More Analysis of the C100

[DB]

Check out this from EOSHD site:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8856/canon-launch-cinema-eos-c100

[peederj]

Sebastian at Cinema5D was unequivocal that the HDMI out was 4:2:2 uncompressed:

What's the difference to the C300?
The C100 records in AVCHD, a codec that will downcompress your footage to a 4:2:0 color space. Weird to see that limitation while many other specs are the same. There is no HD-SDI out, but the hdmi-out will deliver 4:2:2 for a better image recorded to a disk recorder.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=12761

He usually gets this sort of news first for some reason, so with his report and the Canon website I have to believe it's 4:2:2 vs. what one guy said he heard from Canon Support. The support people might not be briefed very well for a camera that's not shipping till the end of the year.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"...the major compromise is the codec which is now AVCHD at 24Mbit 4-2-0."

And the codec that they didn't use, presumably because it was too expensive, is used in the Canon XF100, which costs $3000 but does 4-2-2.

The Canon marketing people are trying to be a little too clever for their own good. Basically, the C100, C300 and C500 are all about double the price they should be. Doesn't Canon realize that they have competition?

They do realize they have competition. Sadly they think it all comes from various divisions within Canon only!
Look at how many little basics they crippled out of the 5D3. So instead of it continuing the revolution, getting mad praise, flying off the shelves like crazy to film people, and cementing themselves as the leaders in the market and making themselves hard to over thrown, they play stupid little games with internal market segmentation plus get greedy. What a waste.

[Axilrod]

This is from Canon's website:
Recording/Codec:
Signal System: NTSC and PAL
Compression: MPEG-4 AVC/H.264
Color Space: 4:2:2
Maximum Bit Rate: 24Mbps
Canon Log Gamma: Available
File Format: AVCHD

[Axilrod]

They do realize they have competition. Sadly they think it all comes from various divisions within Canon only!
Look at how many little basics they crippled out of the 5D3. So instead of it continuing the revolution, getting mad praise, flying off the shelves like crazy to film people, and cementing themselves as the leaders in the market and making themselves hard to over thrown, they play stupid little games with internal market segmentation plus get greedy. What a waste.

The 5D3 upgrades on the stills side were huge.  Canon didn't know the 5DII was going to be as successful in the film world as it was, and now it seems like they just trying to keep the two separate.  Even though the 5DII shot great video (at the time) in a lot of ways it just wasn't ideal for video at all.  So why add killer video features to the 5DIII, a camera that was intended for stills?  There is a huge segment of users that don't use the video features at all, so why make them pay for it? 

They realized how much demand there was for a large-sensor video camera and acted accordingly.  It makes a lot more sense for them to make a camera that addresses the video users needs (C100) and another for still users (5D3) instead of making one half-assed, dual-purpose camera.  They would have had to make a lot of compromises with the 5D3 to make both segments happy, so instead of making them share one camera they gave them each their own.

[simonxu11]

"...the major compromise is the codec which is now AVCHD at 24Mbit 4-2-0."

And the codec that they didn't use, presumably because it was too expensive, is used in the Canon XF100, which costs $3000 but does 4-2-2.

The Canon marketing people are trying to be a little too clever for their own good. Basically, the C100, C300 and C500 are all about double the price they should be. Doesn't Canon realize that they have competition?

They do realize they have competition. Sadly they think it all comes from various divisions within Canon only!
Look at how many little basics they crippled out of the 5D3. So instead of it continuing the revolution, getting mad praise, flying off the shelves like crazy to film people, and cementing themselves as the leaders in the market and making themselves hard to over thrown, they play stupid little games with internal market segmentation plus get greedy. What a waste.

+1

[Videoshooter]

<em>“Many may be taken aback with the idea of spending $7,999 on this camera at first. But if you stop to think about what you won’t NEED to buy – it can actually start to look like the C100 might just be a wiser investment long term. This camera comes ready to shoot. The ergonomics are great so you don’t HAVE to have a cage. You don’t need to buy an external audio recorder and synching software – this has XLR inputs (and stereo headphone jack as well as levels) with the handle.”  <strong><a href=\"http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/08/29/canon-c100-leads-to-murky-future-for-mid-to-upper-range-video-hdslrs/\" target=\"_blank\">Visit VincentLaforet</a></strong></em></p>

I have to disagree with Vincent here. The only things I added to my kit for DSLR use were a LCD loupe and a Zoom H4n. Everything else (tripod, monopod, etc) I had already, and would need for any camcorder.

With the C100, you still need a shoulder rig if you want to shoot handheld. Such a rig would need to be better balanced (= heavier and more expensive) than for DSLR, due to the greater weight. And thanks to the LCD design you might still need a monitor or EVF also when working with a shoulder mount.

When shooting with larger lenses (such as a 70-200 or bigger) it's also likely you'll need rails and a lens support, becuase both the camera and the lens are too heavy for the lens mount. With DSLR's you can put heavy lenses directly on the tripod and the body can remain unsupported. With the C100, you're going to want that extra support gear.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

They do realize they have competition. Sadly they think it all comes from various divisions within Canon only!
Look at how many little basics they crippled out of the 5D3. So instead of it continuing the revolution, getting mad praise, flying off the shelves like crazy to film people, and cementing themselves as the leaders in the market and making themselves hard to over thrown, they play stupid little games with internal market segmentation plus get greedy. What a waste.

The 5D3 upgrades on the stills side were huge.  Canon didn't know the 5DII was going to be as successful in the film world as it was, and now it seems like they just trying to keep the two separate.  Even the 5DII shot great video (at the time) in a lot of ways it just wasn't ideal for video at all.  So why add killer video features to the 5DIII, a camera that was intended for stills?  There is a huge segment of users that don't use the video features at all, so why make them pay for it? 

They realized how much demand there was for a large-sensor video camera and acted accordingly.  It makes a lot more sense for them to make a camera that addresses the video users needs (C100) and another for still users (5D3) instead of making one half-assed, dual-purpose camera.  They would have had to make a lot of compromises with the 5D3 to make both segments happy, so instead of making them share one camera they gave them each their own.

How much money would adding zebras and some focusing aids during shooting and a crop mode cost? I'd bet any extra cost for a bit better codec would be made up better sales.

And if they didn't care about 5D3 video then why 22MP?

And the video feature on DSLRs actually is pretty popular.

[AG]

Hate to say this but the more i read about this camera the more i'm interested in it.

Sure it has AVCHD, only has HDMI out, 4.2.2 colour, only EF mount, 24,25,30fps and for some ungodly reason 60i.

It still makes me want to take it out and have a shoot with it. Sure i love my 60D and 5D2+3 but i would also like something that feels more like a video camera while ergonomically feels like a DSLR.

DSLR shooters currently don't have clean HDMI out (on Canon) so this camera has a welcome change.
Headphone monitoring (check), XLR inputs (check), reduced Moire and Aliasing (check), no more 12min limit on shooting (check). Theres 4 good reasons to buy one right there.

Sure its not as great as the C300 or C500 but then again its like comparing a 450D to a 1DX and complaining about the burst rate or lack of video.

Each camera has its place and this looks like it could make video in a DSLR a secondary feature, to the joy of sooooooooooooo many photographers on here that hate that the 5D2 shot video at all.

I cant wait to get my hands on one and see what it can do.

[expatinasia]

4.2.2 colour 

I read it was only 4:2:0 and I also read it is 24Mbit/sec which is not that great.

For this price tag, I think it is a very strange thing for Canon to do.

Personally I would take the XF 300 or 305 which are both cheaper than US$ 8,000 (or some other brand like JVC, Sony, Panasonic which have some nice pro level cameras coming out soon).

[AG]

Some sites say 4.2.2 some say 4.2.0 we will have to wait and see.

As for the 24Mbit thats still faster than the Reds 24Mbyte.

Plus uncompressed HDMI out so thats kinda a mute point.

Remember the 1DC was first announced as costing $15k, and can now be found for $9999. Lets hope the same thing happens with this camera, that may change people opinion slightly.

[peederj]

The only thing that's certain with regard to the color space is that AVCHD only accepts 4:2:0 color space. So the internal recording is definitely only 4:2:0, which is about the only reason you'd want a C300 instead.

The question under vigorous scrutiny right now is whether the HDMI output has 4:2:2 color or the half-resolution 4:2:0 color. If it cripples away 4:2:2 output to external recorders, I vote against this camera and Canon Cinema as a whole. If it allows 4:2:2, then there is no remaining resaon to shoot with a C300...you can get one of these, rent any add-ons you like and get back to the craft. If it doesn't offer 4:2:2 even externally, this camera is DOA in my view. EOS, as in End Of Story.

[Babarous]

Because the fs700 is a completely different readout (It doesn't address rolling shutter like the c100 sensor does) and looks like junk in all the samples out there. It's got one trick: high fps. 

Does FS700 looks junk in this clip?

http://vimeo.com/groups/fs700/videos/46275632

Hello no ...

And lets not forget FS700 is "4K ready" with future firmware and recorder

[Babarous]

Some sites say 4.2.2 some say 4.2.0 we will have to wait and see.

ACHD specs are 4.2.0. If it does do,  4.2.2, that would be through HDMI to external recorder

[AG]

Does FS700 looks junk in this clip?

http://vimeo.com/groups/fs700/videos/46275632

Hello no ...

And lets not forget FS700 is "4K ready" with future firmware and recorder

I have to say you missed the point he was making. You counter a comment that says all the FS700 is good at is slow-mo with a slow-mo clip.

Plus the 4K ready will more than likely involve buying a Sony proprietary external recorder. So you could be looking at another $5-8K on top of the cost of the camera.

Suddenly putting it out of the ballpark for the people that would buy this C100 in the first place.