"We appreciate your continued correspondence. . . "

It’s lighter, smaller, and lower-priced than most professional HD camcorders, yet provides amazing depth-of-field control, exposure compensation and white balance controls, and full compatibility with Canon’s super-telephoto, macro, fisheye, tilt-shift, soft focus, and image stabilized EF lenses.
​
​
Until now, there were no affordable 1080p HD video camcorders able to capture ultrawide or fisheye perspectives without the addition of distortion-producing adapter lenses, and none that had the depth-of-field control found in the EOS 5D Mark II.​


From reading Canon's response, it's basically video is just an add on and if doesnt suit you, buy a video camera. Doesn't quite jive with their marketing but then again, it wont be the first time a company hypes features that are non-existent. You would think it would bother them that people are using a competitors lenses to get better controls of the image. I hope Nikon is listening. They don't have a pro video line to protect.​


 
To Canon


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Hi XXXXXXXXX


I have a very simple question, I ask this as a customer who has, alone, spent several thousand dollars with Canon over the last few years - if you cannot answer my questions, can you advise me as to the best place to direct them.

Q: Can you confirm that the Canon 5D mkII White Paper exists ?

I am asking for nothing more than a 'yes' or 'no' at this stage.



Yours in hope.


XXXXX (me)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
To Canon

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hi XXXXXX

Thank you for the straightforward answer, very much appreciated !

Now that we have established the existence of the Canon 5D mkII White Paper, can I ask you to confirm whether (or not) the following claim appears on page 6 of that document:

With it activated, photographers and videographers
can capture high definition video
with depth-of-field control found only in
professional video models—using much more
affordable Canon EF lenses including fisheye,
ultra-wide, and image stabilized lenses.



All the best


XXXX (me)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
From Canon

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Mr. XXXXXXXX (me),

Unfortunately, there is no other information I have to share with you.

If you ever have any technical issue that you are unable to resolve, I
would be more than happy to assist. Otherwise, I Thank You for the
comments, they are been shared.

Have a Good Day.

Regards,
XXXXXXXX
Canon USA Customer Relations


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
To Canon


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Hi XXXXXXXX


Could I please ask if there is anyone, anywhere within the Canon organisation who would be able to answer this question ?


All the best.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
From Canon


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Mr. XXXXXXX (me),

There is noone else that will answer any other questions here at Canon.
The Camera Manager and Technical Support Engineers have already
responded. I have been advised that there are no other questions that
will be answered for you regarding this issue that have not already been
addressed.

Regards,
XXXXXXX


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
To Canon

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Hi XXXXXXXX,

Can I ask whether this refusal to address my quite reasonable enquiry is particularly aimed at myself - or more broadly applies to any questioning from any customer on the claims made in your promotional literature ?

By this I mean, would it be possible to have someone represent me in perusing this, or would any appointed representative also meet with the same ban on questioning the claims made by Canon ?



All the best

XXXXX (me)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
This is hysterical and they deserve it too, they have ignored all the requests, they deserve a shitstorm of major proportions.
 
Just playing advocate for Canon for a moment. I take it the sticking point is the word "control". If it had read:

With it activated, photographers and videographers
can capture high definition video
with depth-of-field found only in
professional video models—using much more
affordable Canon EF lenses including fisheye,
ultra-wide, and image stabilized lenses.

You would have been okay? Keeping in mind that even with full control of the aperture, shallow depth of field can not be controlled for on all video cameras without the purchase of an expensive 35mm adapter which brings it's own set of compromises.

Maybe they should have used the phrase "achieving a shallow depth of field that's only possible with cameras costing many thousands of dollars more"

I mean 35mm adapters are now dead because of this camera. Shouldn't that be celebrated rather than busting their balls over the use of the word "control". This kind of control won't even be available with the new Scarlet if it's ever released.

They broke down a major barrier here with not only incredible image quality but with giving us easily achievable shallow depth of field with great bokeh.

I don't know. It feels like someone gave me a $50.00 steak dinner for $5.00 and then busting their balls because they didn't season it just so.
 
f64manray said:
Just playing advocate for Canon for a moment. I take it the sticking point is the word "control".
Click to expand...

Canon repeatedly make the claim that the 5D mkII has 'amazing' and 'professional' depth-of-field control in it's promotional literature, on buying the product you find that the control is not simply less than what is claimed but that it is non-existent.

I don't think it valid to traduce the argument to the misuse of the word 'control'

The suggestions made throughout the litrature is that not only will you have control over DOF, but that control is the kind "found only in professional video models".


f64manray said:
They broke down a major barrier here with not only incredible image quality but with giving us easily achievable shallow depth of field with great bokeh.
Click to expand...


This is the whole point of my challenge to them, the disabling of any aperture control means a shallow depth of field is not easily achievable.


f64manray said:
I don't know. It feels like someone gave me a $50.00 steak dinner for $5.00 and then busting their balls because they didn't season it just so.
Click to expand...

Busting their balls ? I am attempting to get them to engage in a conversation, one which they unashamedly and comically keep avoiding.

When your hypothetical steak dinner arrives and it turns out it has not been cooked and is still frozen - might you ask 'has it even been cooked' ?

And when the reply comes that "all our food is of the highest quality" - you might feel compelled to ask again - "yes, but has this been cooked".

And then when your questions are met with "we have answered your questions already" - and you reply with "Can you simply then tell me whether you even own a grill ?" in the hope to creep logically towards an honest discussion . . .


. . . . . at what stage exactly did you cross the line from reasonable customer to ball buster ?:zombie_smiley::)
 
I admire your tenacity. And I figure someone somewhere must have the job of reading your emails so keep it rolling...
 
This is what happens when marketing people ignore the engineers telling them what the product can really do. If they asked at all. But, it really began with a company-side market research analyst asking the engineers to design a hybridized product to compete with another existing, but disparate, market segment. One that must be bulging with money from literally millions of as-yet-unrealized customers.

With this challenging mandate, said engineers went to work... designing the product with virtually no input from professionals in the field using what the company believes to be "competing existing product(s)".

e
 
Lee Wilson said:
This is the whole point of my challenge to them, the disabling of any aperture control means a shallow depth of field is not easily achievable.
Click to expand...

I won't quibble over the word "easily" as it seems much easier to move further or closer to adjust depth of field than to buy a seperate piece of expensive equipment (35mm adapter) to accomplish the same thing on any other camera even costing thousands more. Whether easy to achieve or difficult, it is achievable. It is not achievable at all on other cameras. Though not as good as aperture priority in video mode, setting the aperture, pressing the depth of field button and then unlocking the lens to set aperture seems pretty easy compared to the alternative of buying a 35mm adapter or purchasing Red One. In short "control" is possible with the 5DII, but I see your point in making Canon admit their claims were misleading.

As a reader of their comments, I understood what they were inferring, but I understand how others could have taken it to mean that aperture priority was available in video mode.

For myself, I feel the camera will select the aperture that will produce the bokeh that I want especially given the lower light that I will be shooting in. Very small price to pay considering others seem to be intercutting 5DII footage with Red One with no difference in quality and in some cases choosing the 5DII over Red simply because it's a better performer in low light.



Lee Wilson said:
Busting their balls ? I am attempting to get them to engage in a conversation, one which they unashamedly and comically keep avoiding.

When your hypothetical steak dinner arrives and it turns out it has not been cooked and is still frozen - might you ask 'has it even been cooked' ?

And when the reply comes that "all our food is of the highest quality" - you might feel compelled to ask again - "yes, but has this been cooked".

And then when your questions are met with "we have answered your questions already" - and you reply with "Can you simply then tell me whether you even own a grill ?" in the hope to creep logically towards an honest discussion . . .


. . . . . at what stage exactly did you cross the line from reasonable customer to ball buster ?:zombie_smiley::)
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if it's appropriate to say the 5DII is completely uncooked. It seems pretty well cooked to me. I think it's more appropriate to say that their ads showed salt shakers on their table, but no salt shakers were there upon arrival in the restaurant.

customer: I would like to salt my own meat please.

waiter: I'm sorry, the chef will salt your meat for you.

customer: But I want to control the salt shaker.

waiter: We're selling a 16 ounce cut of Kobie beef for 5 dollars, if you dont like it how we give it to you, your free to go spend 85 dollars on the same product across the street. They have salt shakers on the table, now get the F#%$@ out of our restaurant. ....Sorry the pictures in the ad had salt shakers in on the table.


I think that may be a more appropriate analogy. ;-)
 
f64manray said:
It seems pretty well cooked to me. I think it's more appropriate to say that their ads showed salt shakers on their table, but no salt shakers were there upon arrival in the restaurant.
Click to expand...


No, not at all ! :)

A lovely analogy buy hardly fitting, DOF control is used to sell the camera, a feature was made of it, it was described as amazing and ascribed professional status - said to draw in professional videographers and so on . .

Not mere condiment by any measure.

If you were making your point in reference to a missing lens hood I think we could do something with the salt analogy.

If you are eating at restaurants that make a feature of the fact that they have salt, you might need to consider asking your boss for a raise ;-)
 
f64manray said:
I won't quibble over the word "easily" as it seems much easier to move further or closer to adjust depth of field than to buy a seperate piece of expensive equipment. . . . .
Click to expand...

I am sure you could easily list numerous common situations where moving towards or away from your subject is either difficult or impossible.

Looking from a window in a tall building, or on a mountain pathway, or looking over a bridge, or in a confined space, or the back of a taxi, or when around subjects that would be disturbed by your movement (a rare bird landing 5 meters from you) - or looking through the glass into the snake enclosure at the zoo - or filming from up a tree at a rock festival or stood on a wall, or where getting nearer is dangerous like filming a burning building or a protest getting out of hand or filming from a cable car or in a helicopter. . . . . . .

And so on . . . .

I am sure if you or I put in the effort we could come up with a tediously long list of situations where moving significantly (enough to control DOF) towards or away from your subject would simply be problematic if not unworkable - and at no stage, as you attempt to reposition yourself (and compromise your framing) - would you consider this the type of control found in professional camcorders.
 
Last edited:
There was a class action lawsuit against Verizon that is a better analogy.

One of their first Bluetooth phones (the Motorola v710) was completely crippled for everything beyond the headset. At the time, if you took a picture with your phone that you wanted on your computer, Verizon charged to 25¢ to mail it to yourself. They had misleading marketing materials about the depth of the Bluetooth functionality. In the end, they had to pay for it.

I think that Lee's focus on the marketing materials is effective in that way.

I still like the idea of the camera and will be considering it for purchase. But for people who are unhappy and feel mislead, there are certainly precedents for holding companies responsible for truth in marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top