Oh, I'd forgotten about this duel of rants. Probably just as well. :-)
Anyway, this caught my eye.
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10062101panasonicafaf100.asp> Looks
like it has at least some of the pro video stuff you want. How the
actual imaging will be we won't know for a while.
On 5/22/2010 5:18 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Whew, all is well with the world again! I was beginning to wonder. :)
>
> Moose, where you are actually quite wrong is in my predisposition against all
> things Canon. It's actually quite the opposite. I've ranted against Canon
> through the years quite strongly, but maybe you've missed the memo about my
> ranting against Olympus.
You've misread and/or misunderstood me. I have been listening to your
posts and have been very aware of the shift.
> Just a case in point, I may have purchased my last Olympus product. ...
>
> Canon is #1 in the industry for many good reasons. But success is fleeting.
> Kodak was #1 for decades. Where is Fuji? Wasn't Fuji the other powerhouse?
> For a few years Nikon lost their way. Wait a second, wasn't the gang at
> Nikon the smartest kids in the room?
>
Sure, but what does that have to do with the moment and the particular
camera you complained about?
> What you are doing, is attempting to put me in my place because I don't know
> squat about the industry and have no intention of buying a Canon anyway so
> therefore I should keep my mouth shut and not comment on anything Canon.
>
Nope. My point, which I've tried to make a couple of times, is that the
5DII is not intentionally NOT designed or priced as a pro video camera.
It's an excellent FF DSLR still camera with a bonus of pretty good
video. To complain that a Jeep Wrangler rides rough and has no cargo
space is to miss the point.
To put it another way. If Canon had included everything you asked for in
the 5DII, they wouldn't have sold very many to folks like me. What still
photographer wants to pay for and carry around an expensive, heavy,
awkward camera with a bunch of stuff that they don't need?
That so many folks are using the 5DII (and , it turns out, the 7D) for
pro HD video, shouldn't, to me, indict Canon for making the camera(s)
they did, nor the folks using them for doing so. It means that
everybody, including Canon, missed identifying an important market.
The other thing I was trying to say is that I suspect the 5DII video was
not a silly mistake, neither fish nor fowl. I'm guessing that somebody
clever at Canon figured out a way to test the market for FF video for
WAY less money and risk than designing and making a "real" FF pro video
camera. If nobody picks up the 5DII for pro video, no loss. If folks do,
they already have a technical leg up to enter the market if they judge
it to be worth it.
> First of all, .... I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
> Secondly, the things I particularly commented on ARE LEGITIMATE GRIPES about
> the 5Dmk2 in the way it is being used.
I have a neighbor who uses old convertibles for delivering newspapers.
They we're not designed for that. He has modified them for the task.
That doesn't mean that the original design was flawed. So to me, griping
at Canon for design flaws is pointless, as is griping at those fools for
using it for something other than what it was designed for.
A need and a product intended for something else happen to have made an
awkward marriage. I just can't see where there is any blame to be laid.
Had you couched your original rant as simply a list of what the 5DII or
some other future camera would need in order to be fully capable as a
pro video camera, we wouldn't have had this conversation.
> What you fail to recognize is that in one of my past product management roles
> I dealt with video and audio production and post-production. Just maybe I DO
> know something about that industry.
>
That's just not my point. I've already admitted to your vastly superior
knowledge in that area. It just doesn't matter to my point. See above.
> ...
>
> So, your insistence that Canon is not even a remote chance of entering my
> camera bag is a bogus claim and I refute it strongly.
Don't waste your time, but if you were to read my posts on the subject,
they have not said anything like that for ages, since you announced your
changing opinions and shocked the world by saying a Canon just might be
in your future.
> ...
>
> Canon does listen to their customers once in a while. They still have the
> "Ivory Tower" mentality (which you seem to think is OK for Canon to have),
> but once in a while do incorporate what we (the photographers) are asking for.
Damn, I guess I'm still not really a photographer. Oh well, at least I'm
having fun.
That's a good thing for me, though, as the 5D when it came out was as
close to the ideal next camera for me as I could imagine finding in the
marketplace. Live view and improved high ISO would be nice, but if you
look back, that wasn't possible at the time, at least not at the size
and a price point I could afford.
> The non-1D(s) series of cameras weren't weather-sealed and Canon had no
> intention of putting it into the cameras until Nikon's D300/D700 had it.
>
I am less the cynic than you. You may be right - or maybe they couldn't
figure out how to do it at the price point at the time. Remember, Oly
didn't set out to fail in the film AF market, they just weren't capable
of making it work as well as others, let alone make it reliable.
> Autofocus was/is problematic ... Mirror-lockup? Well, not everything is
> improved on, but you get the idea. Instead of listening to the customers as
> to what was really needed, they put a "Got Print?" button on the camera.
> Olympus, thought "WOW, WHAT A GREAT IDEA" and put one of those worthless
> buttons on their cameras too.
>
Yeah, I don't get the MLU thing, either. It doesn't bother me, as my
custom profile has it on and it's virtually he only custom function I
ever use. Since the CF menu opens up at the last function changed, it's
pretty quick to change.
I can see how it must bug some folks. I rather suspect it's an
intentional thing, that market research showed that putting such a
button on their mass market cameras just led to many users complaining
that "... it won't take pictures, I push the button and the viewfinder
just goes blank." Still, it would make sense on the single digit
cameras, I think. Perhaps as a two button press that's unlikely by accident.
> Sony and Nikon are both siphoning off ...
>
Not my issue. I don't care. You seem to have the idea that I'm a Canon
booster/fan. I really don't have a Canon "thing". I bought into Canon
after exhaustive research. I still think I made the best choice - for
me. At the moment, I'm unlikely to switch for any minor differences, but
only for economic reasons. I've built up some Canon specific lens
inventory. If I didn't have that, and were buying a DSLR today, I might
well end up with a Nikon or Sony (Better high ISO vs. in body IS - ???)
I had two successive Fuji compacts, because I found them to best meet my
needs. Now I've had a couple of Canons, but not because of the name
plate, because research showed them to best meet my needs. Again,
experience seems to have borne that out.
> [Natter, natter on the same "It's a crappy video camera thing." Still not the
> point I was talking about]... Even Michael Richtmann launches out against the
> thing! (and yes, I've softened on MR
> quite a bit over the past couple of years).
EEEK! Is the world ending?
> [more of the same points]. At this moment, the GH1 is the closest thing for
> what I need and it is still
> lacking.
>
> But, think about this for a moment: Canon builds a tub of a video camera and
> amazingly it is selling successfully beyond their wildess dreams. If people
> are buying the camera and using it for film/video production in spite of
> lacking critical features that cost money to implement, what onus do they
> have to actually put them into the next model?
As I said above, not a leg to stand on to complain from. It wasn't made
for them. That it meets an unmet need better than any alternative says
more about the video manufacturers (including Canon) than Canon's still
camera operation.
> Honestly, if I was a product manager trying to balance the unit costs with
> features, I'd say that as long
> as the competition isn't putting them in, I won't either.
>
Here, I differ with you, not as a matter of technology or marketing, but
as one of risk/reward. Engineering and setting up to produce a whole new
pro video camera is a very expensive thing to do. Sure, they have the
sensor technology apparently close to ready. And they have lots of video
camera experience, but marrying the two in a new body will still be
expensive.
I know, I know, "everybody's" champing at the bit to get something like
that. But to a manufacturer, everybody may or may not make a market
large enough to at least avoid losing money, let alone make sufficient ROI.
I don't pretend to know the specifics, but I do know that the pro video
market is much smaller than the DSLR markets.
> And that means that we now have to look to Sony and Panasonic. Those two are
> the big dogs in video and are not looking too kindly upon the interloper,
> Canon, impinging on their market. Never have, never will.
I started with Panny's announcement. Based on some of the
characteristics of the Panny 4/3 sensors for still cameras, I do wonder
if it will measure up in IQ. Let's face it, that's the problem with the
5DII. The images are too good to ignore. That's why people are putting
up with the other shortcomings.
I still have the last House on the DVR. The IQ and FF DOF possibilities
really do make a difference.
> If both of those companies get their product act together, the days of the
> 5Dmk2 as a film/video tool are numbered.
>
Cool! Then they will go back in their own sandbox, leave us regular
folks alone and maybe prices will go down for us.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|