C500: Canon C700 Announced.
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Well if the raw is anything like a raw from a 5d or suchlike then it will be awesome. Dont know about the ISO but there should be pre compression amplifers that make high ISO eat Red and probably Arri.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
Exactly...what I'm hoping for is even better ISO. The C300, C100, and the C500 all had the same 4K chip and you could go to 3200ISO and it is clean as a whistle, 6400ISO and the noise came up a tad but Canon made the noise move so it looks more like film grain with no "screen door effect". On the C300 MK II, 6400ISO is the new 3200....so, I'm very excited to see what the new 4.5K chip in the C700 can do. At the very least it will be as good as the C300 MK II but I suspect the new, clean ISO mark will be higher....and I won't know until the working prototypes hit, hopefully around the middle of October.
This is something I think people overlook, not realizing, especially with narrative, how much money can be saved in lights(rentals) and set ups per day...and that happens every time you shoot.
Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
On the low light/high ISO front, it will compete with Varicam Pure and Varicam LT. LT will be able to deliver Raw to external monitor/recorders for a lot less, with the Pure being roughly on par at about $50,000.
Also, with new LED fixtures, getting overexposed footage at night is becoming a lot easier.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I'm sure the C700 will be super clean, but that's not enough IMO.
Varicam35 has had this sensitivity for a few years now, and it hasn't done much for them. Yes, you get your occasional industry figure praising the camera, but why is it not being used more? (I am genuinely asking.)
I'll be the first to tell you that I like seeing a lightly graded C-Log (1/2/3) image in corporate videos, but I'm also going to make a bold statement here and go as far as saying that Canon needs to change their sensor "mojo" (or maybe even their beloved color science!), and do something with their image as it's never struck me as having a blockbuster look.
But maybe that is what the RAW/Codex is for. And if you're one of the best post-production image/color specialists in the world, maybe you can make any camera look like anything.
I am really interested in seeing what this camera looks like, but if it only looks like a pumped up C300 Mark II, who is realistically going to use it on big budget features/television?
Does anyone use the C300 Mark II now on big budget features/television? (We know the C300 was a workhorse.)
(Watch, someone's going to provide me an example and it will end up being one of my favorite shows, lol.)
It shoots Grace and Frankie on Netflix (booted off the RED) and Transparent on Amazon. I'd consider them both pretty big budget but no network shows that I'm aware of.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I work on several shows, but they are Showtime, HBO and Netflix, although just worked on one that will be on Fox primetime. All five shows I regularly work on are shot on Alexa/Alexa Mini and Amira. From my limited viewpoint, Arri owns episodic at the moment. I have not worked on any shows shot on RED, Varicam or Sony, even though I know a few are. it will be interesting to see if Canon can steal some business from Arri in episodic. Same goes for the Varicam Pure.
Well with Netflix's 4K mandate, it rules out the Alexa/Amira for their original content. So everyone is driven traditionally towards RED or the F55. It's nice to see Canon picking up some of those as well, and I imagine with the C700 they should be able to grab a few more.
Some network shows are also moving over to RED under the 4K push. The Last Ship on TNT was Alexa and for the latest season moved to RED. There is CMOS smear everywhere (just like in almost every original Netflix series shot on RED) that I find incredibly distracting but people seem to just be passing it off as "flare" even though it clearly is not.
Some network shows are also moving over to RED under the 4K push. The Last Ship on TNT was Alexa and for the latest season moved to RED. There is CMOS smear everywhere (just like in almost every original Netflix series shot on RED) that I find incredibly distracting but people seem to just be passing it off as "flare" even though it clearly is not.
Actually Jim this is exactly what I'm looking for- as I've had the C500/O7Q combo for a few years. At the time that was the low light king for narrative.
Many markets are comfortable with Canon and all but a few of my clients have lost interest in Red. The Amira would work well for most shoots, but clients simply don't or can't spend the money for an Amira kit.
I just shot something for Ford (pickup trucks), and it's mind boggling how Ford slashes the budget between videos- apparently they want to slash the budget even lower on the next series. The Ford shoot should have been Amira but went FS7 as the production company owned that camera. If Canon can reduce the price $5K I think that would really help.
Apparently, Varicam is used on about a dozen shows now (per Varicam's own "shot on the Varicam" page) Alexa still dominates though, as the broadcast networks are not ready to switch their work flow yet. Plus, every DP loves Alexa. F55 is deployed on several Sony owned shows.
And then you get into the broadcast TV demos, etc.
PS. The Masters were supposed to be shown in 4K online but I've not seen a shot of that.
BarryLichtner
Active member
This thread has been an interesting read. Lots of different opinions and plenty of hope here for the C700.
But I've got to say-- everything aside for just a second-- I simply can't get over how outrageously ugly the C700 is. It's the only pro camera I can think of that doesn't have sharp, crisp lines and a unique design language. To me it looks like a fat bulging sausage, or a cartoon train sagging in the middle from old age. Those that say the C700 looks like the F55 are being incredibly generous. The F55 looks tight, efficient, and business like. And RED, despite what you may think of them, put out really good looking cameras. The Arri Alexa and Amira do look a bit Fisher-Price to me, but Arri can get away with about anything, and at least their design is driven by a laser like focus on function and reliability. The XT actually looks pretty good it its small carbon fiber shell.
I know looks are just looks- and in the end they aren't what matter. But in my attempt to warm up to the C700, the fact that it sort of looks like a Kia Sedona minivan amongst smartly styled German and Japanese sports sedans, is unfortunately tinting my perception just a little bit. :/
But I've got to say-- everything aside for just a second-- I simply can't get over how outrageously ugly the C700 is. It's the only pro camera I can think of that doesn't have sharp, crisp lines and a unique design language. To me it looks like a fat bulging sausage, or a cartoon train sagging in the middle from old age. Those that say the C700 looks like the F55 are being incredibly generous. The F55 looks tight, efficient, and business like. And RED, despite what you may think of them, put out really good looking cameras. The Arri Alexa and Amira do look a bit Fisher-Price to me, but Arri can get away with about anything, and at least their design is driven by a laser like focus on function and reliability. The XT actually looks pretty good it its small carbon fiber shell.
I know looks are just looks- and in the end they aren't what matter. But in my attempt to warm up to the C700, the fact that it sort of looks like a Kia Sedona minivan amongst smartly styled German and Japanese sports sedans, is unfortunately tinting my perception just a little bit. :/
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The thing I think here is Canon are really failing to promote their products properly.
I dont know how they perform (af, lowlight or weather sealing) but can have some guesses that they are good.
In the drama lights and focus puller world they probably dont really offer much that arri don't do better.
But step into the sports stadium after dark and try and do some 'reality' promo material for a high end sports company/brand and the ISO/AF could really sing
It is a bit like stills.. a hasselblad will do you good on a fashion set, but for photo-ing the olympics or a mountaineer you need a canikon.. while canon sell themselves as hasselbad they will be beaten by hasselblad
I dont know how they perform (af, lowlight or weather sealing) but can have some guesses that they are good.
In the drama lights and focus puller world they probably dont really offer much that arri don't do better.
But step into the sports stadium after dark and try and do some 'reality' promo material for a high end sports company/brand and the ISO/AF could really sing
It is a bit like stills.. a hasselblad will do you good on a fashion set, but for photo-ing the olympics or a mountaineer you need a canikon.. while canon sell themselves as hasselbad they will be beaten by hasselblad
But to do sports and action, a shooter will likely go with the Global Shutter version of the camera and that means that the auto focus is out of the window.
And that lands them in the Amira and F55 territory. Where the top dogs go with Amira.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Id take AF over GS shutter doing sport 'doco' but the main point is canon need to promote the strong points of thier product or they become an overpriced Varicam
S
S
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Some C700 wonk
Not personally that impressed as I dont see any USPs
http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Canon-shows-off-first-footage-shot-with-the-C700_nid-6156.html
Not personally that impressed as I dont see any USPs
http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Canon-shows-off-first-footage-shot-with-the-C700_nid-6156.html
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I can understand how you find that look unnatractive, but a lot of people are attracted to that look.
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I find it counter-intuitive that anyone would buy an expensive digital cinema camera based upon how it looks. I find all of the EOS C cameras, once rigged, to be too tall, top heavy and unergonomic, really a pretty dumb design for most pro shooting. One of my producers I shoot for calls my EOS shoulder rig, "The Praying Mantis" and thinks it looks weird. But functionally, they work great so it's a none issue. Same with the C700, the proof will be how it is to use and what the images look like. The Varicams look fine and the images look good but functionally, they are hobbled at present by having to go through a lengthy reboot sequence when changing frame rates or codec, which will make you miss shots in live/doc work or will annoy the ADs if you are shooting narrative/episodic. So functionally, the Varicam is not good. The Sony FS700 is the dumbest looking camera Sony ever made, it's a shoebox with a lens, but it did (in it's day) something that no other camera in it's class could do, shoot pretty high speed images without having to rent a specialized HS camera. So aesthetically, the Sony was hideous but functionally, it was brilliant. I think you'll find that the majority of camera ops and DP ops don't care how a camera looks, they care how it feels and how it performs.
Last edited:
Like Seth Rogen?
Anyhow, I thought that Aston Martin miniseries looked pretty good. Of course, that was a ~ $50,000 version of C700, with the Codex recorder glued to its heinie. How it looks graded off its 10-bit ProRes vs. competition recording (sometimes compressed, sometimes less compressed) Raw in the same or lower price range might be more relevant to those in need of a quick turnaround or not on unlimited budget.
Still, this forces Sony and ARRI to upgrade too.
dp90068
Well-known member
Fugly camera.
It's saving grace might be workflow - if series start working with it and save ~10-20% over Arri's workflow it'll be a keeper. We should all be grateful for what Canon has done with S35 glass. They are really giving us fantastic options. I am waiting to see the 18-80 up close but for use on a Sony camera. After quite a number of years they've finally taken back the large sensor space.
Has anyone seen a real short film project done with the C700? The Japanese garden short is unremarkable.