Jump to content
Andrew Reid

How many sales are Canon losing from enthusiasts due to video shenanigans?

Recommended Posts

@Eugenia I’ve been reading your blog since your Canon P&S days. I learned a bunch back then, so thanks.

I have a 5D3 (ML Raw), a BMMCC, and an old eos-m, I don’t really use anymore. I passed on the M50 to see if this generation of cameras would have 4K and DPAF... I was excited to hear that they did... but then when I learned there was no 24p... I was completely dumbfounded. 

I still love my 5D3 and feel no need to own a bunch of cameras, so I probably should thank Canon, because they just saved me some money.

I’m keeping a hopeful eye on the Sigma FP’s price and if it’s something I can manage, I may replace my BMMCC with it and slowly build a kit while I finish my current projects on my 5D3. 

If the price isn’t right, I can happily shoot another 2 years with ML Raw and save my money for the first major manufacturer to give me internal Raw at less than $2500. 

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

Thank you Mercer! These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. 🙂

I personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects.

Canons have their problems, but with the VisionColor's Cinetech picture profile I get an excellent cinematic look, and more DR than Cinestyle. If only they could do proper 4k and have a 10bit codec. I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eugenia said:

Thank you Mercer! These were great times back then, reporting on cameras etc. 🙂

I personally use the M and the M50 for small short films like this (M50 below, with the nifty fifty). So despite some people saying that 24p is not needed, I actually need it, and I rather use such a small package camera rather than a larger or more expensive camera for these smaller film projects.

Canons have their problems, but with the VisionColor's Cinetech picture profile I get an excellent cinematic look, and more DR than Cinestyle. If only they could do proper 4k and have a 10bit codec. I tried ML a few times, but the aliasing and overheating keeps me from using it further.

Eos R? 10bit external, c log × ND Adapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 7:30 AM, yoclay said:

Blackmagic is not a huge company.  Not even close.

Panasonic has 273,358 employees.

Canon has 197,673 employees.

Sony has 117,300 employees.

Fujifilm has 79,000 employees.

Nikon has 25,729 employees.

Blackmagic has 372 employees.

Not that it changes your point but that figure is either old, just plain wrong, or only speaking about the amount of staff in Melbourne (which is fairly close).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Eos R? 10bit external, c log × ND Adapter.

Not for me. I need a small package. While the EOS R itself is not that massive, its native lenses are and an external display/rec would be a no-go. I'm only 4'11" and I don't have much strength to keep such a rig on my shoulder for more than a couple of minutes (same reason why I don't use my BMPCC 4k rig much). I need a package the size of the M50/A6400/X-T30 with a 16x-50x kit-lens-size IS lens, along 10bit log rec. And if it happens to have ibis, even better. GH5 comes closest, but its AF is not good, so I pass. My hopes are for next year's Fuji. I need a true "one-man-crew" camera and I do have a feeling that it's Fuji that will deliver that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eugenia said:

Not for me. I need a small package. While the EOS R itself is not that massive, its native lenses are and an external display/rec would be a no-go. I'm only 4'11" and I don't have much strength to keep such a rig on my shoulder for more than a couple of minutes (same reason why I don't use my BMPCC 4k rig much). I need a package the size of the M50/A6400/X-T30 with a 16x-50x kit-lens-size IS lens, along 10bit log rec. And if it happens to have ibis, even better. GH5 comes closest, but its AF is not good, so I pass. My hopes are for next year's Fuji. I need a true "one-man-crew" camera and I do have a feeling that it's Fuji that will deliver that.

Yeah the X-T3 with that 18-55 seems a good fit? Or also too heavy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I replied about the x-t3 in the previous page. It's the one I'll get, but when it's updated with ibis (since it on an bigger budget range, I rather get the full monty in that case). I give it a year or so. Until then, the A6400 should do the job for half the price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 9:47 AM, Andrew Reid said:

The Canon 90D targets wildlife shooters. I refuse to believe we're a smaller market than wild boar pig lovers.

Read the full article

Amazingly, maybe they are. I'm always baffled in forums about how many people discuss about bird and wildlife shooting. In some ones, almost 1/4 of the postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the OP link, "How can Canon ignore such a large amount of interest from filmmakers in smaller, affordable, 4K shooting cameras?"

I first became aware of 4K video back in 2010 while attending Canon's gear Expo at the Javits Center in NYC...it was my first time seeing 4K camera prototypes, first time seeing 4K monitors outputting 4K footage, first time seeing 4K sensors on display. I was immediately blown away by the clarity and detail possible at that resolution and I was convinced on-the-spot that Canon was clearly the brand to "hitch my wagon to" going forward.

I had been shooting my 7D and 5D Mark II for both stills and video up to that point and I was feeling a bit cocky that I had chosen wisely "going with Canon" leading into that expo. I thought, "Ooh boy, I can't wait for their 5D Mark III and Canon 7D Mark II, whenever they get announced! I've got to get my hands on some 4K gear, pronto!" And with the arrival of the 4K-capable 1Dc in late 2013, I was eagerly anticipating my "impending good fortunes soon-to-come"! Ahahahah!

The 2012 no-4K announcement for the 5D3 was a true "WTF?" moments for me, as was the 2014 7D2 announcement. "Really Canon?! What's the hold up?!" I was dismayed. Plans were dashed, my future shooting goals, postponed seemingly indefinitely, I was not a happy camper. Who, if anyone, was going to bring 4K DSLR-style camera gear to the masses?

The subsequent arrivals of the 4K-capable GH4, FZ1000 and the Sony Alpha lines began to offer a glimmer of hope for me and my "4K Canon master plan", "surely they'll come through now!". But, as we all know now, I was "hoping against all hopes". "What a shame and disappointment, Canon." I thought...and still do.

I began to jump ship from Canon with the FZ1000...and it was a revelation in "what the competition was up to"...sensible menus, fabulous in-the-field ergonomics, great video output quality (for me, at the time). I opened myself up to see what other manufacturers were offering and soon ended up with a Sony a6300 and a7SII...not as user-friendly as the Panasonic and more than a few-notches-below on image stabilization and rolling shutter, but usable, not a fan of their color vs Canon and Panasonic.

In the past year+ I've been a razor-thin phone call away from grabbing either a GH5 or GH5S after getting some 2017 PhotoPlus Expo hands-on time with Panasonic's G9/100-400mm combo...now here was Image Stabilization realized! A small piece of kit that can effectively do what my Canon/Sony FF camera + Sigma 300-800mm lens can do, but handheld with IS?! I was absolutely floored and that kit was under the holiday tree for my sweetie two months later!

I'm onto the S1, now...as I roll my fingers daily still waiting for that mythical V-Log upgrade to make that long boat trip to North America...thank goodness for Cine-D to sort-of hold me over in the meantime.

And, "whither goes Canon?" I know not and, truthfully, do not truly care any more. And I do not write this with malice or from "sour grapes", it's just that they are no longer innovators and pioneers in my eyes. Based on what I saw and experienced back at that 2010 expo, Canon could have and should have owned the 4K DSLR/M market today...how they managed to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory" is beyond me. Haw! And should they ever decide to produce a DSLR/DSLM camera worthy of my attention and shooting needs and desires, I'll surely give it a look-see. But, to the OP's question, yeah, they lost me as a customer a while ago. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole past year's release cycle for Canon makes me sad. From the mirrorless 5D4 & 6D2 reissues to the crippling of the enthusiast-line Canon no longer makes a competitive modern body I want to own.

I WANT to come back to Canon. I WANT to add to my collection of Canon bodies. But not only is Canon not improving on areas they're deficient they're actively removing what makes them appealing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 4:01 AM, Andrew Reid said:

More ill-informed bollocks.

Canon 1D X was 4K capable, disabled in firmware. Digic processors in 1D C are identical.

Canon 5D Mark III was capable of a 4K sensor readout, as Magic Lantern RAW clearly shows.

Both those cameras date back to 2012!

Are you suggesting Canon went backwards with slower processors until 6 years later?

5D Mark IV was Digic 6 by the way.

Obviously not insignificant enough for Canon to keep it in like they did with nearly all previous cheap Rebel DSLRs aimed at the same customers. If it is an insignificant number tell me why Canon are bothering with the crippling at all or care enough to push customers towards the EOS R!

Because people who use those products don't use 24p in any significant numbers. Canon would have done their market research, they will know what their customers are doing. If the cost of implementing 24p exceeds whatever additional money they might make by including it, why would they bother? It literally loses them money. Back when camera sales were good then the small loss was unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but now the market is contracting and every dollar saved counts.

The fact that you personally want 24p is irrelevant to the calculation. You look at the market as a market of one, yourself. Canon however sees it as a market of many, and in that market of many, 24p probably loses them money according to their numbers. So it is no longer there. It is as simple as that. No conspiracy. Just the bottom line.

As you well know (or should know) hardware encoding is done by the processor, not the sensor. The 4K done by cameras such as the 1D X and 5DIV was software encoding. It could only by done by high bandwidth codecs due to the inefficiency of the process, which imposed other resource costs on the camera so that alone was not practical in consumer cameras. High end cameras had the supporting hardware to deal with that, consumer models did not. Also, you forget that the 1D and 5D series have an additional processor besides their primary processors (two in the case of 1D and one in the case of 5D) to handle focussing and exposure control. Consumer cameras do NOT have this additional processor, the primary processor has to handle focussing/exposure AS WELL as any image processing. The additional load on the processor makes implementations such as those used in the more expensive cameras impractical. Just because the pro and prosumer cameras had the processing power by virtue of multiple processors to implement 4K in this way does not mean that consumer cameras did as well, even though they are using the same primary processor.

The difference between Canon's full frame cameras? The 1D series have three processors, the 5D series have two processors, the 6D series has one processor. You might think that the sensors are not all that different, but it is the processing power inside the camera that is the distinction between the cameras and it is that processing power that determines their capabilities. This has an impact even now. Ever wonder why consumer cameras had a problem with using DPAF with 4K while the expensive models don't? It was that extra processor handling the focusing/exposure that made the difference. Not crippling to protect product lines. Just simply less supporting hardware to reduce costs in the low end models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 Not crippling to protect product lines. Just simply less supporting hardware to reduce costs in the low end models.

Regardless, this does not exactly play in their favor. Sony chipsets and other chipsets in the market are able to do in 1 chip what Canon's do in 3. Either way, they're behind.

Quote

If the cost of implementing 24p exceeds whatever additional money they might make by including it

It costs them $0 to include it. The feature was always there for 10 years now, and it was always part of their OS. This was a clear move to push people to buy more expensive models. They aggressively segmentize and they've done so in the past (I will explain below). And that would work if they were a monopoly. But they have competitors that include more than just 24p in their cheaper cameras, they also have zebras, log etc. So why go with Canon then? Only Canon thinks that Canon users will stay with Canon no matter what. Little did they know, their EF lenses are getting adapted well to other systems as well.

So, for a little history lesson. As a few people mentioned above, I indeed used to run a video-related blog back in the day. My little niche was "filmmaking on the very cheap". Basically, back then there wasn't much processing power to do 1080/30p on P&S digicams, manufacturers were often forced to use 24p (just because it was easier to encode). So Canon had a line of P&S cameras with 1080/24p at 36 Mbps. There were no manual controls, but there was exposure compensation & exposure lock. Which was enough to create artsy videos or short films on the super-cheap that looked rather professional -- if you were careful of how you were shooting with them. Add on top the ability to get a rather flat look to widen the DR (there were sharpness/contrast/sat controls), and it was a pretty sweet deal for cameras costing $150-$300.

So for a couple of years, we had a number of P&S cams from Canon specifically that could be seen as alternatives to their 5D MkII, T2i, and 7D of that time (at least for people who couldn't afford these cameras and their lenses). I even shot a couple of music videos with such cams (we were not allowed to use my 5D MkII in the Santa Cruz Boardwalk to shoot a music video, but when I showed to the guards the tiny Canon SX30 HS P&S cam, they had no problem -- so they were really good guerrilla cams). The magic feature here was the exposure lock, that made those videos look pro.

Fast forward to 2012. New Canon P&S line up announced across the board. And each one of these had exposure lock in video mode REMOVED (AEL for photos was still there). And in some other models, they removed exposure compensation as well (again, these features had been there for years at that point in video mode). They had to remove these because they couldn't remove 24p outright (simply because their processors were not fast enough yet to do 30p at 1080p, they were stuck with it). They probably saw that some people who could not afford dSLRs used these small cams as a cheap replacement for filmmaking, and they wanted to push these same people to upgrade. The thing is though, if these people had the money to buy a dSLR, they would have done so anyway.

So, since then, I have a love-hate relationship with Canon. But their recent removal of 24p from a rather high end super-35 camera (the M6 MkII is not as low end as say, the M100) is unforgivable, sorry. Just because that's the EF-M line, should not make it a useless line for filmmaking. Some of us, want such cameras simply because they are small. The EOS R is much larger in comparison (and expensive when you account for native lenses).

So yeah, what Canon is doing now, they've done before. It's part of their MO. And if it's true that they are upscaling 2.8k to 4k and lying about it, then they are really unforgivable. I have lost all the respect I had for that company all these years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mokara said:

Because people who use those products don't use 24p in any significant numbers. Canon would have done their market research, they will know what their customers are doing. If the cost of implementing 24p exceeds whatever additional money they might make by including it, why would they bother? It literally loses them money. Back when camera sales were good then the small loss was unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but now the market is contracting and every dollar saved counts.

The fact that you personally want 24p is irrelevant to the calculation. You look at the market as a market of one, yourself. Canon however sees it as a market of many, and in that market of many, 24p probably loses them money according to their numbers. So it is no longer there. It is as simple as that. No conspiracy. Just the bottom line.

As you well know (or should know) hardware encoding is done by the processor, not the sensor. The 4K done by cameras such as the 1D X and 5DIV was software encoding. It could only by done by high bandwidth codecs due to the inefficiency of the process, which imposed other resource costs on the camera so that alone was not practical in consumer cameras. High end cameras had the supporting hardware to deal with that, consumer models did not. Also, you forget that the 1D and 5D series have an additional processor besides their primary processors (two in the case of 1D and one in the case of 5D) to handle focussing and exposure control. Consumer cameras do NOT have this additional processor, the primary processor has to handle focussing/exposure AS WELL as any image processing. The additional load on the processor makes implementations such as those used in the more expensive cameras impractical. Just because the pro and prosumer cameras had the processing power by virtue of multiple processors to implement 4K in this way does not mean that consumer cameras did as well, even though they are using the same primary processor.

The difference between Canon's full frame cameras? The 1D series have three processors, the 5D series have two processors, the 6D series has one processor. You might think that the sensors are not all that different, but it is the processing power inside the camera that is the distinction between the cameras and it is that processing power that determines their capabilities. This has an impact even now. Ever wonder why consumer cameras had a problem with using DPAF with 4K while the expensive models don't? It was that extra processor handling the focusing/exposure that made the difference. Not crippling to protect product lines. Just simply less supporting hardware to reduce costs in the low end models.

Let me ask you something...

who even are you?  Where did you seemingly get all of this information when all of the evidence for YEARS has been the opposite of what you are arguing? It baffles me that you still are arguing this argument. 

Seriously, how did you get all of this information that goes against ABUNDANT evidence that we have had for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shell64 said:

Let me ask you something...

who even are you?  Where did you seemingly get all of this information when all of the evidence for YEARS has been the opposite of what you are arguing? It baffles me that you still are arguing this argument. 

Seriously, how did you get all of this information that goes against ABUNDANT evidence that we have had for years?

Not only that there has been no evidence posted  whatsoever that their is a substantial cost in having 24p AVC codec available in a camera. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shell64 said:

Let me ask you something...

who even are you?  Where did you seemingly get all of this information when all of the evidence for YEARS has been the opposite of what you are arguing? It baffles me that you still are arguing this argument. 

Seriously, how did you get all of this information that goes against ABUNDANT evidence that we have had for years?

Um....the "ABUNDANT evidence" you are talking about is just a series of conspiracy theory with zero evidence to back it up. None. At all.

All that information, particularly regarding processors and what they do, has been out there for years as well. Why don't you do some basic research about what processors are actually in these things? Do you really think that the fact that a 1D has three processors while a 6D has one has no impact on their relative capability? That the differences are because stuff has been "switched off" just so people will buy the 1D? What exactly do you think those other processors are doing? Why do you think the 1D series has all those extra processors?

I have been going on about the critical role processing power plays in capability for a long time now, especially in how it impacts Canon's ability to bring competitive products to the market and how it affects the DSLR v MILC scene. Nothing new there. The problem is that people have been ignoring all of that in favor of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories being popular however does not change that these limitations in cheaper cameras are primarily due to cost saving measures, such as stripping down the hardware to a bare minimum and simply not developing other things because the cost versus return did not warrant it. You get all the bells and whistles in flagship models because the margins allow it, but that is not the case in consumer models. Cheaper cameras are not just expensive cameras with stuff arbitrarily switched off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 cheaper cameras are primarily due to cost saving measures, such as stripping down the hardware to a bare minimum and simply not developing other things because the cost versus return did not warrant it.

That is true. Just not for 24p. As I said above, it costs nothing to have 24p in there, it has always been a feature. The OS used is the same as in other cameras. The Digic8 can do 24p just fine too. You are trying to take Canon's side with a very generic argument that does not apply  in the specific problem we are trying to address.

As I mentioned above, they've done things like that before, and I described that in detail. And I forgot to mention above how around 2014-2015 they started offering 1080p at 32mbps instead of their usual 48mbps they had at that point (same exact encoder btw) for their dslr line. Little by little, they started stripping interesting features away from video, after their initial success with the 5D MkII. No conspiracy here, just facts. The most obvious conclusion here is that they're protecting their pro video line. For better or worse. And it's their right to do so if they want to. But let's not be blind to the fact that their competitors offer more video features at this time and age for the same price. As a Canon consumer, I've simply jumped ship. It was a simple move + the cost of an EF adapter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

Not only that there has been no evidence posted  whatsoever that their is a substantial cost in having 24p AVC codec available in a camera. None.

All features, no matter how small, have hardware and development costs associated with them. Nothing is free. In this case what would have happened is that the Powershot team would have developed a functioning OS around the Digic 8 processor and used that for all of the consumer cameras using that processor. Every feature in that OS would have to be written and exhaustively tested. Every mode has to be tested no only in itself, but also in conjunction with every other subsystem in the OS to ensure that it works in all scenarios. To save time and cost (engineers do not work for free, contrary to what many here think) they opted for a limited video feature function.

If you think it costs nothing, explain how you think it costs nothing. Short of the engineers coming in on weekends and working for free, I guarantee that the cost will be substantial, even for things that you think are trivial.

And, as I have pointed out before, the terms of the licenses needed to implement video can be negotiated for a lower fee in return for reduced scope. There are lots of mechanism to save money as a consequence of not including 24p in the package.

Share this post


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

Jimmy G,

FWIW, in your timeline Canon brought out the EOS Cinema line, if I'm not mistaken.

True, that, but (as I was specific to point out in my post) I have only been interested in, and only was referring to, DSLR/M-style cameras. My needs for trail/off-trail outdoor shooting clearly differ from those shooting in different environments (read: sets, studios, ENG, etc.) and all I will travel with is a camera, lens and hot-shoe mic. Photography and videography, all-in-one. Others needs may vary.

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...