canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: Canon Rumors on February 13, 2013, 05:56:52 AM

Title: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Canon Rumors on February 13, 2013, 05:56:52 AM
More coming for Cinema EOS?
There have been numerous mentions of a camera coming in under the Canon EOS C100, an EOS C50 if you will. What could be removed from the EOS C100 to make another cinema EOS camera a lot cheaper? Currently a C100 costs about $6500, and we’ve been told numerous times that Canon thinks they’ll need a cheaper camera to get more people into the system and in turn, the upgrade path.

We’ve had two mentions of prototypes existing out in the wild, but no word yet as to whether or not they will become a consumer product.

For me, a dunce of a filmmaker. $6500 is too much money to spend just to show my family bad films on Vimeo. I’d really like a video camera that costs about half that with an EF mount. I could be in the minority on that one, but I much prefer to shoot video with a video camera as opposed to a DSLR.

cr

Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: expatinasia on February 13, 2013, 06:04:29 AM
It will, at least from my perspective, be interesting to watch Canon build an entirely new product line and market for those products.

It makes sense they would do something like this but they will be competing against some formidable top of the range Camcorders that only cost US$1,500 or so.

In a way it is what we all buy into with our DSLRs, just that started quite a while ago now, but the same company philosophy will be there.

And let's face it, most people only shoot video for home viewing, or YT. They do not need this, and especially not the higher kits. Of course, many members here are an exception to that.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Lawliet on February 13, 2013, 06:34:07 AM
$6500 is too much money to spend just to show my family bad films on Vimeo. I’d really like a video camera that costs about half that with an EF mount. I could be in the minority on that one, but I much prefer to shoot video with a video camera as opposed to a DSLR.

I feel its not a matter of the form factor, but an effect from the larger sensor. With the common video camera one can just point the camera at the subject. A DSLR requires much more nursing in terms of focus and -to make that worthwhile- overall production value.
A C50 as an entry level device would require more automation to make it attractive to casual users, with all the problems that brings. The price of the C100 is less of a problem, renting it for the short actual period its used during a production is cheaper then the busted bulbs due to misshandled lights for example.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: paul13walnut5 on February 13, 2013, 07:35:40 AM
Canon make great 'camcorders' the xf series, with a good codec and decent lens, but lack the de-rigeur large sensor look.

Everybody wants to shoot stuff large sensor and make it look like film, but they won't mic it properly or light it (I knocked back £2500 worth of work yesterday because the 'director' just wanted to shoot it under natural light, and wouldn't accept that even the 'natural light look' really needs to be lit for consistency, not working with morons and getting the blame when it goes tetes up) and this is usually why a lot of stuff doens't have a life beyond vimeo, no matter how creative the edit or imaginative the camera positions.

Is there room for a large sensor camera for family use?  In my opinion, no.  Not with the current AF issues.   AF issues on an SD consumer 1/8th" sensor are bad enough, AF from a s35 or FF camera on a 50" plasma is just going to be even worse.

Canon also need to get lenses to where the eng or hobby video users can use them, that means servo zooms.

I happened to love the XL format cameras for DV use, really nice and ergonomic, when you nailed the image it looked better than anything else 1/3rd" sensor DV could offer, but it was killed off for serious use by crap build quality lenses (thus the optek ENG conversions) and ultimately by DSLRs.  But an XL didn't need a rig. Or all the add ons.  It was a self contained, compact, light device, with one battery to charge and one record button to hit.  Even the EVF was better than on the ENG cameras I used around the same time.  An eyecup where it should be and stable on the shoulder. 

Would a large sensor XL format camera be desirable?  I think so, but again, only with the lenses.

The four main issues that have stopped Canon having a greater impact on the tradtional professional video market are:

1. Lack of servo zoom lenses.  Sports and event guys really need servo zooms.  Handy for a lot of other folk too.
    These lenses also need to hold back focus and have back focus adjust... the XL killer issue.

Canon had a Power Zoom EF lens years back, the 35-80.  Horrible. Plastic mount. No MF ring. Slow aperture with f-drop.  But a servo zoom!   So it can be done.  And relatively cheaply.

2. Lack of 'i' codec.  Lack of 4.2.2 colour sampling.  For some broadcast 'i' is all that is acceptable to broadcasters (although being addressed by canon) for grading or compositing 4.2.2 is a push, 4.2.0 is no way sufficient.

3. Lack of proper audio interfaces.  A video camera needs a headphone socket.  A professional video camera needs XLRs.  Any 'super budget' C line camera MUST retain these.

4. Record times.  Canon have broke the 4GB barrier, kind of.  If you buy top end.  It needs to be on any video capable camera launched from now on. It's a file structure issue and there is really no reason not to have it on the lower end cameras.

SDI, TC etc all worthy and expected on the top end, a budget model should forget everything but consumer outs (HDMI and composite) with the expectation that serious users are transferring for edit before output.

THis is a wild card, but canon are also missing an action camera.  With an electronic shutter, with solid state media, with no mirror box..  maybe this new camera is going to be proper tough with decent gaskets and can take a few knocks.

Just a wee wish list there.

Something that handles like an XL, has the codecs of an XF, the IQ of a C100 and the price of an MV series.

Not asking much.

And the all important EF mount.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: FunPhotons on February 13, 2013, 07:51:32 AM
Canon also need to get lenses to where the eng or hobby video users can use them, that means servo zooms.

What do you mean by "eng"? And I don't follow why servo zooming is so important - do you mean so they act like the inexpensive camcorders? But then we wouldn't be using our EF lenses since they are manual zoom, correct?

Quote
Something that handles like an XL, has the codecs of an XF, the IQ of a C100 and the price of an MV series.

Did you mean "DV"? Say around $1500?

Quote
And the all important EF mount.

As a professional video guy what do you think about using EF lenses? I've tried it a few times for my home vids, it wasn't easy to set focus. DOF etc. I haven't really gotten the hang of it.

The idea is interesting. I don't like using my DSLR for video either, if there was a $1500 C line that had the essential features I'd consider getting one for my own amateur efforts.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: AprilForever on February 13, 2013, 08:51:35 AM
I guess it's the month of video. Hopefully, this will soon blow over and they will bet to stuff which actually matters...
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: paul13walnut5 on February 13, 2013, 08:52:23 AM

What do you mean by "eng"? And I don't follow why servo zooming is so important - do you mean so they act like the inexpensive camcorders? But then we wouldn't be using our EF lenses since they are manual zoom, correct?


Electonic News Gathering.  The layout of broadcast, industrial and some cinema cameras for the last 30 years.
The great thing about the ENG format is that lenses are interchangable and if you can work the essentials on a Sony or Grass Valley, you can pick up a Panasonic, or Ikegami the following day and get shooting quite quickly as the essential controls are all in the same place.

Servo zooming lets you do controlled zooms with smooth ramping.

At the moment if you shoot on a DSLR you are using a manual zoom.  We are 5 years into the game now, there should have been some servo zoom lenses available before now.


Quote
Did you mean "DV"? Say around $1500?

No, I did actually mean MV, which was a series of Canon camcorder aimed at more serious home users, with a price premium, but not a 'professional' price tag.  Before vimeo fans shot on T3i's they shot on MV20's.

Quote
As a professional video guy what do you think about using EF lenses? I've tried it a few times for my
home vids, it wasn't easy to set focus. DOF etc. I haven't really gotten the hang of it.

I think EF lenses are great for stills, and with some caveats, pretty good for video.  Generally good contrast.  Usually a lot sharper than video lenses.

The problems are:

Short zoom ranges or slow apertures. It's not going to happen but an 18-250 constant f2.8 servo zoom IS lens would be a great 'kit' lens for many video users.

Instead I have 2 zooms which kind of get close.  More to carry, hassle of changing, more filters or adaptor rings to carry.  No servo zoom, so effectively no live zooming.

Crap lens markings Where focus scales exist they are tiny and useless.  Some of the lenses have powered focus rings, some don't have decent end stops, and at the consumer end none have decent throw to their focus rings.

Back Focus
A strange one this, I used to have a couple of prehistoric push pull EF zooms (the 70-210 f4 and 100-300 f5.6L) and as far as I could make out these lenses held back focus from the tele end to wider end.  I don't know if the same is true of the 35-350, 28-300 or 100-400 current push pull lenses, but it certainly isn't true of my 70-200 f2.8L and wasn't true of my 17-40 f4L.   These lenses were designed to be in focus for a shot at a time, usually via AF.  You recompose by zooming, you refocus with a tap at the shutter.  For video this isn't all that great, as you find a shot is soft if you zoom between takes.

Electronic Aperture
Changing aperture sends vibrations and handling noise through an EOS camera. The aperture only changes in solid 1/3 stop steps, so if you ramp exposure you get a flickr as you do so.  Also on some 'constant' aperture lenses the iris diaphragm changes very very slightly as you zoom adding to the noise.
A manual aperture ring would also be super.  But perhaps unpopular with stills guys used to full aperture TTL metering. 

Quote
The idea is interesting. I don't like using my DSLR for video either, if there was a $1500 C line that had the essential features I'd consider getting one for my own amateur efforts.

If the rumours are true it would be very interesting to see what they come up with. Or what they've left out.

If I could get a large sensor camera with servo zoom lenses and the option of 'i', and decent audio then I would have one camera for all my needs, and wouldn't have to carry around the huge ENG camera and even huger ENG tripod anymore.  I'm getting old.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: emag on February 13, 2013, 09:29:15 AM
.........not working with morons and getting the blame when it goes tetes up.......

I don't do pro film/photo work, but I do have to contend with morons on a frequent basis.  Most of the ones I have to deal with have zip for common sense and no social skills whatsoever.  On those days that are particularly exasperating, I let my co-workers know they should use my Native American name when talking with me:

"Works With Morons"
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Bob Howland on February 13, 2013, 09:37:04 AM
Paul

What sensor size(s) are used in ENG cameras? Looking at home improvement shows, one striking thing is that there is enormous DOF and there is a lot of movement of both the talent and the camera operator. And, except at night, lighting is natural. I have to think that those cameras use relatively small sensors, automatic focus and automatic exposure.

I sometimes wonder if the M mirrorless lens mount wasn't invented as the foundation for the next generation of XF-class camcorders, except with interchangeable lenses. Is there anything making that impossible?

Any comments?
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: AndrewReid on February 13, 2013, 10:34:45 AM
"For me, a dunce of a filmmaker. $6500 is too much money to spend just to show my family bad films on Vimeo. I’d really like a video camera that costs about half that with an EF mount. I could be in the minority on that one, but I much prefer to shoot video with a video camera as opposed to a DSLR."

It would be great to see an upgrade path for 5D Mark III users.

Serious video pros and amateurs alike need a $3000 camera, for the same reason serious photographers don't want to spend $6500 on a DSLR body. Cost is only not an issue for the bloated film industry. The consumer market is much larger and very sensitive to price.

I actually like the DSLR form factor for video, over a video camera - it has a few advantages. Yes a EF mount large sensor camcorder that sits above the top end consumer camcorder would be nice to handle, but you'd lose some abilities...

- Ability to do stills and video on one assignment without carrying 2 kits
- Swap between stills / video very quickly, almost simultaneously
- Stealth ability, with a DSLR you can blend in like a tourist. With a video camera people are more suspicious
- Small size... If you look at Sony's closest equivalent to a 'C50', the VG30 is a NEX in a huge ugly box

Canon should take the EOS M as a base, put that in a video optimised mirrorless form factor, add plenty of video features and a good focus assist, fix moire and have it priced just above the 5D Mark III. Job done.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: AprilForever on February 13, 2013, 10:51:31 AM
.........not working with morons and getting the blame when it goes tetes up.......

I don't do pro film/photo work, but I do have to contend with morons on a frequent basis.  Most of the ones I have to deal with have zip for common sense and no social skills whatsoever.  On those days that are particularly exasperating, I let my co-workers know they should use my Native American name when talking with me:

"Works With Morons"

Well-said!
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Etienne on February 13, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
I'd like an XF100 with APS-C sensor
Or a C50 at $3000 .
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: paul13walnut5 on February 13, 2013, 11:55:03 AM
Paul

What sensor size(s) are used in ENG cameras? Looking at home improvement shows, one striking thing is that there is enormous DOF and there is a lot of movement of both the talent and the camera operator. And, except at night, lighting is natural. I have to think that those cameras use relatively small sensors, automatic focus and automatic exposure.

I sometimes wonder if the M mirrorless lens mount wasn't invented as the foundation for the next generation of XF-class camcorders, except with interchangeable lenses. Is there anything making that impossible?

Any comments?

ENG cameras typically use 3x 2/3rds" sensors built into a prism, which splits the light into 3 component colours.

(there are exceptions, my old Panasonic AJ100 used a 1/2" ccd block, as do the EX1's and some JVC HDV / cheaper ENG models, sony made a couple of shoulder mounted 1/3rd cameras but with integrated lenses, such as the PD-250)

A 2/3rds sensor is about a quarter the area of an M4/3s sensor, and so 1/16th of the area of a full frame sensor.

This is probably why we haven't yet seen large sensor ENG format cameras: 3x the cost, 3x the vastly increased size, and of course bigger lenses to project the same image circle.

I don't know of any ENG camera with an AF lens.  If it's a studio set up the exposure, shutter, white balance will be controlled from the gallery via a Camera Control Unit, the camera op "only" has to ped, pan, focus and zoom.  Live.  With smooth ramping. 

Most studios will have cams on massive pedastols, which can crab, crane and dolly, a location shoot may use ENG cams on steadicam, or a combination of peds and steadicam.

If it's an 'as live' multicam shoot I would be willing to wager that no matter how natural it looks, it is lit.  Massive 2k lights can be banked mimic the behaviour of the sun, so it can look natural, but is infact controlled, thus the consistent expsoure.

If the shots always look in focus it is because the vision mixer or editor has cut to mask mistakes, that said with a lens with sorted back focus, so long as you stay a fairly uniform distance you can zoom without having to refocus (zoom in at start, check focus, zoom away till you hearts content) and the operators are very on the ball, able to focus on the fly by eye, even to the point of knowing which way they need to turn the focus ring by the quality of the out-of-focus blur.

I think perhaps Canon have looked at what Sony have done with the NEX mount, where Sony have made the bodies quite desirable.  The flip side is that there aren't any great NEX lenses for video, so folk are adapting.  Same with Panasonic and the GH3 and the AG-AF101 camera.  Canon are different - they have an array of fast aperture primes, fast constant aperture zooms, and they want you to use theirs.   I think the proof against the XF idea is that the C cameras have already been built around the EF/EF-s mount, rather than the EF-M mount.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: SiriNeos on February 13, 2013, 12:10:16 PM
The EOS C50 of my dreams has the same sensor as EOS C100  with M mount and few M cine lenses.

With a price around 3000$
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: eldete on February 13, 2013, 12:38:18 PM
 >:( confound it !!! I was JUST and I mean JUST about to go for the M3!! I'm a pro video shooter and as much as I'd like to afford the higher end Cinema lines I told my self it's better to spend on glass. But what of this phantom C50? could it be a better choice for video then the M3?...However I guess the M3's resale value will always be there if this turns out getable. Canon you cause me grief!
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Bob Howland on February 13, 2013, 01:35:00 PM
The EOS C50 of my dreams has the same sensor as EOS C100  with M mount and few M cine lenses.

With a price around 3000$

I don't think that would work. The C100 sensor is 24.6mm wide x 13.8mm high (Super 35). The M mount only handles 22.5mm wide x 15.0mm high. They're close though. What I find interesting about the M mount is that it has one more contact that EF mount. My guess/wish is that it is for power zoom controlled/monitored by the camera.

The PL mount and Super 35 sensor size seems to be popular partly because there are a large number of high quality, expensive and apparently highly prized legacy PL cine lenses.

I want something incorporating the best features of both the XF100/105/300/305 camcorders and the 5D3 still camera except with an M mount, an assortment of dedicated video lenses and something like the Metabones speed booster/adapter so that I can still use my EF still lenses and gain 1 (or 1-1/3) stops while I'm using them.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: rh81photo on February 13, 2013, 02:54:37 PM
"For me, a dunce of a filmmaker. $6500 is too much money to spend just to show my family bad films on Vimeo. I’d really like a video camera that costs about half that with an EF mount. I could be in the minority on that one, but I much prefer to shoot video with a video camera as opposed to a DSLR."

It would be great to see an upgrade path for 5D Mark III users.

Serious video pros and amateurs alike need a $3000 camera, for the same reason serious photographers don't want to spend $6500 on a DSLR body. Cost is only not an issue for the bloated film industry. The consumer market is much larger and very sensitive to price.

I actually like the DSLR form factor for video, over a video camera - it has a few advantages. Yes a EF mount large sensor camcorder that sits above the top end consumer camcorder would be nice to handle, but you'd lose some abilities...

- Ability to do stills and video on one assignment without carrying 2 kits
- Swap between stills / video very quickly, almost simultaneously
- Stealth ability, with a DSLR you can blend in like a tourist. With a video camera people are more suspicious
- Small size... If you look at Sony's closest equivalent to a 'C50', the VG30 is a NEX in a huge ugly box

Canon should take the EOS M as a base, put that in a video optimised mirrorless form factor, add plenty of video features and a good focus assist, fix moire and have it priced just above the 5D Mark III. Job done.

I really like your ideas. together with you blogpost that would be a niche worth exploiting to my taste. but my guess is that Canon is not thinking that way.

I thought about how they could further strip the C100 down to justify a significant pricedrop without cannibalizing C100 sales. The 8bit 420 AVCHD is quite a limitation already and getting rid of 720 50p/60p (the C100 REALLY doesn't have that?? thats so hard to believe!) leaves almost nothing to cut down. basically they are approaching the video quality of a 500D/550D/600D/650D....and that at a pricepoint of 6500$ !!!

The only thing that they could leave out would be the EF-mount and go for a fixed lens. Something like a 24-105 f4 or the likes. They have this for their Pro Camcorders...to my taste, nobody wants this, but with a fixed lens they COULD differentiate between the rumored C50 and the C100.

to be clear: if they do that, to my taste they deserve to not sell a single unit of these C50's! On the other hand, it would be one of these conservative moves that Canon seems to like so much these days.

Tough!

What I would hope for: An even smaller and lighter version of the C100 with an EOS M mount but basically the same feature set. not going to happen,I know,  unless they don't use the S35 sensor but instead the 'good old' 18mp APS-C with dual digic5+ readout like in the 1DX. I'm thinking of a GH3 like formfactor.

Oh well, one can dream, right?  ;)
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: AndreeOnline on February 20, 2013, 03:55:27 PM
It would be great to see an upgrade path for 5D Mark III users.

It's already here, and it's called the C100. For the time being.

If you care enough about video, and mk3's shortcomings get in the way (lack of resolved detail, no dedicated video features) the cost of a C100 ought to be a non issue.

I own both mk3 and C100 so I know their respective strengths. The C100 produces absolutely beautiful images. But having two cameras are not optimal for me. Like you Andrew, I wish the mk3 resolved more detail—at least as much as the 1Dc in S35 mode.

I don't buy the idea of a cheaper C-body camera. There's no room below the C100 for that. There is however plenty of room below the 1Dc.

A 5Dc or 3Dc that was priced between the mk3 and the 1Dx (probably closer to the latter) would be a very cool surprise come NAB. But it better deliver. I feel that Canon is a bit stuck with their more expensive models as it is difficult for Canon to outperform their top gear with cheaper models. But there is a slot free for a great C-line DSLR that doesn't have 4k, but delivers great 1080p along with stills functionality we're used to.

If they really want to innovate, they'd allow for a little nose after the EF-mount and integrate ND-filters. That's not going to happen, but the new xDc might.
Title: Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]
Post by: Policar on February 20, 2013, 04:32:52 PM
I thought about how they could further strip the C100 down to justify a significant pricedrop without cannibalizing C100 sales. The 8bit 420 AVCHD is quite a limitation already and getting rid of 720 50p/60p (the C100 REALLY doesn't have that?? thats so hard to believe!) leaves almost nothing to cut down. basically they are approaching the video quality of a 500D/550D/600D/650D....and that at a pricepoint of 6500$ !!!

The C100's video is far beyond the 650D in my experience. I suggest processing your clips differently or respecting the superwhites if you're having DR issues. Can't help you with sharpness, the camera is already supremely sharp. Beyond that I can't suggest anything except metering and choosing your gamma carefully. From my perspective it out-performs (or at least is close enough to) the F3, which I prefer to anything below the Alexa.