canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!

[Bob Howland]

main problem is 80% of all photographers have no clue about cine lenses and cameras.

neither technology wise or what cinematographer need/want.

If you are having to use auto focus as a film maker your doing it wrong

exactly.. and when you wonder why then this camera is not for you anyway.


http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/other/products/what_makes_the_difference/manual_focusing_with_af_camera_systems.html

Or maybe you have a very narrow definition of "cinematographer" or "cinematographers" are just stuck in the 1970s. Oh, by the way, I know exactly why this camera is not for me. For a while, I couldn't understand why Canon made an EF version at all, until I started reading the promotional literature on the Canon USA website, concerning changing focus of a remote camera, something not possible with PL lenses. Maybe, at some point, Canon will add autofocusing with the ability to (remotely) select the focusing point(s) or have the camera maintain focus on a particular pattern of colors, something which both the 1Dx and my $700 Panasonic camcorder does.

 

[samueljay]

Except that you'll have to focus it manually.

If you are having to use auto focus as a film maker your doing it wrong ;D

I'm so new at this that I'm sure I'm doing it wrong, but how about when shooting a documentary, a wedding or sports where the subjects move rapidly and unpredictably? Not everybody has the time to pull out their tape measure and consult their DOF charts. For that matter, why do cameras like the 1Dx have autofocusing?

For things like that, you'd better hope you have a very capable focus puller or camera operator

Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually. Camera's like the 1DX have advanced auto focus because they are made for still photographers, where auto focus is a massive advantage (I wouldn't know though, I still focus everything manually if the gear allows it)

 

[Bob Howland]

Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually.

So professional wedding photographers, documentary photographers and sports photographers are not "filming seriously"? You seem to be assuming that photography is always (or maybe just mostly) at the center of the whole situation, something that is absolutely not true a good percentage of the time. Very often, we're just there trying to get the best images we can, in the middle of chaos.

 

[ssrdd]

haha, I've been to India. I know what you guys mean by "good deals". You want quality but you don't want to pay for it.
[/quote]

Do u know about regional film in india[not HINDI film [bolleywood]?
we make independent minimalistic films for a budget of Max 20,000$.And the thing is we have 65mm projectors all over.
so the distributers or buyers or exibiters or finaciars look for the quality to get a good quality of movie, then only they can sell it. Now, of-course i have the tiny budget, but i need to get going to present it to the audience....end of the we all get marginal profits.

I worked in europe for a rental company, i have seen millions exchange over night during film making process, but its different in here....little money,little dreamers,little market,little appreciation, little profits, and little hope.

U think u guys know much about us....
well i really don't know, how u feel when u read it.
tx.

 

[J. McCabe]

C300 full HD
8MP
6MB
24x14mm lens coverage

Why is it called Super35 ? It's only 24mm wide, and the diagonal is less than 28mm.

 

[Bob Howland]

C300 full HD
8MP
6MB
24x14mm lens coverage

Why is it called Super35 ? It's only 24mm wide, and the diagonal is less than 28mm.

Originally, because the film stock was 35mm wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

 

[samueljay]

Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually.

So professional wedding photographers, documentary photographers and sports photographers are not "filming seriously"? You seem to be assuming that photography is always (or maybe just mostly) at the center of the whole situation, something that is absolutely not true a good percentage of the time. Very often, we're just there trying to get the best images we can, in the middle of chaos.

Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures. People here seem to assume that features that are made for still photography (auto-focus and exposure) should be included in cinema styled cameras, and end up assuming that the product is bogus because it's missing these 'standard' features, when the reality is, cameras in that price range are not for the market you're describing at all, these are cinema camera's with cinema lenses, for people shooting films, where every shot will be on a shot list, set up, exposed and focused manually (and pulled during the scene). Of course wedding photog/videographers, doco makers, and sports videographers are shooting seriously, but they won't be using a camera like the C300

Also as many people here have mentioned before, I don't really know anyone myself that actually buys a camera or lenses like this to use just for themselves. Most people will be renting them / renting them out. I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.

 

[unfocused]

Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.

+1

I have been avoiding this topic because I'm not personally interested in video. But, after people started attacking Samueljay I had to come to his defense.

I've had some experience with commissioning television spots and I can echo what Sam's saying. At least in St. Louis and Chicago, the two markets I'm familiar with, I've never worked with someone who owned their own equipment. I do know of a small, family production company in St. Louis that owned equipment and an edit suite and made their money by renting the equipment, themselves and their edit suite out to other firms in between their own jobs. But in their case, they focused on a couple of very narrow niche markets for their own work and used the equipment, their skills and the edit suite to help pay the bills.

I can't understand why anyone feels compelled to complain that Canon (or any other company) decides to expand their market and offer new, innovative products. Anything that extends the technology and helps their bottom line is going to mean more goodies for the rest of us at less cost.

 

[TexPhoto]

CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!

I laugh at myself for being poor.

So canon has prodced some new products that are out of your price range. They have not stopped selling the EOS line of cameras that opened HD video to so many users. The fact that the T3i is a better video camera than the 5DII speaks volumes about the future of low cost high quality video. And this new high end (or low pro end) will pay huge dividends to the low end in the near future.

Ask yourself what you can do with the equipment you can afford, and then think about why you have not done it yet, and change that.

 

[Bob Howland]

Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.

+1

I have been avoiding this topic because I'm not personally interested in video. But, after people started attacking Samueljay I had to come to his defense.

I've had some experience with commissioning television spots and I can echo what Sam's saying. At least in St. Louis and Chicago, the two markets I'm familiar with, I've never worked with someone who owned their own equipment. I do know of a small, family production company in St. Louis that owned equipment and an edit suite and made their money by renting the equipment, themselves and their edit suite out to other firms in between their own jobs. But in their case, they focused on a couple of very narrow niche markets for their own work and used the equipment, their skills and the edit suite to help pay the bills.

I can't understand why anyone feels compelled to complain that Canon (or any other company) decides to expand their market and offer new, innovative products. Anything that extends the technology and helps their bottom line is going to mean more goodies for the rest of us at less cost.

You and Sam are changing the subject. Defining ownership is not the same as defining how the equipment is used. My objection, stated as clearly as I know how several times in this thread, was that some people seemed to think that automatic focusing and exposure had no place in "serious" filming. I was merely trying to point out that there are several kinds of "serious" filming that Sam had not considered. I didn't misunderstand Sam; I objected to his ignorance and arrogance, as politely as I know how.

 

[samueljay]

Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.

+1

I have been avoiding this topic because I'm not personally interested in video. But, after people started attacking Samueljay I had to come to his defense.

I've had some experience with commissioning television spots and I can echo what Sam's saying. At least in St. Louis and Chicago, the two markets I'm familiar with, I've never worked with someone who owned their own equipment. I do know of a small, family production company in St. Louis that owned equipment and an edit suite and made their money by renting the equipment, themselves and their edit suite out to other firms in between their own jobs. But in their case, they focused on a couple of very narrow niche markets for their own work and used the equipment, their skills and the edit suite to help pay the bills.

I can't understand why anyone feels compelled to complain that Canon (or any other company) decides to expand their market and offer new, innovative products. Anything that extends the technology and helps their bottom line is going to mean more goodies for the rest of us at less cost.

You and Sam are changing the subject. Defining ownership is not the same as defining how the equipment is used. My objection, stated as clearly as I know how several times in this thread, was that some people seemed to think that automatic focusing and exposure had no place in "serious" filming. I was merely trying to point out that there are several kinds of "serious" filming that Sam had not considered. I didn't misunderstand Sam; I objected to his ignorance and arrogance, as politely as I know how.

There's no need for that :\ Sorry if I upset you Bob. The fact remains that these camera's are not for that market or purpose, I never said that wedding or sports video taking was not serious, or the people doing it are not serious about their work, only that the features they want, won't be found in a camera like this, because it is a cinema camera, and these are cinema lenses, and auto focus and exposure aren't used in this nichè field.

 

[AprilForever]

If you want fun, google how much a set of panaflex lenses would cost...