Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon - the REAL technical and political reasons behind the lack of decent video

Recommended Posts

A larger sensor needs more voltage and runs warmer, but it depends on the design. Copper or aluminium? Stacked? BSI? What's the pixel architecture? Etc. etc.

20MP is 20MP.

As far as the image processor goes.

4K is just 8MP.

Sony can pull off 20MP at 240fps on the RX100 V in the body the size of a pocket compact, with a tiny battery.

So no excuses for Canon... Their own in-house full frame CMOS technology has been 4K capable since 2012 (1D C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

If you remember the original launch of the 5D Mark II, it didn't include 1080p 24p.  Only after a public outcry, Canon caved to the public demand and released a firmware update that included 24p.

https://prolost.com/blog/2010/3/1/canon-adds-24p-to-the-5d-mark-ii-and-i-blame-you.html

So looking back, Canon has been trying to limit video capabilities to be on their photo cameras, even on the launch of the 5D Mark II.  But they cannot stop the momentum of the market demand that was forced on them, which they had a big part in creating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

On the stills side they are behind with mirrorless, with no real premium or pro model. The M5 is a PowerShot, basically.

The lens range just isn't there for Canon in mirrorless and that takes a lot of time to develop.

They have no presence in medium format either.

Their 50MP sensor is behind Sony's 42MP on noise, 4K video, dynamic range, etc.

5D Mark IV sensor is behind Sony as well.

So yeah, photographers are starting to shuffle in their seats as well.

Yeah, what I meant is that Canon is catching up with the old tech just now. They're well behind new tech advancements like pro mirrorless products which just shows how far behind the curve they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PeterGregg said:

I can't prove how many trucks actually arrive at significant events, but they pretty much have the biggest presence there, with Nikon being a close second. Finding a Sony, Panasonic, Olympus or Fuji service station/desk is a pretty hard thing to do.

In my experience, when they are both at an event they are there in roughly equal force.

However, I've been at quite a few events where its only Canon (usually when they're there as a commercial partner) but can't recall one where its only been Nikon.

The others may have a similar presence for the broadcast side but not for stills.

It'd be a cushy gig manning that desk if they did have one though.

It'd be rather like working in the office in this ad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mahmoud El-Darwish said:

Step back and take a breath.

Canon product development aren't stupid...........

Camera companies could care less what Andrew Reid or I have on a wishlist.

Why bother compete with Sony/Panasonic?

We sometimes forget that Japanese manufacturing operates as a giant consortium, with players 'accommodating' each other in support of the bigger picture.

I had to signup to give u the love.  Thumbs up!  You nailed it!  Off topic.  You can see why Sony, Sharp, Panasonic, NEC, etc., Japanese companies will never make smartphones to compete with the biggies.  Why?  They can make all the parts in-house and make them better but there's something the way corporates run that leaves consumers scratching our head.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid

Quote

 

5D Mark IV sensor is behind Sony as well.

So yeah, photographers are starting to shuffle in their seats as well.

 

I doubt it...I'm shooting Open Air and Club Concerts. Sometimes 6-10 hours (Open Air) continuously. Last summer I shot a concert at about 39 degrees Celsius with a buddy - 4 cameras for photography (Canon 7D, 2 5d m3 plus 1 Sony A7R ii for testing purposes) and 2 cameras for filming (NX1 + Nikon D750). We hadn't all cameras all time with us, some were for hours in the car...And in the car there were about 72 degrees Celsius...

The NX1 freezed during filming about three times, the A7R ii during taking photos about 8 freezings with shutdown...NOT one problem with a Canon or the D750. Just working....

Sony E-Mount cameras - I shoot with the A6500 (my mom's cam) too... - I hold in my hands have an exceptional image quality, the eye AF is insane, there are many aspects I love...Very good technology, BUT: As cameras, they are unreliable PURE GARBAGE. Who needs cameras overheating, freezing and shutting down? NOONE who does serious work, other people have to rely on...Not to discuss on usability and BS ergonomis of the Sony brigade...

My POV: Sony needs probably another decade to learn manufacturing cameras (not gadgets) and after sales service. Cameras are much more than "innovative technology" - which impredictably overheats and shuts down....Their "throw away-gadget" attitude is probably acceptable for people who never seriously need their cameras longer than 60 minutes.

On the other side, CanoNikon will need another decade to move their fat cat ass aout of their ultraconservative chair...

Reliability means: You can beat it to death. In any conditions...And it keeps working...

BTW: After testing the A7R ii for three days, I sent it back. My conclusion: An exceptional piece of technology with amazing IQ - but as reliable camera JUST JUNK. Pure junk...The A6500 is not much better. A little bit, but not much...

ras1.jpg

ras2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sony's sensor is in Nikon's cameras and they're reliable and ahead of Canon's tech. Sony's cameras reliability is improving fast and move to their cameras has already started. A few wedding pros have switched recently, high end ones included. In fashion I've seen workshops with pros using Sony cameras too. This is still early stages and sample size is still small so it really doesn't matter that a few people switched but there is a trend and this matters. That's how the change starts. We're yet to see how it pans out but clearly something is happening. Whatever happens it should be good for us (usually;)). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tomekk

Quote

Sony's cameras reliability is improving fast and move to their cameras has already started. 

I need reliable devices NOW. Not in one year or two, or five...Capture the moment NOW...No need to use unreliable junk, there are enough good photography cameras on the market you can use in EVERY condition.

BTW: Focusing moving subjects in low light / difficult back lit scenes (eg. fast moving musicians on stage or in a dark club atmosphere) with a Sony E (excepting the new A9) is a joke...Simply not possible. That's where a D5/D500/D750 excels. With a D5/D500 you can even focus fast moving black holes in dark caves... :astonished:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm nowhere near saying Sony is there yet. I've just pointed out Sony's sensor in Nikon's body is already ahead of Canon's current tech and Sony is moving in this direction fast. That's what I think Andrew meant in his comment ("5d iv sensor behind Sony as well" - sensor I assume, not the camera as a whole package ). Sony is gaining a share in the market in the meantime but it obviously is going to take time to threaten Canon. That's normal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tomekk said:

Yeah, what I meant is that Canon is catching up with the old tech just now. They're well behind new tech advancements like pro mirrorless products which just shows how far behind the curve they are. 

But they still kick the ass of all mirrorless in terms of auto focus. Both stills and video. So its not all black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

But they still kick the ass of all mirrorless in terms of auto focus. Both stills and video. So its not all black and white.

Both "still" and video? And how its tested? Mostly wide slow lenses can't show how AF is good for serious still shooting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ivanhurba said:


I know a lot of friends who bought a DSLR because it had video

 

17 hours ago, Michal Gajdoš said:

I see hundredrs of people walking around and making videos. 

'I know a lot of friends' and 'I see a lot of people making videos' does not equate to large market research. Despite near constant complaints on here about 'lack of video features' they still have - and have for the past 14 years - the #1 global market share for the DSLR and mirrorless camera segment.

Anecdotes about what you 'see' mean absolutely nothing. 

17 hours ago, Michal Gajdoš said:

Clearly there is a lot of people complaining about video features (their sensors are still the weakest) in canon DSLRs. Look here how many people are happy with the canon here ?

And yet, they continue, for 14 years in a row, to be the #1 seller of DSLR and mirrorless cameras in the entire world... Shouting in an echo chamber for too long can become dangerous...

12 hours ago, aldolega said:

How so? How would, for example, a 12MP A7s have more data to process than a 20MP GH5?

In the article, Andrew's using examples of a 6Dii with 26MP, and much larger sensor in a similar sized body to the GH5, and disingenuously suggesting that because Panasonic could put 4k into a 12MP LX100 that Canon should be able to do it in a 6Dii. The reality is - they can do it. But if the #1 selling camera manufacturer doesn't include a feature on a camera like that, you can bet the reason isn't 'we hate our customers'.

As much as everyone likes to pretend that 'technology' means we should be able to make anything we want these days, making these products is a lot more complex than you think. That's why the A7s wasn't 4k internally in its first iteration. That's why RED have continually updated their sensors and firmware to get better pictures out of them. Arri was late to the party because they spend significantly longer tailoring their sensor. It's not a matter of just throwing a sensor into a box and calling it a day. The signal path from the sensor has an effect on the image. Many moving parts, and it's not easy as everyone on here thinks.

I couldn't care less about Canon. I no longer own anything they make, and I won't be buying any of their products any time soon. But it's obvious why they do what they do, and you know what? They're still #1. Despite Sony and Panasonic's best efforts, Canon are still #1. In the world. What does that tell you about the importance of all these little things that everyone here spends pages complaining about?

Surely there are better things to spend time doing? It feels like there's been a new post about once a month for the past few years about how Canon sucks because of this or that and how they need to pick up their game because other manufacturers are beating them - oh, but the other manufacturers also suck.

Choose a camera that you like, and that works for you and use it. If you need 4k and want Canon, get a 5Div. If you want full frame and sensitivity and internal 4k and log, get an A7sii. If you want full frame with a high MP count, get an A7rII. If you want a camera that does 4:2:2 10-bit 4k internal, and don't mind a small sensor, get a GH5.

If proclamations from those on here reflected what the greater world think about cameras, you can bet that Canon would implement every single one of these features. 

At the end of the day, they're a business. Every business is in the game to make money. And Canon are still making money. Don't forget that Sony and Panasonic are in positions where their profit margins on specific products can be smaller because they're bigger companies. So, they can be more competitive on pricing than Canon or Nikon to gain market traction on new products. As I said previously, and was criticised for using big words, Canon are much more exposed, and by design are much more careful - as a company who is the #1 seller in the world of cameras, they want to keep it that way, and a large part of their business is made up of camera sales. So to continue making money, they need to structure their business in a way to keep making money. Panasonic and Sony are both still relatively new to the camera market, are in much better positions to take risks in the segment. If Sony had released the A7 and it had been an abysmal failure, it could have pulled out of the market and continued on - much like Samsung did. Canon can't. Canon need to keep selling heaps of cameras to heaps of people. So if not including 4k in say the 6Dii means they make a bit more money on it, and the marketplace for 6D video shooters who want 4k is really quite small - why would they include 4k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jax_rox So essentially what you're saying is that Canon is no.1 (you repeat this mantra four times, which is quite beneficial, as I have an extremely weak memory), they don't care what you or I think (a good model for a company, works for oil and tobacco?), that in order to increase profits, they decided to omit a headphone jack, a joystick and a second SD card slot (oops, I meant to type '4K'!), and we should only write good things about gear or keep mum. To my feeble brain, the very fact that there are so many detractors like yourself in this thread is proof that people like Mr. Reid should carry on the good crusade. The thing is, Canon would sell 'heaps and heaps' more cameras if their DSLRs included 4K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it, Samsung has built 200 million phones and tablets. I kinda doubt Canon will ever catch up to Samsung's semiconductor manufacturing prowess. Canon used to be the 2nd largest company in terms of creating new US patents each year. Guess who they lost that spot to - Samsung.

Canon, Nikon, Sony and Apple  combined don't have the experience or expertise to accomplish what Samsung is doing in fabrication. In order for any of those companies to compete technologically they have to outsource their manufacturing. That means higher costs. That's why a $1500 Samsung camera very significantly outperforms a Canon $6000 camera.

As I recall the NX1 used a 32nm copper circuit fabrication tech at the same time Canon's cameras were using 512nm aluminum circuits. People complained about the h265 codec because their state of the art Mac Pro towers couldn't read / display /or write h265 4k in real time while the humble Samsung NX500 could do it for $700.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jonpais

Quote

The thing is, Canon would sell 'heaps and heaps' more cameras if their DSLRs included 4K. 

Exactly this. The thing is - from my experience with many journalists and occasional video shooters - that for a vast majority of users, a clean 1080p (like C100 ii) would be absolutely sufficient. Please consider, that we all move within a parallel universe, completely overrating 4K. In "real live" there are only a few guys owning a laptop/computer for editing 4K.

My POV: IF the Canonistas would offer a clean 1080p, only a few "enthusiasts" would complain. Just because (eg C100 ii) 1080p footage on a 4K television looks great - only if you put your nose very near to a TV, you will notice the difference to 4K (most TVs own great upscaling technology). And...there are no 3 percent of users owning a 4K display on their computer/laptop...

It's time to face reality: We all like 4K...But for 99% of productions there is no market demand for this. Just try to google some current statistics on this, you will be very surprized...Even "enthusiasts" don't can "talk away" the reality...The reality is: As long as mobile media consumption (small smartphones and tablets) will predominate, the 4K content delivery is absolutely obsolete - excepting you are producing IMAX Hollywood blockbusters or very good paid, HQ advertising films...

The only remaining arguments FOR 4K are surely many advantages in post (cropping, grading, VFX, etc.) but the question is: does this pay off for general camera users? The most fair way would be to say: "Personally, I like 4K" (But do I need it?) or (for people who make a living out of filming) "My clients require 4K" --> But how many clients require this really?

A last one: Let's take a look at the C100 ii 1080p footage...only AVCHD 28 Mbps codec. Sounds poor? It isn't...It's far better by results than many current, purely overhyped 4k DSLR/DSLM cameras.

By repeating 4k-enthusiasts smug, facts don't get true...It's not better than unsubstancial talk from manufacturers marketing morons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Go Scrub On the contrary, outsourcing results in greater flexibility, efficiency and lower costs.

33 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@jonpais

Exactly this. The thing is - from my experience with many journalists and occasional video shooters - that for a vast majority of users, a clean 1080p (like C100 ii) would be absolutely sufficient. Please consider, that we all move within a parallel universe, completely overrating 4K. In "real live" there are only a few guys owning a laptop/computer for editing 4K.

My POV: IF the Canonistas would offer a clean 1080p, only a few "enthusiasts" would complain. Just because (eg C100 ii) 1080p footage on a 4K television looks great - only if you put your nose very near to a TV, you will notice the difference to 4K (most TVs own great upscaling technology). And...there are no 3 percent of users owning a 4K display...

It's time to face reality: We all like 4K...But for 99% of productions there is no market demand for this. Just try to google some current statistics on this, you will be very surprized...Even "enthusiasts" don't can "talk away" the reality...The reality is: As long as mobile media consumption (small smartphones and tablet) will predominate, the 4K content delivery is absolutely obsolete - excepting you are producing IMAX Hollywood blockbusters or very good paid, HQ advertising films...

The only remaining arguments FOR 4K are surely many advantages in post (cropping, grading, VFX, etc.) but the question is: does this pay off for general camera users? The most fair way would be to say: "Personally, I like 4K" (But do I need it?) or (for peolple who make a living out of filming) "My clients require 4K" --> But how many clients require this really?

A last one: Let's take a look at the C100 ii 1080p footage...only AVCHD 28 Mbps codec. Sounds poor? It isn't...It's far better by results than many current, purely overhyped 4k DSLR/DSLM cameras.

By repeating 4k-enthusiasts smug, facts don't get true...It's not better than unsubstancial talk from manufacturers marketing morons...

Okay, I can go along with that - wonder if the 6D Mark II will be free from aliasing and moire... BTW, I can tell the difference between a clip shot in 1080p and one that has been downsampled to 1080p from 4K on my 2K monitor - it is sharper and has less artifacting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

 

A last one: Let's take a look at the C100 ii 1080p footage...only AVCHD 28 Mbps codec. Sounds poor? It isn't...It's far better by results than many current, purely overhyped 4k DSLR/DSLM cameras.

I agree clean HD is sufficient. And the c100 has probably the cleanest HD ive used. But that 28mbps codec i believe is garbage. Nice image out of camera. But very susceptible to chroma noise and visible compression artefacts when grading. Im not sure which 4k cams youre referring to but all the ones ive used have been tons better for grading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@tomekk

I need reliable devices NOW. Not in one year or two, or five...Capture the moment NOW...No need to use unreliable junk, there are enough good photography cameras on the market you can use in EVERY condition.

BTW: Focusing moving subjects in low light / difficult back lit scenes (eg. fast moving musicians on stage or in a dark club atmosphere) with a Sony E (excepting the new A9) is a joke...Simply not possible. That's where a D5/D500/D750 excels. With a D5/D500 you can even focus fast moving black holes in dark caves... :astonished:

Why don't you buy a Sony a99mkII like, NOW? Should be durable enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Both "still" and video? And how its tested? Mostly wide slow lenses can't show how AF is good for serious still shooting. 

Im not sure what you are asking. You can use what ever lens you like. Put an equal lens on a DSLR and it will focus faster. Its one of the main reasons DSLRs still outsell mirrorless.
It will track better to.

For my needs mirrorless is fine. I don't use a DSLR. I shoot mostly manual focus.
But full time pro photographers needs to cover a wider spectrum of styles.
Not to mention in lower light situations, then my X-Pro2 and the X-T2 I had is hunting all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

 

'I know a lot of friends' and 'I see a lot of people making videos' does not equate to large market research. Despite near constant complaints on here about 'lack of video features' they still have - and have for the past 14 years - the #1 global market share for the DSLR and mirrorless camera segment.

Anecdotes about what you 'see' mean absolutely nothing. 

7

Yes they do. The same as Smartphones replaced Motos and Nokias. Believe what you want. Just some quotes from very interesting articles:

Quote

Seba estimates that by 2020, battery costs will fall to $200 kWh, and by 2024-25 to $100 kWh. At this point, the efficiency of a gasoline car would be irrelevant, as EVs would simply be far cheaper. By 2030, he predicts, "gasoline cars will be the 21st century equivalent of horse carriages." 

It took only 13 years for societies to transition from complete reliance on horse-drawn carriages to roads teeming with primitive automobiles, Seba told his audience.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9aknpv/how-solar-power-could-slay-the-fossil-fuel-empire-by-2030

Quote

But the automobilizing of America was inevitable, especially because it soon became cheaper to keep a car. In 1900, only 4,192 cars were sold in the U.S.; by 1912, it was 356,000. “The equine was not replaced all at once, but function by function,” according to "From Horse Power to Horsepower." “Freight haulage was the last bastion of horse-drawn transportation; the motorized truck finally supplanted the horse cart in the 1920s.”

1

https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/horses-horsepower-rocky-transition

446c38039a775b420f4906890baeac6e-650-80.

Of course you can say that DSLRs are not mobiles or horses, but hey, I would stop lying to yourself. fifteen years, that will take more or less and we're already halfway there. From wikipedia:

Quote

History[edit]

In 2013 mirrorless system cameras constituted about five percent of total camera shipments.[1] In 2015, they accounted for 26 percent of system camera sales outside the Americas, and 16 percent in the U.S.[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable-lens_camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...