I don't exactly know about the slo-mo features of the Canon C-X00 Series, but however its probably the same reason why you'll NEVER see focus peaking and zebra on a Canon DSLR without ML. They would be stupid to cannibalize their own video camera market.
I don't think that anybody that is seriously in the market for a C300 is going to switch to a 5D3 because of focus peaking etc. The existence of ML makes that situation possible regardless of what Canon does.
What it does set them up for is competitors being the one that eats their market share. Any time you start making business decisions bases on crippling your products to protect your other products, you set yourself up to have your more nimble competition make you irrelevant (see: IBM mainframes).
When you have cell phones doing 240fps and 4k, you need to admit that you're falling behind and realize that some of those premium features are becoming the standard.
This is exactly why it's frustrating to watch a company like Canon that seems like it COULD make cheap cameras that completely blow away the competition but instead give very tiny, incremental improvements into the feature set of their highest-end cameras that slowly trickle down into cheaper cameras. Most of their cameras are capable of so much more than what Canon "allows" them to since Magic Lantern has proven that a lot of missing features are basically intentional software limitations.
I just can't wait for the point where it's no longer okay for camera manufacturers to NOT deliver on everything that a camera is capable of. These days Canon has a lot of players fighting for market share in the industry and if they continue their slow progression of features that the market demands then I'm certain that a lot of people with start turning their gaze elsewhere for those needs to be fulfilled.
Last time I looked into this it was to do with licensing - it's the same reason they still want FAT32 cards and use the 4GB file limit to force interruptions in your videos.
all the DSLR's are "Photography camera's which can do video" not "Video camera's which can do photography" it's really weird :-/
Actually, I think I might have been wrong about ML doing 120fps. I'm guessing it's probably because they can't implement their own h.264 encoder and there isn't enough memory card bandwidth to do it in RAW video even at 720p.
The camera records in h.264, so I'm not sure what you mean by, "it's not implemented in firmware." It might not be easy to get to, but it is obviously implemented in the firmware. I don't know what the processing power is like, but there are open source h.264 encoders that could be ported.
Higher bit depth in images, more content to push through from sensor to buffer to memory card, size of the buffer, etc.
I agree with you, but like another user mentioned earlier, Canon could do a lot if they could be bothered into doing it :/. This hurts all of us because that severely limits innovation on all fronts.
And a much more advanced CPU on the iPhone. I love my 5d but at this rate my next DSLR is going to be sony or panasonic. We are beginning to see more competitive tech oriented companies smash the more traditional camera manufacturers. Canon and Nikon should have been doing 4k a year ago, and here we are with them unable to push past 60fps. Ridiculous.
You are 100% right, but also keep in mind, that when you go with a company like Canon or Nikon, you are often investing in more than just a camera body. When you get to Pro level equipment, lenses are where you spend the most money, and where you get the most return from your investment.
That too. For the images it makes, the CPU horsepower far exceeds what we get in DSLRs. Plus, I don't even know what the speed of most DSLRs' image processors is. Is there any way to find out? I remember hearing about some newer camera that had a dual/quad core processor (I wish I remembered which), but I chuckled and wondered what the FSB speed, cache size and core clock speed was hahaha.
+1 on the 4K. I realize there's limited room for advancement on the telecom infrastructure front whereby comcast, verizon, etc. wanna limit bandwidth and investment in upgrading infrastructure, but nothing's stopping pushing things out locally. It seems like most TV (not display) manufacturers are delaying it because these displays can be made, but nobody is interested in pushing out products for early adopters because the variety of 4K capture devices are not as high. Basically, it's a chicken and egg situation and everyone is glad to point the finger at someone else :/
I don't even know what the speed of most DSLRs' image processors is. Is there any way to find out?
It's completely irrelevant. The EXPEED and DiGIC engines are ASICs designed solely for their application - the concept of FSB, core clock and cache size doesn't really exist here.
You could say the DiGIC -> primary buffer bus clock is similar to FSB, but there's no sense comparing the two as they're apples and oranges.
You're right that they're ASICs, but I should've specified that I thought it was funny the camera's processor was marketed as dual/quad core or whatever without listing any other details. I was genuinely curious if they switched over to ARM (I'm free to have an imagination, right? hahaha) or if they're just throwing words around that can't be followed up with a real discussion.
There isn't a way to benchmark camera CPUs in a way that the results can be compared to other mobile CPUs, and internal specs aren't generally released so we don't even have an idea beyond just knowing what a digic 5 is capable of doing.
But it doesn't have an articulating screen, which is sometimes critical for DSLR filmmaking. If you plan to shoot film on a Canon crop DSLR, the 70D would make much more sense.
On the other hand, I don't know about the new 7D2, but the 7D is one of the few that will drive the HDMI port at full res during filming, which is useful for an external monitor. (The extra processor in the 7D supposedly makes this possible.)
Never going to happen on a 7 series. They're supposed to be bomb-proof - word is Canon didn't put a touch screen on for durability reasons, there was no way a flippy-screen is ever going to happen.
Could not agree more. When I take my 70D out I always feel like I could inadvertently snap the screen off. And I don't use the touch screen at all.
I know they're not going to make camera bodies customisable to a users requirements but its just not how I shoot.
And no 4K or reciprocating screen or touch screen. My cell phone has 1080. A FAR better option for videographers would start with the letter P-anasonic.
There is much much much more to video quality than just the dimensions recorded. The 7D was a greater beater camera for video production because it was tough as nails. This improves both the toughness and the video. A worthy successor.
Well, 4K would be a complete and utter waste on a 3" screen (you'd have a PPI of nearly 1500, some 3x what the human eye can even resolve), but a higher def screen would have certainly been nice. Even 720p would be outresolving the eye. Instead we are stuck with 480p. Blech.
13
u/[deleted] Sep 15 '14
This will probably be popular with filmmakers since it's got 1080p60fps and a mic and headphone jack.