someguy

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

Err..the name was chosen when Canon were the flavour of the month. That's how most have come to this site. Maybe he should register anythingbuteoshd.com or something like that. These articles every month are getting quite lame. Some sound as if while remembering his ex (Canon) he has drunk a bottle of vodka and written a 'hate' letter (THE SENTIMENT) 

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

"Does Cinema EOS mark the end of high spec Canon DSLR video?"
 
If it does, why worry about it?  They don't want to play in the market niche?  No problem as I see it.

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?

More likely is that Canon's market feedback & sales suggests that 95% of those enthusiasts purchasing a DSLR don't care two hoots about video as they are buying a camera to take still photographs.

The original was sadly completely serious.

Wrong headline. It should read "Apple Yosemite ends support for TRIM on some older third party SSDs." I know it's not as sensational or as clickbaity but it would be more accurate. 

I doubt this clip could be more relevant than on this forum right now.
 

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible.

Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens.

I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time.

Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs.

I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package.

What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

I'm kinda stunned how many people are using any auto settings when filming.

Yeah, you guys are right, in addition to not fitting in your jeans, it also isn't a video camera. Just look at it, it just oozes 'modern retro photo camera'. Just everything about it screams 'take photos with me!'. Except for the fact that it dóes take video. And does that very well so and in 4K. What other camera does that? None. The RX100 doesn't take 4K video. Yeah, maybe your smartphone shoots 4K... but it does so with its tiny sensor, crappy optics/range and shitty bitrate. Great degree of manual control? Forget it! So in fact the LX100 is definitly NOT like every other camera out there.
 
So it doesn't have an audio interface. Well, record externally or if you're just shooting some scenic footage, put some music under there.
So you need to manually select shutterspeed by turning a dial and if you don't want 1/60th but 1/50th of a second, turn two dials. That takes you maybe one whole second, wow, yeah, that's aweful guys, don't buy this, it takes you a second to change shutterspeed. Can you just imagine?
It's not flat enough, I need my flat cinematic profiles. Well, just dial everything back, the colors will stay nice, but yeah, gradeability is slightly effected because it isn't thát flat and doesn't let you push it as far as let's say a BMPCC. Well, you should've gotten that one instead then. Except, unlike the LX100, it doesn't take any stills and 4K video for example. There's compromises lurking around every corner!
 
Nobody's telling you to ditch your current gear and buy the LX100 as your exclusive camera for video! Nobody's telling you the LX100 is ideally designed for video shooting... but again, at the end of the day it does enable you to take very nice 4K video. And what other camera can say the same for 799 EUR? I already have the GH4, if I know I'm gonna shoot video, I will make sure to use that one. If I'm out and about and I'm not planning on shooting any stills or video, but when there's a moment I wish I did, it's nice that I don't have to settle for my smartphone's quality, I can take out the LX100 and shoot awesome stuff! When shooting video with the GH4, the LX100 becomes one hell of a B-camera! Like Andrew said, if you need another angle, the LX100 will help you out greatly! It also intercuts nicely with other footage. At the end of the day... isn't it all about getting the results you're after... or even the ones you before never dreamed of?
 
It's not designed with the main feature being video. So they went with the clickety type (although a declick button would've been a nice feature). Just gotta use a variable ND-filter to gradually control exposure instead.

Because they want a small, easy to use camera with the best color science and overall quality for the price and no need to use potentially unreliable adapters for Canon glass. While we enjoyed having the extra features of the FS700, especially slomo, ultimately native Canon EF glass support and superior color science are more valuable in most cases.

Just looked at the info and they are h264. A quick google search shows they only use h265 for facetime streaming.

Yeah this is actually a pretty big deal. The tide is turning and Adobe are doing really well right now. Apple fucked Final Cut and Avid have major problems on their hands with Media Composer running like garbage compared to the competition.

This is the smallest problem in the world, it will take you 2 seconds to adjust. Seriously.

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.

Exactly. Canon will improve their video a bit now that Nikon is improving their video (Nikon is currently their only real competitor in the pro dSLR market), but it won't be much or terribly soon. I do think the lack of moire in the Mark III was a real attempt to improve video and I see the Mark III used for professional BTS and corporate video ALL the time, even with some very very high end clients.
 
What's funny is that Canon has crippled its products in pretty obnoxious and obvious ways... but no one here seems to care about their legitimately obnoxious omissions. On the still side leaving out 1/3 stop increments and MFA is a big deal and unnecessary. For video it's worse: AVCHD instead of XF Cam on the C100 is a significant and unnecessary downgrade, the lack of 60/720p confusing, but much, much worse is the lack of HDSDI/timecode and the horrible viewfinder... 
 
Next to those omissions, a lack of 4k is basically irrelevant. 
 
VERY few clients want a 4k finish. A LOT want timecode sync for dual sound. A LOT want a codec that's 50Mbps or higher. The viewfinder thing is just dumb beyond words. I mean that viewfinder is awful.
 
But that's what Canon is about. dSLRs marketed toward still photographers and a cinema line marketed toward low/mid end professional video production. And from what I've seen they have 95% marketshare among pros in those categories. I do see a lot of Red Scarlets and Alexas, but the Scarlets don't rent nearly as well as C300s and the Alexas are too expensive. Sony has some traction, too, but Canon did amazingly well with the C300.
 
Among artists? Well, you're the client. Buy what you want! 

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"

How so?
That sounded like pretty typical and quite predictable stuff from the Canon reps on a business fair, I don't see anything to get all worked up about. Most of those answers were just fine, pretty standard stuff. More or less what one could realistically expect.

I think we all know what the deal is.  You have said it before, so theres no confusion:   Video sucess on dslrs was an accidental success for canon.  A nice suprise at the extra interest and sales.  So they created the spin off cinima eos lin to carry the pro video forward and charge as much as the market will pay for it.   The dslrs then just continue to be 100% stills orientated.  The 7d mk1 and mk2 are mainly for sport protographers.  Where the crop is an advantage (as long as the sensor is higher resolution) and high frame rate (with good autofocus) is of prime importance.  The video is just an added extra.  Its just there if they happen to need it.  But kept at consumer level quality, with all video improvments like better autofucus squarely in the consumer arena.

It definitely not just questions, but your personal (egoistic!) critisizm, because Canon and Nikon don't satisfy you. Like a little child.
Most of your questions are  just a flame.
Though Canon and Nikon may deserve some critics, it shouldn't be most of your questions.
That is just my opinion.

As much as I agree with all of your points, asking these questions is simply useless. You're questions are not really questions, but you are just trying to make the same point with every question:
 
"Look how far behind you are when it comes to video & technical advances compared to your competitors". Don't you see it?"
 
It is rhetorical. Of course they know. They don't care. And you don't need to ask, you can see it from their current line up and releases. They are focussing on the photo market and gave up to compete on video.
 
The only question you should ask is: "Why?"
 
To make more money for a couple of years and then stop the business? A principal? Thinking they will appeal more to photographers if they don't have good video modes? To protect their C-line? (and thus be stupid?)
 
For the rest I would save my breath. You're not going to change them. But we as buyers will.

Nice but can we remove or shrink the banner from the forum? It takes up an amazing amount of space.

Nice but can we remove or shrink the banner from the forum? It takes up an amazing amount of space.