C300: C300MKIII at NAB????

chris f said:
https://www.canonrumors.com/canons-plans-for-nab-2019-next-month-cr2/

Very interested to see what this camera is. If it was similar ergonomics of the C200 with dual slot CFAST, a robust internal codec, multiple SDI-outs, & timecode sync I'd think long and hard about selling my C200 and upgrading. If it is full frame, I might mail them an envelope of cash now.
Click to expand...

How much would you pay for the C300 MKIII?
How much additional would you pay for an 8K imager upgrade?
How much additional would you pay for a FF imager upgrade?
What, in real world, working terms for your work, would FF gain you?

Canon just showed their 8K prototype at Inter BEE and it was jury rigged up to four Convergent Design recorders with no internal recording capability?
So not sure how they would get a C300 MKIII to record 8K internally and external recording is something that most of us wouldn't use or want.

Canon has pulled a rabbit out of a hat before so it will be interesting to see what they announce, if anything. A lot of people will be disappointed that they are
not integrating RF mount. If they did, adapting EF and PL mount would be a breeze plus users could buy into the higher quality/resolution of the RF lenses.

The rumor sights are often 100% wrong but occasionally get it right or at least portions of it so we'll see. Interesting too that they are talking NAB, CineGear in the past couple of years
seems to have become more of the defacto announcement or "more details and or working prototype" showcase after NAB.
 
I'd have to think about price.....

Not interested in 8K, mostly interested in having more robust pro features on the cam so I don't have to do things like spending extra time with the sound guy to figure out how we can use tentacle sync and then install his software to my laptop and then when we wrap sync all the audio and then export an .xml and then go back and forth through multiple emails with the client's editor on how work with the sync'd audio and explain why there's this crazy loud noise on every clip when he's scanning through the footage, and oh and by the way here's how to work with the proxies and raw files......I could go on.....but would love to get back to the days of showing up on set, letting the audio guy do his usual thing, and then just handing over the cards and being done.

The main appeal of full frame to me is solving the dilemma of having no great doc lenses. This would make the 24-105 f/4 IS a great go-to light, handheld kit. It would also mean the 70-200 f/4 IS would also be in play as a light, hand-holdable long lens. Basically puts slower, lighter, less wide, cheaper lenses into play.

Now if Canon surprised us all and added in-camera sensor stabilization then maybe having full-frame isn't as important since that would also open things up to a bunch of other lenses (I don't shoot hand-held unless I have some sort of image stabilization)
 
Last edited:
8K and full frame wouldn't entice me much. I'd want new features, improved ergonomics, better slow-mo could be nice, ProRes would be great but unlikely, and most of all, better image quality. I also really want the LUT to be automatically recognized and applied by Premiere and other programs so I can hand off Log footage to clients without worrying about them trying to find out what LUT to apply and messing everything up.



18-80 x 1.53 crop = 27.54-122.4, 17-120 x 1.53 crop = 26.01-183.6. These give similar range to the 24-105, are parfocal, breath less, have better image quality, servo zoom, etc. Yeah, they cost more.


chris f said:
(I don't shoot hand-held unless I have some sort of image stabilization)
Click to expand...
Are you related to Michael J. Fox?

Most of what you see on TV and the movies that is handheld is without image stabilization. They've surely got well balanced shoulder setups, which heavily negates the need for IS. IS causes a floaty feel to the footage which is not organic like handholding a well balanced rig is. I find IS is best used with super light cameras like DSLRs as the lack of weight/inertia leads to jittery footage which IS can eliminate. It's also good when working at very long focal lengths if the tripod isn't up to the task or there is vibration or wind.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
18-80 x 1.53 crop = 27.54-122.4, 17-120 x 1.53 crop = 26.01-183.6. These give similar range to the 24-105, are parfocal, breath less, have better image quality, servo zoom, etc. Yeah, they cost more.
Click to expand...

As much as I love the 18-80, it's big and at T4.4 it's pretty slow. However a 24-105 f/4 on a full frame gives you more light and less depth of field than a f/2.8 on a crop sensor and it's $3,600 cheaper, so if the cost to upgrade to FF is less than that, I'd take that route. I also never actually use the servo zoom during a shot.

Are you related to Michael J. Fox?
Click to expand...
No, but my great-grandpa had Parkinson's, my grandpa died of Parkinson's related complications, my dad has it, and I seem to be next in line. Hopefully not, but I appreciate your kind words.

Most of what you see on TV and the movies that is handheld is without image stabilization. They've surely got well balanced shoulder setups, which heavily negates the need for IS.
Click to expand...
This is true. This is also not how I shoot most of the time. I would love for Canon to offer sensor stabilization as that has a much more natural look to it than lens stabilization during most applications.
 
I don't think it's technically accurate to say the 24-105 on full frame gives you more light than the 18-80. The f-stop is the same and so is the light transmission. The 24-105 actually loses around a stop of light when zoomed in all the way while the 18-80 doesn't suffer from that significant light loss while zooming in. Some full frame cameras are more light sensitive as they can use larger photosites to get the same resolution (4K, for instance), but that's a bit camera dependent. If it's 8K and full frame then it may not necessarily be more light sensitive.

I personally find the depth of field of Super35 to be pretty ideal, more so than full frame, and full frame means you'll need larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses to do the same job. Broadcast cameras have huge zoom ranges on lenses that weigh less than the 17-120, but now we've gone more so to larger sensors for a lot of work and as the sensors keep getting larger and larger, so do the lenses. Not exactly ideal for documentary work, not to mention the extra focus pulling needed.

The 18-80 is a bit large and heavy compared to the 24-105, hence why I use the 24-105 much more often, so I'll give you that.

Well it sounds like you don't have Parkinson's now so I'd imagine you should be able to hold a camera steady. As for the future, for myself, I'll probably end up transitioning more into producing in my older age, or higher end DP work where I don't need to touch the camera. There are certain ailments of age that don't bode well for cameramen.
 
puredrifting said:
What do you think about it?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, it will be another overpriced Canon camera that makes sharp videos.

Love the company, but they are just not on the same level with cinema cameras like RED who can probably make a 720p camera produce images that look like the Hollywood motion pictures many of us chase after.

I'm only saying this because I know what those particular cameras can do out-of-the-box with minimal manipulation of REDCODE, and it's obvious they have a 'Coca-Cola formula' that others don't.

[ARRI is not in the conversation because they are for the 1%.]
 
NorBro said:
they are just not on the same level with cinema cameras like RED who ...
Click to expand...

...charge twice as much just to get a basic setup.

Two different camera systems for two different markets.

Yes, they are both video cameras and can be used to shoot all day hanging off the face of El Capitan or shoot Captain Marvel, but one is excellent for one purpose, the other is excellent for the other. You don't get one camera that can do both excellently.
 
Matt Turner said:
...charge twice as much just to get a basic setup.

Two different camera systems for two different markets.

Yes, they are both video cameras and can be used to shoot all day hanging off the face of El Capitan or shoot Captain Marvel, but one is excellent for one purpose, the other is excellent for the other. You don't get one camera that can do both excellently.
Click to expand...

Regarding price, that's just their own luxury business model like any other brand.

ARRI charges for licenses, RED charges for modules.

But with the aforementioned you can at least now get a decent set up for $15K rather than $50K+ with ARRI.
 
Canon 8K demo: where's the detail? While 60p is fine, reminds of Showscan which is cool for nature shots, however this footage is not even True 4K.

Canon lenses on a different (full frame) 8K sensor (with actual 8K version available to view in addition to True 4K. Here we can see 8K and 4K 60p providing real detail: YouTube compression is not the issue):

Full frame 6K sensor (True 4K):

Fool me once...

Might be better to downsample Canon footage until it's producing Nyquist limit detail for the downsampled resolution, then let AI Upscaling bring up to decent 4K and 8K:
https://news.samsung.com/global/hands-on-what-makes-8k-ai-upscaling-on-the-qled-8k-distinctive
https://topazlabs.com/ai-gigapixel/
 
Currently the C700 is $28,000 for the regular sensor and $33,000 for the full frame sensor. The C700 originally released just over 2 years ago at $35,000.

Currently the C300MKII is $9,999, originally released almost 3.5 years ago at $15,999. The original C300 also released at the same price point.

If Canon continues being Canon and releases their camera a few thousand too high that wouldn't surprise me, but I've got to think pricing pressure from all the other options out there would at least get them to not go over the $15,999 mark for the Super 35 sensor. Maybe $18,999 for the full frame?

As I'm typing this I'm getting bummed that the C200 is only $7,500.... I might be too used to paying too little for a camera to upgrade, ha.
 
ha...you already overpaid if you bought a C200 for $7500.

But it's okay if it was 2017.

In 2019, that's a no-no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top