Damon Mosier

Canon releases a new camera line called MEH. Canon's chief architech Mishiku Opportuntzie speaks about the product development of their MEH line of cameras. "Canon is strong on two paths the first is Imposible and the second is MEH. We listen to our customers needs and offer to them the choises of MEH1 and MEH2.

When you are the company selling the software it is edited on it matters a great deal. They aren't advertising it to soccer moms. They are advertising it to editors. You know, kinda like how Arri crowed to all the cinematographers about how all the Best Picture nominees were shot on Arri cameras.

And to put this in perspective, Final Cut Pro wasn't considered to be a credible platform for editing "professional" movies on until Walter Murch used it to cut Cold Mountain. That legitimized it in the eyes of many and that's when more "professionals" began using it in earnest.

Ever since the debacle that was Final Cut X rolled out, Adobe has been aggressively pursuing the segment of the market that Apple was abandoning. With this announcement, I would say it is a sign that they have gone a long way toward succeeding.

> I honestly don't understand why people are so upset over what Canon are doing or not doing
 
I think people are upset because they bought the 5D Mk II and invested in Canon lenses thinking that Canon would continue and improve upon what they started, in the same relatively affordable price range.  Instead, Canon put the next version of the 5D on ice for almost four years and told Canon DSLR videographers that if they wanted any improvements, they would need to take out a second mortgage on their house and get into the high-priced Cinema Series.  To rub salt in the wound they withheld basic video features on their DSLRs that they were happy to give to the cheap small-sensor camcorder crowd.

When you can get a head-phone jack on a $249 Canon camcorder but not on the $2,000 6D (like the 7D also advertised by Canon as being designed for videographers), there is no way that can be explained away.
 
Yes, you can sell all your Canon gear and buy something with more up-to-date video features at a more reasonable price from a different manufacturer.  But for true Canon fans, it's a sad occasion when they have to do that, reflecting on what could of been if only Canon had stuck by the folks who helped them start the whole DSLR video revolution in the first place.

The iPhone is a phone.  The MacBook is a computer.
 
Would you complain that an iPhone doesn't come with the ability to load applications?

Just to illustrate (even more) how artificial Canon's restrictions on video features on Canon DSLRs are, take a look at the little Canon Vixia HF R400 camcorder.  It retails for $249 (I got one on sale for $199).  It can record 1080p at 60 frames per second and has a headphone jack for monitoring audio, features not present on any Rebel or the $2,000 6D, although these finally did show up on the new $1,800 7D Mk 2.  This cheap little camcorder can also do clean HDMI out (!), another feature not present on any Canon DSLR that costs less than $1,800.  It also does not suffer from moire and other line-skipping issues. However, before you all throw away your Arri Alexas and get one of these $249 camcorders, I do need to mention it has a tiny sensor so in low light the grain looks like a snow blizzard.  What amazes me though is that Canon is willing to give their cheap tiny sensor cameras features that they withhold from DSLRs costing six times as much.
 
If you are willing to spend another $100, for $349 you can get a Vixia with built-in WiFi, the same feature that costs $850 to add to the $1,800 7D Mk 2.

In that same DPReview interview Maeda San claimed WiFi wasn't possible because of the construction of the 7D Mark II's chassis. What's it made of, lead?
 
The D750 has a carbon fibre chassis and built in WiFi. More expensive to produce.
 
Excuses are bad enough, but if you have to lie to your customers in forming such excuses, it's doubly bad.
 
I was told by Canon when the 5D Mark III came out that it lacked full 1080p HDMI because the hardware wasn't capable of it, then along it came later in a firmware update, so I know they lie to their customers. I have seen it for myself.

Cool. Is it $599?
 
:D  B)

One of my adapters went wonky on shoot recently, but with no client over the shoulder dealt with it and the result looks great. It was a $10 adapter though ;)
 
Ideally the FS7 should have a changeable hard mount, like the Epic.

Thank you Damon, I agree with you as we know the reasons of shooting anamorphic nowadays. Those reasons are different from the ones when the cinemascope method was invented.

I have to disappoint you, but Rec.2020 is just a recommendation for UHD and has nothing to do with actual monitor colour gamut.
 
That Samsung is not bad (especially considering it's TN panel) and almost covers sRGB (similar to rec.709), but it is far far from rec.2020 colour gamut recommendation.
Don't know its colour accuracy (which is as important as color space coverage), but overall it is just avarage monitor (good for TN) in terms of colors.

I know that you said color reproduction wasn't exactly 100% accurate, but just the fact that the UHD color gamut is Rec.2020 instead of crappy Rec.709 is a major improvement...

IMAX cat videos please.

This is the best new camera of 2010!

Huh... you're making up sales by looking at the number of daily users on a photography sharing website? You think the GH2 through GH4 are primarily stills cameras? If I go out to shoot stills I'll take my E-M1 with me. If I'm going to shoot video, which rather is a planned thing, not a daily occurence, I'd be more inclined to use one of the GH's or the BMPCC. If I was more serious about photography, wouldn't mind the bulk of it and had the money to spend, I'd just might go for a D810, 5DmkIII or something in that general direction with some nice glass. If I wanted quick snaps, I'd use a smartphone or the LX7, if I were on vacation travelling light, I'd be shooting with the FZ1000. It comes to me as no surprise for example that there are more people sharing their LX7 and FZ200 pictures, than stuff shot with a GH3 for example. The use is completely different, not to mention people don't just stop using their camera after half a year.
 
You can't really make any judgements on the sales of cameras if the data you're basing your assumption on comes from one particular website focused around photography.
 
I do however agree that the 7DmkII is primarily a stills camera and for that, it actually makes quite an ok camera, with some appealing features. Although even then it's nothing radical, nothing groundbreaking, and I have to agree with the naysayers... this is a little too late. If you want a Canon APS-C crop camera for fast tele shooting, then yes, this is the logical thing to look at. But it's a mashup between the original 7D and the 70D's internals and then adds a little other gooey stuff. But in terms of video... and we are on a video focused website here, why even bother? I really don't see the appeal here. If you see how the competition just keeps stepping up the game and then look at this 'increment', well, it starts to look insignificant. And having to rely on Magic Lantern to give the features people are looking for... well, that just won't do.
 
And I get that the fraction of people actually seriously using video on a dSLR is rather small, but to me it seems foolish not to go along with it anyways. I'm sure technically it's very well possible and in comparison to the competition they just seem stagnant. A T2i/550D used to be a nice affordable starters package for video and Canon could still be as relevant as they were back then if they'd continue to evolve. But how much better is a 700D really? The jump in relation to upgradepath is just way to small. I didn't expect the 7DmkII to be a videographers dream either, although, a significant upgrade on the videofront would've been nice. But I'd really like to see a 700D successor with a more forward focus towards video to become the present day's T2i/550D. But I don't think they care enough to pull something like that. 'Selling units against least effort', seems to be their motto. They'd rather throw on a different button, use another rubber coating and add some filters and sell it as the 'latest model'. Wow John. It's amazing. But wait! There's more! Well, actually, there's not. There never seems to be more with Canon. With Canon you can't.
 
You have a great pick of lenses and for taking stills it's pretty cool to look at some of their offerings, but for video... mweh. A shame really.

ML is the one and only thing that could possibly make this useful as a cinema camera in 2015. But even then I think this camera is too little, too late. It's cutting edge 2012 DSLR video for the year 2014/2015. Like it was said, this camera will be on the market for several years and money would be better spent on something else now or next year that isn't so outdated out of the box.

According to Dave McGavran over on Creative Cow, Adobe has only implemented cinemaDNG playback in this update and not raw capabilities. That is something they are working on for future updates. Would have been nice if they were upfront about this ahead of time, but there it is.

Basic functionality first, more robust capabilities later.
 
 

That is why I am watching the Kinefinity line very closely. Frankly, I hope it does very well.

To me, this is pretty much the camera platform that the Canon C line should have been. No way I'm paying $15k for a camera that only shoots 8bit 1080P. Even the C100 is a jip.

So if anyone is worried about this camera it's Canon, not BM or Red.