Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 09 Oct 2013 (Wednesday) 01:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon's video crusade goes on. Next target: 7D II

 
Osiriz
Senior Member
Avatar
622 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Norway
     
Oct 09, 2013 01:45 |  #1

Are you tired of your camera bodies being "video oriented"?
Are you sick of paying extra for video features you don't want and don't need?
Are you having nightmares about stills features being compromised in favour of video? (extra strong AA-filters e.t.c).

*drums*
Well prepare to get even more sick and tired, because Canon's ruthless video crusade rolls on! Next target is the 7D2.

Latest from CR: "The 7D Mark II will become more video oriented. So beyond a “pro” APS-C camera, it will also be highly desirable for the videographer."

http://www.canonrumors​.com …/eos-7d-mark-ii-talk-cr1/ (external link)

Where is the puke-smiley when you need it? :(




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Ginga
Senior Member
Avatar
370 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Jokkmokk - Sweden
     
Oct 09, 2013 01:52 |  #2

Canon, why won't you understand? The more "video-oriented" you make the cameras, the less likely I am going to buy them.

Read my lips: I have never captured video. I have no desire to capture video, I will never capture video, and if I were interested in capturing video, I would use a videocamera. You want me to buy a new camera from you? Well then, make it stills- optimized! Make the camera small, make it mirrorless, make the sensor larger. Yes, 36x24 mm will be fine. Make it something that makes it easier and more likely for me to capture those still images i would like to capture.

Thank you.


Sony A7R * 70-200 2.8L II * 24-70L II * Samyang 14
Recently sold: 5DIII * Sigma 35 *

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Oct 09, 2013 02:06 |  #3

Ginga wrote in post #16357356 (external link)
Canon, why won't you understand? The more "video-oriented" you make the cameras, the less likely I am going to buy them.

Read my lips: I have never captured video. I have no desire to capture video, I will never capture video, and if I were interested in capturing video, I would use a videocamera. You want me to buy a new camera from you? Well then, make it stills- optimized! Make the camera small, make it mirrorless, make the sensor larger. Yes, 36x24 mm will be fine. Make it something that makes it easier and more likely for me to capture those still images i would like to capture.

Thank you.

You wouldn't mind a big microphone on top and a handle for smooth panning, would you? And a couple of dedicated buttons for video only?

At least if they gave a raw video option...


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
virsago_mk2
Senior Member
Avatar
600 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Perth (Australia) & Semarang (Indonesia)
     
Oct 09, 2013 02:19 |  #4

I actually find this very amusing that all of you guys actually take CR's word very seriously nowadays.

I found that his rumour articles are not credible enough.
You all know that CR's track record is horrible lately, all he did was just a guessing game now, reposting articles about the mythical EOS 3D, EF 24-70 2.8 IS, EF 14-24 2.8 with CR2 mark for the last 3 years.

Even now CR website is mostly just a news blog filled with patents & product releases that mostly taken from other gadget sites.

Heck, you can all just email CR a BS 'rumour' about a high mega pixel 1DX successor anonymously & I can almost guarantee he will post it in the CR website & mark it as CR1 or CR2.


Gear: Here | Portfolio: Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Oct 09, 2013 02:34 |  #5

virsago_mk2 wrote in post #16357380 (external link)
I actually find this very amusing that all of you guys actually take CR's word very seriously nowadays.

I found that his rumour articles are not credible enough.
You all know that CR's track record is horrible lately, all he did was just a guessing game now, reposting articles about the mythical EOS 3D, EF 24-70 2.8 IS, EF 14-24 2.8 with CR2 mark for the last 3 years.

Even now CR website is mostly just a news blog filled with patents & product releases that mostly taken from other gadget sites.

Heck, you can all just email CR a BS 'rumour' about a high mega pixel 1DX successor anonymously & I can almost guarantee he will post it in the CR website & mark it as CR1 or CR2.

While likely true, i'd bet money that this will happen. Every model update is geared more and more to video (70D DPAF for example)...though this one carry's over benefits, to the stills side.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Osiriz
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
622 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Norway
     
Oct 09, 2013 10:37 |  #6

1Tanker wrote in post #16357389 (external link)
While likely true, i'd bet money that this will happen. Every model update is geared more and more to video (70D DPAF for example)...though this one carry's over benefits, to the stills side.

This. It's not about "blindly trusting" everything CR says. I think we all can agree that Canon is focusing way too much on the video part, and therefore this rumor sounds very plausible.

But then again, it's Canon's company and they can do whatever the hell they want. But if this video trend continues, I don't think I'll be along for the ride.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 295
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Oct 09, 2013 10:41 |  #7

So what? Just tells me I need to save up for an old Hassy and digital back (prices are dropping, afterall). Otherwise... I'm pretty happy with what I got.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedcmule2
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 09, 2013 10:49 |  #8

Ginga wrote in post #16357356 (external link)
Read my lips: I have never captured video. I have no desire to capture video, I will never capture video, and if I were interested in capturing video, I would use a videocamera. You want me to buy a new camera from you? Well then, make it stills- optimized! Make the camera small, make it mirrorless, make the sensor larger. Yes, 36x24 mm will be fine. Make it something that makes it easier and more likely for me to capture those still images i would like to capture.

Thank you.

You are you not their target customer, obviously. It's not all about you.

I get paid to make both photo and video, more power to canon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
koala ­ yummies
Senior Member
736 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
     
Oct 09, 2013 11:07 as a reply to  @ thedcmule2's post |  #9

I don't consider any of my EOS SLR bodies 'video oriented'. It takes a few steps just to get in to the video modes. I have to go to live view, make a menu change, select the video mode, and press a button before it's even ready to shoot video. Then from there the audio sucks without some sort of external hardware, the video features are seriously lacking without third party firmware support, and holding and shooting actual video is quite difficult without some kind of rig. The camera can shoot video, and that's about it. It has a digital sensor that has the capability to shoot video, but it's hardly video-based.

It still takes a still image every time the shutter release is pressed. I thought this anti-video position died a few years ago when the majority realized that: they didn't have to use it.

I'll gladly take the pretty remarkable video quality, over not having any at all. Versatility is the name of the game. If you are a hobbyist complaining about the video, Canon doesn't care at all. If you are a working professional against shooting video, you are going to be obsolete very soon.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedcmule2
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 09, 2013 11:14 |  #10

koala yummies wrote in post #16358209 (external link)
It takes a few steps just to get in to the video modes. I have to go to live view, make a menu change, select the video mode, and press a button before it's even ready to shoot video.

What camera is this? Most of my canon dslrs all shoot video instantly when you switch the dial to video mode. I get your point though, that the DSLRs now are not video-oriented some here claim them to be. It is just an extra option sitting there (and the clever ones out of us figured out how to monetize using it in a world where everyone and their grandma is a photographer).

I'll gladly take the pretty remarkable video quality, over not having any at all. Versatility is the name of the game. If you are a hobbyist complaining about the video, Canon doesn't care at all. If you are a working professional against shooting video, you are going to be obsolete very soon.

Exactly, this I agree with. Removing their video option from DSLRs wont magically make their photo side better. I have made plenty of money switching to video mode, I do not regret it at all. If canon wants to market to people like me, then im all for it. They will still continue researching better photography technology, so why are we complaining?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,219 posts
Likes: 168
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 09, 2013 12:50 as a reply to  @ post 16358246 |  #11

Yes, this discussion goes back some time. This said, I continue to sympathize with the anti-video lot, as photography is photography and video is video; two separate mediums.

Of course, disclaimers abound: For folks involved with both mediums, especially in journalism, the marriage of the two is great. Moreover, with camera phones chipping away at all forms of cameras, the exclusion of video would likely prove a marketing disaster. Canon and others need to add value to their products, particularly as the average consumer is increasingly wondering why he or she needs any type of dedicated camera when some NatGeo photographer is effectively endorsing the iPhone as a very capable device (and he's right!).

And as the refrain goes; "if you don't like the video feature, just ignore it."

The problem is that 'ignoring' is an action, and some people don't want to have to ignore something; you know, like that perfectly benign yet incessant rattling that occurs at certain speeds in one's older but still perfectly functioning car...just ignore it. Not always so easy.

Now, much of this is psychological, but when it comes to a process, and all that is involved in that process, never underestimate the psychological component. For some folks, a tool is just a tool like any other. If it gets the job done, then it's fine. For other folks, however, a tool is an integral part of the overall process, in terms of ergonomics, weight, handling, feel, and even looks.

What might be superficial to one person might be, to another, a beneficial or detrimental factor that affects the experience, even if this element adds or detracts nothing, respectively, from the tool's actual function and capabilities.

Of course some argue, and reasonably so, that a company cannot customize a product, especially a mass-produced one, to fit the needs of every customer. Should Canon stop offering autofocus or auto-exposure just because some customers only use a manual focus lens or only shoot in manual mode?

But then we go back to that psychological thing. Video is not analogous to autofocus, auto-exposure, or any other feature (used or not) that actually pertains to still photography. I can accept unneeded features that are designed for still photography, but video is not photography, and on one level, its inclusion is as arbitrary as putting a toenail clipper on a camera. And without a hint of irony, I would be far more likely to use that clipper than would I video.

But for some time, all of this was more of a mental issue; get over it, as one might counter. Quit being such a prima donna.

Fine. But now there appears to be some reconsideration that earlier complaints of video's impact on photography-based R&D and price might now actually warrant attention. Frankly, I have no clue if this is true, and I'll rely on the folks from Canon for a definitive answer, but if I was still shooting DSLR's, I would, in principle, rightfully be annoyed if the photographic system in which I've invested is somehow faltering on its photographic potential for the sake of video development and promotion (which is NOT cheap). I note "in principle," because in reality, I think the current offerings are excellent, as all DSLR's are excellent. You should see the antiquated stuff I'm using. But I digress...

The point is that opposing video is perfectly understandable; like, when as a youngster, my skateboarding ethos involved a hatred of disco-oriented roller-skating, despite the similarities between the two activities. It might all sound frivolous or silly given the greater problems of the world, but humans are a complicated bunch.

To be sure, the issue certainly does NOT call for removing video from DSLRs, but instead to at least try, for a second, to grasp the fact that not all 7 billion of us are the same. As such, when our preferences don't conform with the only thing offered due to lack of choice, and when the arbitrary inclusion of an element potentially undermines a tool's primary function, then resultant grievances are legitimate, especially when alternatives are extremely limited.

But yeah, when a photographer is no longer the "target audience" for a still camera product, then there's trouble in them there hills!!


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Grateful I'm not blind to Eggleston's brilliance.
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
koala ­ yummies
Senior Member
736 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 202
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Los Angeles
     
Oct 09, 2013 13:02 as a reply to  @ sjones's post |  #12

That's a nice novel you wrote. But the video does not seriously undermine the still photography side. There is only one real valid point in the OP argument, and it is highly debatable, and not at all strong. That is the anti-ailising filters that the OP claims are made stronger than before, for video (everything else about video does not get in the way of normal still-camera/SLR operation). This insinuates that the AA filters on the video-capable DLSRs reduces sharpness vs. the older non-video bodies, which still had AA filters nonetheless.

Do we have any real world data that shows definitively that the AA filters in the video capable DSLRs are seriously undermining the sharpness compared to the AA filters in the non-video DLSRs? I'll wait, until this thread has cobwebs all over it and it's forgotten, because the overwhelming majority of all DLSR users are not going to sell their 5D3 for a 5DC just because the AA-filter is less aggressive on the 5DC.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedcmule2
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 09, 2013 13:09 |  #13

sjones wrote in post #16358455 (external link)
But yeah, when a photographer is no longer the "target audience" for a still camera product, then there's trouble in them there hills!!

Your mistake here is thinking these are "still" camera products. Its 2013. That's simply not true anymore as every single phone camera, point and shoot camera, and dslr has video integrated now. These are hybrid cameras and have been for a long time. Video cameras can shoot photos. Photo cameras can shoot video. As much as we like to believe they are two completely different mediums, they really are not that much far away from each other. I know this because my knowledge of photography helps me light video scenes very well, and vice versa.

I for one, don't want to buy a dedicated video camera, I don't like their quality compared to canon's at canon's price range. Canon hybrids are perfect for what I do, they do it ALL and allow me to pay rent with 1 single body and lens. Who is canon going to market to? The ones who complain and threaten to not buy? Or the ones willing to open their wallets?

If YOU ran things at Canon, and you knew youd make more money by adding video to a camera without having to add much hardware, you would do it. This is a business at the end of the day. You can either fight with the progression of technology and get left behind, or you can roll with the punches and keep doing what youre doing. Photography mode in their DSLRs is already EXCELLENT as you stated, what more do you really want? The addition of video mode has not made anyone a worse photographer, and the removal of it wont make anyone a better photographer either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drewl
Senior Member
466 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Sep 2005
     
Oct 09, 2013 17:46 as a reply to  @ thedcmule2's post |  #14

i have never been shooting stills and got annoyed by having to ignore the video capabilities

click click click, CURSE YOU, VIDEO CAPABILITIES!!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 397
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Oct 09, 2013 18:06 |  #15

Canon's still photography options are only 'excellent' if you're an action photographer of some description - that is, you don't need too much resolution, mainly shoot at higher ISOs, rely heavily on better/faster AF, etc. Not coincidentally, these are also things highly valued by videographers.

If you're a landscape, architectural or studio (both product and portrait) photographer, there's been no improvement in IQ since the 1Ds3 in 2007. Canon lost the megapixel lead in 2008 and has never caught up, or even matched that of its 2008 competitors, and fell dramatically behind in dynamic range not long after.

Meanwhile, literally every other manufacturer has moved on to the better-performing column-parallel A/D conversion system, leaving Canon dead last in terms of read noise, pattern noise and resolution, while Nikon, Leica and now Sony have released high-resolution sensors without antialiasing filters (and Pentax an APS-C body with the same).

None of these issues matter to videographers, of course, and may not matter to high-ISO action photographers...

It's a good thing the A7r is due out soon - we non-action stills photographers can finally abandon a sinking ship and still use our lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,835 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon's video crusade goes on. Next target: 7D II
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is EJayA
940 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.