More Canon EOS C300 Mark II Talk [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

We’re hearing more and more about new Cinema EOS products has we get closer to NAB 2015 in April in Las Vegas, a show we will be attending.</p>
<p>We were told the following about the upcoming 4K Canon EOS C300 Mark II</p>
<ul>
<li>Color rendition a top priority</li>
<li>Future proof mandate, great dynamic range, codec and usability</li>
<li>Canon does not see the FS7 as a competitor, as they expect their camera to be better in every way.</li>
<li>New motor zoom lens for C-series coming</li>
<li>Shoulder mount system for EOS C300 Mark II coming</li>
<li>No more on pricing at this time</li>
</ul>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[sanj]

Sweet.

 

[RandBern]

"Canon does not see the FS7 as a competitor, as they expect their camera to be better in every way."

Is that code for "Don't expect it to be a competitor in price, either".

 

[bgoyette]

Yeah... I read that pricing point too. But idk, I think canon is in a rough place with the c300. Sony made an interesting move with the fs7, essentially taking it's lower rung camera and moving its spec list a hair's breath away from the f5 -- the reason is obvious... cameras in this mid high region (f5, c500) aren't selling. The c300 has been selling well at it's price point until recently, but the Fs7 is so well spec'd from almost any angle that it's hard to see how canon could bump the c300 without being in direct competition. Do we really think the MkII c300 will have 180+fps? 14 stops dynamic range? A better codec than sony? These are features where canon has always lagged behind. It's hard to imagine that they could or would "leapfrog" sony in these areas. The color accuracy/skin tone thing....sure.. Ease of use/ergonomics... Check, we'll probably also see 4k, 10bit, a shoulderable form factor. I think if canon wants to bring this camera out at 16-17k like the last model, they've got their work cut out for them. There's going to have to be something awfully alexa-like about this camera for them to say the FS7 isn't a direct competitor.

 

[PureClassA]

Canon may not see it as a competitor but the rest of the market will. I'm going to chalk that line up to Canon being Canon and just promoting their product as being "better and therefore it's no contest". in reality, they are going to price the new C300 with 4k at or near an FS7 (if they have a lick of good sense). A C300 with RAW output and possibly ProRes could be easily put at $10k, because the FS7 with an EF adapter plus the $2000 accessory back to get ProRes puts the FS7 at about the same.

It will really depend largely how much Canon puts into this machine. If they just go head to head with the base FS7, then $9k isn't out the realm because of the native mount most cinema folks want. The success of Metabones indicates as much.

 

[andrewflo]

"Canon does not see the FS7 as a competitor, as they expect their camera to be better in every way."

Is that code for "Don't expect it to be a competitor in price, either".

Sounds about right haha. This kind of reminds me of Canon's claim that they will be a "leader in the mirrorless market". A bit laughable, but can't blame them for trying I suppose.

The FS7, on paper, is very competitive compared to the EOS Cinema line. While on paper specs don't equate to true usability and performance, I'm anxious to see what Canon has in mind as competition for the FS7.

 

[leGreve]

Canon does not see the FS7 as a competitor, as they expect their camera to be better in every way.

Which interprets into: ...therefor our camera will be significantly more expensive than the competition and we hope you'll pay the price.

EDIT:: hah... see someone else beat me to that statement Guess that underlines the theory (atleast for me ;P)

 

[nschearer]

For anyone expecting Canon to drop their price point on this to closer match the FS7...prepare to be let down. I would imagine that they'll keep the price similar to the Mark I when it was released, and pay little attention to the competition. And while the specs may still fall short of the FS7 in terms of frame rate and codec - color rendition, noise performance and overall image quality will continue to be the strong suits of the C300. As a C300 owner who has shot a lot with the FS7 recently, I can say with absolute certainty that it is a much better camera on paper than in the field. Perhaps firmware updates will improve or correct some things, like moire at 1080 (especially high frame rate) and most importantly customizable white balance, but until then the FS7 is a bit of a tease. It's for these reasons that I imagine Canon wouldn't consider it a competitor.

 

[Etienne]

Yeah... I read that pricing point too. But idk, I think canon is in a rough place with the c300. Sony made an interesting move with the fs7, essentially taking it's lower rung camera and moving its spec list a hair's breath away from the f5 -- the reason is obvious... cameras in this mid high region (f5, c500) aren't selling. The c300 has been selling well at it's price point until recently, but the Fs7 is so well spec'd from almost any angle that it's hard to see how canon could bump the c300 without being in direct competition. Do we really think the MkII c300 will have 180+fps? 14 stops dynamic range? A better codec than sony? These are features where canon has always lagged behind. It's hard to imagine that they could or would "leapfrog" sony in these areas. The color accuracy/skin tone thing....sure.. Ease of use/ergonomics... Check, we'll probably also see 4k, 10bit, a shoulderable form factor. I think if canon wants to bring this camera out at 16-17k like the last model, they've got their work cut out for them. There's going to have to be something awfully alexa-like about this camera for them to say the FS7 isn't a direct competitor.

Yes ... easy to say FS7 is not a direct competitor, but the market will decide.
I'd be happy with the FS7 feature set with Canon skin tones in a C100 body, even if it's a bit more expensive.

 

[tjc320]

I will be willing to bet that the C300 MII will outsell the FS7 by large margins.

And yes, not seeing Sony as a competitor is 100% code for them not pricing it competitively. It will likely be at the same price as the C300 is now.

 

[leGreve]

I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:
https://vimeo.com/119813319

https://vimeo.com/112150427

And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

 

[Policar]

I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:
https://vimeo.com/119813319

https://vimeo.com/112150427

And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).

Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.

 

[leGreve]

I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:
https://vimeo.com/119813319

https://vimeo.com/112150427

And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).

Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.

You're kidding right.... the BM pocket cam was a nice try from the beginning. Nothing about it could justify using it for a proper production.

We'll just have to see. I have seen nothing better from the C300 mk I that tells me it's better than the FS7 and I doubt the Mk II will be any better as it's Canon we're talking about.
Everytime someone shoots something with a C cam they all churn out this awful misunderstood flat desat look, that every semi-pro thinks is a film look.


Watch this from start to finish

https://vimeo.com/112820371

 

[bgoyette]

For anyone expecting Canon to drop their price point on this to closer match the FS7...prepare to be let down. I would imagine that they'll keep the price similar to the Mark I when it was released, and pay little attention to the competition.

While I tend to agree with this statement, let's look at the history of the C300. When it came out, it's primary competitor was the F3, and the C300 was priced close to the F3's original selling price (about 4000 above what the F3 without fimware upgrades was selling for at the time the C300 was released). Since then, Sony took the F5 upmarket, competing directly with the C500, and from discussions with camera sellers both the c500 and F5 have been largely disasters on the sales floor (not good enough for hollywood, and too much $ for the small independent producer ---both of these cameras are selling now for about what the C300 sold for when it debuted.

So then sony goes and does something weird, and but not really...it releases the FS7 which is so closely spec'd to the F5 that they are practically twins, for half the price. Why would they do that?...well...because they were getting hammered by the c300 and C100 on the low and middle segments, and the upper middle wasn't selling. Sure, the natural competitor for the C300 is the F5...but sony obviously doesn't think so, that's why they positioned the FS7 where they did. The FS7 is all about selling a LOT of cameras, versus selling a few at a higher markup.

Canon has had great luck with the C300, selling a lower spec'd camera at a higher mark-up than what sony has been able to achieve. I think this mostly has to do with Canon's dominance in the DSLR market, and specifically in the lens arena. The reality though is, without higher specs, Canon is going to have difficulty selling a new C300 at a premium in a market that is now crowded with S35 sensors. They are going to have to make a hell of a case that although their "numbers" are less...well..that their secret sauce is worth it. They have a lot of experience at doing just that, but we'll have to wait and see. Right now the unreleased C300 competes directly with the FS7 because Sony made it so. Canon may not be able to "undo" that.

I haven't seen any "raw" footage from the FS7...I've only seen what's available on Vimeo. From what I can tell, the skintones are not what I'd call great, yet some users say they are. On the other hand, the highlight handling seems far superior to what the C300 provides and, short of a completely new sensor on Mark II, I find it unlikely that Canon will show us 14+ stops of DR in the newer camera. (one could argue that canon's skintones are better BECAUSE they chose to not pursue 14 stops of DR...although the Red dragon and Alexa have proved that you can have both....for a price.

Frankly, I'm hoping for a better camera. I have one of the first C300's off the assembly line and while it's been a great camera, I'm ready for something with better Dynamic Range, Higher Framerates, 10bit, and more flexible handling. Whether it's at $16k or $10k doesn't matter that much to me. But it will matter a lot to whether this camera is the runaway success that the original C300 was.

 

[Policar]

I really really don't see an issue with the FS7..... 14 stops in latitude, and the skin tones render quite naturally.

I think the reason that people have bad experiences with it is because they simply haven't taken the time to balance it properly.

Check out this video with the FS7 and Leica lenses:
https://vimeo.com/119813319

https://vimeo.com/112150427

And this group:
https://vimeo.com/groups/fs7/sort:date/format:thumbnail

Nothing against the FS7, but those videos look awful. Cheesy teal/orange LUT on the first one with undersaturated color and poor highlight roll off... plastic skin in the next with inconsistent color between takes. I've seen better video from the Black Magic Pocket Camera (which is a solid little thing, but nonetheless).

Then again, if you think that looks good, the problem might be with your eye and not the camera.

You're kidding right.... the BM pocket cam was a nice try from the beginning. Nothing about it could justify using it for a proper production.

We'll just have to see. I have seen nothing better from the C300 mk I that tells me it's better than the FS7 and I doubt the Mk II will be any better as it's Canon we're talking about.
Everytime someone shoots something with a C cam they all churn out this awful misunderstood flat desat look, that every semi-pro thinks is a film look.


Watch this from start to finish

https://vimeo.com/112820371

I wish I were kidding.

I agree the BMPC is a toy, but it at least appears to give something resembling a useable image, more so than their 4k camera, even. It's not for "professional" production, I agree! The FS7 has HDSDI jam sync and what seem to be useable ergonomics, which are the key features separating the prosumer and consumer cameras from professional ones, far more important than codec and 4k and slow motion. I expect the FS7's image can be graded to something acceptable, but those two videos look just awful. Some of the worst skin tone and color rendering I've seen in anything passed off as professional level corporate, but I assume it's also because they were poorly lit and had to be aggressively graded to hide it.

A friend of mine produced this video, which won an award at Cannes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2359024/

It's on Netflix and looks really quite good. I've seen a lot of major spots and tv shows shot on the C-cameras and none seem terribly desaturated. Need for Speed seemed over-saturated, if anything. I'm sure there is undersaturated C300 footage, but I haven't noticed the same trend. I haven't been following either camera on vimeo, though, and know that most videos posted there are incompetently shot.

The second link you provided shows hope, Sony still has issues with it its matrix but there's enough information there to grade it into something usable. Clearly Sony has slightly better DR in the shadows and a better codec, though. That's a start. I'm sure with proper grading, the FS7 can provide a nice image. There's a lot of C300 footage that looks almost as bad as the first two links you posted, so it's likely operator error combined with a bad grade.

That said, as a "C300 killer" the FS7 has some work to do. That or the C300 Mark II doesn't have much to surpass it on all counts. I see the value of having a good image when underexposed two stops and Sony sensors do seem to have the lead in DR, but I'd rather have a great image under normal circumstances.

Again, just my opinion. Although I think anyone who's worked in video before would agree the first two links look pretty awful from a color perspective.

 

[Khnnielsen]

So Canon don't care about the FS7? In my part of the world at least, quite a few people have sold their C300 to buy a FS7. I wouldn't be able to get a FS7 if I wanted to because they are sold out everywhere, and I would have to sign me up on a waiting list.

 

[Dunedain313]

I just got done shooting with the FS7 and I was very impressed. I've been a Canon guy for a long time, but this thing is light years ahead of the C300. Continuous internal 180 fps, 10-Bit, plus 4k.

The quality of the image depends a lot on how you set it up, so I wouldn't be too quick to judge samples online. There are a number of settings, including LUTs, that can have a significant impact on the image. We chose to not bake a LUT into the image, and we were glad we made that choice. I'd rather have the option in post.

We also ran some side by side tests with the Red Epic, and we had some very interesting results. It held up well against a camera that's in a completely different price category. The Red had (very) slightly more dynamic range in the highlights, but you really had to nitpick to see the difference. We sent the ungraded footage to a colorist, and he matched everything up. Then we had people guess which image came from which camera. There really wasn't any way you could tell for sure. Amazing.

The main downside I see with it is the proprietary cards. Sony says you need the G series, but we shot 180 fps all day with the S series, which are much cheaper.

Canon can turn their nose up at the FS7 if they want to, but they'll regret it. The C300 MkII is going to have to be a major leap forward to compete at any level with the FS7. That's coming from a guy who has owned 4 Canons in a row.

 

[Policar]

I just got done shooting with the FS7 and I was very impressed. I've been a Canon guy for a long time, but this thing is light years ahead of the C300. Continuous internal 180 fps, 10-Bit, plus 4k.

The quality of the image depends a lot on how you set it up, so I wouldn't be too quick to judge samples online. There are a number of settings, including LUTs, that can have a significant impact on the image. We chose to not bake a LUT into the image, and we were glad we made that choice. I'd rather have the option in post.

We also ran some side by side tests with the Red Epic, and we had some very interesting results. It held up well against a camera that's in a completely different price category. The Red had (very) slightly more dynamic range in the highlights, but you really had to nitpick to see the difference. We sent the ungraded footage to a colorist, and he matched everything up. Then we had people guess which image came from which camera. There really wasn't any way you could tell for sure. Amazing.

The main downside I see with it is the proprietary cards. Sony says you need the G series, but we shot 180 fps all day with the S series, which are much cheaper.

Canon can turn their nose up at the FS7 if they want to, but they'll regret it. The C300 MkII is going to have to be a major leap forward to compete at any level with the FS7. That's coming from a guy who has owned 4 Canons in a row.

Epic or Epic Dragon?

The Epic has the same DR as the C300 (in practice, and there are plenty of tests to prove it, but I've shot tons with both), and the C300 delivers a better image than the Epic 9 times out of 10.

If you're getting more DR than the Dragon, though, that's... well... about right (both should be around 14 stops), but nonetheless impressive.

 

[Fourthwall1]

Blackmagic pocket a toy???
The image from the pocket for film narrative is way better than the C300. In raw, it has texture and nice grain to it. It also doesn't have the punchy vibrant digital look that canon cameras have.
It doesn't matter if the pocket camera isn't as featured as the c300. Or the low light not being as good which is a youtube/vimeo filmmakers worry. The blackmagic flexibility, color science and dynamic range are better than C300.
If I was doing interiews. wedding photography, I'd opt for a C300.
For narrative. Blackmagic.

 

[Policar]

Blackmagic pocket a toy???
The image from the pocket for film narrative is way better than the C300. In raw, it has texture and nice grain to it. It also doesn't have the punchy vibrant digital look that canon cameras have.
It doesn't matter if the pocket camera isn't as featured as the c300. Or the low light not being as good which is a youtube/vimeo filmmakers worry. The blackmagic flexibility, color science and dynamic range are better than C300.
If I was doing interiews. wedding photography, I'd opt for a C300.
For narrative. Blackmagic.

I never said it was a bad toy. The image is very good for the money. Professional features (even prosumer features) might not matter to you, but they do, to, well... professionals/prosumers.

The low light argument is laughable (and the image is much worse than a C300, but I'm assuming you haven't shot with one). Talk with Shane Hurlbut, who used the C500 over the Alexa because he could rate it cleanly to 4000 ISO or 5000 ISO, slightly better than the Alexa. Or the DP on the last show I was on in which we rated two Panavised Alexas at 3200 ISO for the extra stop needed in spite of a lighting package including an 18K HMI and multiple 6K HMIs and even then we were struggling to get stop at t1.4.

How would you have handled those situations with a BMPP?

Where's your timecode sync? Any professional camera (the C100 is prosumer because it lacks it) will have it. How are you working on narratives without dual system sound? Don't tell me plural eyes. The camera is a toy.

But it's a good toy, probably Black Magic's best camera. For the money it's a nice product, you're embarrassing yourself with ever word you write.

(Of course, for narrative the real answer is 9/10 times the Alexa.)