Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

Super 35mm 4K DGO sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C300 Mark III)
No IBIS
RF Mount
Internal ND (10 Stops)
CLog 2 & CLog 3
4:2:2 10bit onto SD cards up to 4K120 and 2K180
No RAW capability internally at launch
BP-A batteries
Price: $6299 USD

==

Its interesting but what was the FS7 ? - 4k60 180 2k at $7k years ago.

Its a big trade up to get AF
 
morgan_moore said:
Its interesting but what was the FS7 ? - 4k60 180 2k at $7k years ago.
Its a big trade up to get AF
Click to expand...
Yes, but you also get 4K 120fps and a newer sensor likely with better dynamic range.

Keep in mind that Sony still sells the FS7 Mark II with essentially the same specs as the original for $9000. And Panasonic sells the EVA1 with similar specs (but also an external 5.7K RAW option) for $6500. So if the specs and pricing of this new Canon Cinema EOS R300 offering are accurate, it looks pretty competitive with what else is on the market.

Comparing things to the original FS7 really says more about the somewhat incremental progress in cinema camera specs over the last 6 years.
 
Yep - of course you get a coupe of things and hopefully a massive size cut.

Im just saying its not something that is massive. Those cams like the EVA1 are really dinasaurs.

BUt what do I hate about my FS7? Too big no AF so this could be a wonder and not at the C500C300iii price.

It might be everything one could want
 
morgan_moore said:
Super 35mm 4K DGO sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C300 Mark III)
No IBIS
RF Mount
Internal ND (10 Stops)
CLog 2 & CLog 3
4:2:2 10bit onto SD cards up to 4K120 and 2K180
No RAW capability internally at launch
BP-A batteries
Price: $6299 USD

==

Its interesting but what was the FS7 ? - 4k60 180 2k at $7k years ago.

Its a big trade up to get AF
Click to expand...

There's nothing here that would compell to trade my C200 for it. Sounds basically like a non-RAW C200 with
a newer, slightly better sensor and RF mount for $700.00 more than the C200. Not bad, but not a lot of trade in motivation
for current C200 users.

The factor seems to be internal RAW. Slow motion, if you care about slow motion (I don't). If you like RAW and use it as I do, C200. If you or your clients don't care about RAW,
this would be sweet. If they change this and allow internal RAW and the 4:2:2 10-bit, they negate a lot of the appeal of the C300 MKIII so I doubt they'll do that?

It looks cool but nothing thrilling or groundbreaking. Pretty incremental upgrades.
 
sleekmedia said:
Yes Shogun Inferno can record 120fps. I used to use it to record 12-bit 4k/120fps Pro-Res Raw as a burst out of my FS5. Crazy to think that camera did that 4 years ago and we are just seeing implementation of this resolution/frame rates to external recording by competitors today.
Click to expand...

That's burst mode on the camera, which then dumps it out to the recorder from a buffer at a much slower rate. It's also compressed in the camera. So all in all a much smaller data signal.
 
puredrifting said:
There's nothing here that would compell to trade my C200 for it. Sounds basically like a non-RAW C200 with
a newer, slightly better sensor and RF mount for $700.00 more than the C200. Not bad, but not a lot of trade in motivation
for current C200 users.

The factor seems to be internal RAW. Slow motion, if you care about slow motion (I don't). If you like RAW and use it as I do, C200. If you or your clients don't care about RAW,
this would be sweet. If they change this and allow internal RAW and the 4:2:2 10-bit, they negate a lot of the appeal of the C300 MKIII so I doubt they'll do that?

It looks cool but nothing thrilling or groundbreaking. Pretty incremental upgrades.
Click to expand...

I dont entirely agree because it's got the newer sensor and DGO. So probably more detailed and more dynamic range.

10-bit is a big deal. On the C200 you're either 8-bit or RAW.

RF mount means you can speed-boost from full-frame lenses.

Then there's probably a big AF upgrade from the C200

What's worrisome is the SD cards - the top bitrate can't be that high?

Definitely could be an interesting camera for someone considering buying a C200. And probably will drive down C200 prices
 
Man I hope there’s more to these new specs because this sounds like a Canon cripple hammer for the RF C200 camera. 10 bit 422 up to 120 with external 12 bit raw should be the minimum for any cinema camera going forward. **** you can get 10 bit 422 on the $2500 R6. The a7s III can do everything the RF C300 camera can do for half the price. “Color science” ain’t worth an extra 3 grand.
 
puredrifting said:
There's nothing here ..Pretty incremental upgrades.
Click to expand...

I dunno incremental or huge (as an FS7 owner?) Af and losing some mass.

I just always wanted an affordable camera that allowed me to expose (ND) focus (AF) and hold it stable (HFR) and then grade a bit (10 bit) and reasonably sharp ('4k') and I could put in a small bag (small)

One will come that just works and then one just goes home :)

Lenswise Id be in for the 24-200 (FF) zone - that doesnt seem to have a brother in S35 they need a 16-80 or something 5.6 is fine.
 
Good thought. Its not a lens I know - I also dont konw how Tmron works with canon AF. Could be perfect (sounds horrid :) ) - there is of course the 18-80 which I think is pretty competent.
 
Canon Cinema EOS R300 (Name not confirmed)
Click to expand...

It looks like Canon skipped on the IBIS and the CRL for a more affordable model rather than risk biting into the C300 MKIII sales. It's gone more or less as I expected, but with two cameras instead of one.

And the entry level camera has a crippled codec. 8-bit in 2020! Of course, it might be sufficient for long form indoors (and away from windows).

It's a fine balancing act at $3,300, $5,500, $11,000, $16,000. C100MKII at $2,500 and C200 at $5,500 are probably on their way out.

I also think the names will be different - C100 RF, C200 RF. Otherwise, it's a bit confusing.
 
morgan_moore said:
Good thought. Its not a lens I know - I also dont konw how Tmron works with canon AF. Could be perfect (sounds horrid :) ) - there is of course the 18-80 which I think is pretty competent.
Click to expand...

I have the tamron 18-270 and enjoy it. The 16-300 came out later. What a range!

The 18-270 is not the sharpest lens ever made, but it's good enough and it's pretty.

For AF - no idea. I dont own any good AF cameras. I know Tamron does good things for E-mount but yes it probably doesn't compare to Canon lenses.

The 18-80 seems to be awesome - good AF and IS, low breathing, servo zoom. Out of focus areas seem a little busy to me but hey it's a big zoom. Just wish it was 16-160.

But I don't "need" need a servo zoom anyway so I've never invested in one.

If the AF is good enough on the A7SIII I might buy, I may put my Ronin-s focus motor on the zoom ring of a 24-70. I've gotten good-looking powered zoom results with that
 
DLD said:
And the entry level camera has a crippled codec. 8-bit in 2020! Of course, it might be sufficient for long form indoors (and away from windows).

It's a fine balancing act at $3,300, $5,500, $11,000, $16,000. C100MKII at $2,500 and C200 at $5,500 are probably on their way out.
Click to expand...

Where do you get 5500 for r300? Rumor says 6300 for r300, so a 1.75 multiplier from r200 to r300 and r300 to C300III.

The 8 bit camera is a little silly but for people who just want canon colors and lenses in a video camera not a stills camera - it'll do the job.

Also - they could keep selling c100 and C200
 
DLD said:
Fat finger.

PS. R5 w/Atomos looks like the best bet for most uses.
Click to expand...

Maybe but 4k60 will still overheat, external recording sucks, and micro-hdmi sucks.

I'd say r5/atomos vs A7SIII - each has its pros and cons

But 10-bit 4K FF awesome-autofocus cameras? Both do the job

I'm leaning A7SIII because no external recorder, no bad reputation for reliability, higher quality 60/120 fps footage
 
morgan_moore said:
Good thought. Its not a lens I know - I also dont konw how Tmron works with canon AF. Could be perfect (sounds horrid :) ) - there is of course the 18-80 which I think is pretty competent.
Click to expand...

The Canon 18-80 is actually a decent lens. It's not a real 2/3" ENG or 17-120 or of that ilk, but for the size, cost an capabilities, 'it ain't bad'.

I operated on a reality show for two days last week and the gear was stripped C300/II's and Canon 18-80 servo's and 70-200 servo's. It would have been such a PITA with full-on still lenses.

My biggest question is, where in the hell were these lenses when the C300 dropped in 2013? Life would have been so much easier with these, instead of all the crap we had to do with still lenses on these cameras, because everyone just had to shoot on the C300, when we should have still been doing 90% of it with ENG cameras and ENG lenses, because there was nothing BUT still lenses to use on these cameras then.

Even though I own a 17-120, for the right price, it'd almost be worth buying a used one to have for lightweight, compact follow type stuff.

FYI: There's an auction on eBay with one at $2750 with two bids, right now and one for $4300 'buy it now'. But I'd spend the extra $300 and buy it new with a full warranty.
 
ahalpert said:
Maybe but 4k60 will still overheat, external recording sucks, and micro-hdmi sucks.
Click to expand...
4K 60 full frame to an external recorder on the R5 does not overheat. So if you are willing to go the external recorder route, you can record up to 4K 60 or 4K 30 HQ for extended periods of time.

Now you can't record 4K 120 or 8K to an external recorder, so those internal recording modes will still overheat. The recording limit on the oversampled 4K 60 APS-C crop mode to an external recorder is unclear at this point, as I don't think anyone has retested this without cards in the camera yet.

I believe that there are reports that the A7S III also overheats when recording 4K 120 internally, although probably not as severely as the R5. The A7S III 4K 120 video quality is probably better though as it does a 1:1 pixel readout in this mode vs. the pixel binning of the R5. The A7S III can also record sound in 4K 120 which the R5 does not.

So overall the A7S III is likely the better bet for people that need to do a lot of high frame rate 4K recording.
 
morgan_moore said:
Good thought. Its not a lens I know - I also dont konw how Tmron works with canon AF. Could be perfect (sounds horrid :) ) - there is of course the 18-80 which I think is pretty competent.
Click to expand...

Tamron?

Hmm...not in the same league as Sigma or Tokina. I have never shot with a Tamron lens that I though was even decent.
 
davedv said:
4K 60 full frame to an external recorder on the R5 does not overheat. So if you are willing to go the external recorder route, you can record up to 4K 60 or 4K 30 HQ for extended periods of time.
Click to expand...

Where do you see that 4k60 external doesn't overheat?

Some have questioned whether the no-cards method is actually recording 4KHQ or if it's binned.

I think 4k60p is also binned on the R5 - no HQ there according to NorBro.

Plus being tied to a recorder sucks.

But I have Canon lenses, having access to 8K and RAW is neat, and the IBIS is way better.

But I'm leaning heavily toward A7SIII right now
 
puredrifting said:
Tamron?

Hmm...not in the same league as Sigma or Tokina. I have never shot with a Tamron lens that I though was even decent.
Click to expand...

Tamron primes have gotten really good. People rave about the tamron f/2.8 zooms for sony. My tamron 18-270 isn't perfect but hey it's a superzoom. And the images are pretty, not ugly. And my tamron 35 1.8 is a little too sharp for my tastes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top