Crop Factor Change for 4K on Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Included in Coming Update & More

[rrcphoto]

For the record, there is some precedents to big feature firmware updates from Canon. The EOS 5D Mark II v1.1 and onward as well as the EOS 7D v2.0 come to mind.

In the end, it's just software.

So Canon is releasing software that overheats its camera? And the fix is a hardware retrofit? I think it's fair to say that the camera wasn't originally designed for these new features but Canon is motivated to now provide them... in an unprecedented manner.

None of the claims made in the rumor are true. It is entirely made up. None of it is real except the CLOG thing posted earlier probably is.

The only thing unprecedented is a rumor this inane being posted on a site that usually vets its sources.

Not saying this is true, but if you believe the initial C-Log rumor, then you should also believe in the service update as it is from the same source in the same initial post.

With that being said, I highly doubt that the heatsink would be so marginal to where it was taken over the edge from simply adding C-Log which suggests other features that take much more processing and therefore creates much more heat are on there way.

C-LOG is an entirely different pipelining - it could require more heatsinking for canon's comfort. this is canon, not sony.

 

[transpo1]

Happy to see rumors like this, but I'm little pessimistic about this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rather rumors for upcoming 1DC mark II.

it would make more sense really to see all that on a 1DC Mark II - where the battery / heat sinking can support it. But to be honest, I see the Mark II as being 8K not 4K

I can't see canon deciding to so drastically change the Mark IV. Unless they are creating a 5DC and allowing people to upgrade their 5D Mark IV"s to 5DC's in a similar manner to what nikon used to do with the "s" models.

as i've suggested to some of the video nuts in here - why would canon do this for a market that wouldn't use a DSLR for it? some of them couldn't even understand the question. a DSLR has the most horrible video ergonomics of ILC's for video. MILC's are much more suited and available - so why a DSLR? and why a DSLR over a MILC or a video ILC?

I guess we'll see in two weeks if this was true or just a well played hoax.

Guys, are we really still on the "why would anyone use a DSLR for video debate?" Some people shoot stills AND motion and don't want to compromise the quality of either. Some of us also prefer Canon products to others and like the 5D form factor.

 

[Diko]

Does anyone remember if there was some kind of release date for the new firmware?

 

[transpo1]

Does anyone remember if there was some kind of release date for the new firmware?

Announcement was meant to be April 20th but I didn't hear anything about a release date.

 

[rrcphoto]

Happy to see rumors like this, but I'm little pessimistic about this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rather rumors for upcoming 1DC mark II.

it would make more sense really to see all that on a 1DC Mark II - where the battery / heat sinking can support it. But to be honest, I see the Mark II as being 8K not 4K

I can't see canon deciding to so drastically change the Mark IV. Unless they are creating a 5DC and allowing people to upgrade their 5D Mark IV"s to 5DC's in a similar manner to what nikon used to do with the "s" models.

as i've suggested to some of the video nuts in here - why would canon do this for a market that wouldn't use a DSLR for it? some of them couldn't even understand the question. a DSLR has the most horrible video ergonomics of ILC's for video. MILC's are much more suited and available - so why a DSLR? and why a DSLR over a MILC or a video ILC?

I guess we'll see in two weeks if this was true or just a well played hoax.

Guys, are we really still on the "why would anyone use a DSLR for video debate?" Some people shoot stills AND motion and don't want to compromise the quality of either. Some of us also prefer Canon products to others and like the 5D form factor.

all ten of you will most likely continue to complain after April 20th. the rest of the people a) went to MILC's where it makes alot more sense b) use video cameras with EF mounts which makes even more sense.

that is the entire premise of the Cxxx line. DSLR cameras will blow for video, it really doesn't matter what do you do it, it's a hack. *UNTIL* we get hyrbid viewfinders - until then, why go full bore on video?

You have zero demonstrable proof that this is a large market for DSLR's.

We'll find out on the 20th what's correct. if it's just C-LOG - it's a meh. if it's the entire ball of wax, then I eat crow with some salt, pepper, lightly roasted with BBQ sauce and will certainly apologize to you and STFU about it.

will you do the same?

 

[aero1126]

Happy to see rumors like this, but I'm little pessimistic about this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rather rumors for upcoming 1DC mark II.

it would make more sense really to see all that on a 1DC Mark II - where the battery / heat sinking can support it. But to be honest, I see the Mark II as being 8K not 4K

I can't see canon deciding to so drastically change the Mark IV. Unless they are creating a 5DC and allowing people to upgrade their 5D Mark IV"s to 5DC's in a similar manner to what nikon used to do with the "s" models.

as i've suggested to some of the video nuts in here - why would canon do this for a market that wouldn't use a DSLR for it? some of them couldn't even understand the question. a DSLR has the most horrible video ergonomics of ILC's for video. MILC's are much more suited and available - so why a DSLR? and why a DSLR over a MILC or a video ILC?

I guess we'll see in two weeks if this was true or just a well played hoax.

Guys, are we really still on the "why would anyone use a DSLR for video debate?" Some people shoot stills AND motion and don't want to compromise the quality of either. Some of us also prefer Canon products to others and like the 5D form factor.

all ten of you will most likely continue to complain after April 20th. the rest of the people a) went to MILC's where it makes alot more sense b) use video cameras with EF mounts which makes even more sense.

that is the entire premise of the Cxxx line. DSLR cameras will blow for video, it really doesn't matter what do you do it, it's a hack. *UNTIL* we get hyrbid viewfinders - until then, why go full bore on video?

You have zero demonstrable proof that this is a large market for DSLR's.

We'll find out on the 20th what's correct. if it's just C-LOG - it's a meh. if it's the entire ball of wax, then I eat crow with some salt, pepper, lightly roasted with BBQ sauce and will certainly apologize to you and STFU about it.

will you do the same?

The answer to this is VERY simple. Why buy 2 cameras when 1 can do the job? Many people can't buy 2 cameras, so they are going to look for a camera that is as good as possible at both. Many people do more of stills or more of video BUT still do some or a moderate amount of the other. In that case, why buy a whole new camera for the one you do less of instead of buying a camera that does your primary very well and the secondary better than the other camera options? The other aspect is marketing, being able to say you do stills very well AND you do video very well is always going to be better than saying you can only do one very well.

Quite honestly I don't understand why the idea of people going for the best value when it comes to performance and features is difficult to understand. This is the same reason that the market for handheld gaming systems is decreasing, why buy a separate handheld that may be better at gaming when you have a smartphone that does it well enough.

I don't know if Canon will implement all of those features in the rumor, but saying that video isn't important is very shortsighted from a marketing perspective given the competition and other cameras out there.

 

[rrcphoto]

Happy to see rumors like this, but I'm little pessimistic about this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rather rumors for upcoming 1DC mark II.

it would make more sense really to see all that on a 1DC Mark II - where the battery / heat sinking can support it. But to be honest, I see the Mark II as being 8K not 4K

I can't see canon deciding to so drastically change the Mark IV. Unless they are creating a 5DC and allowing people to upgrade their 5D Mark IV"s to 5DC's in a similar manner to what nikon used to do with the "s" models.

as i've suggested to some of the video nuts in here - why would canon do this for a market that wouldn't use a DSLR for it? some of them couldn't even understand the question. a DSLR has the most horrible video ergonomics of ILC's for video. MILC's are much more suited and available - so why a DSLR? and why a DSLR over a MILC or a video ILC?

I guess we'll see in two weeks if this was true or just a well played hoax.

Guys, are we really still on the "why would anyone use a DSLR for video debate?" Some people shoot stills AND motion and don't want to compromise the quality of either. Some of us also prefer Canon products to others and like the 5D form factor.

all ten of you will most likely continue to complain after April 20th. the rest of the people a) went to MILC's where it makes alot more sense b) use video cameras with EF mounts which makes even more sense.

that is the entire premise of the Cxxx line. DSLR cameras will blow for video, it really doesn't matter what do you do it, it's a hack. *UNTIL* we get hyrbid viewfinders - until then, why go full bore on video?

You have zero demonstrable proof that this is a large market for DSLR's.

We'll find out on the 20th what's correct. if it's just C-LOG - it's a meh. if it's the entire ball of wax, then I eat crow with some salt, pepper, lightly roasted with BBQ sauce and will certainly apologize to you and STFU about it.

will you do the same?

The answer to this is VERY simple. Why buy 2 cameras when 1 can do the job? Many people can't buy 2 cameras, so they are going to look for a camera that is as good as possible at both. Many people do more of stills or more of video BUT still do some or a moderate amount of the other. In that case, why buy a whole new camera for the one you do less of instead of buying a camera that does your primary very well and the secondary better than the other camera options? The other aspect is marketing, being able to say you do stills very well AND you do video very well is always going to be better than saying you can only do one very well.

Quite honestly I don't understand why the idea of people going for the best value when it comes to performance and features is difficult to understand. This is the same reason that the market for handheld gaming systems is decreasing, why buy a separate handheld that may be better at gaming when you have a smartphone that does it well enough.

I don't know if Canon will implement all of those features in the rumor, but saying that video isn't important is very shortsighted from a marketing perspective given the competition and other cameras out there.

Clearly another one that misses the point. It's not the best at both and never can be. If you want the best if both you get a mirrorless.

Once Sony did the FE mount, the need for dslrs to shoot video basically died. They are an awkward hybrid solution compared to the A7 series. If you are looking for a hybrid solution, you look mirrorless, it's already there. Shoving a round peg into a square hole rarely works.

So the question is just how many are left or even want a gimped hybrid camera when others, aka mirrorless have already taken the majority of that market.

 

[aero1126]

Happy to see rumors like this, but I'm little pessimistic about this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is rather rumors for upcoming 1DC mark II.

it would make more sense really to see all that on a 1DC Mark II - where the battery / heat sinking can support it. But to be honest, I see the Mark II as being 8K not 4K

I can't see canon deciding to so drastically change the Mark IV. Unless they are creating a 5DC and allowing people to upgrade their 5D Mark IV"s to 5DC's in a similar manner to what nikon used to do with the "s" models.

as i've suggested to some of the video nuts in here - why would canon do this for a market that wouldn't use a DSLR for it? some of them couldn't even understand the question. a DSLR has the most horrible video ergonomics of ILC's for video. MILC's are much more suited and available - so why a DSLR? and why a DSLR over a MILC or a video ILC?

I guess we'll see in two weeks if this was true or just a well played hoax.

Guys, are we really still on the "why would anyone use a DSLR for video debate?" Some people shoot stills AND motion and don't want to compromise the quality of either. Some of us also prefer Canon products to others and like the 5D form factor.

all ten of you will most likely continue to complain after April 20th. the rest of the people a) went to MILC's where it makes alot more sense b) use video cameras with EF mounts which makes even more sense.

that is the entire premise of the Cxxx line. DSLR cameras will blow for video, it really doesn't matter what do you do it, it's a hack. *UNTIL* we get hyrbid viewfinders - until then, why go full bore on video?

You have zero demonstrable proof that this is a large market for DSLR's.

We'll find out on the 20th what's correct. if it's just C-LOG - it's a meh. if it's the entire ball of wax, then I eat crow with some salt, pepper, lightly roasted with BBQ sauce and will certainly apologize to you and STFU about it.

will you do the same?

The answer to this is VERY simple. Why buy 2 cameras when 1 can do the job? Many people can't buy 2 cameras, so they are going to look for a camera that is as good as possible at both. Many people do more of stills or more of video BUT still do some or a moderate amount of the other. In that case, why buy a whole new camera for the one you do less of instead of buying a camera that does your primary very well and the secondary better than the other camera options? The other aspect is marketing, being able to say you do stills very well AND you do video very well is always going to be better than saying you can only do one very well.

Quite honestly I don't understand why the idea of people going for the best value when it comes to performance and features is difficult to understand. This is the same reason that the market for handheld gaming systems is decreasing, why buy a separate handheld that may be better at gaming when you have a smartphone that does it well enough.

I don't know if Canon will implement all of those features in the rumor, but saying that video isn't important is very shortsighted from a marketing perspective given the competition and other cameras out there.

Clearly another one that misses the point. It's not the best at both and never can be. If you want the best if both you get a mirrorless.

Once Sony did the FE mount, the need for dslrs to shoot video basically died. They are an awkward hybrid solution compared to the A7 series. If you are looking for a hybrid solution, you look mirrorless, it's already there. Shoving a round peg into a square hole rarely works.

So the question is just how many are left or even want a gimped hybrid camera when others, aka mirrorless have already taken the majority of that market.

You are the only one missing the point. Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone thinks that mirrorless is the best hybrid solution? Has it ever occurred to you that people who primarily shoot stills prefer the ergonomics and autofocus more than a mirrorless solution? You keep saying a dslr hybrid is gimped, but it's really not. Would a mirrorless be better than a DSLR for video? Maybe, that doesn't mean the DSLR is gimped.

This also doesn't change the MARKETING component of being good at both. Most people have things with features that they'll never use or never even notice, but if you are looking at the same price point, all else being equal, they will still get the product that has those features. Take TV's for example, they used to advertise high refresh rates that you'd never notice visually, now they market 4k TV's even though most people don't sit close enough to their TV to perceive any difference between 4k and 1080p. Are all of these companies stupid or something? No, because of these features are there, regardless of if people can actually notice the differences, these TV's are PERCEIVED to be better.

It's simple, people have a strong tendency to prefer getting the most value for their money. Rather it's real value or simply perceived value, it doesn't matter.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The logic of aero1126 is pretty sound. My purchase of the 1DX2 over the 5D4 was partly influenced by my desire to do some nature video with it. I am not nor ever will be a pro in either camp but I am particular about the images I display and would like to have the best possible in this compromise situation and I certainly don't want a mirrorless camera.

What happens in these threads is that some video focused contributors will have unrealistic expectations and make unrealistic demands and it sets the tone for discussions degenerating. I don't doubt Canon has made some difficult marketing decisions that very much revolve around what carrots to offer on the stick they hold out and there is no doubt in my mind they are holding back some features that wouldn't cost much to include, but me griping about it isn't likely to change that massive corporation's decisions. Ultimately market reality will influence them one way or the other. We don't know their long term strategy.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

 

[transpo1]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

Yep- your ignorance on this is showing. The codec was put in because it was the easiest possible solution to 4:2:2 4K video with the least possible processing power (other people can fill in here) using JPEG compression while simultaneously hobbling the camera with an inefficient codec that many professionals and hybrid video shooters would rather not use, thus "not cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line" (I use quotes here because Sony is already cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line even though they are apparently not making much profit doing it).

Again, people who start out using Sony mirrorless cameras for hybrid and video will eventually graduate to Sony cinema cameras, not Canon- this is why Canon should begin including video features that match the competition.

 

[syder]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

Yep- your ignorance on this is showing. The codec was put in because it was the easiest possible solution to 4:2:2 4K video with the least possible processing power (other people can fill in here) using JPEG compression while simultaneously hobbling the camera with an inefficient codec that many professionals and hybrid video shooters would rather not use, thus "not cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line" (I use quotes here because Sony is already cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line even though they are apparently not making much profit doing it).

Again, people who start out using Sony mirrorless cameras for hybrid and video will eventually graduate to Sony cinema cameras, not Canon- this is why Canon should begin including video features that match the competition.

Sort of... MJPEG was never a problem for people using the 1DC, but those were professionals who could afford the storage that went with a 10K+ camera. Hell, a Red Helium will shoot at up to 300MB/s, i.e about 2400Mb/s and professionals dont complain that makes it unusable. Its the Youtubers who want to shoot 100Mb/s 4K from a GH4 who have been up in arms about the 5D4 codec.

Sony have taken a big chunk out of the cinema line, but that's because the FS7 launched at about half the price of the C300mkii, and Canon still has no entry level 4K cinema camera to comete with the FS5, it really doesn't have much to do with Sony mirrorless cameras.

Video professionals buy cinema cameras, very few consumers do because of the costs involved. The YouTube market is likely a lot bigger in terms of volume than cinema cameras, and its dominated by much cheaper options like the GH4 and the 80D

 

[transpo1]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

Yep- your ignorance on this is showing. The codec was put in because it was the easiest possible solution to 4:2:2 4K video with the least possible processing power (other people can fill in here) using JPEG compression while simultaneously hobbling the camera with an inefficient codec that many professionals and hybrid video shooters would rather not use, thus "not cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line" (I use quotes here because Sony is already cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line even though they are apparently not making much profit doing it).

Again, people who start out using Sony mirrorless cameras for hybrid and video will eventually graduate to Sony cinema cameras, not Canon- this is why Canon should begin including video features that match the competition.

Sort of... MJPEG was never a problem for people using the 1DC, but those were professionals who could afford the storage that went with a 10K+ camera. Hell, a Red Helium will shoot at up to 300MB/s, i.e about 2400Mb/s and professionals dont complain that makes it unusable. Its the Youtubers who want to shoot 100Mb/s 4K from a GH4 who have been up in arms about the 5D4 codec.

Sony have taken a big chunk out of the cinema line, but that's because the FS7 launched at about half the price of the C300mkii, and Canon still has no entry level 4K cinema camera to comete with the FS5, it really doesn't have much to do with Sony mirrorless cameras.

Video professionals buy cinema cameras, very few consumers do because of the costs involved. The YouTube market is likely a lot bigger in terms of volume than cinema cameras, and its dominated by much cheaper options like the GH4 and the 80D

Video professionals buy cinema cameras but video professionals who are just beginning their careers (i.e. in college) or who want a do-all camera or who are hybrid shooters want something that can take stills as well. And why would they graduate to a Canon Cinema EOS camera if they start out with Sony cameras which are fulfilling those video and stills needs?

In addition, I do think there is a halo effect right now that goes from A7SII up through FS5 through FS7 and back down again. Are those who buy an FS7 and want a B cam going with a Canon? Nope- they'll buy an A7SII, A7RII or even a 6500. So Sony has them up and down the video range and this keeps them in the ecosystem for years.

 

[Bennymiata]

According to Chuck Westfall, the reason Canon put in that codec was so that stills shooters could take short videos and then use grabs to make good 8mpx photos to get the perfect expressions etc.
Can you realistically do that with a 4k video at only 100mps?

That terrible codec may not be the best for heavy video guys, but for wedding photographers, it could be very handy.

 

[Mikehit]

According to Chuck Westfall, the reason Canon put in that codec was so that stills shooters could take short videos and then use grabs to make good 8mpx photos to get the perfect expressions etc.
Can you realistically do that with a 4k video at only 100mps?

That terrible codec may not be the best for heavy video guys, but for wedding photographers, it could be very handy.

I suspect that is in part post-rationalisation.

 

[syder]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

Yep- your ignorance on this is showing. The codec was put in because it was the easiest possible solution to 4:2:2 4K video with the least possible processing power (other people can fill in here) using JPEG compression while simultaneously hobbling the camera with an inefficient codec that many professionals and hybrid video shooters would rather not use, thus "not cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line" (I use quotes here because Sony is already cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line even though they are apparently not making much profit doing it).

Again, people who start out using Sony mirrorless cameras for hybrid and video will eventually graduate to Sony cinema cameras, not Canon- this is why Canon should begin including video features that match the competition.

Sort of... MJPEG was never a problem for people using the 1DC, but those were professionals who could afford the storage that went with a 10K+ camera. Hell, a Red Helium will shoot at up to 300MB/s, i.e about 2400Mb/s and professionals dont complain that makes it unusable. Its the Youtubers who want to shoot 100Mb/s 4K from a GH4 who have been up in arms about the 5D4 codec.

Sony have taken a big chunk out of the cinema line, but that's because the FS7 launched at about half the price of the C300mkii, and Canon still has no entry level 4K cinema camera to comete with the FS5, it really doesn't have much to do with Sony mirrorless cameras.

Video professionals buy cinema cameras, very few consumers do because of the costs involved. The YouTube market is likely a lot bigger in terms of volume than cinema cameras, and its dominated by much cheaper options like the GH4 and the 80D

Video professionals buy cinema cameras but video professionals who are just beginning their careers (i.e. in college) or who want a do-all camera or who are hybrid shooters want something that can take stills as well. And why would they graduate to a Canon Cinema EOS camera if they start out with Sony cameras which are fulfilling those video and stills needs?

In addition, I do think there is a halo effect right now that goes from A7SII up through FS5 through FS7 and back down again. Are those who buy an FS7 and want a B cam going with a Canon? Nope- they'll buy an A7SII, A7RII or even a 6500. So Sony has them up and down the video range and this keeps them in the ecosystem for years.

As someone who lectures at a university... Nope, students do not buy Sony cameras. They are way, way more likely to have a Rebel as their do all than anything else, as in, I have about 20x as many students with them. And most students don't have a camera at all... They use ours cos their meager income goes on feeding themselves and a few beers ;-)

Your logic is also terrible. Why would anyone use an Arri or Red camera when those dumb companies dont have a cheap as chips all in one hybrid camera?

Just because you learn to use one system very rarely precludes video professionals from changing systems. Unlike the stills world where glass tends to mean a lot of systemic inertia builds up, until recently videographers have been pretty ready to jump ship. I first used with Sony cameras, but have gone through using Panasonics, Fujifilm, back to Sony, RED and Canon at various stages.

Most the guys I know with FS7s are using EF glass, so moving back to Canon would hardly be difficult, as a lot of them came from using C300s. Again, using your broken logic that wouldn't happen as they would be stuck in the Canon ecosystem.

Canon currently finds itself in a much tougher place in the video market than a few years ago when the C300 dominated the mid-range HD market and the C100 mopped up a lot of the entry level. Arri and RED still dominate the top end (sorry C700), the C300mkii was overpriced on launch at $16K and so lost a lot of potential traction as an FS7 was about half the price, and there still isn't a 4K C100mkiii to compete with the FS5 (and potentially blow it away for single operator news/documentary shoots where DPAF is fantastic).

That has nothing to do with what happens at the $2-3K level jack of all trades cameras. People dont buy a 5Div and then decide that as they like video they'll just pop out and grab a C300mkii. And likewise, there aren't that many people buying A7SIIs, let alone buying one and then deciding to grab an FS7 too.

 

[vjlex]

One of Canon's quoted reasons for the video they put into the 5DIV was that the codec (is that the right word? - shows my ignorance on this) is good enough for the people who shoot still but want to add some video clips. They reckon that anyone more serious about video will get a video-dedicated camera and that the casual user who would use the 5DIV probably does not have the computer capacity to edit 4K. In the real world I think they are right on both counts and the people complaining are the ones who want a C700-1Dx2 hybrid for 3 grand.
It ain't gonna happen.

Yep- your ignorance on this is showing. The codec was put in because it was the easiest possible solution to 4:2:2 4K video with the least possible processing power (other people can fill in here) using JPEG compression while simultaneously hobbling the camera with an inefficient codec that many professionals and hybrid video shooters would rather not use, thus "not cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line" (I use quotes here because Sony is already cannibalizing the Cinema EOS line even though they are apparently not making much profit doing it).

Again, people who start out using Sony mirrorless cameras for hybrid and video will eventually graduate to Sony cinema cameras, not Canon- this is why Canon should begin including video features that match the competition.

Sort of... MJPEG was never a problem for people using the 1DC, but those were professionals who could afford the storage that went with a 10K+ camera. Hell, a Red Helium will shoot at up to 300MB/s, i.e about 2400Mb/s and professionals dont complain that makes it unusable. Its the Youtubers who want to shoot 100Mb/s 4K from a GH4 who have been up in arms about the 5D4 codec.

Sony have taken a big chunk out of the cinema line, but that's because the FS7 launched at about half the price of the C300mkii, and Canon still has no entry level 4K cinema camera to comete with the FS5, it really doesn't have much to do with Sony mirrorless cameras.

Video professionals buy cinema cameras, very few consumers do because of the costs involved. The YouTube market is likely a lot bigger in terms of volume than cinema cameras, and its dominated by much cheaper options like the GH4 and the 80D

Video professionals buy cinema cameras but video professionals who are just beginning their careers (i.e. in college) or who want a do-all camera or who are hybrid shooters want something that can take stills as well. And why would they graduate to a Canon Cinema EOS camera if they start out with Sony cameras which are fulfilling those video and stills needs?

In addition, I do think there is a halo effect right now that goes from A7SII up through FS5 through FS7 and back down again. Are those who buy an FS7 and want a B cam going with a Canon? Nope- they'll buy an A7SII, A7RII or even a 6500. So Sony has them up and down the video range and this keeps them in the ecosystem for years.

As someone who lectures at a university... Nope, students do not buy Sony cameras. They are way, way more likely to have a Rebel as their do all than anything else, as in, I have about 20x as many students with them. And most students don't have a camera at all... They use ours cos their meager income goes on feeding themselves and a few beers ;-)

Your logic is also terrible. Why would anyone use an Arri or Red camera when those dumb companies dont have a cheap as chips all in one hybrid camera?

Just because you learn to use one system very rarely precludes video professionals from changing systems. Unlike the stills world where glass tends to mean a lot of systemic inertia builds up, until recently videographers have been pretty ready to jump ship. I first used with Sony cameras, but have gone through using Panasonics, Fujifilm, back to Sony, RED and Canon at various stages.

Most the guys I know with FS7s are using EF glass, so moving back to Canon would hardly be difficult, as a lot of them came from using C300s. Again, using your broken logic that wouldn't happen as they would be stuck in the Canon ecosystem.

Canon currently finds itself in a much tougher place in the video market than a few years ago when the C300 dominated the mid-range HD market and the C100 mopped up a lot of the entry level. Arri and RED still dominate the top end (sorry C700), the C300mkii was overpriced on launch at $16K and so lost a lot of potential traction as an FS7 was about half the price, and there still isn't a 4K C100mkiii to compete with the FS5 (and potentially blow it away for single operator news/documentary shoots where DPAF is fantastic).

That has nothing to do with what happens at the $2-3K level jack of all trades cameras. People dont buy a 5Div and then decide that as they like video they'll just pop out and grab a C300mkii. And likewise, there aren't that many people buying A7SIIs, let alone buying one and then deciding to grab an FS7 too.

I could be wrong, but his logic seems pretty sound to me.

I'm not a university lecturer, but from my own personal, anecdotal experience, digitally I started out on a couple of Canon Elphs, then came the Rebel, then came the XTi, then came L-glass, then came the 5D Mark II, then came even more L-glass, and now I'm at the 5d IV. So yeah, there is something to be said for starting in one system and staying there as you level up.

Maybe when talking of crossing over from still photo to videography, maybe the system you've already bought into is less relevant. But as someone who has been with Canon for years, if I ever did decide to crossover, Canon would at least be in the running, because I know I wouldn't be starting completely from zero. And to me, that seems like good marketing. Repeat clientele is the lifeblood of perhaps any successful business.

The point he was making wasn't necessarily about the system invested in precluding video professionals. It was more about gateways for people who start in a system and tend to stick with it as they progress. Afterall, we are creatures of habit, and unless something is unbearably bad, many people choose to stick with the devil they know.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Crossing into another system is quite relevant. Starting off with EF glass is significantly more flexible than starting off with E-mount glass. Because of Sony's mirrorless design, the flange distance precludes it from being mounted on any other cinema camera system other than its own. With EF glass, you not only have a much more mature lens system with many options including tilt shift and creative lenses, but there are many adapters bridging almost all other mounts in existence and most pro-level systems have options that support the EF mount natively. These adapters are also quite mature and are frequently updated for compatibility because Canon's dominance in market share means their glass is in the hands of many.

 

[rolandas]

"... update & more" I wish:
- Timelapse 4k
- Release ISO Lock on Timelapse
- Remove "magic" 3600 number limitation
- and most needed feature - automatical exposition, because sunset and sunrise timelapses cannot be done. Instead I use CHDK tools for P&S Camera or Hyperlapse App on Android.

Regards

 

[transpo1]

Crossing into another system is quite relevant. Starting off with EF glass is significantly more flexible than starting off with E-mount glass. Because of Sony's mirrorless design, the flange distance precludes it from being mounted on any other cinema camera system other than its own. With EF glass, you not only have a much more mature lens system with many options including tilt shift and creative lenses, but there are many adapters bridging almost all other mounts in existence and most pro-level systems have options that support the EF mount natively. These adapters are also quite mature and are frequently updated for compatibility because Canon's dominance in market share means their glass is in the hands of many.

All true- the Sony A6500 autofocus with Metabones is as fast as EF glass on some Canon cameras, but there is no substitute for using native glass with Canon cameras and color science with comparable video features.