bertzie

Your stills camera isn't a great video camera, my screwdriver makes a shitty hammer. We both got problems.
 
Does Canon have to remove video function all together before people get the friggen point?

He must want a lawsuit, because that's how you get a lawsuit.

He must want a lawsuit, because that's how you get a lawsuit.

​The GH4 sensor is larger, but also higher resolution. The difference in actual pixel size isn't that extreme, the GH4 is maybe 20% larger pixels. And yes, the GH4 records to cheaper media with much smaller files. But it's also an inferior codec to record to. The XC100 is 8bit 422 internal at 305mbps. GH4 is 420 100mbps. That's a MASSIVE dump in compression.
$2500 for the XC10, or $1500 for the GH4 and another $1000 for a decent lens. Call it "oversimplifying" if you want, but it's the truth. At $2500, the GH4 has options for better lenses and a (marginally) larger sensor, but the XC10 has a substantially better codec.
In regards to the FZ1000, it may have a leica named lens, it might even be leica designed, but at that price point not a snowballs chance in hell it's leica manufactured. The FZ1000 also has smaller pixels and yet again, another inferior codec. It might get "close" to the XC10 if you have a very loose definition of the word close.

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

To address something from the article
They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

To address something from the article
They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

To address something from the article
They pack in advanced stills options on these cameras because they are stills cameras. How often does that need to be repeated?

​Whee is AJA confirming that this is the exact sensor they used? Where is Blackmagic also confirming it? Hell, has CMOSIS said they both use the sensor?
It was a well-known fact that Canon was using a Sony sensor in their new 5d, until Canon said they didn't. Where's the actual evidence it's the same sensor?

Someone really needs to sit people down and explain that a DSLR is not a video camera. Apparently a lot of people still don't seem to understand that.
You don't complain about video cameras taking crappy stills, why do you continue to complain about stills cameras taking poor video?

Someone really needs to sit people down and explain that a DSLR is not a video camera. Apparently a lot of people still don't seem to understand that.
You don't complain about video cameras taking crappy stills, why do you continue to complain about stills cameras taking poor video?

Someone really needs to sit people down and explain that a DSLR is not a video camera. Apparently a lot of people still don't seem to understand that.
You don't complain about video cameras taking crappy stills, why do you continue to complain about stills cameras taking poor video?

A commonly available, easy to use, affordable, reliable camera.
 
Oh the horror!!

Video on a stills camera is an afterthought for Canon.
 
4k is not mass-market yet. It's not even enthusiast level. It's professional level. How many 4k televisions do you see at Walmart? How many methods of 4k delivery are there? 4k is at the present moment largely a capture format, not delivery format, and even in that regard it is by no means necessary.
 
Most people that are buying stills cameras are buying them for their intended purpose: Taking still images. Losing 1% of their market because people chose a different stills camera for their video purposes isn't going to hurt Canon enough to make a difference.
 
Nikon doesn't have any camera that shoots 4k, but how often do you see people taking a shit on them?

Canons own advertising puts photography first. The primary focus of the advertisement is photography. The camera is not being marketed at sole videographers. It is being marketed to photographers that also do videography.
 
You can use a DSLR as a video camera just like you can use a screwdriver as a hammer. That doesn't make the DSLR a video camera any more than the screwdriver is a hammer.

From the very interview this thread was created to discuss:
 
 
The 7dmk2 is a stills camera that happens to take video. It was designed primarly for still photography. It is not a video camera. It was not designed as a video camera. It is not intended to be used as a video camera. It is a stills camera that happens to include a video feature.
 
Out of the 18 paragraphs in Canons press release for the 7dmk2, exactly two of them were dedicated to video.
 
If you want video features, buy a video camera. Don't buy the wrong tool for the job then complain it doesn't do the job correctly.

The Vixia is a video camera. The 7dmk2 is a stills camera.
 
Would you complain that a geo metro doesn't come with a fifth wheel hitch?

The fact that this question was asked makes me very seriously question the intelligence of the consumer market, and I didn't have much confidence in their intelligence to begin with.
 
Major points for the rep not answering it with "No shit dumbass"