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

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...

When you ride the aperture does it do so manually/seamlessly or does it do it electronically in clicks like when you're scrolling the aperture dial? If that was the case and the lenses had hard focus stops I'd definitely rethink my stance.
 
Margins are higher on lenses per product class. I.e, if one looks at a $1,000 camera and a $1,000 lens, then there's more profit in a lens. But Canon probably sells a lot more more cameras, since they get outdated far sooner. Off Canon's own statements, they have sold 120,000,000 EF mount units but that's over 35 years. Meanwhile, they have over 40% of the 10 million unit ILC business.
 
chris f said:
When you ride the aperture does it do so manually/seamlessly or does it do it electronically in clicks like when you're scrolling the aperture dial? If that was the case and the lenses had hard focus stops I'd definitely rethink my stance.
Click to expand...

The RF lenses allow incremental aperture changes beyond the normal 1/3 stop of photo lenses. The camera also has a gradual shift from one aperture setting to the next. The result is that you can make an aperture change using the control ring and it has the effect of looking like a slow manual change in the exposure. There are no sharp shifts. The lenses still have an annoying ball bearing click when the control ring is rotated, but that can be removed by either sending it to Canon or figuring out how to remove it yourself.

The lenses do not have hard stops.
 
The RF lenses are obviously amazing but I own too many EF lenses and will hold off as long as possible in purchasing RF glass.

With the c500 ii, I'd only buy one if I was getting paid (and paid enough) because I owned the camera, not just because I'd like an upgrade in features.

This is the same with RF lenses, however unlike cameras, nobody is hiring you because of the stills lenses you own. This may change as AF and the RF line develops further to the point of being an obvious leap forward in terms of what you can achieve while shooting.

RF lenses outclassing and even far outclassing EF lenses aren't a big enough reason for me to take the financial hit of selling/buying, all while not being able to charge more.

From cpreston's list:
- 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.

For me, hugely improved DPAF and IS could get me over the line but I doubt it. I'm not arguing with cpreston just giving up another perspective.

Also, I'm sure they're coming but let's see some pancakes and other tiny lenses - an EOS R ii with smaller lenses then c100 iii with your premium RF glass would be a pretty capable system. I'm still not buying RF lenses.
 
rob norton said:
The RF lenses are obviously amazing but I own too many EF lenses and will hold off as long as possible in purchasing RF glass.

With the c500 ii, I'd only buy one if I was getting paid (and paid enough) because I owned the camera, not just because I'd like an upgrade in features.

This is the same with RF lenses, however unlike cameras, nobody is hiring you because of the stills lenses you own. This may change as AF and the RF line develops further to the point of being an obvious leap forward in terms of what you can achieve while shooting.

RF lenses outclassing and even far outclassing EF lenses aren't a big enough reason for me to take the financial hit of selling/buying, all while not being able to charge more.

From cpreston's list:
- 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.

For me, hugely improved DPAF and IS could get me over the line but I doubt it. I'm not arguing with cpreston just giving up another perspective.

Also, I'm sure they're coming but let's see some pancakes and other tiny lenses - an EOS R ii with smaller lenses then c100 iii with your premium RF glass would be a pretty capable system. I'm still not buying RF lenses.
Click to expand...

Me either, I don't have an RF mount camera, won't be buying one for the foreseeable future either. I'm sure they're nice lenses but Canon's strategy to get market uptake has been weird.
If they wanted to make a splash, the C500 MKII should have shipped with RF mount and the new C100 MKIII, if that camera even exists, should have an RF mount. I don't see a lot of $1,800.00
EOS R owners flocking to drop $10K on a few new RF lenses. Sometimes what Canon does makes perfect sense, but a lot of the time, it just leaves you scratching your head.
 
puredrifting said:
Me either, I don't have an RF mount camera, won't be buying one for the foreseeable future either. I'm sure they're nice lenses but Canon's strategy to get market uptake has been weird.
If they wanted to make a splash, the C500 MKII should have shipped with RF mount and the new C100 MKIII, if that camera even exists, should have an RF mount. I don't see a lot of $1,800.00
EOS R owners flocking to drop $10K on a few new RF lenses. Sometimes what Canon does makes perfect sense, but a lot of the time, it just leaves you scratching your head.
Click to expand...

If the lenses gave full manual, smooth, not by wire control (focus, iris, who cares about zoom) with an integrated wireless system a la the tilta nucleus m then they'd absolutely clean up. They could be used as is for events, weddings, corporates but then add the focus control unit and they'd be good to go for films and commercials. Maybe this is part of canon's master plan?
 
rob norton said:
If the lenses gave full manual, smooth, not by wire control (focus, iris, who cares about zoom) with an integrated wireless system a la the tilta nucleus m then they'd absolutely clean up. They could be used as is for events, weddings, corporates but then add the focus control unit and they'd be good to go for films and commercials. Maybe this is part of canon's master plan?
Click to expand...

But we also have stuff like the CN E Servos, which I think are pretty interesting lenses. The world of new cameras is moving on to only FF but for us horse & buggy S35 shooters, those are still pretty desirable lenses.
 
IMO, Canon's "other shoe" is about to drop. Naturally, they need some time to lapse with the 500 MKII launch. Which means that the high end stills model is likely to be the first one out of the block. 1DX MKIII is next. Supposedly, it will have good video features (it could also be 1 DX III and 1 DC III coming out at the same time) but it's a sure bet to be EF. If so, that pushes the RF camera release into the fall, which is a norm for them with the Cinema line.

But, hey, it's not like I have a direct line to their executives.

Of course, after a few more financials like the last one, the executives could be looking for work themselves.
 
puredrifting said:
But we also have stuff like the CN E Servos, which I think are pretty interesting lenses. The world of new cameras is moving on to only FF but for us horse & buggy S35 shooters, those are still pretty desirable lenses.
Click to expand...

Haha this is true. I'll be buggying for a while probably. I'd love to try the 18-80.

On the small crew/cinema front, using RF lenses without a FF motor would be hugely appealing because it would:
- physically shrink the camera package.
- be a lot cheaper than even the relatively inexpensive sigma cine primes

With our DJI x7 lenses we can do perfectly smooth focus pulls and there's not a FF in sight, it's pretty amazing.
 
Last edited:
I love the 12bit 2K image on the C300mk2 and don't really have a need for CRM at this point, the file sizes are nuts for what I do (solo doc work). So, any chance the C500mk2 could in the future be updated shoot 4k/12bit in XF-AVC? It's unfortunate that the choice is limited to either 12bit RAW or 10bit XF-AVC. There seems to be some middle ground to work with there.

And what's the likelihood that the C500mk2 would ever be updated via firmware to shoot 4k @ 120fps (XF-AVC 10bit?). Does it have the horsepower to do so?
 
Lkorver said:
I love the 12bit 2K image on the C300mk2 and don't really have a need for CRM at this point, the file sizes are nuts for what I do (solo doc work). So, any chance the C500mk2 could in the future be updated shoot 4k/12bit in XF-AVC? It's unfortunate that the choice is limited to either 12bit RAW or 10bit XF-AVC. There seems to be some middle ground to work with there.

And what's the likelihood that the C500mk2 would ever be updated via firmware to shoot 4k @ 120fps (XF-AVC 10bit?). Does it have the horsepower to do so?
Click to expand...

I can tell you NEVER buy a camera for the features it might have in the future, you'll almost always be disppointed.
I think a decent amount of people bought the C200 thinking, "Canon HAS to update it to 10-bit 4:2:2 XF-AVC, right?"

It's extremely rare for Canon to "do a Sony" and actually add upgraded raster and or frame rates via firmware like Sony does. Canon just generally doesn't ever do that.
 
Last edited:
Canon could have also offered a greater compression on CRL. But they have to play nice with other boys.
 
cpreston said:
Generally, DLD is referring to the Japanese electronics cartel, but in this case I think there may actually be a problem with the RED patents on raw recording.
Click to expand...

From what I read in those legal filings - and I'd rather read the ProFootballTalk updates, btw - Canon Raw Light and Sony X-OCN are technically not compressed Raw codecs. I.e., they were engineered with enough maneuvering to avoid being effected by Red's patents.

So, I am referring to the cartel. Which is the sole feasible explanation for a $7,000 camera not having features of a $1,300 Panasonic GH-5.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else getting antsy to see some full in-depth reviews of the C500? Seeing all of these full FX-9 reviews coming out is making me jealous, ha. The thing I'm most interested to see is the quality of the 120fps. I know it's sensor cropped, but I wonder how the quality is. The 120fps on the C200 is laughable and I've pretended it doesn't even exist from day 1.

*I think* the quality of the 120fps may be the determining factor on whether I upgrade or eventually jump ship off Canon completely. Really mulling an intentional shift towards more commercial & original content work which will utilize offspeed way more than I typically use on doc/corp stuff. If C500's 120fps can be good enough, it might be a great transitional camera for me to shift towards commercial/narrative, but still have a camera that works amazingly for day playing doc/corp work as I slowly transition.....
 
chris f said:
Anyone else getting antsy to see some full in-depth reviews of the C500? Seeing all of these full FX-9 reviews coming out is making me jealous, ha.
Click to expand...

What's making me ansy is seeing the one reviewer compare the autofocus on both and the FX9 performed better. Every day I'm becoming more torn on which is a better all around purchase.
 
I received word from Sony and Canon this past week that I will have my hands on both cameras soon. I've seen the videos Ruggerpro is mentioning and I agree, it could be that the FX-9 AF has surpassed Canon's DPAF and that would be a good thing because DPAF is good,
but it's not great. I'm not brand loyal at all. The only reason I would lean more toward Canon would be to color match my C200 and I have eleven EF lenses, but AF is super important to my work. 6K recording isn't. I would consider the Sony although then I would have to shell out big bucks for a couple of Sony
zooms and or primes. S-Cinetone looks acceptable and I am thinking, throwing out art, the Sony might get you more gigs since it will become the new FS7.

Overall, I think the two cameras are a win-win, they both look pretty good in different ways.

I'm proud to say, have just edited two different new reels for my company, an overview and a corporate reel, not a single instance of slow motion on either reel.
I have some stuff I shot green screen that is slow motion that might make it into a future cut but all I have is the raw footage, not the composited shots. It's weird, I've shot some slow
motion many times over the past few years, but every time I go to edit it into a project, I give myself the acid test, does this make the story have more impact or make the visuals better?
The answer is almost always no. So I leave it out. Slow motion is rarely used well, it's use is almost always gratuitous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top