Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mercer

Why is Canon SO Frustrating?!

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
16 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

If you can't get great images from a 6Dmkii it just means that you are an awful operator. Just terrible. 

Lol. I got great images from my first DSLR, the EOS 450D which is far inferior compared to the 6D. And what? It's not because one can get good images with ANY full frame camera on the market that one should choose the worst one because you know it can take good images. It's still crap. 
Canon makes crippled crap decade-old tech cameras that's it dude. There are just far better cameras than the 6D starting with the Nikon D750. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6D Mark II is not cinema for me.

6d-mark-ii-1080p.jpg

There is a 1080p frame grab, look at it full screen and it screams digital.

Lack of dynamic range, mushy codec, in many ways a step back from even the old 6D.

Terrible detail that doesn't pop.

Now compare to an X-T3 frame I pulled from Vimeo... World of difference. Details pops, three dimensionally, film like dynamic range and colour.

Even if you don't care about 4K delivery, it's a world of difference between a shitty Canon DSLR and a top of the range 2019 mirrorless camera.

x-t3-4k-b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another good example of why it's worth chasing the film look with your choice of video gear...

Top shot is Canon 1D C, which ultimately thrashes the 6D Mark II

Screenshot-2019-06-11-at-02.46.19.jpg

Below is the Samsung NX1, which looks a lot more digital

Screenshot-2019-06-11-at-02.46.16.jpg

Then again, NX1 can be fixed, graded, hacked, to look amazing.

With a 6D Mark II, you are relying much more on the lighting, subjects, lenses, etc. All important, but it HAS to have remarkable material in front of it to look cinematic, whereas with a great camera you can make the ordinary look cinematic, and the good material even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure the 6D video quality is beyond crap. I was talking about the stills quality which is also far from its competition although to a less extent compared to video. 

The XT3 looks beautiful. I wish it had IBIS. I am very hopeful Sony brings a A6700 soon as a copy of the XT3 but with even better AF (per A6400) and IBIS. 
Or an XH2 that would be great as well if not better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

Which affordable Canon (excluding Magic Lantern) is any good for (semi-)cinematic image? The M50?

Well I think it might be the best thing going for the money, but the big drawback is that the camera has a 1.6 crop factor to start with, but in 4K it adds on another 1.7 crop, and you loose DPAF. Damn near impossible to go really wide on one. So if you can live with those constants it is a really nice camera. You can put a Speedbooster on it and get it up to near FF size. So that is a plus. I have to admit I have been looking at maybe buying one myself. At my age I Need the EVF over the rear LCD on the EOS M I have. Still trying to figure out the ML part. 😬

I am not too sure Any of the normal Canon cameras have a Cinematic look to them without ML other than the 1DC to be honest. And I wouldn't call the C line cameras normal so... BMD seems to be the only cheap cameras that have a Cine look to them as far as I am concerned. Sure old Cine cameras like a Sony PMW F3, C100 do, but they are not so hot for what is in now. Run n Gun stuff. The Sony F3 is Terrible hand held. Stripped down the C100 is really not too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kaylee said:

this honestly looks like shit. its a flashback to the ancient past. electronic, phony and horrid. thank God we have better!

What are you talking about? We all miss this quality tremendously. It's such a beauty I can't wait to get one again. I mean look at this color science mojo! 

It almost beats an iPhone 5!!!

Joke apart I am the first one to wish for a great Canon mirrorless. I am loyal to no brand and just pick the best tool for the job when needed. The mix of outdated tech, old management and cine line protection will prevent that for a while unfortunately. 

image.png.66ad6e545df8b52cb9de44946cf02ca3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's a bit like cursing in church to say this in this forum.. but IMHO.. the 1DC was a huge disappointed. I paid less than an A7sii but still it's way over priced (this was maybe two years ago). 

For video that is.

For stills it was excellent. Sold it to a guy who wanted a 1Dx but couldn't afford it, he never ever shoots video. So it hasn't recorded a single frame of video since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I know it's a bit like cursing in church to say this in this forum.. but IMHO.. the 1DC was a huge disappointed. I paid less than an A7sii but still it's way over priced (this was maybe two years ago). 

For video that is.

For stills it was excellent. Sold it to a guy who wanted a 1Dx but couldn't afford it, he never ever shoots video. So it hasn't recorded a single frame of video since.

I'm surprised to read you state that about the 1DC. Was the image just not doing it for you? Did you enjoy 5D3 RAW more?

I believe Canon works for those that just want an image "that just works" without thinking of the 8bit limitations. I guess you could argue the same for Nikon video since D810/D750.

I see it like this: Panny/Oly/Fuji/Sony mirrorless video can def render images that are staggering for the money. It's fun times for the enthusiast avoiding the cost of entry for cinema realm equipment and workflow.

But unless you are consistently nailing your exposure and color, making sure your scene elements fit the limited DR and codec constraints of these cameras, you'll probably get stunning results 30-50% of the time and need stupid hours of post work fixing the rest of the 8bit mess, while Canon (and perhaps Nikon) dslrs/mirrorless are quite foolproof in operation to produce a result that viewers care about. 

Operate a 5D4 or EOSR , I'd bet you'd get more usable shots on average in run-gun situations than the other superior spec 4k mirrorless offerings.

I just think Canon/Nikon images are more forgiving about screw-ups in white balance and exposure errors in 8bit h264 realm than the others, though the gap is  now closing (Sony/Panny color/WB has improved, Fuji/Oly take video more seriously, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, j_one said:

I'm surprised to read you state that about the 1DC. Was the image just not doing it for you? Did you enjoy 5D3 RAW more?

I believe Canon works for those that just want an image "that just works" without thinking of the 8bit limitations. I guess you could argue the same for Nikon video since D810/D750.

I see it like this: Panny/Oly/Fuji/Sony mirrorless video can def render images that are staggering for the money. It's fun times for the enthusiast avoiding the cost of entry for cinema realm equipment and workflow.

But unless you are consistently nailing your exposure and color, making sure your scene elements fit the limited DR and codec constraints of these cameras, you'll probably get stunning results 30-50% of the time and need stupid hours of post work fixing the rest of the 8bit mess, while Canon (and perhaps Nikon) dslrs/mirrorless are quite foolproof in operation to produce a result that viewers care about. 

Operate a 5D4 or EOSR , I'd bet you'd get more usable shots on average in run-gun situations than the other superior spec 4k mirrorless offerings.

I just think Canon/Nikon images are more forgiving about screw-ups in white balance and exposure errors in 8bit h264 realm than the others, though the gap is  now closing (Sony/Panny color/WB has improved, Fuji/Oly take video more seriously, etc).

I completely disagree.

I shoot very fast run-n-gun using auto-WB and available (normally mixed) lighting, so I know all about what you have to do to correct WB in post when it's not right.  When I was shooting my 700D I struggled to get barely usable images, and I thought it was me until I did an A/B under controlled lighting to discover that if the WB is right then the image is fine with zero adjustments but if it's off, even by a little bit, then you're basically screwed.  I was also dissatisfied with the sub-720p resolution from it, did some research and bought the XC10 for its might higher video quality and bitrates, but that suffered these same problems as the 700D.  The C-Log on the XC10 was better than the more normal profiles, but still hard to work with, and I still found the image to break apart easily.

I now shoot with my GH5 and the difference is like chalk and cheese.  The GH5 in 10-bit is glorious to work with and you have to be brutal in grading to even degrade the image slightly, and WB adjustments in post are straightforward.  The GH5 even in 8-bit modes is much more forgiving and I have now realised that my problem wasn't me, it was the difficulties associated with Canon CS when not white-balanced appropriately.

Ironically, I found Canon with ML to be a completely different beast and suffers none of the problems grading shots with WB problems, so it's not the Canon hardware that is causing these difficulties, but the image processing - the magical Canon CS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 4:27 AM, Oliver Daniel said:

To the point of the post, they are SO frustrating because we all have a soft spot for them, and want them to deliver what we want. But they won't, and probably never will. 

Amen.

Round and around this same tired conversation goes with folks wanting Canon dslrs to deliver what their C line does.

Maybe Canon should set up some kind of therapy group for those who still think it's 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the problem? The 5dmarkIII with magic lantern RAW hack has been available for years and it delivers everything except "tack sharpness".

I've been using it so much that upgrading to a better camera has been difficult as not even the C200 offers exactly what the 5dIII with raw does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 5:06 AM, hmcindie said:

What's the problem? The 5dmarkIII with magic lantern RAW hack has been available for years and it delivers everything except "tack sharpness".

I've been using it so much that upgrading to a better camera has been difficult as not even the C200 offers exactly what the 5dIII with raw does.

Doesn't the C200 have a lot more Dynamic range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Doesn't the C200 have a lot more Dynamic range?

I don’t have a C200 and have never used one but I think there’s an unfortunate trend that the extra 2 stops are more important than the 10-12 a lot of cameras already have.

But that statement wasn’t an assessment or comparison between the C200 and 5D3 ML... it’s just a generalized comment about dynamic range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been sticking with Canon mainly for two reasons: 35mm F1.4L & 50mm F1.2L. 

I love the 5D series, mark 1 being my favorite mojo wise for stills & 5D2/5D3 for ML Raw.

1DC/1DX2 are also DSLR beasts.

The EOS R is still my favorite mirrorless, despite all its limitations. It's a baby C200.

That said, for my next "big cam" I will be skipping C200 and probably going for an FS7. Just so much more bang for the buck.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...