Canon Claiming a $2500 Camcorder is for Consumers

[alphaproject]

Think about this though.... how much are nice phones.... $599- 1000. Nuff said really and they really can't make the same quality as prosumer grade camcorders or DSLR.

[ScratchCat]

3 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I can imagine some 'classic' cases of camcorder use but that's about it.  Like if you're shooting a family event such as a wedding or graduation or something, you may let that camera run for some time.   And those are certianly cases where one would want more than their phone for sure. 

It would be very easy to simply hit record as soon as it stops and merge the videos into one long video later. Even if you could record for longer there is the issue of file size, even at BluRay quality 1 hour of 4K60 video would take close to 300GB of storage space, so one either needs ludicrously expensive SD cards to go with your ludicrously expensive camcorder or stop the video to swap cards.

[kokakolia]

On 10/20/2017 at 10:36 PM, tmcclelland455 said:

Yes, I, a typical working middle-class citizen, will spend $2500 on a camcorder when my iPhone is considerably more convenient and massively more cost effective. 

 

What the hell was Canon thinking when even the one Handycam costs something like a grand and that's STILL stupid for a normal consumer...

Soon the typical working class citizen will use a $2500 iPhone XXX for recording cat videos and you'll be eating your words. 

[TidaLWaveZ]

Nice, just ordered one so I can film my nieces 4th grade play.

[JediFragger]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Nice, just ordered one so I can film my nieces 4th grade play.

Ordered 3 because I have 3 heads and 6 arms

 

[PlayStation 2]

As stupid as this sounds I could very well find a practical use for something like this.

I believe DSLRs that can record at 2160p60 aren't much cheaper or expensive than this anyways.

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

As stupid as this sounds I could very well find a practical use for something like this.

I believe DSLRs that can record at 2160p60 aren't much cheaper or expensive than this anyways.

Its not really about that....more that there are DSLRs that can record 4k AND do a lot of other stuff. This is expensive for essentially only recording video.

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Its not really about that....more that there are DSLRs that can record 4k AND do a lot of other stuff. This is expensive for essentially only recording video.

I know, but if you were to get a DSLR mainly for recording video at that framerate and resolution, it'd stack up fast. 

Now, most people don't need 2160p and/or 60fps. A decent budget DSLR would service ones need if they wanted good video out of a DSLR. But I do see a certain practicality out of this.

 

edit: ah fuck this is my 14k post

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I know, but if you were to get a DSLR mainly for recording video at that framerate and resolution, it'd stack up fast. 

Now, most people don't need 2160p and/or 60fps. A decent budget DSLR would service ones need if they wanted good video out of a DSLR. But I do see a certain practicality out of this.

I cant tell you the last time I saw a professional use a camcorder instead of a DSLR. I see no practically in this. The only camcorder I can see that is practical are RED's which are designed to shoot what no other camera can. 

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I cant tell you the last time I saw a professional use a camcorder instead of a DSLR. I see no practically in this. The only camcorder I can see that is practical are RED's which are designed to shoot what no other camera can. 

The most practical thing it could be used for would be like filming news or whatever.

Which, true, you could argue that you don't need this sort of camcorder to do so, and I'd definitely agree. Most news stations here either film at 1080i or 720p60. But it seems like it'd be much easier to lug around (with a microphone if you can use one with it) than a professional camera.

[TidaLWaveZ]

45 minutes ago, JediFragger said:

Ordered 3 because I have 3 heads and 6 arms

 

You've still got three eyes and three arms available, make them count.

[DavePlays]

My point was that Canon showing up late to the consumer 4K camcorder scene and then asking a ludicrous amount for it is ridiculous. Sony's FDR AX100 is a fantastic choice and $1000 less.

[EunSoo]

Ever heard of the term enthusiasts?

[TheKDub]

On 10/21/2017 at 6:22 PM, AshleyAshes said:

No joke, for tax purposes, DSLRs cap out at 29mins and 59 seconds.  If they can record longer than that, they're classified differently and are taxed more in Europe.

The exception for this is most Panasonic cameras. (At least from what I've seen with their Lumix line.)
They still keep the limit for EU cameras, but for those bought in the US (and I'd guess other non-EU countries) they don't have the limit.

(I haven't checked every one of their cameras to make sure, but I have seen a trend with the Lumix GH and Lumix G series of cameras not having it, so I'd assume the rest are the same.)

[DavePlays]

24 minutes ago, SCGazelle said:

Ever heard of the term enthusiasts?

But if you are an enthusiast, you will buy one of these:

 

I'm an enthusiast myself, and I bought this. It was $1250.

[PlayStation 2]

7 minutes ago, DavePlays said:

But if you are an enthusiast, you will buy one of these:

 

I'm an enthusiast myself, and I bought this. It was $1250.

Model of the camera?

[DavePlays]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Model of the camera?

JVC GY-HM 170UA

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, DavePlays said:

JVC GY-HM 170UA

Looked into it and, yet again, it only does 2160p at 29.97fps (y tho) and 23.976fps.

Again, most people don't care for 60fps but this is the Canon's main draw, the fact that it can do 2160p60 recordings.

[DavePlays]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

Looked into it and, yet again, it only does 2160p at 29.97fps (y tho) and 23.976fps.

Again, most people don't care for 60fps but this is the Canon's main draw, the fact that it can do 2160p60 recordings.

Being a pro video enthusiast (it's my job), still not worth that price tag.

Also, that JVC cam does have 1080p120, which I'd prefer over 2160p60

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, DavePlays said:

Being a pro video enthusiast (it's my job), still not worth that price tag.

Also, that JVC cam does have 1080p120, which I'd prefer over 2160p60

I would definitely agree that $2500 is quite steep for a camera that can record at 2160p60; those prices really need to come down.

Hmm, didn't actually pick up that this camera can do 120fps recording, probably missed that.

[DavePlays]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

I would definitely agree that $2500 is quite steep for a camera that can record at 2160p60; those prices really need to come down.

Hmm, didn't actually pick up that this camera can do 120fps recording, probably missed that.

Yeah - it doesn't say really anywhere when you buy that camera. But digging through the menus, it does

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, DavePlays said:

Yeah - it doesn't say really anywhere when you buy that camera. But digging through the menus, it does

That's a neat feature.

Kinda wished more cameras had it.

[JediFragger]

44 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Looked into it and, yet again, it only does 2160p at 29.97fps (y tho) and 23.976fps.

Got enough left over for an iPhone 8 Plus

[ESPImperium]

Exactly why Canon has lost me again, I'm going back to Sony as they have much better features and specs for a better price. I think i made the right decision on a A6300 a couple of months back. Only downside of Sony is lack of cheap lenses and poor battery life, but i can live with this as i will keep some of my Canon glass until i can get the Sony glass i need via a adapter.

 

Canon has lost the plot, they are loosing market share to Panasonic, Nikon and Sony in the low to mid price category as those cameras have much better features, the mid to high end, the Sony RX100V and Sony RX100IV are much better value. Sony could easily kill off all opposition in this area with just one change to their cameras, a flip out screen similar to the Canon 80D.

[DavePlays]

On 10/23/2017 at 2:56 PM, ESPImperium said:

Exactly why Canon has lost me again, I'm going back to Sony as they have much better features and specs for a better price. I think i made the right decision on a A6300 a couple of months back. Only downside of Sony is lack of cheap lenses and poor battery life, but i can live with this as i will keep some of my Canon glass until i can get the Sony glass i need via a adapter.

 

Canon has lost the plot, they are loosing market share to Panasonic, Nikon and Sony in the low to mid price category as those cameras have much better features, the mid to high end, the Sony RX100V and Sony RX100IV are much better value. Sony could easily kill off all opposition in this area with just one change to their cameras, a flip out screen similar to the Canon 80D.

Well said!