There is another RF mount camera coming in 2020 [CR2]

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
What a horribly condescending way to talk about people who are paying four figures out of their own pocket for you to cover the biggest event in their life in the best way possible.

Enjoy only wheeling out your C200 for those shoots where you're made to feel a big boy with crew around you, I guess. It's 2020, not 1996 anymore. Imagine having a great tool and refusing to use it on any shoot because you felt it was beneath it's budget. Absolute unbridled arrogance.

Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job? Would you use a helicopter to get aerial video of a project just because you had a helicopter? Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod? Your reaction defies logic; the entire business world runs on using the right tool for the job and if my clients are happy with the end result then I produced what they were asking.

Technically they aren't paying me to cover their event in the best way possible, they are paying me to deliver a product that meets their quality expectations; I have yet to have a single customer say my work did not meet their expectations; they couldn't care less what equipment I use. For every project I look at what equipment will most economically meet the customer's quality expectations with the least financial risk to myself; that's how businesses are run.

Would you use a sledge hammer on a finishing nail? People make decisions every single day on what is the right tool for the job, and there is no way I am lugging around a C200 for less than 5 figures. The GH5 produces wonderful footage when properly set up and when used within its limitations, it is much more mobile in a wedding scenario and if anything I get better footage with it because of that mobility, I can lock it off on a tripod one sec then throw it on a 1 handed gimble a second later, I can also hang out in a corner and not intimidate people by using such a small camera so I get more of their candid behavior by going handheld.

If I didn't care about quality I wouldn't even be on here looking at Canon's latest offerings, but will I ever think the C200 is the right camera for a wedding project....like I stated before, not unless their budget reaches 5 figures. Clearly you are looking at this from a strictly emotional standpoint but I have news for you; emotions don't pay the bills. To me a wedding is just like any other project and just like any other project I pick the equipment that makes the most financial sense as well as technical sense.

And you know what...even with the C200 I don't shoot in RAW unless the project calls for it (and is paying for the additional storage, processing, transcoding, etc)....once again, I match the quality required to the project''s budget.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
421
356
Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job?

Err yes because the more projects on which it is used, the quicker the purchase is amortised.

What's the point of leaving it on the shelf and hiring some other equipment for a 'cheap' job? That's just pissing money down the drain.

There's a difference between the optimal tool for a job and the best one.

Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod?

The insurance will...

If you follow that logic, you'd never drive to a job because the value of your van is more than the revenue. Or even go yourself, since the insured value of a human life is about $10 million. What fool would risk their life in a $9 million shoot?!
 
Last edited:

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
Err yes because the more projects on which it is used, the quicker the purchase is amortised.

Just using a bigger more expensive camera on a low paying job doesn't make it pay itself off faster...it simply means you risked a more expensive tool on a job that could have been done by a less expensive tool. Also there is something called equipment time which you clearly seem to know nothing about. Running more expensive equipment results in a higher hourly equipment time rate; if the project isn't paying that rate then you are losing money by using that equipment. It is very easy for "purists" to preach from their keyboards from their limited viewpoints how they would run their business but it does not work that way in the real world.

What's the point of leaving it on the shelf and hiring some other equipment for a 'cheap' job? That's just pissing money down the drain.

There's a difference between the optimal tool for a job and the best one.

I already own both cameras and the job will pay exactly the same regardless of the camera used, how is that possibly losing money? And I already provided plenty of reasons why for me a GH5 is the optimal tool for the job. By your logic every wedding video should have a Hollywood director, Red Epic cameras and be filmed in a mansion...so why aren't they? Oh yea, that's right...because there is something called a budget and budget limitations.

The insurance will...

That is the most comical statement of all...have you ever dealt with insurance companies, filed a claim, fought with an insurance company, had to hire a lawyer just to get the coverage that you paid for? And in the meantime you have to buy a new rig out of pocket with no idea if insurance will pay a dime for it. Insurance is the last thing you should ever count on to be there when you need it, and even if you succeed you will pay higher rates for years just because you brought your A camera to a B project.

But anyway, this is so off topic and senseless that I'm moving on.....go buy a $20K rig then take it to a $200 shoot and tell me if it was worth it. Entire Hollywood productions have been shot on iPhones and GoPros, it's not the gear, its how you use it, what the customer's budget is, and many more factors than simply taking the biggest camera you have to every shoot just because you can.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
421
356
By your logic every wedding video should have a Hollywood director, Red Epic cameras and be filmed in a mansion...so why aren't they? Oh yea, that's right...because there is something called a budget and budget limitations.

Of course not. But you ALREADY OWN the equipment so the incremental cost of using it is ZERO. Literally the only hindrance is your obsession about how much the job will earn.

You keep talking about cameras as tools, but treat them like Fabergé eggs. A tool can only make money when being used.

That is the most comical statement of all...have you ever dealt with insurance companies, filed a claim...

Yep, they told me to go to Calumet and hire like for like whilst they processed the claim.

Let me guess, you had no problem spending money to buy cameras but you took out the cheapest and stingiest insurance you could find. Because to have insurance which cost more than a job would be unthinkable...
 
  • Like
Reactions: drama

TominNJ

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 14, 2015
73
62
Probably already mentioned but the new R body could be the high end APS-C body mentioned in the other Rumor. The R mount accepts EF-S lenses so it makes some sense to put a smaller sensor in an R body.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,470
2,336
Probably already mentioned but the new R body could be the high end APS-C body mentioned in the other Rumor.

Yes, it has occurred to me these two rumors could be about the same beast.

The R mount accepts EF-S lenses so it makes some sense to put a smaller sensor in an R body.

So does the M mount, so this isn't really an argument in favor of R over M (if that was what you were intending).
 
Jun 27, 2020
8
4
This camera will be like an XC15 an in between prosumer and pro camera. That's the first thing I said when canon released the EOS R. I own an XC15 and while it's not a perfect camera (with fixed lens) I see the potential of this body becoming a dedicated Video centric RF camera.
 
Jul 23, 2013
332
136
carlsmiller.com
You are a more dedicated videographer than I...no way am I wasting my C200 on a wedding unless their videographer budget is in the 5 figure range. For me, the GH5 is perfect for weddings, and it has shot a 12hr wedding on two batteries (short clips, MF, turned off whenever possible). Anything better than a cell phone will make most clients happy these days.

Not more dedicated, just likely paid better ;). It does only accompany me to weddings close to the price range you mention. Most of the time for the average $5k wedding I'm still shooting on the C100 II. Perfect HD wedding cam IMO. Would love a true upgrade to that guy.
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
Not more dedicated, just likely paid better ;). It does only accompany me to weddings close to the price range you mention. Most of the time for the average $5k wedding I'm still shooting on the C100 II. Perfect HD wedding cam IMO. Would love a true upgrade to that guy.

You are right, in my area weddings average between $1K - $5K and there are plenty of budget videographers in the area offering a 4hr wedding for $895 and all day with the DJ included for $1200, so I don't do many weddings; not worth it. Once their budget reaches around $5K I'll rent a second GH5, if it happens to reach 5 figures I'll bring in a crew and start looking at bigger setups.
 

drama

EOS 90D
Sep 1, 2016
101
244
Since when has using what I consider the right tool for the job arrogance? If you owned an Arri Alexa would you use that for a 4 figure job? Would you use a helicopter to get aerial video of a project just because you had a helicopter? Why would I risk a $20K rig on a 4 figure job, who is going to pay for it when it tips over and hits the floor because a kid ran into the tripod? Your reaction defies logic; the entire business world runs on using the right tool for the job and if my clients are happy with the end result then I produced what they were asking.

Technically they aren't paying me to cover their event in the best way possible, they are paying me to deliver a product that meets their quality expectations; I have yet to have a single customer say my work did not meet their expectations; they couldn't care less what equipment I use. For every project I look at what equipment will most economically meet the customer's quality expectations with the least financial risk to myself; that's how businesses are run.

Would you use a sledge hammer on a finishing nail? People make decisions every single day on what is the right tool for the job, and there is no way I am lugging around a C200 for less than 5 figures. The GH5 produces wonderful footage when properly set up and when used within its limitations, it is much more mobile in a wedding scenario and if anything I get better footage with it because of that mobility, I can lock it off on a tripod one sec then throw it on a 1 handed gimble a second later, I can also hang out in a corner and not intimidate people by using such a small camera so I get more of their candid behavior by going handheld.

If I didn't care about quality I wouldn't even be on here looking at Canon's latest offerings, but will I ever think the C200 is the right camera for a wedding project....like I stated before, not unless their budget reaches 5 figures. Clearly you are looking at this from a strictly emotional standpoint but I have news for you; emotions don't pay the bills. To me a wedding is just like any other project and just like any other project I pick the equipment that makes the most financial sense as well as technical sense.

And you know what...even with the C200 I don't shoot in RAW unless the project calls for it (and is paying for the additional storage, processing, transcoding, etc)....once again, I match the quality required to the project''s budget.

You spent four paragraphs telling me about the right tool for the job. Then in the last one say that it's budget that defines what you use. Which is it? Personally if I was an owner operator, I'd use both - it's pretty easy to grade both together, and the Super 35 looks beautiful for certain moments. Plus my clients - the people paying me - would likely be really happy with the output.

But - by all means be defensive. I'd like to think calling out contrived nonsense like this might make you reconsider your approach to the poor clients who approach you. If not, I hope gatekeeping your technology keeps you warm at night. There are thankfully plenty of other videographers who don't have such an unpleasant approach to their clients.
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
You spent four paragraphs telling me about the right tool for the job. Then in the last one say that it's budget that defines what you use. Which is it? Personally if I was an owner operator, I'd use both - it's pretty easy to grade both together, and the Super 35 looks beautiful for certain moments. Plus my clients - the people paying me - would likely be really happy with the output.

But - by all means be defensive. I'd like to think calling out contrived nonsense like this might make you reconsider your approach to the poor clients who approach you. If not, I hope gatekeeping your technology keeps you warm at night. There are thankfully plenty of other videographers who don't have such an unpleasant approach to their clients.

Clearly nothing I say will matter to you so the same holds true for me...nothing you say will matter to me; I've been in business over 10yrs and have shot hundreds of projects, a client's budget has always defined what equipment is used for the project in addition to other factors. A client's budget is one of the main parameters that determine what is the right tool for the job but that does not mean it is the only parameter, and the same holds true for any industry anywhere in the world, it is that simple. Like I said.....would you use a helicopter to take aerial video of a project just because it would take better footage than a drone and you had one parked in your back yard? Why can you not get an R5 for the same price as an R6...oh wait...that's right because you have to pay for the additional quality that you get from the R5 which means your budget has to support the additional quality based on what you can afford. By your logic, since Canon has the R5 laying around anyway they should just ship you that one for $2499.00.

You sound just like clueless clients who don't understand that just because services don't provide a physical product does not mean that they don't still cost something to provide. It is also very obvious that you know nothing about a concept called equipment time / equipment hourly operating costs. Until you have done this professionally you really should stop talking about things you know nothing about, or at least do some research or use some common sense before you prove to everyone how little you actually know.

No business in the world uses their equipment for a project just because they have it laying around and if they did they don't last very long. Would you shoot a music video at a mansion with fancy cars and different locations all over the world if the client only had $3K? Why not? Oh wait...that's right, they don't have the budget for it.
 
Last edited:

drama

EOS 90D
Sep 1, 2016
101
244
Clearly nothing I say will matter to you so the same holds true for me...nothing you say will matter to me; I've been in business over 10yrs and have shot hundreds of projects, a client's budget has always defined what equipment is used for the project in addition to other factors. A client's budget is one of the main parameters that determine what is the right tool for the job but that does not mean it is the only parameter, and the same holds true for any industry anywhere in the world, it is that simple. Like I said.....would you use a helicopter to take aerial video of a project just because it would take better footage than a drone and you had one parked in your back yard? Why can you not get an R5 for the same price as an R6...oh wait...that's right because you have to pay for the additional quality that you get from the R5 which means your budget has to support the additional quality based on what you can afford. By your logic, since Canon has the R5 laying around anyway they should just ship you that one for $2499.00.

You sound just like clueless clients who don't understand that just because services don't provide a physical product does not mean that they don't still cost something to provide. It is also very obvious that you know nothing about a concept called equipment time / equipment hourly operating costs. Until you have done this professionally you really should stop talking about things you know nothing about, or at least do some research or use some common sense before you prove to everyone how little you actually know.

No business in the world uses their equipment for a project just because they have it laying around and if they did they don't last very long. Would you shoot a music video at a mansion with fancy cars and different locations all over the world if the client only had $3K? Why not? Oh wait...that's right, they don't have the budget for it.

Well, aside from the decade plus as the owner and operator of a production company that I grew from scratch that we then sold to a much larger entity with a broad portfolio of clients that we regularly create fantastic work for, what would I know, I guess?

Your entire position is without merit. As an owner operator, the gear cost is already sunk to you, and any additional work with it therefore payment towards it or straight profit. If you're hiring camera gear, sure. But even then the base cost of a C200 as part of a wedding shoot is between 5-15% of the total budget. Justify your unpleasant elitism however you like. The more you write, the more you come across as petty, unpleasant to work with and most importantly, bad at business. I have come across plenty of people like you in my time, and the good news is you create opportunity for the rest of us, and can never see it. So thanks for that.

We've strayed quite far from the subject, so I'm happy for you to have whatever last words you need to have on this to try and salve your ego so that people can go back to talking about specs and getting hyped about products. Sorry everyone else!
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
Well, aside from the decade plus as the owner and operator of a production company that I grew from scratch that we then sold to a much larger entity with a broad portfolio of clients that we regularly create fantastic work for, what would I know, I guess?

Your entire position is without merit. As an owner operator, the gear cost is already sunk to you, and any additional work with it therefore payment towards it or straight profit. If you're hiring camera gear, sure. But even then the base cost of a C200 as part of a wedding shoot is between 5-15% of the total budget. Justify your unpleasant elitism however you like. The more you write, the more you come across as petty, unpleasant to work with and most importantly, bad at business. I have come across plenty of people like you in my time, and the good news is you create opportunity for the rest of us, and can never see it. So thanks for that.

We've strayed quite far from the subject, so I'm happy for you to have whatever last words you need to have on this to try and salve your ego so that people can go back to talking about specs and getting hyped about products. Sorry everyone else!

Keyboard warriors always have such great stories of success that it is comical....but their actual statements tell the real story. The only thing I agree with is that this topic has nothing to do with potential new gear on the way....which btw was due to you adding your less than 0.02 to a comment that was not even directed at you. So back on topic...how about that new RF mount
 

tigers media

EOS M50
Mar 26, 2020
49
31
It would seem simple enough, but RF is more than just a different mount. It has additional contacts for more lens/body communication, so the internals of the body need to be upgraded as well. Then the benefits of RF are being trickled up to the cinema line. So improved AF, Control ring and IBIS may be future features of the Cinema line.
CHEERS FOR THAT INFO UNDERSTAND NOW
 
Apr 15, 2020
43
21
Here's my wishlist for this camera:

- 4K 4:2:2 10 bit and 2K 444 12 bit camera
- Super 35
- Canon Log 2 and 3 gammas
- Size between being smaller than the C200, but bigger than the 5D Mk IV
- BP-A batteries
- Internal ND (even if electronic)
- Full size HDMI and SDI but with mini XLR inputs
- External output for RAW/uncompressed recording if necessary
- Using UHS-II SD cards as media
- Priced at around $ 4,500 ~ $ 5,500

Essentially, put the C300 Mk II internals inside a smaller body with RF mount and the ergonomics of a Canon XC or Blackmagic P6K.
 

Etienne

EOS R
Sep 19, 2010
1,479
287
Ottawa Ontario
I certainly hope this is true because it looks like overheating will make the R5 / R6 unusable for me. This experience is from 82F, and the overheating problem made it impossible to collect his footage even at 4K 24p. Where I'll be shooting, 82F is a cool day. It is 80% humidity and over 85 here almost every day, and frequently over 90F.
I hope this new RF mount is the missing C100 mk III, with good cooling

 

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
535
346
Could it be an RF mount Cine camera? Hmmm, Canon has a line of EF-mount Cine lenses to go with their EF-mount Cine cameras. making an RF-mount Cine camera before they have RF Cine lenses seems weird, unless they expect users to adapt EF glass.

I think it’s safe to expect an 8K Cine camera soon. When Apple showcased the Mac Pro, they used an 8K footage from an unreleased Canon Cine camera.
Are you talking about this camera? https://ymcinema.com/2019/09/03/can...s-were-used-to-shoot-stand-by-you-short-film/
https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-8k-cinema-camera-first-official-footage/
 

Twinix

C100 III + R6?
May 6, 2020
106
79
Norway
mini XLR inputs
Why? Not that hard to fit two XLR, and having them mini will just add unnecessary bulk for a lot of people needing to adapt, and its going to be really annoying to mount for example a lav like Sennheiser AVX.. I don’t think it should be as small as a Red Komodo or Z-cam, but rather a practical camera to work with right out of the box, instead of rigging it since it’s probably not going to be a specs monster.