Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops

Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops

scyrene said:
Policar said:
that1guyy said:
Policar said:
rygenova said:
I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.

"Much more capable" of requiring extensive post work to get decent looking color and tonality, "much more capable" of being unusable except at base ISO due to tearing artifacts, and "much more capable of" of losing you money because of the extra required work and horsepower to get a decent looking 1080p deliverable, what 99% of people need for their clients.

Oh, but it has 4k.

Would love to see something between the C100 and C300, though.

Jesus how much does Canon pay you? The FS5 is objectively better.

I forgot that art was a purely objective medium that could be measured through test charts.

Have you checked the mtf of the Mona Lisa? Not great. Garbage painting, really. By objective standards.

But since when is art about measurement?

Canon cameras have much better color and ergonomics. And the images they produce look better subjectively to anyone with any taste. The FS5 is not only useless at non-base ISOs due to image tearing, it's also got poor color, poor tonality, a shoddy codec, etc. Yes, it will measure more lines of resolution at 4k (which virtually no client requires as a deliverable) and yes it does bursts of 240fps (legitimately cool)... but if you're looking to shoot anything other than test charts, the experience and image will be worse with the Sony.

Well, subjectively.

But yeah, great test chart camera! Objectively!

I have no dog in this fight, but some of what you've said is... well, silly. We all have different tastes. Measuring things objectively is the only way we can have any criteria for assessing things beyond subjectivity. Of course, which metrics each of us values more than others is itself subjective. But saying things like 'X has better colour' without referring it to an objective measure is just dressing up your opinion as some kind of broader truth, which it is not. Ditto "anyone with taste".

We can say 'X has higher resolution' or 'Y has longer battery life' because these things can be measured. And 'I prefer the colours this camera produces', sure. But to project your personal preference as fact is of no use in discussions with others.

Sure, but art sells 99% on subjective attributes.

The FS5 has bad chroma clipping, horrible macro blocking, lots of noise, a thin codec, and a lot of other problems. It does have good specs. But it produces a pretty ugly image when pointed at anything other than a chart. I can't quantify banding, macro blocking, etc. with charts or measurements, but I could exhibit them easily in footage from the camera. Maybe someone likes artifact-laden footage with chroma clipping that you can't grade out and banding in the skies that's worse by default in SLOG 3 than Canon Log ever has been–despite the 10 bit codec, but I would say that person has bad taste.

It's not even a matter of aesthetics, it's a matter of a broken image pipeline that can easily be seen in footage, but can't easily be quantified. Generally I'd agree, but Sony has a habit of releasing half-functional cameras and slowly trickingly out firmware updates that make them useable. It's nothing to reward, and something to warn consumers against buying into.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops

Both sides of this argument are valid. It is impossible to objectively quantify all aspects of what is perceived by the human brain and not all brains are equal to any given task. Reminds me of audio and all the idiosyncrasies that contribute to evaluations. Has to be subjective to some degree and when many folk independently observe something then it must be there, even if immeasurable.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops

Policar said:
scyrene said:
Policar said:
that1guyy said:
Policar said:
rygenova said:
I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.

"Much more capable" of requiring extensive post work to get decent looking color and tonality, "much more capable" of being unusable except at base ISO due to tearing artifacts, and "much more capable of" of losing you money because of the extra required work and horsepower to get a decent looking 1080p deliverable, what 99% of people need for their clients.

Oh, but it has 4k.

Would love to see something between the C100 and C300, though.

Jesus how much does Canon pay you? The FS5 is objectively better.

I forgot that art was a purely objective medium that could be measured through test charts.

Have you checked the mtf of the Mona Lisa? Not great. Garbage painting, really. By objective standards.

But since when is art about measurement?

Canon cameras have much better color and ergonomics. And the images they produce look better subjectively to anyone with any taste. The FS5 is not only useless at non-base ISOs due to image tearing, it's also got poor color, poor tonality, a shoddy codec, etc. Yes, it will measure more lines of resolution at 4k (which virtually no client requires as a deliverable) and yes it does bursts of 240fps (legitimately cool)... but if you're looking to shoot anything other than test charts, the experience and image will be worse with the Sony.

Well, subjectively.

But yeah, great test chart camera! Objectively!

I have no dog in this fight, but some of what you've said is... well, silly. We all have different tastes. Measuring things objectively is the only way we can have any criteria for assessing things beyond subjectivity. Of course, which metrics each of us values more than others is itself subjective. But saying things like 'X has better colour' without referring it to an objective measure is just dressing up your opinion as some kind of broader truth, which it is not. Ditto "anyone with taste".

We can say 'X has higher resolution' or 'Y has longer battery life' because these things can be measured. And 'I prefer the colours this camera produces', sure. But to project your personal preference as fact is of no use in discussions with others.

Sure, but art sells 99% on subjective attributes.

The FS5 has bad chroma clipping, horrible macro blocking, lots of noise, a thin codec, and a lot of other problems. It does have good specs. But it produces a pretty ugly image when pointed at anything other than a chart. I can't quantify banding, macro blocking, etc. with charts or measurements, but I could exhibit them easily in footage from the camera. Maybe someone likes artifact-laden footage with chroma clipping that you can't grade out and banding in the skies that's worse by default in SLOG 3 than Canon Log ever has been–despite the 10 bit codec, but I would say that person has bad taste.

It's not even a matter of aesthetics, it's a matter of a broken image pipeline that can easily be seen in footage, but can't easily be quantified. Generally I'd agree, but Sony has a habit of releasing half-functional cameras and slowly trickingly out firmware updates that make them useable. It's nothing to reward, and something to warn consumers against buying into.

That's fair enough. As I say, I have no knowledge or opinion on this specific topic. You're right to focus on specific issues like noise, etc. Certainly it would be hard to argue that a noisier image is better/more attractive. PS what is 'macro' in this context? I know nothing about video.
 
Upvote 0
Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops

scyrene said:
Policar said:
scyrene said:
Policar said:
that1guyy said:
Policar said:
rygenova said:
I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.

"Much more capable" of requiring extensive post work to get decent looking color and tonality, "much more capable" of being unusable except at base ISO due to tearing artifacts, and "much more capable of" of losing you money because of the extra required work and horsepower to get a decent looking 1080p deliverable, what 99% of people need for their clients.

Oh, but it has 4k.

Would love to see something between the C100 and C300, though.

Jesus how much does Canon pay you? The FS5 is objectively better.

I forgot that art was a purely objective medium that could be measured through test charts.

Have you checked the mtf of the Mona Lisa? Not great. Garbage painting, really. By objective standards.

But since when is art about measurement?

Canon cameras have much better color and ergonomics. And the images they produce look better subjectively to anyone with any taste. The FS5 is not only useless at non-base ISOs due to image tearing, it's also got poor color, poor tonality, a shoddy codec, etc. Yes, it will measure more lines of resolution at 4k (which virtually no client requires as a deliverable) and yes it does bursts of 240fps (legitimately cool)... but if you're looking to shoot anything other than test charts, the experience and image will be worse with the Sony.

Well, subjectively.

But yeah, great test chart camera! Objectively!

I have no dog in this fight, but some of what you've said is... well, silly. We all have different tastes. Measuring things objectively is the only way we can have any criteria for assessing things beyond subjectivity. Of course, which metrics each of us values more than others is itself subjective. But saying things like 'X has better colour' without referring it to an objective measure is just dressing up your opinion as some kind of broader truth, which it is not. Ditto "anyone with taste".

We can say 'X has higher resolution' or 'Y has longer battery life' because these things can be measured. And 'I prefer the colours this camera produces', sure. But to project your personal preference as fact is of no use in discussions with others.

Sure, but art sells 99% on subjective attributes.

The FS5 has bad chroma clipping, horrible macro blocking, lots of noise, a thin codec, and a lot of other problems. It does have good specs. But it produces a pretty ugly image when pointed at anything other than a chart. I can't quantify banding, macro blocking, etc. with charts or measurements, but I could exhibit them easily in footage from the camera. Maybe someone likes artifact-laden footage with chroma clipping that you can't grade out and banding in the skies that's worse by default in SLOG 3 than Canon Log ever has been–despite the 10 bit codec, but I would say that person has bad taste.

It's not even a matter of aesthetics, it's a matter of a broken image pipeline that can easily be seen in footage, but can't easily be quantified. Generally I'd agree, but Sony has a habit of releasing half-functional cameras and slowly trickingly out firmware updates that make them useable. It's nothing to reward, and something to warn consumers against buying into.

That's fair enough. As I say, I have no knowledge or opinion on this specific topic. You're right to focus on specific issues like noise, etc. Certainly it would be hard to argue that a noisier image is better/more attractive. PS what is 'macro' in this context? I know nothing about video.

Macroblocking basically just means strong JPEG (discrete cosine transform) style artifacts, like these:

http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/namo/namo_fileview.jsp?type=nfs&pid=decisiontree&did=146889&[email protected]&sep=%7C

In the FS5, that's because the codec isn't well suited for the image and the image deteriorates fast. Not that it's flawless to begin with:

https://vimeo.com/149915169

And both of those problems don't even address Sony's issues with color and gamma. The F5 had much better specs than the C300 when both were introduced (same story as here), but the color and highlight roll-off are awful. Sony has improved them now, but they're still quite ugly compared with the lower-specced camera.
 
Upvote 0