Cinema EOS Development Opinion

[Canon Rumors]

Share

This is an opinion with a mix of speculation A lot has been made of the “in development” announcement of a new “Cinema” branded DSLR. Most people seem to think the camera is going to be based on the 1D X.

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 “C” stuck on it for marketing purposes.

I think the camera they’re speaking of will sit between the 5D Mark III and 1D X. Perhaps an EOS 3C? I do not like the name “3D” for a camera that doesn’t actually shoot 3D.

I also don’t think it would be a full size EOS-1 body. They just spent a few hours touting the small stature of the C300, I don’t think they’d make a cinema DSLR bigger than it needs to be. I’d have to hear from cinematographers & videographers whether or not a camera the size of the 5D Mark II is preferred to the EOS-1 body.

What about photographers? 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 new “photography first” full frame DSLR that doesn’t require remortgaging their homes. I think the 5D Mark III will be that camera. It’ll probably have video features on par with the 1D X, but will be a high resolution, high image quality still photography camera.

I’ve said before that I think Canon plans to monetize the videographers and video DSLRs, so something like the “EOS 3C” makes a lot of sense.  Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

So don’t be worried photographers, Canon hasn’t forgotten about you and I’m sure will deliver the product we all know you want.

It’s going to be a very interesting 2012 to say the least.

This was just an opinion post, please don’t be too hard on me.

cr

[JR]

It will be interesting to see which direction Canon is going though. I tend to agree with you Graig that Canon has not forgotten about photography.  However with all the new video product out and the 1DX, I wonder if Canon will still position itself as the high MP cameras manufacturer compared to Nikon.  I see a lot of focus with low light from the new video based product and I am hoping some of this technology trickle down to our DSLR.

I guess in the mean I will keep adding to my collection of lenses and but the time any new product comes out I will have no choice to buy it!

[Manuel]

I'm very disappointed about the non-releasing of a 5D mark III. Frustrated by the 8bit C300. Disgusted by the washed out, poorly white balanced and noisy image quality of the last Laforet's video compared to Nocturne and Reverie. And very, very, very Sorry for Scorsese. Ah, last but not least, the surreal price range. If only Canon had really listened properly...What's your take CR? Hope the Canon people are listening because they just released an object to rent not to own: the 5D mark II IQ still beats hands down any competitor.

[Jettatore]

I can completely understand a Photography only, dedicated FF model at a sweet price point.  But THAT should be the addition to the current lineup.  I also wouldn't mind paying "slightly" more for the next 5D Mark III (or the new equivalent if they are re-naming things) if that continues to progress and be what it is to so many for so many different reasons.  For example, if it needs an extra processor, or to remove that stupid 15 minute recording limit UK tax (although artistically that really doesn't bother me).

What I don't want, is some outrageous price to get all the features of both video and photography that used to sit comfortably in the 5D II price range for a single body solution.  I also don't want to have a video camera that lacks updated high end still photography features of the new generation of DSLR, and vice versa I don't want a still camera that doesn't push forward hard on the video features we have all been expecting out of the MKIII.

4K may not be needed, however without it, I think they need to at least include, a safe frame margin to work within, this way if you bump into your tripod or the like, you can fix that little hiccup in editing because you have additional region beyond your 1080p recorded.  If you nail the shot you can just scale it down to 1080p keeping the full frame, but if you have some editing required, you now have some breathing room.  As well, RAW capture (even if it required an external fast storage solution), extra framerate capture, etc. etc. all the stuff everyone is always saying they want.

And then obviously, the great  photography improvements as we are seeing with the 1DX.  If I want two bodies, it's because I need two bodies that BOTH do awesome photography and awesome video.  You need at least two cameras in almost every video situation, and sometimes it's convenient to carry two cameras or have an assistant/second shooter for still shooting.  I'm certainly not going to buy 4 cameras for these needs.  Either way, the revolution in DSLR was that they were merging video and photography and that is why I got involved in the first place.  It was be a severe mistake by Canon to overlook or mis-understand that.

Otherwise, so long as the new announcements don't compromise what we have all been coming to expect and investing in, I'm actually now after digesting it all, pretty happy about the new announcements as it's options for rental if any budget allows for it and it makes my current equipment compatible with some pretty cool high end stuff.  The new Sony EF Red also looks like a great addition for rental.  I just don't want, to see any detractions from the natural progression DSLR was heading in before investors and marketing dufasses got involved, and fear that without feedback from the community they might make some mis-understood blunders.  Also, anything Canon doesn't do, someone else will, because the current technology makes it all possible and contrary to what I am sure is popular belief, this tech is already mass-marketable, mass-produce-able and it can be pushed a lot farther than the generation models we have without modern day miracles or marketing pretending like we are asking for too much.

Also, side discussion, Hollywood and TV are slowly on their way out as the internet consumes everything.  Just another thing for Canon to keep in mind before it scares away what could very well be their long term future.

[Jettatore]

I wonder if Canon will still position itself as the high MP cameras manufacturer compared to Nikon.  I see a lot of focus with low light from the new video based product and I am hoping some of this technology trickle down to our DSLR.

Noiseless images are more important than large resolutions.  If we can get a larger resolutions without noise then that's even better.  But if you're adding noise, to get to the larger resolution, then you might as well just get the crispest image you can at whatever res that can effectively happen at, and use digital scaling to make it larger when needed probably at the same rate of image degradation.

[bsbeamer]

Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

Just because Canon is pricing the new lenses at $45-48k for the zooms and $6,800 for EACH of the primes doesn't mean the video community can readily afford these products.  At those steep prices, I'd have to have a huge project with an intense need in order to justify that expense.  With most of the low and restricted mid range budgets these days, I have a feeling that many will be sticking with their current lens lineup for awhile to come.

[Stu_bert]

I cannot see Canon producing something with better specs than the C300 or the 1Dx unless they are priced to match that. Now of course the dSLR version is almost certain to not have the "addons" that make the C300 a complete system, and it is interesting to note that when you add these to Scarlett it brings the price closer to a C300 (specs aside).

I can see the "C3" dSLR having better video features that the 1Dx, but not better quality stills. I also concur with the view that there will be something around the $4-5K mark and then a MK III around the $3.5K mark. I would (happily) be stunned if either of these offer 4K video.

I can also see the C300 as more than just a release of some HW - they are cultivating relationships, building out the underlying support infrastructure which the film & TV studios would require. One assumes that Canon have done their research reasonably well, and the C300 fits the bill. Whether that is $16K or $20K, which if you subtract the "extras" might equate to a $8-10K body only. They will be working on the replacement which may well see alpha testing late 2012/early 2013.

Imagine the reaction if Canon released a better spec body, for half the price less than a year after releasing the C300? Ditto releasing a MK III which has better MP, better ISO and better video than the 1Dx...

Ultimately, frustration aside for all the readers here, one assumes Canon looks at their Video / Cinema line and their dSLR line and wants to keep them both. A dSLR which does better than a Panny GH2 for video, better than the MK II for stills and equal to AF to the 7D would be great as it would allow us all to stop carrying around multiple items and do it all in 1 body. Having played with a 7D mainly for the video (& sold it to a friend) then I would love it in a FF body and same / better features than my 1Ds. Just not sure if the 1Dx will fulfill that or whether I will wait for the C3 / MK III.

Finally, I think that the Canon tech for this generation has now been defined by the C300 / 1Dx. I don't see any "leaps" until 2013, and so my buying decisions will be based around these "limits"....

[Mack]

Canon has repeatedly said that they have separate teams on photo and video. So as much as the cameras are very similar, that would make it seem like development of the new EOS C cameras is alongside the newer 5D, with a different team working on each. A lot of photographers are afraid that the C line means less focus on still cameras, but that shouldn't be the case if they are indeed separate teams simultaneously working.

[CarebbianTraveler]

Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

Just because Canon is pricing the new lenses at $45-48k for the zooms and $6,800 for EACH of the primes doesn't mean the video community can readily afford these products.  At those steep prices, I'd have to have a huge project with an intense need in order to justify that expense.  With most of the low and restricted mid range budgets these days, I have a feeling that many will be sticking with their current lens lineup for awhile to come.

I think what canon did sounds logical: When they released the 5Dmk2, they had no clue about how this will hit the videography. But they pretty soon recognized this market and started with firmware updates.
Now canon has merged the two previously separate teams, video and DSLR, together to improve both sides and developed technology that plays in the highest league of videography. That's what they just released. So I guess this will also drastically improve the video quality of mid- and entry level DSLRs in the next time.

[seanmcr6]

The 1Dx is a stills camera that can shoot video (like the 5D). It is designed first and foremost to take the best stills possible.

The C camera will be a video camera that can shoot stills. It will be designed first and foremost to take video.

Those are facts you can take to the bank.

As for the 1D body...I cannot recall Canon EVER using a fake mockup for marketing images. Remember the 5D launch? or the 7D. They always used the actual camera and blacked out the bits that might give it away. The C will be a 1D body. I'm sure of it.

Having said that, I do not understand how they are going to put pro video features into a 1D body.  XLR, genlock, SDI, Clean HDMI? Like where would you even put those? Since they've stated they were going to put the same Super35 sensor in this body....I don't see how they could also have all those features and not eat away at the C300 marketshare.

So I believe, they are going to use the same strategy that worked with the 5D. Take the sensor from the very expensive pro unit (C300) and put them in the inexpensive body (in this example, the 1D) and sent it out into the world. No bells, no whistles.

Amateurs and weekend-pros are much more likely to accept a lack of pro features to get the promise of the great output. (proven by the success of the original 5D) They're willing to work around those omissions. The front line pro's don't want them, they need them. They cannot add a new canon camera into their workflow if it doesn't genlock...or provide the HDSDI output they need. Since they HAVE to have these features, they pay for them.

They will probably price it pretty damn close to the 1Dx though. Think $6-8K.

[bsbeamer]

Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

Just because Canon is pricing the new lenses at $45-48k for the zooms and $6,800 for EACH of the primes doesn't mean the video community can readily afford these products.  At those steep prices, I'd have to have a huge project with an intense need in order to justify that expense.  With most of the low and restricted mid range budgets these days, I have a feeling that many will be sticking with their current lens lineup for awhile to come.

I think what canon did sounds logical: When they released the 5Dmk2, they had no clue about how this will hit the videography. But they pretty soon recognized this market and started with firmware updates.
Now canon has merged the two previously separate teams, video and DSLR, together to improve both sides and developed technology that plays in the highest league of videography. That's what they just released. So I guess this will also drastically improve the video quality of mid- and entry level DSLRs in the next time.

I'm not saying it's not logical, or a great product and development.  I'm saying the COST isn't going to get these into the hands of the masses, unless a rental house offers a huge price break on a weekly rental for these lenses.  This isn't a "videography" lens release - it's a professional cinema release.  The closer competition is Zeiss and the other PL mount lenses.

Until you see a wedding video guy shooting with these lenses on a regular basis, and the internal corporate video guys ordering several of them at a time, the term "videography" really shouldn't be used.

[dilbert]

Looking at the prices of the new cinema lenses, it seems videographers have no problem spending more.

Just because Canon is pricing the new lenses at $45-48k for the zooms and $6,800 for EACH of the primes doesn't mean the video community can readily afford these products.  At those steep prices, I'd have to have a huge project with an intense need in order to justify that expense.  With most of the low and restricted mid range budgets these days, I have a feeling that many will be sticking with their current lens lineup for awhile to come.

If you've done your homework and planned out the shoot for your project properly, then you will know on which days you need which lenses and you will rent lenses accordingly, rather than buy.

[CarebbianTraveler]

I'm not saying it's not logical, or a great product and development.  I'm saying the COST isn't going to get these into the hands of the masses, unless a rental house offers a huge price break on a weekly rental for these lenses.  This isn't a "videography" lens release - it's a professional cinema release.  The closer competition is Zeiss and the other PL mount lenses.

Until you see a wedding video guy shooting with these lenses on a regular basis, and the internal corporate video guys ordering several of them at a time, the term "videography" really shouldn't be used.

It's definitely not canons idea to make a $45k lens for the masses. But I bet we well see cheaper cinema lenses from canon.
Btw: What is the difference between a normal EF lens and a new CN lens? I've just read the aperture diaphragm is different and the CN lenses seem to have full smooth manual control (as the FD lenses). These are no reasons to announce a new mount. Have they probably fixed the very bad auto focus?

As you've recognized I'm a pure still photographer and I don't know much about videography / cinematography.  Interesting for me is that the C300 is also canons first EVIL camera. I thought that they will aim high, but not that high
But when the autofocus works now, this would flatten the way for a FF EVIL camera and therefore cheap lenses.

[dilbert]

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 “C” stuck on it for marketing purposes.
I think the camera they’re speaking of will sit between the 5D Mark III and 1D X. Perhaps an EOS 3C? I do not like the name “3D” for a camera that doesn’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 don’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 “photography first” full frame DSLR that doesn’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.

I’ve said before that I think Canon plans to monetize the videographers and video DSLRs, so something like the “EOS 3C” 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.)

[terwilliger]

It seems really simple to me.  I'd like to go full-frame, but I'm simply not going to spend $2,300 on a 3 year old body -- especially when the product in question seems to be on a 3 year release cycle.  Canon will not get my money until they release a new product.  I'm sure there are many other people in my boat as well.

BTW: The 5D / other DSLRs may be great for cinematography but they're basically useless for many common consumer video tasks like shooting kids -- you have to have AF when you're chasing the crazy boogers running around unpredictably.  For that, my 7D sits quietly on the shelf and I use a consumer grade Canon video camera.  If the 5DmkIII had ZERO video I wouldn't shed a tear.