'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. *UPDATED*

I love my C100/ninja. I think what Canon has done with the Cinema line is amazing....but this is hilarious.

Bahahahah! Soo...soo....morbidly true.
 
As much as i'd love to see Canon bring out some kind of GH4 killer, or FS7.... It is laughable that the above joke has a dig at Canon's sensors. Do people really just use spec sheets nowadays to shoot with?... Canon's sensors are beautiful. Colour reproduction is some of the best around.
 
Last edited:
Jay Birch said:
As much as i'd love to see Canon bring out some kind of GH4 killer, or FS7.... It is laughable that the above joke has a dig at Canon's sensors. Do people really just use spec sheets nowadays to shoot with, nowadays?... Canon's sensors are beautiful. Colour reproduction is some of the best around.
Click to expand...


I do have to agree with you. I love Canon's color rendition. I think have really got a good thing going with their color science. In true Canon form...I think they will be really late to release anything new....when it comes out...it will have a fraction of features that other camera companies excel at....but there will be one main thing Canon will bring to the table....

Its image will be stunning compared to the rest. Still a Canon Cinema supporter. They are just funny at how slow and how high they price things. The images they produce are worth it in my opinion though.
 
Here is what happens...
Panny and Sony get a new toy and release it the first chance they get. "Look, shinny new toy to be had". And it's usually a good product but with certain pitfalls. Canon waits and develops product that is ready and releases them accordingly. We all know the C200 and C400 are coming. They will be excellent cameras with great color and control.

And Sam, Canon makes some of the nicest printers on earth. They make all sorts of things other than cameras and lenses, but yet they DOMINATE the Dslr and lens market. Kinda like Sony makes TV's and play stations, and the Walkman.

Right now I'm looking at my C100, Gh4, A7s, and many more. I love them all. But I anticipate my C200 or C400 4K beast.

Time to go shoot!
 
Last edited:
I know they sell a lot of other stuff, and I know they sell more DSLRs than anybody else. But things change pretty fast nowadays, and I don't think the "late and expensive" strategy will work for them.
 
Everybody is correct imho but Samuel has touched upon an important point. Markets change and I agree that "late and expensive" is getting tougher to justify these days. Expensive anything is tough to peddle in this marketplace.
 
Samuel H said:
I know they sell a lot of other stuff, and I know they sell more DSLRs than anybody else. But things change pretty fast nowadays, and I don't think the "late and expensive" strategy will work for them.
Click to expand...
Then why do they sell so many DSLR's and lenses. Why is the C300 one of the top (if not THE TOP) rental camera available?

This part about expensive? I seriously just don't subscribe to this and here is why. I've been shooting for 25 year (mostly stills but stills are made with cameras too) and have used Canon basically the whole time. I have owned so many Canon cameras that I've lost count. NOT A SINGLE ONE has ever failed me on a job. Not one! I show up with my Canon and I KNOW that I leave with my pictures or footage. Basically, they just do the job I require of them. I get home and the check in is the mailbox. Then another check arrives. The check far exceeds the cost of my camera and I get more checks than I do in replacing or upgrading cameras. Even if I put 2% of each check aside, I have plenty of money to upgrade to the camera coming next if I see fit (See, I don't have to upgrade because the current camera is still working as I expect it too). But even after all of this I realize the camera is not taking the picture. I am.

Not directed at you Sam, just a general blanket statement.
If somebody is concerned with how much a camera cost, then they aren't making enough money with any camera. My cameras pay themselves off in 1 or 2 jobs. And I have a lot of cameras. like over 15 of them. They are all paid off and I still show good profit. I don't buy cameras based off of paper specs. I buy them on how they perform and what I can get out of them. I don't care what they are worth a year later. I care about what they deliver a year later without issue.

Now this is directed to you Sam. You say "Late and expensive". I can also say "early and not ready". I have full confidence that Canon will deliver another product that I will take serious looks at. It will be delivered when it is ready to outperform my current Canon. Where as Sony delivered a camera that is sure to make F5 owners feel buyers remorse. But yet, I still like Sony products too. And still, my C100 had earned me monies that far exceed it's cost and still is. But if you are going to stick with "late and expensive", I'd hate to go car shopping with you.

But in the end, they're just cameras. It's what you do with them that makes the difference. I have not and will not ever run into the perfect camera. But I have lots of Canon products that haven't failed me. Not even once.

Again, I own cameras from Canon, Nikon, Panny, BMD, Sony, GoPro and Cell phone. All of them take pictures. But I make the pictures. Lots of people here do. How cool is that? None of them will make us any better though. But it sure helps having confidence in them.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Everybody is correct imho but Samuel has touched upon an important point. Markets change and I agree that "late and expensive" is getting tougher to justify these days. Expensive anything is tough to peddle in this marketplace.
Click to expand...
But why is it "late"? Because somebody else is pumping out cameras like every other week? The C300 is what, 3 years old? Does it not still capture wonderful looking images? I have yet to meet a unhappy C300 owner. Are they late because they don't have 240fps? Who here skips through 5 minute videos shot at 240fps? I do! It's boring and makes me sleepy.

Late? How about when they are ready. What if Canon releases a camera that completely destroys the Fs7 in both image and mechanics? Who is late and who is early? I shot with the FS100 before and I would take the C100 over the FS100 any day of the week. So who was late? Who was early? Who was right on time?
 
They sell a lot because their entry level stuff is cheap and good enough, and because once you buy into a system it's expensive to switch. It may be a good strategy in the long run, but I think it won't. Nothing at stake for me, so the shareholders and managers are the ones who decide and to enjoy/suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Also, specifically for video, because a few years back they were the best, and opinion has a lot of inertia (just this weekend I had to convince somebody that yes, my a7s shoots much better video than any DSLR that Canon has released; he insisted that "Canon is the best for video, it's what everybody uses"; whatever).

It is late because since they introduced the C300 and the 5D3 (their best cameras if you ask me) everybody else has brought out better products, and they are still sitting on their C300 and 5D3. Don't let me talk about the APS-C cameras for video. Right now, Nikon, Sony and Panasonic sell DSLRs with better video than their Canon counterparts.

And to be clear: they don't owe me anything. If they don't want to bring out new and better cameras, it's their choice. But I don't owe them anything either.

And in any case: whatever gear makes you money, is most probably the right gear.
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
They sell a lot because their entry level stuff is cheap and good enough, and because once you buy into a system it's expensive to switch.
Click to expand...

I also think it's because of their brand. Canon use to be good. While mainstream people still think Canon is good, the enthusiast know better. It will take time for the information to trickle down, but once it does, it will be hard for canon to reestablished it's position. I think it's already too late. Other companies are establishing a beach head in the DSLR/video field. Canon must be hurting if they are reduced to doing this type of marketing. What other reasons are there for this type of advertising campaign?
 
eleison said:
I also think it's mostly because of their brand. Canon use to be good. While mainstream people still think Canon is good, the enthusiast know better. It will take time for the information to trickle down, but once it does, it will be hard for canon to reestablished it's position. I think it's already too late.
Click to expand...

I do not personally think this is accurate. My company shoots RED, Sony, Canon....ect. I can say, the Cinema EOS line is great. They still stack up to some of the much higher end cameras currently being released...and the Cinema EOS line is years old. Yea, some features are not there (over crank) but there are simple workarounds that make these cameras still very much used in professional environments.

If your referring to the Canon DSLR, then, yes, I have to agree with you. We can no longer use Canon DSLR cameras in our production workflow unless it's shooting ML.
 
eleison said:
While mainstream people still think Canon is good, the enthusiast know better. It will take time for the information to trickle down, but once it does, it will be hard for canon to reestablished it's position. I think it's already too late. Other companies are establishing a beach head in the DSLR/video field.
Click to expand...

Nah, not even close. When enthusiasts start hiring shooters with rates to keep the heat on and food on the table we can talk. But that will never happen. If it isn't some sort of actual 35mm camera (Arri, RED, Sony, C300/500) it's a Canon DSLR. On real shoots with real money this is what I consistently see asked for. And at the end of the day if my producer is happy then I'm happy. You can shout about how much better a gh4 is or an a7 is until you are blue in the face but for producers spending real money the Canon DSLRs are "good enough" and thats enough for them when it's the right tool for the job.

What ever Canon comes out with next in it's cinema line better have been handled by someone who actually shoots for a living and not someone who spends most time in front of a workbench. Possibly one of the worst designed cameras I have ever had to deal with.
 
dustylense said:
But why is it "late"? Because somebody else is pumping out cameras like every other week? The C300 is what, 3 years old? Does it not still capture wonderful looking images? I have yet to meet a unhappy C300 owner. Are they late because they don't have 240fps? Who here skips through 5 minute videos shot at 240fps? I do! It's boring and makes me sleepy.

Late? How about when they are ready. What if Canon releases a camera that completely destroys the Fs7 in both image and mechanics? Who is late and who is early? I shot with the FS100 before and I would take the C100 over the FS100 any day of the week. So who was late? Who was early? Who was right on time?
Click to expand...

I admit I am speaking as a general market observer rather than a user. Yes, we all buy and use these cameras. So you are correct but the definition of "late" is up to individual needs at the time and the comparison to competing cameras in the marketplace. Late for me? Well who cares about me. But late compared to other cameras is what we are talking about. XF300 - released a year or two later than the comparable Sony or Panasonic model. The C series has a great sensor with less than up to date codecs. Others are offering RAW recording. It is opinion.

Would you buy a brand new C300 right now? How do you think that price will hold up when you try to sell it? Would you buy a 5DMKIII right now for video use? The way I see "late and expensive" is that it is tough on resale value.

My 5D's mirror fell off on a shoot. Good thing I had a backup. My XF300 went to Canon three times for repairs, two of which were not covered due to the one year warranty. (how can I get oil on the inside element?...)

I will admit I am still a bit offended by the 5DMKIII's video image. Canon purposefully degraded the video image even to the HDMI output. Yes it is their right to do so but taking such a sharp image (I know because I now shoot RAW video with it) and turning it into mush just makes me not want to get on their train so to speak. But I know it does not matter what I think. I did move to the Panasonic PX-270 because I did not want to "wait" for the XF400...
 
dustylense
The complaints people mostly level at Canon are toward their DSLRs, not their C series cameras.
A lot of people complaining about Canon are those who got into the Canon system because they are shoestring budget filmmakers who saw the benefit of a large sensor camera that matches the properties of a cinema camera in a price range they could afford.

But all Canon saw (or listened to) were Hollywood DPs that were using their cameras on big shows. Then they released a series of expensive cameras for those DPs while doing next to nothing with their less expensive models that started this whole thing.

So I don't think it is ridiculous at all for people to be upset at Canon. They invested into Canon gear at the beginning of the HDSLR revolution with expectations that new models (around the same price) would appear that would improve upon older models and all they got from Canon was the finger in the form of next to no advancement in over half a decade.

dustylense said:
If somebody is concerned with how much a camera cost, then they aren't making enough money with any camera. My cameras pay themselves off in 1 or 2 jobs.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, not everyone here is a working pro getting paid for "jobs" where they can pay off cameras after one of two of them. But that doesn't make their complaints less valid. Nobody should have to suffer through moire laced footage and lack of headphone jacks on basic models. Especially 5 years onward. These are things Canon could have worked on but didn't.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I admit I am speaking as a general market observer rather than a user. Yes, we all buy and use these cameras. So you are correct but the definition of "late" is up to individual needs at the time and the comparison to competing cameras in the marketplace. Late for me? Well who cares about me. But late compared to other cameras is what we are talking about. XF300 - released a year or two later than the comparable Sony or Panasonic model. The C series has a great sensor with less than up to date codecs. Others are offering RAW recording. It is opinion.

Would you buy a brand new C300 right now? How do you think that price will hold up when you try to sell it? Would you buy a 5DMKIII right now for video use? The way I see "late and expensive" is that it is tough on resale value.
Click to expand...

The C300 is a great overall camera, but a terrible value for sure; It will continue to depreciate badly just like the C100. Upon the C100's arrival I was quick to say how it would depreciate badly in a relatively short time (met with mostly disagreements, of course) and probably lose nearly half its value within a 2-3 years. Well, less than two years in and it's already lost almost half of its retail value even faster than I thought. Not to mention it's at least $1,000 overpriced right now given the alternative offerings. I bought a BMPCC to hold out until something more fully featured comes within the price range of a C100 at least. It doesn't have much room for depreciation. :D

Regarding the 5D Mark III, in my opinion it is a better overall value for one's money & still arguably a good deal due to all of the amazing Magic Lantern features, especially RAW video. Here is exhibit A) on why the Mark III is still potentially worth it (personally I find it more valuable to me than the C100 because of ML)....and the image itself, I believe, will show why....some of the most beautiful footage I've ever seen on any camera:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top