EOS 6d Limitations for Video

[SGFFX]

I have owned the EOS 6d for about a year. I love the quality of the recorded images and videos. I find the camera easy to handle and capable but with some surprising technical limitations for a camera at this price point. My comments are based on my experience. If I have misstated a feature or capability I look forward to being politely corrected.

Video can be streamed using the EOS Utility only via the USB connection. The video stream is that displayed on the camera's LCD screen and not the video or images as recorded on the SD card. In other words it is has low resolution and not what is caaptured on the SD card. Information shown on the LCD such as the exposure "target" is in the video stream.

Limitations
    1) No Wi-Fi video streaming at any resolution. Is this due to a 2.4 Mhz Wi-Fi capability? Why isn't there a 5 Mhz capability that would allow for more bandwidth?
    2) Low resolution video stream. Is this due to a USB 2.0 port rather than a higher bandwidth USB 3.0 implementation?
    3) No live streaming capability. Windows 8.1 lists the EOS 6d as a camera device, but it seems that only the EOS Utility has access to the video stream. Why is there no capability to access the video stream (as there is with a web cam) by other applications? This is likely a design or marketing decision. Or is this another workaround to some regulatory problem like the 29 minute limit on video recording? (That limit is due to higher EU import taxes/fees on camcorders vice still cameras).  It certainly is possible to design a device driver to windows standards to make the 6d a true "camera" device that has a video stream accessible to other applications.

Put in a more positive light: capabilities the next 6d upgrade should provide:

    1) 5 Mhz Wi-Fi
    2) Video Streaming over Wi-Fi
    3) USB 3.0
    4) High resolution video streaming over Wi-Fi and USB
    5) Live streaming capability / open device driver video stream available to other apps

Steve

[cicopo]

I'm sure lots of people might want those things but I buy a DSLR to take still photos & I'd much rather pay for features that improve that side of it's capabilities. WHY (& this is a serious question) don't people who really want the video side of things more than the still photo side buy dedicated video cameras? They have a lot more going for them than a DSLR when it comes to shooting video.

[SGFFX]

cicopo,

Yes, I agree with you. I buy a DSLR for its ability to take photographs. I did not choose to include the video capability in the 6d. Manufacturers have included video cabablity into the DLSRs. I'm sure this is due to the competition and market analysis. Having said that I also believe the definition of what is a camera is changing because of technology.

I expect the best from Canon. If Canon is going to include cababilities in the cameras especially at these price points then do a good design. USB 3.0 and 5 Ghz Wi-Fi are not cutting edge. Livestreaming is included in $50 web cams. DSLRs are no longer just cameras but image processors. So I appeal to Canon not to include lame capabilities either for video or image processing. Provide a still image camera with great image sensors and great image processing technology. And if you include video provide outstanding capability.

What would I prefer? Cicopo I totally support your desire to get the best imaging capability. I would prefer to buy a DSLR that takes great still photos with the best current mainline tech. If video is not included, then Canon should reduce the price of still imaging DSLRs. Provide the best image sensing and the best imaging processing for the price point.  This might leed to lower prices when video capability is not included.

The challenge to Canon is to meet customer expectations to produce the best and most capable equipment for the purpose and at competitive price points.

Steve

[Skirball]

---

@SGFFX wrote:

I expect the best from Canon. 

---

That's going to lead to disappointment.  Canon leads the field in several areas, and fails miserably at others.  But at the end of the day, they're a corporation, and they're going to do what makes business sense to them.  That doesn't always make consumer sense, but most consumers don't have a choice once you choose a lens mount.

---

@SGFFX wrote:

USB 3.0 and 5 Ghz Wi-Fi are not cutting edge.

---

No, but putting WiFi in a full frame dSLR was.  You have to remember that development of this system started long before its release.  And when you're one of the first on the market to put out a device, you can make such compromises to be first to market.

As a general summary, I'd say this is a category that Canon fails at - the tech side, the little odds and ends that matter to (a smaller group than you'd think.  Companies like Sony push these innovations.  Canon focuses on bigger, more baseline qualities: like having the best lens selection, having the best performing high ISO sensors, and recently they seem have interest in being present in the flash market, though they still lack some of the techy details there too.

---

@SGFFX wrote:

The challenge to Canon is to meet customer expectations to produce the best and most capable equipment for the purpose and at competitive price points.

---

Again, that's not their goal.  Their goal is to be a successful business, which they're doing well. That might not always make us happy, but we're not the ones making the decisions.  I know there's things we all want, but if you sit around waiting for Canon to do what you feel is right, you're going to be disappointed.

[hsbn]

Also I don't think the camera will be any cheaper or more expensive with or without video capability. They want to keep the price of their camera at a certain level, throwing video will make it more appealing and expand their market to videographer crowd. IMHO, the most of the camera cost comes from the still aspects of it. Canon is always behind others when it comes to small features and functions.