Canon Doesn't Think Consumer Cameras Should have Raw Video

B

Benjobe

Well-known member
I think this pretty much confirms everyone's assumptions about Canon, that they have brilliant engineers that can create amazing products but those products are intentionally crippled by the management. This may have been profitable for them in the past but I don't see it working for them going forward now with upstarts like Blackmagic. That is unless Magic Lantern keeps helping them out by unlocking the potential of their cameras.

Here's the link and video.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/11/canon-cinema-camera-dslr-raw-dan-chung-yoshinari-onda/

http://vimeo.com/79361465

 
Benjobe said:
I don't see it working for them going forward now with upstarts like Blackmagic.
Click to expand...

Depends on what they're after.

Everyone sees products through the filter of what they personally want to do with it. But that doesn't mean whoever makes the product cares in the slightest about that.

Canon may be perfectly happy with the market the way they've defined it. Entirely their call.

If they don't see themselves in the same market as BMCC, then that's that. Those aren't the customers they want. There's a whole big world outside of people who want to make "films."
 
I aggree that consumer cameras shouldn't record RAW video. But I don't think all pro cameras should cost more than consumer cameras. If you want your pro camera to be built like a tank, to include all the pro connectors, etc, then it has to be more expensive. If you want your pro camera in something like a DSLR, it should cost about the same as a DSLR, since the internals can be exactly the same.

As soon as Nikon starts selling a DSLR that records RAW video with one of their sweet sweet sensors, it would eat more than half of the Canon video market. It doesn't need to be a consumer DSLR, just call it C5200 or C800 and charge $300 more for it.

If you think this market is small and major manufacturers shouldn't care about it: then why did Canon care about the 5D2 video market? I think it is because they like to sell expensive glass, and you were buying a lot of that 4 years ago.
 
Samuel H said:
If you think this market is small and major manufacturers shouldn't care about it: then why did Canon care about the 5D2 video market?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said Canon decides which market it wants to be in, and will attempt to accommodate that market, not the market someone else wishes they were in.

If Canon doesn't want to compete in the BMCC's market, then that's up to Canon. What someone else thinks they should or shouldn't do is pretty much beside the point.
 
The market that buys any form of interchangeable lens DSLR is less than 15% of Canon's over all camera sales. The vast majority of cameras sold are under $500 point and shoots. The percentage of the market actually shoots raw stills with those cameras on a regular basis is even smaller. Filmmakers using them for video cameras on a regular basis is an even smaller percentage than that.
Raw video is a very small specialty interest niche of the overall video camera market at this point.
Where are the percentages that make sense for a Canon or Nikon to make a camera shooting raw video that most shooters don't want to deal with anyway?
 
Last edited:
Razz16mm said:
The market that buys any form of interchangeable lens DSLR is less than 15% of Canon's over all camera sales. The vast majority of cameras sold are under $500 point and shoots. The percentage of the market actually shoots raw stills with those cameras on a regular basis is even smaller. Filmmakers using them for video cameras on a regular basis is an even smaller percentage than that.
Raw video is a very small specialty interest niche of the overall video camera market at this point.
Where are the percentages that make sense for a Canon or Nikon to make a camera shooting raw video that most shooters don't want to deal with anyway?
Click to expand...

Can I ask where you got your figures for Canon sales? I did a bit of research and Canon said they project p+s sales at 14 million units for 2013 and dslr at 9 millions units. Every article I looked at had dslr sales that were closer to 33% to 50% of p=s camera sales.
 
David Jimerson said:
I didn't say that. I said Canon decides which market it wants to be in, and will attempt to accommodate that market, not the market someone else wishes they were in.

If Canon doesn't want to compete in the BMCC's market, then that's up to Canon. What someone else thinks they should or shouldn't do is pretty much beside the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, I get that. They get to decide what they try to sell and at what price, I get to decide what I buy and what I don't buy.
I think they're being overconfident about their ability to compete with offerings that are 4 times the price of the competition. And I think they shouldn't ignore a market on whose shoulders they built a pro video division just a few years back. But it is them that have to call the shots, that's for sure.

Razz16mm said:
The market that buys any form of interchangeable lens DSLR is less than 15% of Canon's over all camera sales. The vast majority of cameras sold are under $500 point and shoots. The percentage of the market actually shoots raw stills with those cameras on a regular basis is even smaller. Filmmakers using them for video cameras on a regular basis is an even smaller percentage than that.
Raw video is a very small specialty interest niche of the overall video camera market at this point.
Where are the percentages that make sense for a Canon or Nikon to make a camera shooting raw video that most shooters don't want to deal with anyway?
Click to expand...

I think the p&s market is going to evaporate no matter what Canon does. Not only in stills, but in camcorders too. And the low-end DSLRs will be eaten by mirrorless too, and they are relatively weak there right now (about to change with new M camera with great AF, I think).
So, they better look for new markets.
Luckily for them, they do a lot of stuff besides selling cameras and lenses. Nikon is the one that puzzles me most.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
Yes, I get that. They get to decide what they try to sell and at what price, I get to decide what I buy and what I don't buy.
Click to expand...

That is correct.

I think they're being overconfident about their ability to compete with offerings that are 4 times the price of the competition.
Click to expand...

What "competition," though?

And I think they shouldn't ignore a market on whose shoulders they built a pro video division just a few years back. But it is them that have to call the shots, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's their call.
 
Westside71 said:
Can I ask where you got your figures for Canon sales? I did a bit of research and Canon said they project p+s sales at 14 million units for 2013 and dslr at 9 millions units. Every article I looked at had dslr sales that were closer to 33% to 50% of p=s camera sales.
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry old data on pro grade 5D and above sales from a few years ago. The point and shoot market is shrinking due to phone cameras.
 
I think Canon and Nikon should be adding as much as possible (of course while still being cost effective) to their cameras in this new world. Phones and other devices are innovating so fast that the old rules will no longer apply.
 
Benjobe said:
I think this pretty much confirms everyone's assumptions about Canon, that they have brilliant engineers that can create amazing products but those products are intentionally crippled by the management. This may have been profitable for them in the past but I don't see it working for them going forward now with upstarts like Blackmagic. That is unless Magic Lantern keeps helping them out by unlocking the potential of their cameras.

Here's the link and video.
Click to expand...

If you're comparing BMC to Canon C100, the C100 has xlr, built in ND, and comes with and EVF. They seem like two different animals to me.

If crippling doesn't work then they could just uncripple the camera and beat the competition if they feel they need to. Seems like nothing but Winning for Canon.
 
It's ultra low end and ultra high end productions that gravitate toward RAW. Canon has targeted the middle ground (owner ops through broadcast) with tremendous success. I don't see the C500 anywhere and only know of one person who used one. I certainly don't want RAW though built in prores would be nice.
 
Gillvane said:
If you're comparing BMC to Canon C100, the C100 has xlr, built in ND, and comes with and EVF. They seem like two different animals to me.

If crippling doesn't work then they could just uncripple the camera and beat the competition if they feel they need to. Seems like nothing but Winning for Canon.
Click to expand...

They could have included the nice 4:2:2 50Mbps XF broadcast quality codec on the C100 instead of H.264 AVC. You have to pay another 7 grand for the C300 to get that?

Canon hit their target with these cameras very well. Bread and butter production for most pro shooters is still 1080p video and will be for some time to come.
 
Razz16mm said:
They could have included the nice 4:2:2 50Mbps XF broadcast quality codec on the C100 instead of H.264 AVC. You have to pay another 7 grand for the C300 to get that?

Canon hit their target with these cameras very well. Bread and butter production for most pro shooters is still 1080p video and will be for some time to come.
Click to expand...

It is lame that XF 4:2:2 is not on the C100, but to get 4:2:2...all one needs is a Ninja or something similar.
 
If you put the Xf codec in the C100, you would get the C300. Add the Ninja and you have a basically a C300. The C cams are great. The C100 is a fine camera that is packed with the tools you need to shoot and delivers an outstanding image.
 
C100+ninja is more than twice the cost of BMC-2.5K with speedbooster and H4n. That's the competition I was talking about.
I know dual audio is a pain, but external video recording is not my cup of tea either, and $3K is a lot of $$$.
 
Samuel H said:
C100+ninja is more than twice the cost of BMC-2.5K with speedbooster and H4n. That's the competition I was talking about.
I know dual audio is a pain, but external video recording is not my cup of tea either, and $3K is a lot of $$$.
Click to expand...

I think the C100 is a lot handier and more efficient general purpose video camera.
 
Anyone who has studied how marketing works knows full well that limiting possibilities is an age old method of up-selling. Why would any manufacturer limit sales of higher margin products when they don't have to? It's bad business. Annoying, sure - but we don't expect to be able to buy a brand new car base model that has all the bells and whistles of the de-luxe versions. Even worse, we're talk about consumer and professional products, and demand professional features on the product designed for hobbyists and amateurs. Canon (and others) could do this if they wanted to, but they don't - that's the end of the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top