Canon can you make a camera for photographers and not videographers?

[glongstaff]

Easy, easy...
Just buy the Leica M11.

Its so easy to say and could be viable for some, but when you have invested in a system for many years as a hobbyist from way back at the Canon 350D and going onwards to the Canon 5DMKIII, switching to another form is just not applicable in terms of investment for many ppl that dont earn money from its usage, especially when in some markets we are not offered the same amount of offers/discounts. Have sat down and conducted a comparison between switching to Sony with new lenses and switching to the native RF lenses with the new Canon mirrorless and would actually save around £4000 if switched, but have grown up with canon - liking the system, liking the variety of lenses available and the ability of still being able to use some of the L-based lenses

As mentioned can fully understand trying to 'play both sides of the market share' but just feel there are far too many issues creeping in and being reported at the moment with build issues, software functionality issues....just personal opinion from watching the market.... Am holding off to see what canon does with the R5 MKII to invest in a system that would last me decade not a couple of years

 

[Del Paso]

Its so easy to say and could be viable for some, but when you have invested in a system for many years as a hobbyist from way back at the Canon 350D and going onwards to the Canon 5DMKIII, switching to another form is just not applicable in terms of investment for many ppl that dont earn money from its usage, especially when in some markets we are not offered the same amount of offers/discounts. Have sat down and conducted a comparison between switching to Sony with new lenses and switching to the native RF lenses with the new Canon mirrorless and would actually save around £4000 if switched, but have grown up with canon - liking the system, liking the variety of lenses available and the ability of still being able to use some of the L-based lenses

As mentioned can fully understand trying to 'play both sides of the market share' but just feel there are far too many issues creeping in and being reported at the moment with build issues, software functionality issues....just personal opinion from watching the market.... Am holding off to see what canon does with the R5 MKII to invest in a system that would last me decade not a couple of years

I guess you took my post a bit too seriously...
A Leica M is of course no alternative to a Canon mirrorless. But it is neverthelss a pure stills camera.

 

[Jethro]

This is still relevant today, even for non professionals...it appears whether true or not that the traditional camera is being compromised for video functionality.....can understand trying to support both forms but like you if I want to do video then I will look at a video camera and not a stills

What do you see as the compromises which are being taken which adversely affect stills use? I agree that newer bodies are increasingly including spec sheets which used to be called 'hybrids' - with both advanced stills and video functions, but how does adding such video functionality compromise stills use? The R5C is an example of a hybrid camera being specifically optimised for video.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What do you see as the compromises which are being taken which adversely affect stills use?

I’m curious as well. I’ve never felt my ILCs are ‘compromised’ by having video functions that I don’t use, any more than their ability to shoot multiple levels of JPG quality does, for example. I just ignore the video settings (I have a Canon Vixia HF G60 for video) as I ignore the JPG settings (I shoot exclusively RAW).

On the contrary, the video controls allow additional customizable buttons to control still photography functions (for example, I have Silent Shooting assigned to the photo/video switch on my R3).

 

[Del Paso]

I never use the video functions.
I just ignore them, they don't bother or disturb me at all.
But the day I plan to sell my camera, I'll be happy they are there. So many people use the video features, I'm rather an exception. And Canon would be plain stupid to develop a camera for what seems to be a rather limited number of users.
And, as "Neuroanatomist" justly wrote, more customizable buttons are a huge advantage.
My first digital Leica M (M 240) offered video. All I had to do was to ignore the video dedicated button, which I did. So, where is the problem?

 

[Kit.]

This is still relevant today, even for non professionals...it appears whether true or not that the traditional camera is being compromised for video functionality.....can understand trying to support both forms but like you if I want to do video then I will look at a video camera and not a stills

Digital camera with live-view functionality is a video camera by design. If you want a non-compromised photo camera, use a traditional film one.

 

[Doormat]

Personally I can overlook the video function, I tend to use my iPhone for video footage. However the amazing battery performance I had with DSLR’s is sorely missed with mirrorless. Canon needs to address this issue.

 

[Del Paso]

Personally I can overlook the video function, I tend to use my iPhone for video footage. However the amazing battery performance I had with DSLR’s is sorely missed with mirrorless. Canon needs to address this issue.

A battery's performance is always a balance between capacity, weight, size, cost and durability. Increasing capacity is often done at the expense of longevity. Nothing comes for free, unfortunately.

 

[GarfieldHurlbutt]

How about a Camera for photographers and not videographers?

How about 30MP's staying at 15fps RAW. No sport in the world requires more than 15fps if you know what you're shooting. Nor do BIF or Journalists. Who in this WORLD needs 20fps? If you NEED that buy a movie camera. FACT!!!

We want increased IQ. That's all.
Speed Test
If I want 20fps I'l buy a Frig'n movie camera.

I want my OVF shooting 15fps RAW at 30MP. I'll pay up to $8,000 for that body and another $8,000 for my back-up. The 30MP's will allow the 1DXMKIII to be more well suited for diverse demanding shooting environments. Just because we're sports photographers, Journalists and BIF enthusiasts does not mean we don't want great resolution and IQ. The ability to crop with our prime BIG WHITES we've paid you a fortune for would be nice. It would put out a 30 to 40% better product for the public, our editors and the agencies that pay us for crisp clear shots. 20MP is very 1990's based on today's technology.

SONY and NIKON can do it and even cell phones are so far beyond what I've seen so far in the "Proposed" "Still Photography" capabilities of the MKIII.

It has to have cross-points across my OVF. Straighten up the "Cases" in the User Interface, they are redundant and counter-intuitive. In single-point expanded you need to tighten up the focus so greater weight is placed on the center focal point. Remeber mostly sports shooters are using this in AI-SERVO why does it flop around like a dead bird??? We ALL say the same thing on the sidelines.

Scrap the Movie, Motion Picture GARBAGE. If I want a movie camera I'll buy one that is substantially better than the MKIII at a fraction of the cost.

Canon!!!! I'm a photographer who makes a living taking still pictures. I'm not a videographer. Can you concentrate on photography? Remember us? We're the professional photographers who support CPS, Display our BIG WHITES globally as we shoot sports. We shoot next to your $250,000 broadcast lenses.

If the 1DXMKIII is not for professional photographers vs. videographers PLEASE STOP marketing the product for "professional photographers". We don't shoot High School Sports. If the 1DXMKIII is for amateurs then 20MP - 24MP will suit them fine. it's going to be 2020 and you can't give us 30MP's at 15fps with our OVF? You worked out the kinks with a recall or "Service Advisory" on the 1DX and refined the issues with the Mirror Box with the MKII. Have you devoted so much to videography that you forgot about us "photographers"/

We don't compete with our videography peers as sports photographers or journalists. We don't produce like them or edit like them or deliver like them. Our workflow is apples to oranges. We're professionals not amateurs and still photography for professionals is different than video for professionals. You state the 1DXMKII is for professionals. I don't know a single professional sports videographer for the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, Olympics, MLS or the agencies that shows up with an MKII to shoot or broadcast video for games or tether to a truck, uplink to NOC or TOC. I know because I work on those floors and our broadcast people don't do what I do and I don't do what they do.

It seems like those of us who have dedicated our careers to Canon; fought for budgets for Canon and accumulated full kits are getting shoved to the side of the road for videography.

Try hand holding a f/2.8 300 or 400 on the sidelines using an LCD to follow the action. Impossible!! Now try doing it in sunlight... DOUBLE IMPOSSIBLE.

Canon you need to put out a 30MP, 15fps RAW Camera for stills with the MKIII or your crown will lost. SONY and Nikon are ready to see you stumble and they HOPE you do.

I would prefer to stay with Canon but if those with other equipment have an advantage over me to put food on the table.... YOU are forcing us to switch horses.

Given what you want there is no other horse to switch to is there? Simple fact is we have to accept that the wannabe videographers are demanding things that us wannabe(in my case not yours) photographers have no need for but end up having to pay for