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

[koenkooi]

[..]
In many ways the Canon product range does not offer great functions of competitors like Sony, or makes them 5x as expensive:
[..]
- Focus Peaking: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
[..]

The EOS M3 and M10 feature focus peaking. And if I'd go pedantic: Magic Lantern adds focus peaking to most (all?) EOS cameras it's available for, so it's 'available' for a lot more.

Having said that, I don't disagree with you, it would be nice if Canon would export neat software features to their complete line up.

 

[LDS]

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.

Negative feedback for a camera which is not sold still, and almost nobody had a chance to use? It looks just an emotive response, not a factual one.

I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.

If Canon can sell expensive cameras to people who almost don't use them I believe they have the best business model around... why should they change it? Why are you going to buy a camera with that negative feedback "with very good reason for it"?

 

[drama]

$30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.

It's aimed at rental houses and big budget productions.
Motion pictures don't buy cameras, they rent them. This camera competes with Arriflex and Panavision cameras.

It doesn't compete with the aforementioned cameras at all. Right now Canon are announcing a barrage of disappointing new products, 5d4, xc15 and now this! All under spec'ed and generally disappointing

This was my point. You can get far better for that money. The only reason I could think of for wanting a Canon brain is if you're shooting using Canon glass on a big shoot, but even then, the global shutter doesn't work with a Canon mount. It's mystifying. Perhaps it's marked up to make it seem a big deal when they slash the price in six months?

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

And so we end up where these threads always end up (well, almost...you didn't specifically mention Nokia): Canon is doomed unless they do what internet experts such as you suggest. We get it.

Of course, Internet experts said that mirrorless would kill dSLRs in five years and Canon was doomed unless they jumped into mirrorless with both feet...that was 7-8 years ago. There were ample complaints about cost and lists of 'missing' features when the Cxxx lines launched. In spite of all the wailing about how the Cinema EOS line would be a failure for all those reasons, Canon seems to have sold enough of them to continue to update – and now expand – the lineup.

When the C700 Mark II and C900 launch, please come back and tell us how the C700 was a failure, and then predict doom for the new models, for Canon's cinema line, and for Canon as a company.

 

[arthurbikemad]

You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha

I love all these 1 post wonders, makes me chuckle it does lol

 

[douglaurent]

You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha

I love all these 1 post wonders, makes me chuckle it does lol

Mirrorless will kill the DSLR star.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha

I love all these 1 post wonders, makes me chuckle it does lol

Mirrorless will kill the DSLR star.

First music video on MTV. How many music videos do you see on MTV today?

 

[douglaurent]

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.

Negative feedback for a camera which is not sold still, and almost nobody had a chance to use? It looks just an emotive response, not a factual one.

Officially non-existing features (compared to the competition and what would have been possible) plus the price are facts that can be criticized even if nobody had used a product yet. I am sure that every implemented feature in the 5D4 or C700 will work great.

The dualpixel autofocus of my 1DX2 is excellent for example - but also includes another dumb Canon decision that can make paying customers angry, as without any logical reason Canon did limit the dualpixel photo use in the 1DX2, compared to the cheaper 5D4.

It shows Canon's tactics: always buy one more camera and another, if you want to work with all those features. But nobody can carry 3-4 different models. I would prefer to pay 3x the price just to have all features in one model - as this one model had to be bought 2-3x anyway to have immediate access to all focal lengths. The clear impression is that Canon does not really think of the needs of the customers. Sony and Panasonic give the impression that they deliver more than what people would have expected. In the longterm Canon will see that this is not the slow competition game anymore they played with Nikon for decades.

 

[douglaurent]

I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.

If Canon can sell expensive cameras to people who almost don't use them I believe they have the best business model around... why should they change it? Why are you going to buy a camera with that negative feedback "with very good reason for it"?

I am a perfect example how much money Canon LOSES, not how much money Canon makes anyway with random features. Instead of 1x 1DX2 and 5DsR I would have ordered 2 of each, and instead of 1x 5D4 i would have ordered 3. That makes one person and 4 expensive cameras that Canon didn't sell, which is a reason why Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. Maybe they should now care as well, even if they don't need all possible and logical features right now???

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

And so we end up where these threads always end up (well, almost...you didn't specifically mention Nokia): Canon is doomed unless they do what internet experts such as you suggest. We get it.

Of course, Internet experts said that mirrorless would kill dSLRs in five years and Canon was doomed unless they jumped into mirrorless with both feet...that was 7-8 years ago. There were ample complaints about cost and lists of 'missing' features when the Cxxx lines launched. In spite of all the wailing about how the Cinema EOS line would be a failure for all those reasons, Canon seems to have sold enough of them to continue to update – and now expand – the lineup.

When the C700 Mark II and C900 launch, please come back and tell us how the C700 was a failure, and then predict doom for the new models, for Canon's cinema line, and for Canon as a company.

We operate C300/C300MKII along with Arri Alexa, Red Epic / Dragon, Sony F65, Sony F55 and I'm somewhat uncertain of where exactly Canon is pitching this camera based on their publicity. If you do the math the aspect ratios are full sensor 1.85:1, the lower combinations 1.90:1 then under effective pixels 1.78:1 (16x9). They claim its suitable for anamorphic but don't show either a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 combination. Aside from dual pixel in GS form its the same overall specification Sony has had on the F55 since 2012 with a similar form factor. Sony are putting out a new 4K raw recorder for the F55 this month so on paper you would say the target for Canon was the F55.
That will not convince Arri or Red using DOPs to make the switch into Hollywood movies with the C700 for starters the Arri Alexa 65 and Red Weapon 8K camera have lifted the bar with their bigger canvas sensors. Throw in lenses from the likes of Zeiss, Cookes, Leica, Panavision etc. and episodic TV is where this camera is more likely to go with Panasonic & Sony being the chief losers.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The clear impression is that Canon does not really think of the needs of the customers. Sony and Panasonic give the impression that they deliver more than what people would have expected. In the longterm Canon will see that this is not the slow competition game anymore they played with Nikon for decades.

YAPODFC. :

The 'clear impression' for a few years now has been that Sony is producing innovative products in response to customer demand. During those years, Canon has gained ILC market share and they remain the market leader, with Sony no where even close.

In the longterm you will see that the Sun will become a red giant star and destroy Earth. You have been warned.

 

[privatebydesign]

I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.

If Canon can sell expensive cameras to people who almost don't use them I believe they have the best business model around... why should they change it? Why are you going to buy a camera with that negative feedback "with very good reason for it"?

I am a perfect example how much money Canon LOSES, not how much money Canon makes anyway with random features. Instead of 1x 1DX2 and 5DsR I would have ordered 2 of each, and instead of 1x 5D4 i would have ordered 3. That makes one person and 4 expensive cameras that Canon didn't sell, which is a reason why Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. Maybe they should now care as well, even if they don't need all possible and logical features right now???

Don't conflate you saying Canon are doomed with my satisfaction with the new specs. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion on the 5D MkIV specs.

As for higher prices, really? The 5D was launched at $3,500 in 2005.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. M

Don't conflate you saying Canon are doomed with my satisfaction with the new specs. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion on the 5D MkIV specs.

As for higher prices, really? The 5D was launched at $3,500 in 2005.

The 5D launched at $3300 in 2005, which is actually $4050 in today's dollars.

#slappedbyhistory

 

[gsealy]

I believe that the low end camera (5DIV dollar range) that the video people crave will come from Sony, Panasonic, or Fuji. Look at the recent Fuji cameras: the X-T2 ($1600) and the x-A3 ($600). Both are 24MP and have 4K. They have a ton of features. Are they what video guys want? No, not yet. But the thing is Fuji is getting closer. I am thinking Fuji sees a big price gap between these cameras and what features they have, and what the 5DIV has. Can Fuji create a camera that sells for say $2500 that has 4K-60P, 10 bit, and so on? You bet they can. And there are lens converters from the "X" mount to the "EF" mount. Then too, the Panasonic GH5 is supposed to be a killer camera, and then there are amazing rumors about the Sony A7III.

 

[privatebydesign]

...Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. M

Don't conflate you saying Canon are doomed with my satisfaction with the new specs. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion on the 5D MkIV specs.

As for higher prices, really? The 5D was launched at $3,500 in 2005.

The 5D launched at $3300 in 2005, which is actually $4050 in today's dollars.

#slappedbyhistory

I stand corrected, Wikipedia has it at $3,299.

But you know where I got the misinformation from? Take a guess, go on. Yep DPReview......

P.S. If you put 5D in Google the second image is the first hit. Kinda scary and if I was Canon I wouldn't see the joke in this anymore. That is a picture supposedly demonstrating a lack of DR, that is false, and was actually shot with a 5DSR not a 5D MkIV! And it's not even tagged with that in the caption. But we know captions aren't important.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. M

Don't conflate you saying Canon are doomed with my satisfaction with the new specs. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion on the 5D MkIV specs.

As for higher prices, really? The 5D was launched at $3,500 in 2005.

The 5D launched at $3300 in 2005, which is actually $4050 in today's dollars.

#slappedbyhistory

I stand corrected, Wikipedia has it at $3,299.

Either way, Canon is clearly not "charging higher prices now," but some people's perceptions affect their personal reality.

But you know where I got the misinformation from? Take a guess, go on. Yep DPReview......

I guess Rishi stayed in bed that morning, seeing as how getting up in the morning to deliver correct information is so important to him and all. :

 

[LDS]

I would prefer to pay 3x the price just to have all features in one model

You.

Many others won't pay $9000 or more for a 5D IV, especially for features they don't use. Every company has to find a "sweet spot" for its products to maximize both the price they can sell, and the number of customers, for a given market target. The 5D line is not targeted at the relatively few people who are willingly to spend 10K for a camera. Many 5D users don't do video at all, for example.

And would have you really bought three 5D IV at 10k each?

Still photos and video may have very different needs. Some people prefer separate cameras designed for each tasks. Other may prefer a single one. How large these groups are, and and how much are they willingly to spend for a camera is the real problem.

Much depends on what feature level you expect from a camera. "4K" and some other numbers alone may mean very little. It depends how flexible it is to shoot proper 4K footage - and how it fits into your equipment (if you don't rent) and workflow.

Maybe it turned out that an SLR body is not exactly what most customer need. The C700 form factor is also different from the C500 - it's a bigger camera because it looks customers asked for something like this. Probably if Canon based its designs on CanonRumors only it would deliver different products...

 

[transpo1]

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.

And so we end up where these threads always end up (well, almost...you didn't specifically mention Nokia): Canon is doomed unless they do what internet experts such as you suggest. We get it.

Of course, Internet experts said that mirrorless would kill dSLRs in five years and Canon was doomed unless they jumped into mirrorless with both feet...that was 7-8 years ago. There were ample complaints about cost and lists of 'missing' features when the Cxxx lines launched. In spite of all the wailing about how the Cinema EOS line would be a failure for all those reasons, Canon seems to have sold enough of them to continue to update – and now expand – the lineup.

When the C700 Mark II and C900 launch, please come back and tell us how the C700 was a failure, and then predict doom for the new models, for Canon's cinema line, and for Canon as a company.

We operate C300/C300MKII along with Arri Alexa, Red Epic / Dragon, Sony F65, Sony F55 and I'm somewhat uncertain of where exactly Canon is pitching this camera based on their publicity. If you do the math the aspect ratios are full sensor 1.85:1, the lower combinations 1.90:1 then under effective pixels 1.78:1 (16x9). They claim its suitable for anamorphic but don't show either a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 combination. Aside from dual pixel in GS form its the same overall specification Sony has had on the F55 since 2012 with a similar form factor. Sony are putting out a new 4K raw recorder for the F55 this month so on paper you would say the target for Canon was the F55.
That will not convince Arri or Red using DOPs to make the switch into Hollywood movies with the C700 for starters the Arri Alexa 65 and Red Weapon 8K camera have lifted the bar with their bigger canvas sensors. Throw in lenses from the likes of Zeiss, Cookes, Leica, Panavision etc. and episodic TV is where this camera is more likely to go with Panasonic & Sony being the chief losers.

Just to be clear- I did imply Canon would face challenges in the future if they don't disrupt themselves, but they are not doomed (I know they'll be relieved to hear this). What we're saying is that they could be doing so much better.

And along with their excuses / lies on Twitter about HDMI 1.4 not being available at time of 5DIV development, well- we can say that this thread does end up where it usually does-

Canon deliberately hobbles video features on its flagship prosumer DSLRs
They're late to the party with their C700 entry and forgot to bring the wine
They refuse to give any 4K full frame options to video users- which I think is a tremendous oversight to their potential additional market.

Also, I think it's important to note that the reason many of us voice this so passionately is that we want to love Canon and want them to succeed. We own glass and have invested in the 5D series and other cameras for many years. So that's why the passionate voicing of our opinions- in the continued hope that they are heard, and that they listen.

 

[scyrene]

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 S___storm. 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.

A list of features isn't 'facts', and it doesn't prove anything. And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, this 'Canon will fail, its products are not competitive' line has been brought out every time a new product is released. And yet they continue to do well. Incidentally, you said "Too many Canon photographers also don't seem to realize yet how great many video features could be for their photo work as well" but your list has few features that have any impact on stills shooting at all.

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.

So you've bought every Canon body recently released, but take your Sony out with you. What does Canon conclude? That their cameras sell. They don't care what you do afterwards. You bought it. If you're so upset (and all the capital letters suggest you are) then stop buying. And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.

Wait, you mean that if a manufacturer puts 4K video into a camera and it overheats after a few minutes of use, people might be unhappy? Who would do something like that? :