svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB2aWV3Qm94PScwIDAgNzI4IDQ2MicgeG1sbnM9J2h0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMub3JnLzIwMDAvc3ZnJz48L3N2Zz4= - Canon will announce a new Cinema EOS camera ahead of NAB [CR3]

    Canon will announce a new Cinema EOS camera ahead of NAB [CR3]

    By 47 Comments1 Min Read Canon Cinema EOS Rumors

    We have confirmed that Canon will be announcing a new Cinema EOS camera ahead of NAB in April.

    The new camera will follow the same form factor as the recently released Canon Cinema EOS C500 Mark II and will have a user interchangeable EF and PL mount.

    This is likely going to be the follow-up to the Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark II and not the coming 8K Canon Cinema EOS camera, though I wouldn't be shocked to finally see a development announcement for the 8K camera.

    We hope to nail down the specifications for the new camera shortly.

    Go to discussion...

    Share.

    Related Posts

    47 comments

    2. Full Frame I wonder? Seems Canon is moving in that direction with Cinema EOS. I watched a video yesterday cost Comparing the new C500-2 to a complete Red setup. $16k vs almost $50k. Amazing how much value Canon is cramming into these professional pieces. The guy was essentially selling his Red systems because the cost of ownership and ease of use plus quality of Canon was too good not to
    3. Come on, Canon. Make it a C500II without the 6K and with an RF Mount. That’s it.
      - Full frame
      - 4k raw and all the 4k 10-bit in full frame
      - RF Mount
      - add in 120fps in 4k

      Compete directly with the FX9, but with raw and 120fps and of course better Canon image. $10 - $12k

      and make it 15-20% smaller and lighter.
    4. Come on, Canon. Make it a C500II without the 6K and with an RF Mount. That’s it.
      - Full frame
      - 4k raw and all the 4k 10-bit in full frame
      - RF Mount
      - add in 120fps in 4k

      Compete directly with the FX9, but with raw and 120fps and of course better Canon image. $10 - $12k

      and make it 15-20% smaller and lighter.
      Not until you see Canon start remaking their Cine-Primes into RF... which im not sure is terribly imminent. RF L glass is I believe all FBW right? That’s a no-no for cinema shooting as much pro level shooting is done with manual focus pull. Otherwise the EF-Cinema glass is all manual anyway. If I was gonna use non-cinema glass on these bodies, i would definitely want EF -L and not RF-L just because of the focus pulling issue
    6. Any news on some new additions to the CN-E line of affordable Cine Zooms. Love the 18-80mm and 70-200mm but would like to see a T3.1 or F2.8 equivalent even if the reach will most probably be shorter.
    7. I'm actually hoping to see an C100 III. Unless they decided to kill that model line with the C200. But I think a C100 III with Full Frame and no slo-mo (4K24 and 4K30) would be a great seller for around $5000. OR - give us up to 4K60 like the C200 but keep it crop. Then let the C300 and C500 lines do FF. Plenty ways Canon could go with this.

      Then again, I'm kinda thinking Canon may just scrap it and give is the long awaited a7s competitor in its place (sort of).
    8. Not until you see Canon start remaking their Cine-Primes into RF... which im not sure is terribly imminent. RF L glass is I believe all FBW right? That’s a no-no for cinema shooting as much pro level shooting is done with manual focus pull. Otherwise the EF-Cinema glass is all manual anyway. If I was gonna use non-cinema glass on these bodies, i would definitely want EF -L and not RF-L just because of the focus pulling issue

      Yes, I understand this argument, but I know lots and lots of people who shoot with C200 and C300 II, as well as Sony FS5 and FS7, and very few of them shoot with cinema lenses with true, hard stops manual focus lenses. And the new FBW lenses are WAAYYY better than they were a few years ago.

      Also, with the new linear focusing choice on most mirrorless cameras, it's a non-issue. I focus all of the time with mirrorless FBW lenses and never care their isn't a distance scale.

      The RF-Mount is important because all of their full-frame RF zooms have stabilization, which is HUGE for doc, journalist, tv, and small production company crews - plus the RF mount easily adapts everything else out there.

      Probably will be EF mount, so maybe something on the lower end of the cinema lineup (C100 III or C200 II) will be the first to get it.
    9. Where’s the Camera from those sexy patent blueprints from a while back? The one with an RF mount that looked modular and gimbal friendly. I’m holding out for that one. I’ve got the Eos R and the af is incredible but it only holds one card and has limited recording capability. A full frame cine camera that I could slap on the 28-70 F2 and have af with professional audio would be monumental.
      Even if it’s an aps-c sensor to keep cost down I could use the sigma Art Zooms with an EF adapter. I want an FS-5 killer more than an FX-9.
    10. Where’s the Camera from those sexy patent blueprints from a while back? The one with an RF mount that looked modular and gimbal friendly. I’m holding out for that one. I’ve got the Eos R and the af is incredible but it only holds one card and has limited recording capability. A full frame cine camera that I could slap on the 28-70 F2 and have af with professional audio would be monumental.
      Even if it’s an aps-c sensor to keep cost down I could use the sigma Art Zooms with an EF adapter. I want an FS-5 killer more than an FX-9.

      Totally agree. Maybe the Red Komodo is that instead.

      But C100 III (same size or smaller) that is more modular, has XLRs on the body, internal NDs, with (the now required for any new cinema camera) 10-bit 4k up to 60fps, with an RF Mount would be an instant buy for me.
    11. Come on, Canon. Make it a C500II without the 6K and with an RF Mount. That’s it.
      - Full frame
      - 4k raw and all the 4k 10-bit in full frame
      - RF Mount
      - add in 120fps in 4k

      Compete directly with the FX9, but with raw and 120fps and of course better Canon image. $10 - $12k

      and make it 15-20% smaller and lighter.

      What is wrong with the EF mount? Also you can use PL mount lenses on Canon cameras natively. Also you forget that Canon has a large line-up of EF Cinema lenses that are incredible.
      Sony is very limited with just E lenses which are limited in range and options where EF lenses have a huge variety and add PL lenses it is mind boggling what options are available to you.
    12. What is wrong with the EF mount? Also you can use PL mount lenses on Canon cameras natively. Also you forget that Canon has a large line-up of EF Cinema lenses that are incredible.
      Sony is very limited with just E lenses which are limited in range and options where EF lenses have a huge variety and add PL lenses it is mind boggling what options are available to you.

      As I mentioned above, for a full-frame doc cinema camera, you could put a 24-70mm f2.8 lens on it and be good 95% of the time. But you also want lens stabilization. The EF version doesn't have it. The 16-35mm f2.8 doesn't either. Whereas the RF Mount versions do. The Sigma EF does, but that stabilization is pretty awful. And that lens is huge.
    13. If Canon was really out to win this market they would be trying to squeeze the FX9 from below. The C500II (which I own) is their new flagship, but I think they will get beat on sales by the FX9 simply based on price (the cameras are really targeted at different users, but as they came out at the same time, Sony seems to be winning from a "chatter" standpoint. The problem is the differences between these cameras are getting so slim, but perhaps we could see an FX9 clone (FF but 4k output) with some of canon's new AF tech (from the 1dxmarkIII) combined with a price tag at 10k. Would likely savage the new C500II as well, which is why I don't think it will happen. More likely that we will see something on the lower end...a C200 mark II...5.9k S35 $7k better codecs. Done.
    14. If Canon was really out to win this market they would be trying to squeeze the FX9 from below. The C500II (which I own) is their new flagship, but I think they will get beat on sales by the FX9 simply based on price (the cameras are really targeted at different users, but as they came out at the same time, Sony seems to be winning from a "chatter" standpoint. The problem is the differences between these cameras are getting so slim, but perhaps we could see an FX9 clone (FF but 4k output) with some of canon's new AF tech (from the 1dxmarkIII) combined with a price tag at 10k. Would likely savage the new C500II as well, which is why I don't think it will happen. More likely that we will see something on the lower end...a C200 mark II...5.9k S35 $7k better codecs. Done.

      Yea - that's true. If Canon came out with a full-frame C300 III as a 4k only camera but offered all the specs you would think it would have (internal raw up to 60fps + 10-bit codecs), that could really hurt the C500 II, since the 5.9k on that camera would only be used in productions that can deal with and afford the file sizes.

      But, if it doesn't have internal raw or is not full-frame, how is it above the C200, which has internal raw 4k up to 60fps?

      I wouldn't be surprised (but I would be disappointed), if it was sort of a combo of the C300 II and C200 - a Super35 4K-only camera with internal raw up to 60fps + all of the 10-bit codecs that the C200 was missing. So, basically a C200 with a firmware update. Hopefully not, but that's what I'm guessing.

      That's why I think they should make it RF Mount, full-frame, 4k-only, internal raw, 60fps, all 10-bit codecs. Want an EF mount or 5.9k raw? C500 II. Don't need 5.9k raw or want the newer, more powerful RF mount? C300 III.
    15. I think the C300 III will be the 8K S35 camera that shoots 4K. I know some people would assume the 8K model would be the flagship model, but an 8K S35 camera would still be a step down from a full frame 5.9K C500 II. The 8K S35 sensor is just a better way to capture 4K footage than the current 4K sensor. It is analogous to the way the original C300 captured 1080p off of a 4K sensor.
    16. Sony will put more pressure on with the FX6, so it makes sense to make it EF-mount FF focusing on 10-bit 4:2:2 internal codecs, and possibly call it C400 instead of the C300 Mark III.
    17. Full Frame I wonder? Seems Canon is moving in that direction with Cinema EOS. I watched a video yesterday cost Comparing the new C500-2 to a complete Red setup. $16k vs almost $50k. Amazing how much value Canon is cramming into these professional pieces. The guy was essentially selling his Red systems because the cost of ownership and ease of use plus quality of Canon was too good not to

      Red has real problems. They get completely owned on the top end by ARRI and they are fighting off both Canon and Black Magic on the bottom end. When you ask why Red it is pretty hard to come up with an answer. For the first year ever I am looking forward to NAB more than any of the camera shows.
    18. As I mentioned above, for a full-frame doc cinema camera, you could put a 24-70mm f2.8 lens on it and be good 95% of the time. But you also want lens stabilization. The EF version doesn't have it. The 16-35mm f2.8 doesn't either. Whereas the RF Mount versions do. The Sigma EF does, but that stabilization is pretty awful. And that lens is huge.

      I doubt PL Pro lenses have it nor do the Canon cine lenses either.
      Apparently those hyper expensive lenses do phenomenal work some how.
    19. If the Olympics still happen, Canon will have an 8K available for at least network ENG usage, if not more. What form factor that actually comes in is up for debate. I'd expect something like the rest of the line, possibly with a "brick" attachment for 8K.

    Leave a comment

    Please log in to your forum account to comment