On 5/21/2010 4:18 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> A Frankenmonster!
>
> Let's count the items which are required because Canon failed to provide
> minimum-equipment capabilities?
>
> Failure to support SMPTE time-code is probably the biggest failing and you
> thought the eye-viewing thingamabob was bad.
>
> Here's the problem: Canon brings out a woefully inadequate video recording
> device that has only one thing going for it--extremely good video quality at
> a dirt-cheep price. But the camera is a disaster on so many levels as to be
> almost laughable.
>
> But people are buying and using them in-spite of the horrid aspects of the
> camera.
>
This time, I don't even know enough about serious video to disagree, and
might not if I did. I would like, however to provide an alternate viewpoint.
1. It's a still camera, sized and priced like its non-video predecessor.
It's way cheaper than pro video equipment. The HD video is almost a freebie!
2. Obviously, nobody, including Canon, had enough certainty about the
sales potential of video using a full frame 35mm sensor or the cojones
to take the plunge into spending the money to design, build and market a
fully professional beast of that sort. For some potential makers, that
could be a "you bet the company and lost" proposition.(Would risk/return
bean counter AG take that kind of a risk?)
3. Canon, not somebody else, found a way to test the waters without
taking a huge financial risk.
4. The actual capture video part apparently works very well.
> Therefore, Canon can assume that they don't have to put in REAL capabilities,
> like XLR audio inputs, time-code, a real viewfinder or twist-n-shout LCD
> display and wired remote for full camera operation. There are a dozen other
> issues with this camera too! But it doesn't matter, because WE are buying
> them regardless.
>
4. Many people (If I hadn't bought an RV to carry me and my old 5D I,
probably including me.) are buying them either because it's a great
still camera at a good price even if they never use the video.
5. Other people are buying them for pro video because it does something
NOTHING else will do, and that they want; buying it for what it has, not
its shortcomings.
> Therefore, don't expect Canon to improve things, because they know they don't
> need to. They'll sell a million units whether it has time-code support or not.
>
6. Canon has, singlehandedly, changed the whole game of video. Through
the backdoor? On the cheap, with low risk of loss? Sure. But still, they
are the game changer, not Nikon, not Sony, not Olympus, not Pentax, not
Panasonic .... Commercial production video will not be the same after
this. HD television shows will often look different, taking advantage of
this opening.
> Until, somebody else does.
>
7. Sure, it's a whole new market. Whether Canon chooses to play or
not, or plays successfully, somebody(s) will step up to deliver the
equipment you describe. But whoever it is, everybody will have Canon to
thank for opening the door to new possibilities.
I know you think they are a bunch of idiots. Maybe they are. Still, they
started what no other bunch of idiots or smart people did.
Credit Where Credit Is Due 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/
|