C500: Canon C700 Announced.

morgan_moore said:
The thing I think here is Canon are really failing to promote their products properly.
Click to expand...

Canon is likely to go down in history as a discounter. Why not just discontinue the cameras? The Sony F3 remained somewhat constant for quite a number of years. But the trend is there. Is everything Canon makes destined for the same discount fate as the C500?

Seems that way doesn't it?
 
dp90068 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don-
From what I know, there will be things shot in October & November by top flight people and should get out quickly after that.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
Canon will definitely give the C700 to some top flight DPs to shoot some dazzling material. I agree, the Japanese garden stuff is totally generic looking. We need to someone with some major talent, pushing the camera to it's limits to really know what it is capable of.
 
I am surprised to hear some people wanting only straight lines as design. The early Red cameras were close to bricks. Too long a design lasts, some people get used to it. Ask a child and he/she will cut card boards (straight lines) and attach a round object as lens. If you want, I can upload a kids toy camera photo. :) While working for a phone company, I know how much effort was being put to create a well rounded design with nice curves.

Though some people here don't agree, C700 is done after active consultation with key industry professionals and the design is based on inputs. Howsoever sexy the aesthetics of a camera might be, it is not an impulse purchase item like a coke.
 
Don't get me wrong, I would pick the ugliest camera if it offered the best feature set, ergonomics, reliability, versatility and price. Maybe it's partly because I've been an admirer of Canon's design for so long, that to see this huge pig in a prom dress is such a let down. Going way back, Canon always impressed with their video and photo cameras. They set benchmarks-- they didn't just release something "rather competitive."

But things seem to be changing, either by virtue of things not changing, or because committees hold all he power. Their lenses, for example, are starting to look a bit dated, now that Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Sony, and to a lesser extent Tokina and Samyang, have all brought out fresher designs. I see Canon in this regard as too scared to change.

I do appreciate Canon's commitment to a design language over the long term and not jumping on the bandwagon fashion of the day-- because it gives them a more cohesive, time tested feel. Just like the 911 (to use a car reference again), I really appreciate the evolution of a good design vs. throwing out the old model every product cycle. But even with Porsche, their is ine foot I the last, one foot in the future.

It is Canon's past performance and high standards that make something like the C700 so hard to look past. If history is any guide, this chassis is going to be with us perhaps another decade. While the C700 might not grow on me visually, it will at least become "familiar" over time and seen more for its capabilities. But, like most of you, I wanted to see Canon smash this one out of the park. To me, personally, its looks seem to mirror what's on the inside. Not that what's on the side is bad by any means-- it's just a big disappointment coming from Canon-- because they are capable of building much more than just reliable cameras with yesterday's tech.

I think those of you justifying and defending Canon's decisions on the C700 only add to the problem. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." If you don't hold Canon's feet to the fire when they deserve it, when they've released two huge products that you know could have been a lot better (the 5D mkIV and this camera), then you're only encouraging the same results. A lot like how we coddled the American auto industry into sub-par mediocrity, and ultimately failure. It's okay to be critical sometimes and to demand more.
 
BarryLichtner said:
But things seem to be changing, either by virtue of things not changing, or because committees hold all he power. Their lenses, for example, are starting to look a bit dated, now that Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Sony, and to a lesser extent Tokina and Samyang, have all brought out fresher designs. I see Canon in this regard as too scared to change.
Click to expand...

The canon mount a million miles from the sensor is a serious drawback as is covering full frame.

Most recent 'interesting' lenses take advantage of the gains made available by no longer having to avoid a flapping mirror (in DSLR)
 
As for the aesthetics. Personally I dont like the look of the C700 but compared to the FS7 for example has the pointless high rear which looks 'cool' but just makes for bad mass distribution and a shonky connection to the tripod. (arri had this problem too) Reds are a bit tall and fat.

The best shape for a modular/shoulder camera is probably a long low box with the edges softened.. exactly the shape of the C700

The I/O ports look well placed unlike the comedy XLR and HF jack on the sony 5/55
 
Last edited:
It's okay to be critical ALL OF THE TIME and demand A LOT. Only way companies will learn.

:thumbsup:
 
BarryLichtner said:
Don't get me wrong, I would pick the ugliest camera if it offered the best feature set, ergonomics, reliability, versatility and price. Maybe it's partly because I've been an admirer of Canon's design for so long, that to see this huge pig in a prom dress is such a let down. Going way back, Canon always impressed with their video and photo cameras. They set benchmarks-- they didn't just release something "rather competitive."

But things seem to be changing, either by virtue of things not changing, or because committees hold all he power. Their lenses, for example, are starting to look a bit dated, now that Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, Sony, and to a lesser extent Tokina and Samyang, have all brought out fresher designs. I see Canon in this regard as too scared to change.

I do appreciate Canon's commitment to a design language over the long term and not jumping on the bandwagon fashion of the day-- because it gives them a more cohesive, time tested feel. Just like the 911 (to use a car reference again), I really appreciate the evolution of a good design vs. throwing out the old model every product cycle. But even with Porsche, their is ine foot I the last, one foot in the future.

It is Canon's past performance and high standards that make something like the C700 so hard to look past. If history is any guide, this chassis is going to be with us perhaps another decade. While the C700 might not grow on me visually, it will at least become "familiar" over time and seen more for its capabilities. But, like most of you, I wanted to see Canon smash this one out of the park. To me, personally, its looks seem to mirror what's on the inside. Not that what's on the side is bad by any means-- it's just a big disappointment coming from Canon-- because they are capable of building much more than just reliable cameras with yesterday's tech.

I think those of you justifying and defending Canon's decisions on the C700 only add to the problem. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." If you don't hold Canon's feet to the fire when they deserve it, when they've released two huge products that you know could have been a lot better (the 5D mkIV and this camera), then you're only encouraging the same results. A lot like how we coddled the American auto industry into sub-par mediocrity, and ultimately failure. It's okay to be critical sometimes and to demand more.
Click to expand...

You can demand all you want but an organization the size of Canon will only care if the complaints reach critical mass. A few people grumbling means little to them. But you sound as if you are expecting bleeding edge innovation and sea change from an organization that historically doesn't do either. Hold them as accountable as you want but you and a few others are not going to change their conservative and traditional Japanese corporate vision and culture. I don't think we are justifying or defending their decisions, we are just accepting reality as it is. Same with the 5D MKIV, it will never be what most video people want it to be, it is a still camera with a few added video features, not the magical competitor to the GH5, A7 series or XT2. If Canon wanted to make the 5D MKIV into that, they are more than capable of doing so but they have decided their market segment strategy and that's what they are going to execute. The C700 is up at the top and the XC-10 is down at the bottom. There is the world that you want, then there is the world as it is. Thank goodness we all have so many great choices. If I was in the market for a high end camera right now, the choice would be tough, there are so many great options, the C700 included. Personally, I would rather be a renter than an owner/operator these days, these all change just too damn fast.
 
it's just a big disappointment coming from Canon-- because they are capable of building much more than just reliable cameras with yesterday's tech[/QUOTE said:
You hit the nail on the head, Barry. Canon is capable of so much more... same camera with full frame and global shutter would at least raise the bar. No need for the lower models. Also no need to discount the hell out of older cameras which destroys the resale market for owner/ operators. Where will the C300 MkII be by the time NAB rolls around? ~ 9999.00?

We do have to factor in what it's actually like working with the camera. Nothing about the C300 raised my interest as much as actually working with it. This delayed my decision for 7 months. Once I started working with it I was amazed at the size and especially battery life. Yes, the form factor is strange. Way too tall and it needs a rig which the C700 doesn't.

We'll all know the answer by the end of the year. If pre-sales are strong then Canon is a hero.
Click to expand...
 
Pascal_Parvex said:
A full frame sensor would render all cinema zooms useless, as they are designed for S35 size. At least they could only use the center area of the sensor.
Click to expand...

Shoot with a FF sensor and your ACs/Focus pullers will hate you for life ;-) I hate FF although I have only shot it on the 5D MKIII. Stupid DOF characteristics, its too shallow. S35 is definitely the sweet spot. Although perhaps DPAF, Face Tracking and the other cool new focus technologies make that easier but not on a fancy pants $30k lens that is only manual.
 
BarryLichtner said:
I think those of you justifying and defending Canon's decisions on the C700 only add to the problem. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." If you don't hold Canon's feet to the fire when they deserve it, when they've released two huge products that you know could have been a lot better (the 5D mkIV and this camera), then you're only encouraging the same results. A lot like how we coddled the American auto industry into sub-par mediocrity, and ultimately failure. It's okay to be critical sometimes and to demand more.
Click to expand...

Am not a fan boy at all. I spend my own money in buying cameras to earn a living and will not buy something unless it makes sense to me. The problem is people here and in other forums are attacking Canon for anything and everything. When a rival does it, then it becomes cool. When Canon does it then it is widely panned. If one is critical all the time, then that is not constructive criticism and the companies like Canon will simply ignore those criticisms.

People attack that the 5D Mark IV is crippled. Initially it was reported that the crop factor is 1.74 in 4K and immediately people started trashing it. The same folks were going ga-ga over the 1.87 crop of RED RAVEN. Guess there are different rules for Canon.

People attack 5D IV not to have 4K over HDMI, slow motion in 4K etc etc. Well I am in fact happy the way the 5DIV is. When I pay over 6K for the 1DX II, obviously there ought to be a difference between the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX II. And there ought to be some difference between the 5DIV and the Cinema line. Else, some dude with a 5D IV, will come and pitch for the same projects that I am pitching. That means, my investment in Cinema camera is trashed. I will be pretty pissed. There won't be any differentiation.

Canon officials have told me that they expect people to buy/use their cinema series for serious work and not their DSLRs. That is their strategy. Canon is differentiating its offerings and if people are not interested they will vote with their wallets ie they will not buy. If a business model doesn't work, then the company will obviously change it.

Having said that I am not justifying everything about C700. The use of Codex recorders at 6K should be fine for the high end projects, however, I would have liked the raw to be open for recording in Odyssey and others. I don't know if that will be done later or they are simply locked into Codex for RAW. Apart from the cost, I think having a Odyssey to record the RAW from C700 would also reduce the weight as well as act as a monitor.

As always, I would want a lower weight. I know of many who have ruined their backs. The Price of the C700 is now a stretch as of now.

Since the C700 is so big, I would have loved if it had a full frame 24x36 sensor and had separate modes for processing from S-35 section of the sensor. That would have helped people to also use the full frame sensor if they want along with their cinema lenses in S-35 mode.
 
indiawilds said:
Am not a fan boy at all. I spend my own money in buying cameras to earn a living and will not buy something unless it makes sense to me. The problem is people here and in other forums are attacking Canon for anything and everything. When a rival does it, then it becomes cool. When Canon does it then it is widely panned. If one is critical all the time, then that is not constructive criticism and the companies like Canon will simply ignore those criticisms.

People attack that the 5D Mark IV is crippled. Initially it was reported that the crop factor is 1.74 in 4K and immediately people started trashing it. The same folks were going ga-ga over the 1.87 crop of RED RAVEN. Guess there are different rules for Canon.

People attack 5D IV not to have 4K over HDMI, slow motion in 4K etc etc. Well I am in fact happy the way the 5DIV is. When I pay over 6K for the 1DX II, obviously there ought to be a difference between the 5D Mark IV and the 1DX II. And there ought to be some difference between the 5DIV and the Cinema line. Else, some dude with a 5D IV, will come and pitch for the same projects that I am pitching. That means, my investment in Cinema camera is trashed. I will be pretty pissed. There won't be any differentiation.

Canon officials have told me that they expect people to buy/use their cinema series for serious work and not their DSLRs. That is their strategy. Canon is differentiating its offerings and if people are not interested they will vote with their wallets ie they will not buy. If a business model doesn't work, then the company will obviously change it.

Having said that I am not justifying everything about C700. The use of Codex recorders at 6K should be fine for the high end projects, however, I would have liked the raw to be open for recording in Odyssey and others. I don't know if that will be done later or they are simply locked into Codex for RAW. Apart from the cost, I think having a Odyssey to record the RAW from C700 would also reduce the weight as well as act as a monitor.

As always, I would want a lower weight. I know of many who have ruined their backs. The Price of the C700 is now a stretch as of now.

Since the C700 is so big, I would have loved if it had a full frame 24x36 sensor and had separate modes for processing from S-35 section of the sensor. That would have helped people to also use the full frame sensor if they want along with their cinema lenses in S-35 mode.
Click to expand...
could'nt agree more!
 
I think a few people are missing the point a bit with the C700. Where it's really going to shine is 4k TV production. It's got the specs to meet Netflix/Amazon/etc.'s 4K requirements, a great, customisable build to accomodate the specific needs of narrative production, and (unlike Panasonic/Sony/Red) it'll do 4k ProRes at variable framerates, that can just slot straight into existing production workflows without the need for any transcoding or complicated workarounds.

The simplicity works in it's favour on that front. It may not be setting the world afire on the specs front, but it consolidates a whole bunch of the production/post issues that the current crop of 4k cameras present, and looks like it's addressing most of them.

I'm pretty keen to try it out myself.
 
Grug said:
I think a few people are missing the point a bit with the C700. Where it's really going to shine is 4k TV production. It's got the specs to meet Netflix/Amazon/etc.'s 4K requirements, a great, customisable build to accomodate the specific needs of narrative production, and (unlike Panasonic/Sony/Red) it'll do 4k ProRes at variable framerates, that can just slot straight into existing production workflows without the need for any transcoding or complicated workarounds.

The simplicity works in it's favour on that front. It may not be setting the world afire on the specs front, but it consolidates a whole bunch of the production/post issues that the current crop of 4k cameras present, and looks like it's addressing most of them.

I'm pretty keen to try it out myself.
Click to expand...

Canon excels in producing cameras with well thought out, efficient, useful feature sets. They work very well in their intended market niches. Easy to use, reliable, drama free. There is a lot to be said for that. Somtimes you want a Porsche. Sometimes you need a pick up truck.
 
Last edited:
Excellent context for us Grug, I agree. Canon is not an innovator and doesn't seem capable of introducing real surprises, they make solid, workhorse tools that are reliable and do what you need them to. Even this camera is pretty much what most of us thought it would be.
 
indiawilds said:
Having said that I am not justifying everything about C700. The use of Codex recorders at 6K should be fine for the high end projects, however, I would have liked the raw to be open for recording in Odyssey and others. I don't know if that will be done later or they are simply locked into Codex for RAW. Apart from the cost, I think having a Odyssey to record the RAW from C700 would also reduce the weight as well as act as a monitor.
Click to expand...

$6K for a Codex recorder is unprecedented. It is also a first that a camera supporting Codex retains it's RAW out over SDI. Good for Canon! So it appears RAW is open for others. IF others want to support it. When I use Codex on set (with Alexa) the cost goes up quite a lot, so having alternatives is very nice!

About internal RAW: Currently shipping CFast cards aren't fast enough to record 4.5K Canon RAW at 30fps. Arri had to add .MXF wrapper around their .ari files to reach 30fps RAW to CFast on Alexa Mini. So Canon would probably have to do something similar, so yet another "format", which Canon might want to avoid. Theoretically CFast cards could be made fast enough to record Canon RAW 4.5K at 30fps. So maybe later? Or wait for what comes next after CFast?

Apple lists ProRes 422HQ 4K/60fps at 1886Mbits/s (848GB/hr). I don't know if the 4K/60fps ProRes to Codex (4K/30fps ProRes to CFast) is an exclusive carrot to get Codex onboard at the low $6K price, or if Canon considers that data rate to cause technical issues with currently available CFast cards? F.ex. ARRI Amira Manual recommends to only use the best cooled CFast slot for 200fps. Alexa Mini puts the CFast card outside the body, with open air on both sides, and it's single card only. Internal 4K/60fps ProRes would be nice to add later when faster & cooler running CFast cards become available!

After comparing specs with other 4K cameras I noticed something:

It might sound so obvious, but from what I can tell the Canon C700 is the first camera that can shoot 4K/60P ProRes with full standardized 4K monitoring.
4K Rec2020, ST2084 HDR & ACES monitoring, both in Video Village and in the EVF. AFAIK no other camera can do that. Kind of shocking with so many 4K cameras on the market today, and how we today take for granted that any HD camera has fully standardized Rec 709 monitoring.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top