C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors

Jaime Valles said:
Really? I thought it looked great. Is there anything in particular that stood out to you as not good?

To me, these youtube screenshots all show great skin tones, detail and dynamic range:







I won't say that it's better than an Alexa or Venice or Monstro, but I don't see how it's not as good of an image. Different? Maybe. But not bad in any way.
Click to expand...
Well according to you, Hitler was not pleased.




It's crazy to me how the C700 has been out for years now, and I still can't find one legit video, heck, don't think I can even find non-legit test videos, that are not done by Canon. Literally no one is using this camera that isn't paid by Canon.

Here's a good example of some good footage...

 
Last edited:
Jaime Valles said:
HAHAHAHA! True, but that was when the original C700 came out, not the C700FF.
Click to expand...
Ah, right, C700 FF. It's like you go on a date with a girl, you're not interested in a second date, so she offers her FF (full figured) twin sister, and then...prob still not interested.

Full frame didn't change the image quality, just the depth of field and field of view in relation to lens choices, so the base problem of the C700, inferior image quality, remained the same.

Arri stitched their sensors together to give higher resolution in a larger sensor with the same image quality, but the image quality was already making people happy to begin with, so all good.


But yeah, you'd think at least some fools out there with too much money on their hands would accidentally buy a C700, make a crappy short film with it, and upload it to the Internet. But no, even the fools stayed wise this time around.
 
Jaime Valles said:
Really? I thought it looked great. Is there anything in particular that stood out to you as not good?

To me, these youtube screenshots all show great skin tones, detail and dynamic range:







I won't say that it's better than an Alexa or Venice or Monstro, but I don't see how it's not as good of an image. Different? Maybe. But not bad in any way.
Click to expand...

Watching the video- it was OK. Those screen shots look pretty good. It looks like a C300 II, which I owned for a few years, and was good. However I like the look of the 1DX II with a custom picture style better (Filmic Skin). I like the smaller size & weight of the 1DX II and EOS R better.

The problem for Canon is that at that price point, people will just move up to Alexa, Venice, Red as they are known quantities for commercial, TV, and cinema. Canon's DPAF is good for people like us, one-man bands and small crews, however it's not good enough to reliably replace an AC/focus-puller for higher end productions. It's totally possible with today's hardware and software to produce amazing AI AF, Sony is leading the way with AI and tracking, however for top level work there's still work to be done.

Here's a test: when something looks good, are you getting an emotional reaction to it? Or just looking at it and saying- 'there's nothing wrong with the skin tones / footage'. It's good to get to the 'skin tones look good' level, that hasn't been easy (IMO Panasonic, Fuji, and BM have more work to do for the general case), getting out of 'Mediocrity Valley' requires the added sizzle, magic, emotion that Alexa, Venice, Monstro provide: a major part of that emotion is top people are using the top cameras. Give a C700 FF to a top person/team and perhaps we'll see something different. However Canon's C700 FF demo short really hurt the camera IMO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_swZt6jTmg .

For what I do with cameras, the C700 FF is too big, so's the C500 II (and C300 II, C200). I've purchased more Canon cameras and lenses than any other brand- just purchased an EOS R to fly on a gimbal (works great, though resolution is low in FF). Anything bigger/heavier than a 1DX II (already pushing maximum density) requires too much support gear and complexity for what I shoot. If I needed to do something higher end I'd probably just hire an operator with an Alexa/Mini LF, Venice, Monstro VV or similar (my current favorite higher-end cameras).
 
indiawilds said:
OK Guys. Can you tell us what would be the maximum you are ready to pay for the C500 II with the leaked/speculated specs of 5.9K full frame raw at 60p, 4K raw from s-35 in raw lite etc..
Click to expand...

I think Canon is on the record for saying "sub 20k". Launching at $19995 then seems a bit... well...

I would guess $17995 or $18995, but this camera really needs to drop a wee bit more. $15995 would be a better starting point, but that would surprise me a lot.

The best play would be "it will cost less than $20k" and then launch the camera with "and it's priced at $12995" (or even $14995) — boom, but no one at Canon even owns that playbook.

I genuinely don't think Canon looks too much at other brands and what they offer for $XX.
 
jcs said:
For what I do with cameras, the C700 FF is too big, so's the C500 II (and C300 II, C200). Anything bigger/heavier than a 1DX II requires too much support gear and complexity for what I shoot.
Click to expand...

Let's see what Canon does with their new RF mount camera in the 1D class. Not really hoping for much, but...

I like what they are doing with their new lenses and the Trinity is stabilised starting with the RF 15-35mm 2.8 IS and RF 24-70mm 2.8 IS. Previously all the 'newsih' f2.8 16-35 III, 24-70 II lacked IS, as we know.
 
Canon would have had my undying loyalty if they had put 10bit in 1080 on the 1DC back in 2013.

Now, 6, going on 7years, i think the expectations are higher. In particular with DYNAMIC RANGE.

We’ve had 12stops DYNAMIC RANGE since the early 2000’s.
 
James0b57 said:
Canon would have had my undying loyalty if they had put 10bit in 1080 on the 1DC back in 2013.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they priced it accordingly.

I think it was a mistake to take the DSLR component out of the Cinema EOS range. I really loved my 1Dc. That camera could have still been in the line around 20MP FF with a full sensor readout scaled out to 4K DCI in a useful codec. I would have DPAF and 10bit today. Since it was Canon's top DSLR (1Dx) at its core, the price would still not be cheap, but it could sit at the current 1Dx XX + $1000, or whatever. Still expensive, but if we could get proper quality cinema files in that hybrid solution I would be all over that.

Not a camera for spec warriors, but a great tool for people who know what they want and are looking for something like that.

In fact, that is sort of what I'm hoping for: something similar to what I say above, but in RF mount, because that would fix NDs right there too, if I opted for EF-glass.
 
The odd thing about Canon is how it allowed its money making cinema line to virtually expire. C200 is still doing well two years after its launch but C300 MKII is on its last legs after four years and C700 was a dud from the start. And the meat of the market is taking a free fall, what with a $2,500 Pocket6K flying off the shelves.

When the Cinema EOS was launched, 1D C was its lowest priced model (at $16,000, IIRC, down to $12,000 in 2013). Now the competition has 4K and 5.7/6K models up the wazoo but Canon's entry is going to be at $20,000? This doesn't sound too competitive to me. It's as if Toyota brought Supra back at about $100,000 because that's what it was - in relation to the GDP/capita - back in 1996.
 
TheDingo said:
Great showreel for ARRI, and ARRI is the default camera for fully funded productions, but most of these shots could have been made with other cameras and end up looking similar.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. If everything else in those films was exactly the same except they swapped out the ARRI for a RED Monstro or Sony Venice (or even a Canon C700FF) I think the resulting footage would have looked quite similar. Not identical, but close enough so as to not be an issue.

Color grading would be different, of course, as each camera has its own color quirks to deal with in post, and some grade much more easily than others, but a Hollywood-caliber colorist would make any of those cameras shine.
 
Haha. Yeah. I do it quite often. I’ll pick out the camera and lens combo even with Netflix compression.

The problem with “Blind” tests, is that at least one if the cameras in the test gets held back. But out in the wild, or in a film, the differences are more apparent.
 
TheDingo said:
I still wonder if presented with a blind comparison, could ARRI fans pick out the ARRI footage? ( especially if each camera shoots something different, so it's not 5 versions of the same shot )
Click to expand...

When I was working on three different shows, all within two years and each show was an Arri show, I was VERY attuned to what the Arri look looked like at a glance. I'd see it on the monitors in video village, then a few months later when it aired, then on DVD or Bluray a year later.
Then, I could always identify what was shot on an Arri. FF to 2019 and the competition has become better and I've seen a few things that turned out to have been shot on Venice that I mistook for Arri.
It would be interesting to see if people who have a lot more Arri exposure than I do, like Eric, who owns an Arri, if they can pick out Arri shows from the ones shot on REDs or Venice or Millenium DXL.
With top notch cameras and especially A-List DPs and Gaffers, it's getting pretty difficult to tell the difference between the top 3-4 cameras.

I know Thirteen Reasons Why was shot on the Varicam 35 and I thought S1 looked pretty good but when they would introduce LED fixtures at the high school dance, the illusion was broken,
the Varicam 35 did some pretty strange looking artifacting with the blue-purple LEDs and I knew an Arri couldn't look like that.
 
TheDingo said:
I still wonder if presented with a blind comparison, could ARRI fans pick out the ARRI footage? ( especially if each camera shoots something different, so it's not 5 versions of the same shot )
Click to expand...

I think in a test directly comparing different cameras and/or lenses, you have to shoot the exact same thing in the exact same way. Otherwise, those viewing could easily be swayed one way or the other by the content, lighting, etc. instead of the camera.
 
Run&Gun said:
I think in a test directly comparing different cameras and/or lenses, you have to shoot the exact same thing in the exact same way. Otherwise, those viewing could easily be swayed one way or the other by the content, lighting, etc. instead of the camera.
Click to expand...
Just make sure you also set a timer for how long it took the colorist and post production to get each camera to look how they want it to.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Just make sure you also set a timer for how long it took the colorist and post production to get each camera to look how they want it to.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what you're talking about, but in the same vein... I've had similar arguments/discussions with people before on using matching(same) cameras on multi-cam shoots. I constantly hear this argument for why 'you don't have to use matching cameras', it's because "You can match everything in post". You may be able to get non-matching cameras close or even close enough that no one can tell, but how much time(money) and effort is that going to take vs. starting out with everything matching?
 
Run&Gun said:
I think in a test directly comparing different cameras and/or lenses, you have to shoot the exact same thing in the exact same way. Otherwise, those viewing could easily be swayed one way or the other by the content, lighting, etc. instead of the camera.
Click to expand...

Well that's just it. If you can't spot the ARRI every time, then maybe the ARRI is not the biggest factor on what the final image looks like.
( It's easy to spot the ARRI when people do 5 stop over-exposure tests because it's the only image that looks usable )
 
TheDingo said:
Well that's just it. If you can't spot the ARRI every time, then maybe the ARRI is not the biggest factor on what the final image looks like.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not the biggest factor (which are things like the DP, lighting choices, correct camera settings, production design, etc.), but it is a factor and that's what matters. Don't let the tools hold you back if you have the budget to choose the best.

Let's consider a big budget movie chose the wrong camera, and then had to spend an extra one million dollars in post making it look as good as if they had chosen the correct camera. So, all ends well, eh? Except, every movie, even Avengers, has a limited budget, so now that one million dollars cannot be relegated to other important aspects, such as getting Hugo Weaving to reprise Red Skull.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top