Canon May 'Bring the Might of Its Legal Team' if You Modify 1DX or 1DC Firmware

Barry_Green said:
Canon doesn't know who the "indie filmmaker" is. Canon doesn't care about the indie filmmaker.
Click to expand...

So why the C100 then Barry?

I digress... The way to justify $12k for the 1D C was to at the very least add HD-SDI and 25p 4K. Instead they decided 'no spec creep' over the 1D X it is so heavily derived from. A derivative and cynical product made for as much easy added value as possible. Is this how Canon would like Cinema EOS to be known for? No onboard recording on the C500 at $25,000 because it is basically derived from the C300, with which they can switch the firmware to C100 mode and still make a healthy margin on at $6k? I can't understand why the filmmakers with letters after their names Canon is so friendly towards in high places have not asked them to put HD-SDI on the 1D C. I wouldn't be happy with it as it stands, in a professional environment. Wobbly HDMI cable? No thanks. You have to wonder who is advising them and how many backs are being scrubbed.
 
dustylense said:
All I have to say is that if the Canon 5d Mark II never had video, the AF100 would probably be the big news at this years 2013 NAB.
Click to expand...

Well the GH1 before that would have certainly given Panasonic a lead and all those pros in Hollywood with letters after their names would have given Panasonic a huge kick start ahead of Canon in the market that is for sure. But Canon doesn't care about DSLR video any more. Their loss.
 
Hmmm, I disagree with some of the things mentioned in this thread
1. Canon DOES care about the video shooter - The last 5 commercials I have seen for Canon are based around it's video shooting. In my local camera store there was a Canon made display up, meant to look like a Hollywood blockbuster- pushing the video on the 7D. That's a lot of money being thrown around at advertising the video (for a segment people say they don't care about.) They want em...they want the indies, the want the moms and the dads too, hell they want em all. The indie film makers will buy more glass than the moms and the dads taking video of their kids. SOMEONE in Canon marketing knows this, if they didn't they wouldn't have made all those HDSLR commercials- simple.

Is it a small segment, not as small as mentioned before, but smaller than photographers by a healthy margin...but hell, PHOTOGRAPHERS were partially responsible for the success of the video on their line. Those guys let people know the possibilities and created a new excitement...not just for film makers, but for multi media people. "Cool, I can take photos and pretty videos as well" Bloggers, websites, visual art students, musicians (who need a cool video AND pictures)

Now on to the 1DC - In my eyes that was made as a companion camera for the C100,C300, C500. and for other people in the industry who NEED 4K and the other things that camera offers. Fully agree there. Barry helped me see the light on that one a while ago, and now I agree - Many of us are NOT the target for a camera like that. The 5DMK3 is more that camera for the multi media people and low budget film makers- it has everything I predicted it would before it came out- it is a big improvement over the earlier models. No Moire, no aliasing, lots of shooting options, more robust codec, etc.
I do think the price on the 1DC is inflated and I do believe it is VERY similar to the 1DX. But the people they made it for will gladly pay the extra for a reliable, small, built like a tank 4K camera. I just look at the 1DX as a bargain...lol.
 
Andrew Reid said:
Wobbly HDMI cable? No thanks. You have to wonder who is advising them and how many backs are being scrubbed.
Click to expand...

The people advising them obviously said they want a 4K capable DSLR. No extra bells and whistles needed, no extra real estate added. I'm sure the emphasis was on size, as a B/C/Crash cam.

they went ahead and brought out the cheapest, smallest, largest sensor 4K camera on the market. I bet the advisors are more than happy and will be putting them to good use, even if you can't work with a lockable HDMI.
 
The cable makes it a total non pro tool IMO,

If they had a decent out, proper TC in (maybe they do) and all the rest to make it a small scale large chip production camera - say one you could rig overhead in a live show - or pass to video village on a drama then they would have a pro tool, but HDMI its just not professional

I mean it has not even got a tripod locator pin on the bottom that would make it like a $500 handycam, let alone stand up to the focus motors used in production environments

Id think about the cam at that price if it was a hard box, with pro connectors.. even if it did have 90% of the guts of a 1dx

S
 
I think Barry made a general statement that was both dispassionate and accurate. The industry will find it's own level, through the actions of the users.

The one point I'd make, owning a small creative production shop but one that's been pretty successful for two decades - this is the one time (in 7 figures in production investment over that time) that I say, "just wait".
I've been on the bleeding edge of many/most innovations from recording studios, design studios and film making over that time and I've never seen a confluence of technologies and emerging players like right now.

I went through six months of deliberation on our new production gear - two new camera systems. Both our regular creative schedule and a new long term film commitment were the motivators.
I've always owned our systems, never been a renter, always had near immediate ROI.
I vacillated between Canon EOS, RED and the new Sony F cams with early 2013 as our purchase deadline.
We ended up getting a pair of $1300 GH3s (OK I paid a $1500 premium to have them for this project) to cover 60p and I'm happy to wait right now.

When you see the quality of the 60p image coming out of a current $1300 production camera that we can move and place nearly anywhere, it's a good time not to commit to a $30-$40k purchase by any manufacturer.
Just MO, YOMV.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, forgive me, but it's time to write a reality check. "indie filmmakers" had zero to do with Canon gaining a reputation in the cinema industry. It was adoption by real filmmakers -- guys with "A.S.C." after their names -- that got Canon a reputation in the cinema industry.
Click to expand...

Well that's something I don't believe. Me and Kholi and Stu and Vincent and Philip etc etc don't have A.S.C after our names but we were shooting with DSLRs long before the A.S.C lads started showing up to Zacuto shootouts. It was the indie guys giving the tips to the A.S.C guys and the indie guys who petitioned Canon for 24p on the 5D. Sure some A.S.C guys were early adopters, Shane for instance but to say indie filmmakers had zero to do with Canon gaining a rep in the cinema industry is just not true. Plus the majority of the profits come from indie filmmakers, wedding videographers, hobbyists etc not A.S.C guys. We're talking hundreds of thousands of camera bodies vs a few thousand.

Simon is getting a little emotional but I think a lot of indie filmmakers feel a bit cheated. It's not a wise marketing strategy Canon have adopted and they will end up paying for it if they don't quickly get a lower priced C-DSLR to market. The 5D MKIII is an improvement on the MKII but Panasonic, Blackmagic, Sony and Nikon all have competing products.
 
squig said:
Well that's something I don't believe...
Click to expand...

But how many bodies do you think all the indie guys combined influenced the purchase of, versus a single episode of House?

As somebody who had a 24fps capable 5DII in my hands well before the rest of the world due to a production stacked with Oscar winners, I can tell you that the big names were involved with Canon DSLRs far earlier than most realize. Barry is 100% right about who drove this "revolution".
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
No. Because those of you who embraced and championed their DSLRs, accounted for maybe a 1% spike in DSLR sales. A rounding error. DSLRs are sold to photographers and to photojournalists by the truckload; the addition of video shooters probably added maybe 1%, maybe 2% total sales increase.
Click to expand...

I don't have the figures but even people from Canon have stated that they were caught by surprise by the DSLR video "revolution". I would guess at least 30% of MKII sales were for the video feature ( probably more), this isn't easy to track but if you look at the sales of the 5D MKI and compare to the Nikon offering at that time and then compare the D700 sales to the MKII I think that should demonstrate how many people bought the MKII for video. The D700 was a better stills camera so I would attribute the surge in 5D MKII sales to the video features.

The other thing you're not taking into account is that consumers want to shoot video with their DSLRs too and that forms a big part of their purchasing decision. If Canon DLRs didn't have video features they'd probably only sell half as many (if that), and who was it that started this "revolution"? People like us who were out in public with a MKII and a Nikon ai lens who had amateur photographers coming up to us all the time asking why we had an old Nikon lens on a spanky new 5D MKII.

The indie crowd have made Canon a lot of money not by just buying their cameras but by doing their marketing for them. I've had literally hundreds of people ask me for advice on camera purchases ranging from professional cinematographers (ACS in Australia) to friends who want to buy a camera for their bro. I don't get a cent from Canon and I don't get paid to mod at cinema5D either, all I'm saying to Canon is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
To use the vernacular of kids today: Duh.

To demand that a 1DC just "get" for free, all the features of the 1D X, because the hardware is "capable", is akin to demanding that the buyer of a $599 laptop get all the Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, and whatever else software there is in the world, for free, just because the hardware is "capable". Surely we all recognize that that is not a reasonable expectation?
Click to expand...

The 1D X is not a $599 laptop is is analogous to a flagship top of the range laptop if anything, one that I expect to have all the software on board, certainly all the hardware capabilities turned on. The MacBook Pro Retina doesn't ship without WiFi enabled does it? Also the difference between Notepad and Microsoft Office is more than few lines of code turning a single extra feature on, and Microsoft Office is not a $6000 extra cost on-top of your flagship $6000 laptop. Let's stop the silly analogies, because they just don't make any sense.

Canon's profit slid 42% in Q3 2012. Their core business is not making cameras for Hollywood, it is making cameras for mass market consumers and photographers. I'm struck by the belligerence towards their regular customers of crippling none-other than their *flagship DSLR* just to protect a niche product with a red cinema badge that sells in tiny quantities to a few filmmakers in the US. Which market is most important for Canon? Worldwide 1D X buyers or 1D C? The 5D3 and 1D X are not just bought for photography.

I am no longer a Canon DSLR user. I switched to the FS100 and now to the Blackmagic Cinema Camera because Canon didn't have a product for me... Still don't.

I am not the only one.
 
nothing said:
But how many bodies do you think all the indie guys combined influenced the purchase of, versus a single episode of House? As somebody who had a 24fps capable 5DII in my hands well before the rest of the world due to a production stacked with Oscar winners, I can tell you that the big names were involved with Canon DSLRs far earlier than most realize. Barry is 100% right about who drove this "revolution".
Click to expand...

Hang on, who bought the most cameras? Indie filmmakers or the crew on House!?

Who is the most important guy here?

And I don't mean in terms of being used as marketing poodles but in terms of getting their cash out and putting it down on the counter for camera hardware en masse.

The revolution for Canon was in 5D Mark II sales figures, not in the attention DSLRs got on high profile productions - most of whom actually had no need for a DSLR with a few exceptions. Why use a DSLR when you can use an Alexa?

Cinema EOS is a total sideshow to the DSLR business and one that it seems is negatively impacting it in terms of feature-set and specs.

The sooner Canon realises this and stops paying us lip service on the consumer DSLR video side, the better.
 
How is the 1D-X crippled? It is their flagship STILLS camera and it is stunning.

I'd love to see the reaction from photographers if they found out they had to pay, say, $500 extra just so some film maker could have the latest, "must have" feature.
 
morgan_moore said:
The cable makes it a total non pro tool IMO,
Click to expand...

Lets not go there.

But the bloody things do break easily and for 12k they could have at least included pro connectors but it's more evidence that they just wanted slap a C badge on a 1DC and change as little hardware as possible.
 
Well, at least Shane Hurlbut agrees with me :)

2h5761t.jpg
 
Simon Shasha said:
Well, at least Shane Hurlbut agrees with me :)
Click to expand...

Talk about a leading question.

His idea of "indies" differs from yours - in this context I bet that he considers himself (and many other ASC guys) to be a shooter of indies because he often works outside the studio system, and the indies he is talking about can easily afford the rental on a Cinema EOS camera (a pittance compared to what they were paying a few years ago for similar quality).

Point him to this thread, let's see who he agrees with.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top