Fishflavour
Member
awesome 
how long before this works it's way down to C300Mk3 / C400?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4hgzqdcFc8
how long before this works it's way down to C300Mk3 / C400?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4hgzqdcFc8
C700: Canon EOS C700 FF full frame 5.9k Raw
- Thread starter Fishflavour
- Start date
cpreston
Veteran
That would be really interesting if some version of the sensor showed up in the next C300 level camera. It would certainly be significant step up from the current generation. Standard 4K and 2K like we are currently using, along with a supersampled 4K at full frame. Add Rawlite for the 4K crop. Canon could justify charging their normal $16,000 to $18,000 price for that.
indiawilds
Veteran
Their press release is a bit misleading as they have branded the C700FF as Canon's first fullframe Cinema camera. 1DC was. Albeit not recording 4K in full frame. C700FF is 33000 k USD.
Wonder how many C700 were sold. The C700FF is obviously a better bet than the previous C700, although 5K more in price. I guess we should not grumble about the cost and workflow of the Codex, as Canon aims that for the highend cinema guys. Nevertheless 5.9K raw would be nice for VFX.
Wonder how many C700 were sold. The C700FF is obviously a better bet than the previous C700, although 5K more in price. I guess we should not grumble about the cost and workflow of the Codex, as Canon aims that for the highend cinema guys. Nevertheless 5.9K raw would be nice for VFX.
johnniebutters
Active member
C200 still best bang for your buck.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
At that price I'd just get a RED.
My first thought when I saw the price was that Canon is being awfully aggressive/competitive as everybody else playing in the FF+ zone is substantially more expensive. At $33k, this is almost in owner/operator territory. But then you look at the available formats, and see that this is still saddled with the same processing engine, so in several areas, it's a downgrade from the c700, and that it doesn't even do 4k60 in ProRes. I'm not a framerate junkie, but at this price point, canon should be offering a bit more. The Codex option takes it out of owner/operator territory, and it's the only way you can really take advantage of the sensor.
It's interesting that DJI can write 12bit 6k raw to a tiny $900 SSD card in their inspire 2, and everyone else needs a stupid...um...professional recorder. I'm really surprised this thing doesn't have cinema Raw Light. It would just make too much sense.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
IMO, I think a price tag of $30K-ish was maybe more relevant or appropriate a few years ago...I think last year and of course this year and moving forward, $20K and below is more appealing to the owner/operator (and that's for the 'higher-end' cameras).
Because I think most would like to keep it $10K or below.
Personally, I'll never again buy a camera over $2K, haha, but I know that's not a common practice for most professionals.
Because I think most would like to keep it $10K or below.
Personally, I'll never again buy a camera over $2K, haha, but I know that's not a common practice for most professionals.
Run&Gun
Veteran
My .02... It's DoA. If you look at it vs. what's available on the market, why would you go with it? Canon missed the boat on the real "high-end"(i.e: Hollywood movies) with their cameras. Concentrate on the $15K and under market and LENSES. They also announced a new CN-E prime, 20/T1.5. I would still buy a fully manual T2.8ish 70-200 cine zoom if they built one.
cpreston
Veteran
DJI can't write RAW to their SD cards. Also, comparing specs from companies like DJI to an actual production video camera is a bit misleading. Sure, you can get "4k 60P" from a DJI camera, but it still looks like the "HD 60p" from a Canon DSLR camera. It is all basically unusable for any critical work.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
The 4K RAW I've seen from DJI looks way better than what I've seen from Canon DSLRs. I would not hesitate to mix 4K RAW DJI drone footage with Arri footage.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
Sorry, I disagree......it is the least expensive FF package out there. The production package will probably be around $38-39K. The REDs, Venice (just a FF F55), and the Alexa FF will all be much more money once you get all the parts needed to fully function.
Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
sorry...that was a typo. (corrected to SSD) ...I meant DJI's cineSSD cards. Point is still the same. They do write 6k to that card, and as Eric said, it's a really nice file. Canon, Sony, Arri all require you to invest in some truly magical 24k gold Truffled hard drives and recorders and readers to do the same thing.
Thats true Jim. It is certainly more than competitive on price with those other large sensor cameras, but when you look at the available formats and frame rates, I'm not sure it's leading the way, (which I think some would argue is what it needs to do in this segment of the market, if its going to gain traction). To me, Canon won the battle when it created these neat, self-contained movie machines (c300, c300mark II). If they could bring more of that ethic to the C700, they would have something to talk about other than "me too". (oops...guess that phrase means something else now...how bout "myself, as well..."). The DJi example is appropriate. It's possible to offer the full capabilities of your 6k sensor in a self-contained way. Canon should be doing that.
cpreston
Veteran
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to figure out where DJI is cutting corners. I did that a couple of years ago and gave up. They are an interesting company, but there camera tech is surprisingly unreliable. The video they write to the internal SD card is very poor. Investing in their RAW options is still going to put you in the $20,000 range and I still wouldn't trust the sensor based on my experience. I at least know what I am getting with Canon.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
If you factor in the codex it brings it closer to $65k which I believe is more in line with the prices of the Venice and Red, though I'd need to look at fully kitted prices for those to be sure. Alexa LF is $100k for just the body, so quite a lot above the others in price point.
I suppose if full frame is needed, RAW is not needed, and budget is a concern, the C700 FF could be an option. That's a pretty small nich, though. And really, who needs full frame?
I'd rather have Arri super 35 image quality. I feel like the full frame thing is just another fad, which started with the 5D, died out with affordable Super35 video cameras, and now is coming back. Even Roger Deakins isn't much of a fan of the Alexa 65, due to not liking the extra shallow depth of field and not needing the extra resolution. I think the Alexa LF will become popular in markets that require 4K, such as Netflix, but not so much because the depth of field characteristics are necessarily preferred.
The C700 FF with Codex at $65k is aimed at the high end, but at that level, I feel most would prefer to go for the Alexa LF as paying a little extra for the Arri rental on say a Netflix show isn't going to move them toward the C700.
Last edited:
cpreston
Veteran
People keep mentioning the RAW capture with the Codex recorder. How many people actually want the RAW output from a Canon camera? Is it better on the C700 than on the C300II. The C300II is noisy and not much fun to work with. The big problem is that Canon doesn't let you record 4K 60 internally. If you are doing any normal frame rate work, wouldn't you just want the Prores supersampled 4K?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I'll be getting a hold of one to shoot with after NAB. LMK if you have any specific requests that don't involved shooting test charts ;-) I think Canon missed the boat by NOT including CRL on the C700 FF, Codex is for insurance purposes and features shot for studios.
The Codex is apparently a new one made just for the C700, and is only (ha!) $7,000. So it's more like $40k than $65k.
I'd love to see models of varying skintones and wide landscapes with sky and foliage. I'd also love to see it side-by-side with the C200 (in raw) to see if, sensor size aside, the image is that much better.
Why does this expensive camera only do 4K prores up to 30fps? The cheap Ursa Mini Pro can do 60fps in 4K prores, so the processing required can't be insane.
I know all things aren't equal and obviously it's more pixels (5.9k vs 4.6k), but the Canon is 6 times the cost. This sort of thing is just confusing for directors/producers.
I know all things aren't equal and obviously it's more pixels (5.9k vs 4.6k), but the Canon is 6 times the cost. This sort of thing is just confusing for directors/producers.