C200: $1,000 Price Drop.....C500MKII coming soon?

DLD said:
I am sure someone will start it once the official announcement is made and all the details are known.

But here's some pondering -- Canon is going to release a bunch of fairly high priced RF-mount lenses ... but 500 MKII is EF. And they're not backward compatible. Which makes me think that there'll be new RF-mount cameras. "Duh, captain Obvious", you might say. "Clearly, there'll be new RF models coming out soon. There's plenty of talk about a 70 MPX stills shooter already".

But is there going to be a more video-centric model coming out as well? If C500 MKII is around $20,000, there'd have to be other models in the S1H mode. And the C300 mode. There have to be. Right?
Click to expand...

Canon works in mysterious ways, who knows? I don't think they can build in the RF lens mount on a cinema camera and still have built in mechanical NDs. I wish Sony would license their brilliant variable ND technology out, when you think about it, ALL video cameras should have that feature. Mechanical ND wheels seem so early 2000s. They work but are so limited, fixed ratios, most cameras also only have 6 stops possible, I am reviewing the BMD UMP G2 currently and have been out in the nuclear August sun at the beach and it's pretty frustrating to have to affix an ND3 filter to a camera that has internal NDs. Canon gets points for at least putting 10 stops on the C200!
 
puredrifting said:
Canon works in mysterious ways, who knows? I don't think they can build in the RF lens mount on a cinema camera and still have built in mechanical NDs. I wish Sony would license their brilliant variable ND technology out, when you think about it, ALL video cameras should have that feature. Mechanical ND wheels seem so early 2000s. They work but are so limited, fixed ratios, most cameras also only have 6 stops possible, I am reviewing the BMD UMP G2 currently and have been out in the nuclear August sun at the beach and it's pretty frustrating to have to affix an ND3 filter to a camera that has internal NDs. Canon gets points for at least putting 10 stops on the C200!
Click to expand...

Agreed, the 10 stops of ND are huge for anyone who shoots outdoors on beaches, snow, etc. One of the many reasons that drew me towards the C200 and away from the EVA1.
 
puredrifting said:
Canon works in mysterious ways, who knows? I don't think they can build in the RF lens mount on a cinema camera and still have built in mechanical NDs. I wish Sony would license their brilliant variable ND technology out, when you think about it, ALL video cameras should have that feature. Mechanical ND wheels seem so early 2000s. They work but are so limited, fixed ratios, most cameras also only have 6 stops possible, I am reviewing the BMD UMP G2 currently and have been out in the nuclear August sun at the beach and it's pretty frustrating to have to affix an ND3 filter to a camera that has internal NDs. Canon gets points for at least putting 10 stops on the C200!
Click to expand...

Of course they can, if they only choose to. Sony does it. FZ(F55/5) and E(Fs7 series, Venice) are both shallower than RF. And the Venice has 8 stops(0-8 in single stop increments, I believe).
 
puredrifting said:
Canon works in mysterious ways, who knows? I don't think they can build in the RF lens mount on a cinema camera and still have built in mechanical NDs. I wish Sony would license their brilliant variable ND technology out, when you think about it, ALL video cameras should have that feature. Mechanical ND wheels seem so early 2000s. They work but are so limited, fixed ratios, most cameras also only have 6 stops possible, I am reviewing the BMD UMP G2 currently and have been out in the nuclear August sun at the beach and it's pretty frustrating to have to affix an ND3 filter to a camera that has internal NDs. Canon gets points for at least putting 10 stops on the C200!
Click to expand...

There still isn't really much of a RF ecosystem. I feel like the first RF cinema camera won't be one of the higher end ones, but that also means that it'd be reliant on using extremely expensive new lenses or an adapted EF glass (so back to square one). On top of the ND problems it'd cause, it's easy to see why it's not the best idea right now. Knowing Canon's pace, I predict it's 2 years away.
 
IanTheM said:
There still isn't really much of a RF ecosystem. I feel like the first RF cinema camera won't be one of the higher end ones, but that also means that it'd be reliant on using extremely expensive new lenses or an adapted EF glass (so back to square one). On top of the ND problems it'd cause, it's easy to see why it's not the best idea right now. Knowing Canon's pace, I predict it's 2 years away.
Click to expand...

I know, lately everyone's been bitching because Canon, BMD, etc. didn't put RF mount on their latest. In the cases of the C500 MKII and the BMD Pocket 6K, that would have been a very stupid marketing move, how many users have a pile of RF lenses laying around? Basically none. How many have a pile of EF lenses laying around? I'd say at least 50-60% of shooters in general. For me, that's one thing holding me back about getting too excited about the S1H, would have to spend more than the camera just to get a couple of good L lenses. I think being $10k in on ANY mirrorless camera isn't a smart move as much as I really dig the look of the S1H.
 
Obviously any future RF cinema camera from Canon (and probably others) will work with the RF to EF adapter they have.
 
NorBro said:
Obviously any future RF cinema camera from Canon (and probably others) will work with the RF to EF adapter they have.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I can say after my experience with the Fringer Pro and the XT-3 using EF lenses, I don't like adapters.
I don't like the added weight (definitely noticeable on a tiny camera like the XT-3), length it adds to using an
EF lens on the Fuji or the way it works. I'm sure an RF to EF adapter would function well on a Canon camera
with Canon lenses but still, adapters are not that great IMHO. I had the Metabones adapter for my GH4 and hated it too compared to native M43 lenses.
 
IanTheM said:
I feel like the first RF cinema camera won't be one of the higher end ones...
Click to expand...

Tell that to the RED Komodo releasing soon haha

I use an EOS R as a b-cam to my C200 and I have to say, adapting EF glass is seamless. And using the control ring adapter is pretty handy. I would be concerned with the ND filter options and that likely why there’s no RF option on the C500 MK II.
 
puredrifting said:
FWIW, I can say after my experience with the Fringer Pro and the XT-3 using EF lenses, I don't like adapters.
I don't like the added weight (definitely noticeable on a tiny camera like the XT-3), length it adds to using an
EF lens on the Fuji or the way it works. I'm sure an RF to EF adapter would function well on a Canon camera
with Canon lenses but still, adapters are not that great IMHO. I had the Metabones adapter for my GH4 and hated it too compared to native M43 lenses.
Click to expand...

I hate adapters, too. Been on some projects where FW between Metabones & Canon glass on Sony bodies got in the way. I also had a Canon M5 for a while and using EF glass on that was a pain. Lenses were simply too big for the very small body.

That said, the Canon adapter on the R is seamless. It's like it's not even there. The ND adapter is also incredible for video. I have had the R for about a year and never thought twice about the adapter, still haven't purchased a RF lens.
 
I have an EOS R as a gimbal camera and I mostly use EF lenses other than the 35mm f/1.8 stm RF that I just picked up. The RF EF adapters act like solid extensions of the camera. It isn't the same as using a metabones and I don't think the average user would have the concern of "Oh, but I would have to use an adapter and I don't like that." The RF amount also allows the addition of the control ring, polarizer, or any other specialty filter that you might want to create in front of the sensor when using ef lenses. The RF mount also allows more classic SLR mount types to be adapted to the camera. The primary upside is that the new RF lenses are significantly better than the ef lenses. I am sure the reason for the lack of an RF mount option is due to the current mechanical ND filter design, but I am also sure that most people would ultimately end up getting the RF mount adapter for the camera even if they were mostly using ef lenses.
 
I am fine with EF as of now. Have tons of lenses. RF range is limited to a few wide zooms. 70-200 is not yet out. It will take years to build a good breadth of RF lenses. Till then lets enjoy or EF glass.

C500 Mark II is fine. However, the cost of mounts is a bitter pill to swallow. Nevertheless, if a person who is getting regular jobs in cinema shoots with PL glass, he won't mind. Good thing is this is a camera you can take and build up depending on your need. You don't need to run to the service centre to change mounts and refuse jobs. There are lot of positives.
 
I have the full range of ef zooms, but I would also be willing to spend some money on a full frame f/2.8 24-70mm parfocal zoom with IS, AF. and the ability to seamlessly ramp the aperture. I would even probably spring for the 15-35mm.
 
A decent piece on Canon RF-mount lens roadmap and the currently available lineup.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/canon-rf-lens-roadmap

The problem for Canon is in the sub-$3,000 market where C100 MKII is long in the tooth but the real question is whether Canon wants a Cinema line in that price range anyway or whether it will be happy with a EOS R doing its jack-of-all-trades thing.

If they go above $3,000-$4,000, then they're risking C200 sales. IMO, it'd make more sense for them to just keep lowering the C200 price, as they had done with C100/300/500 units over their respective cycles.

Then C500 MKII could fit into a $10,000-$13,000 range in a couple of years (preorders seem to be strong, the reviews have been good).

With Sony occupying the $10,000 slot with FX-9, the room for Canon is in the $25,000 territory. Which is where an 8K camera would fit nicely. That should come around 2022. Which is, as IantheM noted, two years from now.
 
DLD said:
A decent piece on Canon RF-mount lens roadmap and the currently available lineup.

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/canon-rf-lens-roadmap

The problem for Canon is in the sub-$3,000 market where C100 MKII is long in the tooth but the real question is whether Canon wants a Cinema line in that price range anyway or whether it will be happy with a EOS R doing its jack-of-all-trades thing.

If they go above $3,000-$4,000, then they're risking C200 sales. IMO, it'd make more sense for them to just keep lowering the C200 price, as they had done with C100/300/500 units over their respective cycles.

Then C500 MKII could fit into a $10,000-$13,000 range in a couple of years (preorders seem to be strong, the reviews have been good).

With Sony occupying the $10,000 slot with FX-9, the room for Canon is in the $25,000 territory. Which is where an 8K camera would fit nicely. That should come around 2022. Which is, as IantheM noted, two years from now.
Click to expand...

Unless they execute at a much higher level and don't think within just the Canon bubble, then a $25k Canon isn't sounding very appealing.
The C700/FF has been a resounding flop, it didnt make any headway into episodic TV or features where Canon intended it to. I don't think they
listened to enough users of REDs and Arris about what they want in a crew serviced production camera, they just buried their heads in the sand
and made it in a bubble, which is why it flopped.

I must agree with Eric, the camera should have produced an image considerably better than the C300 MKII and in the end, it ended up looking
just slightly better, plus it was too long and heavy for a lot of uses. I shot tests with it and it had some cool things I liked like the locking EF mount,
the EVF is excellent, having DPAF on a relatively high end production camera was unique, built-in Prores wasn't bad. But users at that level aren't
going to want to shell out for the Codex workflow, which is great but expensive for a non episodic, non feature user.

If you look at it from that POV, the C500 MKII is actually a pretty well executed camera and I have a feeling it's going to do well. Not sure if it will
do as well as the C300 MKII did at it's intro or in it's heyday, but there is a lot to like about it and $16K isn't really a bad price for what it offers. A little high
but if you look at users at that level, $3-$4k isn't much. But the FX9, depending on the color science and other features at $5K less could steal Canon's thunder.
 
Last edited:
C700/FF was trying to encroach onto the Alexa territory without speaking Tcherman. A full frame 8K C900 - I already picked the name - for $25,000 would be far, far below Alexa or Monstro price-wise.

It might help if Canon modded its 20-70 F2 for the cinematic purpose or, at least, provided some sort of a rocker zoom function for it. Nonetheless, a C500 MKII shape and weight + DPAF + 8K + reasonable price just might move some units.
 
Except a lot of people prefer 6K or 4K over 8K even at the high end. In order for Canon to ever really compete at the high end, they'd need to come out with a new sensor with better image quality.
 
Exactly...and not just Canon. If others did the same (besides RED) 5-10 years ago even at 2K and the image-quality looked Hollywood-good then things may have been different.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Except a lot of people prefer 6K or 4K over 8K even at the high end. In order for Canon to ever really compete at the high end, they'd need to come out with a new sensor with better image quality.
Click to expand...

That too ... but ... $25,000 would be a "medium" range of the pro cameras, given that Alexa LF/Mini LF can run over $100,000 per shooting package. And then you begin to deliberate whether you want 8K for $25,000 or 4.5K for a $100,000 and if there's a finite end to the universe and so on ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top