Canon Rumors: Canon C300 Mark II will be 4K...

And since this is a rumor, may as well guess the price on the C300 Mark II or C400..................I'd say $15K. Remember, Canon is Apple (or they act like they're Apple)!
 
I doubt the C-300 MK I has the processing power to be upgraded to 4K.

And my guess is $10K, with C-100 MK II being lowered to $5K, thereby keeping in line with the double-the-price-per-model notion.

FWIW, I also assume FS-700 MK II is lurking somewhere in the background.
 
Can any camera company who hopes to sell to the film making community not include 4k at this point? That just seems like it would be sales suicide to me. For that matter can any camera company really afford to just sit back and not release a 4k camera soon?

I know HD will be with us for a long time yet, but 4k seems to be a new expectation these days. Even if one doesn't plan on delivering 4k any time soon.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Can any camera company who hopes to sell to the film making community not include 4k at this point?
Click to expand...

Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.

- I would rather have 4 times the pixel area, to be spent either on more dynamic range or on circuitry for global shutter.
- I would rather have 4 times the ISO.
- I would rather have 4 times the maximum frame rate.
- I would rather have one quarter the media costs.
- Given the same bitrate, I would rather have four times the bits for each pixel, for fewer picture artifacts.

4K is the 100x digital zoom of the twenty-first century.
 
when you start to shoot more and more in 4K, one will see there's really no reason to go back to HD unless you are being asked to by the person paying you
 
combatentropy said:
Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.


- I would rather have 4 times the pixel area, to be spent either on more dynamic range or on circuitry for global shutter.
- I would rather have 4 times the ISO.
- I would rather have 4 times the maximum frame rate.
- I would rather have one quarter the media costs.
- Given the same bitrate, I would rather have four times the bits for each pixel, for fewer picture artifacts.
Click to expand...
One point that misses is that a 4k camera can be used as a HD camera, but not the other way round. It makes more sense to talk of a 4k CAPABLE camera.

And in such a lot of what you prefer then follows in HD mode. In principle, averaging photosites or downscaling can be considered comparable to having fewer larger ones in the first place.
 
Obviously the next C300 will be 4k, there'd be no reason to release anything otherwise. The disappointment is in the fact that the sensor won't be any better, of course Canon's sensors are fantastic in low light and that's a great advantage of have in most situations with video, but Sony seems to be a step ahead on all fronts, except for colour.

I'm interested in what the C500 will become. I think Canon could come up with a nice system to compete with the F5. Canon's tech is rarely the best, but their entire systems, including the lenses and colour implementation, are usually great. Lots of people will be interested in staying with Canon, if they can undercut Sony a bit.

I wonder if Canon will just get out of the sensor business in general, and focus on their lenses/software, now that they're so behind. Even Sony's sensor division isn't making much money, from what I've heard, and Canon doesn't have enough to fall back on if their sensor division isn't doing too well. Maybe they'll go the RED route and get sensors from 3rd party companies like DALSA or TowerJazz.
 
combatentropy said:
Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.

Great post! Can 4k be as light sensitive as a 1080p camera? The C300 already starts with a lot of resolution and sends out 1080p. How sensitive would it be if it sent out a 4k signal? For me, light sensitivity/noise is the bedrock of professional cameras. As long as they can keep these the same as current milestones then I am all for 4k. What I would not be into is a compromise of Combat's list just to have the 4k resolution.
Click to expand...
 
A7s is that "light sensitive" camera but I wonder if there is room for several of this type at this relatively low price range.

The high end/feature film/prime time TV model might have a Full Frame 20-24 MPX sensor that combines both the good ISO performance with high DR and a 6K resolution. A high/pro hybrid camera such as D4 or 1D series might have something close to it but it will be limited in other areas. Further ISO improvements will then come from processing rather than from the sensors themselves.
 
combatentropy said:
Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.

- I would rather have 4 times the pixel area, to be spent either on more dynamic range or on circuitry for global shutter.
- I would rather have 4 times the ISO.
- I would rather have 4 times the maximum frame rate.
- I would rather have one quarter the media costs.
- Given the same bitrate, I would rather have four times the bits for each pixel, for fewer picture artifacts.

.
Click to expand...

Why does DR, ISO etc have to be at the expense of resolution? You will see 4K plus higher DR, ISO, bitrate etc. The only opposed element you listed seems to be DR & Global shutter. Seems to do it on the cheap DR is reduced.

combatentropy said:
4K is the 100x digital zoom of the twenty-first century
Click to expand...

I will highly disagree with this statement. Digital zoom degrades an image capturing 4 times the resolution does not. I have found 4K to be amazing for 1080 delivery on projects I do post. Why wouldn't anyone want extra flexibility in post? I won't go back to shooting HD unless I have to in order to drop off to a client or a specialized shot like overcrank.
 
combatentropy said:
Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.

- I would rather have 4 times the pixel area, to be spent either on more dynamic range or on circuitry for global shutter.
- I would rather have 4 times the ISO.
- I would rather have 4 times the maximum frame rate.
- I would rather have one quarter the media costs.
- Given the same bitrate, I would rather have four times the bits for each pixel, for fewer picture artifacts.

4K is the 100x digital zoom of the twenty-first century.
Click to expand...
A 4K sensor can have all that you want, including a high dynamic range and a global shutter. Currently global-shutter circuitry and photosites vie for sensor real eastate, but my understanding is that that's unnecessary with a stacked design.
 
-Canon sensors are great, among the best in the market.
-Sony Semiconductors is enormously successful, and they make ones of the best sensors out there
-Red makes their own image sensors,

what's wrong with Canon Sensor technology? Let's look at really, does the Sony FS100 produce better images than the comparable C100?
Better in what,
resolution?
Sensitivity?
Dynamic range?
Noise texture?
Artefacts (rolling shutter, aliasing etc)
Colour accuracy and fedility?

Hoq about the Sony flagship and Canon Flagship, F55 vs C500, since both cameras provide access to the full sensor potential,
Is the F55 better im resolution/detail?
Sensitivity?
Dynamic range?
Artefacts (rolling shutter aliasing moire)
Colour fedility?

I think most of the users who used both sensors would agree than the Canon one is enormously better in sensitivty, in colour fedility, while sony is only ahead in lower rolling shutter, while the Canon has lower aliasing artefacts in high speed modes where the Sony requires a special OLPF. Resolution and DR is pretty much the same.

I see nothing wrong with Canon's sensor technology, they're certainly very competetive to the world's largest sensor manufacturer, Sony.
It's HIGHLY unlike they would stop that enormously successful business, which is making imaging sensors to the Canon C300, the most successful video camera in years in broadcast/news, the C100 that dominates the wedding industry and small business production companies, the 5D which is the most successful video DSLR in history, and started the entire revolution, and the Canon rebels which are the best selling and most successful cera system in the world. There's absolutely no reason to stop making sensors.
 
Bassman2003 said:
combatentropy said:
Yes. I for one would rather have anything besides 4K.

Great post! Can 4k be as light sensitive as a 1080p camera? The C300 already starts with a lot of resolution and sends out 1080p. How sensitive would it be if it sent out a 4k signal? For me, light sensitivity/noise is the bedrock of professional cameras. As long as they can keep these the same as current milestones then I am all for 4k. What I would not be into is a compromise of Combat's list just to have the 4k resolution.
Click to expand...

The C300 is already using a 4k sensor so the sensitivity would likely be identical to what the C300 can already do. Where you may notice more noise is that fact that the C300 like the GH4 starts with 4k and down converts to HD for the recorded image. Only difference is with the GH4 that must be done in post. That process of down converting cleans up the image and helps reduce noise. so 4k from the C300 with the same sensor could end up having more noise when viewed as 4k. If you down convert in post then it should be a wash to what the C300 can currently do.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone slating Canon sensors are paying too much attention to the paper specs at optimum ISO.

Canon has a beautiful image across a broader range of ISOs.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
what's wrong with Canon Sensor technology? Let's look at really, does the Sony FS100 produce better images than the comparable C100?
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with Canon sensors at all but I wouldn't compare cameras that are 1.5 years apart in design at the start of the affordable large chip revolution.

Only the C500 has any sort of high speed so I don't how you can claim that Canon has superior high speed. They have only one model capable and not even internally.

The C300II will be a great camera I have no doubt. I hope Canon fixes some of the design issues I had with the C300 for usability as a single operator (xlr/audio pot location pod). I personally won't be waiting around for the C300II and imagine it will be in the $14K-$16K range. I imagine it will have 4K and overcrank to 120 in HD(it really should at this point). Maybe 60p in 4K maybe 10bit but who knows. I also would imagine Canon keeps their 12stop DR in CLog as it seems well mated for 8bit codecs and should be even better in 10bit. I would love to see a Canon made option to swap between PL & EF in a nice slick way.

I have a camera purchase to make before the end of the year and am shacking up with the FS7 for now but Canon is always a serious contender and all future lens purchases will be Canon most likely in order to keep it easy on the FS7 or C300II if I need one down the line for a gig. I am pretty brand agnostic and love the push of competition amungst the big boys.
 
DLD said:
I doubt the C-300 MK I has the processing power to be upgraded to 4K.

And my guess is $10K, with C-100 MK II being lowered to $5K, thereby keeping in line with the double-the-price-per-model notion.

FWIW, I also assume FS-700 MK II is lurking somewhere in the background.
Click to expand...


$10,000 for a new C300 Mk II? Oh, I don't see that happening. The C100 Mk II was $500 more than the original C100, wasn't it? I expect to see the Mk II in the $12-13,000 range, maybe even higher. And i wonder if the EOS shoulder mount design in the rumor would be the new C300 Mk II? I like the C300, but as a hand held camera, give me a true shoulder mount any day.

And Sony already has the FS700 Mk II - they call it the FS7. :happy:
 
vanvideo said:
... And Sony already has the FS700 Mk II - they call it the FS7. :happy:
Click to expand...

First of all, Sony will/should/ought to/must have a 4K camera in the $4,000-$5,000 range (and it will have more than one eventually). As will Panasonic (as per the AF-200 discussion). And JVC.

Second, C-300 MK II prices will be kept down precisely due to the FS-7 presence and also the presumed desire to keep C-500 MK II in their lineup. The per model price doubling $7,500-$15,000-$30,000 that was in place three years ago will still be in force but at much lower points due to the technological advances in the intervening time frame. As of now, C 100 MK II is $5,500, so it shouldn't be too difficult to drop it to $5,000. Then they'll have the $5-$10-$20,000 pricing structure.

BTW, it's also not unusual for the middle of the lineup to have the best sales numbers since it usually has the best value of all models. The entry level is slightly crippled, the top of the line is slightly overpriced and that leaves the middle that everyone gravitates toward. Sort of like your C-300 ... with the 300 horsepower engine that sits above the B- and the CLA- but below CL-, E- and S-.

That's my marketing talk and I am sticking to it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top