Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Unusual degree of certainty in the CR language so I think it's legit:
"I have been inundated with Canon Cinema EOS C70 images today, unfortunately, I cannot publish them all. However, the above image is the new cinema camera."
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Having owned a 5D MKII, MKIII 80D, C100, C300, C200 and C300 MKII, that is a weird looking camera!
They all took a dip in the midst of the CV but Sony is more diversified and is in the currently very profitable sensor making business. Canon does have printers, optics and what not but Sony has a huge video gaming business, plus entertainment. Off Wiki, Sony had 8.8T Y worth of revenues in 2019, while Canon had 3.4T Y only (but in 2016).
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I'm biased since I own the C200 but I can't see more than one or two little things in that spec list that would make me buy this when there are super clean, low hour C200s for $4,800.00 that record RAW.
Even new, I would pay $5,500.00 for a new C200 rather than $700.00 more for this. I'd rather shoot 12-bit RAW than 10-bit XF-AVC but apparently I'm in the minority. Have four C200s rented right now for a
big live stream meeting for a Fortune 500 company where we aren't even recording in camera and had feedback from all over the country today from the test audiences about how great the images looked for dress rehearsal with
good lighting. C200 with the CN-E 18-80 t/4.4 is a winner for this type of TV/Live Stream work.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
1Gbps is a bitter pill to swallow if you're rolling a lot. Plus, the newer body will have more DR, speedboosterability, and 4K120p, and better AF.
But yeah the 12-bit RAW is a nice codec.
Another win for the A7SIII - 3500 for 10-bit internal, but with a ninja v for another $1k (including SSDs) you've got 12-bit 4K60p ProRes raw
But yeah the 12-bit RAW is a nice codec.
Another win for the A7SIII - 3500 for 10-bit internal, but with a ninja v for another $1k (including SSDs) you've got 12-bit 4K60p ProRes raw
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Not sure about the form, wide = bad to me as wont go on my Movi
Specs could be excellent DPAF ND and 10bit is all one really wants
might be better
But seems to be hard to fit a BP-A battery? All specs might not be correct?
Liam Hall
Veteran
What an ugly camera. It looks like they mated a C200 with a BMPCC.
To be fair, the batteries don't fit flush on the C300MKIII or C500MKII.
To be fair, the batteries don't fit flush on the C300MKIII or C500MKII.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Drives and CFast 2.0 cards are cheap. Sure, it's a lot of data but not an oppressive amount. If I can shoot a six part docuseries with over 100 interviews and
hours and hours of racing footage from multiple cameras, it can be done and it's not as bad as people who have never shot projects in CRL think. I think we've shot about
150TB of RAW footage on this project since buying the C200 in 2017 when it came out. But I get it, a lot of people just don't want to deal with that.
More DR is nice, using any adapter between the camera and native glass is a negative in my book, I've had Metabones, Viltrox and Fringer adapters and if I have a choice,
I would never put any adapter between the camera and glass, not even Canon's adapters, although the one with the built in NDs is cool for mirrorless but I assume this
new camera will have built in NDs if it's a EOS Cinema camera?
4K120p is just contributing to the world's slow motion abuse issue so that's a negative ;-)
I wonder if the AF will be better? Probably the same as the C300 MKIII which is probably better than the C200, which is better than our C300 MKII?
The A7 SIII seems like a nice camera, but honestly based upon all of the footage, I am kind of soured on it a bit, the footage just has that Sony ultra clean and sharp video look that to me is kind of boring. Clients will never notice that
or care, they'll probably like it but it would bug me long term I think? What about you Abe, do you see that in the A7 SIII footage? Doesn't the footage just look "video-ish" a bit?
Maybe Canon will deign to give me a prototype and I can play with it and see if this weird looking new little camera in person impresses. But on paper, I think I'd just buy
another C200 or two.
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
For me, it's not the file sizes of CRL. I don't like having to denoise any raw footage shot at ISO 800 or even sometimes 400. It's processor intensive and takes a lot of render time. And it makes it impossible to just hand off the footage after the shoot (though most of my clients ask for ProRes, so I have to convert it anyway, but applying Neat Video means that my iMac Pro has to chug away all night).
There are buttons for ND on these latest images, which is exciting. I agree about adapters and speedboosters. But if I went all in for this camera or another Cinema RF, it would be tempting to sell off most of my EF primes and just buy that Canon RF 28-70 f/2.
Enthusiastically agree.
I want to know about this too. And I can't find any evidence that the DPAF on the C300iii is any better than it is on the C200 (do you know the answer to this?). I want face detection to work as well as it seems to on the new R5 and R6 (or even the R for that matter).
I can't get on board with any of Sony's mirrorless cameras. I applaud their technical innovation but the footage just doesn't look right to me and I don't want my name associated with it. Like you say, most clients probably would never know the better, but I would. It's purely subjective. Some shooters really like it.
Last edited:
scorsesefan
Veteran
Just saw this pop up on Canon Rumors:
Supposedly, the C70 will be announced on September 24.
I see NDs, 2x XLRs, waveform, and a vent for a cooling system (not to be taken for granted after the R5). I think it looks promising.
Looks like a BMPCC4/6K
scorsesefan
Veteran
The bulky dslr shape is roughly like the BMPCC 4/6. Not the buttons, etc...
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yes and no. Enough footage pleases me that I have hope that I could bend the camera to my will.
All in all, I much preferred the footage from the R5 (except the lower DR). It had a kind of clarity without feeling sharp, and the colors felt natural but rich. There was the complete opposite ratio of awesome/crappy footage with the R5 that I see with the A7SIII. But it's all a moot point since the camera can't record 4K60p at length.
The C200 is probably too big to comfortably run around on the Ronin-S all day. Plus, I think the AF is inferior to the latest releases (and the canon cine cameras seem to have inferior AF to their stills cameras). I'm not dying for AF, but it's gotten so good that it's worth taking advantage of. But I dont want to settle for anything less than A6400 AF, more or less.
I've also never seen a gig posting request the C200. The most recent specific camera request I applied to was an FS7 and 2 A7SIIs to shoot an interview. Yes, most of my work is camera-agnostic, but I'd like camera/s that can also cover common specific requests.
The last shoot I did was tripod/slider b-roll of an old painting at Christie's, shot on their FS7. All i could think the whole time on slider was how much the A7SIII AF would have benefited the shoot by nailing the focus pulls and helping me move more quickly.
So, I'd buy the A7SIII for the same reason I bought the FS7. Not because it's my favorite camera, but because it's good enough and it gets work.
You might be able to de-Sony the A7SIII by shooting ProRes raw (which looks awesome to work with in FCPX now) and getting 12-bit RAW with a lower bitrate than CRL. That way you could circumvent in-camera sharpening and NR that are probably big factors of the clean, video look.
At any rate, if I were picking cameras purely based on my aesthetic preferences, I'd have a UMP G2 and P6K. But that's not the world I live in and I'm trying to make money.
If the C70 has bad-ass AF and the price is competitive with the R5/S1H/a7SIII, I will certainly consider it
puredrifting
Major Contributor
True, that's why I bought a used C300 MKII, it gets asked for more by name than the C200. But we do have two clients who we used to shoot for regularly pre-COVID who we got hyped on CRL and now they
want ALL of their shoots in CRL, mainly because they do a lot of green screen stuff and CRL keys beautifully. The current big job I'm on now, we are running five C200s for a big live stream. Client had small consumer
Canon Vixias and I convinced them that since this is a high profile live stream, the C200 would look leagues better on the two executives we are shooting than his Vixias.
I don't get the NR comments, CRL seems to only look noisy to use when it's underexposed and not well lit. We've had a lot of CRL footage for broadcast and for the Sergio Mendes: In the Key of Joy documentary I shot and there was no noise reduction applied to any
of it and i've seen the documentary projected at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival on a 50' screen? Sure, in low light, RAW is noisy but in good lighting, I don't think it needs NR but I've never gone for the antiseptic, clean
digital video look, I like a little grain and character to the image as long as it's not too grainy. Probably comes from years of shooting 16mm and S16mm film.
We did a load in day yesterday and we live streamed to a test audience for the big live stream next week and the feedback was how amazingly great the images from the C200 looked, teamed with the CN-E 18-80mm t/4.4. So I rented four more of them and they are all making
me money. So clients don't ask for the C200 because it's not as well branded as the FS7 and C300 MKII but if you show them how great CRL can look (especially for green screen) and how good the camera can look with good glass and lighting,
(even for live streaming) they love it. I've had the C200 for 2.5 years and it paid it's $7,500.00 cost off on the first six months of day rate rentals. Now it just makes me pure profit on every shoot I use it on.
If we keep growing our live streaming business, I will probably pick up two or three more C200s. As much as the dual monitoring firmware fiasco pissed me off, it's still a great camera.
Last edited: