dustylense
Veteran
Much like Casey Neistat. He's gained over 2 million subscribers in little over a year. 90% shot on the 70D.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtinbF-Q-fVthA0qrFQTgXQ
Canon announces EOS 80D
- Thread starter jowei
- Start date
Much like Casey Neistat. He's gained over 2 million subscribers in little over a year. 90% shot on the 70D.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtinbF-Q-fVthA0qrFQTgXQ
indiawilds
Veteran
Earlier TV was the medium for entertainment. Nowadays youtube has to a big extent taken away viewership from TV channels. People are viewing youtube content in their TVs as well. I marvel at folks who boast of several million subscribers in their youtube channel.
Some of the features like the power zoom adapter would be used a lot by these people.
shphotovideo
Well-known member
From his About: Q. what'd i shoot that with A. most stuff is filmed on a Canon G7x, fancier cinematography is done on a Canon 5D MKiii
Looks like he started using the 70D at the end of 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvhOwpip0K8
maranfilms
Veteran
It may be a great cam for stills, however the majority here are filmmakers of some sort, so I think it's fair to say most are looking at it from a video perspective. For stills guys, it may be great. IDK, I don't do stills, so I can't say.
alex1
Well-known member
It's not about bashing a manufacturer, it's about putting your trust in this manufacturer that will lead the way and help you achieve greater goals when they lead market technology. We spend thousands of dollars in canon lenses to be left behind, that's exactly what it is about. I continue to hear this is a still camera, but those photographers who buy such mid range DSLR camera models are becoming hybrid shooters and video specs is becoming important to many such as myself when choosing their next camera. Again I am posting the beautiful canon moire in the 70D (which is a great video camera if it wasn't for the moire). It's very likely the moire issue will be inherited by the 80D because canon wants you to spend 2k more and buy the 5D IV which most likely will be their first 4k DSLR (unless canon is too busy bringing us 120 fps in 720p:2vrolijk_08
. Nikon will be releasing soon a replacement for the D3300 which is their most basic dslr and I am certain it will have 4k.
. Nikon will be releasing soon a replacement for the D3300 which is their most basic dslr and I am certain it will have 4k.
Last edited:
When I worked retail in the pre-internet era - well, mostly pre-internet - people often bought what the salespeople recommended and wanted to sell them. These days, if someone wanted to buy a camera, all he'd need to do is to hop on a few photo/video forums and spend half a day reading up on the latest gear (which can be fun as well, as we've discovered). And, once a modicum of information is obtained, one can just buy what he wants from a reputable online retailer with the salesman in his human form often becoming a superfluous entity. Furthermore, one can narrow his interest to a handful of cameras and just read a few dozen of their owners reviews on the very sites that sell them. Having seen/read many of those reviews, I will state that their essence does not differ much from the bulletin board types and the verdict is usually one and the same (it's different from the brand loyal forums such as those dedicated specifically to Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc).
And, so before making a purchase, you head out to B&H, DP Review, DVX User, etc. and find out that, out of several cameras you are considering, there's an informal ranking. Those in the know seem to love X and loathe Y. Most customers will follow the trend and buy X. Very few will buy Y. A Y manufacturer will subsequently develop a bad reputation that will take years to shake while the X manufacturer will be lauded immensely. Should a manufacturer care about his tarnished reputation or continue his business as usual? I'd say that, if it doesn't care about his reputation, there won't any business as usual. There won't be any business at all.
cpreston
Veteran
Yes, jump on over to DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9270033078/hands-on-with-the-canon-eos-80d?slide=10
The general consensus seems to be that it is a nice little camera. Personally, I would love it if Canon would a release a DSLR or EOSM with the video features of a GH4 while also maintaining the photo features and usability of a Canon. But, it isn't going to happen. Panasonic and Sony are focusing on the niche market for video features because they can't compete with Canon and Nikon for sales on the photography side. Until the demand for low end videography on camera bodies starts to compete with built in market and expectations of the photography market, then Canon is not going to change their strategy. Heck. based on the backlash I read on photography forums about the inclusion of video features on a DSLR, I'm guessing that Canon's market research has shown that they would lose more sales then they would gain if they put any more effort into being on the cutting edge of video.
I'm not trying to defend Canon, I just don't understand why videographers always get so adamant that Canon is making the wrong business decisions every time Canon releases a camera that clearly isn't being marketed to them.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
DPReview is more of a photography site so yeah they would think its a nice camera. Different strokes for different folks.
This. For everything Video/Hybrids, DVX is where it is. :thumbsup:
It seems that not long ago, many people were using the 5DIII for video. Sometimes I saw a C100 or C300, etc.
I read a lot of comments like this thread where people are not real happy with Canon's advancement pace or pricing.
Are the video people increasingly moving away from Canon?
I read a lot of comments like this thread where people are not real happy with Canon's advancement pace or pricing.
Are the video people increasingly moving away from Canon?
GHKAM
Well-known member
This 80D is a consumer product and I'm guessing Canon has the data in knowing the average consumer doesn't want a 4K camera (have to buy more expensive computer, more storage, intimidating, etc.).
Perhaps if they tacked on 4K, they would be fielding complaints of people who shot their kids recital and now their "computer's broken", "video plays slow", etc.
I agree, a cheaper Canon 4K DSLR would be great, but they're #1 and know what they're doing...from a business perspective. They'll eventually bring out the 4K consumer Vixia/Legria camcorder, maybe even sooner than later.
Yes, and now scour a more videocentric site such as this or EOS HD, where this is widely poo-pooed. On balance, the opinions will tend to be more on a negative side.
Of course, it will. When their turn to install 4K comes up.
No, what Panasonic and Sony (and Samsung, when it made cameras) are doing is simply offering a far more compelling package of performance and features than Canon in the consumer/enthusiast portion of the market. Panasonic is trouncing them on point&shoot's and Sony has been beating them on the APS-C and full frame hybrids. If you presume this to be somewhat arranged - Panasonic has eight sub-$2,000 models with 4K video and Canon and Nikon have none combined - then Canon has pulled a short straw. And, considering that most current smartphones have 4K, that straw is really, really, really short.
The demand for videography has long been there. A6300 has jumped to the top of the mirrorless bestseller page on B&H at the moment of announcement. And GH4 was the previous king for over a year. A7S/II/RII have also been huge sellers and Sony's market share have been moving upwards. Those hundreds of thousands of units shipped by Sony and Panasonic could have been shipped by Canon and Nikon too ... had it not been for that straw.
Your argument is not an argument that would make any sense from a business perspective in a competitive market. Let's say, one fast food joint offers a $7 combo deal and the other offers a $7 sandwich only and that sandwich is deemed of the same quality as from the competing restaurant, then its customers are simply getting far less value for their money. And we can extend more and more analogies from there. Two compact cars with the same ride quality. One is offering a 175 HP engine; the other 140 HP. Which will sell better? One beachfront hotel is offering two king sized bed for a given price; the other one. Are you going to say, "Well, they're not marketing to people who want two beds"? In other words, charging people two hundred dollars more for a unit with inferior performance and features falls under a category of "fool some people some of the time". And, in the internet age, where information reaches consumers instantly, very few people want to get fooled again.
my point was, if users would like their canon cameras to have a certain feature, they speak up. you dont tell them to shut up, theyre not the market. they have every right to voice their complaint even if it gets annoying
me on the other hand, im brand agnostic. i used to be panasonic, then canon, blackmagic and now sony
cpreston
Veteran
People looking for enthusiast level camera to shoot pictures of their kids playing sports are not going to EOSHD to get their opinions. They are not going to videocentric websites at all. My point was that video and photo are still considered two different markets and Canon is focusing on the market. And I'm glad you bring up car and bed examples as they help to prove the point. The 140HP car will often sell better because there is a large portion of consumers who will buy a product because it has less power or less features because they either don't want the extra power or don't want the extra features. There is an actual marketing reason. Consumers may not want to buy the faster cards, or computer, or 4K TV, either. The bed is the same way. I, personally, am going to take the single bed.
And, yes, Canon and Nikon are getting destroyed in the mirrorless markets for obvious reasons.
All I am saying is that I don't understand why videographers continue to be baffled by Canon's product releases. Most of the posts on video sites sound like the poster is actually morally offended that Canon isn't releasing the perfect hybrid DSLR/mirrorless. Again, I wish that Canon would release a low end 4K camera. My preference would be for an EOSM with DPAF and 4K. But, I am not surprised when they don't. I'm guessing that Canon will jump on the bandwagon in the next generation, however, as even photography site reviews are starting to mention the lack of 4K as being a negative.
maranfilms
Veteran
I'm only guessing, but here's why I think it is. Canon was one of the first to offer good video (at the time) in a large sensor camera, coupled with good low light, and the ability to have control over dof. The market voiced their needs and they updated the firmware to shoot 24fps. It seemed at that time Canon was more inclined to listen due to the explosion of units being sold and hundreds of thousands of video/filmmakers buying 5d's, 7d's, t2i's, etc. to be used primarily as a video camera. It was the first time I realized Canon listened to the consumer. From there they realized they had a market for cinematic video, and created the cinema line. However, many people loved the dslr form factor and ability to have stills and video in one versatile body. Canon's answer was a 12,000 dslr that shot beautiful video in 4k. But aside from that one camera, the less expensive hobbyist to pro line, (60d 5d3, t5i, 7d2,) was mostly geared toward the stills side, with much less attention put toward the video side. This went on for years with small incremental changes in terms of video advancements. By then, or now, the competing companies took to the forums and began listening to the consumer, they contracted with filmmakers and enthusiasts and began to incorporate the wants and needs of potential buyers into a lot of different models. I think people that put their faith in the Canon ecosystem (video wise) have been disappointed time and time again. Hoping they would address the moire and soft image across the entire line as opposed to only a few models. It's a strange market today and obviously each manufacturer has their unique way of doing things. With that said, it doesn't always make it the right way, hence the increasing number of large companies going bankrupt and closing their doors. Canon is a very large company as we all know, they manufacture many different items, however when you look at camera units sold from 2010 to now, it's a massive difference, markets change, as does growth. But if you remember their best years were around the recession. At that time, Canon made huge profits based on the fact their dslr's were cutting edge, and they monopolized on it as they should have. Same rings true for their cinema line, they introduced a beast of a line up with cinema eos cameras. But also handed that market to the more ambitious competitor. Which brings me back to why I think people are continuously disappointed by the video features of their dslr's. It's not unusual for arrogance and or pride to effect decision making. It happens all the time.
It used to be, people could take to the forums and express their opinion, talk about what they would like to see added or have fixed in a camera, have a discussion. But people get super offended if someone states what they feel is under featured or not up to par.
cpreston
Veteran
I'm not super offended and I completely understand what you are saying. Canon's marketing and product line is directed at segmenting their videography and photography products. Canon is not supporting the use of DSLR's in professional videography. After the complete catastrophe that was the 1DC, I'm pretty sure they will continue to maintain that attitude. I just think that videographers might need to step back and get a different perspective than the "Canon is doomed because video" belief. It's almost as bad as the "Canon is doomed because they are messing up my camera with video features" that used to be really popular on photography sites.
In the end, there is no perfect image capture device for all situations. Most of the big companies try to cover all of the types of markets by releasing various products with different strengths and weaknesses. If a camera doesn't have the features that you want, you probably aren't the intended market for that camera. If the camera with the features that you want is too expensive, you aren't the intended market for the camera.
maranfilms
Veteran
That's a pretty big difference there. No doubt Canon has built a great reputation in which helps to maintain their market share, however, I foresee a gradual shift as more and more cell phone manufacturers are putting in great video/stills features. I was at a school play a few weeks back, not one member of the audience was recording or taking pics with a camera. Every single parent was holding up a phone, ( sadly about 95% were holding it vertically, :shocked: but you get my point. It's a changing market, if you don't adapt, you will inevitably lose customers, maybe not enough to sink you, but certainly enough to shrink your profit margins. I'll continue to vote with my wallet, if Canon miraculously comes out with a camera that suits my needs, then I would become a customer again. Heck, I wish they would, I just don't see it though, not when Sony, Red, Black Magic, and Panasonic are paving new ground with features that no Canon has ever had, or will never have, based solely on the fact they're not a mirror less design. That's not to say I have anything against dslr's, but for video it seems mirror less have some advantages over non- mirror less at the moment, size being a biggie.
The mere existence and thriving of Magic Lantern should be enough proof that Canon is out of touch with a HUGE segment of their client base, and they're clueless when it comes to designing their own products and taking advantage of such high quality equipment.