Opinion: Does Cinema EOS Mark the End of High Spec Canon DSLR Video?

[Canon Rumors]

<p><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/cinema-eos-mark-end-high-spec-canon-dslr-video/" target="_blank">Andrew at EOSHD.com</a> has posted an opinion piece on the future of high spec video features in Canon DSLRs. I’ve had this conversation with people in the past, and I feel somewhat the way Andrew does, in that I don’t see Canon speccing DSLRs as well as future Cinema EOS products. While I have been told a video focused DSLR is coming for NAB 2015, it won’t be a high end professional product.</p>
<p>There was a year when all I saw on videographer rigs was Canon DSLR cameras, but it seems that time has passed. I now see a lot of Cinema EOS cameras as well as smaller offerings from other manufacturers, and I do believe Canon wants videographers using C100’s as opposed to 5D Mark IIIs..</p>
<p>I agree with some of the points at EOSHD, but disagree with others. For Canon, it’s about making money and understanding markets with growth potential and markets in decline. The professional high margin segment is probably where the best chance of growth lies. I think selling more cameras and lenses to Hollywood along with support services is a much better strategy to grow revenue, and more importantly income, than it would be to offer a $2000 4K mirrorless camera for enthusiasts.</p>
<p>We’ll see how the next few years shapes up, and I expect 2015 will give us lots of hints of where Canon sees the future of videography & cinematography going.</p>
<p><strong>From EOSHD

</strong><em>“If Canon announced that they were withdrawing from the enthusiast stills camera market, you’d be surprised. It’s a pretty big market. But withdraw from the enthusiast video market they almost certainly have at the moment, whether they meant to do or not.</em></p>
<p><em><span id="more-14592"></span>Whilst we ponder Canon’s deeply uninspired 2014 in terms of technological innovation, consider this theory – Canon entered the enthusiast DSLR video market by accident and now they have pulled out of it by accident.</em></p>
<p><em>Whether they like it or not, Canon DSLRs are no longer 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 4th best performing enthusiast options for video. Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are all significantly ahead, and if we count Blackmagic (they’re actually more pro than enthusiast) Canon are down to 6th. Just 2 years ago they were 1st. What happened?”</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/cinema-eos-mark-end-high-spec-canon-dslr-video/" target="_blank"><strong>Read the full article</strong></a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[Mitch.Conner]

Too bad. I was hoping the rumor that multiple products next year will sport 4k video meant that the 5d4 might have it.

This sounds like that's unlikely.

 

[SPG]

I stopped reading at "Andrew from EOSHD.com" That guy is notorious as a Canon Video hater. I don't know why he hasn't just renamed his site GH4K.com and moved on.

 

[Tugela]

I stopped reading at "Andrew from EOSHD.com" That guy is notorious as a Canon Video hater. I don't know why he hasn't just renamed his site GH4K.com and moved on.

He is not a "Canon video hater", he is a videographer and frankly the offerings from Canon over the last two years or so are clearly not competitive with what other manufacturers are doing. Folk here can spin that all they want, that Canon are "doing what the market needs" or that "we don't need quality", but the simple fact is that Canon are not in the game at all in the consumer/prosumer market. He is just telling it like it is. A loyal Canon customer (and I used to be one of those) might not like it, but facts are facts.

 

[Niki]

the thing is.. Canon's new lineup hasn't even been announced yet...at the end of next year...things can look much different.

 

[AvTvM]

IMO EOSHD has it right in that the intersection of photo and video in SLR's was largely accidental. The two markets have different needs and one body can't be the choice for both best.

I enjoy occasionally shooting "pretty good" video with my Canon DSLR's, but if I was a serious video shooter I'd expect to buy a dedicated video camera with an EVF or at least a camera that was preferentially a video camera like the GH4. XD and XXD OVF DSLR's are designed primarily for shooting stills. Canon has it's Cinema line for video. Doesn't seem too complicated. My understanding is that the video quality of the Cinema series is excellent.

+1 full ACK

I really hope this "video stuff must be in every stills camera"-mania is dead soon. 8)

 

[Lawliet]

but the simple fact is that Canon are not in the game at all in the consumer/prosumer market. He is just telling it like it is. A loyal Canon customer (and I used to be one of those) might not like it, but facts are facts.

Indirectly they are in - everything that doesn't use PL-mount is EF. That might have been serendipity back then, but until the a new de facto standard emerges they have a bridgehead thanks to being a common denominator in terms of adaptability.
That would on average give a speculative serious Canon a head start in lens stock and vertical integration.
How much that will do is another story.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"The professional high margin segment is probably where the best chance of growth lies. I think selling more cameras and lenses to Hollywood along with support services is a much better strategy to grow revenue, and more importantly income, than it would be to offer a $2000 4K mirrorless camera for enthusiasts."

I tend to doubt that. I think it's fiercer and they have more to do to compete at that level and the volumes are low.
I think they blew it. We'll see.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I stopped reading at "Andrew from EOSHD.com" That guy is notorious as a Canon Video hater. I don't know why he hasn't just renamed his site GH4K.com and moved on.

There are not so many fanboys in the video world. People tend to just be very matter of fact about things. It's not like the other video blogs and talk are much different. Maybe some don't get k about it so much, but they are clearly not talking about or using Canon DSLR for video as much as they had been a couple years ago. And some very, very names in the industry got on Canon a long while back and begged them to not let it slip by. Oh well.

 

[Lawliet]

I'm no expert but aren't all of the Cinema EOS "C" bodies EF mount". That seems like the horse they are betting on. Do they still promote the PL mount cameras? As I said I'm no expert in video.

If you want to play in the high end sector you can't avoid PL.
But on the entry level Blackmagic for example defaults to EF, PL is financially out of reach for enthusiast level work and (from a technical standpoint best choice) E-mount requires a refit by a 3rd party. You can use Canons cine lenses or the Samyangs, but not those for the Sony F-line. That's a gateway to the C-series. At least for now.
Yep, they're betting on the C-line - but it doesn't have a foundation within it's own brand. The 3rd parties making a transition to E-mount would pull the rug under it.
EF makes me think of Bowens S-mount in the lighting department. It's a chance to lead those who'd like to avoid vendor lock in to your product line, but no guaranteed success.

 

[Tugela]

the thing is.. Canon's new lineup hasn't even been announced yet...at the end of next year...things can look much different.

That is what I said last year, and look where we are now.

Until they pony up with something competitive, they have nothing and will be judged on that.

 

[Tugela]

IMO EOSHD has it right in that the intersection of photo and video in SLR's was largely accidental. The two markets have different needs and one body can't be the choice for both best.

I enjoy occasionally shooting "pretty good" video with my Canon DSLR's, but if I was a serious video shooter I'd expect to buy a dedicated video camera with an EVF or at least a camera that was preferentially a video camera like the GH4. XD and XXD OVF DSLR's are designed primarily for shooting stills. Canon has it's Cinema line for video. Doesn't seem too complicated. My understanding is that the video quality of the Cinema series is excellent.

The GH4 is a hybrid camera. The C-EOS line does NOT compete with it. People who buy something like a GH4 want a camera that can perform both stills and video functions very well. Canon does not have any camera in that category right now.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I thought that it was pretty certain that Canon DSLR's were not going to be Cinema DSLR's. The 5D MK II wasn't intended to be a high end video camera, but its large sensor and shallow depth of field ignited a demand from home cinema makers, as well as several TV and movie Cinematographers. It spawned new careers for many, started a entire industry of making accessories, and caught all the DSLR makers flat footed.

Canon, however, was not going to put the features that were wanted by pro cinematographers into a stills camera. They instead created digital cameras more suited to the broadcast industry and cinema rather than escalate the price of stills cameras. They have created a fairly clear boundary between the two. I expect to see even higher end Cinema cameras, but Canon's roots are based on high volume, low cost manufacturing, so they are going after the large markets. They also understand the film makers needs, as do Panasonic and Sony, so those three are going to fight it out for the broadcast and low end cinema business, just as they have for the past 30 years.

I'd like to see video features in DSLR cameras that are more friendly to non Cinema video makers, Canon has a long way to go in that respect.

 

[sjschall]

Whether they like it or not, Canon DSLRs are no longer 1st, 2nd, 3rd or even 4th best performing enthusiast options for video. Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are all significantly ahead, and if we count Blackmagic (they’re actually more pro than enthusiast) Canon are down to 6th. Just 2 years ago they were 1st. What happened?”

I always feel like statements like this are just meant to try to get a rise out of Canon and Canon-users. I still see so much Canon gear in the field. And I still hardly ever see someone shooting video on a Nikon or a Samsung camera.

 

[Bahrd]

Combining all the recent rumors, I have found this one quite plausible. Indeed, an on-sensor DP AF should allow Canon to offer quite separate product lines:

• Cinema EOS - with a stress put on video features (global shutter, connectors, etc.),
• EOS DLSR - built for AF, OVF and multiple FPS's (but with a 'second-tier' video),
• EOS M/X (say) - a range of compact mirrorless cameras comparable feature-wise to what Sony, Panasonic & Samsung offer.

 

[Antono Refa]

Having shot very little video, please pardon my naivete - was Canon DSLR ever in position to be high spec?

OK, the 5Dmk2 opened a lot of possibilities to low end videographers, like shooting with a wide variety of relatively cheap lenses (relative to cinema lenses), but AFAIK that's because they lacked cine lens features, e.g. being parfocal and having rings that are pull-friendly.

 

[jeffa4444]

The Cinema EOS cameras are not really the main stay of Hollywood or at least not currently. That space is filled by Arri Alexa and Red Epic / Dragon cameras. Yes C500s are used on certain shots in certain movies but they are not common. Where the C100 / C300 / C500 have scored is in TV and commercials and that market is far larger than cinema where there is a fairly flat level of production.

Canon want the kudos of cinema but know the TV market is far far greater as does Black Magic.

I for one have NEVER used the video feature in my Canon 6d or 7d preferring dedicated video cameras that are more geared to that mediu. A DSLR without video like the Nikon Df would suit me fine.

 

[Deakin Photo]

I find it interesting that nobody here has mentioned the Sony A7s. Is the lack of pixel real estate an issue for most of you? As a photographer/videographer, I lean more towards the video end of things, and my 5DmkII isn't cutting it anymore. The GH4 doesn't interest me, mainly because of its sensor size, and the offerings of the A7s far outperform it.

How Canon can ignore the market when the technology is there is beyond me. They created an entirely new product and idea accidentally, but are now intentionally turning their back on it. IMO they will come to regret this decision with Sony, BlackMagic, and the likes dominating. Why would I purchase a C100 for twice the cost of a A7s? The two have offsetting features/outputs, but ultimately the Sony delivers far more value and image quality.

The Cinema EOS line won't find many buyers for the same reasons I won't be purchasing one. The Cinema line doesn't even have a defining feature to set it apart from the crowd like the FS700. Looking to do a commercial on the cheap? The A7s is there. Money isn't an issue? Arri time. Standard shoot? RED. They all do their job ten times better.

 

[andrewflo]

I felt like this video of Hitler reacting to the C100 MKII belonged here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFeJILVOTek

It's just a joke of course. And I truly hope no one is offended by it! It turned up on Reddit and I thought it was hilarious

Historic tragedies and Canon-hate bandwagons aside... I think the article should of course be taken with a grain of salt. But it's definitely an interesting angle.

 

[Policar]

How Canon can ignore the market when the technology is there is beyond me. They created an entirely new product and idea accidentally, but are now intentionally turning their back on it. IMO they will come to regret this decision with Sony, BlackMagic, and the likes dominating. Why would I purchase a C100 for twice the cost of a A7s? The two have offsetting features/outputs, but ultimately the Sony delivers far more value and image quality.

Then get the A7s.

Canon isn't trying to market toward the cutting edge of hobbyists, but toward wedding videographers, low end corporate, etc. That's why their mirrorless segment sucks for stills, too; they're focusing on products designed for professional shooters, who don't need that extra DR but do need that killer autofocus and optical finder and lens compatibility. When they throw that out, you get a sorry consumer product in the EOS M. Whereas the 7 DII looks fantastic.

That said, the A7s has a dreadful interface and ergonomics for shooting video, poor lens compatibility, a non-standard codec that's less industry-friendly (if arguably better) than on the C300 or C100, and Sony's SLOG 2 implementation is awful with over-saturated highlights that can't be fixed in post, odd skin tones, and too much dynamic range for an 8-bit wrapper. And the skew is just dreadful, not a nice combination for a lightweight camera. I find the image far inferior subjectively to the C300, but technically it is great and the low light knocks everyone's socks off.

I spent a lot of time with the F5 and while the specs blow the C300 away, the user experience was really poor. Bad timecode sync, ugly colors, magenta skin, ugly grain structure, SLOG 2 sucks (SLOG 3 is better so kudos to Sony there!) wheras WideDR and the current Canon Log color matrices are really nice and very pretty, etc. It was like driving a car with a lot of horsepower but terrible handling.

Canon's the market leader so they're focusing more on boring "pro" features that make the camera easy to use and with footage that's small, easy to ingest, and edit, and can even look ok straight out of the camera. WideDR looks great and has lots of DR; EOS standard intercuts with Canon dSLRS, which are still ubiquitous, even on network tv as b cameras (seriously). Sony has great specs but takes more work to make it work and it's not there when every MB and transcode costs your company serious time and money. For an enthusiast, seems like a no-brainer to get the Sony, the low light is incredible and if you avoid clippy saturated highlights and skew then the image is very competitive and better than Canon dSLRs for sure (if you can grade well). But for bread and butter shooting the C300 still owns the market segment and there are very good reasons why it does. The image is beautiful and really easy to post with and requires low end hardware and not much support to use. Great single operator camera, I see them all over. Canon is a lot like Apple: poor specs for the money, but great user experience and system loyalty for that reason. Arri even more so. The highest end cinema camera still has the lowest resolution sensor, but the Alexa is a dream. Curiously, Canon's lowest sensor density camera is also its most professional, the 1DX. Nikon's D4 is even lower-res.... Maybe not so curious. Pros pay for hard drives, they don't sell more photos if they have more resolution beyond the baseline needed.

Black Magic seems cool, but I find their products horribly bad for ergonomics, and the 4k has static noise like crazy and just a bad interface whereas the 2.5k aliases like nuts and also has a bad interface. The pocket camera seems cute, though incomplete. Cool studio camera for well-lit green screen shots, but not as flexible by any means as any of the competition.

But yes, Canon did abandon anyone who wants "cinema" video IQ in a dSLR for cheap (whereas Sony and Panasonic made some great strides here), and they did so to support their cinema line. The Mark III isn't terrible and the 70D introduced really cool AF, but the image didn't get dramatically better. No, it wasn't very nice for them to focus on professional gear instead, but so far it has paid off financially. To be honest, I also think the C300 is a great product, just pricy. Sharpest 1080p on the market (sharper than some 4k and probably as sharp as the Alexa's 2k tbh definitely sharper than Alexa 1080p), great colors, easy codec to handle in post. I still hope the C300 Mk II is strong enough that Canon isn't afraid to improve their image quality on their still cameras. The 5D Mark II still has a nice look, and Canon does great color processing. Would be cool if they improved the specs just a bit, I agree, but they will never again be cutting-edge, at least not intentionally. The 5D Mark II was a fluke. Also, 120fps... that would be sick.