Canon Cinema EOS C50 To Replace EOS R5 C

[subratasenn]

Looks like it might not have an EVF, which would be really disappointing for this form-factor. If that is the case, then I will be curious to see what advantages it could have over the regular R5 II (or indeed the R5 C): the body looks too small to have internal NDs (although I would be happy to be proven wrong), so perhaps just the OS from the cine line and a built-in fan to differentiate it from the R5 II ... like an R5 C, but a downgrade due to the lack of an EVF?

I am ruling out internal NDs in this form factor. Would be missing the viewfinder if I ever use this as a still camera (I sometimes use R5C for that) but for shooting videos we are now quite used to not having a viewfinder. Sony Fx line cameras do not have them, nor do c70, c80, c400s.
I just wish it has open gate, has 8k raw (replacement of R5c should have this), clog2 and last but not the least three base ISOs 800, 3200 and 12800. To compete with FX3, it also needs a dynamic range of 16.

 

[BroderLund]

You can see on the top of the lens that it is 85mm. Definately a VCM version.

 

[ggab]

Nothing I will buy.
I got fooled once with the R5c thinking it would be an enhanced R5, not knowing that they stripped away capabilities of the R5. Also not knowing what I didn't know.
If they put a fan in the R5 and removed the 30 min time limit, I would have never bought the R5c.

 

[jam05]

I am ruling out internal NDs in this form factor. Would be missing the viewfinder if I ever use this as a still camera (I sometimes use R5C for that) but for shooting videos we are now quite used to not having a viewfinder. Sony Fx line cameras do not have them, nor do c70, c80, c400s.
I just wish it has open gate, has 8k raw (replacement of R5c should have this), clog2 and last but not the least three base ISOs 800, 3200 and 12800. To compete with FX3, it also needs a dynamic range of 16.

Many actual test have determined the actual useable FX3 dynamic range to be 14 despite what Sony marketing claims.

 

[jam05]

I am ruling out internal NDs in this form factor. Would be missing the viewfinder if I ever use this as a still camera (I sometimes use R5C for that) but for shooting videos we are now quite used to not having a viewfinder. Sony Fx line cameras do not have them, nor do c70, c80, c400s.
I just wish it has open gate, has 8k raw (replacement of R5c should have this), clog2 and last but not the least three base ISOs 800, 3200 and 12800. To compete with FX3, it also needs a dynamic range of 16.

Many actual test have determined the actual useable FX3 dynamic range to be 14 despite what Sony marketing claims.

I am ruling out internal NDs in this form factor. Would be missing the viewfinder if I ever use this as a still camera (I sometimes use R5C for that) but for shooting videos we are now quite used to not having a viewfinder. Sony Fx line cameras do not have them, nor do c70, c80, c400s.
I just wish it has open gate, has 8k raw (replacement of R5c should have this), clog2 and last but not the least three base ISOs 800, 3200 and 12800. To compete with FX3, it also needs a dynamic range of 16.

Who is "we are not quite used to not having a viewfinder"? Cinematographers, content creators, videographers don't need or clamor about EVFs. Mostly the predominantly traditional vocal digital photographers. Who often feel left out when a "Cinema" camera is introduced. Cinema.

 

[jam05]

Looks like it might not have an EVF, which would be really disappointing for this form-factor. If that is the case, then I will be curious to see what advantages it could have over the regular R5 II (or indeed the R5 C): the body looks too small to have internal NDs (although I would be happy to be proven wrong), so perhaps just the OS from the cine line and a built-in fan to differentiate it from the R5 II ... like an R5 C, but a downgrade due to the lack of an EVF?

One word. Cinema.
FX3: Full size HDMI, numerous 1/4 20 mounting points, dual base ISO, IBIS, top handle, Fan, Anamorphic desqueeze with latest update,

 

[subratasenn]

Looks like it might not have an EVF, which would be really disappointing for this form-factor. If that is the case, then I will be curious to see what advantages it could have over the regular R5 II (or indeed the R5 C): the body looks too small to have internal NDs (although I would be happy to be proven wrong), so perhaps just the OS from the cine line and a built-in fan to differentiate it from the R5 II ... like an R5 C, but a downgrade due to the lack of an EVF?

 

[John Wilde]

Looks like it might not have an EVF, which would be really disappointing for this form-factor.

That's an industry standard for cinema cameras.

Update: Meaning that NOT having an EVF was an industry standard for that camera type.

 

[jam05]

That's an industry standard for video cameras.

Not. The FX3 is the most widely used "video camera" . Has no EVF

 

[John Wilde]

Not. The FX3 is the most widely used "video camera" . Has no EVF

D'oh! I meant that NOT having an EVF was an industry standard for cinema cameras,

 

[Bob Howland]

I want something comparable to/better than the FX30, not the FX3.

 

[Cerulean42]

Suddenly competition is getting heavier in the semi-cinema video market. I don't think it would be a direct R5C replacement, which is kind of sad. An Actual R5C mark II would be perfect for video leaning hybrid shooter, but I guess that is too much of a niche.

 

[jam05]

Canon knows that filmmakers and creators want powerful cinema tools in a small, travel friendly body. My C70 is nice, but its not carry on friendly. I say hmm when I see the Fx3 out an about. The R5C is not exactly and Fx3 either. And lacks IBIS. After Sony's FX2 misstep, this is a great moment for Canon.

 

[withmazur]

We need that update

 

[Rocco Germani]

If it’s based off of the R5II sensor it doesn’t go head to head with the FX3 in my mind, maybe only in form factor and perhaps price. While I don’t deny the image off of the R5 sensor is stunning, I would argue 8K is not practical for most video applications, at least when derived from a photo-oriented sensor. I’d rather see a camera of this caliber using the sensor found in the C400 and C80, with 6K resolution and a triple native ISO. The main draw many people have to the FX3 is its dual native ISO of 640 and 12800, an R5 sensor is decent in low light but cannot compete with that. The aforementioned C80/C400 sensor can go head to head with the capabilities of the FX3’s sensor, with the added bonus of 6K resolution. The main complaint I see from FX3 users is that it’s sometimes too low of resolution. 6K is the sweet spot, where you can have both good low light and very powerful video oriented features without burning through your media storage and slowing down your computer when editing. Really hope Canon does some sort of R6C variant with a 6K focus.

 

[shadowsports]

The C5O without an EVF could be a hard sell for me as far as calling it a R5 C successor. I love Cinema OS. I like the 45MP of the R5 C. I knew what I was getting 3 yrs ago and haven't felt bad about its lack of IBIS or ND's.

I'm looking forward to the announcement. As far as do I need it, that's left to be seen. I like the viewfinder on my R5 C. I purchased the R50v to see what direction Canon video was going in. It's a fun camera and being able to control video start/stop (remotely) is super nice. It's small form factor is perfect for lightweight handheld video.

So this is going to be a wait and see for me.

 

[landon]

Your tags has C10, for the apsc?

 

[Mik]

I wonder if they kill the stills side on this camera. If that‘s gone next to the evf, I‘d consider this is a step back from the r5 c. But that‘s from someone that doesn‘t bother investing in an „upgrade“ for half a stop more DR or a bunch more fps. IMO where all this small „cine“ cams lack is in audio capabilities, monitoring and nd filtering – all of which doesn‘t seem progressed on this camera. (But arguably most of the potential buyers don‘t seem to care too much about that either.)

 

[LSXPhotog]

You can see on the top of the lens that it is 85mm. Definately a VCM version.

With the highest resolution images I could find of this teaser photo and pushing the shadows as much as possible, I can only confirm that it's an L-series VCM lens. There is no discernible text on the top of the lens that I can make out that indicates that it's an 85mm. However, the front element on this lens is bulbous and large, which does not match any currently available VCM lens...so you might very well be onto something!

 

[jam05]

If it’s based off of the R5II sensor it doesn’t go head to head with the FX3 in my mind, maybe only in form factor and perhaps price. While I don’t deny the image off of the R5 sensor is stunning, I would argue 8K is not practical for most video applications, at least when derived from a photo-oriented sensor. I’d rather see a camera of this caliber using the sensor found in the C400 and C80, with 6K resolution and a triple native ISO. The main draw many people have to the FX3 is its dual native ISO of 640 and 12800, an R5 sensor is decent in low light but cannot compete with that. The aforementioned C80/C400 sensor can go head to head with the capabilities of the FX3’s sensor, with the added bonus of 6K resolution. The main complaint I see from FX3 users is that it’s sometimes too low of resolution. 6K is the sweet spot, where you can have both good low light and very powerful video oriented features without burning through your media storage and slowing down your computer when editing. Really hope Canon does some sort of R6C variant with a 6K focus.

The latest news is that its not the 45 mp sensor of the R5 but a 32mp sensor. Which makes more sense for cinematography/video