Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III appears in Canon’s product lineup

peters · Apr 7, 2020

I wonder what the price will be. With the c500 at 16k and the c200 at 6k I would guess its around 10k

cpreston · Apr 7, 2020

Dual ISO is interesting, although it will be interesting seeing how useful it is in normal shooting if the XF-AVC is still one 10bit.

I was hoping for a new 24-105 Full Frame CN-E, but the 10-25mm is extremely tempting. I would no longer have to carry around my 10-18mm stm for my wide angles.

Chris.Chapterten · Apr 7, 2020

With Canon's cinema cameras sticking with the EF mount it seems like EF will be around for quite some time..

Graphic.Artifacts · Apr 7, 2020

Not sure I could justify paying 10K given the rumoured specs of the R5 but no-crop raw 4K 120P with full DPAF would be a very nice.

sanj · Apr 7, 2020

Superb

Ripley · Apr 7, 2020

Anxious to find out about the intermediate codec and the price. A CN-E 10-25mm f4 would round out the super 35 CN-E zooms but would be a little disappointing for me.

RunAndGun · Apr 7, 2020

Chris.Chapterten said:
With Canon's cinema cameras sticking with the EF mount it seems like EF will be around for quite some time..

Yep. It’s not like all the millions of EF still and thousands of EF Cine lenses would have just disappeared into the ether or otherwise have become useless if an RF mount had been what Canon had chosen to put on it. Even when Canon completely stops making EF bodies and lenses, EF will still be around for decades more, because the lenses are so easy to adapt to other mounts, especially the newer shallow flange depth mounts, like RF.

cpreston · Apr 7, 2020

Ripley said:
Anxious to find out about the intermediate codec and the price. A CN-E 10-25mm f4 would round out the super 35 CN-E zooms but would be a little disappointing for me.

It could also be a CN-E 10-25mm t/2.8 and cost $25,000. That would be disappointing for me because I'm not working in that league.

AccipiterQ · Apr 7, 2020

Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.

Architect1776 · Apr 7, 2020

AccipiterQ said:
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.

Because the mirrorless camera would NOT sell and it must be marketable. That would be the death knell to Canon mirrorless cameras on the consumer and pro markets if they did not have amazing video capabilities on par or superior to the competition that are doing it. No, most people have no clue how to fully use the still features let alone the video features but they feel good about bragging rights and that is what counts in the marketing and sales world. In other words sell the sizzle.

sanj · Apr 7, 2020

AccipiterQ said:
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.

I find it great that I can shoot professional stuff on my still cameras.

cinemanimal · Apr 7, 2020

10-25 seems an odd choice. I’m guessing this is a T4.4 AF to match the other 2. The original 4 cinema zooms came out 7 years ago. I owned the 30-105 and really liked it. But I can’t imagine many are considering these lenses anymore. They are not competitive. I’d love to see serious fast (2.8 or better) hybrid Cine AF zooms. Keep them similar to current designs (they are pretty lenses physicaly) but have AF motors that can be switched on and off. IS as well. Might as well make them RF or PL user changeable. I hope your are listening Canon.

C Tographer · Apr 7, 2020

I've been supportive of Canon's move to full-frame sensors. But the C300 is the one model that should retain its Super35 sensor, so Canon made the right call. Run & gun reality TV needs S35.

But the bottom end of the range - the C100 / C200 equivalents, should move to full-frame, as those users tend to incorporate a lot of still photo lenses, with composition that moves at a more thoughtful pace.

rontele7 · Apr 7, 2020

10-25 makes sense, as that's basically a 16-35mm equivalent lens. Not very exciting, however Canon has been surprising us all a lot lately, so who knows.

That said, I'd be disappointed if the camera isn't RF mount. You can put EF, PL, and RF lenses on an RF mount. With an EF mount, you can only do EF.

C300 III and R5 seem like a natural A & B camera pair, so it would be strange if they were different lens mounts.

steve oakley · Apr 7, 2020

the camera canon should of released 4 years ago especially when they were showing 8K in a C300-2 size body. Not putting an RF mount on it is dumb. Canon already has an EF->RF adapter and could simply include that with camera. They could even offer a PL->RF adapter as well. canon - the company that always misses the mark no matter how close they otherwise get. AHHHHH !!!!!! I'll probably buy one anyway.

cpreston · Apr 7, 2020

These specs read to me like Canon is just trying to fill a hole in their lineup in the most efficient way possible. The biggest drawback to the C300 mkII was the lack of high frame rates. Otherwise, it is a really decent camera for corporate and documentary video. The C500II is optimized more for commercial and narrative work. The S35, high frame rates, and dual ISO in the C500II body will fill that corporate and doc at $10,000 to $12,000 hole they have. The next generation will be RF mount.

melgross · Apr 7, 2020

AccipiterQ said:
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.

Because shooting video has become more important to those who are mostly still photographers. From photojournalism to wedding work, video has become a necessary part of the business. I know a number of these people, and most use their still cameras for the video., often they have at least three bodies, so one for backup and one on a tripod for video. Why have to maintain a video camera too? It’s just something else to learn, and can’t be used as a backup still camera if needed.

bandido · Apr 8, 2020

Graphic.Artifacts said:
Not sure I could justify paying 10K given the rumoured specs of the R5 but no-crop raw 4K 120P with full DPAF would be a very nice.

You are not in target market for this camera.

peters · Apr 8, 2020

AccipiterQ said:
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.

Because photograhy and videography has a lot of things in common - similar concepts of composition, similar technologies, similar people who are interested in the topic. Its only logical to have cameras that can do both - and its obviously possible to build these.
Its also happening for more than a decade and Canon themself introduced the video topic to photo-cameras with the (back than) groundbreaking (!) Canon 5D Mark II. It offered Full-HD recording on a fullframe - something completely unimaginable at the time. (This was especialy crazy when magic lantern added FHD RAW to it). All of this was achieved while the 5D was still the most popular and pretty perfectly rounded photography camera at the market. Its untill today one of the most broadly used Full-Frame DSLRs.

There is no reason to not implement full-grown video features to a photo camera. While SDI, XLR, V-Mount etc may be nice accessoires - all of these can be worked around.
Especialy small companies or solo-video/photo guys dont want to buy 2 video AND 2 photo cameras - this way they can stick to just 2 cameras which can do both (nearly) equally well.

Canon did the market segmentation-game quite some time, with the (for videographers) rather disapointing Canon 5D IV and EOS R cameras and it wasnt realy appreciated by the video/photo-guys.