C700: Canon EOS C700 FF full frame 5.9k Raw

[Parrot]

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.

Canon's presentation (so far) shows RAW output via SDI. If 3rd party recorders like Odyssey7Q+ or Atomos Sumo or Inferno wants to support it, they can. However, so far Convergent Design and Atomos haven't seen a market worth supporting. CFast is not fast enough for RAW, at least not the way Canon puts the card into an enclosure (Arri Mini leaves it hanging on the outside allowing more cooling for pushing the CFast faster.)

AFAIK Codex drives are the same as on Arri SXT, LF, 65 and can be used on XT too, Varicam 35 & Pure. So easier for rental house to keep inventory, which cuts costs significantly. But obviously not tailored towards wide market owner/ops.

 

[Parrot]

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.

It does 4K ProRes up to 60 to Codex, but so far not to CFast because it would overheat inside Canon's CFast slot. If it was better cooled or if somebody shipped a CFast card that didn't run superhot at those record rates, they could allow it. (That's my takeaway from talking to Canon reps.) F.ex. if you want to run 200fps HD on Amira (less data than 4K60), it's recommended you only use the best cooled memory card slot. Or Alexa Mini has CFast hanging halfway out the body. Gets you better cooling and better write speed.

It's a good question, though. Since Arri gets the same card to do 60, at 444 even, it shouldn't be very far out for Canon to follow suit.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Venice (just a FF F55)

C'mon Jim you know that isn't true. I'd say the same thing if someone said the C700 was just a FF C300II which we know it isn't.

 

[Jim Martin]

C'mon Jim you know that isn't true. I'd say the same thing if someone said the C700 was just a FF C300II which we know it isn't.

Actually, I been told that by a few DPs here in town that went to a couple of presentations....and your right, that was an over simplification of what I was hearing....I think these guys were expecting more options...

 

[Parrot]

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.

I'd rather have Arri super 35 image quality. I feel like the full frame thing is just another fad, ..... 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.

I think you have some good points. At high end rental level Alexa LF vs C700 FF w/Codex isn't going to matter much price wise.
BUT I can't count how many times I've done a wide shot on an interview at 24mm1.4 S35 and I've been asked for shallower depth of field by the director. For that market a switchable FF & S35 camera like the C700 FF is perfect. Interviews is a pretty large market and Alexa LF isn't a camera I would consider for this (137W power @ 24fps, 24V batteries), and Canon's Autofocus will probably edge out Venice and RED for similar applications when it's operator pulled focus.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

Actually, I been told that by a few DPs here in town that went to a couple of presentations....and your right, that was an over simplification of what I was hearing....I think these guys were expecting more options...

Dual ISO is pretty big I'd say but that is of course 'coming soon'. You are right in expecting more on launch but the same was said about the C700 on launch. So many great options in all price brackets. What a time to be alive and make pretty pictures.

 

[Barry G]

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.

. I don't want to get too far off topic, but how much experience do you have with the 6k x7? I'd say, in good light, it's a much cleaner sensor than my c300markII, and the color seems at least as good. Regardless, I wasn't talking about the sensor, I was talking about the ability to write 6k raw to a reasonably priced SSD. DJI can do it and arrive at a very decent, high quality file. And investing in DJI's raw options will set you back about $8k for a fully functioning system...that flies...if you want 6k it's about $10k (don't start talking lenses unless you'd like to add a few lenses to any of the other base prices.)

Back to Canon. I think internal Cinema Raw Light to c-fast would have been an important feature on this camera, Canon should have included it.

 

[Barry G]

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.

You missed the part about that bargain $7k codex recorder needing A) a couple of capture drives and B) a dedicated reader. Lets call the minimum codec package $23,445. Add in the camera production package, and you're at about $65k give or take. Still quite a bit lower than the rest of the bunch...but yeah. You want 6k raw off this thing...you're looking at $65k.

 

[jcs]

I (we've) been predicting a FF C700 for a while. It's great that Canon's finally created a "True 4K" sensor which exceeds the .67 factor ("rule") for a Bayer sensor to actually produce 3840x2160 "4K" (we need 6.1K for 4096).

While I agree with Eric in a sense that FF is a "fad" in regards to marketing, and I even contacted ARRI privately about making claims that FF has an special/magical properties over any other format size (it doesn't), there is a one big advantage to full frame that is real: we can use the full image circle provided by the VAST array of FF lenses to achieve wider angle shots, and of course shallow DOF shots become easier with FF vs. S35 (due to lens availability). I prefer shooting FF on the 1DX II, even though it's only soft-ish 1080p, for these reasons.

I used to promote ARRI as being the best camera in terms of color/look. However after tweaking the 1DX II and C300 II color (Filmic Skin picture styles for skin tones), I think Canon can be right there with ARRI. If Canon were to update their default picture styles to look more like Filmic Skin, then I think people would look at Canon in a much better light in regards to easily obtainable industry-leading skin tones. One reason ARRI does so well is skin tones tend to look good with little effort. Canon's still cameras are superb for skin tones, certainly close to (exceeding?) ARRI color, so why not with the Canon Cinema cameras?

ARRI also lost truth points calling the full frame ARRI LF "Large Format". It's not even medium format. Let's meet in the middle and call it "Larger (than Super35) Format" lol.

If Canon made the stock/default picture style for the C700 FF provide superb skin tones straight out of camera (no LUTs needed, no post needed; I know this is possible with my Filmic Skin settings for the C300 II), that would really help C700FF sales. The second stock picture style could use Canon Log 2, and only require a simple 1D LUT to fix gamma in post (no matrix or conversion to Rec709 needed).

People are "lazy". And by lazy, meaning when they get a new camera, they want to see what it can do with the least amount of work. Very few people will ever tweak picture styles, and most just want great imagery with the least amount of mucking around with settings, myself included!

In summary, I think the C700FF (note FF not LF (ARRI lol)) is a great idea, and it beats the ARRI LF in many ways:

1. Uses Canon EF lenses natively with full control
2. Provides "True 4K", 5.9K*.67 = 3.95K, ARRI LF 4.4K*.67 = 2.95K actual
3. While the ARRI LF will win a bit in the highlights (still hard to beat the dual voltage sensor readout), Canon has vastly superior low light performance
4. The XF-AVC codecs are modern, more efficient than ProRes (MJPEG variant), and provide exceptionally small 10-bit files (e.g. 50Mbps IBP 1080p) up to 12-bit RGB 444 (for most cases as good as RAW but with comparatively small files)
5. Lower power requirements
6. Autofocus! This is huge, and why I never purchased a Red or ARRI. Our productions are small, and I typically have to do everything camera/light/audio related. So no 1st AC / focus puller. I'd expect Sony's Venice to provide decent AF, and if not there today, could be upgraded as the new A7 III's FF AF is looking pretty useful. Sony is also slowly improving their skin tones, and their sensor tech is #1 (+low light), if they can tune out the 'video look' to their color science (at least as the default option), even Sony can be right up there with ARRI for color (see F65 Oblivion/Lucy for what Sony can do at the top of the line)

Thus the Canon C700FF gets the overall win in this new FF cinema camera space. True 4K, AF, great low light, and (factory) color science potentially right up there with ARRI. If the C700FF can use C300 II CP's (Custom Picture) format, then I have a good idea how to great skin tones straight out of the camera

Canon: fix the default colors and contrast, and hire a team to create something emotionally beautiful, showing fantastic skin tones and color in a wide variety of lighting conditions (+ great music). Perhaps a BTS showing: acquire camera, attach lens, set basic settings (aperture, ISO, shutter, WB, ND if needed) then shoot (no fiddling with any other settings needed), with little or no post work needed for amazing color. Feel free to contact me privately for more feedback.

 

[cpreston]

. I don't want to get too far off topic, but how much experience do you have with the 6k x7? I'd say, in good light, it's a much cleaner sensor than my c300markII, and the color seems at least as good. Regardless, I wasn't talking about the sensor, I was talking about the ability to write 6k raw to a reasonably priced SSD. DJI can do it and arrive at a very decent, high quality file. And investing in DJI's raw options will set you back about $8k for a fully functioning system...that flies...if you want 6k it's about $10k (don't start talking lenses unless you'd like to add a few lenses to any of the other base prices.)

Back to Canon. I think internal Cinema Raw Light to c-fast would have been an important feature on this camera, Canon should have included it.

I have no experience. I just have experience with the X5. I am glad that to hear that DJI is improving their cameras.

 

[Jim Martin]

I (we've) been predicting a FF C700 for a while. It's great that Canon's finally created a "True 4K" sensor which exceeds the .67 factor ("rule") for a Bayer sensor to actually produce 3840x2160 "4K" (we need 6.1K for 4096).

While I agree with Eric in a sense that FF is a "fad" in regards to marketing, and I even contacted ARRI privately about making claims that FF has an special/magical properties over any other format size (it doesn't), there is a one big advantage to full frame that is real: we can use the full image circle provided by the VAST array of FF lenses to achieve wider angle shots, and of course shallow DOF shots become easier with FF vs. S35 (due to lens availability). I prefer shooting FF on the 1DX II, even though it's only soft-ish 1080p, for these reasons.

I used to promote ARRI as being the best camera in terms of color/look. However after tweaking the 1DX II and C300 II color (Filmic Skin picture styles for skin tones), I think Canon can be right there with ARRI. If Canon were to update their default picture styles to look more like Filmic Skin, then I think people would look at Canon in a much better light in regards to easily obtainable industry-leading skin tones. One reason ARRI does so well is skin tones tend to look good with little effort. Canon's still cameras are superb for skin tones, certainly close to (exceeding?) ARRI color, so why not with the Canon Cinema cameras?

ARRI also lost truth points calling the full frame ARRI LF "Large Format". It's not even medium format. Let's meet in the middle and call it "Larger (than Super35) Format" lol.

If Canon made the stock/default picture style for the C700 FF provide superb skin tones straight out of camera (no LUTs needed, no post needed; I know this is possible with my Filmic Skin settings for the C300 II), that would really help C700FF sales. The second stock picture style could use Canon Log 2, and only require a simple 1D LUT to fix gamma in post (no matrix or conversion to Rec709 needed).

People are "lazy". And by lazy, meaning when they get a new camera, they want to see what it can do with the least amount of work. Very few people will ever tweak picture styles, and most just want great imagery with the least amount of mucking around with settings, myself included!

In summary, I think the C700FF (note FF not LF (ARRI lol)) is a great idea, and it beats the ARRI LF in many ways:

1. Uses Canon EF lenses natively with full control
2. Provides "True 4K", 5.9K*.67 = 3.95K, ARRI LF 4.4K*.67 = 2.95K actual
3. While the ARRI LF will win a bit in the highlights (still hard to beat the dual voltage sensor readout), Canon has vastly superior low light performance
4. The XF-AVC codecs are modern, more efficient than ProRes (MJPEG variant), and provide exceptionally small 10-bit files (e.g. 50Mbps IBP 1080p) up to 12-bit RGB 444 (for most cases as good as RAW but with comparatively small files)
5. Lower power requirements
6. Autofocus! This is huge, and why I never purchased a Red or ARRI. Our productions are small, and I typically have to do everything camera/light/audio related. So no 1st AC / focus puller. I'd expect Sony's Venice to provide decent AF, and if not there today, could be upgraded as the new A7 III's FF AF is looking pretty useful. Sony is also slowly improving their skin tones, and their sensor tech is #1 (+low light), if they can tune out the 'video look' to their color science (at least as the default option), even Sony can be right up there with ARRI for color (see F65 Oblivion/Lucy for what Sony can do at the top of the line)

Thus the Canon C700FF gets the overall win in this new FF cinema camera space. True 4K, AF, great low light, and (factory) color science potentially right up there with ARRI. If the C700FF can use C300 II CP's (Custom Picture) format, then I have a good idea how to great skin tones straight out of the camera

Canon: fix the default colors and contrast, and hire a team to create something emotionally beautiful, showing fantastic skin tones and color in a wide variety of lighting conditions (+ great music). Perhaps a BTS showing: acquire camera, attach lens, set basic settings (aperture, ISO, shutter, WB, ND if needed) then shoot (no fiddling with any other settings needed), with little or no post work needed for amazing color. Feel free to contact me privately for more feedback.

Well stated!

 

[Fahnon]

You missed the part about that bargain $7k codex recorder needing A) a couple of capture drives and B) a dedicated reader. Lets call the minimum codec package $23,445. Add in the camera production package, and you're at about $65k give or take. Still quite a bit lower than the rest of the bunch...but yeah. You want 6k raw off this thing...you're looking at $65k.

Fully admit I wasn't factoring in media and reader cost. If the costs quoted for the other manufacturers were factoring that in and I unfairly wasn't, I fully roll back my statement...

 

[Gary T]

As others have noted here are a number of things to like about this camera, but my excitement is tinged with disappointment. I had hoped Canon would debut an improved CRL (12-bit HFR at >1.2gbs?) in an upgraded C700 or C300. The absence of the CRL in any form is surprising and seems like a significant miss. I am also disappointed that 4K ProRes/XF-AVC are apparently limited to 10 bits. Arri has had 12 bit 444 UHD ProRes recording in the Alexa XT for almost 4 years and even the lowly (no disrespect intended) $3K BMD URSA Mini can shoot ProRes 4K 4444 XQ. I suspect there isn’t any any technical feature Canon would like URSA Mini Pro owners to say is clearly superior about their BMD cameras when compared to the C700 FF.

I know purists will say “always shoot raw” but that ignores the phenomenal success Alexa shooters continue to have with ProRes. I think this is a big miss in a flagship camera that appears to be intended to compete with the best that the industry has to offer. Since the C700 FF starts with a 6K sensor I think giving this camera a supersampled 12-bit 4K 4:4:4 internal codec would have been a perfect opportunity to make the C700 FF shine even if the data rate meant they could only swing it at 24P.

Hopefully Canon will come out with a CRL white paper soon. Much of what I read online about the details of how CRL works appears to be guesswork and many of the guessers are Canon haters. I have high hopes for the format; hopefully Canon will reconsider it’s omission in the C700 and will continue to work to broaden support for the format.

Of course my nitpicking is irrelevant if the C700 FF picture quality blows away that of the Alexa Mini but even that is true I would still want a 12 bit compressed codec. I’ve seen what a talented colorist can do with ProRes 4444 from the Alexa and it’s magical.

In any case I am definitely looking forward to seeing footage.

 

[Plexi Head]

I (we've) been predicting a FF C700 for a while. It's great that Canon's finally created a "True 4K" sensor which exceeds the .67 factor ("rule") for a Bayer sensor to actually produce 3840x2160 "4K" (we need 6.1K for 4096).

While I agree with Eric in a sense that FF is a "fad" in regards to marketing, and I even contacted ARRI privately about making claims that FF has an special/magical properties over any other format size (it doesn't), there is a one big advantage to full frame that is real: we can use the full image circle provided by the VAST array of FF lenses to achieve wider angle shots, and of course shallow DOF shots become easier with FF vs. S35 (due to lens availability). I prefer shooting FF on the 1DX II, even though it's only soft-ish 1080p, for these reasons.

I used to promote ARRI as being the best camera in terms of color/look. However after tweaking the 1DX II and C300 II color (Filmic Skin picture styles for skin tones), I think Canon can be right there with ARRI. If Canon were to update their default picture styles to look more like Filmic Skin, then I think people would look at Canon in a much better light in regards to easily obtainable industry-leading skin tones. One reason ARRI does so well is skin tones tend to look good with little effort. Canon's still cameras are superb for skin tones, certainly close to (exceeding?) ARRI color, so why not with the Canon Cinema cameras?

ARRI also lost truth points calling the full frame ARRI LF "Large Format". It's not even medium format. Let's meet in the middle and call it "Larger (than Super35) Format" lol.

If Canon made the stock/default picture style for the C700 FF provide superb skin tones straight out of camera (no LUTs needed, no post needed; I know this is possible with my Filmic Skin settings for the C300 II), that would really help C700FF sales. The second stock picture style could use Canon Log 2, and only require a simple 1D LUT to fix gamma in post (no matrix or conversion to Rec709 needed).

People are "lazy". And by lazy, meaning when they get a new camera, they want to see what it can do with the least amount of work. Very few people will ever tweak picture styles, and most just want great imagery with the least amount of mucking around with settings, myself included!

In summary, I think the C700FF (note FF not LF (ARRI lol)) is a great idea, and it beats the ARRI LF in many ways:

1. Uses Canon EF lenses natively with full control
2. Provides "True 4K", 5.9K*.67 = 3.95K, ARRI LF 4.4K*.67 = 2.95K actual
3. While the ARRI LF will win a bit in the highlights (still hard to beat the dual voltage sensor readout), Canon has vastly superior low light performance
4. The XF-AVC codecs are modern, more efficient than ProRes (MJPEG variant), and provide exceptionally small 10-bit files (e.g. 50Mbps IBP 1080p) up to 12-bit RGB 444 (for most cases as good as RAW but with comparatively small files)
5. Lower power requirements
6. Autofocus! This is huge, and why I never purchased a Red or ARRI. Our productions are small, and I typically have to do everything camera/light/audio related. So no 1st AC / focus puller. I'd expect Sony's Venice to provide decent AF, and if not there today, could be upgraded as the new A7 III's FF AF is looking pretty useful. Sony is also slowly improving their skin tones, and their sensor tech is #1 (+low light), if they can tune out the 'video look' to their color science (at least as the default option), even Sony can be right up there with ARRI for color (see F65 Oblivion/Lucy for what Sony can do at the top of the line)

Thus the Canon C700FF gets the overall win in this new FF cinema camera space. True 4K, AF, great low light, and (factory) color science potentially right up there with ARRI. If the C700FF can use C300 II CP's (Custom Picture) format, then I have a good idea how to great skin tones straight out of the camera

Canon: fix the default colors and contrast, and hire a team to create something emotionally beautiful, showing fantastic skin tones and color in a wide variety of lighting conditions (+ great music). Perhaps a BTS showing: acquire camera, attach lens, set basic settings (aperture, ISO, shutter, WB, ND if needed) then shoot (no fiddling with any other settings needed), with little or no post work needed for amazing color. Feel free to contact me privately for more feedback.

Damn, that was a seriously enjoyable read. Thanks!

 

[IanTheM]

This camera is the right move for Canon, in a lot of ways, but it also doesn't make that sense for what their strategy should be. The super high end market just isn't there for the C700, no matter what they're 3rd in line after Arri and RED on any project, and plenty of people sing the praises of the Varicam, while I haven't heard a pip about the C700.

If I were them I would completely focus on owning the midrange. Their most loyal base is the low end, and they have huge leverage with EF. Instead of a C700 I'd love to see something like two C300 IIIs. A studio body version and a classic small body, both with FF sensors (which they put in their $4K cameras anyway.) I expect something like this from the next C300, they did a lot of good with the C200 asides from the ridiculous segmentation and not having 10-bit.

 

[indiawilds]

Good points. Nice read.

I (we've) been predicting a FF C700 for a while. It's great that Canon's finally created a "True 4K" sensor which exceeds the .67 factor ("rule") for a Bayer sensor to actually produce 3840x2160 "4K" (we need 6.1K for 4096).

While I agree with Eric in a sense that FF is a "fad" in regards to marketing, and I even contacted ARRI privately about making claims that FF has an special/magical properties over any other format size (it doesn't), there is a one big advantage to full frame that is real: we can use the full image circle provided by the VAST array of FF lenses to achieve wider angle shots, and of course shallow DOF shots become easier with FF vs. S35 (due to lens availability). I prefer shooting FF on the 1DX II, even though it's only soft-ish 1080p, for these reasons.

I used to promote ARRI as being the best camera in terms of color/look. However after tweaking the 1DX II and C300 II color (Filmic Skin picture styles for skin tones), I think Canon can be right there with ARRI. If Canon were to update their default picture styles to look more like Filmic Skin, then I think people would look at Canon in a much better light in regards to easily obtainable industry-leading skin tones. One reason ARRI does so well is skin tones tend to look good with little effort. Canon's still cameras are superb for skin tones, certainly close to (exceeding?) ARRI color, so why not with the Canon Cinema cameras?

ARRI also lost truth points calling the full frame ARRI LF "Large Format". It's not even medium format. Let's meet in the middle and call it "Larger (than Super35) Format" lol.

If Canon made the stock/default picture style for the C700 FF provide superb skin tones straight out of camera (no LUTs needed, no post needed; I know this is possible with my Filmic Skin settings for the C300 II), that would really help C700FF sales. The second stock picture style could use Canon Log 2, and only require a simple 1D LUT to fix gamma in post (no matrix or conversion to Rec709 needed).

People are "lazy". And by lazy, meaning when they get a new camera, they want to see what it can do with the least amount of work. Very few people will ever tweak picture styles, and most just want great imagery with the least amount of mucking around with settings, myself included!

In summary, I think the C700FF (note FF not LF (ARRI lol)) is a great idea, and it beats the ARRI LF in many ways:

1. Uses Canon EF lenses natively with full control
2. Provides "True 4K", 5.9K*.67 = 3.95K, ARRI LF 4.4K*.67 = 2.95K actual
3. While the ARRI LF will win a bit in the highlights (still hard to beat the dual voltage sensor readout), Canon has vastly superior low light performance
4. The XF-AVC codecs are modern, more efficient than ProRes (MJPEG variant), and provide exceptionally small 10-bit files (e.g. 50Mbps IBP 1080p) up to 12-bit RGB 444 (for most cases as good as RAW but with comparatively small files)
5. Lower power requirements
6. Autofocus! This is huge, and why I never purchased a Red or ARRI. Our productions are small, and I typically have to do everything camera/light/audio related. So no 1st AC / focus puller. I'd expect Sony's Venice to provide decent AF, and if not there today, could be upgraded as the new A7 III's FF AF is looking pretty useful. Sony is also slowly improving their skin tones, and their sensor tech is #1 (+low light), if they can tune out the 'video look' to their color science (at least as the default option), even Sony can be right up there with ARRI for color (see F65 Oblivion/Lucy for what Sony can do at the top of the line)

Thus the Canon C700FF gets the overall win in this new FF cinema camera space. True 4K, AF, great low light, and (factory) color science potentially right up there with ARRI. If the C700FF can use C300 II CP's (Custom Picture) format, then I have a good idea how to great skin tones straight out of the camera

Canon: fix the default colors and contrast, and hire a team to create something emotionally beautiful, showing fantastic skin tones and color in a wide variety of lighting conditions (+ great music). Perhaps a BTS showing: acquire camera, attach lens, set basic settings (aperture, ISO, shutter, WB, ND if needed) then shoot (no fiddling with any other settings needed), with little or no post work needed for amazing color. Feel free to contact me privately for more feedback.

 

[mproust14]

Fully admit I wasn't factoring in media and reader cost. If the costs quoted for the other manufacturers were factoring that in and I unfairly wasn't, I fully roll back my statement...

He is throwing numbers out there - he doesn't actually know what the costs are to add the unit, plus media and reader. I would be very surprised if it was in excess of 25k as he claims, but then again he is welcomed to post the relevant links which would back up his claims. From memory, the card and reader add up to 11k which with the unit is about 18k on top of the camera. Plus you have to remember that the accessories for the camera are another 5k. Thats around 60k for the whole package.

I'd be interested to see what he thinks the Arri and Red fully kitted out cost. I think the red for body alone is 80k and the arri is more than that. So most likely you are looking at doubling the price of the camera.

This camera is the right move for Canon, in a lot of ways, but it also doesn't make that sense for what their strategy should be. The super high end market just isn't there for the C700, no matter what they're 3rd in line after Arri and RED on any project, and plenty of people sing the praises of the Varicam, while I haven't heard a pip about the C700.

If I were them I would completely focus on owning the midrange. Their most loyal base is the low end, and they have huge leverage with EF. Instead of a C700 I'd love to see something like two C300 IIIs. A studio body version and a classic small body, both with FF sensors (which they put in their $4K cameras anyway.) I expect something like this from the next C300, they did a lot of good with the C200 asides from the ridiculous segmentation and not having 10-bit.

I don't see why canon can't compete at this price point. You have to remember that you aren't making apples to apples comparisons here as most of the reds and arris aren't full frame and the varicam certainly isn't. It is a great price for full frame. I see it competing with Red definitely as their images aren't as good as the Canon's. Arri will remain arri though I agree with you there. But there most definitely is a need for this camera.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

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.

Codex is $7k, $7k for a 2TB memory card (you'd probably want at least two, so $14k), and $5.7k for the memory card reader. So, about $27k just for a codex setup with two cards and one reader.

 

[Mark Smith]

I am curious about your filmic skin profile for the 300Mk2. What did you do to solve the problem that you Think Canon has with skin tones. I’ve done a bit of work in this area with my own camera profiles and have got something that I think is better than ‘out of the box’ but I am always open to learning new solutions.

 

[Run&Gun]

Codex is $7k, $7k for a 2TB memory card (you'd probably want at least two, so $14k), and $5.7k for the memory card reader. So, about $27k just for a codex setup with two cards and one reader.

So we are back up to ~$65K. Body is $33K, VF is $6K and Eric did the math for a CODEX set-up at $27K. That puts it at $66K for a fairly minimal set-up that can utilize the camera to its fullest potential.