Canon to add to their Cinema EOS lineup with three new monster cameras [CR3]

[EOS 4 Life]

Can we get a compact cinema like the fx3 please. I am still waiting for that Canon.

FX3 is a cinema camera in name only.
I would like to see Canon make a pocket 4K SPS-C cinema camera but they have never made anything close to that.
I have no question they can make a pocket-sized C100 sans ND filters.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I can’t see any reason why it can’t(stills) go the other way, video is just a compilation of stills. DGO tech should be a piece of cake in stills, IMO. Can you imagine a FF/DX body with DGO tech in it, Canon will probably have 3 modes of dynamic range selection; DR, +DR, wDR(wide). If this BSI stacked is any indication, Canon is not messing around.

There is not really much of a point.
Canon cameras already do exposure bracketing which can be combined in post for outrageous dynamic range.

 

[H. Jones]

Can get some nice insights to what the R3 is going to be based on these Stacked sensors.

100% agree, if Canon has a full frame 8K BSI sensor for the C500, I almost guarantee the R3's sensor is in that ballpark.

 

[Tremotino]

100% agree, if Canon has a full frame 8K BSI sensor for the C500, I almost guarantee the R3's sensor is in that ballpark.

+1 yeah, canon has the technology for such a sensor in a stills camera. But are the costumer willing to pay for that technology? I would be surprised if Canon is able to bring down the costs of a C500 fullframe 8K sensor to a 1dx style R3 camera. The C500 will cost 5 times?, 10 times? more than a 1dx style R3 camera.

 

[jam05]

I've been waiting to see some cinema news on Canon's front. After being with Canon since 2011, I ended up switching to Sony for the FX6. Like somebody above said, I wish they would release a cinema camera in a more compact form like the FX6 or the Komodo so that it can be flown on smaller rigs. I don't need something as small as the FX3 since there are plenty of DSLR cameras around to fit that need. I got tired of using the regular Ronin for my C200 and wanted something smaller for smaller gimbals. I absolutely hated the form factor of the C70 after using it and wish they would stop releasing cinema cameras in a DSLR type body. We need those specs in a smaller form like the Komodo or FX6. There's so much I loved about Canon that if they'd get that right, I would come back, because they definitely have much better lens options.

Those tired compacts with the horrendous antique LCD displays and begging for active cooling. Not much more hardware can be put in them. The boxy Komodo is only a base shell and so is the base price. After building out the Komodo with everything equivalent of the C70 it isn't small at all.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

You're on an island. Many are tired of the compacts. Take a hint from the most used Cine cameras for the award winners, Arri mini and Arri Alexa. Sony is basically near the bottom of the list not even in the top 20

I have a lot of criticisms of the Sony cinema line but Venice is a masterpiece.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

8K 60p, that new stacked sensor tech looks very good, even the A1 can't offer that. I'd hate to see the file sizes with Canon's wasteful codecs. 100TB drives aren't due for another 5 years at least.

 

[pape2]

8K 60p, that new stacked sensor tech looks very good, even the A1 can't offer that. I'd hate to see the file sizes with Canon's wasteful codecs. 100TB drives aren't due for another 5 years at least.

This camera got fans

 

[pape2]

I wonder how fast best video storage systems write. There is systems what can write faster what these cameras produce?
And another thing ,if global shutter is real thing .Its DR weakness is from overheating ?
Maybe it cant do faster speeds on real life what rolling shutter becouse overheat problems ?
If it uses lot more battery ,it means lot more overheat too.
Only real differences on rolling shutter and global shutter would be then no artifacts on another ,and global shutter can make lot shorter pauses between exposures.
They may just cap DR to 12 so they can get more frame rate out. Would look stupid if long fussed global shutter makes less frames what rolling shutter.

 

[padam]

8K 60p, that new stacked sensor tech looks very good, even the A1 can't offer that. I'd hate to see the file sizes with Canon's wasteful codecs. 100TB drives aren't due for another 5 years at least.

With the new Digic DV 8 processor, there will be plenty of 4K and 8K recording options, I would expect the same XF-AVC Long GOP and H.265 codecs from the C70.

 

[Stanly]

C500S looks promising! If there's the RF mount option of course.​

 

[padam]

C500S looks promising! If there's the RF mount option of course.​

These will have the RF-mount options as they are slowly stopping production of some EF lenses.

However, I would expect a big price jump (and the existing options to keep on going for a fair few years, maybe substantial price drops coming?), as in the past generation the C500 Mark II was missing 4k120p and the DGO tech in comparison to the C300 Mark III.
Now it has every feature from the lesser model with even better dynamic range.
If the price difference remains "only" 5000$ between the two models, then the FF model may be a "bargain", but I highly doubt that.

 

[Joules]

I wonder how fast best video storage systems write. There is systems what can write faster what these cameras produce?
And another thing ,if global shutter is real thing .Its DR weakness is from overheating ?
Maybe it cant do faster speeds on real life what rolling shutter becouse overheat problems ?
If it uses lot more battery ,it means lot more overheat too.
Only real differences on rolling shutter and global shutter would be then no artifacts on another ,and global shutter can make lot shorter pauses between exposures.
They may just cap DR to 12 so they can get more frame rate out. Would look stupid if long fussed global shutter makes less frames what rolling shutter.

What happened to you original account, did you get banned?

Anyway, I would not worry about Canon's global shutter. For one, these cameras here don't seem to have one so it is off topic. And since Canon now has the ability to make stacked BSI sensors, they should have more than enough flexibility to pull off a global shutter that does neither compromises on speed nor DR.

The concerns with heat we are seeing in some current cameras don't come from the sensor, but the processing and storage systems instead. Those can be addressed with smaller manufacturing processes and better thermal solutions like bigger surfaces, or failing that, active cooling. For the type of camera discussed in this thread, both of those sound just fine to me.

 

[pape2]

What happened to you original account, did you get banned?

Nope just lost password and email. i guess i might get banned too,i understand things too wrong too often

 

[Joules]

There is not really much of a point.
Canon cameras already do exposure bracketing which can be combined in post for outrageous dynamic range.

Exposure bracketing is only feasible for completely static scenes. You don't need to use it, but I'll gladly take multiple stops extra DR for all shots. Seems useful for all kinds of scenarios for me.

 

[Joules]

Nope just lost password and email. i guess i might get banned too,i understand things too wrong too often

Ah, the classic. Well, at least your username is fairly close to the last one

I would hope language issues are not enough reason to get banned though. I'm not banned yet, and I dared to use the d-word sometimes. So you shouldn't worry too much I think.

Anyway, your question about what kind of storage solution can keep up with these kinds of data throughput is valid. 8k 60 p RAW is quite demanding, even with some lossless compression.

 

[padam]

Exposure bracketing is only feasible for completely static scenes. You don't need to use it, but I'll gladly take multiple stops extra DR for all shots. Seems useful for all kinds of scenarios for me.

The fundamental difference regarding the DGO technology is that with a stills camera you are not keeping a constant base ISO of 800.
Sometimes you need to go lower and sometimes higher.
And lowest native ISO if 100 with a mechanical shutter will perform better anyway compared to using the electronic shutter (without DGO), so the benefit regarding dynamic range is reduced.
So it is a lot more complicated on a stills camera, and there is less to gain: there is a fair amount of circuitry that they need to add just for that one scenario (it might add more noise at high ISOs) and it consumes a lot of extra power, too.

And of course all these 8K DGO sensor cameras will cost well over 10000$.

The C70 is the cheapest one with DGO, it is only 4K and S35mm size, so I doubt that it is that much better over the R5 in stills mode with mechanical shutter at ISO 100 (for video, even against RAW it has a clear advantage).

It it more likely that with the newest cameras with stacked sensors, there will be an HDR stills mode merging multiple images like on smartphones.

 

[adrian_bacon]

I can’t see any reason why it can’t(stills) go the other way, video is just a compilation of stills. DGO tech should be a piece of cake in stills, IMO. Can you imagine a FF/DX body with DGO tech in it, Canon will probably have 3 modes of dynamic range selection; DR, +DR, wDR(wide). If this BSI stacked is any indication, Canon is not messing around.

Canon probably was doing it in stills land starting with the 80D. They just haven’t said anything because they were using it to get better noise. It was found out quite a long time ago with the 5DIV when saving the dual pixel raw files, the second set of senses was a whole stop different exposure from the other sensel under the micro lens, which meant that the camera was actually storing 15 stops of exposure information if you were smart about putting it back together, which I strongly suspect canon was doing in camera to get more base DR and noise performance.

in video camera land, it’s just more of the same, except now marketing, because in video camera land, their ADC is 12 bits and they’re probably gained by 2-3 stops between each sensel instead of one like in stills land. How else would they be getting 14+ stops of DR with 12 bits of ADC in video?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It it more likely that with the newest cameras with stacked sensors, there will be an HDR stills mode merging multiple images like on smartphones.

I would hope that RAW would include the data from all the images so they could be edited separately in post.
HDR does something similar in that it holds image info for multiple exposures but of course not in RAW format.

 

[Joules]

The fundamental difference regarding the DGO technology is that with a stills camera you are not keeping a constant base ISO of 800.
Sometimes you need to go lower and sometimes higher.
And lowest native ISO if 100 with a mechanical shutter will perform better anyway compared to using the electronic shutter (without DGO), so the benefit regarding dynamic range is reduced.
So it is a lot more complicated on a stills camera, and there is less to gain: there is a fair amount of circuitry that they need to add just for that one scenario (it might add more noise at high ISOs) and it consumes a lot of extra power, too.

And of course all these 8K DGO sensor cameras will cost well over 10000$.

The C70 is the cheapest one with DGO, it is only 4K and S35mm size, so I doubt that it is that much better over the R5 in stills mode with mechanical shutter at ISO 100 (for video, even against RAW it has a clear advantage).

It it more likely that with the newest cameras with stacked sensors, there will be an HDR stills mode merging multiple images like on smartphones.

What does ISO 800 have to do with the technology itself? The white paper linked earlier for example is written as if the highlight priority amplification is just the regular ISO you would use in a non-DGO scenario. So ISO 100 in the case of stills and a scene with challenging DR.

The noise (I guess shadows would be more fitting) prioritizing amplification is the higher ISO, so 1600 for example. Of course if Canon has pushed their amps to be so clean that they are virtually ISO invariant, there's nothing to be gained here.

I only have images of the 90D as comparison, which is much cleaner than the 80D for example, but still shows more noise in an image taken at ISO 100 and pushed 5 stops digitally than one taken at ISO 1600 right away.

Also, from the white paper linked earlier, DGO doesn't look like it adds that much complexity. If I understand the text correctly, they aren't duplicating the entire amplification circuitry, but rather processing the two signals coming from each pixel one at a time, sequentially and just switching the gain. It definitely adds complexity, no doubt about it. But thanks to DPAF there already is a lot of duplicate processing in there anyway. It will be interesting to see what new options their stacked sensor fabrication brings them and the consumer.