CMB

I haven't posted here in years, since Andrew Reid publicly berated me for disagreeing with him and belittled my work because I didn't shoot with "a proper camera like a RED or Arri, or even an A7S II ". I'm a nobody, just a cameraman / editor like most of you. A friend told me about this latest rant and I had to dig out my login to say I think this is hilarious. ? 

I've never seen someone throw their toys out the pram so fast. The sense of entitlement here is staggering. Just because you own a somewhat popular camera site doesn't entitle you to anything. I'm sure the 350,000 viewers of this thread (as you keep reminding us) can make up their own mind on whether to purchase a camera. What's especially amusing is that John Brawley doesn't even work for Black Magic and publicly attacking him serves no purpose.

Publicly attacking prominent figures - decrying the press - At this point Andrew Reid / EOSHD is the 'Donald Trump' of camera sites. ☺️

10 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Let me see what Tonsea thinks...

 

"Ughh, the A6300 only gets it after 3 or 4 tries." - very informative. Thanks  

On 8 April 2016 at 1:26 AM, Andrew Reid said:

"A shame you feel the need to shove this back in my face, just because it doesn't quite align with your choice of purchase."

"The core EOSHD readers get it. You're just an ungrateful hanger on with 19 posts to his name who feels he can leech all the knowledge from others on the forum, without giving anything constructive back in return."

"Ah you have an FS7 in the office though! But I thought 80D is all you need?!"

"Oh but it's "bashing". Bash bash bash!! Can't mention the moire! Oh noooo"

Wow. Quite a response since I last dropped by. Sorry my opinion isn’t welcome and you feel i've caused trouble. I'll quiet down, but wanted to address one or two of the more personal comments made toward me.

@DayRaven I comprehend fine. My point being (as it has always been) that it’s about the content we create rather then the cameras used to create it. Yes, it was done as something as a stunt. But Would that documentary have been any more or less compelling if it was shot on an FS7 or Alexa? As for showing you my work, I’m not going to link to any client videos to prove something to a stranger on the internet. I’m not even sure how showing you my work (or you showing me yours) proves either of our points of view?

@Andrew Gee, that's quite a post. The last few comments posted here also mention 'canon bashing'. I hope you don't attack those posters too. You post some wonderfully insightful articles here, some great comments too, but occasionally it’s like a switch is flipped and it’s almost as though a different person is replying.  I’m just some guy at the end of the day. You run one of the major filmmaking resources on the web. I guess I never expected you to openly mock your audience.

My point is and always has been the 80D is fine.. Maybe not if you're shooting the latest Marvel movie. but fine none the less. Perhaps I have low expectations. It’s not cutting edge as you define it, no. I never claimed it was. I never claimed it didn't have moire/ clipped highlights/ect compared to the latest cutting edge tech available.  I just pointed out it seemed unfair to trash it so hard and rave about the equivilant Sony while overlooking the sony's flaws.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I never said the 80D was all I need. I shoot with an 80D and 70D. And yes, as you pointed out I also mentioned shooting with an FS7, GH4. PMW500, 101 and more. I use the right tool for the job as I deem it. There's no need to hit a nail with a sledgehammer in every instance. Perhaps every single job you take on absolutely needs to be shot with a cinema level image and mastered in 6k. And thats great for you. Much of my work includes same day event coverage. I simply don't have time to deal with RAW/ Log footage when I need to produce something that looks good in a limited amount of time. 

I don't need to leech off the knowledge of the forum as you put it. I have years of experience working in the industry. I do visit here for an unbiased opinion on the latest camera tech. But like you said I probably don't get it.

Again, sorry for any offence caused.

This is 'The Painter of Jalouzi'. You may at first glance think it's a heart warming short documentary with worldwide acclaim. But in fact, enjoying it on any level would be wrong. Because it was shot on an iPhone. I think that's the message Andrew is trying to get across?

Just now, Andrew Reid said:

Since when is mainstream considered a mark of success?!

Using an 'EOSHD' approved camera clearly is. 

22 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don't think he meant it that way, in fact I believe he was rebutting Tugela's rude comment. 

I was about to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then the other comment just below yours made it pretty clear. 

I've never claimed the 80D is better then anything else. Just ddint understand why it was hated on so much when it provides perfectly adequate video for what it is. It's a tool. Nothing more. That seems to have been lost somewhere because it doesn't rival an Alexa at a fraction of the cost.  

Andrew, i'm not sure that's worth answering. I'm deeply surprised that the owner of a leading? Filmmaking site is calling out a forum members quality of work based solely on their choice of camera. It shouldn't matter if it's shot on a T2i or an FS7. I'm genuinely surprised. Shame on you.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Here's a factoid for you....80D video quality ranks below almost everything else on the market, but hey... AF.

And yet it's already paid for itself 5x over in the two weeks I've had it. Weirdly, not one person has been violently sick when viewing footage from it. Not even a little. Funny that! 

This thread is now 20% facts. 30% misinformation and 50% "Waghh! Why won't canon put their 4K cinema tech in a camera for $500 bucks just for me." Gotta love the Internet.

I've had the 80D nearly two weeks now. It's fine. Video quality is actually improved regarding moire as has been mentioned in countless reviews but nobody wants to hear that. 

I noticed Andrew didn't reply to my mention of him bashing the XC10 on release and now buying one months later. So I figure if we fast forward a year he'll buy an 80D and label that a 'cinema dark horse' too.  

13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Also I just bought an XC10!

You should have read this post first. This guy says he won't be getting one because it offers "flat looking clinical images".. 

http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/canon-xc10-should-you-buy-one/

54 minutes ago, Zach Goodwin said:

The reason why all those automatic settings exist is not for the filmmaker... It's for your mother wanting to film her kid for soccer.

Quite a sweeping statement to make. So not for anyone wanting to use a gimbal solo with no focus puller then? Only soccer moms have Movi's right? 

34 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

Yeah, because Canon cameras work really well attempting to autofocus Nikon lenses....

Again, not all that long ago it was blasphemy to even suggest one would use autofocus when shooting video. Now, Canon having better AF is a major plus point for Canon...

I just don't get it...

I've used auto focus when appropriate for the last 15yrs in everything from independent films to broadcast work to corporate. I'm sure the internet would say I'm not professional. I use whatever tools I have to make my job easier and concentrate on the creative side of things. That's what it's all about right? 

I'm really no expert on Sony G lenses. A quick google found a page on sony site with 4 in the range. Canon has like 100+ ?

the point being. Everyone rushing to buy the A6300 to use with a speed booster and their own lens collection (which I've seen reccomended a few times around the net) whether it's Nikon or canon isn't going to get any autofocus.

Lets all look at Kendy Tys work again, of which the majority is shot on 'lowly' t3i with no stabilisation and a battered old 30mm lens.

Everyone remember guys, these are tools at the end of the day. You have a Sony tool, fine. I have a canon tool, fine. I also use a Panasonic 101, a PMW500, a gh4 and an FS7K. They're all just tools with different uses. The point of my original post was rebutt how easily the video quality of the 80d was dismissed. When actually it's fine for this price range and preferable for many. 

14 hours ago, EyeSoul said:

It wasn't proved wrong in this video,maybe you can point me to another test.Or are you speaking of still AF?

That pretty much proves it right. "Cinematic" I believe he calls it. And in many other reviews it's mentioned the a6300 struggles in anything but excellent light. 

"Continuous focus during video is still pretty useless for subjects that stop moving; it constantly hunts in and out and completely ruins the shot." From the Tony Northrup review. http://northrup.photo/sony-a6300-review/

Also remember you only get the performance demonstrated above in low light if you use Sony lenses. Obviously the 80d autofocus works with the majority of canon lenses. 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

There are no convincing tests or samples so far that show the strengths and weaknesses or either camera.

Agreed. Then why write two 'hate' posts about the poor quality of the 80D?

The first came when it was announced and detailed how the 6300 had the Canon's auto focus beat (without trying either one) which proved to be wrong. And now again in this post.

Is it really just click bait?

On 9 March 2016 at 11:27 AM, MattH said:

You have to be joking even testing for a bandwidth issue if that is your connection. ....Trust me, speeds this low are not uncommon at all. many rural exchanges in the UK are limited to 2 meg.

You make a fair point. I'm thankful, believe me. I live in a specific area of Yorkshire where they're rolling out next gen fibre. Before I got by on 2-5mg downloads and 0.3 uploads. So it's something I appreciate everyday.

ive tested Vimeo a bunch since on my mobile with varying 3G /4G connections since but that's probably still to fast to show any issues? 

These Canon 'hate rants' have to be for traffic right? Meanwhile the 6300 overheats and is useless for production work. there is no perfect camera. 

I got my 80D on Tuesday and just finished my first shoot with. It looks great. No, it's not an FS7 (we have one of those in the office). But for the price and reliability it's fine. I've produced about 150+ videos with my 70D since its launch and will no doubt go on to do the same with this 80D. 

Can't help but read this review with a slight smile. Wasn't the auto focus supposed to work miracles and destroy Canon's Duel Pixel AF? Turns out not only can't it auto focus but that it can't even shoot when it over heats.

Just adding an update - the vimeo player now seems to instantly play everything in the highest res it can. I don't know if the player was testing my connection earlier before deciding what to default at but it works fine now. That's not to discount the problems others are having but at least Vimeo seem to be listening and tweaking as they go. I'd much rather my viewers had a smooth un-buffered experience then see the dreaded buffer sign.

I have a Vimeo Pro account with embeds on my website. I just gave it a quick try. While the player defaults to auto it seems to start out SD then snap into HD in a couple of seconds. That doesn't seem too bad. I can select the res manually too and it snaps to what I select pretty quickly. Then again my bandwidth is pretty good.

4 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I was just wondering if the dedicated TV App produced a better image...

The Apple TV looks and works great! 

The discussion about which is better on paper is kinda silly. Until we have 80D's in the wild to compare it too - or direct video comparisons between an a6300 and a 70D, 7D2, 1DX, ect.. it's just hot air.

I remember when the A7s came out and Sony released all these videos saying the auto focus was great.. same with Panasonic's GH4 - but in every comparison video seen online every DSLR implication of auto focus pales in comparison to the 3 year old 70D. There's something organic and natural about the way Canon implement it that can't be quantified on paper. Everything else either hunts too fast or looks like a robot is doing it.

Having shot something like 90+ short films with a Canon 70D over the past 18 months. I can honestly say that every single time a film is viewed. The person viewing it throws up. Without fail. Because the footage is so bad.

*sighs*

I joke of course. And don't want this to be a 70D fanboy post. But aren't we past the point of punishing lower end cameras because they don't shoot like an Alexa? I'm fortunate enough to use a variety of cameras across the range in my daily work. But choose the 70D for many projects because it suits my way of working best. 

For an article reflecting on technology and getting back to basics, it sure ended on a note that was kinda up its own ass. The implication being getting back to basics is fine for stills. But don't think about shooting video on anything less then an FS7? Doesn't that undermine the entire article?

I read the other day the darling film of this years Sundance was shot on three iPhone 5's. Aren't we past the point of technological arrogance when it comes to creating works of art? They're all just tools, after all.