nutmegger
Well-known member
I believe the new Panasonic AG-CX4000 ENG camera has a 1” sensor.
https://na.panasonic.com/us/audio-v...amcorders/aj-cx4000-4k-hdr-eng-shoulder-mount
C300: C300 mkiii?
- Thread starter chris f
- Start date
I believe the new Panasonic AG-CX4000 ENG camera has a 1” sensor.
https://na.panasonic.com/us/audio-v...amcorders/aj-cx4000-4k-hdr-eng-shoulder-mount
G
Guest
Guest
2/3” cameras will be able to take full advatange of technology being implemented by cellphones, as the sensors are fairly similar in size. The added benefit for operators, is the very long and compact zooms.
The question may be, is it a better move in the long run to go bayer filter single chip no prism, and take advantage of the short flange to make a compact zoom for a larger sensor? Or does it tend to be an advantage to have the deeper dof of 2/3”?
Run&Gun
Veteran
Depends on what you're doing. Shooting long-lens sports is hard enough on 2/3" HD. Now bump it up to s35 or larger and in slow-mo and 4K...
One of the great benefits of 2/3" sensors is the lens selection and their size. The lenses that we have just do not exist for larger sensor formats, like s35, "FF", etc. There is the occasional unicorn, like the 20x Canon 50-1000, but look at it and it's cost vs. your typical 2/3" 20x, 22x, 23x ENG lens. Now look at 50x and 100x+ lenses typically used in sports that are already the size of a person and cost six figures per copy. I'm not sure if an equivalent could reasonably be built for larger sensors. Panasonic may be on to something making larger sensors to accommodate the higher pixel count for higher resolution, BUT incorporating an expander into the camera's optical path design so that the image quality is as high as possible.
chris f
Veteran
Looks like my ideal camera is still in play: https://www.canonrumors.com/even-wi...lans-to-announce-a-new-cinema-camera-shortly/
Jaime Valles
Veteran
What would the price be for the C300 Mark III? Around $10,000? That would place it between the C200 and the C500 II...
And they could lower C200 ... but they already have 1D XMKIII there. The field is getting crowded and that's before FX-6 is announced.
PS. If it's s35, then it'll probably be in EF. But it leaves RF to the consumer level cameras. Unless R6 has killer video specs.
cpreston
Veteran
Well, the R5 is still in play and the rumors keeps insisting that it will be video oriented. Here is the current list from canon rumors.
8K video
30fps,
No crop
Internal recording
Dual Pixel AF available in ALL 8K modes.
Auto Focus
Body AF tracking
Face AF tracking
Eye AF tracking
Animal detect and tracking so you can steadily track your subject.
Clermond
Veteran
Rumors say also 47mp photo. I think it will be photo orientated. Canon is far behind the competitors in terms of resolution, IBIS and low light qualities. I switched to Panasonic S1R last year because of the lack of these features. My wild guess is that the R5 will have a 8K full sensor read out for video mostly for marketing specs. 8K won't come either with a high bit rate nor it will the R5 have 4K 10bit HDMI out as the want to protect the DX MIII.
R5 is definitely in play and 8K would/should not have much of a crop (33 MPX out of 45, if rumors are correct). However, the codec (likely HEVC) and the bit rate for 8K are currently unknown. More important is the 6K-to-4K oversampling but it may not even have that or have that with a major crop, not much different from EOS R or from A7RIII/IV, S1R and Z7.
R6, on the other hand, looks a lot closer to Z6 and S1 (S1H?) - a quality 6K-to-4K oversampling, especially if they use the sensor from 1DX MKIII (20 MPX rather than 24 on Z6, A7III and S1/S1H), with the same/similar video specs as 1DX MK III. That would be far more videocentric than R5.
R6, on the other hand, looks a lot closer to Z6 and S1 (S1H?) - a quality 6K-to-4K oversampling, especially if they use the sensor from 1DX MKIII (20 MPX rather than 24 on Z6, A7III and S1/S1H), with the same/similar video specs as 1DX MK III. That would be far more videocentric than R5.
cpreston
Veteran
If either the R5 or the R6 manage to get a 10bit Clog at 4K at near to full frame, I will buy one. I'm expecting the 8K to be an 8 bit 4:2:0 format as that seems to Canon's baseline for their SLR's. I also expect that the Clog will have the standard Clog dynamic range since Canon hasn't been attempting to bring Clog 3 or Clog 2 to their SLR's. The 4K from the EOSR can barely handle to have it's Clog graded without falling apart.
Spartacus
Veteran
I don't even know what to expect from the C300mIII.
Basically it should be a S35 C500 with all its features.
Canon will most likely cut the internal RAW to give a reason for pricing it lower, besides sensor size.
But then there isn't much left to take away if there will ever be another C100.
The C100 still offered the best weight/size/performance ratio for solo shooters though in my opinion.
So if they could slim the C300 body down, many solo shooters and gimbal users would probably like it.
They both should have it as a bare minimum. The rest depends on pricing. EOSR is currently being offered at $1,800, so R6 may be at ~ $2,500 and R5 at $3,000-$3,500. At $2,500 it's unlikely to have the internal Raw but it might have the external with either a crop or a line-skip a la Z6. Technically, it could do a combination of both but, off Canon's history, it'll probably be a crop.
Of course, there may be some play in pricing too. By the time, R6 comes out, EOS R and RP will be two years old.
Or they could junk C100 as a model number entirely. If R5/6 are what they are, it'd much too much crowding in one space.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
C200 $6,500.00 Internal CRL
C300 MKIII - ?
C500 MKII $16,000.00 Internal CRL
Of course a C300 MKIII will have internal RAW, it wouldn't make any sense to NOT have CRL when the camera below it and above it have it.
C100 MKIII, it would make sense for it to NOT have internal CRL.
chris f
Veteran
I dunno, I feel like Canon is going to throw a bone to broadcast/corp peeps and provide a non-raw super 35mm option for those that don't want it (and don't want to pay for it) and keep the C200 & C500MKII as your options for "cinema" (C200 entry level raw, C500 'serious' full frame cinema shooters). This would also prevent either cameras from being cannibalized by the new C300MKII.
I don't know any current C300MKII users that would want or shoot in raw.
I don't know any current C300MKII users that would want or shoot in raw.
According to Marvinhello (full screen name) on the Industry News, it's a pretty robust 10-bit 480 Mbps 4:2:2 HEVC for 8K. So, file sizes are more than manageable and the codec is a big step up from the competition. If the above is correct, I'd expect a mid-to-high $3,000's pricing, which would make C100 MKIII superfluous and C300 MKIII specs .... uh, well, s35 6K Raw CRL?
Run&Gun
Veteran
But right now those "specs" are nothing more than "made up" numbers thrown out by an anonymous person on an internet message board without any citation of source(is there a source or is it wishful thinking on their part or a SWAG estimate...?). Not beating up on or trying to discredit Marvin. But if you're stating it the way it was stated: like it's fact, you should at least say something like, "I have a reliable source that says...". And obviously everyone would like to see at least 10 bitt 4:2:2, but it is Canon...
A) Marvin's had a good record with his posts.
B) But there's more. HEVC is dovetailing into the requirements for most modern (HDR) TV'a and 10-bit is pretty much in every HEVC version, with the exception of the older/bottom-of-the-bottom types. The new requirements are inching toward Rec2100 and eventually toward the Versatile Video Coding (VVC), which standards are supposed to be finalized by this upcoming summer. Keeping everything in 8-bit - and mind you, Canon doesn't do updates - would leave R5/R6 behind the eight ball upon the release.
C) In general, HEVC should be the codec for the next 3-5 years for most ~ $1,500-and-up cameras. It provides a higher DR, 8K, etc. And, C300 MKIII (or whatever moniker it'll have) should have both CRL and HEVC.
D) OK, it's Canon. But business-as-usual ain't going to fly in 2020.
HEVC was "cutting edge" in 2012. By 2015, Samsung had 40 and 80 Mbps HEVC in a $1,400 NX1. The bit rate was subsequently hacked to 120 and later to 150 but with negligible improvements in image quality.
The reason the codec's wide scale adaption has been delayed for so long was the battle over royalties. Simultaneously, however, the engineers have been working on the new incarnations of the codec, massively improving its technical specifications, including not only the 10-bit but even the 12-bit recording.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
The reason the codec's wide scale adaption has been delayed for so long was the battle over royalties. Simultaneously, however, the engineers have been working on the new incarnations of the codec, massively improving its technical specifications, including not only the 10-bit but even the 12-bit recording.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding