Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon blocking Magic Lantern on latest 5D Mark III bodies

Recommended Posts

I giapponesi fanno davvero proteggere la proprietà intellettuale piuttosto stretto. Purtroppo, è molto ragionevole supporre Canon bloccato loro firmware.

Ma, si sa, ML sta dando attenzione ad una fotocamera open source --che potrebbe in definitiva essere una delle migliori cose accadano a cineasti Indy.  

Se Canon non vuole vendere un movimento economico fotocamera immagine che compete con la loro linea cinema, suppongo che sia la loro prerogativa.

​I think it was because the Magic Lantern has entered the project Apertus .... Canon afraid !!!

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

Heh, always got to have a Canon fanboy bashing Andrew every now and then, eh?

Canon has an amazing marketing and dealer network - why sell a 5D4 at US$3000 when you can sell a C100 for twice the price, or a C300 for five times the price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon could cash in by creating an app store. They could sell apps internally or open an SDK for third party developers and take a percentage, as Apple does with iOS. RAW and/or advanced tools/effects could then be offered for additional revenue. Sony has an app store for the A7S (primitive at this stage but a good sign for the future).

​I think an app store would be a great idea for canon, but i don't think Canon will release a RAW recording app.   If they do, they will charge 1-2k for it. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML RAW on the 5D3 provides options for full frame, a 3X zoom/crop mode, anamorphic modes, and a whole range of cinema crop modes (2.39:1 etc.).


A ML Mark II or III provides full frame 4k? I apologize if I am misunderstanding... just trying to determine the difference between a ML Mark III and the 1DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ML Mark II or III provides full frame 4k? I apologize if I am misunderstanding... just trying to determine the difference between a ML Mark III and the 1DC.

​ML RAW Mark III provides 1080p and more, but not 4K. The 1DC provide 4K with a 1.3 crop. Currently, only the A7S provides full frame and 1080p internal, 4K external. At the highest end is the ARRI 65: 65mm! (priceless: rental only).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much influence the video making dslr market is?

I suspect it is not a big deal for Canon, it is an opportunity to gain market share for Sony, Samsung, Blackmagic etc.

I suspect the blocking of Magic Lantern is deliberate.

Canon's video cameras are simply out of my price range by a long shot, but it is possible for me to buy a Canon 5dmk3.

All of this smacks of desperation to me. Like how the recording industry sued its customers and lost a whole generation of consumers as a result instead of adapting to new ways of acquiring music. I love music, but am not willing to pay $25 for a new cd, esp knowing I will pay $4 in a few months for it used or simply buy the tracks I like for a little money.

I think that Canon is simply trying to make the same amount of money or more than they always have using the same sales tactics.

Do not give the consumer all that they want so that they can make an incremental change for each model year and then take away a bunch of improvements so they can do it again like they did with their point and shoot cameras.

It would not suprise me if Canon bought Digital Bolex or one of the competing companies and shut it down or

If Sony bought it and made it more affordable.

As some pointed out, don't buy a camera that you don't like, 

If you like the features of Magic Lantern and if Canon will not risk their video cameras, there is serious competition. 

What has happened is that Canon has been the "value" camera, it does most everything it always did without ML, that is no longer true.

Canon dslr is now the status camera, not the value camera for digital filmmakers and poor filmmakers will likely turn to other options for value.

I am taking this subject at face value, I think Canon did this to protect themselves, but I think it has a hole in it.

 

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...