Canon had a good showing at the Oscars last night, as every documentary nominated was predominately shot on Canon cameras according to Cinema5D.
Film: “Free Solo,” dir. Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi
- Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II
- Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
- Canon Cinema Primes
- Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0-8.9
Film: “Hale County This Morning, This Evening,” dir. RaMell Ross
- Canon 5D Mark III
Film: “Minding the Gap,” dir. Bing Liu
- Canon 5D (no indication which mark)
- Canon EF 16-35mm Lens
Film: “Of Fathers and Sons,” dir. Talal Derki
- Canon Cinema EOS C300
Film: “RBG,” Betsy West, dir. Julie Cohen
- Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II
- Canon EF 16-35mm
- Canon EF 24-70mm
- Canon EF 70-200mm
- Canon EF 400mm Prime lens
So while a large number of internet enthusiasts make a lot of claims that Canon doesn't know what they're doing in the world of cinematography, it appears the people making quality films are pretty impressed with the offerings from Canon. This is some proof that the Cinema EOS concept and implementation have been a winner for Canon and we expect to see some great new gear announced ahead of NAB in April.
Maybe it's people's opinions that suck...
Maybe it’s just that the people who think it sucks have absolutely no idea what they are doing, :unsure: they are out there, I just found a desertspoon size glob of axle grease on the back brakes of a car where there should only have been a trace smear of copper grease! :oops::rolleyes: Never underestimate the ability of an idiot! :LOL::LOL:
Cheers, Graham.
That was my point, which I could have been clearer about.
Me too.
Guess the critics are too stupid to know that Canon sucks and only Sony shot productions deserve to win.
I shoot on 1DX II and it is fantastic. That has never been the problem with Canon. The problem with them is that they do everything to protect their higher end market.
If you were a filmmaker of that budget, renting few C300 II and a servo 50-1000 wouldn't be an issue. You can afford to put a 5D III or IV hanging all over the place without worrying if they are going to be destroyed in the process or not. I really wished the RP was that kind of camera.
This news is not exciting at all to me. It just says that I bought a fantastic gear. It proves as well that low market will remains neglected. If you re OK with that then rejoice, but if you are not then worry like I do.
Lots of the films used more than just the cinema line, some 1dx2, 5d2/3/4, I even saw a mention of T2i.
Cinema EOS cameras do not compete with Red and Arri cameras. They compete with the mid and low tier cameras from the various manufacturers. They do well enough, especially the C300 MII.
True, the C700 is Canon trying to move into "A" camera territory. Most of Hollywood is ARRI, even RED hasn't penetrated the market all that much.
After reading this news I don't even want 5d4 to shoot FF 4K anymore...I was stupid to want it in the first place and Sony a7r is just another crap giving people unwanted features. I get it.
The point is that FF 4K is not an impediment to creating great art, anymore than Ansel Adams' gear was to him. It is fair to say, "FF 4K is technically possible, gee it would be great if Canon offered this in their SLRs". But it is clearly NOT fair to say "These cameras suck because they don't have FF 4k/feature xyz". There is more to the quality of a video camera than how many pixels it can record, clearly - workflow, ergonomics, serviceability, etc. etc. could be many of the reasons why a camera with less capability in the area of resolution might be superior overall.