Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras

[LetTheRightLensIn]

DPAF and STM are for newbies and consumers that play around making videos, not professionals.

Yep, there are lots of newbies and consumers dropping $12,000 on a C300 to play around making videos.

True, however how many of the actual professionals dropping $12,000 on a C300 are doing so to play around with DPAF, especially on critical shoots? I'd wager the percentage is quite small at this point. That may change, especially if/as the technology improves...but I would be willing to bet that manual follow focus rigs are still used with a majority of C300 shoots where focus is critical.

There are 1000's of pros making a living shooting docs and ENG work either alone or with one assistant. Not all video work is done on a set with a team of cameramen, focus pullers, audio guys, and cable runners and what not. There's a place for AF, and it's actually really easy to not use it if you don't want to; no one suggested that manual focus was a thing of the past, but AF is a tool that will become increasingly useful as time goes on. And I'm sure my blasphemy is making someone's eye's bleed right now.

agreed

I'd still 1000x rather have the A7S video options though than 7D2 video.

Why does the 7D2 still have the same old waxy/blurry 1080p 8bit as it's best quality mode? Why did they even remove the zoomed video mode that would be so useful for wildlife and you know make sense on an action/wildlife cam?

The $2500 A7S puts out nicer 1080p in cam than the $10,000 1DC (so does the 5D3 with ML RAW, granted you have to be willing to deal with RAW). And with the Ninja Shogun, it puts out nicer 4k for $4500 than the $10,000 1DC (and you already have your high-res external monitor included for that $4500).

GH4 4k downscaled to 1080p is better quality than 1080p in cam from 7D2.

Some of the other cams were actually also 'so daring' as to give focusing aids that work while shooting live video and other BASIC usability features that Canon once again declared were not fit for the 7D2 since they are 'ultra-high-end only features' :.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Now maybe Canon is just holding off the good stuff for a soon to arrive 5D4, fair enough and it is a bit higher priced. I used to be all but sure, I do wonder now though.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet. I have no complaints on the C100/300/500 cameras up until the day Sony released the FS7. The C100/300 are the best in their class but now they've been surpassed by that Sony, they will update them to be conpetitive again, that's how it works and how it will always work.

It's the low-end market that's lacking. For example, the Canon rebels were a revolution in filmmaking when they first came out, and they were great for that time, but Nikon started making the D5200, D5300, D7100, D3300 that exceed the rebels significantly in image quality, no aliasing/moire, higher detail, better ISO performance, yet Canon never seemed to answer those at all yet, making the Canon rebels markedly inferior to the competition, which is a position I've never seen Canon take, they are always the best. From the rebel, to the 60D, to the 70D, to the 7D, to the 6D, ALL have markedly inferior video quality to the entire competition, for example, the 6D video quality is significantly below the Nikon D3300, or Sony A6000 little APS-C mirrorless, a completely unacceptable situation.

Therefore Canon is only on par with the competetion (and even beyond them) starting from the 5D mk III. Only then you can get a clean image without aliasing or moire with good resolution and lowlight performance and the much-loved Canon colours. And the C100 is absolutely superb of course.

This situation has given the video shooters the feeling that Canon has taken their hands off the low-budget filmmaking market and supporting only those above the 5D level, and they do have the right to feel that. (photographers complain that Canon neglected them in favour of video, a bit annoying for us video shooters to be honest given our situation, we mock these comments all the time on video forums - poor photographers with the limited choices they have)

The 7D mk II is the first step Canon has taken to show they still support the <5D market. For the first time we get a clean 5D-twin image on a Canon that's below 3500$. The 7D mk II is now on par with the competetion (D7100, K3, A6000 etc)

but that's still a 1800$ camera, now they need to fix it on the 70D, and on the rebels. If they do so, then they will be on par with entire competetion, and for me even that isn't great as ideally we want them to exceed the competetion not just catch up, yet even catching up below the 7D mk II market is not even happening. A completely bizzare situation.

We are not asking for revolutions we just want the Canon low-end DSLRs to have similar image quality to the rest of the market as the 7D ii and 5D iii do.

Until then, I will probably be buying a 7D mk II after it's been tested. But from initial observations, it has identical IQ to the 5D mk III, same lovely clean image which is a bit better than the D5300/D7100/A6000, making it the first low-budget upgrade for Canon shooters below the 5D mk III price. Canon video shooters need an upgrade for their rebels and 60/70Ds, and the 7D is too high for them. This IQ must trickle down to the rebels otherwise Canon will be losing many customers jumping to Sonys and Nikons.

That's the situation on the low-end market. If Canon starts doing the same with high-end market (not updating the C line to be on par with the FS7), well that would be a shipwreck. But I don't expect it.

 

[Udoed]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet. I have no complaints on the C100/300/500 cameras up until the day Sony released the FS7. The C100/300 are the best in their class but now they've been surpassed by that Sony, they will update them to be conpetitive again, that's how it works and how it will always work.

It's the low-end market that's lacking. For example, the Canon rebels were a revolution in filmmaking when they first came out, and they were great for that time, but Nikon started making the D5200, D5300, D7100, D3300 that exceed the rebels significantly in image quality, no aliasing/moire, higher detail, better ISO performance, yet Canon never seemed to answer those at all yet, making the Canon rebels markedly inferior to the competition, which is a position I've never seen Canon take, they are always the best. From the rebel, to the 60D, to the 70D, to the 7D, to the 6D, ALL have markedly inferior video quality to the entire competition, for example, the 6D video quality is significantly below the Nikon D3300, or Sony A6000 little APS-C mirrorless, a completely unacceptable situation.

Therefore Canon is only on par with the competetion (and even beyond them) starting from the 5D mk III. Only then you can get a clean image without aliasing or moire with good resolution and lowlight performance and the much-loved Canon colours. And the C100 is absolutely superb of course.

This situation has given the video shooters the feeling that Canon has taken their hands off the low-budget filmmaking market and supporting only those above the 5D level, and they do have the right to feel that. (photographers complain that Canon neglected them in favour of video, a bit annoying for us video shooters to be honest given our situation, we mock these comments all the time on video forums - poor photographers with the limited choices they have)

The 7D mk II is the first step Canon has taken to show they still support the <5D market. For the first time we get a clean 5D-twin image on a Canon that's below 3500$. The 7D mk II is now on par with the competetion (D7100, K3, A6000 etc)

but that's still a 1800$ camera, now they need to fix it on the 70D, and on the rebels. If they do so, then they will be on par with entire competetion, and for me even that isn't great as ideally we want them to exceed the competetion not just catch up, yet even catching up below the 7D mk II market is not even happening. A completely bizzare situation.

We are not asking for revolutions we just want the Canon low-end DSLRs to have similar image quality to the rest of the market as the 7D ii and 5D iii do.

Until then, I will probably be buying a 7D mk II after it's been tested. But from initial observations, it has identical IQ to the 5D mk III, same lovely clean image which is a bit better than the D5300/D7100/A6000, making it the first low-budget upgrade for Canon shooters below the 5D mk III price. Canon video shooters need an upgrade for their rebels and 60/70Ds, and the 7D is too high for them. This IQ must trickle down to the rebels otherwise Canon will be losing many customers jumping to Sonys and Nikons.

That's the situation on the low-end market. If Canon starts doing the same with high-end market (not updating the C line to be on par with the FS7), well that would be a shipwreck. But I don't expect it.

I wouldn't say the 7D2 or 5D3 (ignoring ML RAW) are even par. Downsample GH4 4k to 1080p and it's much better. And the A7S has much better 1080p. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the others do now as well. Canon produces very waxy, low detailed 1080p in their DSLRs. (unless you shoot RAW and use ML, that makes the 5D3 video totally awesome for 1080p)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

 

[Tugela]

Canon are out to lunch, so the answer to the OP is "no".

 

[Loswr]

Canon are out to lunch, so the answer to the OP is "no".

If Canon was out to lunch with Sony, Canon would have to buy...Sony can't even afford a bowl of edamame right now. :

 

[Policar]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

 

[Ebrahim Saadawi]

When I say on par with best I mean in the same quality league not identical image quality, no one is ahead of the other. The C500 4K raw image is not lower quality than the Alexa's 2.8k or the Red 5K or the F55s 4K images, they are all in the same ballpark with each one having better characterestics than the others, of course we can argue about these characteristics for pages but in the end it's personal preference and not one being technically superior.

Again C300 = FS700 / F5 image quality. Canon is a tad ahead but same league

C100= FS100 image quality. Canon is also better but not by miles, same league

5D mk III = D800/D4, canon slightly better but same league

7D mk II = D7100/5300/5200/3300/K3/A6000, Canon slightly better (except GH4 being only better in resolution) but same league

there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.
it's just now the ones below the 7D mk II now that are way below the conpetetion and actually quite embarrasing for Canon.

 

[Policar]

there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.

In my experience (and I have used all of these camera families extensively in post and on set) there are HUGE differences. How have you been using them? Professionally graded at 800 ISO under daylight in a low dynamic range scene they all look quite similar. Push a little further and they're DRAMATICALLY different animals.

•C300 has by far the best low light. Red grain at ISO 800 3200K underexposed a stop looks like C300 grain at ISO 6400 underexposed a stop. Red handles 3200K light horribly. Also magenta highlights.

•Red has the most resolution.

•Alexa has the best color rendition, smoothest grain pattern, least skew (other than F55) by far, and BY far the best roll off of saturated highlight colors. F5 is awful in this regard (clips to saturated color not to white), Canon is ok (WideDR mode best), Red weird (clips to magenta but smoother), etc....

When shot carefully they can be made to look the same, but when shot carefully the DP will usually pick the best for the job. But I find these cameras enormously different.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Yes, but note you say as a B cam. Not as an A cam for the biggest Hollywood productions.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

5D mk III = D800/D4, canon slightly better but same league

5D3 as is = a bit better than D800 overall (arguably, depends whether you favor lack of a bit of aliasing vs better detail), but well behind A7S native 1080p or 4k into Ninja Shogun and behind downscaled GH4, perhaps a bit behind some of the other Sonys and others too now

5D3 with ML and shooting in RAW = well better than the Nikons and most of the rest, somewhat better than A7S

7D mk II = D7100/5300/5200/3300/K3/A6000, Canon slightly better (except GH4 being only better in resolution) but same league

Nah GH4 downscaled to 1080p is way the heck better than 7D2's waxy, soggy footage. Some of the others have better video quality than it too. And if you compares to the FF A7S.... left in the dust.

Some of the others have better usability features too.

Although the 7D2 does have DPAF for the times that is useful though.

there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.

Not true at all. It's embarrassing how much more detailed and natural say A7S 1080p in cam footage looks than in cam 1080p from 7D2 and 5D3 never mind the rest of the Canon DSLRs (and we didn't did even get into adding a Ninja Shogun to the A7S!!!!).

And downscaled GH4 4k looks pretty solid and has way more detail than 7D2/5D3 (unless using 5D3 RAW). I'd say enough to embarrass the Canons.

 

[Policar]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Yes, but note you say as a B cam. Not as an A cam for the biggest Hollywood productions.

Absolutely true. Need for Speed was mostly C500, but the for anything over 1-2 million dollars, you'd better have a good reason to use any other camera than the Alexa. With Need for Speed it was low light (and skin tones), for some Red movies it's because they want a ton of resolution for digital effects and don't care so much about a beautiful organic look (Fincher, Ridley Scott) or have relationships with the company or need the tiny handheld rig.

But yes, the Alexa is leagues above anything else out there. Maybe the Dragon is close.

I wouldn't put the Fx5 or Red above the C500, though. Only the Alexa stands alone.

One thing to realize is that most of the things hobbyists and artists consider "pros" professionals count as "cons."

Easy to use ergonomics for a single operator? Sounds great...

Most pro ACs will go on about how miserable it is rigging a C300 up to resemble an Alexa or film camera. A single owner/op could not shoot effectively with the large battery hog that is the Alexa, but for a film crew the ergonomics are great.

A great image out of camera? Sounds great...

Not if you have a a LOG-based workflow.

4k... awesome!

Not if your workflow is 1080p. MAJOR shows with millions spent per episode shoot prores 422 instead of prores 444 on the Alexa to save disk space and wouldn't consider 4k. Whereas most artists/hobbyists want to use the highest quality available.

Fwiw, 12 stops of dynamic range from the C300 seems like a big negative, but within that 8 bit codec wrapper of XF cam, it's as good as you can get. Much nicer than Sony's SLOG2 implementation in the A7s, which has weird colors.

Do you really want to be a pro? Then get a job in the camera department. Or do you want to be an artist? Then buy whatever you want. It's weird to me that people trash the elements of the C300 and Alexa that specifically make them attractive to pros (1080p and easy-to-ingest codec for one). Canon won't change that for you, but Panasonic and Sony will. So... jump ship and don't look back.

 

[peederj]

I posted here amongst other places on the week the C100 shipped that there was no point to owning the C100 without the Ninja external recorder. That combo gave you the same direct-to-ProRes workflow of the Alexa along with the same 1080p24 image the C300 or C500 would give you via external recorder (OK plus and minus some minor color science tweaks), for only $7000 then and $5000 today.

The GH4 and FS7 do 4K internally but it's so ignorant to restrict yourself to comparing internal recording only. External recorders are standard throughout professional production, often with many formats being recorded simultaneously for various purposes.

The GH4 has something like 1100 lph resolution internally while the FS7 has an incredibly impressive 1700 lph internal. The FS7 is just about the first cam I'm aware of that really has a workable 4K internal workflow (RED certainly doesn't). It's a formidable entry and does easily outperform the C100/C300 at native ISO, with over a stop better DR and over three times more distinguishable pixels, all into a compressed format on commodity media. The FS7 completely eclipses the CX00 series from what we know now (incl ergonomics), but I have yet to see IR and low-light tests (the Canons are awesome there). SLog3/SGamut3Cine is very workable color though you may prefer Canon Log as a starting point, a matter of taste. The FS7 examples so far haven't had competitively good grading (look at the new Panasonic Varicam demo video for truly pro grading).

Canon has its work cut out for it catching Sony, I think they can do it, but right now Sony is very much in the lead.

 

[Etienne]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

As a struggling indie, I have all my fingers crossed for the Sony PXW-FS7, and that's about as $high$ as I can go on a camera. Ergonomics look like they will be great, and I'm hoping IQ will be up there too. I like the fact that it has built-in shoulder mount, extending handgrip control, and so many other nice features right out of the box, like slomo at 1080p, etc.
I am interested in the C100 as well, but at this point I'd rather wait on the mark II version.

 

[Policar]

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.

Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa.

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500.

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.

He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.

As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

As a struggling indie, I have all my fingers crossed for the Sony PXW-FS7, and that's about as $high$ as I can go on a camera. Ergonomics look like they will be great, and I'm hoping IQ will be up there too. I like the fact that it has built-in shoulder mount, extending handgrip control, and so many other nice features right out of the box, like slomo at 1080p, etc.
I am interested in the C100 as well, but at this point I'd rather wait on the mark II version.

Neither the C100 nor the FS7 are appropriate for indie film production. The FS7 outfitted with the HDSDI deck might be, but without timecode sync you're SOL for dual system audio and I have found the timecode sync on the F5 to be unreliable and require a lock it box in the first place.

Rent? I have seen Alexa packages, with lenses, rent for a month for the cost of an FS7. F5 packages are very inexpensive, though I am not wild about the camera... see above.

 

[Udoed]

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Looking on shotonwhat for at high end Hollywood movies, and TV dramas, C500 hasn't been used at all except for a couple of movies. C300 is more popular but with independent lower end filmmakers.

 

[Policar]

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.

Looking on shotonwhat for at high end Hollywood movies, and TV dramas, C500 hasn't been used at all except for a couple of movies. C300 is more popular but with independent lower end filmmakers.

I'm just stating personal preference, having used all those camera systems, sometimes all on the same production.

The C500 is certainly the black sheep of Canon's current line up.

I get that red has some traction, but what "high end Hollywood movies" were shot on the F5?

 

[peederj]

No one uses timecode anymore. Plural Eyes is arguably better than timecode given sound travels only 1 foot/ms.