tugela
-
Posts
840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by tugela
-
-
Wifi control of the camera wont work?
-
Well the GH4 has a quarter sensor size of a 5D, less than quarter when shooting 4K.
The RX10II, RX100IV, AX100, X70, XC10, FZ1000, LX100 are all a tiny fraction of the sensor size on the 5D.
It just may be the technology hasn't been ready for a small 4K FF camera, in fact nobody does it, (1DC comes closest) and even Sony, still to this day can't do it on the A7s due to heat issues.
So not having internal FF 4K is justifiable (well nobody else does it, as of 2011 to now) but not having good FF 1080p isn't justifiable however (Others do it, well the A7s and D810)
We all know Canon is not going to give the rebel s35 line internal 4K before the FF 5D, so I guess that could very well be the reason for the long delay, is that they are pretty obligated to give it to the 5D before lower end models.
They better hurry up however as an A7rII with 4K FF is coming soon and that one will make it unjustifiable not have a 4K 5D IV in the same era.
It has nothing to do with the sensor size, something like the A7s does full sensor reads when shooting video. The heat issues come from the processor demands combined with the form factor for the camera. The A7s can shoot 4K quite comfortably, what it can't do is process that internally and stay cool, so you need to record it externally. Newer Sony processors are more power efficient, so they generate less heat, and that allows internal recording. If the A7s had a body style like a DSLR it probably would have had enough heat sink capability to record internally.
I really doubt they have heat issues.
I think is more of a profit problem, they need the cheapest approach possible to obtain 4k in a smaller body.
Processing power already exists to downscale high megapixels to 4k, high quality and small processors at 20nm or 14nm can be done and they don't overheat, but hey, they cost, canon wants dirt cheap components.
If a mobile phone can do 4k, gh4, samsung nx1, go pro 3, phantom 3 camera, it's kind of obvious Canon wants a 4k camera that costs as little as possible to make and get sold at absurd Canon premium price.
Man, if it weren't for the lenses, they keep milking the poor people traped in the canon system lenses.
Those other products are using IP that Canon doesn't have access to, and since the IP holders are competitors, they are not going to license it either. So Canon has to use old technology instead, and that old tech is not up to scratch when it come to video in general and 4K in particular.
-
So Canon simply do not have the technical know-how to create DSLRs that are 4k. Interesting to see them admit this.
I think the problem isn't that they lack the knowhow, but rather that they lack processors of sufficient sophistication to handle the workload. IMO this is the root of most if not all of Canon's perceived sluggishness in adopting the future. The big problem they have is that they lack the capability to develop such processors at the same rate their main competitors in the MILC arena can, so they are always on the back foot when it comes to things like video (unless they use the sledgehammer approach, but that is expensive).
I'm no huge Canon fan. I used to be. Bought the t3i when it was new and loved it. Good times.
But I must say that Canon has always given me the Apple vibe. On paper it looks expensive and without the latest and greatest features. But when using it you sort of get it. The features and hardware it does have work, and work very very well.
A camera I've always been intrigued by but never owned is tha XA20. The little sister of the XF100 but with a longer zoom and slowmo. I thought, "it seems nice but man, that price".
First time I played with it, Ahh now I get it, and want it more than ever.
Same with the C100.
And now the xc10. The dvx200 and xc10 I think will be the two most underrated cameras this year.
Slow lenses, weird features, high prices aside. When Canon does something they might not do it right but they do it well. And Panasonic, they do lots of things but when they finally make a successor to a legend, it will be sweet.
To me the XC10 thread here and on other places is a pretty good example. Nothing but hate. Everything was wrong, everything. And then it stopped.
Because the footage looks great and the actual user experiences are positive.
Any who, don't exactly know the point of this post since I'm a little bit drunk from drinking beer while waiting on Indian food, but those where my thoughts.
No, the XC10 footage looks like garbage. It isn't 4K, it is more like 2.4K. People aren't talking about it because they have given up and moved on if they are interested in shooting real 4K.
-
How close are you sitting? Unless you're relatively close, the benefit over 1080p is minimal. That's why 4K monitors and 4K projectors make sense to me, but not TVs; people will continue sitting about 10-12 feet back from their sets, rendering that increased resolution pretty damn pointless at sizes under 80 inches.
And 4K will in no way eliminate grain. It's likely your set is just eliminating it in software.That is the theory. However, it is not the practice. At that distance the difference is obvious. I'm not talking about theory, but from personal experience.
The problem with the theory is that it was made up by people who want to rationalize not having higher resolutions, not because there isn't a visible difference, but just because they don't want it.
Technical articles will help too.
For example we should know that Bayer interpolation results in slightly blurred edges. So some digital sharpening is necessary. The problem is that 1DC and NX1 target a very different market. Professionals will most probably post-process their footage, while enthusiast most probably will not. So Canon made a gradable file, whereas Samsung made a "put me in a Samsung 4K TV" kind of file...
Sharpening isn't necessary with an oversampled sensor. It will deliver close to full 4K resolution without that.
-
Seriously the 'sharpness' of the NX1 is NOT an advantage.
4K should be soft.
There I said it...
Otherwise it just looks digital and WAY too harsh for any kind of human being in front of the lens.
Not if you are shooting natural history, lol. You want it to look realistic, as though the viewer is really there. And unless you have cataracts or something, human vision is NOT soft (in fact, it exceeds HD resolution in center view by a big margin).
I got a 65" 4K panel over the weekend, and the old HD footage looks really sad on it. Especially BluRays of movies shot at regular resolution, they have far too much grain and noise, so they look like crap. Stuff shot at 4K and delivered as HD upscaled reasonably well, although no where near as nice as native 4K footage.
-
FYI, the NX1's H.265 may be DOA due to licensing royalties:
More hysteria. If you don't want to pay them, then deliver in H.264 or some other format. It will only affect people using the codec to deliver content to consumers at a price. A 0.5% royalty seems pretty reasonable to me. The content delivery people will just increase the price for whatever they are delivering by 5% and pass it on to the consumer, while taking the extra 4.5% as additional profit.
After using the GH4 and NX1 I have no desire for a DSLR with OVF for shooting 4K video.
Agreed. For video an EVF is superior.
I would say the opsite. In the shootout the 1dc strikes me as more realistic. The world doesn't look to my eyes like what the nx1 shows.
But of course, neither you or I know what where talking about. We weren't there.
The problem with film is that it can see ultraviolet light eyes can't see, and that is what give that blue cast that you are trying to mimic with the 1DC. It is an artifact of the film days, it isn't realistic. The 1DC tries to mimic the colors of film, while the NX1 tries to mimic the colors of the human eye.
IMO the problem is that people who shoot video are so ingrained with the artificial colors of film (since that is what they grew up studying) that they try to duplicate it even though technology has moved on to the point where more realistic colors are achievable.
-
Film doesn't look like real life. And that's the point imo. It looks good, dreamy, exciting, magical, "enter any random word".
And it's the same with everything in films. Even if they are shot digitally it doesn't look like real life. It doesn't sound like real life. People don't talk or act like real life. Physics don't apply. People don't die when they should. Etc etc etc.
All I know is that I sit in forums like this and peep at everything from Sony 4K to H.265. I mainly shoot Raw but also avchd. I watch modern movies shot with the absolute latest in video technology.
And then the other day when I rewatched the old "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" I was once again just blown away of how good real film looks. Even if it's over 50 years old and kinda Vintage.
The skin tones, highlights, shadows, everything just straight out kills any video footage I've seen.
If you are recording natural history, or real life, or interviews, it is supposed to look real, not surreal.
-
Hollywood wanted a 4K DSLR so Canon saw an opportunity and enabled 1.3x 4K crop video mode on their 1D X. The 1D C was born and the £12,000 price tag made sure nobody bought it.
With the Samsung NX1, the consumer didn't want 4K H.265 but is getting it anyway, because Samsung wants them to buy that lovely 4K TV to view the footage with. This is called technological progress, where more powerful machines are thrust upon an unexpected public and everyone gets excited.
Now the two world collide in this shoutout. Expect fireworks!
The Samsung NX1 is currently on special offer for $1299 at B&H
To my eye the NX1 color looks more natural. The 1DC color looks like the sort of photographs cameras in the 70s would take. I think that is where the color bias comes from, people are trying to mimic the color of old film rather than the color that really is there.
It is also looks like the NX1 has somewhat better resolution than the 1DC as well.
-
It is tongue in cheek satire making a point that Canon have released merely a new box as a whole new filmmaker package and charged top whack for it at that.
It is making fun of the kind of idiot who would fall for this kind of cynical marketing ploy... and yes there are plenty of them.
Hopefully not too many on here but sometimes I have my doubts
Not just a fancy box, but an obsolete camera inside. My guess is that it is marketing razzle dazzle to get rid of old inventory otherwise gathering dust in the warehouse, and make a fat profit in the process.
I think the folk who buy this are going to be a little disappointed that the quality of whatever they try to shoot doesn't come even remotely close to what they see other cameras do on YouTube.
-
Yes that is why I said this...
Still waiting to see the Sony/Zeiss OEM tilt/shift lenses.
There is a reason at every political, sporting, celebrity, event you see white lenses and red rings all over the place. And it's not because on average Sony/Zeiss lenses are "much better" than Canon Ls.
The reason you see Canon lenses is because they are attached to Canon cameras....or am I missing something? It doesn't mean that L lenses are better, it just means that the people using them are invested in a brand.
-
4. I don't agree. How many Canons, except the C line and the XC10 use different codecs?
Um....most of them. You are not that familiar with Canon cameras apparently.
-
You're right about Sony's lens ecosystem. It's not too bad if you have the money to invest in the Zeiss glass (and it is great glass), but there's not a lot of cheap full frame options (though in saying that, there's not a huge amount of cheap full frame Canon glass). I personally think the Sony/Zeiss glass is much better glass than Canon L, but I do think the fly-by-wire focus was a mistake. It sounds like an engineer's decision (how good would it be if...) rather than a professional shooter (either video or stills).
I disagree with that. If you are forking out thousands of dollars on a body, you probably are not going to be skimping on lenses. Cheap lenses are really for the entry level cameras. They are an inappropriate match for something like the a7rM2 for example. It is like saying that 5DIII owners want and are buying the cheap 75-300mm zoom, because it is cheap. No, they are not.
-
After Andrew's satire on what is wrong with Canon (Titled "The Canon fight back begins - with a box"), I thought about it, and I want people to try and help figure out, Why Canon is Still No.1 for Stills and Video, and why it may still be, for a while to come.
This my opinion, regarding the same:- I believe Panasonic and Sony are just not out there, with their prosumer range, and most of Panasonic' 'G', 'GX' and 'GH' line is not available in most local markets around the world (the GH4 being, arguably the sole exception). The same applies to Sony and their prosumer range. Basically, their supply chain is very disappointing, for the prosumer range, anywhere outside the US and a few markets in Europe. Which is speaks poorly about their Marketing Teams, since the potential for growth in Markets like Asia is arguably far greater than markets like the US and Europe which are growing too slowly in comparison.
- Most DoPs/ Cinematographers, who are famous and who use their own gear, actually use the Canon Cinema Line of cameras (C300s mostly). Some do use the A7S for low light (obviously) and the GH4, but those are very few.
- Sony and Panasonic don't make some super cheap glass like the Canon 50mm f1.8 (Panasonic is apparently planning to make some super cheap 25mm f1.7), which creates and ecosystem around their cameras. While almost every lens can be adapted to the M4/3rd system, a lot of people still need autofocus lenses, especially for stills.
- H.264 is still the codec of choice for most of the world. H.265 and (and even versions of H.264 like XAVC-S) are still not as popular and compatible as one hopes.
- While the GH4 with its very unusually designed and terribly cumbersome "Yagh" Rig tried to bring in some of the features of the Cinema Line of the Canon into the GH4, on the whole the bracket was grossly overpriced (it has now crashed to $698 now, from a price which was more than the GH4 itself previously) and just too bulky. Sony does a much better job with the XLR-K2M kit, which I still feel, can be made a lot more suitable to the design of DSLRs.
- I still haven't understood why Panasonic chose Nick Driftwood for testing the G7 instead of Andrew Reid or Vitaly or Philip Bloom. What I am trying to say is that, since they have a much larger following, why would Panasonic not try and do their homework well, before taking it forward in advertising and marketing.
I must repeat the first point again. The supply chain and even lenses for cameras are very poorly available in emerging markets which has very high disposable incomes, for the last few years. By not exploring and tapping these markets, Sony and Panasonic are actually make a huge mistake.
1. Saying that Panasonic and Sony are not out there is incorrect. Their products are stocked in most camera stores where I live. And even if you can't get a particular item off the shelf, they will all order it in for you without much delay.
2. Cameras like the GH4 are prosumer products. The people who buy them generally can't afford things like a C300M2, which is a hell of a lot more expensive.
3. What is the difference between "super cheap" and "cheap". If someone is paying $1500 for a camera body, they generally are not going to mind paying a few dollars more for a lens. And the Canon 50mm F1.8 isn't that great btw, I have one so I know. If you wanted to use a cheap Canon lens you are probably better off with the 40mm pancake, it is a better lens, although twice the price.
4. Transcoding isn't a problem. Some editors can't handle the newer codecs, but then again some can't handle Canon's newer codecs either.
5. The GH4 (and cameras like it) weren't designed to be competitors for full spec pro cameras, they were designed to be hybrids. If you want to compare the C cameras to the GH4, how good are their stills?
-
This "research" such that it is doesn't have a single absolute number! It's all percentages! They don't even say percent of what... a million... 100 million?
Also there is no discussion of margins. Looking at the knife fight going on in the sub $2,000 hybrid videography world I doubt many of those players are as profitable as Canon. GH4 was praised as the second coming and then months later it was kicked to the curb. A7S was all the rage then the dark horse Samsung NX1 came out of nowhere. LX100 warmed everyone's heart then Sony came roaring back with the RX10 II. G7 is probably going to make a splash. And let's not forget the $500 BMPCC I and many others picked up.
With three big hybrid players going after a third of a market that was at one point almost exclusively Canon you really wonder about the viability of the model. I'm enjoying the cameras but I still have my doubts Panasonic is guaranteed to be in the consumer camera business 5 years from now. Panasonic has shifted away from consumer products and concentrated on industrial products and their stock has been rewarded.
It is market share as a percentage of units shipped. What would absolute numbers do to change the result?
If you want absolute numbers, there are some in the figure that was presented in an earlier post.
-
Interesting post that one!
The year 2001 was really a pre-digital era as far as the mass market was concerned, as affordable DSLRs didn't really exist until 2005 with the Canon 300D.
2012 was something of a peak because it was just before the mass market decided their phone was 'good enough'
Good enough aside from the zoom which is why crap like the G3 X exists!!
The DSLR is heading back to base. At the base are waiting a lot of enthusiasts pissed off at Canon for ignoring them. Most of them are moving to Sony. When Canon and Nikon lose their footing in the consumer market, we won't be there to patch things up.
I don't think cell phones had anything to do with that, they don't and never have competed with ILCs, which is what that figure is about.
Around 2009 or so was when IQ from digital cameras became good enough that the need to upgrade was not strong anymore. There was a lag period as the market caught up replacing older cameras with newer ones. Nowdays there is no imperative to get a new camera unless your old one breaks or the new one has some must have feature, such as advanced video functions. When I got my NX1, that was the driving force for me. My old T3i was good enough for stills (but horrible for video), so if it were only stills I was taking I would not have upgraded. Sales of DSLRs are going down because that replacement with "good enough" is largely done now. The sales which are going up still are mirrorless, and that is probably being driven by people interested in hybrid cameras rather than stills or video only. In the medium term that is where the growth potential in the industry lies.
-
Canon and Nikon are already toast. The last shoe to drop will be when the low end, uninformed consumer who buys only because of brand, stops buying. Canon's brand is hurting... really bad... This situation is the same as the film to digital movement. In the beginning, the average consumer kept on buying film because they didn't know better. The "hard core" professionals kept on using film because "film will always be better than digital"... We all know what happened afterwards. Innovate or die.. Canon/Nikon.. .who cares? I sold a lot of my canon equipment off already. This situation will be another case study in MBA programs all over the world... just like Eastman Kodak.
No, digital was allways the cheaper option for actually taking photographs. The problem in the early days is that digital cameras were very expensive for the most part, and the image quality in that price range did not compete with film. Once it did, film died overnight.
The same thing is going to happen to DSLRs. Mirrorless have inherent advantages, and once they become equivalent to OVF cameras in certain areas, DSLRs will become extinct very quickly. I think that day is not too far off, and then Canon with become the next Kodak.
-
I'm an avid prosumer videographer and as much as I enjoy Andrew articles and his endless independent effort to trash manufacturers when they have to be trashed, I must agree with the previous comment. If I remember well, the video market on the middle to high end camera market represent accounts for 10% of the sales. Most people don't buy DSLR or prime mirrorless to shoot video and canon is not (entirely) stupid. They do market survey and have a marketing department. So far Canon photo/video division is profitable and each camera they bring on the market is successful. They pick several market segment (still DSLR and Pro Camera) and they stick to it. That's their strategy and we'll see how it goes overtime.
That is not really the point. "Real" professionals use full professional equipment, but there is an army of lesser lower end pros who can't afford that stuff and make do with prosumer equipment. Typically those guys are shooting both stills and video. That is the market Canon and Nikon are losing. Those folk are not moving over to buy C300, because that is simply too expensive. DSLRs can't cut it in video any more, not because of something inherent in the mirror (although obviously it is inconvenient having it there) but because the companies that make DSLRs do not take video seriously. It is tacked on as an afterthought. Mirrorless centric manufacturers however DO take video seriously, and that is the reason the market share is shifting to them.
Maybe Canon and Nikon sell DSLRs mostly to pure stills photographers, but they are still giving up a big chunk the market that wants to do both. Since the development costs of a camera are absorbed by the first X customers, this segment of the market they are losing represents pure profit they are giving up. In addition, by giving the mirrorless companies a solid following only they can satisfy, they allow those companies to cover THEIR development costs, something otherwise known as "getting your foot in the door". Canon and Nikon should be very concerned, and probably are. The fact that they are laggard in implementing video in their products means either (a) their management is incompetent and short sighted, or (b) There are IP issues and limitations imposed by cross licensing agreements that prevent them from progressing as fast as the mirrorless crowd.
-
I use the RX10 mkI exclusively to film the very popular tech channel JoanneTechLover, and while I do like the original a lot, one of my complaints with it (and just about every native Sony mirrorless lenses for my Sony a7S) is that the focusing ring speed is variable, meaning that if you rotate quickly for 1/4 of a turn, it won't land in the same focus as if you rotate that same 1/4 turn slowly.
That means that you can't rack focus consistently because the speed of your focus pull will change where your focusing will land.
Is that still a problem with the RX10 mkII?
If you were shooting manually as routine wouldn't it make more sense to use a manual lens?
-
Those temperature differences are minor compared to how hot electronic components can get. Generally you don't want the internal components to exceed ~80C, and that fact will determine the operational thermal envelop of your camera. Your camera will still work at higher ambient temperatures, but it will result in higher operating temperatures and consequent increased risk of failure. If you are operating a large camera body cooling is more efficient so you can run for longer periods before encountering problems. With a small body containing high performance electronics, such as that with the RX100, it is a much bigger issue. Manufacturers will put in cut offs to prevent you from reaching excessive temperatures in order to protect the electronics, since they don't want service returns, especially during the warranty period. The overtemperature warning is just the manufacturer telling you that you are stressing your equipment. If you do it too much you shorten the lifespan and run the risk of your electronics frying.
-
If Sony has heat issues in Europe and the US, then, in the Middle East and Asia (as well as Australia), the video must be unable to record beyond a few seconds, as well as having a good chance of dangerously overheating.
The warmest days in those places is only a few degrees warmer than the warmest days in NA and Europe.
Computer components get way hotter than that, 80C+ is not unusual. The issue with warmer days is that the temperature differential between the camera and the air is lower, so the efficiency of cooling is reduced. This is particularly a problem with cameras that have small compact bodies. A large camera has greater cooling capacity so it can run longer before experiencing overheating issues.
-
So, some user feedback on DVInfo: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xc-series-uhd-camcorders/529125-bye-bye-canon-xc10.html
-
Seems pretty exciting. This next to my a6000 would be a killer 2 camera setup. Would love to see how the lens performs too!
If Sony could totally sort out their colour science to be closer to Canon's then they would be unstoppable
In the future Canon will have to work out their color science to be closer to Sony's, once the Pavlovian conditioning effect wears off as more and more move to Sony equipment.
People think Canon color looks "organic" and "filmic" (and all those other ridiculous buzzwords) because they have seen it so much and therefore want to emulate it so that they can demonstrate to the other Pavlovian dogs that they are worthy of respect as well
-
It sure was the most appealing option 1,5 years ago when the GH4 was launched.
True. The GX8 is a bit of a let down for us. Panasonic is really protecting the GH4. The GX8 is clearly aimed at still photographers. But still it beats the crap out of Canon/Nikon/Sony camera's in the same price range when it comes to video...
I would say that Sony is clearly the top dog in video at the moment, followed by Panasonic/Samsung. Nikon straggles behind them while Canon was left in the dust years ago and apparently has no clue how to catch up.
-
its not out yet
Is that a no then?
Interesting Canon interview with Masaya Maedya on C500 future, XC10, mirrorless 4K, future DSLR Log option,
In: Cameras
Posted
Except that the A7s DOES record 4K, just not to internal storage, since processing is required for that. It isn't the sensor that is generating the heat, it is the processor.
It obviously has nothing to do with the sensor. If the sensor was generating the heat then the camera would not be able to record 4K period.