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

Airwolf said:
Pretty much the same here. I had considered Red, but the C500 II just makes more economical sense. I'm already invested in a bunch of Canon glass, and my work doesn't call for a Red. 6K CRL will likely be overkill for most of my projects anyway, but atleast it will be relativly future proof, and it should be a capable camera that can shoot everything from event coverage to feature narrative.
Click to expand...

After a lot of C200 RAW shooting, I can say that if you know how to light and have good production design, talent, wardrobe, etc. very few clients can tell the difference between shot on C200 RAW, RED or Arri. And the C500 MKII looks considerably better than the C200 sensor. We may be able to tell the differences, but I'm amazed at what even some high end commercial clients consider beautiful.
 
puredrifting said:
Isn't that sort of what the CN E Servo zooms are? Not FF but will work beautifully on the C500 MKII.
Click to expand...

Sort of. Sony is releasing what looks like cinema-mod of their 16-35 2.8 G-Master lens as https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1506716-REG/sony_selc1635g_fe_c_16_35mm_t_3_1.html T3.1 is a pretty big step up from 4.4, presuming quality holds. They also hint that they'll make the whole holy trinity set (ie., + 24-70 and 70-200) in this format. Price isn't announced and the G-master glass isn't cheap to begin with.

Sigma FE 24-70 F2.8 Art was just released and it's only $1,100 and it should work with the FX-9 auto focus very well (it works almost as good as the native glass with their stills models).
 
Arturo Sánchez Becerra said:
The thing is RF glass, we need a RF interchangeable mount for it
Click to expand...

I’m very curious how much distance there is between the back of the EF flange, and the ND mechanism, and how that compares to what’s needed to build an RF mount for this camera. Part of me says that if they could have, they would have. The other “somewhere over the rainbow” part of me hopes canon has an “...and one more thing” up its sleeve.
 
It makes more sense for them to just release 500 MKII in RF mount ... but not for about a year.
 
Barry G said:
I’m very curious how much distance there is between the back of the EF flange, and the ND mechanism, and how that compares to what’s needed to build an RF mount for this camera. Part of me says that if they could have, they would have. The other “somewhere over the rainbow” part of me hopes canon has an “...and one more thing” up its sleeve.
Click to expand...

If Canon wants to, there should be absolutely no problem building an RF mount camera with built-in ND. E(18mm)(Fs7) and FZ(19mm)(F55) are both shallower than RF(20).
 
I don't like to live in the future, but in any case, I can clearly imagine a next-gen c500 (mark 3): a bit smaller because of heat dissipation/fan technology improvements, with a RF mount and with built in real IBIS. 2025
 
Run&Gun said:
If Canon wants to, there should be absolutely no problem building an RF mount camera with built-in ND. E(18mm)(Fs7) and FZ(19mm)(F55) are both shallower than RF(20).
Click to expand...

I think you’re missing my point. :-)

The 500mark ii is the first camera with user interchangeable mounts. I have no doubt that the will have a cinema EOS camera with an RF mount in the future. The question is, is it possible for them to build a mount, given the modular design, for this camera. That would be more forward thinking than we expect from canon, but it seems to me to be a sticking point for the RF mount. All this sexy professional glass, no professional cameras to put it on.
 
Barry G said:
I think you’re missing my point. :-)

The 500mark ii is the first camera with user interchangeable mounts. I have no doubt that the will have a cinema EOS camera with an RF mount in the future. The question is, is it possible for them to build a mount, given the modular design, for this camera. That would be more forward thinking than we expect from canon, but it seems to me to be a sticking point for the RF mount. All this sexy professional glass, no professional cameras to put it on.
Click to expand...

From everything I’ve seen Canon wants this to be considered a legit cinema production camera so I don’t see why they would prioritize an R-mount that can only use very expensive photo lenses that nobody owns. R-mount makes more sense on something like a C100mk3 where a wedding person invested in R lenses for photography wants to keep the same kit and workflow for video. Until Canon releases a set of their cinema primes in an R-mount that offers unique features only avail to the mount I see no point in putting an R-mount on a pro cinema camera. No 1st AC is going to want to pull focus on electronic autofocus still lenses.
 
Barry G said:
I think you’re missing my point. :-)

The 500mark ii is the first camera with user interchangeable mounts. I have no doubt that the will have a cinema EOS camera with an RF mount in the future. The question is, is it possible for them to build a mount, given the modular design, for this camera. That would be more forward thinking than we expect from canon, but it seems to me to be a sticking point for the RF mount. All this sexy professional glass, no professional cameras to put it on.
Click to expand...

I phrased my answer the way I did on purpose, because I highly doubt that it was designed to accommodate anything besides EF and PL, which of course are much deeper than RF.
 
chris f said:
From everything I’ve seen Canon wants this to be considered a legit cinema production camera so I don’t see why they would prioritize an R-mount that can only use very expensive photo lenses that nobody owns. R-mount makes more sense on something like a C100mk3 where a wedding person invested in R lenses for photography wants to keep the same kit and workflow for video. Until Canon releases a set of their cinema primes in an R-mount that offers unique features only avail to the mount I see no point in putting an R-mount on a pro cinema camera. No 1st AC is going to want to pull focus on electronic autofocus still lenses.
Click to expand...

I agree. I haven't understood the mania for people wanting to add an RF mount to most new cameras coming out? Sure, it has some good features, but RF is going to take years to determine if it will even be a flop or succeed commercially.
I personally think the RF lenses are overpriced for what they are. If Canon really wanted it to succeed, they would price the RF lenses with the L series EF lenses.
 
Last edited:
Canon is discounting their RF mount cameras heavily just to get people into the ecosystem. Of course, the EF glass works fine with RF via the adapter, so they upped the price tier for the native RF lenses but ain't got a commensurate tier camera to go with it yet. Getting a high MPX stills model and a credible video camera into the consumer hands ought to be a high priority for the company. C100 has been around a long time and seems a prime candidate for a refresh. And they might stagger their video offerings like a checkerboard with RF getting new C100 and C300 while the EF gets to keep its C200 and C500 MKII. IMO, that would make sense from a marketing POV. Still, with the 2020 smartphones supposedly capable of 8K, Canon might have to up its specs across the board.
 
puredrifting said:
I agree. I haven't understood the mania for people wanting to add an RF mount to most new cameras coming out? Sure, it has some good features, but RF is going to take years to determine if it will even be a flop or succeed commercially.
I personally think they RF lenses are overpriced for what they are. If Canon really wanted it to succeed, they would price the RF lenses with the L series EF lenses.
Click to expand...

Here is a list of why the RF lenses are better for video than the EF lenses.
- Parfocal zooms
- 360 degree focus throw
- Works better with DPAF
- Ability to ride the aperture with the control ring
- Sharper and less CA than the comparable EF lenses
- 28-70 F/2 and 24-70 f/2.8 IS and 15-35 f/2.8 IS have no equivalent.
 
28-70 is a kick-ass lens but one needs a kick-ass camera to go along with it. EOS R ain't it.
 
DLD said:
28-70 is a kick-ass lens but one needs a kick-ass camera to go along with it. EOS R ain't it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. I have an EOS-R but the only RF lens I bought was the 35mm f/1.8 stm for when I needed a light prime in a pinch. If Canon had a roadmap for a full frame pro DSLR or cinema camera than I would probably already own most of the zooms, but right now I can't justify the cost for my lowly gimbal camera. I'm pretty sure the RF lenses will be a huge success once Canon releases some professional cameras. The high end cameras might not sell as much as the lower end cameras, but I have to assume that the owners are willing to spend far more on lenses which is where Canon has the edge in this market.
 
chris f said:
From everything I’ve seen Canon wants this to be considered a legit cinema production camera .... No 1st AC is going to want to pull focus on electronic autofocus still lenses.
Click to expand...

Which explains why they put DPAF in the camera, I suppose. :-). While I'm pretty sure there isn't room in this camera for an RF mount (this is really dependent on where that ND mech sits in the chamber, as the interchangeable mount system looks like it could support placing the mount further to the rear). As far as what Canon wants this camera to be "considered", it seems to me that they want it to be considered a "do everything" camera (modular design, small to big configs, improved AF, 6k-2k output, internal raw and xf-avc to same card, and "owner operator" price point"). Including a 4th mount in a system hardly precludes it from being used as you described. The growth in sales of these cameras has largely come from one-man-band operators, and there are times when even the hardiest of crews use AF since the advent of this class of cameras (there's always discussion about it on the professional DP lists I follow).



cpreston said:
Here is a list of why the RF lenses are better for video than the EF lenses.
- Parfocal zooms
- 360 degree focus throw
- Works better with DPAF
- Ability to ride the aperture with the control ring
- Sharper and less CA than the comparable EF lenses
- 28-70 F/2 and 24-70 f/2.8 IS and 15-35 f/2.8 IS have no equivalent.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that 50mm, which simply outclasses any 50mm EF that canon makes, and generally has no competition other than from Zeiss Otus. I'd trade my CN-E 50 for that in heartbeat (and of course a camera to put it on).

I've told this story before, but sitting at lunch with Tim Smith from Canon at the C300markII launch, he was pretty candid that Canon makes way more profit selling lenses than cameras...so cameras to them are essentially selling tools...mounts for their lenses. Them leaving RF out of the Cinema EOS line for now makes little sense to me (just like releasing $3000 glass at the same time as $1-2k still bodies)...these lenses won't sell until they have cameras that professionals want, and Cinema EOS is certainly part of that equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top