afterwards.

 

[unfocused]

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !...

I agree that the diopter is a pain. But...

Up until 2-3 months ago I consistently used the diopter. Did so for years. Problem was, I was forever mislaying my glasses. So one day (I think I was shooting a baseball game) I decided to try just wearing my glasses and setting the diopter back to zero.

Worked great. The thing I discovered is that the eye relief on all my Canons is sufficient that I don't need to take my glasses off.

So, while Canon needs to make diopter adjustment easier, try wearing your glasses instead. You might be pleasantly surprised.

It really helps of you actually read the entire post by someone before commenting. The problem the poster mentions is that there are TWO users of the camera. Each needs a different diopter setting.

Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras.

BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.

We are both over 50 years old - as are just about all the local camera club members ... and most have diminishing eyesight.

Every time we pass the camera we have to reset the diopter.

It really helps if you actually read my post.

Two users. (or 100 users, it doesn't matter) Both presumably wear something to correct their vision: glasses or contacts most likely.

If their vision is corrected, the eye relief on any modern Canon camera is sufficient to allow you to use the camera and focus without removing the eye correction. At least that is what I have found and that is what I was explaining.

 

[Talys]

Two users. (or 100 users, it doesn't matter) Both presumably wear something to correct their vision: glasses or contacts most likely.

If their vision is corrected, the eye relief on any modern Canon camera is sufficient to allow you to use the camera and focus without removing the eye correction. At least that is what I have found and that is what I was explaining.

You have described my situation perfectly