Canon to release a C500 II RF version

In general, I think people will be getting used to new cameras every year or two.

Obviously if the price of these is something drastically less then most owners may be upset, but either way it's not gong to be a nice feeling as newer cameras always have something you may want/like (but maybe also things you don't like).
 
NorBro said:
In general, I think people will be getting used to new cameras every year or two.

Obviously if the price of these is something drastically less then most owners may be upset, but either way it's not gong to be a nice feeling as newer cameras always have something you may want/like (but maybe also things you don't like).
Click to expand...

I think the price will be the same and the EF mount will see a price drop. I wanted to buy the C300 III and held off because of the EF mount. Now if we get a C500 II with DGO and 120fps it will render the existing EF 500 useless (sorry c500 II owners, but that's Canon, always trying to double dip).
 
They will milk the releases...probably will not see them until next summer/fall.

By then the C500 Mark II (in today's world) will be getting getting old (~2 years) and the C300 Mark III will have been around for a year or so.

Everyone waited to release all of the good stuff after a pandemic. :huh:
 
NorBro said:
They will milk the releases...probably wouldn't see them until next summer/fall.

By then the C500 Mark II (in today's world) will be getting getting old (~2 years) and the C300 Mark III for a year or so.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we will not see this release till NAB/summer. Now if it has DGO with 8k and decent frame rates, it will be a camera that I can buy and use for a while without worrying about my investment going obsolete in two years.
 
Canon had to wait with their higher end models until more RF lenses became available. And there's allegedly a slew of new releases on the way.
 
Ken1212 said:
Agreed, we will not see this release till NAB/summer. Now if it has DGO with 8k and decent frame rates, it will be a camera that I can buy and use for a while without worrying about my investment going obsolete in two years.
Click to expand...

Obsolescence is a state of mind. (Unless the client demands 8K.) This will not render the C500mk2 obsolete nor will many clients be aware of what it's missing IMO

If you need a camera now, buy now. If you can wait for an upgrade, then maybe you dont need a new camera at all

If you used the C500mk2 for a year and then resold it and bought the RF version, you would probably still come out ahead over waiting that whole time

1.25x anamorphic lenses seem kind of lame
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
Obsolescence is a state of mind. This will not render the C500mk2 obsolete nor will many clients be aware of what it's missing IMO

If you need a camera now, buy now. If you can wait for an upgrade, then maybe you dont need a new camera at all

If you used the C500mk2 for a year and then resold it and bought the RF version, you probably still came out ahead over waiting that whole time
Click to expand...

There are 5 plus years old cameras that are still viable for some projects but lost most their value. You can grab a Sony F55 for $6400k on eBay, today, I am sure you know what price it was released at. Now 5 plus years is okay but 2 to 3 years for over 10k purchase is not. If you need a C500 II today for a couple days shoot knowing it's on it's way out in about a year, you can rent it instead of buying.

This is a fact weather we want to acknowledge it or not that all EF cameras are on their way out. If the RF version of the C500 II will be released at the same 16k price with full frame DGO sensor, 8k and 120fps+ then in my opinion the EF version will be picked used around $5K within couple years. Canon could have released the C300 III and the C500 II with RF mount and fooled their clients by claiming they went EF because there is not enough RF lenses even though you could use EF lenses on an RF mount. Canon is simply trying to milk their loyal customers, this year you buy the EF version and next year you buy the RF one.
 
Last edited:
Ken1212 said:
There are 5 plus years old cameras that are still viable for some projects but lost most their value. You can grab a Sony F55 for $6400k on eBay, today, I am sure you know what price it was released at. Now 5 plus years is okay but 2 to 3 years for over 10k purchase is not. If you need a C500 II today for a couple days shoot knowing it's on it's way out in about a year, you can rent it instead of buying.

This is a fact weather we want to acknowledge it or not that all EF cameras are on their way out. If the RF version of the C500 II will be released at the same 16k price with full frame DGO sensor, 8k and 120fps+ then in my opinion the EF version will be picked used around $5K within couple years. Canon could have released the C300 III and the C500 II with RF mount and fooled their clients by claiming they went EF because there is not enough RF lenses even though you could use EF lenses on an RF mount. Canon is simply trying to milk their loyal customers, this year you buy the EF version and next year you buy the RF one.
Click to expand...

I’m still shooting and making money with my F55(started shipping in 2013), original C300(started shipping in 2012) and P2 VariCam(started shipping in 2008).

We thought after Betacam, we’d never get that kind of service life and universal acceptance from the “newer” cameras with all of the various formats. Turns out we were wrong.
 
Run&Gun said:
I’m still shooting and making money with my F55(started shipping in 2013), original C300(started shipping in 2012) and P2 VariCam(started shipping in 2008).

We thought after Betacam, we’d never get that kind of service life and universal acceptance from the “newer” cameras with all of the various formats. Turns out we were wrong.
Click to expand...

Look how dvxusers go gaga for the F35. Resolution is the only thing holding it back (though it would still be much more expensive if it shot 4K)

I dont plan on upgrading my FS7/A7SIII until they fall out of demand in favor of newer models or higher resolutions, or until I ascend to a higher priced camera/rate. It's telling that the FS7 and especially the A7SII are still so requested. It definitely pays off to make a big splash upon release
 
The Arri Amira is six years old and still going strong and the current model of its type. It's a matter of making good choices when it comes to camera longevity. Red, Blackmagic, and many other manufacturers have poor track records of releasing cameras that hold their value.
 
You can't include Blackmagic in that conversation because half of their cameras cost what a few batteries cost for other systems. And if someone purchases a UMP for $6K they most likely know their work well and it's not going to lose much value for those people.

If anything the cheaper ones pack way more value 2-3x their cost.

It's always tougher when you sink a lot of money into an expensive system no matter who makes it.

Because even if I had an AMIRA right now it doesn't mean I'll have work.

These kind of larger investments are like anything else in life in which you're most likely mindful of the business and have a plan, but they become more difficult to make in a volatile industry, which is why barely anyone wants to purchase an expensive camera.

Like $5K is not the end of the world, but $15K-$20K+ becomes a problem if things don't work out.
 
NorBro said:
Because even if I had an AMIRA right now it doesn't mean I'll have work.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it boils to. If I get asked for a C500 II today and I know I have few jobs within the next few months that can generate $50K+ then it's a very valid business purchase.

The question is what type of politics will Canon play this time, will they go all out with the upcoming RF mount to generate sales. Or will they limit some specs such as keeping the resolution at 6k instead of 8k?
 
Ken1212 said:
That's exactly what it boils to. If I get asked for a C500 II today and I know I have few jobs within the next few months that can generate $50K+ then it's a very valid business purchase.

The question is what type of politics will Canon play this time, will they go all out with the upcoming RF mount to generate sales. Or will they limit some specs such as keeping the resolution at 6k instead of 8k?
Click to expand...

Can they even put DGO on a FF sensor at this point? Maybe up to 30fps? The C300mk3 is limited to DGO up to 60fps right? and it's only a 4K sensor
 
Last edited:
docmoore said:
Focus by wire ... really high end.
Click to expand...

Welcome to 2020.

In any case, now that R5 broke the 8K duck - and at the unlikeliest spot on top of that - Canon is likely to release several 8K cameras. As will Sony, which is rumored to have something similar to R5 at a similar price point. Where that places C500MKII and C300 MKIII is anyone's guess but it wouldn't be surprising to have 2-3 new 8K models from Sony and Canon each.

For the references purposes, Z Cam's F8 is $6,000, so the Japanese are unlikely to dip below it but also unlikely to overcharge too much beyond it for the same performance/features. One has to assume that BMD is working on its own F8 competitor as well.
 
Is the z cam f8 really relevant?

And regarding 8K - I feel like the pipeline to support watching it must be a few years away, no? What are the 4K TV options today? Do people regularly watch 4K YouTube and Netflix? 8K requires 8x the bandwidrh. Or H266 decoders so that it matches 4K H264 bandwidth
 
ahalpert said:
Is the z cam f8 really relevant? ...
Click to expand...
It is, much like BMD's 12K. It indicates the achievable parameters as a given price point.

Of course, its cripple hammer aside, R5 is a real standard setter here. 8K under $4K. Now, try to sell a 4K camera for triple the price.
 
8k is relevant today for some.... 6K-8K are great acquisition formats for publishing in 4k. 12k will be an acquisition format for 8k delivery once 4k delivery / 4k television finally becomes more standard (we are starting to get there) but 8k television is still some time away. Resolution is such an interesting topic when you stand back and look at it from above and remove all the marketing jargon from the conversation. For years many were happy with a 12-24mp DSLR cameras even for commercial/industrial photography and high-res printing and then we finally saw the Sony a7rii take resolution (Prosumer Market) to up over 42mp and now the Sony a7riv at 61mp with Hasselblad's (Pro Market) in the 50-100mp range. Same thing with digital cinema cameras, 4k used to be revolutionary (RED One) but now we have achieved RAW at 8-12k resolution out of S35 and FF sensors. The most ironic thing is when shooting on any 8K camera (say a RED helium) many chose, including myself to shoot vintage cinema glass to soften the image to give it more a filmic and less digital rendition out of the gate to reduce the digital feel and harshness which is more evident from 8k sensors. Same goes with high resolution DSLR's as many add filtration (i.e. pro mist filter, etc.) to soften and smooth out the image from the extreme sharpness and detail that comes with such high megapixel capture. My question is, when will we reach a breaking point where more resolution actually becomes less aesthetically pleasing in terms of a visual aesthetic vs. a cost to benefit ratio. More resolution means more detail and wrinkles on talent, more issues with moire and aliasing (OLPF becomes way more important), larger data rates during acquisition, slower render times, larger files sizes for client deliverables and long term storage, etc. So, if you are not doing VFX / Green Screen work where re-framing and extra resolution means something, printing for industrial or scientific clients who demands extreme detail at the largest size possible, or shooting an IMAX documentary for NatGEO then what is to benefit from 8-12k resolution? I currently own and have been shooting on a RED Gemini (5k) for the last year and RED Komodo (6k) I just purchased and both produce extraordinarily beautiful images while still being able to have extra resolution for 4k delivery. Even with these lower resolution cinema cameras (5-6k res) you can export any desired frame to a .TIFF, retouch/color to taste and run commercial prints at large scale with great success. Helium or Monstro (8k) are even more detailed in this regard but I find current data rates and level of sharpness to be acceptable at (5-6k) and I am not sure if I would really want 8-12k resolution on most projects that don't have extremely large budgets or demand extreme detail. I have seen 2k resolution images of out of Alexa that looks as detailed and just as good as 8K Monstro images side by side so the entire story is not being told by resolution alone but rather all the characteristics of the sensor to include dynamic range, micro-contrast, highlight rolloff, noise, and many other aspects at how the sensors pixels capture light is really what gives a sensor its digital fingerprint or "Look". I would be interested to see everyone elses opinion in this regard and to see if you all think 8-12k resolution is necessary and what benefit there may be to shooting at such a high resolution acquisition format versus other great cinema cameras that shoot 5-6k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top