Canon Announces the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II

[notsosem]

Does it have 4K recording?
How many stops of usable sensor DR?

Please at least let us see a glimpse of hope that you will up in the sensor game? If it's the same 11-bit sensor they can go to hell.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100_mark_ii#Features

it claims to have 12 stops of DR.

 

[MGE]

Why would they provide quality video and 4k in a $3k 5DIV or sub $2k 7DII when they can get $20k for it in a C500?

That depends how many C500s Canon sells. I've done some professional video work but am not plugged in enough to know how many C500 units Canon moves relative to the competition.

My suspicion is that Canon would earn greater profits if it were to provide 4K at more aggressive price points. An expensive product such as the C500 isn't necessarily more profitable than a cheaper product. It might be more profitable per unit but C500 sales volume will never come anywhere near Canon's prosumer DSLR sales volume. For the strategy that your question suggests to make sense, Canon's C500 margins would have to be insane.

It all depends on margins and sales volumes. The potential markets for the next 5D and the new C100 are both much, much bigger than the potential market for the C500. Seems to me that Canon could maximize these potentially large prosumer markets by catering to demand for 4K content under $10,000 (let alone under $5000, which is where I really think Canon should be looking within the next 12 months). Granted, I think Canon might be most concerned with establishing its brand in Hollywood-- a short-term concern that momentarily displaces margins and volume as the reigning considerations. Plus, from what I hear and read, the C500 is a role player in Hollywood, so Canon's decision to ignore maximized sales volume might have been a miscalculation in the first place.

I know not everyone in this forum shares in the demand for 4K. Some are happy with HD, some consider themselves photographers with littler interest in video. That's fine. But consider this: More and more content is being consumed through screens that aren't TVs, and more and more of these screens come with greater-than-HD pixel density. It doesn't matter that most people don't have 4K TVs, at least not to the extent that some people pretend. You think there's some overlap between the sort of person who might spend $3500 on a well-configured version of Apple's new 5K iMac and the sort of person who might spend $3-5K on a DSLR or C-series camera with 4K? You bet there is. And the 5K iMac is only the most extreme and recent example. Very, very soon, Intel, Microsoft, Apple and many others are going to be pushing greater-than-HD screens in virtually all mid-to-high end laptops, tablets and all-in-one desktops. I work in the media in the tech industry, and this is coming straight from the horse's mouth. The longer Canon lags on resolution, the more exposed its relatively soft video will be on mid-to-high level new computers-- and for an increasing number of people (especially millenials), those computer screens are more important than TVs.

All the above said, one wild card here is the new processor. Canon stuck some relatively ancient tech in the first round of C-series cameras, and it's possible the C100 Mark II produces a materially better images than its predecessor-- all while offering improved autofocus and refined ergonomics. If you're making money on jobs today, this new camera is a viable option-- especially since if you're making money, you'll be able to upgrade to a new camera when the time is right. But for the enthusiast market, or even prosumers who expect even a small degree of future-proofing (e.g. will the new C100 be lamentably dated in two years? Yes, it will), Canon's not trying all that hard.

 

[WesEvans]

Reading through the longer spec sheet on B&H looks to confirm that it is indeed 59.94p in 1080, both mp4 and AVCHD. That's fantastic news, I'm in.

 

[coldsweat]

WesEvans it's 60p. 60 progressive frames at 1080p for 2x slowmotion when downconverted to 30p. 60i is interlaced so every frame is. two fields therefore 60i = 30p, that was the original C100.

I understand the difference between progressive and interlaced, but the specs seemed to indicate "1080 60/50i" on the snapshot of the specs here and on B&H, which I took to mean 60i & 50i, but you're sure they're saying 60p?

The press release specifies AVCHD at 28mbps - this would mean 1080/50p or 1080/60p. IIRC 24mbps is for 25p/30p/50i/60i only

 

[MGE]

Very mixed views on this. With only a 30fps increase, there is very little reason for anyone with the mark 1 to upgrade. Canon appears to lack innovation yet again. On the other hand, 4k is not readily available to consumers yet. Sure you can record whatever you'd like in 4k at weddings, but you have to downscale everything so you can put it on a dvd or bluray.. there is no universal disc yet that can hold up to 300gb, there are no discwriters available anytime soon if such a disc ever hits the stores that replaces bluray. The c100 is obviously aimed for sports / weddings / indy filmmakers or whatever so it is logical to have it only record 1920x1080 for the above reasons.

But canon does seem to scare the small film makers away.. thats a hefty price for only full HD, meanwhile you can get a a7s + external 4k recorder for only 4000 dollars.

Welcome to the forum. I also see no reason to record 4K today. TV sets in people's homes are not capable of displaying 4K. The Bluray disks do not have the ability to record 4K, without making dishonest compression that will steal the potential quality of 4K.

Seems to me that there is a feeling like "I have a dick that is bigger than yours". :-X

There's a segment of the market that will slowly migrate to 4K TVs and next-gen disc systems. It's true that Canon doesn't need to rush to reach these people. But again, these people are only a part of the market-- and they're not necessarily the most important (e.g. trend-setting and profitable) parts.

A lot of 4K content will be streamed rather than viewed via hard media, such as discs. Likewise, a lot of 4K content will be consumed via computers and tablets, not just TVs. I see a lot of studies on different trends in device usage, and I spend a lot of time talking to the people making the next generation of devices. Canon doesn't need 4K today, right this moment-- that's true. And for some customers, Canon might never need 4K. But within a year, if Canon doesn't offer 4K at a relatively accessible price point (e.g. $3-5k), it will do so at its own peril. 4K will be too relevant, and Canon's restrained video implementations will be look too soft compared to the competition.

It's also worth pointing out that 4K is useful even if your final output will only be 1080p, as others have mentioned. Canon was happy to talk about how great the 5D Mark III was for media pros who need both stills and videos. Well, I work in that world-- and 4K would be nice. Re-framing the image, getting sharper 1080p, having options as screen density increases-- these are all legitimate uses.

 

[Lee Jay]

Frankly, I don't care all that much, since I think the quality of the imagery in video is usually mostly irrelevant. The only time I'll ever make an effort to get higher video quality than, say, my SDTV, is when I visit a real IMAX theater (you know - the 15 perf 70mm horizontal version) to see a documentary where the photography is just totally outrageous, the bulbs are 15 kilowatts, and the screen occupies around 90 degrees of my field of view.

Hmm I couldn't possibly disagree more.
Why do you even shoot more than a 1MP stills cam then?

For stills, IQ matters a whole lot more. You don't get all that extra information from having lots and lots of frames stung together.

 

[moreorless]

There's a segment of the market that will slowly migrate to 4K TVs and next-gen disc systems. It's true that Canon doesn't need to rush to reach these people. But again, these people are only a part of the market-- and they're not necessarily the most important (e.g. trend-setting and profitable) parts.

A lot of 4K content will be streamed rather than viewed via hard media, such as discs. Likewise, a lot of 4K content will be consumed via computers and tablets, not just TVs. I see a lot of studies on different trends in device usage, and I spend a lot of time talking to the people making the next generation of devices. Canon doesn't need 4K today, right this moment-- that's true. And for some customers, Canon might never need 4K. But within a year, if Canon doesn't offer 4K at a relatively accessible price point (e.g. $3-5k), it will do so at its own peril. 4K will be too relevant, and Canon's restrained video implementations will be look too soft compared to the competition.

It's also worth pointing out that 4K is useful even if your final output will only be 1080p, as others have mentioned. Canon was happy to talk about how great the 5D Mark III was for media pros who need both stills and videos. Well, I work in that world-- and 4K would be nice. Re-framing the image, getting sharper 1080p, having options as screen density increases-- these are all legitimate uses.

Again I see the market for 4K on a 5D body being potentially greater than 4K on a camera like the C100. The latter still isn't cheap and I would image that the TV and film markets that care about 4K use are going to be using the C300/C500.

The kind of use video on a 5D body gets on the other hand seems more likely to benefit from 4K. I would imagine for example that couples getting married may well care about "future proofing" video there wedding shooter may take plus as has been mentioned 4K makes editing shots you don't have much time/room to setup easier. With amateurs your likely dealing with people more likely to buy into 4K earlier than the general population plus again more likely to desire the extra editing latitude.

Not being a video shooter I would imagine that the functionality of the C100 is far beyond the 5D so the former could probably still find a market even if the latter offered 4K.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

2. 4k downscaled to 1080P looks way, way, way better than what any Canon DSLR gives you out of cam and better for detail even than 5D3 + ML RAW.

But you still have to agree that the 5D3 Raw kills cams like the GH4 for overall image quality.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I'd like to remind the people talking about the FS7, that the FS700 was a Canon killer on paper too. Then we started seeing what the actual images looked like coming off the FS700, and it wasn't comparable.

 

[Etienne]

If you use the C300 and C100 daily you will know how significantly better the C300 feels, and this upgrade makes the C100 actually nicer than the C300. The tiltable hq EVF is alone worthy of upgrade, the screen is also a great addition, slowmotion also is very good, these were the only complaints people had with the C100 and it fixed those. The dual pixel AF in the entire frame can revolutionize event/sports/documentary shooting. They also DO claim higher image quality and better high ISO performance.let's wait and see what it does in real life tests, but this seems like the most "complete" video camera for 5$k now. If you need 4K, this camera is not 4K, look at 4K cameras, there are many.

The Canon C line while disappoints web-readers who don't actually use the cameras, prove to be the best in class when actually used. The C300 didn't become the de facto standard for news and broadcast for it's spec sheet, remember how the scarlet was announced on the same day with an enormous spec sheet, look how many use the scarlet compared to the c300 now. Let's wait until we see the images and real-life tests.

It does not say dpaf for the entire frame. I'm guessing it is just the center as before. But entire frame with a touch screen focus pull would change things

 

[transpo1]

If you use the C300 and C100 daily you will know how significantly better the C300 feels, and this upgrade makes the C100 actually nicer than the C300. The tiltable hq EVF is alone worthy of upgrade, the screen is also a great addition, slowmotion also is very good, these were the only complaints people had with the C100 and it fixed those. The dual pixel AF in the entire frame can revolutionize event/sports/documentary shooting. They also DO claim higher image quality and better high ISO performance.let's wait and see what it does in real life tests, but this seems like the most "complete" video camera for 5$k now. If you need 4K, this camera is not 4K, look at 4K cameras, there are many.

The Canon C line while disappoints web-readers who don't actually use the cameras, prove to be the best in class when actually used. The C300 didn't become the de facto standard for news and broadcast for it's spec sheet, remember how the scarlet was announced on the same day with an enormous spec sheet, look how many use the scarlet compared to the c300 now. Let's wait until we see the images and real-life tests.

It does not say dpaf for the entire frame. I'm guessing it is just the center as before. But entire frame with a touch screen focus pull would change things

I agree- if Canon could integrate touch focus into the C100 for the entire frame, this would be a killer feature. Still, they have no reason to keep milking their customers for cams that are not 4K-capable. At least allow this thing to record 4K with an external recorder. It's simply very clear they are still protecting their higher-end at the expense of adding value.

 

[transpo1]

I'd like to remind the people talking about the FS7, that the FS700 was a Canon killer on paper too. Then we started seeing what the actual images looked like coming off the FS700, and it wasn't comparable.

We've already seen images coming off of the FS7 and it's entirely different story than the FS700- images look more cinematic and using the Slog 3 yields 14 stops of dynamic range with ergonomic usability much greater. I've already heard from cinematographer friends about shows pre-ordering multiple FS7s.

This is a potential C300/100 killer, which is why Canon is currently making moves with the C100ii and adding kits to B&H.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

We've already seen images coming off of the FS7 and it's entirely different story than the FS700

Could you provide some links? All I've seen is this: vimeo.com/105756611 which wasn't that impressive.

 

[transpo1]

We've already seen images coming off of the FS7 and it's entirely different story than the FS700

Could you provide some links? All I've seen is this: vimeo.com/105756611 which wasn't that impressive.

There's another clip, here- no scientific tests yet, but it looks to me like greater dynamic range than the FS700's usable 11-12. Seems to be delivering on the promise of 14 stops.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/channels-xdcam_hd_products/

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

We've already seen images coming off of the FS7 and it's entirely different story than the FS700

Could you provide some links? All I've seen is this: vimeo.com/105756611 which wasn't that impressive.

There's another clip, here- no scientific tests yet, but it looks to me like greater dynamic range than the FS700's usable 11-12. Seems to be delivering on the promise of 14 stops.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/video/channels-xdcam_hd_products/

Yah. All the lighting is so flat and cold it's really hard to tell.

 

[studio1972]

Shame it hasn't got a touch screen like the 70D, great with the dual pixel AF.

 

[transpo1]

Shame it hasn't got a touch screen like the 70D, great with the dual pixel AF.

Are you kidding- put features in that people want? That would sell far too many cameras for Canon

 

[Clayton]

Either way you look at this, its not a compelling update. Yes if you already own a C100, you don’t have much of a reason to upgrade here.

Surely if Canon decides to only offer “internal” 4:2:2 in a C300 upgrade for over $10,000 they cant imagine they wont loose out big time to the SONY FS7 for $8,000 (including 4K) and greatly improved ergonomics.

Other then Canon Fanboys, Im not sure what this offers anyone really. Honestly I’m kinda mystified by this one.

 

[transpo1]

Either way you look at this, its not a compelling update. Yes if you already own a C100, you don’t have much of a reason to upgrade here.

Surely if Canon decides to only offer “internal” 4:2:2 in a C300 upgrade for over $10,000 they cant imagine they wont loose out big time to the SONY FS7 for $8,000 (including 4K) and greatly improved ergonomics.

Other then Canon Fanboys, Im not sure what this offers anyone really. Honestly I’m kinda mystified by this one.

It is mystifying and a bit insulting to their customer base. They're trying to give as little value as possible while maintaining profit. Most of the customer base recognize the lack of competitive tech specs and are much smarter than this.

 

[SPG]

With a night's rest I still am not impressed with the update, but my disappointment is tempered a bit.
The C100 II is nice, and the improvements are welcome, but I have to look at it as just a stopgap measure. Yes, it fixes most of the original complaints but I was really hoping it would go past that and truly innovate or have the specs that will keep it a relevant camera for the next few years. The internal downsample to HD from the 4k sensor that all the C series cameras do is beautiful. There is no debate on that. But unfortunately there are some needs for actual 4k footage out there too. Shooting for TV in Japan is all being requested in 4k already. It's not 100% yet, but it's the standard now and you have to have a good reason not to be providing 4k. Shows here in the US are doing more in 4k just for reframing in edit and "future proofing" <- in quotes because most of that will never see the light of day again after it airs, but the producers want it anyway. A lot of these guys saw the HD transition and the loss of value in 4:3 SD content so I don't blame them.
With the C100 II Canon has made a very nice camera for today. For next year? It'll still hold up. After that? Well I can make space on the shelf of obsolete tech.