Canon U.S.A., Inc. Introduces New Flagship EOS C700 Cinema Camera

[SchnauzerFace]

Editors were compositing well before 4K. I think we'll be fine.

True. Advances in technology are irrelevant and pointless because we used to get by with older equipment.

Sent from my Typewriter.

 

[SchnauzerFace]

NOPE. It doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant. The increased resolution magnifies the mistakes on screen. LOL.

So I guess compositing = projection? Not talking about 8k projection. I'm talking about compositing.

Lol?

 

[bsbeamer]

Thanks for this distraction. I really wish I could afford this and the fast cinema zooms. Even on rental with typical project budgets it would be a stretch for most of my work.

Back to realistic budget planning...

 

[preppyak]

This Canon 2017 model pretty much does the same as the Red Epic MX I ordered in 2011.
Not impressive when at the same time there will be a 6K GH5 for 5% of the price of the C700.

Actually, there wont be a 6k GH5, they've already confirmed that its just 4k.

That said, its hard not to agree. When a GH5 can deliver 4k/60 and internal 4:2:2 10bit for <$2000, its kind of crazy that Canon is just clearing some of these hurdles in their cine line. Its especially embarassing to see the XC15, which has a lesser sensor, lesser output options, and is priced over a GH5.

 

[cpreston]

This Canon 2017 model pretty much does the same as the Red Epic MX I ordered in 2011.
Not impressive when at the same time there will be a 6K GH5 for 5% of the price of the C700.

Actually, there wont be a 6k GH5, they've already confirmed that its just 4k.

That said, its hard not to agree. When a GH5 can deliver 4k/60 and internal 4:2:2 10bit for <$2000, its kind of crazy that Canon is just clearing some of these hurdles in their cine line. Its especially embarassing to see the XC15, which has a lesser sensor, lesser output options, and is priced over a GH5.

Yeah, but to my ears, the XC15 has a preamp noise floor that is a good 15dB less than the internal preamp on the GH5 and the XC15 has better noise reduction above 3200 ISO while maintaining the same DR. For some of us, that is worth the extra $500 price difference between the two cameras.

 

[Policar]

NOPE. It doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant. The increased resolution magnifies the mistakes on screen. LOL.

So I guess compositing = projection? Not talking about 8k projection. I'm talking about compositing.

Lol?

I'm just curious what projects you're working on in 8k? The only thing I can think of would be the new Guardians of the Galaxy, which is rumored to be the first project finished above 4k.

In my experience most high end compositing and visual effects houses (on the highest end feature films) still finish at 2k or prefer to render CG elements at 2k because working in 4k is so much more expensive. Personally, I don't know anyone working in 8k now, but I'm not working on the ultra high end. (I work in network tv, cable, and web, which is all 1080p and 2k, also as a composition artist.)

Anyhow, interesting... I disagree with you in that I prefer to work at 2k because past that point the increase in cost for RAM, SSDs, monitoring ability, etc. grows exponentially, and all the shows I'm on finish 2k or 1080p with very rare exception of a 4k finish, which is difficult to monitor on a color accurate screen and the amount of extra RAM and SSD storage we've needed has slowed us down and been very costly. To be fair, I work pretty exclusively with Alexa footage, which only has an upscaled 4k mode that uses corners of the lens that can be problematic anyway. So for me and for tv other than Netflix, Which mandates 4k acquisition and finish, 2k seems far preferable for post and the sups and artists I work with (many having worked at ILM, Zoic, The Mill, Legendary, etc.) all agree.

But it's interesting to hear that at the very highest end (and at this point you've sort of outed yourself as working on Guardians 2, because I can't think of anything else in post finishing above 4k) that the extra resolution is making a difference. What advantages do you find? What was missing from your previous workflows that is now available? Just curious, as I'm hoping to get into higher end work as my skill-set develops.

I have had the opposite experience and it does make me reconsider some of my biases hearing that you've found a great improvement working in 8k. Given unlimited horsepower, I can see no downside to extra resolution, but I also don't see much difference above oversampled 4k for big screens and 2k for normal-sized screens visually... because lenses don't resolve far beyond that. But I get that you say the advantages are compositing-specific. But with Mocha and Boujou I'm already trying to cheat the solves by reducing the amount of information sampled at 2k to speed solves up, and I'm getting sub-pixel accurate tracks at 1080p that look no worse (or not visibly worse) than the same work done at a higher resolution and down sampled. I do agree that the lack of gate weave has made a huge difference in the transition from film to digital and that more is better all else being equal, but I haven't noticed any such improvements myself and feel like I must be doing something wrong if that's the case.

 

[Camerasheik]

The problem Canon and others are faced with is something other industries have already faced. Technology is destroying their business model.

Look at cars, a modern mass produced car has levels of comfort, performance and reliability that twenty years ago was beyond the most exclusive hand crafted coach builders. Modern exclusive brands have to find different ways to justify their premium price. Some of the greatest marques have disappeared due to their inability to adapt to change.

Lenses tell a similar story, Sigma, Tamron and others are, thanks to computer aided design and manufacture, able to produce lenses with optical quality that can compare to the very best. All they currently lack is the AF algorithm. Once they crack that and they will, other than snob value how could you justify shelling out 3x £$ for L / Nikkor?

Bodies follow the same trajectory, it's quite clear that the computing power inside a EOS 5D iv, 1DX ii or D5 can handle all types of motion codecs. If a 5D iv can push 4K motion Jpeg through its pipes what could it do with an efficient codec? Canon are quite aware that if they released the true capability of the latest DSLRs it would cannibalise the high end Cxxx series.

The technology (hardware) is in the DSLR, the limits are entirely artificial. Panasonic, Olympus, Black Magic and god help us Fuji are breaking the model. Think Canon, think Hispano- Suiza. Who? Exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Suiza

 

[cpreston]

If a 5D iv can push 4K motion Jpeg through its pipes what could it do with an efficient codec?

Probably overheat.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Too little to late, says an opinion piece on News Shooter http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/09/01/opinion-is-the-canon-c700-an-owneroperators-dream-camera-or-just-another-also-ran/

"The problem I have with the C700 isn’t with the camera itself, it is with the timing. It’s like Canon engineers got in a DeLorean and went back to the future. The camera would have been a great option two to three years ago ... I applaud Canon for finally making a camera that I think people will like, but for me it is a case of too little, too late.

 

[douglaurent]

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

[/quote]

This post shows the exakt problem:
Too many Canon users just seem to think that Canon products are a bit expensive.
In reality the prices would be justified, if Canon wouldn't artificially limit the specs in their products.
Canon does not implement a lot of important and convenient features, although they easily could do it.

It looks like they make innovation as slow as possible to milk consumers as long as possible.
Too many Canon photographers also don't seem to realize yet how great many video features could be for their photo work as well.
In many ways the Canon product range does not offer great functions of competitors like Sony, or makes them 5x as expensive:

- Filming and reviewing through an EVF: Canon doesn't offer it in any large sensor camera.
- Silent Photo Shooting: Canon doesn't offer it in any large sensor camera.
- Ability to use speedboosters: Not possible with a Canon product.
- Focus Peaking: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Zebra: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- 4K shooting in Full Frame: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting in any zoom range between Full Frame and the middle 8 MP crop: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting with 60fps: Canon offers it from 6500 bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- 1080p shooting with 120fps: Canon offers it from 6500 bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- 720p shooting with 240fps: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting in 3840 width: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- 4K shooting with an efficient codec: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Shooting 4K Video in Log Mode: Canon offers it from 6000+ bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- HDMI out in 4K: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Adapting APS-Crop Lenses: Not available in any Canon 4K camera that also shoots photo.
- Fully assignable buttons incl. a third wheel for ISO: Canon doesn't offer it.
- Installation of apps: Canon doesn't offer it.
- Audio and other things through a Multi Hot Shoe: Canon doesn't offer it.
- Articulating screen: Not available in any Canon 4K camera that also shoots photo.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

 

[scyrene]

This post shows the exakt problem:
Too many Canon users just seem to think that Canon products are a bit expensive.
In reality the prices would be justified, if Canon wouldn't artificially limit the specs in their products.
Canon does not implement a lot of important and convenient features, although they easily could do it.

It looks like they make innovation as slow as possible to milk consumers as long as possible.
Too many Canon photographers also don't seem to realize yet how great many video features could be for their photo work as well.

So your assertion is that Canon's success - even with professionals - is due entirely to ignorance and brand loyalism? Pretty arrogant.

Incidentally, all companies "artificially limit specs" as you put it. Well actually, it's not artificial - different products have different prices, being aimed at different target consumers, and then the features are fitted into the price constraints with headroom for profits. That's called business, and everyone does it. All you're really saying is, Canon products are too expensive. That's fair enough, but let's not dress it up as some evil conspiracy, eh?

(Sorry, I had to repost this as the quotes were messed up).

 

[nehemiah]

This line of criticism seems to occur with almost every new Canon product. Not enough features / Too expensive / Could sell much more if they priced lower or included new features . . .

When I started to first read this forum, I thought Canon was going to bomb on these products after reading all the expert opinion here. Since then Canon has had huge sales figures, getting awards like camera of the year, and is one of the leaders in patents, etc.

They probably know even now fairly accurately in what ballpark the sales figures will be for the 5D4 and this video camera. Things that are nice are very expensive nowadays, even more so than before.

 

[douglaurent]

So your assertion is that Canon's success - even with professionals - is due entirely to ignorance and brand loyalism? Pretty arrogant.

Incidentally, all companies "artificially limit specs" as you put it. Well actually, it's not artificial - different products have different prices, being aimed at different target consumers, and then the features are fitted into the price constraints with headroom for profits. That's called business, and everyone does it. All you're really saying is, Canon products are too expensive. That's fair enough, but let's not dress it up as some evil conspiracy, eh?

(Sorry, I had to repost this as the quotes were messed up).
[/quote]

You did NOT read my list above with app. 20 detailed examples of features that are now - in the year 2016 - are clear to be future standards, much requested and appreciated for the work of photographers and filmmakers, but held back by Canon. A lot of pros already did flee from Canon and Nikon, and more will do, because:

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE CANON PRODUCT LINEUP DOESN'T OFFER A LOT OF NECESSARY AND MODERN FEATURES AT ALL.

It is proven in 20 facts in the list above. But as listed in detail above, the prices aren't the problem, and there is also no conspiracy - there is just a clear Canon sales strategy to implement all obviously missing features as slow as possible in coming products. This is Canon's right. Now it's the consumer's right to give Canon a shitstorm. In 2008 the 5D2 had 95% positive feedback, like the A7R2 in 2015. in 2016, the 5D4 has 50% negative feedback, and there are many good reasons for it. Nobody can deny it.

Most criticism also doesn't come from amateurs or Sony fanboys, it's coming from pro Canon users and lovers who need these new products for their work between 2016 and 2020, and can't afford to deliver reduced quality or spend extra work hours to compensate the limitations of the Canon cameras. Nobody wants to carry around and pay 3 heavy bodies to do what competitors like Sony have shown can be done in one small camera. I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2. Do I prefer to work with Sony products in general? No way. Do I prefer to work with the best balance of logistics, workflow and quality available on the market? Hell yeah.

So even if I don't care too much about the prices, they have to be investigated and compared. The prices of the new Canon products would be okay, if they added more of the features that are obvious and needed. The prices would have been okay if they released products with the current specs 3 years ago, like Sony did with the F55 that Canon did clone today with the C700. The prices are too high when the competition has much better specs for less money.

BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT CANON STILL HOLDS BACK A LOT OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY NOW THAT CAN'T BE BOUGHT AT ALL, IS NOT AVAILABLE IN ONE PRODUCT WHERE IT WOULD BE LOGICAL, OR IS CRAZY MORE EXPENSIVE LIKE THE COMPETITION.

 

[transpo1]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing.

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.

 

[privatebydesign]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing.

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.

Of course they do, they spend millions on market research whereas you know nothing
(Jon Snow) and don't spend a penny on market research.

 

[transpo1]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing.

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.

Of course they do, they spend millions on market research whereas you know nothing
(Jon Snow) and don't spend a penny on market research.

You miss the point entirely- they need to stop looking at the market research and make products that deliver value. They view shareholders vs. customers (at least DSLR video customers) as a zero sum game, and it's not. Everybody can profit here. They'd have tons more DSLR video customers if they offered a video feature set that blew away the competition. They just don't have the courage or imagination to take that risk.

Despite the arrow, I shall live, then die, then live again. Getting geeky, isn't it?

 

[privatebydesign]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing.

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.

Of course they do, they spend millions on market research whereas you know nothing
(Jon Snow) and don't spend a penny on market research.

You miss the point entirely- they need to stop looking at the market research and make products that deliver value. They view shareholders vs. customers (at least DSLR video customers) as a zero sum game, and it's not. Everybody can profit here. They'd have tons more DSLR video customers if they offered a video feature set that blew away the competition. They just don't have the courage or imagination to take that risk.

Despite the arrow, I shall live, then die, then live again. Getting geeky, isn't it?

No you miss the point entirely. Canon are the number 1 interchange lens camera manufacturer in the world, they are also the number one SLR camera manufacturer, obviously their market research and subsequent product lines are doing something right. They have researched the feature set of what they see as competing products and believe they have got it right. History has illustrated they in general they are right. The cameras they release appeal to enough people and "deliver value" well enough for those people to pay, that you think they are wrong is nothing new, but they have proven you wrong for the last 14 (?) or so years.

Every time Canon release anything, from a $40 WiFi card to a $70,000 camera there is a long list of pundits saying it is doa, but that just hasn't proven to be the case.

 

[transpo1]

I get it.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

Yes, you do get it.

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.

I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing.

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.

Of course they do, they spend millions on market research whereas you know nothing
(Jon Snow) and don't spend a penny on market research.

You miss the point entirely- they need to stop looking at the market research and make products that deliver value. They view shareholders vs. customers (at least DSLR video customers) as a zero sum game, and it's not. Everybody can profit here. They'd have tons more DSLR video customers if they offered a video feature set that blew away the competition. They just don't have the courage or imagination to take that risk.

Despite the arrow, I shall live, then die, then live again. Getting geeky, isn't it?

No you miss the point entirely. Canon are the number 1 interchange lens camera manufacturer in the world, they are also the number one SLR camera manufacturer, obviously their market research and subsequent product lines are doing something right. They have researched the feature set of what they see as competing products and believe they have got it right. History has illustrated they in general they are right. The cameras they release appeal to enough people and "deliver value" well enough for those people to pay, that you think they are wrong is nothing new, but they have proven you wrong for the last 14 (?) or so years.

Every time Canon release anything, from a $40 WiFi card to a $70,000 camera there is a long list of pundits saying it is doa, but that just hasn't proven to be the case.

No doubt they've seen success in the past. But some would say we're entering a new era, where companies have to disrupt themselves and their own business models to succeed in the future. Canon were first to give us full frame video in a DSLR with the 5DII- and what a great camera. It wasn't perfect- it only shot 30p in the beginning with no 24, but the video feature was so popular they later gave us a firmware update to give us 24p deliver value in that camera and came out with the 7D with 24p and more. They had video cameras at the time- it was a disruptive business model. But they gave us something extra in addition to what was expected from a DSLR camera at that time. Now they are generally withholding features that could potentially sell more cameras. In New York, where you used to see a lot of 5DIIIs among tourists, hobbyists, prosumer stills and video people, and professional video people, you don't see many anymore. Now you see a lot of Sonys. So, yeah- I don't trust their market research nor view it as the Holy Grail. Plenty of great companies atrophied over time, all the while thinking their market research was great. And market research is only as good as the ears it is falling on.

 

[expatinasia]

Really surprised that a (cinema) camera that costs US$35,000+ has three pages of comments!

I wonder if there will be even one CR member who will buy it (buy to rent excluded)!