C500: Canon C400 coming?

Mitch Gross said:
Find me some zooms with a decent range and stop that cover full frame. Got a 5:1 T2.8 that's under $30K? Fly-by-wire lenses like the Sonys don't count.
Click to expand...
There are the Fuji Premistas, Angenuix EZ, Zeiss compact zooms. I guess not 5:1, but Super 35 movies aren't typically using a 5:1 zoom anyway. So sure, there's no 17-120 lens available for full frame, but I don't see full frame as being targeted toward broadcast and run 'n gun shooters; they can always switch to Super35 mode. There will also be more full frame zooms coming out in the coming years that will help solidify full frame in the market place.
 
Canon's always introduced a new sensor at the mid-tier C300 line.

The new 500mkii is still using the same C300mkii sensor at its base and now the mid-tier is due for an upgrade. I would guess that the new C300/400 will be a super35 6k sensor, with some feature that makes is attractive to that shooter base, high fps/DR/Low Light/etc. Then you'll see that new sensor in the 700 FF at 8k etc.
 
Jim Feeley said:
And the thing is, better audio is fairly inexpensive to implement. I mean, compared to good big sensors, glass and all that.

Still surprises me that camera audio is so compromised.
Click to expand...

Right? It's garbage compared to even my cheap Mix Pre 3. Better than it used to be (remember how awful analog Beta SP audio was?) but still pretty bad.
 
DLD said:
They could just copy FX-9 on codec crippling or the in-camera 6K-into-4K a la S1 and Z6 (pre-external Raw upgrade). Or they could stick with s35 (though, they probably won't if FX-6 doesn't).

Then there's media - CFexpress or CFast 2.0.
Click to expand...

From what's been published, CFast 2.0 is a DEAD format, I wouldn't expect to see too much more coming out with it.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
So if a full frame camera has better low light such that you can stop it down to the same depth of field as S35 without getting a noisier image, while also having the flexibility to open it up to get shallower depth of field when desired, also with a cleaner image, and due to needing longer focal lengths to achieve the same framing the lenses used have less distortion, and the camera also has an S35 mode for use with S35 lenses, then what exactly is the disadvantage of a full frame camera?
Click to expand...

Perhaps that FF requires basically almost no innovation or invention and it's engineering money, resources and budgetary allotment in the design process that could have been used for things that really help us and matter? ;-) Increased audio capability, better quality higher CRI touchscreens, better EVFs, better color science, ergonomic improvement, etc. are all leagues more important than dopey "features" like FF that have been purely sold to suckers through aspirational brainwashing?

But I digress, I not only am sad that FF has become the new "standard", it's frustrating that the supposedly intelligent and discerning buyers in our industry have fallen for one of the dumbest smoke and mirrors marketing campaigns in decades. FF digital cinema cameras as more than a novelty have merely been a deferment of innovation. All people are fixated on are the FF cameras and "the sensor", but talk to the optics designers as I have. FF compared to S35 is a compromise in optical
design, weight, cost, complexity and introduces more problems than it solves. Not saying great FF lenses can't be designed, they can but to what end? The optical engineering teams have told me that overall, FF is a boondoggle for digital cinema. FF is the answer to a question that nobody asked, it's purely a marketing exercise and our industry fell for it hook, line and sinker. A perfect case of just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should do it.

None of this matters anymore, FF is a foregone conclusion now but hopefully these questions will stay in memory when the next digital cinema "innovation" is involuntarily shoved down buyers throats. We've had pointless resolution wars, now pointless sensor size increase, what will be the next pointless exercise in lieu of true innovation? I'm betting Medium Format sensors at 12-16k?
 
Last edited:
jm.gardiner said:
... The new 500mkii is still using the same C300mkii sensor at its base and now the mid-tier is due for an upgrade. I would guess that the new C300/400 will be a super35 6k sensor, with some feature that makes is attractive to that shooter base, high fps/DR/Low Light/etc. Then you'll see that new sensor in the 700 FF at 8k etc.
Click to expand...

C500 MKII is using the C700FF sensor but the rest seems quite logical. S35 6K CRL at $10,000 with AF in EF looks very reasonable. FX-6 may be FF but only (down-converted) 6K-to-4K just like FX-9, while Canon (wink-wink) does something that is different from both of the existing Sony models. And, with AF allegedly disabled in Raw for 1D XMKIII, having a "video" model at $10,000 or so should please those with the EF glass.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Just switch to S35 doesn't exactly sell the FF camera too well, does it?
Click to expand...

It would for the FF zoom question you brought up that would only affect less than the 1%. The 1% using ARRIs and REDs will make do.

People purchasing the two hottest cameras of the year - C500 Mark II and FX9 - are not thinking about which non fly-by-wire full-frame zoom lens they are NOT going to have access to. The irony being that both of them will be considered as two of some of the best AF cinema cameras, and I think should be using 'L' glass and G Masters.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Just switch to S35 doesn't exactly sell the FF camera too well, does it?
Click to expand...
Kind of depends. Pretty much all cameras are shooting 4K now. Some people or jobs still don't like 4K, so the solution is, switch to 1080. Easy enough. Then you could say, "Doesn't really sell 4K cameras well, does it?" Well, considering you're not really paying a premium for 4K anymore, they don't really need a selling point. Now you have the option, 1080 or 4K and it doesn't cost any more. If full frame is the future, it will just be a matter of time before there's no premium to pay for it, and as such it would have no real downsides if it still offers Super35 as well.

How often do you hear professionals in today's market say they would prefer a camera that shoots 1080p and does not have the option for 4K?
 
puredrifting said:
Perhaps that FF requires basically almost no innovation or invention and it's engineering money, resources and budgetary allotment in the design process that could have been used for things that really help us and matter? ;-)
Increased audio capability, better quality higher CRI touchscreens, better EVFs, better color science, ergonomic improvement, etc. are all leagues more important than dopey "features" like FF that have been purely sold to suckers through aspirational brainwashing?

But I digress, I not only am sad that FF has become the new "standard", it's frustrating that the supposedly intelligent and discerning buyers in our industry have fallen for one of the dumbest smoke and mirrors marketing campaigns in decades.
FF digital cinema cameras as more than a novelty have merely been a deferment of innovation. All people are fixated on are the FF cameras and "the sensor", but talk to the optics designers as I have. FF compared to S35 is a compromise in optical
design, weight, cost, complexity and introduces more problems than it solves. Not saying great FF lenses can't be designed, they can but to what end? The optical engineering teams have told me that overall, FF is a boondoggle for digital cinema.
FF is the answer to a question that nobody asked, it's purely a marketing exercise and our industry fell for it hook, line and sinker. A perfect case of just because we can do it doesn't mean that we should do it.

None of this matters anymore, FF is a foregone conclusion now but hopefully these questions will stay in memory when the next digital cinema "innovation" is involuntarily shoved down buyers throats.
We've had pointless resolution wars, now pointless sensor size increase, what will be the next pointless exercise in lieu of true innovation? I'm betting Medium Format sensors at 12-16k?
Click to expand...
What you're saying seems a bit contradictory to me. You're saying it took hardly any time or effort to develop full frame cameras, and then contradict yourself by insinuating that the camera companies are spending SO much time and effort developing full frame cameras that they had no time or R&D money left to develop other improvements.

Are you saying the Arri Signature Primes have inferior optics to their S35 counterpart, the Master Primes? The Master Primes are larger and heavier.

I think people often assume full frame lenses are larger and heavier, but in many cases they are not. Consider the Leica Thalias which cover VistaVision; you'd think to cover such a large format they'd be really large and heavy, yet, they're just around 3 lbs, a bit lighter than the Leica Summilux-C Super35 lenses.

You might then say, "Well, larger format needs longer focal lengths and longer focal lenghts are heavier." Okay, case in point, the Lecia Thalia 100mm weighs 2.5 lbs while the 50mm Leica Summliux-C weighs 3.9 lbs.

Now considering zooms for a moment, the Zeiss compact zooms for example offer a T/2.8 aputure and are the same weight as Super35 lenses (and are regularly used with Super35 cameras). T/2.8 on a full frame camera is like T/2 on a Super35 camera in terms of depth of field and better ISO capabilities. To get a T/2 Super35 zoom of those focal lengths (not counting the fake T/2 of the EZ-lenses) you'd have to have a very large and heavy lens to do such.

The Fuji Premista lenses at T/2.9 are equivalent to the Fuji Premiere T/2 lenses which are larger, heavier, and more than twice the cost.

So perhaps you can elaborate on how full frame lenses are larger and heavier.

I used to think full frame lenses were larger and heavier, but when actually looking at the market for full frame lenses, I'm not really finding that to be the case.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
65mm film was the preferred format for large scale productions since the 1950's
Click to expand...

Not because of its depth of field.

The only way to increase the resolution of your film camera is to increase the area of your film frame (or wait 10 years). Not so with digital. Resolution has risen year by year for the same sensor size, and has surpassed even 65mm release prints at least, some time ago. 35mm release prints were about 1.5K, so I guess 65mm was around 3K, when it finally reached your local theater's screen.

Now supposing yesterday's cinematographers had access to today's digital technology and could choose whatever sensor size they wanted. Well, given their penchant for deep focus, I imagine they would have asked the camera manufacturers for something in Super 16.
 
combatentropy said:
Now supposing yesterday's cinematographers had access to today's digital technology and could choose whatever sensor size they wanted. Well, given their penchant for deep focus, I imagine they would have asked the camera manufacturers for something in Super 16.
Click to expand...

Only because that was normal back then...until brains and the world changed.
 
combatentropy said:
... The only way to increase the resolution of your film camera is to increase the area of your film frame (or wait 10 years). Not so with digital. Resolution has risen year by year for the same sensor size, and has surpassed even 65mm release prints at least, some time ago. 35mm release prints were about 1.5K, so I guess 65mm was around 3K, when it finally reached your local theater's screen...
Click to expand...

This depends on the generation of the actual film stock. The latest pre-digital 35mm 2-perf was 2.8-3.2K but carried more color information since a typical digital sensor debayers the color info down from its stated number. In that case, 65mm was ~ 14 MPX or ~ 5K.

As to the depth of field, look at Peckinpah's closeups at the end of the scene.

 
Hmm, The Wild Bunch was shot on 35mm anamorphic, which has the same depth of field as full frame. Those close-ups look like 150-300mm, which would be 50-100mm in S16. And the focus isn't even that shallow, looks like f/5.6 or f/8 (for those focal lengths) which would be f/2.8 or f/4 in S16.

Look, I actually don't care that much. I'm with Eric Coughlin, who points out that you can crop a FF sensor, so long as its resolution is high enough. Since any new FF sensors are likely to be at least 6K, you could get 4K S35 or 2K S16, which is fine by me. New full frames might even be 8K, so that's 6K S35 and 3K S16.

I am intrigued by puredrifting's relay of information from optical engineers:

but talk to the optics designers as I have. FF compared to S35 is a compromise in optical design, weight, cost, complexity and introduces more problems than it solves. Not saying great FF lenses can't be designed, they can but to what end? The optical engineering teams have told me that overall, FF is a boondoggle for digital cinema.
Click to expand...

I say as far as depth of field is concerned, S16 would have been fine for me. But I'll allow that not everyone shares my taste. Therefore I think 4/3 would have been great as an industry trend. You can get shallow or deep focus, as desired, there are nice lenses down to f/0.95. Plus its mount is open, so we had the chance for all cameras to standardize.
 
Last edited:
So many "complete" arguments from a singular fact.

And don't get me started with the optical engineers I've worked with including one with a PhD. Nyquist limit. I love m4/3. Low light.

If you don't like FF don't cut a PO for one.

Sensor tech is advancing slower than sensor size. That's just the economics of now.

All of these arguments remind me of the Tesla fanboys, until you hook one up to a trailer or need to go to a body shop. Then. Uh oh.
 
So, 1 DX MKIII specs are leaked - the AF in Raw is crippled but 4K 24p All-I no-crop is at 470 Mbps (if I understood it correctly) and one gets not only Dual Pixels AF but some sort of an AI (assuming similar to what is in EOS R) assistance. EF mount and will work with those CN-E power zooms. Low ISO performance ought to be top notch too.

And one can still shoot 5.4K Raw manually.

I say it's a solid entry that combines manageable file sizes with the presumably decent image quality. With all the brouhaha directed toward FX-9 for lacking 6K Raw, its 6K-to-4K quality is rather impressive. If Canon can match Sony's feat, 1D X MKIII might snatch a job or two from the DSLR's and other sub-$10,000 cameras.

C300 MKIII/C400 should then be revealed in time for the NAB. As mentioned before, an s35 6K Raw with DPAF would then be offered as a "movie" rather than a hybrid stills/video product.
 
Hopefully that will make a perfect BCam for the C500 II. Sucks it's going to be $6k though, that's pretty steep for a camera with zero video ergonomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top