# Why I Switched from Sony to Canon by Armando Ferreira



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 3, 2017)

```
<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/et3T6PQ2YLk" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Professional Armando Ferreira has done a video explaining why he switched from the Sony A7S II to the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV for video.</p>
<p>Canon seems to get hammered on the forums for a perceived “lack of innovation”, but here we have another professional that shoots mainly on Canon gear.</p>
<p><strong>A few of the reasons Armando moved to Canon.</strong></p>


<ul>
<li>Canon color</li>
<li>Dual Pixel AF</li>
<li>Menu system</li>
<li>The codec (Gah?!)</li>
<li>Native EF mount</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks Armando for sending this in and it’s nice to see some positive thoughts on Canon gear for video.</p>
<p><em>Full disclosure: I’m obviously a Canon fanboy, and I’m ok with that.</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Click (Dec 3, 2017)

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 3, 2017)

He makes the same points that others here make, the 5D MK IV is a very user friendly tool, you get excellent results, and the DPAF is a very good feature. I like the touch to focus and use it whenever I can. One of the big benefits is that the point I touch is exposure linked, so not only does the camera focus at the point I touch, but exposure is adjusted for that point as well.


----------



## Talys (Dec 3, 2017)

Cool video!

A decade plus ago, I switched from Nikon to Canon because of the colors, too. He hits most of the stuff that I care about -- menus, glass, battery life, universal nature of LP6 battery, dual pixel, how it's just easier and faster to get from what you shoot to a finished product, etc.

Interesting what he said about 4k video and clog, not that I'll ever care about video.


----------



## RGF (Dec 3, 2017)

finally a discussion of the end result (the image, the video) versus all the technical specs.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 3, 2017)

Talys said:


> Cool video!
> Interesting what he said about 4k video and clog, not that I'll ever care about video.


Everything he said is about video, if you don't care about video then what he said should not mean anything to you.

I would be more careful when someone says this is why I moved from this to this, whether it is from Canon to Sony, or Sony to Nikon or whatever. They say it because of what they use the gear for. If you take that as a guidance of which camera is better then you may end up eating false info, unless you shoot exactly what they do. 
He wouldn't praise the Canon codec if he needs 60fps 4K.
I praise it because I use JPG frame grab, while my friend hates it because he has to buy expensive CFAST; you cannot even export the damn thing through HDMI.


----------



## horshack (Dec 3, 2017)

Sony hasn't added PDAF to their A7s line yet - it's expected in the next iteration, probably announced in a few months at NAB. Here's how it compares to Canon's dual pixel AF:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_6HRmxKa9g


----------



## woodman411 (Dec 3, 2017)

Another example of a pro who went from Sony to Canon: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59526785

OP is Sung Park at sungparkphotography.com


----------



## Woody (Dec 3, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> A few of the reasons Armando moved to Canon.
> 
> Canon color
> Dual Pixel AF
> ...



I have been hammering Sony for their awful menu system. Sony fans claim I have not used Sony cameras extensively. Glad I am not the only one who thinks Sony's menu system totally s***s (same goes for their ergonomics).


----------



## Woody (Dec 3, 2017)

horshack said:


> Sony hasn't added PDAF to their A7s line yet - it's expected in the next iteration, probably announced in a few months at NAB.



Ain't no matter. Without touchscreens, it does not matter how well Sony's PDAF works in the A7S line.


----------



## horshack (Dec 3, 2017)

Woody said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > Sony hasn't added PDAF to their A7s line yet - it's expected in the next iteration, probably announced in a few months at NAB.
> ...



Why wouldn't Sony add a touchscreen to the next A7s? They've added it in every other of their MILC model refreshes.


----------



## leGreve (Dec 3, 2017)

Can someone help me.... who is he? And where can I see some of his "real" work that isn't just videos on gadgets on YT?

Is he one of those Peter McKinnon / "Travel Feels" types?

I mean people who are giving advice based on... well... nothing.... 

I don't see Robert Richardson or Roger Deakins making youtube videos, but at least those guys have some experience.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 4, 2017)

The video is pointless, he's preaching to the wrong group. None of the Sony fanboys will give two hoots about what he says. He's the equivalent of the one climate denying scientist to them. Canon's entered a point where the media aren't even listening anymore, nothing they do is really good enough now. They had better hope their mirrorless camera is brilliant or the trash we get now against them will be nothing to compared to what will happen if it's another feature lite, ho hum offering.


----------



## slclick (Dec 4, 2017)

After using Oly for a while, Menus are HUUUUUGE. Thank you Canon for having the best menus.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 4, 2017)

If you need 4k, this isn't even a topic (5D4's 4k is cropped). If you need to shoot in LOG, SLog is slightly better for color correction than 5D4's CLog, simply because 5D4's sensor isn't the same ones used in the C-series cameras.

I would pick the 5D4 for photo over the a7s2 any day, but I also would use the a7s2 for video over the 5D4 any day based on my own needs.


----------



## Talys (Dec 4, 2017)

Besisika said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Cool video!
> ...



It's simply untrue that everything "Everything he said is about video, if you don't care about video then what he said should not mean anything to you."

1. Preference for Canon colors science applies to photography as it does for video.
2. LPE6 batteries and battery life apply to photography equally
3. Native EF Mount preference
4. Menu system
5. Dual Pixel AF is awesome for video, but it is ALSO great in live view photography.

For me, #1-4 are very important reasons to prefer Canon. #5 is not a huge deal, only because I tend to AF through the viewfinder, mostly; however, DPAF is a superior live view autofocus system to competitors' implementations, in my opinion.

Personally, I would also add build quality, ergonomics, and unparalleled availability of third party accessories, that range from very cheap to super-premium. The last one is actually pretty important to me - it's like, one reason to buy a Samsung Galaxy or Apple iPhone is an ecosystem of accessories that aren't available if you buy a Huawei or Acer.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 4, 2017)

No question Canon makes great products. That’s why we push for them to have better video. Canon 5DIVs are suitable for his level of production and workflow but the video features don’t measure up for most professionals. 4K crop, no 4K out, no 4K/60p or 1080/120p etc. We can only hope that the Canon FF mirrorless and next generation of DSLRs can improve upon this so they can once again hold the torch for hybrid hybrid video / photo shooters.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 4, 2017)

Good video. Thanks for sharing. I also thought this comparison of the 5D4 to A7R2 was fair. 
https://youtu.be/_8SouvgDqJ0


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 4, 2017)

dash2k8 said:


> If you need 4k,



That is my biggest question in these discussions - how many need 4K and how many want it because it is the new cool tech?
From what I see customers don't give a damn if something is 4k or high-res 1080. And watching in youtube who can see the difference? Given most pros use 1080 for things like films and documentaries and no-one watches those and whines about lack of detail. This looks to me like a guy who knows what is good enough and what customers will accept.
Yes, some people need it but 'most'......m'eh.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > If you need 4k,
> ...



Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology. 

Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K. 

Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > If you need 4k,
> ...


The answer is simple, you need a 4K camera and not necessarily 4K footage. Two totally different things.
Look at behind the scene of your favorite directors for the past year or two and tell me any that doesn't use an external recorder, unless using a big camera?
Canon 1080P footage are soft (don't get me wrong - I am a Canon fan), while 1080P on an Atomos via HDMI is really fantastic. C100 and C100 II are built that way; these are 4K camera but record in 1080P, bypassing the need for an external recorder. That's why they are so popular; you have everything you need in one body.
On the other hand a 5D III output to the same Atomos delivers the same poor result as internal recording.
When I first got my 1DX II, I did enough test under different conditions to convince myself for the need to rig a Ninja plus 2-3 big Sony batteries around.

Additionally, sometimes you record in 4K so that you can stabilize, zoom in or pan/tilt in post, but your result is still 1080P.

It is not exactly, but similar to shooting photos in raw but publishing in JPG. Why don't you shoot straight in JPG? Why not buy a camera that shoot only in JPG and no raw? You know the answer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > dash2k8 said:
> ...



Sigh, that’s the same old come back. It doesn’t matter how cheap the TV set or proliferation of capable cameras, what matters is the capacity to deliver to a wide enough audience to finance the billions of dolars needed for delivery infrastructure mprovements.

Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.

So bloggers make 4K, who can watch it?
So shoot 4K to crop, correct, downsample, why not shoot 2.5 or 3k to do that?
A cropped FF sensor at 4K is still giving a larger sensor area than most crop sensor 4K capable cameras, why do people miss this?
On a vertical based system, video, why did we go from vertical measurements (720, 1080) to horizontal ones (4K, 8k)?


----------



## Etienne (Dec 4, 2017)

The video makes excellent points, and great points in the comments here as well.

I sold my 5D3 two months ago and decided not to get the 5D4. The 5D4 is expensive but I would have bought it if it had a swivel screen and an additional more compressed 4K codec. They may seem like small things to some people, but they are huge to me. I am often operating 2 or 3 cameras at the same time and need to see the screens quickly.

I also love the DPAF, so I bought three new Canons: T7i, 77D, and M6 ... mostly because of DPAF and my Canon glass. For 1080p to Youtube these cameras do a good job, they are easy to use, DPAF eliminates most of my focus anxiety, and the footage needs very little color correcting. 

But I'll probably still go with the Sony A7s III when it comes out, or A7rIII if it takes too long, because they are lighter than the 5D4, at least have a flip screen, and offer decent 4K options. But a Canon 5D with a full swivel screen would probably have won out for me ... the swivel IS that important.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 4, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.
> 
> Not to mention you fundamentally don’t understand how 4K is used in web video. Much of 4K is used to recrop / reframe and for extra resolution for a 1080p finish. That nice, crisp 1080p video you like? Shot in 4K.
> 
> Thankfully, now with the vlog-crowd starting to use 4K on the GH5 and assorted Sonys, it will only be a matter of time before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup. And then we can put this to bed.



Maybe if they used their cameras like proper professionals they would not need to rely on cropping and such like. ;D ;D ;D




> ...before Canon is forced to include more competitive 4K in its stills lineup.



My 5D4 already shoots 4k stills ;D :


----------



## Woody (Dec 4, 2017)

Etienne said:


> But a Canon 5D with a full swivel screen would probably have won out for me ... the swivel IS that important.



The 6D Mark II has a fully articulate screen. :


----------



## horshack (Dec 4, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.



4K streaming requires 15-25 Mbps/sec. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband Progress Report, 37% of Americans have active broadband internet connections of 25Mbps or more. Here's the breakdown by state - states with an asterisk do not report the information:

Alabama 25%
Alaska 3%
Arizona 45%
Arkansas 24%
California 43%
Colorado 52%
Connecticut 43%
Delaware *
District of Columbia *
Florida 37%
Georgia 35%
Hawaii *
Idaho 25%
Illinois 40%
Indiana 30%
Iowa 6%
Kansas 26%
Kentucky 8%
Louisiana 36%
Maine 13%
Maryland 59%
Massachusetts 68%
Michigan 40%
Minnesota 42%
Mississippi 26%
Missouri 27%
Montana *
Nebraska 34%
Nevada *
New Hampshire 56%
New Jersey 58%
New Mexico 30%
New York 39%
North Carolina 16%
North Dakota 45%
Ohio 11%
Oklahoma 34%
Oregon 49%
Pennsylvania 46%
Rhode Island *
South Carolina 23%
South Dakota 40%
Tennessee 40%
Texas 26%
Utah 41%
Vermont 51%
Virginia 53%
Washington 52%
West Virginia 46%
Wisconsin 24%
Wyoming 46%

Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 4, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Anybody can shoot 5K or 6K stills but really- who needs them? Most web images do not need to be of that quality. A tiny percentage of the population have internet service capable of delivering those stills or have the 5K displays capable of delivering them. Do you see how this works?  

Why not shoot 2.5K or 3K stills since you will only export it in 2K res and then view it on your non-4K or 5K display? It really doesn’t matter. Again- see how this works? 

And we didn’t change- vertical measurements are still used for 4K and UHD- such as 2160p, etc. Your anti-4K bias is showing.


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sigh...it’s the same old argument. Name brand OEM 4K TV’s are down to $400 or less this holiday season. We’re just talking about image quality and future proofing at this point with so many 4K TVs being sold. It’s embarrassing for Canon that so few of their cameras have this technology.
> ...



Funny stuff! Not that I agree, but funny


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2017)

horshack said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.
> ...



Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



I deliver full sized images all the time, after shooting RAW I optimize and deliver full size jpegs, my clients demand it. Typical file size is a few Mb which is easily handled even by modest internet speeds.

I’m not anti 4K, I have 4K 60fps capable cameras. I am realistic about the market penetration the delivery problem poses. I can deliver 4K video files to my clients, they can’t then get those files to their customers easily or reliably, it doesn’t matter what hosting they use, their clients simply can’t view it reliably.

We did change, 4K and 8k is a horizontal pixel count, 720, 1080 is a vertical pixel/line count.


----------



## horshack (Dec 4, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 4, 2017)

horshack said:


> Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.



So we should rely on your sample size of one? I stream 4K vlogs every day off YouTube.
[/quote]

So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 4, 2017)

How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size. 

But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.

Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 4, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> How many people do you know who can get 4K reliably? I know a couple. Sure I, and the people I know, are not a large sample size.
> 
> But I get 100Mbps and do not get reliable 4K delivery, which means your FCC figures are bullsh!t, 25Mbps service is not capable of reliable 4K delivery, heck my single sample proves 4 times that isn’t.
> 
> Find me one single individual on the planet who has 25Mbps service and gets 4K streamed reliably!



That's not entirely fair. I've delivered finished 4K content for local distribution within hotel elevator/guest suites and 4K content for live events, etc. It isn't strictly just about streaming formats. Granted, that's just one use case and won't apply to all, but not everyone is strictly delivering for streaming media. In regards to streaming media, local markets may also differ. In Toronto, I can get up to 90Mbps on LTE via Telus on my smartphone and 150Mbps at home and I'm not using our local ISP's highest tier either which goes up to 1000Mbps.

But beyond the discussion for 4K delivery, there are other creative advantages acquiring content in 4K for delivery in 2K as mentioned in this thread. Some of the higher end systems are multi-aspect and multi-format in excess of 4K in the case of Red's 8K Helium sensor and Sony's 6K Venice sensor. This allows maximum latitude in the acquisition process and subsequent editing suite when deciding your final aspect and delivery format.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 4, 2017)

Here in the UK I have Virgin Media (Liberty Media) 200Mbps service and averagely I can watch Netflix 4K content without issue. There are exceptions however if a number of my neighbours are equally watching the same content I can get drop outs but this in practise is rare. The real issue is the limited amount of content that is actually 4K all new Netflix Originals shows are but most old ones and most movies are definitely not 4K. 

As to Canon I'm a Canon fan but I do have frustrations such as when you mix shooting with the 5DS and the 6D MKII as I did yesterday different control layout and a d-pad rather than the joystick slow you down when fighting daylight & in a hurry I think all full frame cameras should have the same control layout the cost difference is really not an issue at that level (7D MKII and 6D MKII the latter is more expensive yet the 7D MKII has a joystick). I find that kind of hobbling irritating.


----------



## Talys (Dec 4, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > Those figures are utter bullsh!t. I have 100Mbps service, which pans out with speed testing software, I can’t stream 4K reliably from YouTube or Netflix, indeed auto play on YouTube normally defaults to 720 even when 1080, 1440 and 4K are available, I can play 4k sometimes, but not regularly or reliably, indeed I went back to non 4K Netflix subscription because of the limited programs available and the fact that I couldn’t watch them when I wanted to.
> ...



So you will know then how many people actually watch in 4K reliably but put up with any shortfall because of the content of the video. Or do they watch in 720 in 'autoplay'? or 1080? Do you know this for sure?
I doubt many of your viewers even understand the difference or would recognise the difference if they saw it.
[/quote]

It's less about 100Mbps as it is about sustained data rate and buffer size. Especially on cable modems, both advertised and benchmark speeds are a representation of burstable speeds rather than sustained speeds, and publically available benchmarks rarely tell you how bad your internet transfer speed can be over a 2 hour period (the length of a movie).

With cable, you are dealing with a decent pipe that is shared with a large potential number of users; the problem is that, especially at peak times, it's possible for your service to periodically drop below whatever data rate your streaming service needs, briefly.

This is less of an issue with fiber, though of course, congestion is still possible anywhere along the route.

It also depends greatly on your equipment and your ISP's: even with a gigantic pipe, if you're streaming Netflix, you can flood your network with legitimate traffic (like backing up a 6TB hard drive full of photography over the network. To prevent that, you need a QoS (quality of service) switch, which will ensure that certain routes get what they need. The easiest way to achieve that is to be watching 4k TV over your internet provider's TV service, because usually that uses bandwidth reserved for television. Otherwise, you need to set up a QoS channel on your router, if it's supported.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 4, 2017)

I have a 5D Mark IV and bought it for the stills first! and video second!...That being said I have no problems with the camera for the video use that I do use it for. I have seriously stopped worrying about the people out there saying canon should have made this the next best thing after the much applauded 5D mark II video beast! 

Frankly, don't care! If I want to shoot video I will either get a full blown video camera or deal with what comes out of my Mark IV! I am glad to see that some people have their priorities straight and they have embraced the camera for what it is. This is not to say it's perfect! it's not! it gets the job done! Plain and simple! Looking at the Sonys and Fujis out there and seeing the churn that they are causing in the market makes me sad as people are jumping on the "New hotness!" to make up for their lack of skill! Low cost throw away cameras is what I call them. 

I think we should all be on Canon to improve its photo game and push them to get back out ahead of the pack in innovation there. In the end, none of us are going to buy their cameras just for video alone. Give us tools with more features and YES! But remember we are photographers first! Simply put I would be happy to have 4K if I had better dynamic range out of my Mark IV Give stills cameras that and give the Cinema line something like 8K and that will draw a line in the sand! Canon gets to keep its Cinema line prices and we get our DSLR back to shooting at the top of the game again.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2017)

My dumb question for the day: If a professional is buying a camera to shoot video, why wouldn't he/she buy a video camera instead of a DSLR? Are there advantages to using that still camera for video that outweigh the advantages of a video camera?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 4, 2017)

The Sony 4k-lovers do People do seem to be missing the main point of the video. The video guy loves shooting 4k (note: 'loves' not 'needs') but as a pro he has to balance the different strengths. And for him, the ease of Canon colours, Canon DPAF and menus override (for him) any advantage of 4k. It is compromise he is happy with. 
His needs override the desire of the technology.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 4, 2017)

I don't recall viewing 4K streaming ever, unless it was on YouTube.

For Netflix et. al., how well does the compressed 4K compare to compressed 1080p at similar bitrates? Has anybody seen any measurements? How about satellite and cable?

At some point the compression artifacts would negate (or more than negate) the advantages of more resolution. How near that point does the present real world results come?

My TV is a 46" 1080p set that I watch from 10+ feet away. I don't want anything bigger hogging up the room. Just the regular 1080i and 720p compressed feeds on cable look fine from that distance. (They are mathematically equivalent anyway in terms of data.) I can tell some difference when I watch a 1080p Blu-Ray, and maybe even when I see the less-compressed 1080i OTA. I do sometimes watch YouTube videos at their highest resolution full screen on my 5K monitor from two feet away. Upscaled 1080p doesn't look bad at all, usually.

I ask these questions out of some curiosity, not so much as making a case for or against any format on one's camera. But I do think it is reasonable in the discussion not to ignore bitrates and the level of compression that all media will have, however it gets to our screens.

When I shoot video with my iPhone 6S, I always shoot 4K. Since it is a fixed focal length, I need the resolution to zoom in on things in the editing process. The result is not as good as shooting 1080p with one of my Canons in the first place, but often close enough for my purposes.


----------



## 3dit0r (Dec 4, 2017)

This post made me laugh as I read it, since I’ve recently come to a similar conclusion. I moved away from Canon 5Dmkii to go ‘mirrorless’ a few years ago. Went to Sony initially, but hated the colours, even for stills shooting RAW (Yeah, you can almost get whatever colours you want RAW processing, well, you _sort of_ can, but it’s actually extremely complex to try and replicate a particular colour science and Canon’s colour science is fantastic and probably took a lot of research over a long period). Also it takes a lot of time, when you could get that colour by just shooting Canon or whatever your favourite colour flavour is. And for video in the prosumer grade cameras the colours are more baked in so it’s more of an issue.

Then I switched to Fuji for stills, who also have great colour science, although different to Canon’s. But I didn’t have much video to produce so this was OK.

Now, gearing up for a short film, I took another look at the market and had several conversations with my DP, and came to a decision: I’m moving back to a 5Dmkiv for my daily use stills and ‘casual’ video cam. When I want to do serious filming, I’ll hire a C200/C300mkii, and I’ll already have nice glass from my stills cam. I came to realise that not all Canon’s choices are as mad as they seemed, including separating their DSLR video from their C-series.

Some of the logic of my choice is -

1. Above-mentioned colour science
2. Depth and quality of lens catalog (even including tilt/shift, L-series are mainly weather sealed, optical quality really is excellent usually, quiet fast AF)
3. Sensor crop and mjpeg don’t actually worry me for non-serious work. In fact I prefer S35 for film work and mjpeg apparently grades quite well
4. DPAF is unmatched and actually works to replace MF a lot of the time. This carries forward onto the C-series, making an investment in Canon AF lenses worthwhile and saving on, e.g., a dedicated remote FF and puller when working on a gimbal
5. Canon have always been reliable for me
6. These cameras have proven to be tough
7. C200 has RAW, built in ND and other ergonomic essentials for serious filmmaking when I do need it
8. Mature system of flash and other accessories
9. Huge compatibility (astrophotography equipment, RAW processors (unlike Fuji))

That said, there are some things I’ll miss from mirrorless -
- on sensor AF accuracy
- lack of sharpness robbing mirror movement/slap when shooting handheld
- smaller, lighter bodies
- WYSIWYG viewfinder sometimes, but not always

So I’m gambling Canon introduce a pro grade mirrorless/hybrid which will take EF lenses soon.

Just my 2p worth.


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 4, 2017)

horshack said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Very few people, a tiny percentage of the population, have internet service capable of delivering reliable 4K, because of that there is still very little 4K content available. Anybody can make 4K content, of varying qualities, but doing anything with it is still far from easy.
> ...



I’m at 15 Mbps/sec and can’t reliably stream HD. If one can stream 4K at 25 it must be so compressed as to make the quality bonus somewhat of a moot point. 

But to PBD “deliver” is very different from “stream”. I can’t stream full HD without glitches, but if I give it some buffer time it’s fine. In the case of 4K I’d just set the movie downloading before leaving for work in the morning. And yes, that makes 4K you tubers of no value to me. (Asides from not having a 4K display in the house.)


----------



## jedy (Dec 5, 2017)

stevelee said:


> My dumb question for the day: If a professional is buying a camera to shoot video, why wouldn't he/she buy a video camera instead of a DSLR? Are there advantages to using that still camera for video that outweigh the advantages of a video camera?


Dedicated cine cameras are designed to create the quality output for big cinema screens and to follow strict guidelines from major TV networks. Quality at this level isn't really needed for the web and content mostly viewed on smaller screens. DSLR's a lot more compact, waaay less expensive - a few thousand $ vs tens of thousands of $. DSLR's, in the case of the 5DIV have autofocus and touch focus features that you wouldn't see on dedicated cine cameras. Also DSLR's are great at handling lowlight situations - cine cameras need a proper, professional lighting setup. Bear in mind, smaller film crews may not have the budget for lots of extra film equipment (carry cases for lighting equipment can be really expensive) and may also need to travel light, run and gun a good example, so the lowlight capabilities of a DSLR would be perfect. Also buying two or three cameras for a multi cam setup or as a backup is a lot more achievable with cost effective DSLR's.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 5, 2017)

jedy said:


> Dedicated cine cameras are designed to create the quality output for big cinema screens and to follow strict guidelines from major TV networks. Quality at this level isn't really needed for the web and content mostly viewed on smaller screens. . . .



Thanks. I have not looked at cine cameras, so I didn't know all that. I think of a DSLR as something I have anyway, and so the video is gravy. I had not thought of one in terms as first choice even for some pros, for the reasons you gave.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 5, 2017)

Mr Majestyk said:
 

> The video is pointless, he's preaching to the wrong group. None of the Sony fanboys will give two hoots about what he says. He's the equivalent of the one climate denying scientist to them. Canon's entered a point where the media aren't even listening anymore, nothing they do is really good enough now. They had better hope their mirrorless camera is brilliant or the trash we get now against them will be nothing to compared to what will happen if it's another feature lite, ho hum offering.



Some folks don't mind a feature light offering. The fact that the "media" aren't listening anymore is only proof that the media (especially internet media) is basically ignorant and has totally different priorities compared to most consumers. I think most consumers would give Canon the edge over Sony when it comes to color, ergonomics, lenses, ease of use, reliability - you know, those boring attributes that are far more important than those sexy specs that Sony loves. It's no accident that I returned both Sony mirrorless cameras that I bought over the past few years and kept my Canon M5. If only Sony could make a mirrorless as good as the M5 - or even as good as my other mirrorless, An Olympus E-M1 - I might consider switching! But as long as all the aforementioned attributes are still subpar, Sony will have to wait.


----------



## masterpix (Dec 6, 2017)

Long time ago, in a debate between the Canon F1N and the Nikon F3 the two photographers were very convincing, each in their own gear. Than three years later, when they converted to AF.. they switched brands with similar convincing superlatives... The moral of the story is that you can find good and bad points in any brand or gear, Nikon has this, Sony has this, Canon has this. I think that today reviews about cameras is more in the "what we would like to see" performance rather than the "needed" performance. The makers are adding features, that most never use, not because those features are not good, it because that once you started to use the camera, you use it with your own preferences, which most times, are far less than what the camera offers. So the whole "debate" on "which is better" or "who is more innovative" is ridiculous, if the gear works for you, does it matter it does not have a feature you will rarely or never use?


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> As to Canon I'm a Canon fan but I do have frustrations such as when you mix shooting with the 5DS and the 6D MKII as I did yesterday different control layout and a d-pad rather than the joystick slow you down when fighting daylight & in a hurry I think all full frame cameras should have the same control layout the cost difference is really not an issue at that level (7D MKII and 6D MKII the latter is more expensive yet the 7D MKII has a joystick). I find that kind of hobbling irritating.



some of it (such as the second use on the top buttons) could be better on the 6D / 80D series, however, the rest is because of the articulating LCD hinge forces the layout differences in the back of the camera. it's not going to be the same because of that basic fact.


----------



## Talys (Dec 6, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > As to Canon I'm a Canon fan but I do have frustrations such as when you mix shooting with the 5DS and the 6D MKII as I did yesterday different control layout and a d-pad rather than the joystick slow you down when fighting daylight & in a hurry I think all full frame cameras should have the same control layout the cost difference is really not an issue at that level (7D MKII and 6D MKII the latter is more expensive yet the 7D MKII has a joystick). I find that kind of hobbling irritating.
> ...



You can mitigate it somewhat by going all midrange prosumer (80D/6D) or going all high end (5D/7D) if you want to feel the consistency.

The articulating lens forces a certain re-arrangement, but also, the 80D/6D are meant to be a transition from xxxD Rebels, which they're quite similar to.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 7, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Mr Majestyk said:
> 
> 
> > The video is pointless, he's preaching to the wrong group. None of the Sony fanboys will give two hoots about what he says. He's the equivalent of the one climate denying scientist to them. Canon's entered a point where the media aren't even listening anymore, nothing they do is really good enough now. They had better hope their mirrorless camera is brilliant or the trash we get now against them will be nothing to compared to what will happen if it's another feature lite, ho hum offering.
> ...



I couldn't agree more. The M5 is such a fun camera to use and the photos and videos look great too - even compared to my 5d3.

I video weddings, bar-mitzvahs, product and instructional videos and all of my customers want the video on DVDs, as they always have problems with bluray (they never update their player's firmware) and my DVDs start playing almost instantly instead of waiting 10 minutes for a blu-ray disk to load.
I do also give them full HD on a usb key, but they prefer to use a DVD. 
Maybe it's because they get a nice custom printed disk and a nice printed sleeve in the DVD box with my DVDs, which looks much more impressive than a usb key.
99% of people that are not photography nuts like us, could hardly tell the difference beyween SD and HD, and as long as the image is clear and colourful, they enjoy the content more than they would enjoy a boring video in full 4K.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Dec 7, 2017)

masterpix said:


> Long time ago, in a debate between the Canon F1N and the Nikon F3 the two photographers were very convincing, each in their own gear. Than three years later, when they converted to AF.. they switched brands with similar convincing superlatives... The moral of the story is that you can find good and bad points in any brand or gear, Nikon has this, Sony has this, Canon has this. I think that today reviews about cameras is more in the "what we would like to see" performance rather than the "needed" performance. The makers are adding features, that most never use, not because those features are not good, it because that once you started to use the camera, you use it with your own preferences, which most times, are far less than what the camera offers. So the whole "debate" on "which is better" or "who is more innovative" is ridiculous, if the gear works for you, does it matter it does not have a feature you will rarely or never use?


Well said. I love using my 5D mark 4 and really I could not be happier with it, but there has been so much negative comment and half hearted praise (watch the Camera Store review for example) that I started to question my own judgement. Having tried many of the alternatives I always find myself coming back to my Canon 5D mark 4 because it is the right camera for me. Other people may prefer Sony, or Olympus or Fuji but that does not mean these are the right cameras for everyone. I am just grateful that we still have so much choice and we can each pick the camera that matches our own needs.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 10, 2017)

If I was new on the market I'd probably go with Nikon - for some of the reasons mentioned here++.

As for colors I've never understood people who say color is important to them - but do not color calibrate their gear. Making whatever brand you are using (shooting RAW) moot.


----------



## Talys (Dec 10, 2017)

Maiaibing said:


> If I was new on the market I'd probably go with Nikon - for some of the reasons mentioned here++.



I still wouldn't. There's a lot to love about the D850, but the lens selection still falls short, and that's a more important investment to me. 100-400II has become my favorite lens, to which there is just no Nikon equivalent. And, I'm very fond of a lot of other Canon lenses.

Plus, unlike Sony, there's no potential of me ever running Nikon and Canon at the same time -- since everything's backwards, with each other, lol.



Maiaibing said:


> As for colors I've never understood people who say color is important to them - but do not color calibrate their gear. Making whatever brand you are using (shooting RAW) moot.



I set CWB and use a ColorChecker and color calibration mostly when I need color to be consistent with previous shoots. But that's usually product photography; with nearly everything else, I don't really care if the colors are accurate nearly as much as if the colors are pleasing.


----------



## 3dit0r (Dec 12, 2017)

Talys said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > If I was new on the market I'd probably go with Nikon - for some of the reasons mentioned here++.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2017)

3dit0r said:


> Also, the D850 seems to have a lot of 'issues' which are becoming apparent, some of which may be solvable with QC or recalls, some of which may not...



Really? The only thing I have read about is misaligned sensor and AF - both contentious


----------



## mkabi (Dec 13, 2017)

Another debate about who needs 4K and relative sample size.

Here is my 2 cents.

Fact, people buying DSLRs period... is a small sample size to begin with compared to the general population.

Fact, people buying high-end DSLR is a smaller subset of the already small sample size...

Fact, people buying DSLRs for video is also a small subset of the already small sample size, but it intersects with those buying a high-end DSLR...

Now, the question is.... if you are buying a DSLR for video... chances are... you aren't some shmuck that saw a pro at an event carrying a DSLR for video/photographer and wanted to get the same equipment - thus goes to the local bestbuy and buys themselves a Rebel cam with a kit lens. Chances are that you were one of the few that saw the potential of the 5D mark 2 and the DSLR video revolution - and fully invested in the Canon system. So, given the competition's offerings in the video department, why not more than 1080p?

Its more of a want than need...

Its like the folks here that want exactly 36MP and more DR... do they need it? Nope. 
Do they want it? Yep.
Can you survive without it? Yes and No.

Same thing with 4K.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 13, 2017)

mkabi said:


> Another debate about who needs 4K and relative sample size.
> 
> Here is my 2 cents.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree.
I am both photographer and videographer. Cannot afford primary and back up for both, cannot even carry both when needed at the same time - hence the need for DSLR.
Last three choir concerts, I used 1DX II for B-roll during getting ready. During concert I used 1DX II as main camera and 5D III as a secondary. 
Believe it or not but I didn't use footage from the 5D (3 concerts in row now for the past month). They became just safety.

Many people talk about 4K without having in their life shot not even once in 4K. I have a DSLR so I have an opinion. It is like a taxi driver who has opinion about Formula one. Everybody is entitled to one, no doubt; but are these legitimate enough to be considered as a foundation on how to drive these cars?


----------



## mkabi (Dec 14, 2017)

Besisika said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> I am both photographer and videographer. Cannot afford primary and back up for both, cannot even carry both when needed at the same time - hence the need for DSLR.
> Last three choir concerts, I used 1DX II for B-roll during getting ready. During concert I used 1DX II as main camera and 5D III as a secondary.
> Believe it or not but I didn't use footage from the 5D (3 concerts in row now for the past month). They became just safety.
> ...



I don't know what you are talking about...
But which part do you disagree with? Because it sounds like you agree with some parts of what I said...


----------



## Besisika (Dec 14, 2017)

mkabi said:


> I don't know what you are talking about...
> But which part do you disagree with? Because it sounds like you agree with some parts of what I said...


"Its more of a want than need..."
If you want to stand out, why would you produce same result as everybody else? Or even worse, why would you want to stay behind.
1080P output from a 4K is the pro standard today. 1080P from a 5D III is a quality of yesteryear.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 14, 2017)

Besisika said:


> 1080P output from a 4K is the pro standard today. 1080P from a 5D III is a quality of yesteryear.



Pure BS.
Most real pros shoot 1080p quite happily, use manual focus and produce top quality video for documentaries and films. Most people demanding after 4k DSLR/mirrorless are youtube vlogging wannabes.


----------



## Talys (Dec 14, 2017)

Cool teardown of the A7RIII on Fred Miranda:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1520661

Interesting bit from the fella who took it apart: “There's actually no rubberized gaskets or anything like that. The edges where the camera comes together look standard. Any weatherproofing must be done with just very tight joints, and possibly hydrophobic coatings.”


----------



## Besisika (Dec 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > 1080P output from a 4K is the pro standard today. 1080P from a 5D III is a quality of yesteryear.
> ...


OK, got it!


----------



## mkabi (Dec 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > 1080P output from a 4K is the pro standard today. 1080P from a 5D III is a quality of yesteryear.
> ...



I have to agree with Mike on this one.
Well, I wouldn't have said in that manner... but think about it.
If you are a pro... you have work... and if you have enough work, why would you pile more work on top of that work? Recording straight to 1080p and delivering that is faster and easier... 
I have friends who do wedding videos for a living (thats his full time gig), he is averaging 30 odd weddings per year... 8 hours X 2 cameras and 1 of them is from a DSLR. You do the math... I think he has 2 kids and a wife on top of that... I help him out here and there... but if you want spend hours upon hours editing (splicing seconds to minutes of video, color correcting, adding effects, authoring and then publishing). Adding an extra hour or 2 because you have to work with 4K doesn't make sense to me? Does that make sense to you? Because the average consumer can't tell the difference between 1080p straight from the camera and 1080p coming from 4K.


----------



## jedy (Dec 20, 2017)

mkabi said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...


It's all getting a bit generalistic with the responses here. I'm a filmmaker producing content for TV and there are a number of strict standards and formats you have to adhere to. DSLR/mirrorless, 4K or not, aren't yet really recommended video cameras for that level of work. 

Dslrs are great for plenty of non-broadcast quality productions such as the mentioned wedding video market where output standards are not strict. In order to confidently include 4K video in any business, assuming most people will be viewing it at 4K, you will need bigger memory cards as the file sizes are significantly bigger, a lot more hard disk space to store the files and for a few backups plus a pretty powerful PC able to cope with the larger files. It's simply out of the budget for a lot of smaller businesses. Also lens choices become a lot more critical as 4K can really show up a lens' shortcomings, especially cost effective photography lenses adapted for filming. 

I've only really seen proper 4K production setups involving cine cameras, not dslrs. The majority of people who would choose a dslr over a cine camera probably don't have the sort of budget to cater for that level of professionalism and are very likely not to have a critical need for it anyway.


----------

