Why Canon sucks balls.

[Michael Hastings]

IMVHO the canon cams seem to have some advantages - and i say this as a 2 camera red owner - they are light, portable and if you respect their limits they can deliver some good stuff.

I never understand why people are evangelical about technology.

The video stills posted in the earlier sections seem to be 6400 asa images - well since we are apples for apples kinda people (another overused cliche) why not compare the Red at the same iso (6400) and maybe the differences between the two cams become a little less glaring than something which is shot at baseline 320 on a Red camera.

In short if you shoot canon - play to the strengths of the system - Red has it's issues too. Thats part of being a cameraman - learn the limits and how to overcome them - because when the day technology can do it for you is the day you're out of a job.

Well said.

Red are however revolutionary. They keep promises and moreover promise you an end user experience. They are a little beyond commerce. Their pitch is a brave new world and we are getting what we want, upgrades, advancements and new technology with built in obsolescence.

??

 

[Costelloe Michael]

Well said.



??

Confused Michael?

Please expound.

 

[James T Mather]

James,

A light in the darkness. You would never take the two into the same arena. Each has it's place. They are both useful tools. Give a Red to a news correspondent in Afghanistan, give a 5D MKII to a DP shooting a commercial surrounded by paying clients and see what they say.

I happen to know a very highly regarded DP on several grand a day shot a high profile job on a MK2.

If I hear anything about a Red in Afghanistan that isn't a Politburo Russki I'll get back to you ;-)

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Canonballs found among ship wreckage.

It's all about a Canon Balls>>>

LINK>>>

 

[Felix K.]

They sell you a 5DII that shoots 30fps and not 24/25fps which is what you want. Make it with H264 and line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues.

Then they sell you a 7D that does 24/25fps which is what you wanted but still make it H264 with line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues.

Then announce the 1DIV. Make it with H264 with line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues but shoots ISO64,000. $5,000
At the same time announce that the original 5DII will now have a firmware update to shoot 24/25fps and piss off all those that thought they had to buy a 7D to get that and tell you that moire is the new look of the future.

Then come out with a 1DsIV that shoots 24/25fps but has uncompressed 1080P output with line skipping, moire and aliases. $8000.

Then announce the 5DIII that still sucks balls and all of this in 12 months time.

Buy a Canon and realize you didn't get what you wanted. Throw it away and try again with the next new model. Repeat every three months.

This is part where Canon sucks... that was the reason for this thread...

 

[Costelloe Michael]

Yeah James,

£2k a day? FCUK that and I only charge £1k per day and I throw in the Canon 5D Mk2 ! Must talk to the agent about fees.

Did anyone mention that they are paying for the talent not the kit?

I do charge extra for the Red : )

 

[Andrew Walker]

There is nothing funnier on this board than people trying to compare the Canon, Nikon, Sony or whatever cameras to the RED. Its like comparing a butter knife and a chainsaw. Sure they can cut stuff but only one is designed for professional use or for getting the job done right. This is the same thing with these cameras. The cheapest Scarlet that is going to come out here really soon will smoke any of these cameras hands down. But if your primary use for these cameras is for stuff to be shown on the web or for home movies then you have hit a home run by buying one of these Canon cameras.

The minute you try and do anything to the Canon footage out of the camera you are going to be wishing you shot it on the RED camera. On professional shoots the director always messes with the look of the footage after the fact. Can't do that with the Canon footage, so right there it is cut out.

I'm not trying to say that the Canon or whatever cameras aren't great tools. But the idea with digital cinema in my eyes is to try and get as close to if not exceed the quality of film. It is the standard by which all digital cinema cameras are judged. Its also a gigantic standard that exists over at the major studios. They are constantly doing tests comparing digital to film acquisition and exhibition.

So with all that being said Scarlet is going to make these people buying the Canon cameras for video spend a little bit more for 10x more quality. Just wait and see.

 

[Bryce O]

They sell you a 5DII that shoots 30fps and not 24/25fps which is what you want. Make it with H264 and line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues.

Then they sell you a 7D that does 24/25fps which is what you wanted but still make it H264 with line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues.

Then announce the 1DIV. Make it with H264 with line skipping, aliasing, moire and compression issues but shoots ISO64,000. $5,000
At the same time announce that the original 5DII will now have a firmware update to shoot 24/25fps and piss off all those that thought they had to buy a 7D to get that and tell you that moire is the new look of the future.

Then come out with a 1DsIV that shoots 24/25fps but has uncompressed 1080P output with line skipping, moire and aliases. $8000.

Then announce the 5DIII that still sucks balls and all of this in 12 months time.

Buy a Canon and realize you didn't get what you wanted. Throw it away and try again with the next new model. Repeat every three months.

At least Canon actually has cameras to buy...

But if your primary use for these cameras is for stuff to be shown on the web or for home movies then you have hit a home run by buying one of these Canon cameras.

:laugh: Oh yea, I forgot, all footage shot on RED makes it to theaters...

 

[Andrew Walker]

:laugh: Oh yea, I forgot, all footage shot on RED makes it to theaters...

No, but it can.

 

[David Rasberry]

I happen to know a very highly regarded DP on several grand a day shot a high profile job on a MK2.

There was also a post a few months back by a DP that cost his client a $200k shoot using the 5dII. The footage was unacceptable.

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Do you have a link for that? You see, as long as this was not an actual movie, but a music video or other, then there's no reason why the 5DMkII can't have the right look/quality. In fact, speaking about music videos since I've shot a few myself, the 5DII can do just fine in that environment -- as long as you know how to shoot with that tool. In fact, regarding music videos in particular, most are shot with much inferior cams and they look just fine when they played back on MTV or Fuse. Not only that, but last night I was just tweeting how Fuse HD (the music TV channel), broadcasts most of its music videos in SD, upsampled on HD, even if these music videos were actually shot in HD. My point is, there are so many steps down the road, that having a camera that's not 100% "all there", is possibly the least of your problems at the end of the day -- if you know how to take advantage of it.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

The Rio de Janeiro official olympic video, directed by Fernando Meirelles (Director of City of God) was shot on both R1 and 5DII, he happens to love both of these cameras.

http://vimeo.com/6984751

 

[Andrew Thomas]

Rodney Charters is shooting some 5D/7D on 24...

 

[Bryce O]

No, but it can.

Anything CAN be projected in theaters. I've screened 5D footage projected in SD on a 15-foot screen and it looked pretty good.

 

[Tim H.]

I took some time off from forums so I could use my free time polishing my talents and it's funny how even after taking a year+ off from these forums that the same old tired debates about my camera is bigger than yours and this tech is better than that still exist. Then I look at those who continue to make these bashing arguments and can't seem to find any quality footage shot by them. Now it all makes sense. It doesn't matter how "cool" of a camera you put in their hands the quality of the material will end up being the same.

The good news is that there are some very talented people that I'm proud to know, learn from and be inspired by that frequent here and I guess that is what makes it worthwhile. Too bad we couldn't remove more of the unproductive threads.

Anyway, enough of that bs. So the thing that is being missed about Canon is that they are designed to shoot stills first and shoot them well. Doesn't Jim own a Canon camera and use it to take stills? The newly announced 1D Mark IV doesn't even have dedicated video buttons and is designed just like the Mark 3, the reason being that the pro shooters who use these cameras for their intended purpose of shooting high quality still images in both photo journailism and sports applications don't want to relearn button placement. So Canon is doing a good thing by not messing with their muscle memory. This camera has been in motion and development for some time and it's purpose is to continue to please Canons main market. There was no time nor desire on their part to delay things by polishing the video portion of the camera. It's just an added "bonus" now.

When canon first added video to the 5D Mark 2 it wasn't to crush Red or revolutionize the digital cinema market (exactly why there was no 24P). It was something to test the waters. Maybe even compete with what other DSLR manufactures like Nikon were doing. Now, once Canon corporate got wind of how much the filmmaking community (theatrical, documentary, etc) was embracing and buying up this camera they realized they had something. Why it took them this long is typical of large corporations like Canon that are so stuck in their ways.

Now, Canon can't just destroy their still market as this is their main focus and revenue model. The camera controls and ergonomics of their cameras need to stay the way they are for many reasons. While this is great for the photographers it's not what all of us motion guys want. I've said for a long time that Canon is sitting on a gold mine because they have a FF chip that is very good in low light and makes great looking stills, if they could just get 24,30 fps out of it and sell it for a low price they could really take off. Obviously they did what they could with what was already in the camera for the still market and decided to read out every other line and not use dedicated chips for processing of the image and we have what we have. Since it was too late in the game to make it in the IV, lets not lose faith in them. They just need a bit more time to get the processing down and the codec improved (RAW?).

I hope Red does not over think the still features in Epic and Scarlet because I'd rather it just kick butt in the film/video arena and leave the physical shutter, mirror, strobe sync, 1000 point auto focus, etc for the still players.

In any case, this doesn't devalue Red or Scarlet or Epic. It just means there is that much more for us to use for doing what we love doing. Shooting images. Look at Tom from Timescapes, he is using the 5D MK 2 to do some very cool time lapse images (4K images). He doesn't even need the video mode for that. I'd like to see someone do that with the Red camera. It doesn't mean the Red sucks, it just means that it should be used for other things. Now, I went to see The Informant projected on 35mm film and I thought it looked horrible. Was this the fault of Red, partly but it was also the run and gun shooting style of Steven S. He had some low light stuff in there that was just horrid. He also let tungsten light create a red cast in many of the shots that was just not pleasing. Had that been the test footage of the Red, I would have run from the Red camera but I knew it has produced better footage.

So my point is that not all cameras are good for all situations and for the price the Canon offers some outstanding features and I'm excited to see where this market goes in the next year. I look forward to seeing the footage from Scarlet and Epic and might just have to put one on my shopping list. In the mean time I will continue to shoot with my 5D Mk 2. By the way I bought the 5D 1 a year before the Mk 2 and just sold it on Ebay for 60% of what I paid. Not bad considering I used it for a year. So if and when the 5D Mk 3 comes out and it's worth buying then I will sell my Mk 2 and move on. At least I'm not just sitting on the side lines.

Sorry for the rant Just wanted to make some points and having been gone for a while, I guess I had a few of them Look forward to a fun future.

 

[David Rasberry]

Do you have a link for that?

Couldn't find the thread, it was several months ago.

The two unique qualities of the VDSLR's are 35mm DOF and exceptional low light sensitivity. Beyond those two qualities they are inferior as video cameras to prosumer HD camcorders in the same general price ranges. If one is shooting short clips for web videos the shortcomings don't really matter much. In any other production situation the limitations one has to shoot within to get acceptable results are pretty severe.

 

[jake blackstone]

There was also a post a few months back by a DP that cost his client a $200k shoot using the 5dII. The footage was unacceptable.

http://vimeo.com/5000009
http://vimeo.com/7118904
http://vimeo.com/5742788
When you look at his work, that was shot on D5, is the first things, that comes to you mind... OMG, it's full of compression artifacts. Noisy, crashed with blown out highlights... Well, yes. Strange skin tones, perhaps...But, would you want to change anything about it? in this case, in my opinion, D5 works beautiful. And Ralph Lauren is a major advertiser...

 

[Joel Kaye]

The two unique qualities of the VDSLR's are 35mm DOF and exceptional low light sensitivity. Beyond those two qualities they are inferior

LOL. Aside from the Sun and the planets our solar system is a pretty inferior one now that I think about it.

35mm DOF (interchangeable lenses) and low light capability almost entirely defines what low budget artists are looking for. If they wanted a corporate video camera they'd buy an EX1 or HVX.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Looks great.

 

[Pierre T.]

I guess you didn't read why there is a trade up program for Red ONE owners? "Obsolescence Obsolete" simply did not pan out the way they had hoped with the ONE and the modular system of Epic/Scarlet is the full realization of that promise. Don't expect to get trade in credit on your Epic or Scarlet brains in the future.

So sure it will be different next time?

I thought and still think that "obsolescence obsolete" is naïve hype, not to mention the zillions of configurations for a camera system of which only a few thousand samples will be produced.

On the other hand, the EOS system was introduced in 1987 and the lenses produced since then communicate with modern bodies, that is 22 years of non obsolescence of lenses from both Canon and third party companies (granted, Sigma made a few mistakes in early implementations and a few of their lenses do not work with recent bodies)! Would you bet on Red as a company even to survive that long?