Canon's DSLR video capabilities will never be more than an afterthought

The Canon 5D mk2 was a ground breaking camera when it was introduced in 2008. Video capabilities seem to have been added as an afterthought, or at the last minute anyway. But that opened up a floodgate of DSLR’s afterwards that continued to have some video capabilities.

In all the years since, not once has any DSLR had video capabilities even close to Canon’s video products that were sold primarily for shooting video. This makes total sense, and yet every single photography magazine and online blog reviewing DSLR’s has said something along the lines of “why doesn’t this camera have this video capability”…

The fact that every camera I own has some form of HD video capability is nice. Pity that they’re not that great an implementation and not particularly suited use for any professional use anyway. I thought it was great that my 5Dmk2 was a perfect fit for recording my kids orchestra concerts during high school, but the camera had a 12 minute limit per clip which made it awkward to use.

I’ve come to the point where I need a video camera, and I’ve spent a bunch of time looking at reviews for various gear and come across an interesting point. For years we’ve become accustomed to the idea that to do “good” video with a DSLR, then we need to build a “franken-cage”. I shouldn’t need to explain what this means! The simple fact is that the form factor of every DSLR (and this includes Canon’s M10 and M15) is suited for taking still images and was never suited for movement. The way around was always to build a cage to put the camera in, add bars, a top handle, side handles, bolt on cold-shoe’s, and then you have something that looks… let’s admit it…. like absolute crap.

The camcorder with a handle on top is a format that isn’t going to change, because it’s designed to do the job of taking video. I find it ironic that most of these will also take photos, which is honestly nothing more than a stupid gimmick.

What’s also interesting is that the megapixel race in photo cameras has always run counter to the actual needs of video. A 4K image needs approximately a 8 megapixel sensor (and 1080p needs half that). Anything larger than this would require interpolation to happen in real time (merging pixels together), which then often makes the image softer or adds more video quality issues.

The simple fact is, we’ve been sold a feature that’s never been more than a marketing solution to sell a feature that’s meant to do little more than sell the idea that consumers of one kind of camera should also buy the other. Yes, a relatively recent photo-camera would usually make a decent b-camera for video, but makes for crappy outcomes as anything more.

I’m writing this, waiting for my first 4K video camera – realising that so many of us have been hoping for Canon to add 4K capabilities to a DSLR. What has been added is, and always will be, half baked. Waiting for good 4K DSLR without the issues of logs, bit depth and the rest is pointless.

We need to ignore the marketing noise and realise that one format is good for video and another is good for photo and never both. A jack-of-all-trades camera will never be built.

Will Canon ever be successful at Mirrorless? Does mirrorless even matter?

I’m so tired of hearing about the whole mirrorless “feature”. Yes there’s some benefit to not having a shutter, but I’ve yet to see any real reason why we should throw out DSLR's for Canon's mirrorless cameras … I’ll take a step back and explain.

What can the Canon R (and RP) do that’s so special? Well there’s "Dual Pixel" focusing. That’s awesome - no doubt about it, and honestly I'm surprised it's taken so long to do this. My second Canon SLR was the 7E series - it would focus wherever your eye pointed in the viewfinder (I believe the Canon EOS 3 had the same functionality). It was flawless and Canon somehow scrapped it! But surely dual pixel focusing is not why most people would want one?

Getting into the Canon R ecosystem comes with a HUGE caveat - a new lens mount. The lenses released to date and planned are typically bigger and heavier than their EF counterparts. And that’s the deal breaker. Had Canon said, hey here a mirrorless camera and you can use EF glass on it, Canon would be in the money (for camera body sales). But they didn’t. And what nobody else in the photography media have admitted to yet is that Canon has already done this - with the Canon M camera range. Did they abandon the M format lenses already? It sure seems so.

I’m writing this, after reading how Canon had a press release earlier this week that said initial sales with Canon R and RP were brisk - but within a month, this interest has (in Japan of all places) already tailed off. Sales of Canon R have flatlined already.

“You can still use a converter to use EF lenses” - it’s like deja-vu all over again. Canon did the exact same thing with Canon M cameras, and wanted a huge amount of money (proportionally to the cost of the camera) for a converter to continue to use EF lenses. The barrier to entry - that’s great when they only make less than a dozen lenses.

The other issue I see with Canon's camera division is the inability to price gear to match the market. The Canon 5Dmk2 price point was so good that they sold millions of them - it was the biggest selling prosumer camera Canon ever made. Then they got greedy and did a minuscule upgrade that added a huge markup. The 5Dmk4 is a bigger step up, but still isn't nearly as ground breaking as the mk2 was and is already out of date compared to the market. Their research and development teams are obviously not talking to the marketing department. But I digress.

Let's take stock of the mirrorless problem here.

Canon has traditionally tried to maximise profits by limiting camera features to prevent diluting their broad product range (which is why there’s still no DSLR or Mirrorless camera with a decent 4K implementation - because they want you to buy a video camera - another topic I’m going to talk about shortly) and fractionally better glass makes much greater profit margins (ironically, there’s more air in a lens than glass!). It makes much more sense to Canon to make you buy another expensive lens, that will likely replace one with the same specifications as one you’ve already bought.

Canon’s M range focused on being mobile - the lenses were light, because the point was to replace a point and shoot without the weight. The quality was intentionally dialled down to prevent eating into their EF line. But ironically they also came out with their “worlds smallest SLR” range which was a similar size and weight, and was a much better fit for many users (which can be seen by its popularity and now in its third revision). Canon’s R range has completely missed the boat here, as the camera got smaller (which you’d expect after removing the glass pentaprism and the shutter), but now they’re extremely front heavy because the lenses are no lighter than their EF brothers.

A few years ago, Panasonic, Olympus and others introduced the Four Thirds system, which had a huge adoption. I don’t believe this was because it was mirrorless, but because of it’s convenient and easy to use hardware that was not locked into one brand. And primarily because in addition to taking really high quality images, it was lightweight. But the obsession with mirrorless was born and has been nothing more than a huge sales pitch ever since.

So what is the Canon R series good for? It’s not lighter, it’s not more convenient, it’s not without its flaws (try looking at YouTube for bloggers reporting quirks with the EOS R camera not working as expected and ultimately not trusting it as a professional camera!). Canon has created yet another ecosystem for mirrorless and I don’t expect it to last any longer than the Canon M series.

I recently watched a video trying to justify using a Canon EOS R as a B-camera for video production, and the comments speak for themselves. We’ve now got to the point where I presume that Canon is trying to find reasons to justify this rushed out and thoroughly botched concept.

Canon now has EF series lenses (and their EF-S line tailored for smaller sensors), Cinema series lenses, M series lenses and now R series lenses (yes they also had FD series pre 1987 but that’s pretty much dead now). The first two have obvious benefits, where Cinema series lenses use video industry T-Stops instead of the photo industry f-stops for determining how much light will pass through the lens. The different gearing for cinema lenses also makes total sense and makes up for the bodge of trying to gear the focus and zoom on an EF lens. Canon M and R series can’t claim any real benefit - yes the R lenses have an extra ring that’s configurable, but that is there purely to add a difference to justify its existence. It is otherwise a feature that nobody asked for.

Someone, anyone, please - tell me what I’m missing! Is it any surprise that Canon's camera division isn't doing so well right now?

Hiking Ben Nevis

This year we took a well deserved break based around Ben Nevis in Scotland. The weather was expectedly changeable, but that didn't prevent us taking advantage of the beautiful scenery.

Ben Nevis is the tallest mountain in the UK, and we had a view of the cloud covered peak from our holiday cottage. I'm not a regular hiker as much as I'd like to be, but I do have the dogged determination to get things done when I put my mind to it (which explains how I've finished a sub 5-hour marathon after getting injured 19 miles in). Ben Nevis is challenging, but much like long distance running, it isn't remotely impossible if you're reasonably fit and have the right mindset.

After checking the weather forecast, I thought I'd picked a good day to get to the top of Ben Nevis and get a clear view. Unfortunately, after hiking to the top with a carefully selected choice of camera gear and tripod, the weather didn't match up with the forecast, and so this was the view:

As you can see, the view from the triangulation pillar's platform was pretty bleak. The observation station was a bizarre sight. Full-on thick fog was the case for the top 250m of hiking.

If you're wondering, the pink fog is what you get when you've tried to de-haze the image to the extreme in Adobe Lightroom. This is actually much clearer than it really was, but I figured it was more important to show what is there than sheet fog!

So I'm glad I was fortunate enough to take a number of other photographs on the way up. These two images show the view looking down Glen Nevis valley:

The following image was a 5-shot panorama of Lochan Meall An T-suidhe, visible from about 600m up the trail.

On the way back down, this sheep was checking us out.

For anyone interested, the waterfalls in the area are quite impressive. Given that the general weather on Ben Nevis includes rain, it's not surprising how many waterfalls it has. The trail up the mountain requires hikers to walk through the bottom of a waterfall, so remember to bring waterproof boots!

Dean.

July 2016

A Twist on an American Favourite

I lived in the States for over 22 years and immediately took a liking to Pumpkin Pie. I don't remember how many I baked over the years, but I do know that there was usually a can of Libby's pumpkin in the cupboard, and the corresponding can of Carnation evaporated milk.

Some years ago on a regular visit to Target store (closest UK equivalent is probably a Tesco Superstore), I came across some disposable plastic bakeware - meant for sharing baked food (and not caring about if you forgot to bring it home or it disappeared). In it was a mini cookbook which included a recipe for what I have always called "Pumpkin Cake".  I've not made many pumpkin pies since then, as most people much prefer this instead. It's probably the fastest cake to make too, once you've assembled the ingredients. So here I'm sharing with you one of my favourites. If you take it to share at work, expect it to disappear quickly!

Pumpkin Cake - Serves 12.

Ingredients:
3 large eggs.
1 can (425g / 15oz) of Libby's Pumpkin (try Tesco Superstores or online).
1 larger can (410g) Carnation evaporated milk (don't use condensed milk!).
250ml - Sugar (when poured into a glass measure, 250ml = 1US Cup)
4 tsp - Pumpkin Pie Mix (available at Steenbergs online in the UK).
1 1/2 packages (600g) of store brand Vanilla Sponge Cake Mix.
1 package Pecan Nuts (broken or whole - approximately 250g).
1/2 a block of butter.

1. Set the oven to 180˚C.
2. Grease a large deep rectangular cake tin or pyrex glass pan (approx: 33x23x5cm).
3. In large bowl, whisk eggs then add pumpkin, milk, sugar and pumpkin pie spice mix. Stir until smooth, pour into pan.
4. Sprinkle the dry cake mix on top of the pumpkin mixture, then roughly cover with the pecans. Melt the butter (I use the same glass measure used earlier and microwave it), and pour over the pecans so it touches the cake mix.
5. Bake for 50 to 55 minutes (fan oven: subtract 5 min), check with a fork in the middle that comes out clean.
6. Allow to cool before serving (goes well with vanilla ice cream :)

Once you're done, it should look like this: