zerocool22 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Yeah it is smart marketing from Canon. They have a lot of products. I dont expect otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 And that is precisely what determines which camera I’ll buy - clever marketing. ? Though I’m unsure what you mean when you say they’ve got a lot of products - you do realize that for Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic and others, that cameras are only a part of their portfolio, don’t you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Collins Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 23 minutes ago, zerocool22 said: Yeah it is smart marketing from Canon. They have a lot of products. I dont expect otherwise. I dont really get the 'smart marketing' from Canon. It more strikes me as a company that is dependent on 'brand loyalty' for sales not realizing that brand loyalty is a two way street. From a marketing perspective Canon just seems to be a company with a 'lot of potential' that 'simply isnt making an effort'. That maybe not true but it is the impression Canon gives. At the opposite end of the scale, Sony's marketing 'perspective' seems to be around 'trying ' to give as much 'value' for as 'low a price' as possible. jonpais and Rinad Amir 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Forget the severe crop, the lack of zebras or waveform monitor, silly codec, intentionally crippling 4K HDMI out and no articulating LCD screen on the 5D Mark IV - there wasn’t even a flat picture profile at release. I think it’s abundantly clear Canon wants filmmakers to spend a ton of cash for features that have been available on practically every hybrid camera for several years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcio Kabke Pinheiro Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, jonpais said: Forget the lack of zebras or waveform monitor, silly codec, intentionally crippling 4K HDMI out and no articulating LCD screen on the 5D Mark IV - there wasn’t even a flat picture profile at release. I think it’s abundantly clear Canon wants filmmakers to spend a ton of cash for features that have been available on practically every hybrid camera for several years now. And indeed a lot of filmmakers spend a ton of cash buying the Canon's C line - which makes us to come back to the first two posts. People still buy Canons a lot - why they will change? They will only change when the revenue starts to drop - could be the case, since last Canon's interviews mention mirrorless cameras a lot. I see two possible outcomes: - They are smart and have mirrorless prototypes under works for a lot of time. In this meantime, the market had matured, the desired features are more or less known, and they can release cameras for each segment (segmentation will never go away) much more focused. - They still afraid of canibalizing DSLR's and Cinema C line and really are behind. Mattias Burling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zerocool22 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert Collins said: I dont really get the 'smart marketing' from Canon. It more strikes me as a company that is dependent on 'brand loyalty' for sales not realizing that brand loyalty is a two way street. From a marketing perspective Canon just seems to be a company with a 'lot of potential' that 'simply isnt making an effort'. That maybe not true but it is the impression Canon gives. At the opposite end of the scale, Sony's marketing 'perspective' seems to be around 'trying ' to give as much 'value' for as 'low a price' as possible. Yeah I am with you that could be giving a lot more value for price at this time. But they dont need to, at this point of time, as people are still buying enough canon products. They dont want to be the company that gives the best value for money. They want to be the company that makes the most profit, and you better believe they are still making enough profit. Otherwise they would already launched camera's with better specs. Will this bite them in the ass in the long run, perhaps. But as far as I see, most of the users are still using EF lenses. So whenever Canon sees their profit drop too much, they will launch a 5D V. With all the specs you want, heck you even get good skintones with it for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted March 20, 2018 Super Members Share Posted March 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Mokara said: That is not what they are saying at all. In order to shoot 4K and use DPAF the 5D4 needs to use MJPEG to reduce processor overhead to the point where it is feasibly. This in turn requires very high bit rates that the UHS-I slot would have trouble with, and that most likely is the "technical reason" they are referring to. The 4K shot with the M50 is done with hardware encoding, allowing much lower bit rates to be used. But, apparently that doesn't leave enough processor overhead to handle DPAF as well. It is not deliberate crippling, it is just a consequence of the limitations of the processor. At least some of the high end DSLRs include additional dedicated processors for focussing as well, it is possible that the M50 lacks that in order to cut costs. This. Mark Romero 2, jonpais, Rinad Amir and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, jonpais said: Forget the severe crop, the lack of zebras or waveform monitor, silly codec, intentionally crippling 4K HDMI out and no articulating LCD screen on the 5D Mark IV - there wasn’t even a flat picture profile at release. I think it’s abundantly clear Canon wants filmmakers to spend a ton of cash for features that have been available on practically every hybrid camera for several years now. The 5D Mark IV is a professional photography camera that shoots video, not a video camera. Just because Panasonic gives those features on a camera doesn’t mean every brand has to or needs to. Sony and Panasonic serves their other industries with their camera lines. Sony shows what their sensors are capable of in their cameras. Panasonic introduces HLG/HDR to create a market for their TV features. All of these companies have agendas, people just have blinders on when it is the company who manufactures the camera they enjoy the most. Most likely, the only reason Canon even put 4K in the M50, is to entice smart phone users who are looking for an interchangeable lens camera. But they surely won’t give all of their top of the line features to one of their entry level cameras... Especially when they have the 7D Mark III and 90D release on the horizon... no camera manufacturer does that. To add, we’re hanging out in a prosumer/consumer, photographers world here. To evaluate these camera releases solely on video features is an exercise in futility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trek of Joy Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 13 hours ago, jonpais said: You are missing the whole point, @Trek of Joy. This has got nothing whatsoever to do with single card slots, weather sealing, 10-bit, plastic bodies, or AF. It is about a high level executive admitting to an ongoing company policy of withholding features to force consumers to spend thousands of extra dollars if they want commonplace features like an HDMI out with 4K, something even a lowly $600 Panasonic camera can do. The G9 was absolutely not crippled - it is aimed squarely at photographers - filmmakers can choose either the GH5 or GH5s. Panasonic threw everything but the kitchen sink in their GH* bodies. Read up on it. Nobody expects them to put 10-bit in their $1,000 camera bodies either. But I don’t know why you suddenly care about 10-bit anyhow. Sony’s a7 III didn’t hold back anything either: 693 AF points, headphone jack, larger battery, dual card slots, IBIS.... Manufacturing cameras, like any electronic goods, involves making decisions about which features to include and which to exclude. Panasonic’s philosophy has always been to give excellent value for money. Sony has followed the same course with the a7 III. And neither company has the audacity to foist a ten year-old outdated codec like MPEG for 4K like the 5D MK IV. This is another priceless quote from that same interview: Do you think that 4K video is a more important feature at the entry-level end of the market, or the enthusiast / professional segment? We believe that 4K video is important for all market segments, and all users. Given that we have a range of products, we always have to think about how best [to implement 4K] in that class of camera. And you can do more with 4K video in a higher-end camera than in an entry-level model. [italics my own] I suppose he’s referring to the 1.78x crop in 4K when the Mark IV was released. ? I think any unbiased observer could say that Canon only grudgingly added 4K to the camera, even as 4K is in full swing now. How is this any different from what every other camera company does? All this hand wringing over an entry level model not having the specs of a higher end body. Its laughable how others get a pass and Canon gets ripped for actually saying what everyone is doing. I don't have a stake in this at all as I don't own anything Canon anymore. Why is this so shocking or offensive? Everyone does it. Sony still can't be bothered to put a simple intervalometer on its cameras and prior ones required us to pay for the app. A $500 Olympus from 2013 has one. I'm sure weather sealing will be equally bad as previous models and I believe part of the chassis is plastic. But I'll wait for a camera in hand to test before passing final judgement. The sensor and its AF is impressive, but Sony hasn't added anything outside HLG to its video spec in years. And its still a $2000 body, not a $700 entry level model like the Canon, apples and oranges. chris 6 hours ago, Robert Collins said: I dont really get the 'smart marketing' from Canon. It more strikes me as a company that is dependent on 'brand loyalty' for sales not realizing that brand loyalty is a two way street. From a marketing perspective Canon just seems to be a company with a 'lot of potential' that 'simply isnt making an effort'. That maybe not true but it is the impression Canon gives. At the opposite end of the scale, Sony's marketing 'perspective' seems to be around 'trying ' to give as much 'value' for as 'low a price' as possible. You don't get 45% market share from brand loyalty, there are plenty of new users buying Canon cameras. The interview clearly spelled out how Canon is marketing the lower end cameras, usability, AF and image quality. Seems to be resonating with buyers if Amazon's sales ranking are to be believed, since the top is littered with entry Canon's. Mattias Burling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 The chief difference is that Sony, Panasonic and Fuji don’t require you to invest in an expensive cinema camera if you want manageable files, 4K HDMI out, exposure tools (Fuji notwithstanding), flat picture profiles and articulating screens. Oh, and IBIS. All at a savings of 60% over the 5D Mark IV. So this isn’t only about their entry level camera for those upgrading from a smartphone. I see it as the story of the company that sparked DSLR filmmaking, only to abandon those very customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trek of Joy Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, jonpais said: The chief difference is that Sony, Panasonic and Fuji don’t require you to invest in an expensive cinema camera if you want manageable files, 4K HDMI out, exposure tools (Fuji notwithstanding), flat picture profiles and articulating screens. Oh, and IBIS. All at a savings of 60% over the 5D Mark IV. So this isn’t only about their entry level camera for those upgrading from a smartphone. I see it as the story of the company that sparked DSLR filmmaking, only to abandon those very customers. We're still talking about an entry level camera. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of people buying entry level cameras don't factor any of what you listed into the buying decision. The market research likely shows that as well. Outside of the GH5 twins (not entry level at $2000/$2500) - virtually every non-cinema camera from the a9/d5/1dx on down are more heavily focused on the process of shooting photos, not video. And that's especially true for the legacy DSLR companies like Canon, Nikon and Pentax. Video grabs headlines here and elsewhere, but its not the driving force behind most ILC's - even Sony's. Just check the product page for the a7III, its mostly about the stills shooting experience and you have to scroll to the bottom of the features page before it talks about video. Canon and Sony still want you to buy their respective cinema cameras for full featured video and that doesn't look like its going to change any time soon. Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokara Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 11 hours ago, jonpais said: Sorry, but that is not what the interviewee says. He unmistakably says 4K DPAF is technically feasible (ie workable, achievable, realistic), but Canon doesn’t want to trample on the toes of the 5D Mark IV. The executive makes no mention of either hardware or software limitations. Canon has made it very clear for a long while now that professional videographers need to step up to one of their cinema cameras if they want 4K, exposure tools like waveform monitors and zebras, 4K HDMI out and decent codecs. It is the position of the product, otherwise known as marketing, that determines which cameras get what, and not feedback from filmmakers. That is what he is saying. 4K DPAF is technically feasible, but not in the hardware choices made for the consumer products. The processor has the capability of doing one or the other function, but not both at the same time, at least not without additional hardware support. There are reasons for doing it this way, first and foremost being the cost and what the target market would be prepared to pay. Deliberately ceding market sure to competition is a stupid strategy, and whatever else I might think of Canon I am pretty sure they are not stupid. They don't have these features in the camera because it would make it too expensive. You are not going to sell too many cameras in the entry level market if they cost $2k. Those sorts of people will buy some other camera that costs less instead. However, what it does mean that if Canon were to produce a prosumer MILC, it most likely WOULD have that added hardware that would make the features practical to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docmoore Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Folks Canon is not a non profit corporation that has the corporate ethic of giving you the best of everything at no cost. It is interesting to read the rants here about how bad the Canon cameras are ... Disclamer ... I have used a number of video cameras over the past 10 years ... while my main focus has been landscape photography. Short list ... in order of acquisition ... Sony 1XER ... Red One ... Red Epic ... Panasonic GH2 ... 3 ... 5 ... Sony A7S ... A7RII ... Canon 7D ML ... 5D Mk 2 ...Mk3 ... 1Dx Mk I ... Mk II Nikon 810 ... almost every Leica camera in the last 25 years ... Truth is that the 5D Mk IV is stellar ... in spite of the crop ... when you have unparalleled lenses from 11 to 600 the crop is a non issue. Gorgeous screen and wonderful DPAF ... God forbid that you might have to pay for the above. Most of us in the west spend enormous amounts of change for ... coffee ... net access ... designer clothes. The entry fee for Canon is not that bad ... and their products are built to last decades ... My main camera is a Hasselblad ... but for video the 5D Mk IV smokes most others ... Here is a short video ... non C Log with the camera and the pitiful 24 - 105 F4 https://vimeo.com/256661656 Yes it is a conspiracy ... they exist to make a profit. Hopefully they will continue to do so and offer products that are as compelling as the present line. Out of your range ... then buy what you can afford and run it into the ground. But honestly ... all the whining is getting a bit old. Bob Rinad Amir, Mattias Burling and Django 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolf33d Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, docmoore said: Truth is that the 5D Mk IV is stellar ... in spite of the crop ... when you have unparalleled lenses from 11 to 600 the crop is a non issue. Gorgeous screen and wonderful DPAF ... God forbid that you might have to pay for the above. Wonderful. Thank you for helping me understand better the type of population and their arguments who gets fooled by Canon. God forbid you and your gorgeous 5DIV screen.... Rinad Amir and Mattias Burling 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 +1 The first sentence was so silly, I couldn’t be bothered to read what followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 call me a canon fanboy but i'm with @docmoore on the 5D IV.. it is a fantastic camera. any pro stills shooter who's used a 5D will know why. the ability to combine single point back button focus and trigger continuous servo focus via front DOF command button is genius. none of my nikons or MILCs can do that. The mark IV takes the 5D to a new level with a bunch of great add-ons. the touchscreen is extremely responsive (like what you'd expect in 201X) and allows full control of the menus, gestures, and silent lens/shooting commands. it's got C-Log & dual pixel AF (actually an even better implementation than on C200). you can extract an 8MP still in-cam from 4K footage. Timelapse etc.. these are all cool features imo. the 1.7x crop, annoying..sure. it is still less crop than a GH5 and if you're shooting in 1080p you're getting FF. every camera has its caveats. the MJPEG codec. yeah it's a huge bitrate. but that also means very little compression and it's also 422 intraframe. it essentially gives you the same IQ as the 1DC which everyone here gushes over. in the end, yes of course Canon segment the hell out of their cameras. they're also a little slow in product cycle/development. but as stated by the execs, they are very careful to ensure their cameras run stable (no overheating, bugs etc). and that's how they get the olympics and other events where camera failure just isn't an option.. Mattias Burling, iamoui and docmoore 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Wrong. Olympic sponsorships have got little to do with reliability and everything to do with signing lucrative contracts that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Panasonic, which by the way also makes extremely reliable cameras, has been sponsoring the Olympic Games for three decades. 2 hours ago, Django said: call me a canon fanboy but i'm with @docmoore on the 5D IV.. it is a fantastic camera. any pro stills shooter who's used a 5D will know why. the ability to combine single point back button focus and trigger continuous servo focus via front DOF command button is genius. none of my nikons or MILCs can do that. The mark IV takes the 5D to a new level with a bunch of great add-ons. the touchscreen is extremely responsive (like what you'd expect in 201X) and allows full control of the menus, gestures, and silent lens/shooting commands. it's got C-Log & dual pixel AF (actually an even better implementation than on C200). you can extract an 8MP still in-cam from 4K footage. Timelapse etc.. these are all cool features imo. the 1.7x crop, annoying..sure. it is still less crop than a GH5 and if you're shooting in 1080p you're getting FF. every camera has its caveats. the MJPEG codec. yeah it's a huge bitrate. but that also means very little compression and it's also 422 intraframe. it essentially gives you the same IQ as the 1DC which everyone here gushes over. in the end, yes of course Canon segment the hell out of their cameras. they're also a little slow in product cycle/development. but as stated by the execs, they are very careful to ensure their cameras run stable (no overheating, bugs etc). and that's how they get the olympics and other events where camera failure just isn't an option.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, jonpais said: Wrong. Olympic sponsorships have got little to do with reliability and everything to do with signing lucrative contracts that are mutually beneficial to both parties. Panasonic, which by the way also makes extremely reliable cameras, has been sponsoring the Olympic Games for three decades. Damn dude why do you always have to make it a competition with Panasonic?!.. Never said Canon was the only electronics company in the world sponsoring the Olympics or making reliable equipment.. However, it should be noted Panasonic are the official AV partner & Canon: Still Cameras and Desktop Reprographic Hardware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonpais Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Panasonic provided the AV equipment and dozens of broadcast cameras that covered the opening and closing ceremonies and the competitions at the 2018 Winter Olympics that were watched by twenty million people a night. so what? Most consumers rate all camera brands very highly when it comes to reliability anyway. If your camera needs repair these days, there's a 40% chance that it was was involved in an accident, not a malfunction. The point is that, unlike Sony, Panasonic and Fuji, Canon is pushing filmmakers to buy their expensive cinema cameras by withholding features found on practically every other hybrid camera on the market today. Essentially what you're saying is that Canon cripples its cameras so they're more reliable, which I don't buy for a minute. But you did put a smile on my face when you said the 1.74x crop of the Canon was no worse than the GH5. hehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted March 21, 2018 Super Members Share Posted March 21, 2018 Who gives a crap about sponsorship. Go to any biog sports event anywhere in the world and look at the 99.9% Canon being used. And that is NOT sponsorship that is the preferred tools of sports photographers. And that includes the Olympics. That 99.9% of the photographers there use Canon is because they like it the most and think Panasony sucks. Thinking the reason they don't use a m4/3 mirrorless is because of some deal is naive at best. jonpais and Rinad Amir 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.