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

RunAndGun

EOS RP
Dec 16, 2011
372
49
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.
1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.

2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,428
1,915
120
1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.

2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.
Well we can get into the weeds on this, I believe the Nikon D90 was the first DSLR with HD video but it wasn’t a FF and it wasn’t Full-HD, peters said “It offered Full-HD recording on a full frame”, the 5D II was the first to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

jvillain

EOS 80D
Sep 29, 2018
144
100
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.
You need to realize that a camera is really just a computer with as sensor. You are saying Dell should sell a computer that has a word processor but shouldn't be able to use spreadsheets.

There is also the case of a user like me. When I bought my first camera after they stared adding video features there was no way in hell I was ever going to shoot video. Don't be stupid. Now .... lets just say my thinking has evolved. Here is a question for you. Who has more money invested in gear these days your average photographer or your average videographer? You know who has even more invested? Some one that does both. As an example I have both strobes and video lights becuase you can't shoot video with a strobe and your average video light isn't powerfull enough to stop motion or allow you to truley black out a room. If you think no one shoots video spend some time on youtube. Elementary kids are shooting video on their cell phones. The world has changed forever. If you can shoot stills you should atleast once try using your video features, you might surprise yourself. While we are all locked down what do you have to lose?
 

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
246
215
2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.
I think I would challenge this point. There are REALY a lot of accessories, even in professional quality for DSLR and mirrorless cameras out there. A lot of people use it every day as their main video camera. I guess the Lumix S1H is a great example for it. There is pretty much any kind of accessory you may need and it can achieve pretty much anything a "real" video camera can achieve. Even a proper audio interface is available with fullsize XLR controlls and monitor, long lasting batteries with the option for v-mount, full size hdmi out with 10bit (and soon even with raw), groundbreaking great lowlight performance, unlimited video runtime, nearly unlimited lense selection with adapters including anamorphic lenses or motorized zoom lenses, a quite durable body, outstanding ibis, reliable heat management, S35 mode... The market is so big and there are so many high quality options, SLRs cerainly allow for a professional workflow, even much cheaper options like a GH5.
While video cameras obviously have their place and have usualy more ports build in, its in my opinion not factual to say that many jobs cant be done with a mirrorless camera.

But maybe I miss something - what are scenarios (that are not incredible specific) that can't be handled with a modern mirrorless camera?
 

peters

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2017
246
215
Well we can get into the weeds on this, I believe the Nikon D90 was the first DSLR with HD video but it wasn’t a FF and it wasn’t Full-HD, peters said “It offered Full-HD recording on a full frame”, the 5D II was the first to do that.
Exactly - which is a big difference - full-hd is twice the amount of resolution and Fullframe is twice the sensor size. Which was a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge step back than. If I am not mistaken there where not even video cameras with this specs - at least not for non-astronomical-prices. (And interanal RAW was a crazy extension (though not official))
So its only reasonabl to say that innovations like "video features" have their place in the DSLM world :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.
I'll second what others have said to you.

My last "big" use of a camera was at a zoo. What's better than a bunch of stills to show people, oh, say, snow leopards? A bunch of stills AND some brief video of them moving around. Sure, it's not great video by any means, but it's good enough for showing friends. (I don't have ANY of the supporting gear I'd need for "good" video.) Multiply that by many different animals. I was switching back and forth between pictures and video the whole time. I can't claim a lot of good stuff, but enough people found them interesting, and having both enhanced things. (I did run into someone with much better gear than I have [and the knowledge to use it well] and I greeted him with "I bow to your superior gear!!!" and we got a good chuckle out of that as we both know the fallacy I was lampooning.)
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
Dec 16, 2011
372
49
I think I would challenge this point. There are REALY a lot of accessories, even in professional quality for DSLR and mirrorless cameras out there. A lot of people use it every day as their main video camera. I guess the Lumix S1H is a great example for it. There is pretty much any kind of accessory you may need and it can achieve pretty much anything a "real" video camera can achieve. Even a proper audio interface is available with fullsize XLR controlls and monitor, long lasting batteries with the option for v-mount, full size hdmi out with 10bit (and soon even with raw), groundbreaking great lowlight performance, unlimited video runtime, nearly unlimited lense selection with adapters including anamorphic lenses or motorized zoom lenses, a quite durable body, outstanding ibis, reliable heat management, S35 mode... The market is so big and there are so many high quality options, SLRs cerainly allow for a professional workflow, even much cheaper options like a GH5.
While video cameras obviously have their place and have usualy more ports build in, its in my opinion not factual to say that many jobs cant be done with a mirrorless camera.

But maybe I miss something - what are scenarios (that are not incredible specific) that can't be handled with a modern mirrorless camera?
Okay, maybe my standards are different than a lot of others, because I’ve been doing this so long and a huge part of how good a tool is at doing it’s job is how well the tool itself is designed to allow me to work and just get out of my way. Just because you can kludge a DSLR rig together to net you a decent end product or give you similar functionality still doesn’t mean its good at the job. You can take a screwdriver and drive a nail if you really want to, but it would have been a lot easier and quicker to use a hammer and more than likely you would have gotten better results.

I know that I’m one of a dying breed, but it gives me good perspective, because I was around a good decade+ before the DSLR revolution. I watched it happen and I’m still here, now. So, I’ve used all the different tools and I know the shortcomings and trade offs/compromises and benefits of the different tools and I can make an informed decision and form an opinion on whether a certain tool is good or better in a certain situation or not or just plain better than another overall. A lot of people today have never used dedicated professional video/cinema cameras and justify the frankenrig DSLR’s mostly because of the money and lack of experience with the dedicated tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.

2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.
The 90D was 720p with an APS-C sensor.

The 5D Mark II was the first camera with a FF sensor that could do 1080p. That's what the original comment above claimed.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
Dec 16, 2011
372
49
The 90D was 720p with an APS-C sensor.

The 5D Mark II was the first camera with a FF sensor that could do 1080p. That's what the original comment above claimed.

No it didn’t. Re-read his first sentence of that paragraph.
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.
The 5D/II may have been “FF” and 1080 and he goes on to talk about that in the next sentence, but that’s not what he said initially. Now, if it had said something like Canon introduced “FF” 1080p video in a photo camera, then that’s different.

I’m not trying to say that the 5D/II isn’t really important in the history of video, but Canon still wasn‘t the first to introduce video in a DSLR.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,302
1,289
No it didn’t. Re-read his first sentence of that paragraph.


The 5D/II may have been “FF” and 1080 and he goes on to talk about that in the next sentence, but that’s not what he said initially. Now, if it had said something like Canon introduced “FF” 1080p video in a photo camera, then that’s different.

I’m not trying to say that the 5D/II isn’t really important in the history of video, but Canon still wasn‘t the first to introduce video in a DSLR.
"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. "

It's really not that hard to understand. It truly is not.
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
271
137
Okay, maybe my standards are different than a lot of others, because I’ve been doing this so long and a huge part of how good a tool is at doing it’s job is how well the tool itself is designed to allow me to work and just get out of my way. Just because you can kludge a DSLR rig together to net you a decent end product or give you similar functionality still doesn’t mean its good at the job. You can take a screwdriver and drive a nail if you really want to, but it would have been a lot easier and quicker to use a hammer and more than likely you would have gotten better results.

I know that I’m one of a dying breed, but it gives me good perspective, because I was around a good decade+ before the DSLR revolution. I watched it happen and I’m still here, now. So, I’ve used all the different tools and I know the shortcomings and trade offs/compromises and benefits of the different tools and I can make an informed decision and form an opinion on whether a certain tool is good or better in a certain situation or not or just plain better than another overall. A lot of people today have never used dedicated professional video/cinema cameras and justify the frankenrig DSLR’s mostly because of the money and lack of experience with the dedicated tools.
At work our video team uses C100s, C300s, and mostly C200s alongside the entire catalog of Cinema lenses. But, even with all their literal hundreds of thousands in cinema gear, they also use the EOS R and the 5D Mark IV religiously. Like gimbal work, mounting cameras in various spaces, handheld work, putting a camera on a 10 foot pole and sticking it in the air, and countless other scenarios where they just generally prefer the DSLR format. And that's even with the somewhat "limited" video specs of the EOS R, which would still be incredibly challenging to spot the difference in a shot between the C200 and the EOS R in any of their published work.

This choice they make isn't because of a lack of experience, and definitely isn't because of a lack of budget, it's time tested additional functionality and we use whatever we need to use to get the shots we want in the way we want. It also seriously helps when you're packing to be mobile and can fit many more of these smaller camera rigs alongside one or two of the bigger ones. I know of plenty of shoots where in a quick set up they've only worked off the DSLRs/MILCs for various reasons or we've quickly swapped cameras between videographers and photographers.

I see absolutely 0 reason these cameras shouldn't be considered for professional video work and have whatever features they possibly can to support that mission.

We're all very excited for the R5, and it's nice that even if the R5 is $4000 we could buy four of them for the cost of one of a single C500 Mark II that the video team is considering, with the benefit of having them available for both my coworkers and I in our photo team and for our video team.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
Dec 16, 2011
372
49
At work our video team uses C100s, C300s, and mostly C200s alongside the entire catalog of Cinema lenses. But, even with all their literal hundreds of thousands in cinema gear, they also use the EOS R and the 5D Mark IV religiously. Like gimbal work, mounting cameras in various spaces, handheld work, putting a camera on a 10 foot pole and sticking it in the air, and countless other scenarios where they just generally prefer the DSLR format. And that's even with the somewhat "limited" video specs of the EOS R, which would still be incredibly challenging to spot the difference in a shot between the C200 and the EOS R in any of their published work.

This choice they make isn't because of a lack of experience, and definitely isn't because of a lack of budget, it's time tested additional functionality and we use whatever we need to use to get the shots we want in the way we want. It also seriously helps when you're packing to be mobile and can fit many more of these smaller camera rigs alongside one or two of the bigger ones. I know of plenty of shoots where in a quick set up they've only worked off the DSLRs/MILCs for various reasons or we've quickly swapped cameras between videographers and photographers.

I see absolutely 0 reason these cameras shouldn't be considered for professional video work and have whatever features they possibly can to support that mission.

We're all very excited for the R5, and it's nice that even if the R5 is $4000 we could buy four of them for the cost of one of a single C500 Mark II that the video team is considering, with the benefit of having them available for both my coworkers and I in our photo team and for our video team.
Please re-read my post. I talk about making a decision and determining if a tool is a good(best) choice In a situation. There have been plenty of times where I’ve used one of my 5D’s in a tight/hide situation or just as an additional lock-off angle in interviews. Heck, if you looked at my dinning room table right now you’d see sitting on top of it a 5DmkIV bolted to a Ronin S.