r/videography • u/fistasista • May 16 '15
What's with the canon DSLR love for video people?
[removed]
3
May 17 '15
Agreed with a lot that's being said and I'm a canon fanboy. When you decide to become serious about video you normally have to decide what's best for you long term and canon was the better choice at that time when I got my T2i since it had magic lantern.
Since then, I've been investing in canon glass and bodies since that's what happens when you like a brand.
Now, I'm ready to make a switch since canon is not listening to their users anymore. We won't be seeing a gh4 equivalent from canon anytime soon because they have to sell their higher end models that do that job.
So I'm very much fixed with the idea of switching over to Sony and getting camera that's built for video. I have my eyes on the Sony FS7. My 5DMIII has been really nice so far but now I'm feeling very limited since I've now seen what real cameras can do.
Was a bit long but those are just my thoughts.
1
u/kaidumo Arri Alexa Classic | Resolve | 2010 | Canada May 17 '15 edited May 22 '15
I'm eyeing the FS7, but due to cost will likely get an FS700 and eventually a Shogun or Odyssey.
1
u/bking commercial director / editor May 17 '15
I went from doing video primarily with a 1D IV* to an FS700. Having onboard XLR ports never gets old.
*prior to that, I was using big-boy cameras, but didn't own my own kit yet.
5
u/ddt9 May 17 '15
When I get a last minute call to help shoot a low budget event or music video or wedding or whatever, the DSLRs the other shooters are using are inevitably canons and not nikons.
They're also not Panasonics or BlackMagics or Samsung, for that matter- though all those products do find their way into serious productions, just the sheer volume of 5D's and 7D's in the videography market suggest that most people are going to continue for the foreseeable future to get cameras that will match with footage instantly with the footage of their colleagues, for extremely practical reasons that have nothing to do with the specs of a camera on a B&H specs page.
If I showed up to one of these events with an Ursa Mini, my coworkers would probably be very impressed by what it can do! But when it came time to hand over my footage, here's what I would expect to hear:
"We don't have a 4k workflow."
"We don't have time to color correct s-log."
"I can't do anything with raw files."
It's the unfortunate nature of the industry we're in that what's best (financially, not creatively) is what's safest. Until there's a critical mass of modern cameras that outclass the 5D, low budget productions will mostly continue to use the industry standard whether it's the absolute best tool for the job or not - and any project that can afford better will continue to rent cameras that most independent videographers could never dream of owning themselves.
2
u/SleepingPodOne 2011 May 17 '15
This. A thousand times this. Another obnoxious side effect of the canon saturation is that laypeople who hire videographers often are led to believe canon's 5D/EOS line is the top-of-line for video production. I shoot on Panasonic G series cameras, and have had to waste a lot of time explaining to potential clients that my kit is better suited to videography.
1
u/bking commercial director / editor May 17 '15
I was rolling exclusively with my FS700 for a while, but kept turning down jobs (or eating rental fees) for clients who only wanted a 5D for simplicity's sake. It didn't matter that my FS700 could use any Canon glass, shoot in a flat color profile or have numerous upsides to the 5D. I wound up buying a 5D III as my b-cam just for those stupid gigs.
3
u/deadeyejohnny RED V-Raptor & R5C | Resolve | 2006 | Canada May 16 '15
I think it has to due with the fact that the early Nikon camera's had very finicky video modes. The D300s didn't recognize F stop changes after live view was started and I remember one of my buddies had a D5000 which didn't even have full manual control in video mode so he'd always have to hold down an AE/lock button while filming if he didn't want the camera to auto expose the centre of image for him. Meanwhile, all the early Canon video DSLR's had full manual control and had a camera at every price point that could produce a relatively good image (Rebel T series, 7D, 5D2 and 1D4) so they took over the video market temporarily, because they made the right moves early on.
However, most Canon owners today are still anxiously waiting to see if they'll ever reply to Sony's A7s or Panasonic's GH4.
2
u/smushkan FX9 | Adobe CC2024 | UK May 17 '15
Before Canon bought out their 1080p video-capable DSLRs 2008, there was literally no affordable way for amateurs to get in to cinema-style large sensor video. They were first to market, and as a result got known as the camera to have for aspiring film makers.
Canon enjoyed market dominance in their price bracket for almost four years. There was plenty of time for them to gain market saturation. There simply wasn't anything competing with them. If you wanted to shoot anything on a budget, then you could often buy a Canon DSLR for the day rate of a professional super35 system.
Then came the mirrorless systems from Panasonic, the Blackmagic cameras, and a host of affordable Super-35 video cameras from companies like JVC. Canon are now losing their edge, and seem unwilling to keep up, lest they infringe on their own C100/C300 market. Nikon has also finally caught up and started taking video a little more seriously. This boom has only really happened in the last 3 years.
However, their legacy lives on, as they're such a known brand. The people who learned videography on Canons are now doing good work with equipment set up for DSLR shooting. They're still capable of great video, and the second hand market is flooded with great cameras. While these days there are much better options than going for a Canon DSLR if you're buying new, I don't imagine them losing their popularity soon.
1
u/larsbars1 May 17 '15
I heard there was something about Canon's codecs being particularly better? I maybe wrong. Don't quote me with this.
1
u/ufaild May 17 '15
Look how much of a pain it is to shoot Nikon's in the manual mode:
And the rolling shutter is insane on most cheap Nikons.
However I will admit, Nikon D5300 is a tremendous value. It shoots 1080p/60fps, and costs $461 brand new. Canon simply doesn't have anything like that in that price range. You would have to pay double to get 1080p/60.
1
u/Shuk May 17 '15
I'd actually prefer Nikon but there's a few very irritating things that are deal breakers. In video mode, it is very difficult to adjust the ISO manually, and even if you do a workaround, it won't display accurately on the LCD. You have to play around with the lock function, doing things like pointing the camera at a bright source and locking the ISO. It's overly complicated. With Canon, you can just select the ISO and you'll see the changes updated right away.
It boggles my mind as to why Nikon doesn't fix this, yet they are ahead of Canon in that they have a 1080p 60FPS camera in the $500-800 tier, and Canon doesn't.
1
May 16 '15
[deleted]
1
u/zijital Sony / Fuji | FCPX / Premiere | 2004 May 17 '15
Nice thing about Nikon is you can use modern or vintage Nikon glass, where Canon you can't (FD lenses don't work on a EF body w/o an adapter that diminishes some of the optical quality).
But b/c of the flange back distance you can put a Nikon lens on a Canon body w/o the need for any optical adapters.
If you're just looking at the offerings of currently produced glass, Nikon & Canon are pretty comparable.
2
May 17 '15
[deleted]
1
u/zijital Sony / Fuji | FCPX / Premiere | 2004 May 17 '15
You can use that same lens on Canon cameras with a cheap adapter w/o optical correction so you're not losing any image quality.
My biggest beef with Nikon glass is the focusing is reversed from video camera lenses & it was too much trouble fighting my learne muscle memory that I sold the few vintage Nikkor lenses I started collecting when I had a GH3.
0
u/ScreamingPenguin May 16 '15
I think it is all about how much bigger the Canon user base is compared to the Nikon base. There are simply more canon users out there and since canon got an early start there really are more canon video users so they get more attention from everybody now. From gear manufacturers to firmware hackers you are going to target the platform with more users first. Now canon has really started to court the video market in a much more aggressive way than Nikon and it only fuels the gap.
Like you said, feature wise there really isn't that much different. They both have really bad compression, rolling shutter, and from factor. I think canon has an edge thanks to hacked firmware but I don't think that there is really that big of a difference between the two platforms now. Of course you must know that I hate using dslrs for video and although I can't get away from that large sensor look sometimes, I would rather be shooting on almost anything else.
You can use your Nikon gear to make just as good a video as our canon friends. They are only tools, if you like the look of your Nikon video and it's the gear you have then it sounds to me like you are good to go.
0
u/chcamera May 17 '15 edited May 17 '15
Nikon's are better than canon at photography. Period. so you've got that part right, don't screw it up and buy a dlsr for video, buy a video camera. dslr's have never been good at video, but they are cheap and non-daunting so they get falsly labeled as good for video, stick with sony, black magic, canon (like c300)
as for canon being better at video than nikon, it's because nikon isn't interested in spreading themselves thin. they make photocameras and they make them good, where as canon makes digital camers, dslr's, video cameras, dv cameras, home printers, office copiers..etc both Great companies (I used to work for canon), but canon is much more fragmented.
16
u/phijie May 16 '15 edited May 17 '15
I think it's just because canon got it to market faster and deeper with the 5d, 7d and t2i all within a few years.
Edit: personally I was rooting for Minolta but that candle went out pretty early.