Worzel Gummidge
Carbonite Member
Everyone's an expert...getting tiresome.
Canon 4K
- Thread starter Seven11
- Start date
FilmBrute
Member
I'm not sure the number of 5D/6D owners who shoot video is as high as GH3 owners who shoot video. Majority of Canon owners buy DSLRs for stills and video, or for still exclusively. The 4K crazy is way too overblown. When will we have 4K TVs, 4K streaming, and machines for editing 4K as a standard? 2020? Canon is old fashioned and I don't expect them to release anything with 4K for under $2,500 in 2015. Though, a 4K 6d MkII would be sweet.
simonpwood
Well-known member
Goodwill? Maybe. The 5d was a revelation back in the days when we were shooting 1/3 video cameras, or using spinning DOF adapters, and people got used to the Canon look.
More likely though people have just invested in Canon lenses, and are loathe to sell them secondhand and start investing in new glass. That's my reason anyway.
I think it's goodwill, or, well, not knowing about alternatives. When giving low end video recommendations, many will immediately say Canon. It is because the 5D2 ingrained this notion that Canon DSLRs are some sort of holy grail of no-budget filmmaking into their heads. Which is funny because not even Canon pushes this notion, yet people still get very defensive about their T2is and their 5Ds. The same thing happens with the idea that Nikon cameras are bad for video, despite the D5200 being excellent (though I hear you still can't adjust aperture in video mode, which is, I will admit, ridiculous).
Michael Carter
Veteran
I shot a T2i for several years and saw a fair amount of my footage on broadcast TV. It looked great. Had a "feel" that was far nicer than my broadcast cameras that cost (literally) ten times as much.
Canon got huge because, in good hands, you could get footage that looked more like Panavision than anything within $10k. I never saw any GH footage that made me consider switching, and the D7000 made me rethink Nikon video (which I've shot for still gigs for 2 decades now). The D7000 color was miles ahead of Canon to my eye. The D7100 made me dump my Canon gear (I've always used Nikon glass regardless, I just have too many nice lenses I'm familiar with).
I shot with a D7100 on a crane all day today. I don't use DSLRs for client event stuff, but the stuff I choose the DSLR for... every time, I'm like "this is so... pretty".And I shoot at F4 or 5.6, it's not about silly DOF. Maybe it's a decent sized sensor, I dunno. I don't care, really. If you can get that feel with a GH or Canon or Nikon, who cares what logo is on the body?
As for Nikon...
Some newer bodies allow you to change aperture. I simply can't imagine doing the sort of work I grab a DSLR for without aperture ring lenses though. It's never been an issue for me, but I have a lot of vintage Nikkor 2.8 and faster glass. But modern Nikkor zooms (without rings) may change my mind - I generally shoot around F4 - 5.6, but for wide-open, the modern zooms are a lot nicer in many cases, and I give in to zooms for fast paced shoots often.
Canon got huge because, in good hands, you could get footage that looked more like Panavision than anything within $10k. I never saw any GH footage that made me consider switching, and the D7000 made me rethink Nikon video (which I've shot for still gigs for 2 decades now). The D7000 color was miles ahead of Canon to my eye. The D7100 made me dump my Canon gear (I've always used Nikon glass regardless, I just have too many nice lenses I'm familiar with).
I shot with a D7100 on a crane all day today. I don't use DSLRs for client event stuff, but the stuff I choose the DSLR for... every time, I'm like "this is so... pretty".And I shoot at F4 or 5.6, it's not about silly DOF. Maybe it's a decent sized sensor, I dunno. I don't care, really. If you can get that feel with a GH or Canon or Nikon, who cares what logo is on the body?
As for Nikon...
Some newer bodies allow you to change aperture. I simply can't imagine doing the sort of work I grab a DSLR for without aperture ring lenses though. It's never been an issue for me, but I have a lot of vintage Nikkor 2.8 and faster glass. But modern Nikkor zooms (without rings) may change my mind - I generally shoot around F4 - 5.6, but for wide-open, the modern zooms are a lot nicer in many cases, and I give in to zooms for fast paced shoots often.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I see both things:
* shooters who bought lots of expensive glass for the Canon mount and would be facing an expensive switch if they went for another brand
* producers and clients who don't know better and ask for Canon (or specifically 5D or, even worse, 7D) just because it was the best one around... four years ago
* shooters who bought lots of expensive glass for the Canon mount and would be facing an expensive switch if they went for another brand
* producers and clients who don't know better and ask for Canon (or specifically 5D or, even worse, 7D) just because it was the best one around... four years ago
Michael Carter
Veteran
I don't have much client trouble in that regard - I did have a marketing manager for a pretty big national restaurant chain ask if I could "shoot log". I told her yes and asked if she knew what "log" meant - she said no.
A whole lot of that is about attitude... you can either convince a client that it's the look that matters and you can deliver it... or ya can't.