Why Canon sucks balls.

[Phil Jordan]

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.

 

[morgan_moore]

indeed

I have been doing this for stills camera for years

D1, D100, D70, Kodak SLRN, D80, D90 - all had critical flaws but were market leaders too

(you notice I skipped throwing my cash at the pro models even though I am a 'pro')

I ended up buying a $15000 hasselblad in 2005 to get out of that circuit - it still works great today even though it is a bit outdated at 22mp - 50 ISO - it is also worth nothing because of the 5dmk2 and D3X have the same stills ability - and then some


I bought all these cameras because my market demanded digital

All I ever wanted from digital is to replicate a nikon f5 and a $3 roll of film

But nikon did get there with the D3 it is as good as a f5 with a $3 roll of film

Same desire set now with motion - all Im after is no critical flaws

Welcome to this sh1t - or just dig deep and go Red

The question IMO is like the Hassy purchase is that canikon will catch up - but when - and what are the economics of going for the big hit (red) with possible seriious depreciation or spooling through the latest DSLR offerings



S

 

[BigLu]

Wow and I just ordered a D7.
Interesting post.
I look forward to the Scarlett.
And the D7 will be gone the day the Scarlett comes out.

 

[Peter Rollins]

You know what is really bad? a Canon Rep told me that the entire Video department at Canon was moved over to the Photo department late last year so they could focus on making the Mark IV the best video camera they ever made. This is so sad if this is the best they can come up with.

I am staying the hell away from Canon from this point forward. They release a new camera every 2 months and there is no motivation for them to make something actually great. They need to keep the customer always wanting more. My RED ONE has just had it's 20th Firmware Build installed and at least 5 of those builds have made me feel like I just opened up a brand new camera. For free.

So this is what Canon's new PRO VIDEO/STILL team has come up with now. Who could be proud of a "pro video camera" that makes images like this?

Vincent posted that he used Noise Reduction software and some VFX in the video, so the 6400 doesn't even impress me.

 

[Michael Grugal]

You have to admit the Nikon D3 was revolutionary. Best $5000 I have ever spent. I have no plans in upgrading for a long time.

 

[Phil Jordan]

You have to admit the Nikon D3 was revolutionary. Best $5000 I have ever spent. I have no plans in upgrading for a long time.

At least the D3 didn't pretend to be something it is not.

Those pics of line skipping and moire are inspirational.

 

[Daniell Simmons]

There is no way those images are from the 1D Mark IV, those look like SD grabs from a late 90's Standard Definition betacam. Where are you guys pulling these from? I searched all over Canon.com and can't find them.

Does anyone have any real official video from the 1D Mark IV? I have heard they put alot of work into the video part of this camera and would love to see some footage.

--edit---

oh gawd. Just found the Laforette thing. Looks like this video is in fact real footage, how embarrassing.

 

[Stefan Christou]

Late 90s SD Betacams used more lines to capture their SD image than the canons do capturing 1080. Nyquist anyone?

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Late 90s SD Betacams used more lines to capture their SD image than the canons do capturing 1080. Nyquist anyone?

Having NOT shot film with the Nikons or Canons in questions, this is undoubtedly a post out of line (-skipping...)

But I couldn't help laughing out loud!

Post of the day!

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Amazing. So you guys now analyzing grabs from a *just* 2 mbps 1080p file that was compressed 3 times already? The original file that Laforet encoded was 365 MBs, but it's not available to download. The one you are analyzing is Smugsmug's or Vimeo's 2 mbps re-encoding, which of course will make everything look like a... smug.

Also, I would suggest you stop being such huge negatives. Sure, your RED ONE is great. And this is a RED forum. But your RED ONE cost you about $20,000 overall. The 7D, 5D and 1D cost between $2,000 and $5000. So for what you get for that price, *it is* good, and denying it, will only make you look like jerks to the new people who come here and read the RED forums.

Also, it will be nice to not take other people for idiots. Saying things like "oh my god, look at this frame, I will never buy Canon", is like you are saying that the thousands of people who buy these cameras are idiots. They aren't idiots. There is a value on these products, and that's why they sell. They don't sell because Canon brainwashed these people, they sell because:
1. They have good-enough specs for the price.
2. The sample footage looks great compared to what their camcorder can do.
3. They're cheap for what they do. Again, comparatively to the past and other products at the same price range.
4. They don't want to have both a digicam and a camcorder with them. Convergence.

What I am saying here, is that I came to this thread via a link from another site, only to read this trolling over here against Canon, for no good reason really. It makes my heart break seeing filmmakers taking down other products like this, and trying to find weak spots of the competitive product just so they can unleash these "oh my god" comments.

The point of the matter is: no matter what you say over here, no matter how negative you choose to be against Canon (or Sony, or Panasonic), the point is that there is value in these products, and that's why they sell as much as they do (or not as much). If a product truly sucked, it wouldn't sell. It's as simple as that. But Canon's products do sell, which means that they do things right. Even if they can't compete with your ultra-dupa RED ONE, they can compete with the cameras in their own price range that are available today. And THAT'S what matters for both the manufacturer, and the consumer.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Amazing. So you guys now analyzing grabs from a *just* 2 mbps 1080p file that was compressed 3 times already? The original file that Laforet encoded was 365 MBs, but it's not available to download. The one you are analyzing is Smugsmug's or Vimeo's 2 mbps re-encoding, which of course will make everything look like a... smug.

Also, I would suggest you stop being such huge negatives. Sure, your RED ONE is great. And this is a RED forum. But your RED ONE cost you about $20,000 overall. The 7D, 5D and 1D cost between $2,000 and $5000. So for what you get for that price, *it is* good, and denying it, will only make you look like jerks to the new people who come here and read the RED forums.

Also, it will be nice to not take other people for idiots. Saying things like "oh my god, look at this frame, I will never buy Canon", is like you are saying that the thousands of people who buy these cameras are idiots. They aren't idiots. There is a value on these products, and that's why they sell. They don't sell because Canon brainwashed these people, they sell because:
1. They have good-enough specs for the price.
2. The sample footage looks great compared to what their camcorder can do.
3. They're cheap for what they do. Again, comparatively to the past and other products at the same price range.
4. They don't want to have both a digicam and a camcorder with them. Convergence.

What I am saying here, is that I came to this thread via a link from another site, only to read this trolling over here against Canon, for no good reason really. It makes my heart break seeing filmmakers taking down other products like this, and trying to find weak spots of the competitive product just so they can unleash these "oh my god" comments.

The point of the matter is: no matter what you say over here, no matter how negative you choose to be against Canon (or Sony, or Panasonic), the point is that there is value in these products, and that's why they sell as much as they do (or not as much). If a product truly sucked, it wouldn't sell. It's as simple as that. But Canon's products do sell, which means that they do things right. Even if they can't compete with your ultra-dupa RED ONE, they can compete with the cameras in their own price range that are available today. And THAT'S what matters for both the manufacturer, and the consumer.

All good and fair points... BUT...

As long as the camera is implicitedly markeded as a "RED Alternative" (and even though I haven't seen that from Canon or Nikon, I read it in a lot of other threads), it's ok to point out that in a lot of resoects, they still aren't....

Even though they are more lightsensitive and cheaper, they still have some disadvantages that makes them... less useable for my work at least.

And if that wasn't the case, I'd be the first out the door to buy a cheaper, lighter, better cam... :hurray:

Which I eventually will. Probably from RED as things look.

I have seen much better grabs from the Canon cams than those avove. Fair enough.

It all depends on what you market it for.

For their use they are excellent, no doubt.

For some use, they may not be the right cam for the gig. As can be said (and is being said right here on this forum) about the R1...

The difference in main concepts are striking though:

Upgrades through firmware vs Upgrades through new cam
RAW vs h.264
Line-skipping vs scaling for downsampling
The RAW'est RAW out there vs a deliveryformat

are all interesting points NOT to be ignored at least from a post/film perspective....

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

This is funny. Canon sells what was designed as a stills camera with added feature of video, wraps it all up in a sexy "1080p/35mm DOF" package and now it's strange or unexpected that buying a stills camera for shooting moving footage results in getting not quite great quality footage.
+ If you say something about that you are overprotective of your precious RED One, and suggesting all Canon buyers are idiots.
While Canon is watching a pointless battle from a hill laughing and filling the cash register. Really funny.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

These gimmick VDSLRs produces good enough videos, and that's it.

Rolling shutter = Worse than camcorders
Compression = Worse than camcorders
Image artifacts = Worse than camcorders

Large sensor sizes are the strong point here, giving users shallow DOF and good low light sensitivity.

These cameras sell because... There's no competition.
Canon, Panasonic and Nikon (Sony isn't in the game yet, right?) are offering very similar systems with very similar (and severe) limitations.

Even RED's future most inexpensive systems will cost more than one of these cameras, but those will be no excuse systems, no aliasing, no compression issues, no color subsampling, high fps, just plain good images.

That's why those who don't want/need these cameras aren't spending money on them.
I'm gladly waiting for the 2/3" Scarlets because of this... Just tired of these "good enoughs".

 

[morgan_moore]

To me owning nikkor lenses from 14 through to 400 and enjoying the look and feel they provide on a large sensor

The fact that I can add video to my business offering

The fact that I can travel without increasing the size of my lugguage

The fact that these cameras appear to be able to colect data (in stills mode bursts) at very acceptable rates

The CONCEPT of the VDSLR is absolutely no Gimmick at all

The reality of the current batch does however appear to be gimmicky

But then I find my Ex1 a bit gimmicky too for many reasons

---

Eugenia 365MBs - where did you get that from ?

S

 

[Daniel García]

Just a little side note: Eugenia you might be right about other things but your compression argument is moot. People are complaining about line-skipping and moire artifacts which differ quite obviously from compression artifacts. It's not easy to confuse one with the other.

There's always something to be unhappy about a particular camera model or manufacturer. Whether it be abusive prices, product delays, inadequate image processing, sampling strategies, customer relationships... it's not very constructive to just bash the weak points of an offering. Instead, the proper discussion is to be conscious of the pros and cons of each product for each kind of project. If you have the budget shoot RED, but if there's no money to light that night exterior, the 1Dm4 might just be a lifesaver...
Of course objectivity is something hard to achieve if you work in the marketing department of a particular company or you are a fanboy...

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Amazing. So you guys now analyzing grabs from a *just* 2 mbps 1080p file that was compressed 3 times already?

Yes, it is amazing that even after such compression you can still see THE SENSOR shortcomings. The moire and aliasing pictured above are defects of the way Canon scans the sensor, not the compression for the web.

The original file that Laforet encoded was 365 MBs, but it's not available to download.

Really?

 

[Felix K.]

But your RED ONE cost you about $20,000 overall. The 7D, 5D and 1D cost between $2,000 and $5000.

1. 20.000$ doesn't give you a working RED-ONE. But it will give you a working Scarlet.

2. 2000$ to 5000$ might give you a canon camerabody and maybe a kit lens but that only works for stills. The formfactor doesn't allow for shooting smooth hand-held videos so you end up buying rails and grips and an external LCD monitor and whatever and that sums up to 5000$-10000$ inkl. the camera. And for that price people expect an adequate picture quality and not a HD-video "gimmick".

3. I would also trust the people here to judge the image even if it is not the source file. They are in the business for a while as well.

 

[Karl Lohninger]

1. 20.000$ doesn't give you a working RED-ONE. But it will give you a working Scarlet......

20.000 bucks will give you a barely working RED and will NOT get you a working or any other Scarlet. A Scarlet does not exist - not even on paper. What is you folks smoking that you keep talking about that?


The point Eugenia makes is that why the hell is you fanboys so worked up about a friggin' stills camera thats, so we hear again and again, sucks in every department.



The people here consist of a small fraction of professionals I have no problem trusting and a huge percentage of folks who have very little to no clue what they're talking about. Excuse moi, but isn't that obvious?

Why can't them fanboys just say: hell, the RED is one friggin' nice camera for the money. Great. There are other cameras out there that are also friggin' nice and some cost more and some less money, doesn't really matter.

Where and why does religion come in here?

 

[Tom Lowe]

Amazing. So you guys now analyzing grabs from a *just* 2 mbps 1080p file that was compressed 3 times already? The original file that Laforet encoded was 365 MBs, but it's not available to download. The one you are analyzing is Smugsmug's or Vimeo's 2 mbps re-encoding, which of course will make everything look like a... smug.

Also, I would suggest you stop being such huge negatives. Sure, your RED ONE is great. And this is a RED forum. But your RED ONE cost you about $20,000 overall. The 7D, 5D and 1D cost between $2,000 and $5000. So for what you get for that price, *it is* good, and denying it, will only make you look like jerks to the new people who come here and read the RED forums.

Also, it will be nice to not take other people for idiots. Saying things like "oh my god, look at this frame, I will never buy Canon", is like you are saying that the thousands of people who buy these cameras are idiots. They aren't idiots. There is a value on these products, and that's why they sell. They don't sell because Canon brainwashed these people, they sell because:
1. They have good-enough specs for the price.
2. The sample footage looks great compared to what their camcorder can do.
3. They're cheap for what they do. Again, comparatively to the past and other products at the same price range.
4. They don't want to have both a digicam and a camcorder with them. Convergence.

What I am saying here, is that I came to this thread via a link from another site, only to read this trolling over here against Canon, for no good reason really. It makes my heart break seeing filmmakers taking down other products like this, and trying to find weak spots of the competitive product just so they can unleash these "oh my god" comments.

The point of the matter is: no matter what you say over here, no matter how negative you choose to be against Canon (or Sony, or Panasonic), the point is that there is value in these products, and that's why they sell as much as they do (or not as much). If a product truly sucked, it wouldn't sell. It's as simple as that. But Canon's products do sell, which means that they do things right. Even if they can't compete with your ultra-dupa RED ONE, they can compete with the cameras in their own price range that are available today. And THAT'S what matters for both the manufacturer, and the consumer.

There are some people who bash other cameras by Sony, Canon, etc, as a kneejerk reaction here, because they are Red fanboys. But they are a small minority. That type of criticism is not legitimate, and definitely gives the forum a bad name, I agree.

But I think most of us are skeptical about these Canon at this point because of the ridiculous aliasing problems and shabby so-called "1080p" resolution.

Eugenia how many times have you hiked a 5D2 up a five mile trail to get a sunset shot of a lake, only to have all of your footage ruined by horrendous aliasing that cannot be fixed in post? Do that a couple of times and you will be right here with us, analyzing and pixel-peeping frames and bitching about sensor downsampling methods. :seeya:

Anyway, I give you credit for speaking your mind, but believe me, there are plenty of level-headed people here. Don't write the forum off as "haters" so easily, because it's simply not true.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

Amazing. So you guys now analyzing grabs from a *just* 2 mbps 1080p file that was compressed 3 times already? The original file that Laforet encoded was 365 MBs, ...

original uncompressed file is 2.32 GB :001_rolleyes: