Canon 4K Camera Makes an Appearance

[andrewflo]

This thing doesn't look like my cup of tea... but at least Canon is finally stepping into 4K territory (besides the C500 and 1DC).

I'm sure Canon's consideration of 4K in the 5DIV will be at least slightly influenced by their success (or lack thereof) with this camera.

But if the above is true, I kind of worry they'll decide "the market didn't want 4K" because they're strange little camera didn't sell. Kind of like how "the US doesn't want mirrorless" because the $800 original EOS M didn't sell.

We'll see

 

[Etienne]

This thing doesn't look like my cup of tea... but at least Canon is finally stepping into 4K territory (besides the C500 and 1DC).

I'm sure Canon's consideration of 4K in the 5DIV will be at least slightly influenced by their success (or lack thereof) with this camera.

But if the above is true, I kind of worry they'll decide "the market didn't want 4K" because they're strange little camera didn't sell. Kind of like how "the US doesn't want mirrorless" because the $800 original EOS M didn't sell.

We'll see

It's good to have one do-it-all ready to go video camera in your bag. I would have been interested in this a year ago, but I have the Sony PXW-X70 for that and I don't want two similar cameras. The 5D3 has to get replaced soon, and I was hoping for a bigger upgrade with the C100 mark II, so I'm waiting to see what Canon does with C300. Sony has been going gang busters with the A7's and FS7, and JVC and Panasonic have some great camcorders out. Canon has to do something to convince, because I've got a wandering eye now.

 

[mkabi]

For dof it's equivalent to f7.6-f15.2. I think that's a valid reason for being disappointed. They could have a much faster lens in this camera. It looks bigger than the RX10, yet the RX10 manages to have a constant f2.8 (and I wouldn't be surprised if the RX20 has an even faster lens). Sorry, but this lens is a joke. Canon is terrified of making a camera that might in some small way take away from their much more expensive cinema line.

I have to agree, if it is the same sensor as the G7X. What the heck? At least create a similar or better lens thats on the G7X, which has f/1.8-2.8 (actual 4.8 to 7.6).

I don't know if I agree about taking away from their much more expensive cinema line though. Most of them needed an external recorder to do 4K (except for the 1d-c), and the C100/C100 II doesn't even do 4K externally. Most of them are super 35mm (except for the 1d-c), which is essentially APS-C. What I see is a lot overlap. Can I justify purchasing a C100? When a 70D is a fifth of the cost? And, you can buy all the external add-ons for another grand or 2 and it will still be cheaper than the C100???
C100 II comes with 60fps, so does the 7DII, but the 7DII is a third of the cost of a C100II.

So who is the C100/C100 II appealing to? People that don't want to add-on, just grab and go?

I don't know... but one thing is for sure... even though there is a lot of overlap, 4K isn't in every Canon camera and only available in their most expensive ones.

May be Canon doesn't have the tech.? Or think that not enough people would even use 4K?
Its nice to have, but not useful all the damn time...???

 

[Etienne]

For dof it's equivalent to f7.6-f15.2. I think that's a valid reason for being disappointed. They could have a much faster lens in this camera. It looks bigger than the RX10, yet the RX10 manages to have a constant f2.8 (and I wouldn't be surprised if the RX20 has an even faster lens). Sorry, but this lens is a joke. Canon is terrified of making a camera that might in some small way take away from their much more expensive cinema line.

I have to agree, if it is the same sensor as the G7X. What the heck? At least create a similar or better lens thats on the G7X, which has f/1.8-2.8 (actual 4.8 to 7.6).

I don't know if I agree about taking away from their much more expensive cinema line though. Most of them needed an external recorder to do 4K (except for the 1d-c), and the C100/C100 II doesn't even do 4K externally. Most of them are super 35mm (except for the 1d-c), which is essentially APS-C. What I see is a lot overlap. Can I justify purchasing a C100? When a 70D is a fifth of the cost? And, you can buy all the external add-ons for another grand or 2 and it will still be cheaper than the C100???
C100 II comes with 60fps, so does the 7DII, but the 7DII is a third of the cost of a C100II.

So who is the C100/C100 II appealing to? People that don't want to add-on, just grab and go?

I don't know... but one thing is for sure... even though there is a lot of overlap, 4K isn't in every Canon camera and only available in their most expensive ones.

May be Canon doesn't have the tech.? Or think that not enough people would even use 4K?
Its nice to have, but not useful all the damn time...???

70D isn't the issue. There's already a world of difference between a 70D and C100, even after you add the best add-ons available to the 70D. The problem is that the C100 feature set is looking pedestrian with it's AVCHD codec and top trick of 60p. The competition at the C100 price and a bit above is getting very stiff, and the market expectation is soaring to 4K, 120fps or more, 10 bit or better. NOBODY wants to feel like they are buying into obsolete technology. The Sony FS7 is only a few grand more, and is loaded to the gills. Panasonic and JVC are offering big stuff at decent prices. I want to see Canon win, but, they've got to earn it.

 

[coldsweat]

I still don't understand the Canon obsession with creating video cameras with a fundamentally DSLR form factor - is it just so the photographers who started to dabble in a bit of video since the 5D2 came out feel at home?

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Okay, so let's make a subjective analysis of this concept from a video shooter's perspective:

The Good:

Canon clearly saw an affection for using small handheld DSLR-type bodies for video production, they saw that in their 5DII, 7D, 550D days up until now where manufacturers are making such designs and being successful in the video area (GH4,A7s,NX1).

However there were a few frustrations with the DSLR design when used for video:

These frustrations were mainly: lack of EVF, reliance on small fixed LCD for focus, lack of focus and exposure assist features, and lack of the video desirable upward rotatable handgrip, and the overall main design of having too many stills-oriented buttons that have no function.

All of these aspects seem to be adressed in this new body.

The design is lovely, that's my opinion as a video shooter.

There were other frustration with DSLRs for video that are not body-related: mainly the lack of sharpness (line-skipping) and severe aliasing/moire, both of which we don't know whether they've been fixed or not, but at 4K resolution they probably are.

That's the good: they took a 7D/5D and eliminated all the video-related nuisances.

-The bad,

Choice of sensor size and lens.

Video shooters put up with all the previously mentioned quirks for two reasons: 35mm depth of field, film look, and ability to change lenses. So Canon fixed the design quirks BUT removed the actual main attractions of the system as well!

-The choice of 1" sensor size will drive away most film/movie/cinema shooters who want the s35 (APS-C) standard to give the desired film-look.

Some of them would have put up with this issue by using fast lenses, or speed boosters and such but,

-They take it even farther and give it a fixed lens, one with very deep depthof field (F/7 to F/11 equ.) so the camera will have a ''video'' camcorder aesthetic with deep DOF.

These two decisions will drive a huge number of video shooters away, those who shoot ''beauty, films, movies, music videos, etc''

So that's the bad, the choice of sensor size and lens speed (fixed)

Now: Where it fits, who will make use of this combination

Those who shoot video, as in documentary, news, events, weddings, TV programs, and such,

this camera will be a dream-come-true for that type of video market as a small, well designed, video featured body, with a single all purpose 24-300mm lens, YET with still a reatively large sensor, 1'' is the sweet spot here as it offers easy usable AF, aesthetic, yet with better lowlight performance and shallower DOF than normal video cameras.

Conclusion: it will work for a specific market, ''video shooters'' but not for me, not for people who use FF/S35 sensors and interchangeable lenses, filmmakers in general, so it's not a successor or an attraction to the previous 5D/7D DSLR video shooter, not a competitor for the 5D, C100, C300, GH4, NX1, A7s, FS100, FS700, FS7 type of user. But more like a competitor for the Sony rx10, AX100, x70, Panasonic FZ1000, XC1000, and to every traditional small-sensor small camcorder designed for ''video'' work including Canon's own XA100. In other words, not a very exciting punch. This is not a cinema camera. So not for me.

 

[cream]

While we wait for the official announcement at NAB we will learn more, I agree with Ebrahim. This camera, may very fit very well in the run in gun, uncontrolled live event market.

Until the dual pixel technology came out, the DSLR's had some BIG draw backs and I can simplify that by saying you can only pull focus so many time in the name of creative expression until - the conclusion is that you can't keep up with the event.

IMO its has to come to market under $2k.

 

[WorkonSunday]

interesting, why not just use the existing EVF since it has a hot shoe. much more effective from business point of view.

 

[bsbeamer]

Well put by Ebrahim.

If this suddenly had an EF, EF-S, or EF-M frame mount then I think many video people would feel differently about this (probable) upcoming camera, but as it's currently designed, it does not meet my needs for a 4K camera purchase.

Just for perspective, the JVC GY-HM170 is a 4K fixed lens camera selling for about $2000. The Panasonic HC-X1000K is about $3000-$3500, and the Sony FDR-AX1 is about $4500. These are videographer-style tools, not really budget film-style tools. I know the features do not match up (especially sensor), but I see this camera competing more with these at the typical Canon prices. Maybe it will be the 4K replacement to either the XA20 or XF305?

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The G1x and Eos m3 EVF is not suitable for a highend video camera, it's nearly impossible to get accurate focus pulling on that display. I am glad they didn't go that way.

The EVF here if you notice protudes to cover/obscure most of the LCD screen on the back, so it probably won't be an actual electronic EVF, but a loup that turns the LCD into an EVF, like the Zucoto LCDVF (which on old Canon DSLRs gave a great EVF replacement). So the quality of the EVF will probably depend on the LCD quality and optics inside the loup. The optical loup way is obviously cheaper than going to the G1x EVF, and it's a better solution too in my opinion as long as it's as good the Zucoto+5DLCD experience (it's probably better too, look at that screen)

 

[Markintosh]

The add-on EVF looks like something they could do for the M3

M3 has add-on EVF )

 

[lsman38]

I doubt its smart for Canon to relate with Jacky Chan - the most hated actor in China on internet.

 

[RobD]

Okay, so let's make a subjective analysis of this concept from a video shooter's perspective:

Those who shoot video, as in documentary, news, events, weddings, TV programs, and such,

this camera will be a dream-come-true for that type of video market as a small, well designed, video featured body, with a single all purpose 24-300mm lens, YET with still a reatively large sensor, 1'' is the sweet spot here as it offers easy usable AF, aesthetic, yet with better lowlight performance and shallower DOF than normal video cameras.

I don't know if you've kept up with modern cinematic wedding videography, but there has been a huge shift to large sensor cameras in recent years. This would not cut it for anyone shooting higher end work. Maybe as a cover-your-arse cam in bright conditions, but weddings are frequently very dark. A DSLR, M43 or C series camera is much more useful.

In the big "wedding cinema" facebook group, this has received a lot of hate. The lens and sensor are just not up to our needs. The industry has really fallen out of love with Canon, even though it is still what most of us shoot with (C100, 5D3 being the most popular choices). If it wasn't for their lenses they would be in trouble. And the fact that their cameras, although lacking in features, are really nice to use and the colours are wonderful And so we continue to grumble, and continue to shoot Canon!

 

[SPG]

Worst. comments. ever.

Too afraid to contribute so you just come here to troll ?

Hardly. It just got me that in three pages of people taking personal offense at this camera even existing as a concept "How dare Canon make something that isn't exactly what I want! How dare they! there was hardly one real point about how this camera might perform in the real world or it's possible use.
Granted, this camera doesn't look like it's right for me, but neither do the vast majority of Canon printers or photocopiers. It's a little ridiculous to get upset when Canon releases consumer products for consumers. IF Canon has scrapped it's entire DSLR line for this, then yeah...you might have a case to get upset about but that's simply not what this is.

 

[Tugela]

While we wait for the official announcement at NAB we will learn more, I agree with Ebrahim. This camera, may very fit very well in the run in gun, uncontrolled live event market.

Until the dual pixel technology came out, the DSLR's had some BIG draw backs and I can simplify that by saying you can only pull focus so many time in the name of creative expression until - the conclusion is that you can't keep up with the event.

IMO its has to come to market under $2k.

Except that there are already better solutions for that on the market.

When it comes to video, there is no such thing as a DSLR, all cameras are MILCs. The only distinction between true MILCs from Sony/Panasonic/Samsung and Canon's offerings is the sub-standard video offered on Canon cameras.

 

[Tugela]

Worst. comments. ever.

Too afraid to contribute so you just come here to troll ?

Hardly. It just got me that in three pages of people taking personal offense at this camera even existing as a concept "How dare Canon make something that isn't exactly what I want! How dare they! there was hardly one real point about how this camera might perform in the real world or it's possible use.
Granted, this camera doesn't look like it's right for me, but neither do the vast majority of Canon printers or photocopiers. It's a little ridiculous to get upset when Canon releases consumer products for consumers. IF Canon has scrapped it's entire DSLR line for this, then yeah...you might have a case to get upset about but that's simply not what this is.

It is not so much a case of it not being what "we" want, it is more a case of it being the sort of camera that no one has been asking for. That is why it is being seen as an ugly duckling. Maybe it turn out to be a great camera, but this is Canon we are talking about and their track record in delivering innovation is not exactly industry leading, so we know what to expect.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Okay, so let's make a subjective analysis of this concept from a video shooter's perspective:

Those who shoot video, as in documentary, news, events, weddings, TV programs, and such,

this camera will be a dream-come-true for that type of video market as a small, well designed, video featured body, with a single all purpose 24-300mm lens, YET with still a reatively large sensor, 1'' is the sweet spot here as it offers easy usable AF, aesthetic, yet with better lowlight performance and shallower DOF than normal video cameras.

I don't know if you've kept up with modern cinematic wedding videography, but there has been a huge shift to large sensor cameras in recent years. This would not cut it for anyone shooting higher end work. Maybe as a cover-your-arse cam in bright conditions, but weddings are frequently very dark. A DSLR, M43 or C series camera is much more useful.

In the big "wedding cinema" facebook group, this has received a lot of hate. The lens and sensor are just not up to our needs. The industry has really fallen out of love with Canon, even though it is still what most of us shoot with (C100, 5D3 being the most popular choices). If it wasn't for their lenses they would be in trouble. And the fact that their cameras, although lacking in features, are really nice to use and the colours are wonderful And so we continue to grumble, and continue to shoot Canon!

This. I use to bash on the C100 cause I was an idiot. Although expensive, the C100 Mark II is just about the perfect wedding/documentary camera. This new 1" sounds good for dads who want to film their sons' football or baseball games. I doubt it'll get any professional use.

 

[neuroanatomist]

... three pages of people taking personal offense at this camera even existing as a concept "How dare Canon make something that isn't exactly what I want! How dare they!

If you like, I can point you to some threads with 20-30 or more pages of that.

Many people here can't seem to grasp that they aren't Canon's target market for every product, and even when they are, their wants/needs aren't necessarily representative of the majority.

 

[Etienne]

Okay, so let's make a subjective analysis of this concept from a video shooter's perspective:

Those who shoot video, as in documentary, news, events, weddings, TV programs, and such,

this camera will be a dream-come-true for that type of video market as a small, well designed, video featured body, with a single all purpose 24-300mm lens, YET with still a reatively large sensor, 1'' is the sweet spot here as it offers easy usable AF, aesthetic, yet with better lowlight performance and shallower DOF than normal video cameras.

I don't know if you've kept up with modern cinematic wedding videography, but there has been a huge shift to large sensor cameras in recent years. This would not cut it for anyone shooting higher end work. Maybe as a cover-your-arse cam in bright conditions, but weddings are frequently very dark. A DSLR, M43 or C series camera is much more useful.

In the big "wedding cinema" facebook group, this has received a lot of hate. The lens and sensor are just not up to our needs. The industry has really fallen out of love with Canon, even though it is still what most of us shoot with (C100, 5D3 being the most popular choices). If it wasn't for their lenses they would be in trouble. And the fact that their cameras, although lacking in features, are really nice to use and the colours are wonderful And so we continue to grumble, and continue to shoot Canon!

This. I use to bash on the C100 cause I was an idiot. Although expensive, the C100 Mark II is just about the perfect wedding/documentary camera. This new 1" sounds good for dads who want to film their sons' football or baseball games. I doubt it'll get any professional use.

I take it you really love the C100 mkII. I am considering getting one in spite of it seeming to be only a minor update. It looks like a very user-friendly practical camera and it would pair very well with my 5D3 system. But the C300 is soon to appear, and the Sony FS7 seems a whole lot more Camera for a little more money, but then I'd have to use adapters or trade all my lenses.

I do documentary work and I'm using a 5D3 system for low light / shallow DOF and a Sony PXW-X70 for general purpose / fast response. The Sony FS7 / A7s combo is not much more than the 5D3 / C100 combo, but looks like it might perform a lot better. There's a lot of new stuff coming out, and I may end up just adding a 70D (for the dual pixel AF) and waiting another year to decide what to change.

 

[Don Haines]

Worst. comments. ever.

Too afraid to contribute so you just come here to troll ?

Hardly. It just got me that in three pages of people taking personal offense at this camera even existing as a concept "How dare Canon make something that isn't exactly what I want! How dare they! there was hardly one real point about how this camera might perform in the real world or it's possible use.
Granted, this camera doesn't look like it's right for me, but neither do the vast majority of Canon printers or photocopiers. It's a little ridiculous to get upset when Canon releases consumer products for consumers. IF Canon has scrapped it's entire DSLR line for this, then yeah...you might have a case to get upset about but that's simply not what this is.

Agreed!

I find it amazing how people pass judgement on a camera with no knowledge of it's specs and features.... All they need is a rumour about a prototype and they are ready to castrate the designers.....

An if it is a product that they aren't going to use, the venom just drips.....

and no matter what it is, someone will use it as proof that Canon never innovates because it does not address the aspect that they are concerned with....

sigh.....