tomekk

Innovation is what makes money. Canon's profits are down 42% at the last count. So some plan that is!

 

No, innovation doesn't make money. Implying their profit has gone down due to lack of innovation as a main factor is ridiculous.

Hope you'll look for medium format to full frame. Would be awesome to have some Hasselblad Zeiss to Canon EF, or even Mamiya 645 to Canon EF. Would blow away any 35mm and smaller lens and they are cheaper and cheaper as film disappear (less and less film roll available on eBay each week).

+1000

wow, should look like that with 80-90k USD spent on their 2 zoom cine lenses (30-300 14.5-60). Would be pretty pissed if they didn't deliver.

Also, don't be afraid to build your own fixtures, especially for interior location lighting, if you like a natural look.  Even with Kinos on set a lot of great DPs augment practical lights with their own homebrew creations, bat strips, China balls and the like, because these tend to look less contrived than studio lighting.  They're also less stressful on your actors and don't chew up as much space.

 

 

edit: I looked but they don't have it in their online archives, but if you ever see for sale or get the chance to pick up the October 2000 issue of American Cinematographer Magazine there's a great little article on the lighting philosophy of Jean Yves Escoffier and how he applied it to the Labute film Nurse Betty.  It's been a touchstone and reference of mine all these years whenever I think about interior lighting and the legitimacy of homebrew lighting fixtures, even on the set of a major motion picture.  People talk all the time about what they think they could or couldn't pull out of a bag in front of a client and that's just ridiculous.  The end image is all that matters.

 

Just bought it on ebay  Paying more for postage to europe than for the magazine itself!!!!! ;). Hope it's worth it =)

guys, where is gopro ?

I actually think that would make a lot of sense.

 

Many software packages do that, you pay to unlock specific features.

Not every 5D user needs video, not every 5D user needs advanced stills capabilities, this way they could keep prices down and you could build up modularly, firmware wise. This would also be way more ecological than upgrading the hardware all the time just for a couple small features.

 

Crackers would be all over it.

add gh2 :)

1. buy 1DC

2. Read this article

3. ????

4. profit

I guess the problem for majority is with 3 Andrew ;).  LOL

 

You make an interesting point Rich about if goods were manufactured in the US or UK we'd be paying what they actually cost to make. Actually I think we'd only pay slightly more and that big companies would be FORCED to lower their margins. What they're doing today (take Apple, Dell, Canon, Sony, almost anybody big as an example) is simply exploitation. Exploitation of low living costs for their huge gains. It isn't to bring the prices down for consumers, it is to put their margins up.

 

This is really getting interesting. I wonder why there is no regulation on for example what actors/models you can hire. Definitely you shouldn't be allowed to pay to little for worse quality. Well, yeah you should be forced to lower margins as well. There is no reason for your margins. LMAO The other solution is to just compensate for more expensive labour and make the price higher (that's what actually happens most of the time. External cost of your work goes up, final price goes up. Thought you know this basic law)

I'll apologise to Andrew now for drawing this further into politics, but here goes:- 

 

(Disclaimer.  I'm not saying I am right, I am just saying this is what I believe)

 

I mean corporations on the whole are greedy.  Being brought up since the early 80's i guess I have been shaped to be greedy, but i'm less greedy than most.  I remember a time when items were made in the uk for the masses.  Now only small runs of specialist goods are made here, and this is not good for the economy.    My point is that most western companies are so inefficient the only way they can earn profit is to take advantage of cheap labor.  Smaller companies like metabones will be manufacturing in China due to it being the only option (western labor is too expensive).  

 

Now, if we boycott the Chinese manufactured goods and say "NO" then companies have to manufacture in their own country.  When this happens we end up paying what products should cost, not what 'sweat shop low' paid kids and their parents are allowing the corporations to get away with charging.  Conversely to your comment, I'd rather not have the cheap knock off option so easy to obtain.  A dumb lens adaptor (for example) should cost more than £10 (including delivery).  I have bought them instead of the original one that was copied,  If it weren't there I'd have paid the £50 for the original one.  When we buy these things we are lowering ourselves and lowering the value of everything.  This IMO has played a large part in why the western world has found itself in such problematic financial times of late.     

 

If Chinese and other cheap manufactured goods were banned from being export out of China, it would take less than 2 years for the rest of the world to rebuild their manufacturing bases tothe point where we become self sufficient and I imagine prices of items wouldn't be very much higher than if made in China today.  The longer this goes on, the less productive the world will become.  When China want more money per hour (which they will do), The business model stops dead.  Western society wont be able to call upon the African workforce that China are developing, so who will make all our stuff for us at a price we can afford??  Every decade this continues, the less likely it will be that there are people in western society that can work and do for themselves.    

 

This is really not the place for talking about it so I won't reply after this post. Make another thread if u want further discussion or send me a msg. First - it's not politics. It's economics.

 

You post is based on the assumption that somehow prices will not be affected by more expensive labour. I can't see logic in it. You would prefer to make production more expensive (by eliminating cheap labour) and rather overpay for a product you could get cheaper if cheap labour was allowed. Interesting logic, but I guess most people want lower prices, not higher. Me included. If I can get same quality product cheaper then I'd prefer to buy cheaper one. Sure, you can eliminate cheap labour but don't expect final price of the product to stay the same.

 

Think about it this way: competition. Sure, you can boycott chinese... hell why only chinese. Let's boycott everything that's not UK made. Ban ALL cheaper products which are not uk made (that's what you're suggesting, expensive you don't have to ban - nobody will buy them :D). So what we got now? UK prices, and UK only products, huurraaayyy!!! Who's profiting? UK manufactures, hurrraaayyy!. Who's losing - customer... wait.. huurrayyy??

Good luck with repairing economy this way.

 

What you SHOULD pay for a product SHOULD NOT be controlled / enforced. Free market ensures it's the most optimal price that can be set. If you want to control it, you are on the way to socialism. Cheap labour is good for economy because first and foremost you are a customer and you want low prices and biggest possible competition. Making things expensive is not the way to go. It's the opposite of reparing the economy. As you can see it's not as easy as let's get rod of the imigrants and non-uk companies. It doesn't work that way. Actually, it's exactly the opposite. Most things you buy, don't produce. So let's say it's good for you as a producer to get rid of cheaper competition. Ultimately for you as a producer the best situation would be if there was NO competition in your field. It's not good for you customers though.

So if you buy most things, you lose out most of the time if you limit cheaper force. You want to ban chinese? Go ahead, but the only outcome is bad for economy because you are limiting competition.

Sad but true. Innovative products need to be manufactured out of China if there is any chance of it retaining long term value. the locusts devour all profit margin and end up rotting the company to the point where it is no longer running and breaking the mould with new stuff. Based on western greed, sending all manufacture to china and paying peanuts, now the only option is to manufacture in China otherwise your prices are too high, and usually this means your product will soon appear under a number of different brand names, for less than a 3rd of the price you have to sell them to cover your initial R+D outlay and pay your overheads.
 

This is a little bit offtopic but I'd like to point out you got it backwards. Customers want the lowest possible price for the best possible product. So by saying greedy do you mean yourself? Companies in order to deliver what customers want look for ways to make production as cheap as possible for customers. It's good for everyone. Don't want to make it long so I stop here.

The reason is enlargement ratio. There is always a degradation of image quality when enlarging an image. The smaller the sensor, the more times an image must be enlarged to make the display size. Example. MFT has to be enlarged about 10 x to print an 8x10. A Full frame sensor only has to be enlarged about 5 times. This means that the larger sensor will be able to hide more defects than a smaller sensor, because it has been enlarged so much. 

 

 

I don't get this part. James said optical performance increases due to image compression. So I guess the question is: by how much?

Wow, if I'm understanding this right, then an optical reducer could enable smaller sensors to achieve a shallow DOF when desired, but a deeper one when needed (e.g., shooting at night). Why limit yourself with a large sensor?

Total depth of field is virtually constant with focal length. Only limit with FF sensor is you can't use this thingy on it so u can't get faster apertures so yeah ;)

Just to confirm. Does it mean all the high end L glass will be faster with better quality on a crop sensor? For example 24mm 1.4 which had FOV equivalent to 38mm on FF will have 24mm FF FOV with improved quality (will be 1.0 or whatever the math is).

 

WOW, If this is true, implications can potentially destroy FF cameras lines (unless it'll be possible to do similar magic for FF sensors). Companies could now make much better lenses for smaller sensor which outperform all the best lenses that exist now. By better I mean, they'll fix AF issues which from what I understand is the only known downside to this converter at the moment.

The question is when should I start selling my L primes and DSLR before nobody will buy them ;). sigh

wow, time to buy gh3 ;)

^^ on the other hand you go and party like resolution is the most important apsect of video making. I have moved on.

Also who are you to tell what kind of  margins are high and what price is O.K. for a product you don't make.

People managed to shoot stills before AF; if AF matters buy a lens that can autofocus with the system.

Fair enough. I apologize, my point should have been clearer; for someone manually focusing with a large aperture, the GH3 is much easier. Especially for stills.

Panasonic 7-14. Not the best piece of glass but if there's no other solution, then that's it.

If a professional needs AF then they will have bought the GH3 to be part of the m4/3 system. In fact, if a professional "buys into" the m4/3 system, then their m4/3 lenses will be just as future proof as lenses for other camera systems.

 

The only problem I have with GH3/GH2 is show me a pro photographer shooting professionally stills with it. GH2/GH3 is only addition, it's not a hybrid. It'll never beat canons/nikons system for stills with superior range of lenses and flexibility. It'll never beat FF sensor for stills. It's nice for extra resolution in video - if you need it, it loses in everything else.

 

Add the fact canon at some point in the future will adjusts to the competition. They will have to. They can easily crush GH3 if they want to. When it happens, you're ahead if u already know their system. It is very likely that they'll stay at the top of the photogpraphy industry with their cameras.

Zeiss lenses or Canon lenses via adapter

 

 

 

More DOF when opening up the iris.

 

 

SLRMagic 12mm, Olympus 12mm

 

 

A slight inconvenience. 

 

@1) yeah, but what to do when I want to shoot stills? Does this adapter support AF?

@2) yeah, but can it match 5dmk3 in low light?

@3) yeah, but what if i want wider than 24mm.

@4) yeah, but can I be "hybrid" pro with it? Will pros start using it @weddings etc???

For anyone that can't afford the BMCC, I suspect that the GH3 is going to swallow up this part of the market for next year or two.

 

With an image that is at least as good as the 5d3 and lots of other juicy bells-and-whistles -- at a price point that is similar to Canon's current Rebel line -- it'll be a no-brainer for most enthusiasts. 

 

that is if they don't need better, future proof lenses, better low light, wide angles and superior stills camera features.

Essentially when you can produce a camera that does 4K and make a nice profit on it at $6k, it just shows how weak the competition is when Canon can still be a market leader and DISABLE the entire feature, instead selling it for double the price to a select few. 4K isn't mainstream yet, but when it is Canon won't be able to sell a 4K DSLR for $6000 let alone $12,000.

 

When competition catches up, they'll lower the price and make adjustement. It doesn't make logical sense to do it earlier. It's like me saying competition is weak in video market cause you guys charge sooo muuch for your work. In the future, when we have raw in iphones and 1000x more processing power + many more educated ppl in video industry you won't be able to sell your work at current prices. LMAO.

What Canon are doing here makes no business sense to me. They make a healthy margin on the 1D X as it is at over $6k, imagine the sales leap had they enabled 4K video on it.

 

So they are going to sell how many 1D C's? 2000 of them? Mostly in one country. Does that seem like a good reason to piss off the 40,000 who would have bought a 1D X for 4K video? Does that seem like a good business decision, really?

 

 

How about you apply to canon for some sort of business position with your indepth analysis.

...

 

Except the irony here is NVIDIA pro drivers aren't as good as their consumer drivers.  Not in Windows or Linux.  They have more features but my experience with them is they're quite flaky.  Not as bad as ATI's pro drivers but one of the dirty little secrets about professional, expensive computer stuff (both hardware and software) is that it loves to crash, takes a long time to configure and once you get it functional enough you can actually get work done with it you don't want to ever touch it again for fear it'll stop working.

haha lol, I assumed they would be better. don't own any pro cards. Funny stuff.

This stuff about CPUs and graphics cards being differentiated by firmware switches and clocking is hardware related. The chips that don't pass quality control perfectly are put into the under-clocked boards. It is not the same as what Canon is doing here and the prices between different CPUs and graphics boards is minuscule compared to the huge $6000 Canon wants for your 1D C firmware and heat sink.

 

 

This is not true. Some of them probably yes. However, it's a tiny percentage. Rest is just marketing b*shit. If this was true, they wouldn't lock the multiplier because what would be the point?? In the past I used to sell overclocked CPUs (for extra money when I was a student). 95% of CPUs you could overclock to the fastest version.

In case of GPUs it is similar + obviously they cripple consumer cards to protect PRO cards like quadros. 1) Drivers in quadros are superior. they include instructions that are not available in consumer cards improving performance in some instances.

2) Top pro card will have more RAM than top consumer card.

Same principle: slightly better drivers + a little bit more memory == double the price ?

Soo, what is the price difference between pro and consumer?

@ALL.

Hey guys, this is pointless. Everyone DOES it. Maybe you'll focus on something more productive if you finally understand it. This whole post is useless. Think about INTEL / AMD making ONE CPU and then selling it at different prices points depending on the speed they choose. Most CPUs could be overclocked to the fastest ones. NVIDIA/ATI Most cards can be overclocked to the fastest ones. CARS > diesel engines. Most can be chipped to get the performance of the strogest versions. Your true love APPLE - learn how to sell overpriced products and it BEATS hands down Canon in products crippling (Iphones)

So what's your point Andrew? This is how world works. This is how companies make money. If you whine about canon then go and whine about the whole world but what is the point?

I mean I like it if you encourage some russian hacker to hack 1DX  =) hehe.

in 5dmk3 you pay extra for the AF imho. That's for stills shooters obv.