I agree with Keith at Northlight Images, nothing was said by Canon as to what the form factor would be. I think what they showed was just a 1D X body with a red â€œCâ€ stuck on it for marketing purposes.
I think the camera theyâ€™re speaking of will sit between the 5D Mark III and 1D X. Perhaps an EOS 3C? I do not like the name â€œ3Dâ€ for a camera that doesnâ€™t actually shoot 3D.
How about a red-badge, rather than black badge, saying "3C" rather than "5D"?
In some ways, it makes a lot of sense for there to be an obvious, physical difference for cameras aimed at different segments of the market place. For example, if you've got a "3C" (1D size body) next to a 1DX, you can easily recognise which is with a quick glace and pickup the right camera confidently.
But with the rate of number use and naming, what names will Canon be putting on cameras in 5 to 10 years? 5D Mark 5? That moniker is going to get a bit old...
But on the same train of thought, they're not likely to have a "5C" and a "5D". Too much product confusion.
So what do you call your cameras today, if there will be two or three successive models in the next 10 years? And after 20 years?
I also donâ€™t think it would be a full size EOS-1 body
That depends on what they want to get inside of the body and on the outside of it too. The C300 isn't exactly small.
If they're going to add live HDMI out that's full 1080p then that may require extra circuits/chips that make fitting it all into a 5D sized camera not viable. For example, will it be a single DIGIC V or will it be DIGIC V *and* DIGIV DV III?
Then there's the question of outputs. If they want to add a raw video output then where do the connectors go? There simply isn't room on a 5D sized camera. That said, a 1D sized "3C" may not be a camera that is designed to be "rotated" in the sense of buttons arranged for easy portrait shooting like the 1DX.
Or are there some features that the "3C" will never have that the C300 does?
Something that I found quite interesting was the ISO range on the C300 is 320
to 32000. Right, there's no ISO 100 or ISO 200 setting for that camera. What's with that? What's going on inside that thing? The rationale, as best as I can think, is that by designing the base ISO quite high then ISO 1600 on the C300 might be as good as ISO 400 on the 1DX - but that's just speculation.
Maybe a better path to understanding what format the camera the body will be is to look at the 5D2 and the C300 and work out which features (both physical and software) you want to take from each camera for this new one. Then with that feature set, work out what sized body it can fit into and trim as required to meet the physical requirements for the camera.
I know a good majority of photographers are pretty tired about hearing about video in DSLRs. A lot of the community is looking for a â€œphotography firstâ€ full frame DSLR that doesnâ€™t require remortgaging their homes. I think the 5D Mark III will be that camera.
Lets hope so, but I think we can all hear the screams of pain from all of those wanting the advanced video features from the "3C" in the next 5D for the same price or less of the 5D now.
Iâ€™ve said before that I think Canon plans to monetize the videographers and video DSLRs, so something like the â€œEOS 3Câ€ makes a lot of sense. Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.
It'll be interesting to see if these new lenses end up at places like the DSLR online lens rentals stores. But who will actually buy these lenses vs rent them? I would love to see details on how many days a big budget movie spends actually shooting vs everything else and a break down of the lens requirements for those days. I think that the majority of the purchases of the Canon cine lenses will be made by non-human entities (i.e. companies, etc.)