C500: Canon C700 Announced.

brettsherman said:
I'm sure that's how they justify losing money on the C700 at corporate. Plus there's the "it's our flagship camera," which supposedly will drive people to buy their lower end cameras. I just don't know if either is really true. Would it not be easier to recoup R&D expenditures on a model that would sell 10X more units? Especially since Canon seem incapable of releasing an updated lower market camera in a timely enough manner to not get left behind...
Click to expand...
I doubt Canon is losing a penny on any model on its roster. In fact, its margins are not thin and the R&D basically works on a trickle-down theory - what one can find today on a $10,000 model comes out the next year on a $5,000 model and so on. (prices quoted on a hypothetical basis)

As to camera choices, with FS-7 price being hiked and C300 MKII's lowered, the old $8,000 investment gap is now down to $3,500. If you, as I presume, already own a ton of Canon glass, MKII seems like a better bet.

Unless Sony comes out with something newer and (much, much, much) better soon.
 
The C700 is a whole other ball game and it will be interesting to see how the images look in comparison to the C300 MKII. For the money, they had better be a lot better. If they look basically the same, Canon will have a tough slog, just trying to sell the C700 on form factor and operational stuff. In the end, it's the image that matters. It's simple, with the FS-7, Sony is selling specs. And what amazing specs it has. But take off your video geek hat and really take a cold, hard look at the images and they are lacking. The C300 MKII, Canon is selling the image. Not specs, at all, the C300 MKII is behind the times, was handicapped from the feature everyone thinks they can't live without, 4K 60P. But if you take a good hard look at the Canon pictures, the colors, latitude, motion signature all blow the FS-7 away, Also, for many of us, the DPAF with FT on the C300 MKII blows away Sony's AF.

I don't think either camera is the best or worst, they are just different and you buy based upon what's important to you. If it's specs, Sony all of the way. If it's image, Canon all of the way, in this price range. I would be interested to see a side by side shootout with the FS-7, C300 MKII and BMD Ursa Mini 4.6K, I'll have to scan YouTube and Vimeo to see if anyone has done that yet. As far as the C700 images, we wait and see, hopefully something amazing soon.
 
If considering the C700 you're likely looking at the F55, Amira/Alexa-mini, Epic Dragon and Varicam LT. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, no manufacturer has achieved Arri's highlight control the Alexa line has. Arri also currently owns the high end market share. The F55 on the other hand, really has the deepest color pallet, and if the new X-OCN compressed RAW codec delivers, that's another plus for Sony. The Varicam LT doesn't have the HFR options all the other cameras mentioned above have, but it does have the best low light ability, and it's also the least expensive of the above.

When it comes to cinema cameras targeting a certain section of the market, namely episodic, higher end corporate/marketing, low end advertising and indie feature films, the price of the camera is relatively irrelevant. As a dp I choose (hopefully) or the producer chooses their ideal workflow, and the rental houses buy and deliver what the market wants.

If you're going purely by specs and price, the large Ursa camera is very interesting- including it's ability to upgrade sensors in the field. The reality however, proves good specs and low price don't make it in the market.

And don't discount the dog and pony show. Some clients are incredibly tech savvy- at least on a superficial level. It's another aspect of work that exists-albeit not an extremely important aspect, but when clients open the coffers they expect certain things. Ultimately we are there to please the client on many different levels- provide a great image of course.

Then there's politics.

But get over the price. It's not that important and won't dictate success of the product as long as the price is in the ballpark. And Canon doesn't operate charities, at least that's what I hear.
 
You nail it on price KLK. I work in TV and cost of the camera and therefore, the rentals is irrelevant to which camera the DP wants and rents. Most shows shoot Arri these days, but that can always change on a dime if something better comes along. But man, when I am standing at video village, shooting the monitors and director, the Arri cameras look like the image is already finished, no grading required. I am sure I am seeing a LUT through monitor all of the time but man does it look good. I think everyone else in playing catch up frankly, Arri has the magical "something" to how their cameras look.
 
puredrifting said:
I am sure I am seeing a LUT through monitor all of the time but man does it look good. I think everyone else in playing catch up frankly, Arri has the magical "something" to how their cameras look.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought Arri went with a strong Expose To The Left, but it turned out they went with dual scan from the get go (unless I interpreted their white papers wrong- a likely scenario). Having said that, some directors aren't crazy about Arri colors- they seem thin to them. i think it mostly comes down to the grade, but as directors hire me- I have to be aware of the chatter. Right now I'm seeing a renaissance (or second breath) with the F55 and 16 bit color. BUT I suspect LOW LIGHT, or ambient light levels is the next big thing, as long as you have a good image.

Light the space, with a 360 look around. Everyone (actors, directors, producers, gaffers) loves that. And to efficiently do that low light ability helps a ton- many options.

Herein lies my interest in the C700, C300 Mkii and Varicam. The low light ability. The C500 was surprisingly good in low light, but many other operational aspects to that camera hurt it from mainstream production.(fan noise anyone?) Personally I hate the ergonomics (C300, C500), unless the camera is completely stripped and handheld. That was the "aha" moment. Union shoot, handheld, stripped C300. "Aha, now I get it."

When I am on location, with a full crew, a couple of gennies on standby, etc. and I call for a bare, that's BARE 250 watt photo flood in a practical lamp (plus a china ball for fill) and that's IT- simply because it feels right- I want a camera with good low light ability.

This thread is about the C700. In the above scenario, IF the C700 has great low light, this is when I want that camera. NOT the Alexa SXT, NOT the Red Weapon whatever, NOT the F55/F65. I want a low light production camera- the Varicam 35 or maybe C700.

Working with ambient light levels professionally is a new-ish and exciting thing. I own and always carry a fully rigged A7S kit. I don't want to use it if I don't have to. If I can have a regular PRODUCTION camera with low light ability I will ask for it. THAT is the promise of the C700. The cost, frankly, is a producer problem not my problem.

This is what the C700 is designed for. It is not a step up from a DLSR. It is a full on production camera.
 
My experience with Canon cameras is that they almost never look good on paper. But in practical experience they are quite solid and deliver beyond the specs. They almost always experience rising popularity as a result. The C700 may just be another example of that. They key is how often they leave the rental houses after people first test them.
 
klk said:
Yeah, I thought Arri went with a strong Expose To The Left, but it turned out they went with dual scan from the get go (unless I interpreted their white papers wrong- a likely scenario)...
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is correct. The dual readout gives it claimed 14 stops. It's probably higher but they use the headroom to roll off the highlights gradually a la film.

The second secret sauce is Alexa's OLPF. It's so good, it's widely copied (if anyone can get the knack).

http://www.thehurlblog.com/reds-game-changing-olpf-filter-cinematography/
 
klk said:
Yeah, I thought Arri went with a strong Expose To The Left, but it turned out they went with dual scan from the get go (unless I interpreted their white papers wrong- a likely scenario). Having said that, some directors aren't crazy about Arri colors- they seem thin to them.
Click to expand...

Yep. The double A-D scan was inherited from the Arriscan where Arri did double exposure to get the entire dynamic range of the negative and put the images together afterwards. (In 6K mode the Arriscan does 24 scans of the negative. One half pixel offset scan to increase resolution, vertically and horizontally, double flash to get full dynamic range of negative and one pass for each primary color. Then downscale to 4K.) The Arriscan sensor was used in the D20 & D21. The Alexa sensor is an evolution of the Arriscan sensor. Same pixel density AFAIK.

At the time Alexa was launched, in 2010, you really couldn't get 16bit tonal range with a single scan, IMHO. The lower bits were just noise. The dual read out is also more thermally stable as the last few bits of a single scan 16bit are very vulnerable to temp changes in the A to D process. Basically a camera that keeps (more of) it's dynamic range and color fidelity on a hot day.

Since this is a C700 thread: Canon is also doing double read out for the C300mk2 and C700! The other Cinema EOS cameras are single readout AFAIK.

I too find that Directors do get tired of the look of certain cameras after a while. Kind of amazed at how the Arri look and the Canon look are still very popular.
With limited look options we have to turn to the glass to get our look.

And talking about look and glass: I have one big beef about Canon betting on Jon Fauer's historical prediction that we'll go back to Spherical after a period of Anamorphic. There's one big new thing this cycle: We shoot digitally! I think Anamorphic is here to stay for quite some time so Canon better get cranking on that 4:3 or Full Frame sensor for their C700 very, very soon!!!!
 
AFAIK, the lowest dual scan, high dynamic range 4K camera at the moment is Red Raven, which sells for about $6,500 (brain only). Canon 5D MKIV does not have the simultaneous dual scan per se. What it does do is run 48 fps instead of 24, with an alternate frame exposure, and then blends these frames in camera. It only does it in 1080p though.

 
All of this talk about dual scan is very interesting guys, thanks for the education, I had no idea.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
AFAIK, the lowest dual scan, high dynamic range 4K camera at the moment is Red Raven, which sells for about $6,500 (brain only). Canon 5D MKIV does not have the simultaneous dual scan per se. What it does do is run 48 fps instead of 24, with an alternate frame exposure, and then blends these frames in camera. It only does it in 1080p though.
Click to expand...

The RED HDRx and Canon 5Dmk4 approaches are something very different than the Dual Analogue to Digital conversion that Arri and C700/C300mk2 are doing.
Nothing wrong with the RED HDRx approach. It's just a different thing that looks different.

A couple of notes: Given how technology seems to be developing I think it's reasonable to assume that the Dual A to D approach will have benefits for a long time to come. Arri introduced the ARRISCAN in 2003, 12 years before Canon shipped the C300mk2 & 5 years before Canon shipped the 5Dmk2 (2008). So obviously Arri has had a long time to fine tune their approach to combine images to increase bit depth and dynamic range.
 
In talking with Canon, they did say they were looking at this camera to be around for a while (3-5 years+). The C700 has a somewhat open architecture that will allow upgrades down the road. For example, if you have the PL version and you want to upgrade to the PL Global Shutter, you can do that (for a charge). Now, based on the fact that there is very little, if not, no rolling shutter in the C300 MK II because of 2 Digic 5 "engines" in the camera, I expect it will be even better with 3 Digic 5 "engines" in the C700. So, if down the road Canon decides to put in say, a 8K chip (or anamorphic, etc), the open architecture will allow it. Jon Fauer ASC mentions the same idea on Film & Digital Times:
http://www.fdtimes.com/2016/09/11/canon-c700-full-frame-18x24-s35-and-other-formats
Canon is now shooting the C700 demo piece with a big name DP (and a few others) and, knowing where they are shooting, I'm really looking forward to seeing the results.....maybe by the end of the month!...my guess.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
Last edited:
Canon Rumors mentioned that a few CN-E lenses should be coming out around the NAB'17, including the anamorphic.
 
Here is a photo of the DP shooting the C700 promo. DSLR filmmaker. If you go to his IMDB page, the only topic on his message board is titled, "Worst DP."

MV5BMjEwMzAyMTQ3NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTAxOTQ3MDE@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,665,1000_AL_.jpg



And here is a photo of a real DP with a real camera.

255977_2088172450915_1443318282_2400622_7839242_o-670x446.jpg

http://philipbloom.net/blog/alexa/



And Jim, you should be with me on this one. Cause when the C700 promo video comes out, if people aren't all thinking, "Oh my gosh, the footage looks so totally amazing and definitely better than Arri I totally want to buy lots of C700s from EVSonline right now!!!1111!11!!!," then it's always best to have the backup option of "blame to DP" for the unremarkable footage.

I haven't seen a good launch video from Canon since Mobius. I just hope they release this in at least 1080p (4K would apparently be asking for too much!). Man & Beast (C500 launch video) was uploaded at 720p so looked terrible by default, and still only has 720p copies on the web. Trick Shot (C300 Mark II launch video) was originally uploaded at 720p until they eventually re-uploaded it to 1080p, by which time everyone had already watched it and no longer cared. This was to promote their 4K cameras. Insane.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
If it's not Philip Bloom or Roger Deakins then I don't care.
Click to expand...

ahahah I wouldn't even dare to compare Philip Bloom to Roger Deakins

Bloom makes nice pictures, ok, but he does those for corporate work (even his doc projects looks like corporate), and isn't close to get the power, tension, and emotions that great DPs can put into their pictures.

as said, Lubezki, Rodrigo Prieto, Sean Bobbit, or many others are a far better exemple I think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top