Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes we are. Because these are the offerings from each company NOW. The C300 vs FS7 is a very valid comparison now, and one that many will be interested in. When a C400 comes we will compare that to the FS7, but for now the c300.

 

[joe1946]

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.

In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

 

[Niki]

The 1DC has all the advantages the 1Dx has over the 7D. Plus, in video it delivers an entirely different league of image quality, even beyond the C100/C300. The APS-H 4K mode that works great up to 12,800 ISO is absolutely unique, with the infamous canon colours, great resolution and dynamic range, it's a very very filmic image that is up there with highest-end cinema cameras today. The super 35mm crop looks exactly identical to the C300 in C log, it's one of the best 1080p images out there, not to mention on DSLRs. The full frame mode looks crap though, very similar to the 5D and 7D mk II, good but a whole different league.

The 1Dc would be the perfect camera if they put in some focus and exposure assist features, plus an articulating screen. Why not!

+1

I shooting advertising…with kodak..super 35mm for high end…and for everything else c300 (i mentioned this before) I have used the 1dc and thought the same thing…if only it had more features it could replace the c300 and I could also use it for stills

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

8K video is over 33 megapixels. Canon still don't have a stills camera that shoots that.

There is a certain quantity called "enough" and I think 4K is about that. 24/48 audio is already enough. There are post processes that benefit from a larger capture resolution and processing space. But for consumer delivery 4K video may be standard for decades, most likely the change from there isn't just going to be resolution (it will be holodeck etc.).

If I did work for recording in studios of Hollyood, I would invest in 8K in the near future.
Why?
Because the display screens in theaters is the same size of a bus. But why not get excited with 4K?
Because homes today do not have (and never will) screens the size of a 4-door car, which would show overt improvements compared to 1080P.

 

[mkabi]

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.

In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?

 

[joe1946]

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.

In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?

4K UHD TVs will outsell 1080p TVs within two years. Just because Canon does not have any 4K cameras under $9,000 does not mean 4K is dead. There are millions of 4K cameras sold every month to consumers and 4K UHD TVs will be a hot seller this Holiday season.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Sales of 4K TVs not reach 1% of the total market. In the future may reach 5 or 10%.
Let's talk honestly... How many people have room for a 80 inch TV in the living room, and the necessary distance to the couch?

The future is 4K display on giant screens in theaters. However, 8K is possibly better suited for that use. This reminds me of the video cameras 720P, which never became hegemonic because most preferred to the direct jump from 480 to 1080 resolution.

 

[mkabi]

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.

In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?

4K UHD TVs will outsell 1080p TVs within two years. Just because Canon does not have any 4K cameras under $9,000 does not mean 4K is dead. There are millions of 4K cameras sold every month to consumers and 4K UHD TVs will be a hot seller this Holiday season.

Dude are you listening to what I am saying?

Forget Canon not producing 4K cameras under $9,000. Just forget it, Canon doesn't produce TVs either.

Listen carefully now.
There is NO cable channel producing 1080p signal, why do you think that all of a sudden that TV channels will suddenly produce 4K signals? Do you think that because Panasonic has 4K cameras under $2000 that will suddenly make Cable channels 4K????

 

[joe1946]

Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.

In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.

How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?

4K UHD TVs will outsell 1080p TVs within two years. Just because Canon does not have any 4K cameras under $9,000 does not mean 4K is dead. There are millions of 4K cameras sold every month to consumers and 4K UHD TVs will be a hot seller this Holiday season.

Dude are you listening to what I am saying?

Forget Canon not producing 4K cameras under $9,000. Just forget it, Canon doesn't produce TVs either.

Listen carefully now.
There is NO cable channel producing 1080p signal, why do you think that all of a sudden that TV channels will suddenly produce 4K signals? Do you think that because Panasonic has 4K cameras under $2000 that will suddenly make Cable channels 4K????

Dude, you are 100% wrong.
"It’s not just the manufacturers saying this, either. For instance, AV industry legend Joe Kane, of Joe Kane Productions, stated during a presentation at the recent IFA technology show in Berlin that ‘a year or two from now you won’t be able to buy a 1080p TV.’

Where sales are concerned, 4K TVs have already achieved a 6% global sales penetration despite currently costing considerably more than 1080p TVs. And with 4K prices plummeting daily and 4K panels rapidly supplanting 1080p ones on shop shelves, this 4K penetration figure is going to explode in the next 12-24 months"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/09/12/the-ps4-and-xbox-one-are-already-out-of-date/

 

[mkabi]

Alright Joe1946, lets use some common sense... hopefully you dont' need to quote anyone.
Suppose I gave you $7000 tomorrow.

Thats enough to buy a Gh4 and a 4K TV, right?
Hopefully a 65 inch 4K TV, no?

You are going to film in 4K with the Gh4, and you are going to edit the 4K video on your computer. Then how are you going to put this 4K video that you made on this 4K TV?

Stream it from your computer?
Hook your 65 inch TV directly to the computer?

How many 4K videos can you make that will entertain you on a constant basis?
How many 4K videos can you contain on your hard-drive?

EDITTED TO ADD: It may be true, there may not be a 1080p TV available to purchase down the road, it may be replaced by affordable 4K TVs. But given that you already have a 1080p set, in working and good condition, would you go and buy another TV? And, if you do get a 4K TV, are you using it to its full potential? I mean, I believe that I am using my 1080p to its full potential simply by playing Blu-ray movies... but I don't know if I can get 4K content if I go buy a 4K TV tomorrow.

 

[mkabi]

One more thing... I would like to add...
Joe1946, I am glad you posted that link...

I can forgive Microsoft with their X-box One...
But Sony, seriously? They should be pushing 4K with the PS4. So dissappointed in Sony... what the hell? You have 4K TVs, you have a 4K Cameras... and what do you do to one of the most well received gaming console??

 

[tom1]

they jist are always a bit slower than other companies like Sony, but when they do it they do it in the correct time and deliver an excellent product, conservative company but reliable.

Yes you are right , but there is something more -price new product is always so expensive , all other company quickly go down with price , but canon keep ridiculous price so long . Look for c300 just now price drop , this camera has only 50i

 

[Tinky]

When Canon launched the c300 mk1 a lot of people scoffed that it was only only 1080, and that there were then already cheaper 4k options.

I'm a working cameraman, at that point I worked for Europes largest news publisher, so I was on a lot of shoots, press launches, sports events (manager q&a sessions etc)

It seemed then and seems now that everybody was using c300's. The popularity was in spite of what I was reading on forums, probably written by folk who had handled a spec sheet but never been near a c300 in their sleep.

At that point I was shooting on a mix of ENG, XF and DSLr, and I'll confess that I've only used the c300 on a handful of occassions.

But the success of the camera, to my mind, depended on a few factors, and I think these still apply today to a greater of lesser degree to the mk2, which is facing the same negativity, despite very few folk actually having used one in the wild:

- 50i codec low compression codec. It's what broadcast wants, and what DSLRs cannot deliver
- complete solution, one battery, one record button, good audio built in, works out of the box
- lens compatability, no need for flakey third party adaptors, lenses work as they should
- compact form (no plinths, no guddle of cables to fail)
- iq. High but clean base iso with built in filtration (no horrible fader nds)
- transparent design. Operators can get a good handle on the camera immediately.

Now, none of these are headline features, and not one of them is unique to the c300, and the same is true of the c300mk2.

They are a staid, sensible choice. One might say even dull.

But look at it this way... your lenses just work, your editor can cut straight away without transcoding, you can bump up the iso without gritting your teeth, you lift it out your bag, switch it on and hit record, you don't need metabones (version 5 are we on now?) you don't need a battery the same size as the camera or an external recorder.

I can't think of another camera that ticks all of these boxes, not costing at least double or triple the money.

There are some great bits of kit been launched, it continues to be an exciting market. There are better cameras, but they are costing more money. Much more money.

There are cheaper cameras that seem to offer more, but which past experience tells me will either be buggy, impossible to get hold of, require severe adaptation, or have terrible iq.

Canon, by being conservative, and by making kit that people actually need TO MAKE A LIVING TODAY, and which PEOPLE CAN DEPEND ON TODAY, actually lead the market.

The Op asked, 'can canon keep up?', with whom? The Joneses? Why on earth would they want to do that?

I predict that the c300mk2 will be something less of a success than the mk1', mainly because the only real upgrade incentive is 4k, which people at a factual / news / general broadcast level don't need, and their c300 mk1s are plodding along quite happily.

The cinema moniker to me is something of a misnomer. Despite every 20 year old being a DoP these days, there are still many wner operator camerramen, and the majority aren't getting work in the movies. And besides, thats more where I would expect to see your hired f65s, your hired alexas.