Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

someone on newsshooter commented that while the C70 uses 80% of the frame for AF (vs virtually 100% on the R5), it will only use 60% of the frame when using the speedbooster. Im not sure if that's true. At any rate. 80% of the frame does impose limitations vs using the whole frame
 
ahalpert said:
There's definitely still a weight advantage for an all-day ronin-s shooter like me to using a mirrorless camera like the A7SIII over the C70.

A7siii with battery = 1.35 lbs

C70 + BP-A30 + metabones speedbooster (assuming that the Canon version will have similar weight) = 3.5 lbs

The 1DXmk3 is 3.17 lbs with battery and memory
Click to expand...
Truth^

Having travelled with a 1DC, I can tell you that 3lbs gets heavy much quicker. Part of the reason I am glad RED kept the Komodo down to 2lbs (no batt). At that size every pound counts.
 
Teddy_Dem said:
This is a bit of a longer more in-depth review with footage. There are controlled over and under exposure tests compared against the C300MKIII and C200 starting at 35:21. The C70 fares pretty well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_qM6U--chGg&feature=emb_title
Click to expand...

Man the c300mk3 4k120p is so soft in her moving hair. And of course DGO is gone.

The AF on both cameras seems very slow to respond to his face as he walks towards camera from the background.

The underexposure test of the C70 is very impressive! Seems on par with thr c300mk3. But look how the C70 loses saturation in the overexposure test waaaay faster than the c300mk3. Definitely image differences between the cameras
 
ahalpert said:
Man the c300mk3 4k120p is so soft in her moving hair. And of course DGO is gone.

The AF on both cameras seems very slow to respond to his face as he walks towards camera from the background.

The underexposure test of the C70 is very impressive! Seems on par with thr c300mk3. But look how the C70 loses saturation in the overexposure test waaaay faster than the c300mk3. Definitely image differences between the cameras
Click to expand...

I'm still not used to comments like this. Mainly because I am still not used to auto focus being a thing on "cine" cameras. But also, after 10years of "2K is perfect" arguments, hearing people complain about mushy 4K and super sampling 8K... I literally have no idea why physics and art have changed in the last couple years, but apparently human vision has vastly evolved in resolution. Who have thought staring at screens all day would help us evolve better eye sight?
 
The issue with the hair is it looking softer than the rest of the image and sharper when the hair is at rest. But yeah generally I'm not a sharpness fanatic.

I think you've been saying that the A7SIII should have enough resolution for stills. But the problem there is photogs crop their shots like crazy. so they can take 25MP and end up with 8. I once showed a photog friend a photo I took and she said "nice cropping" and I was like, "it's not a cropping, it's a framing"
 
ahalpert said:
The issue with the hair is it looking softer than the rest of the image and sharper when the hair is at rest. But yeah generally I'm not a sharpness fanatic.
Click to expand...
Sure, but soft 4K is basically sharp 2K. So, not sure the softness will matter, unless it is some art installation project that is trying to make moving photographs on 8K 100" screens.

Movies typically have some form of editing or camera movement, so resolution is less important in a "Cine" camera, as the director can either move the camera closer or cut to a detail shot if they need to show the audience more detail. And if it is an ultra wide vista shot...then slomo may not be necessary... as at that distance, most things already appear to move pretty slow. YMMV

The term "cine" in video cameras has begun to lose it's value, as cine is quickly becoming the less demanding camera segment.


ahalpert said:
I think you've been saying that the A7SIII should have enough resolution for stills. But the problem there is photogs crop their shots like crazy. so they can take 25MP and end up with 8. I once showed a photog friend a photo I took and she said "nice cropping" and I was like, "it's not a cropping, it's a framing"
Click to expand...
I'm a little confused by this statement.

It was a contextual statement. The A7sIII is a low light beast in part because it has fewer pixels. 12MP is enough for the A7sIII. 12MP isn't some defacto standard for all working professional photographers. It is enough for people that value the unique features that the A7sIII would NOT be able to have, it it were a 25MP camera.

If someone wants to shoot daytime nature photos they plan to print large and sell.... why in the literal hell would they even care that a Sony A7sIII doesn't have 25MP or more? They have so many other camera options. However, if you are shooting a nature doc video under moonlight, you basically only have the A7sIII.

It reminds me of when they started making Mini Coopers bigger, because people wanted more room and functionality, but also wanted a Mini Cooper... (oh yeah, I went there) You want 100MP, get a 100MP camera. You want a low light video camera in a mirrorless form factor? Get an A7s. Stop trying to make an A7s be the A7. The A7 already exists.
 
NorBro said:
Takes the A series batteries.
Click to expand...

Interesting. They have pretty good run times? Hopefully they are cheaper.

This C70 seems like a really good entry level C series.

XC10 - built in lens 1" sensor mini camera
C70 - stop gap between mirrorless and C.
C100 - basic model
C200 - basic raw model
C300 - pro s35 with ENG sensibilities
C500 - was once the cine-cine version, but now seems to be the FF35 version.
C700 - EOL? experimental high end cine flagship model?
C700FF (they maybe should have gone with C800, which is a legendary Sony Mic, so it already has a nice high end ring to it. )
 
Last edited:
One of the things I really like about BM slow motion is how moving hair renders so clearly and doesn't become a goopy mush

But I take your point about A7SIII low light supremacy being useful for stills
 
roxics said:
So I assume those are different then? Not backwards compatible?
If that's the case that's very annoying for C100 shooters like me who have a lot of BP batteries. Those things are not cheap.
Click to expand...

The good news is you basically only need 2 or 3 batteries to shoot all day because the C70 draws so little power
 
James0b57 said:
Interesting. They have pretty good run times? Hopefully they are cheaper.

This C70 seems like a really good entry level C series.


C70 - stop gap between mirrorless and C.
C100 - basic model
C200 - basic raw model
C300 - pro s35 with ENG sensibilities
C500 - was once the cine-cine version, but now seems to be the FF35 version.
C700 - EOL? experimental high end cine flagship model?
C700FF (they maybe should have gone with C800, which is a legendary Sony Mic, so it already has a nice high end ring to it. )
Click to expand...

How in heck does the C70 not outclass the c100 and, in many ways, the c200?
 
roxics said:
So I assume those are different then? Not backwards compatible?
If that's the case that's very annoying for C100 shooters like me who have a lot of BP batteries. Those things are not cheap.
Click to expand...

No. Do you know of any batteries that are backwards-compatible? Genuinely asking because I imagine all of the power contacts and their locations are very specific.

That would be a cool idea (not much of a money-maker though) to build a product with different contacts and a battery holder that could take a few different batteries.
 
NorBro said:
No. Do you know of any batteries that are backwards-compatible? Genuinely asking because I imagine all of the power contacts are very specific.

That would be a cool idea (not much of a money-maker though) to build a product that could take a few different batteries.
Click to expand...

The new LP-E6 are backwards compatible. But the newer batteries are really just higher capacity
 
Thinking out loud here. I'm considering a preorder. If I do, it will be the first time I've done it. The small form factor, DGO, NDs, Canon color, and 10-bit XF-AVC to SD cards all in one body would make my life a lot easier. Just being able to shoot clean ISO 3200 would be super helpful. Also, being able to monitor C-Log2 in-camera. Plus, I already own two BP-A60 batteries and a dual charger.

Selling my C200 and both C100s and replacing them with two of these is also something to think about.

Hesitations:

- The DPAF example in the lengthy CVP overview was not impressive at all. I need to see a better example.
- I have a decent selection of EF lenses and don't own any RF glass. The Canon focal reducer looks great but reducing the DPAF to 60% of the sensor is a no-go for me. I'd probably get the EF-RF adapter with the control ring. Does it also enable CA and distortion reduction? Maybe I need to factor in the cost of a Holy Trinity set of RF zooms. But that would be $7000.
- Mounting points. There aren't many. The Accsoon CineEye and a Sennheiser G3 receiver are almost permanently attached to my C200. Adding a cage kind of defeats the purpose of the smaller size.
- I'm heavily invested in Vinten fluid heads. I don't even know if they make one that will work with a 3.5-4lb camera.
- This all would require a major reshuffling of my gear. I just did that in 2019 with the C200, telling myself that I wouldn't do it again for at least 5 years. I've never been that guy, but the C200 never really took for me.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
The new LP-E6 are backwards compatible. But the newer batteries are really just higher capacity
Click to expand...

Why even mention it if you know it's the same battery.

Has gone through 4 iterations now counting the original beta version.

Beta - E6 - E6N - E6NH

The BP-A60 and BP-975 are different batteries.
 
ahalpert said:
The new LP-E6 are backwards compatible. But the newer batteries are really just higher capacity
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought maybe the new A series was just something like that, where the cameras could still use the old batteries. Oh well.

Overall, aside from that and the lack of an EVF, I'm liking what I'm seeing on this camera.
 
roxics said:
Overall, aside from that and the lack of an EVF, I'm liking what I'm seeing on this camera.
Click to expand...

I like what I see from this camera, too. But I'm glad I have enough reasons to talk me out of it, because my A7SIII just shipped and will save me money over the C70
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top