The Next Cinema EOS Camera Will Be..... [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<p>We’re told that the next Cinema EOS camera to be released will be a replacement to the EOS C100 and not the C300 or C500. No details were given as to when the camera would be released or any specifications, but I would assume it’ll come before NAB 2015 in April.</p>
<p>Saving a new C300 or C500 for that show would make marketing sense. Although, we do hear that Canon has plans for an over the shoulder style Cinema EOS camera, and perhaps that could be shown at NAB.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[WesEvans]

This is what I'm waiting on. I'm in the market for the C100 or its successor and have been hoping to hear something, a CR2 is better than nothing I suppose.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

7D2 C?

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

To be competitive I think a C100 4k replacement needs to come at or under $4,500 (cheaper than what the current C100 list price is). I'm not sure if that's something Canon is willing to do.

 

[WesEvans]

To be competitive I think a C100 4k replacement needs to come at or under $4,500 (cheaper than what the current C100 list price is). I'm not sure if that's something Canon is willing to do.

I think they could get away with a $7-8k price range *if* they give higher framerates (60p should be a given, but ideally 120fps), 4k and/or unleash their badass sensor they teased forever ago. I honestly don't really care about 4k, 2k would be useful for recomposing to 1080, so I'd much rather have the high fps and high ISO capabilities with a great shutter.

 

[IWLP]

I think they could get away with a $7-8k price range *if* they give higher framerates (60p should be a given, but ideally 120fps), 4k and/or unleash their badass sensor they teased forever ago. I honestly don't really care about 4k, 2k would be useful for recomposing to 1080, so I'd much rather have the high fps and high ISO capabilities with a great shutter.

I just want a better codec than AVCHD. Better framerate selection, like you mentioned would be nice. 4K is borderline useless to me - I'd just rather them not cripple a decent sensor with a consumer codec with poor chroma subsamling. Pixel count ain't everything.

 

[c.d.embrey]

"... we do hear that Canon has plans for an over the shoulder style Cinema EOS camera ..."

It's about time

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The C series cameras are nearly perfect, now all they need is just 4K resolution and HFR, internally. These would seriously be awesome and very competitive to the Sonys.

It would be interesting to see how they'll differentiate between the three models. Will the C100 replacement shoot 4K? Perhaps in a compressed H.264 format while the C300 has a higher end 4:2:2 codec and the C500 having raw? Also the C100 will probably get 60p and 720p, and the C300 120p, and C500 240p,

what else?

I mean the C line camera are very well designed that it would interesting to see how much they'll change, the 4K and HFR are all software/firmware upgrades and the cameras will probably just get a very small tweak externally, like the difference between a 5D mII and III for example,

I would guess they will keep the C300 name, (C300 mk II), it's too successful to dump the name.


C100 mk II: 6K. Compressed 4K, 60p at 720, came crappy evf and no broadcast codec, an FS7 competitor
C300 mk II: 16K. 4K 4:2:2, 120p, good evf and broadcast approved codec, an F5 compitetor
C500 mk II: 26K. 4K raw and 240p internally to new recording media, this will be an F55 competitor

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

By the way it's highly unlikely they release an update to the C100 before the rest. It wouldn't make sense for a C100 to shoot 4K (which it will have to) and C300 not to. I would bet they release a C. 300 mk II first, then the C500 flagship, then the smaller C100. Like they did with the original C line.

Or another possibilty is to upgrase the C100 and offer firmware upgrades for the C300 to shoot 4K internally. Maybe a paid firmware. It would really give confidence in the C300 investors and the C300 doesn't have much room for body changes, while the C100 is a more suitable camera for periodical upgrades as all consumer cameras, it needs a better EVF and a better LCD anyway.

 

[timothetoad]

Perhaps it'll be called the 5DC?

An affordable EOS Cinema camera capable of 4k would be very nice.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Perhaps Canon is feeling the "heat" from Sony's continued sensor releases? Competition is a Good Thing(tm).

 

[WesEvans]

To be competitive I think a C100 4k replacement needs to come at or under $4,500 (cheaper than what the current C100 list price is). I'm not sure if that's something Canon is willing to do.

I think they could get away with a $7-8k price range *if* they give higher framerates (60p should be a given, but ideally 120fps), 4k and/or unleash their badass sensor they teased forever ago. I honestly don't really care about 4k, 2k would be useful for recomposing to 1080, so I'd much rather have the high fps and high ISO capabilities with a great shutter.

Well, 2k is 1080p. The value of 4k (2160p, or twice 1080p...the number is based on the frame width, 3840=4k, 1920=2k, unless your talking about the wider cinematic versions, in which case it might be 2048x1080 or 4096x2160) is that with all that extra resolution, you could frame such that you have more freedom to recompose in post, without going below the 2k (1920x1080p) output resolution.

I'd take 4k over 2k these days, every time. Either I'd use it for image stabilization processing with Premier, or I'd take the higher resolution, downsample it to 2k output, and get better results...sharper with more dynamic range. There is TONS of value to having 4k in every camera that can shoot video these days, even if all you ever do is output to 2k/1080p.

Hrm. That doesn't sound quite right to me I guess. 1k = 1024, x2 = 2048, which to me means 1080 (1920 I guess to be apples/apples here) is not the equivalent of 2k? Am I just splitting hairs at that point? Honestly, now that I'm thinking about it I mostly output to 720 anyway to take advantage of the reframing with 1080 footage since I rarely shoot on 4k capable cameras. Definitely agree about the image stabilization benefits as well, huge gain there with the extra resolution.

I've previously shot 4k on a Red and used the extra resolution to recompose in 720, and I did love that ability, but generally 4k seems a bit of a waste of HD space. Of course, I don't shoot 4k as a standard so maybe I'd change my tune if it was so readily available, lol. I definitely doubt anyone's putting out new cameras with a straight 2k image -- well, I think the Digital Bolex is but they're a bird of a different breed -- so I'm just showing my wishlist pecking order I suppose. FPS, new sensor, great shutter, 4k capabilities.

It was also mentioned bumping up the codec, which would be huge if they upped it enough to make getting an Atomos irrelevant. I know I've got the cash in the bank waiting to see what comes out, I was originally planning on getting the C100 last month but don't mind continuing to rent until some kind of announcement is made. I was tempted by the Sony a7s, but I hate the rolling shutter on it, so I'm holding out for Canon to show up to the table in a major way.

/ramblingNewGuy

 

[Khnnielsen]

They really need to come with an answer to the very interesting looking Sony FS7.
They really don't have to do much to make me interested. A competitive priced camera with proper codecs, high framerate options and maybe a C300-style LCD screen.
But I fear that we will get a cribled camera, because if the new C100 did all of the above, then it would properly hurt the C300.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

The new c100 needs to just be the c300 at ~$6000. The new c300 can then have a new sensor, 4K, and a 10 bit internal codec. C500 can stay put as the Canon raw camera that no one wants.

 

[Etienne]

This is the best news I've heard all year.
I hope it's real and imminent, and I hope they go all in on this, because I've been eyeing that new, soon-to-be released Sony PXW-FS7

 

[SPG]

Normally I'd be rather skeptical of Canon releasing a lower end camera that would outperform their current higher end model, but the C300 has been out for a long time and is still in high demand for TV work. A new C100 won't kill the rental market for the C300 or make it instantly obsolete. It might hurt sales, but since it's an established model on the verge of replacement anyway, I could actually see this happening.
A C100 mkII would sell like water in the desert if it offered the things that prosumer camera nerds think are hot right now, like 4k and higher FPS. It would record internally to some compressed codec that TV and the BBC won't like, but anyone shooting weddings/scenics/webvideos wouldn't care too much about that. The C300 mkII would drop at NAB and record ProRes and do all the things that TV/BBC specs require. The wedding guys will think they still got a great camera for less than a C300 and the TV guys will have to buy the more expensive C300 II anyway. Win-win.
Even if it doesn't do everything that the Sony FS7 does, it will still do what makes Canon so desirable anyway...great skin tones straight out of the camera.

 

[Etienne]

Normally I'd be rather skeptical of Canon releasing a lower end camera that would outperform their current higher end model, but the C300 has been out for a long time and is still in high demand for TV work. A new C100 won't kill the rental market for the C300 or make it instantly obsolete. It might hurt sales, but since it's an established model on the verge of replacement anyway, I could actually see this happening.
A C100 mkII would sell like water in the desert if it offered the things that prosumer camera nerds think are hot right now, like 4k and higher FPS. It would record internally to some compressed codec that TV and the BBC won't like, but anyone shooting weddings/scenics/webvideos wouldn't care too much about that. The C300 mkII would drop at NAB and record ProRes and do all the things that TV/BBC specs require. The wedding guys will think they still got a great camera for less than a C300 and the TV guys will have to buy the more expensive C300 II anyway. Win-win.
Even if it doesn't do everything that the Sony FS7 does, it will still do what makes Canon so desirable anyway...great skin tones straight out of the camera.

I'm guessing Canon will deliver a lot of goodies with C100 II, including the XF codec. We have just seen Sony come out with 3 really big value items that undermine Canon products: The A7s low light monster, the PXW-X70 small ENG / doc camera that not only destroys the Canon XA20 but beats out the much more expensive XF200 as well, and now the PXW-FS7 that looks implausibly affordable for what it delivers. Sony is demonstrating that they are in it to win it. I am rooting for Canon, but Sony is getting really tempting, so bring on an irresistible C100, or watch the dollars start flowing to Sony!

 

[Khnnielsen]

I agree that improving codecs would be huge for Canon. If I got deeper into video, I'd really want RAW output. I've been playing with magic lantern lately. It supposedly supports RAW video out...that's something I'm going to have to try.

Shooting RAW video is cumbersome to say the least. The massive files and the post processing makes it too impractical for many purposes. It's fun to try as an experiment, but I haven't found much use for it otherwise.

Codec-wise it would be much more exciting if they included some broadcast friendly codecs, that doesn't fall apart, if you do any substantial post-processing.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

The C100 level users don't want raw, it's not a cinema camera. The C100 is now the de-facto standard in the wedding business, the web-level documentaries/shows, news and small video production companies. You know what's one of the major reasons it's become that? It's because of the 24mpbs AVCHD codec, believe it or not!

The thing is, there are different types of shooters and genres, the majority of jobs requires smallest file sizes and highest quality, while the minority require highest possible quality without caring about sizes.

The codec is not about the numbers, what makes the C100 successful is that it shoots to that small codec yet delivers one of the best HD images ever. Therefore it's perfect for wedding/event/doc/web shooters. If the C100 had been shooting Cinema DNG raw and 12bit ProRes, it would have never made it into these type of businesses, just like Blackmagic never did. It's a nightmare trying to shoot a wedding on a BM camera on CDNG. A disaster.

What Canon did is find the correct balance, some companies offer a very high image quality, but compromise usability and give enormous files (Blackmagic), some give small files but low compressed image quality, the C100 delivers very high quality images and in small file sizes, it's the secret to its success.

All I care about in the end is how the image quality looks, and if you can give me an excellent image, I am happy the smaller and the more compressed it is. Never read specs, on paper the 550D shoots 1080p h.264 4:2:0, and the C100 shoots 1080p h.264 4:2:0.، in fact the 550D offers more, 60p at 720, so never judge codecs/images by numbers.

Does that mean raw and uncompressed formats are not required? Absolutely not. People who shoot features, music videos, fiction pieces, those who have the ability to handle the storage and post work, these need raw and it's absolutely better, my point is just that these aren't the C100 customers, these are more of C500 types, and that's why Canon gives raw to that camera.

I don't think the C100 will get raw, it will get a compressed codec, a highly efficient one that builds on the current success, I want compressed 4K with the tiniest files possible that looks stunning. This is what they should (and probably will) be aiming at.

 

[WesEvans]

Officially, from a video and cinema standpoint, "2k" is 1920x1080, while "4k" is 3840x2160 and "8k" is 7680x4320. For cinema, where a wider image is pretty common, "2k" is usually 2048x1080, 4k is 4096x2160, and 8k is 8192x4320. There are some other variations on that. There are some TV "standards" that support a 2x increase in those resolutions, but are still lumped into the 2k, 4k, and 8k monikers.

Generally speaking, though, that's what 2k and 4k are.

As far as "1k" goes, I don't think there really is an official standard for that. There is 720p, which is actually 1280x720, and that's about 1 megapixel.

To me, one of the biggest immediate benefits of 4k is the ability to downsample. You can downsample 4k to 2k, and the detail, sharpness, noise quality, all of it gets much better (your packing 8mp into 2mp). That's an immediate benefit for those who are producing 2k output...so 4k input can be useful even if you don't produce 4k output.

The other benefit is the cropping and recomposition. You can crop to anything from just slightly less than 4k, to as you said as small as 720. That can be a huge bonus for a number of things. You can recompose in post, since if you frame widely enough, your scene might fill the middle "2k" region, so you would have tons of space around that region to reframe. You can also use that extra space to apply things like post-process image stabilization with Premier, and it can do a really good job as well (hand-held panning or tracking can look like it was on a dolly or some other kind of rig.)

Yeah, Sony made some mistakes with the A7r and A7s. I'm hoping whatever they release early next year is a big improvement.

I agree that improving codecs would be huge for Canon. If I got deeper into video, I'd really want RAW output. I've been playing with magic lantern lately. It supposedly supports RAW video out...that's something I'm going to have to try.

I was just using 1k as a means of defining what a single "k" is, which is necessary when computing what "4" of them are, not suggesting it as any kind of standard. Apologies for the confusion!

I think you're the first person I've run across that's defined 2k and 1920x1080 as the same spec. Usually anytime someone wants to shoot/export 1080p they just say so rather than refer to it as 2k, and since there is a 2k standard out there (the D-Bolex I referenced as an example) I do tend to divide them. Good to know!

But in my original example I was saying "1080" but thinking "720", as I normally shoot in 1080 but export in 720, and I'd take the extra bit of resolution (again, not that they or many would actually do it) but mostly the other mentioned features rather than burn up a ton of HD space with 4k. And 4k is a freakin' hog for space, not that the benefits we've mentioned aren't nice, it just adds some serious extra HD action. If I were shooting a nice commercial I'd likely just rent a C500 anyway since I'd surely be using up a full production budget -- rather than my normal run 'n gun situation -- and wouldn't have any issue with buying the extra disk space.

Certainly agree about downsampling, but is the current C100 not a 4k sensor? If so then shouldn't we already be getting the benefits of downsampling from 4k? Of course, upgrading the codec would help make quite a difference here.

RAW would certainly be nice to have access to. I've used ML periodically, lot of great features like live audio monitoring are really nice to have for documentary-style video. I've tried the ML RAW output before but it didn't really work out too nicely, may have been a bottleneck in my SD card speed or my 60D though, so I'm still curious to see it in action along with some of the fps overcranking. I've been renting a 5DIII lately for gigs, but the owner has made it clear he doesn't want MagicLantern on it for whatever reason, to each their own I guess.