tyger11

Keep in mind they also jump-started their ILC division by acquiring Konica-Minolta, thus gaining access to tech & people with decades of experience.

I think Samsung merely miscalculated how long it takes to break into a new market, especially one with products that are pricey. I wish they had sucked it up for another couple of years, came out with an NX2, an NX600, and a crap-ton more lenses, and they would've had a pretty good shot, especially if they had set up a pro support network. Half-hearted efforts won't cut it against competition like Canon, Nikon and Sony. Even Fuji & Olympus have made decades of experience in the field. It's the height of hubris to think they could just jump into the photo game and success in a short amount of time in anything other than the point-n-shoot part of the market. The deep end of the pool requires you to be able to swim and defend yourself against what else is in the water.

I think Samsung merely miscalculated how long it takes to break into a new market, especially one with products that are pricey. I wish they had sucked it up for another couple of years, came out with an NX2, an NX600, and a crap-ton more lenses, and they would've had a pretty good shot, especially if they had set up a pro support network. Half-hearted efforts won't cut it against competition like Canon, Nikon and Sony. Even Fuji & Olympus have made decades of experience in the field. It's the height of hubris to think they could just jump into the photo game and success in a short amount of time in anything other than the point-n-shoot part of the market. The deep end of the pool requires you to be able to swim and defend yourself against what else is in the water.

Keep in mind they also jump-started their ILC division by acquiring Konica-Minolta, thus gaining access to tech & people with decades of experience.

I think Samsung merely miscalculated how long it takes to break into a new market, especially one with products that are pricey. I wish they had sucked it up for another couple of years, came out with an NX2, an NX600, and a crap-ton more lenses, and they would've had a pretty good shot, especially if they had set up a pro support network. Half-hearted efforts won't cut it against competition like Canon, Nikon and Sony. Even Fuji & Olympus have made decades of experience in the field. It's the height of hubris to think they could just jump into the photo game and success in a short amount of time in anything other than the point-n-shoot part of the market. The deep end of the pool requires you to be able to swim and defend yourself against what else is in the water.

​What a moronic comment.
What's the alternative - spend $10,000 replacing my Canon EF glass with Sony E-Mount, with most of them inferior or not even existing!?

​This is the USA, Andrew - there's always room for one more cinematic immigrant. 

Ouch!   :)
 
As for Canon's EF lenses, well, that IS the only thing they're protecting at this point, but if Sigma and others keeps coming out with equivalent (or much better) product than Canon does at substantially lower prices, it's game over for that part of their business, too.
 
I'm very interested in what Canon does with the 5d Mk IV, but only for curiosity's sake. If all they do is add 4k and only marginally improve the image quality, that's pretty much the most I expect from them - shooting to duplicate Sony technology from a year ago. If Sony gets their 21-stop sensor out in an A7S Mk II or A8S (and especially if they can put in 10-bit 4K recording in-camera), that's pretty much it for Canon in the indie video/film world as far as I'm concerned. If they can really go for it and do IBIS, that would be epic, but that might be too much heat dissipation for an IBIS sensor to handle at this time.
 
If the 5d Mk IV is what I suspect it will be, then they're so far behind the development curve, it'll be another 4 or 5 years before they can adapt to the new reality. They have a lot of VERY interesting-looking patents that have leaked over the last few years - which haven't made it into actual products. They're basically IBM from the early 90s, coasting on their R&D and reputation. They have the technical chops to do the necessary, but don't have enough vision to figure out that coasting only works until you get to the bottom of the hill - which they are approaching very soon, indeed.
 
The company I'm really wanting to jump in head-first to the cinema game is Sigma. I'd love to see some cine Art lenses...

In my opinion it is completely the other way round to what you are describing :) They have an excellent marketing department. The 7D Mark II is not the best APS-C with unheard of specs at all. It's an old 70D in an old 5D Mark III body slightly rejigged and the AF updated.
 
The sensor is a generation behind Samsung's APS-C process. The manufacturing is behind.
 
The sensor cannot do 4K video. The Samsung one can.
 
Let's not mention the codec... that mushy codec, noisy at ISO 200 and a pale imitation of the raw sensor feed we all know it's capable of internally because of Magic Lantern. Mosquito noise at ISO 200... is that included in the "unheard of spec"!?
 
Resolution. Behind. Dynamic range. Behind. EVF, none. Proper timelapse mode, crippled. Continuous shooting rate, behind Samsung's 15fps. LCD, behind AMOLED. Peaking, none. H.265, none. 4K, none. 4K HDMI, none. 10bit HDMI! NONE! And then you blame the marketing department when it gets a bad reception with enthusiasts... pardon me, but this is just madness.

If the T2i or T-rex from whatever era still floats your boat then fine. Nothing wrong with that. Some like the low-fi look! Sometimes so do I! But if the low-fi look was all we had... it would be very creatively limiting. No insane high ISO shoots like with the A7S which look so beautiful without requiring an Arri truck full of lights and a crew. No creative re-framing in post from 4K. No colour correction fun with raw (Canon still haven't officially ratified Magic Lantern's genius on that one). No stealth shooting bare bones with a built in EVF rather than a clunky loupe. No 120fps slow mo and no crisp details like we've enjoyed ever since the GH2 gave us proper 1080p and not line-skipped mush.
 
Creativity through technological innovation is a beautiful thing. DJI Inspire One - beautiful innovation. Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve - beautiful. Sony 12MP on a full frame sensor - incredible. Canon - just plain fucking boring. Good job there are some creative filmmakers around making so-so equipment look good purely through excellent story telling and lighting. But I want more than this. I want the technology to make new stuff possible that wasn't before. I want to tell a story with moon light or candle light. I want to tell a story with sequences at 120fps. I want to add drama and visual appeal. I just cannot do that with a Canon DSLR in the same way I can on other cameras for the same price.

How dare you talk to a man with so much expensive equipment in that way! He has paid good money to be superior to everyone here and he deserves our deference! 

Exactly my point - there are much better video cameras in the same price bracket as the T3i without the problems of the Canon APS-C line. 
 
Panasonic G6, GM1, GX7, GH2, GH3; Nikon D5200, D3300, D5300; Sony a6000, a5100
 
I'm going to assume you're a defensive T3i owner? Your negativity may be better directed at Canon. I owned a T3i at one point - it's a nice camera, but moving to the G6 and D5300 made it look pretty grim.

I didn't even need to read the article or the forum responses as the answer is obviously yes.    The only thing is, you got tense in the question wrong.  It should have been:  "DID cinema eos mark the end of canon dslr video in 2012?"

That's not the only solution. Another solution is to not buy into the Apple ecosystem.

IMAX cat videos please.