Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

puredrifting said:
the C200 looked, teamed with the CN-E 18-80mm t/4.4.
Click to expand...

You reminded me why I settled on the full-frame format: it comes down to lens selection and sensitivity.

If you want to buy cheap lenses (eg $300-2,000), you're better off with stills lenses than cine lenses. There are cheaper cine lenses coming around, but they don't have AF and their IQ (aside from breathing and being parfocal) is probably equaled or bested by stills lenses for 1/4 the price.

Most of all - you can't get good, cheap zooms in the right range. A 24-70 loses wide-angle in a S35 crop. Canon's 17-55 has never been updated. Fuji makes good APS-C lenses, but that's no use if you want Sony/Canon AF.

The 18-80 has gotten cheap and seems like a pretty stellar lens aside from bokeh, where it is probably bested by smaller-range zooms. But the real problem is the T4.4, which is pretty slow, both for selective focus and for exposure.

If you're lit, no problem. But the whole reason I bought the S1 was because I started shooting frequently for a wedding company that wanted 60p from dark dance floors and the GH5 wasn't cutting it, even with a speedbooster and f/1.4 lenses.

So, really I want full-frame sensitivity as well as Canon/Sony AF. That's another reason I'd consider the C70 over the C200. I can speedboost it and get an extra stop of sensitivity plus nearly the full width of the FF lenses.

But the A7SIII is still probably the best buy for me, all things considered. And I bet that with the right settings, you would have still gotten oohs and ahs from your livestream test audience.
 
Photo zooms are just multiple primes in one lens and price difference is justified for cine zooms regarding breathing and being parfocal. During recording or when camera is on-air, changing focal length can't produce weird artifacts.

18-80 weak point is barrel distortion on wide end, bokeh is just fine. Unless you have something to hide, T4.4 gives just right amount of depth. One more thing to complain is stutter when using slowest and next to slowest zoom settings mapped to joystick up and down buttons. No problem when using servo grip, but it's hard to guess where is that on the rocker.

Dynamic range of the camera limits the amount of light that can be added or sensitivity that can be raised.
Problem of dark dance flor is the ratio, haze it up and/or use Zeppelin/China ball above camera.
By increasing the aperture, darkness is replaced by blur, as result of lowering depth of the field.
 
If I shot weddings, I wouldn't use the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4, not fast enough. And I agree, for weddings, I wouldn't want a body as big and heavy as the C200.
Mirrorless would be best for weddings. I think I might try to cover weddings with two bodies, possibly one on sticks, but small and easy to carry and move around and another on gimbal or handheld?
For the camera on sticks, I would stick to fast primes since it would be largely unmanned for wides and establishing shots and for the gimbal/handheld, the fastest zoom I could afford. I'm just thinking OMB coverage.
I've covered documentary situations like this before, I really like having a wide lock off as an "anchor" to cover the CU parts where I have to manuever into position to get a decent composition.
 
laverdir said:
Photo zooms are just multiple primes in one lens and price difference is justified for cine zooms regarding breathing and being parfocal. During recording or when camera is on-air, changing focal length can't produce weird artifacts.
Click to expand...

By and large, I don't use zooming during a shot. So, the zoom action of the lens is not that important to me nor is breathing.

If I actually had a cine zoom lens, would that change? Maybe, but not by much.

Most of the zooms I do during b-roll shooting will be cut out. Having a zoom is just about reframing quickly
 
puredrifting said:
If I shot weddings, I wouldn't use the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4, not fast enough. And I agree, for weddings, I wouldn't want a body as big and heavy as the C200.
Mirrorless would be best for weddings. I think I might try to cover weddings with two bodies, possibly one on sticks, but small and easy to carry and move around and another on gimbal or handheld?
For the camera on sticks, I would stick to fast primes since it would be largely unmanned for wides and establishing shots and for the gimbal/handheld, the fastest zoom I could afford. I'm just thinking OMB coverage.
I've covered documentary situations like this before, I really like having a wide lock off as an "anchor" to cover the CU parts where I have to manuever into position to get a decent composition.
Click to expand...

Or for documentary, I dont think that set-up would be fast enough. Or even my last shoot at Christie's, they had the painting lit with a single gallery light and didnt want to rent my lights. It might have been an acceptable noise level with that camera/lens combination, but we definitely would have had to gain up.

Wedding shooting involves numerous types of scenarios. It sounds like you're describing the ceremony?

When I shoot ceremonies OMB for my own company, I usually have a camera on tripod from the back getting a master with a 24-70 or an 18-270 so I can start and end with a wide and punch in during the middle. I'll have a camera on tripod shooting the bride on a 70-200 and repositioning for rings and other CUs. And a camera on gimbal on a 24-105, 24-70 or a 50 shooting the bride coming down the aisle, additional b-roll angles, and left on a light stand as another tripod angle shooting the groom when I want to check the other cameras. I only use primes if it's a dark situation. Having versatility in coverage is more important.

Covering the decorative elements of the reception or ceremony, I usually make a pass with a gimbal on a 50/24-105/24-70, as well as a slider on a 100 and a tripod on a 70-200.

Generally throughout the day, having a gimbal with a standard prime or zoom paired with a tripod (or monopod if there's a 2nd shooter) on a telephoto zoom can cover all the different types of shots you want to achieve. (And leave a slider set up somewhere.) Having a superzoom would let me get all the coverage types by myself, which is sometimes more important than absolute IQ.

But right now I'm leaning towards getting a Sigma 24-70 and possibly following it up with a sigma 50. Maybe get a sigma 70-200 later. I'll stick with the WAs i have because AF is less useful there and the Laowa 12 is MF anyway and has way less distortion than any zooms I've seen at that focal length.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
It sounds like you're describing the ceremony?
Click to expand...

Don't you guys like to cover the ceremony with 10 cameras these days? Do clients want/expect that crazy amount of coverage?
I don't know, I wouldn't ever shoot weddings but I have used this technique quite a bit in documentary.

One of the women we've been covering for our docu series gave a presentation to a group and I did exactly this and it worked really well. It was just for some b-roll but the wide
was a good side shot and then I moved around the room handheld to get reaction shots and different angles of her presenting.
 
puredrifting said:
Don't you guys like to cover the ceremony with 10 cameras these days? Do clients want/expect that crazy amount of coverage?
I don't know, I wouldn't ever shoot weddings but I have used this technique quite a bit in documentary.

One of the women we've been covering for our docu series gave a presentation to a group and I did exactly this and it worked really well. It was just for some b-roll but the wide
was a good side shot and then I moved around the room handheld to get reaction shots and different angles of her presenting.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine that I've shot with for decades has started thinking about doing weddings(and has actually done two recently), and it seems like most of the really high-end stuff are basically highlight/sizzle pieces with very little from the actual ceremony, itself. Very little audio, lots of slow-mo, lots of gimbal, lots of T1.2 and heavily graded. Whereas "back in the day", it seems like it used to be just about the ceremony. Some of the examples he's shown me, what makes it from the ceremony might be the processional, 'the kiss' and then recessional of the bride and groom. They appear to largely be some type of unrealistic romantic walking through the meadow BS, the bride and maybe the groom getting ready, them kissing after the vows, then the reception(aka: the $100K party Daddy is throwing for his little girl before she ends up divorced in four years).
 
puredrifting said:
Don't you guys like to cover the ceremony with 10 cameras these days? Do clients want/expect that crazy amount of coverage?
I don't know, I wouldn't ever shoot weddings but I have used this technique quite a bit in documentary.

One of the women we've been covering for our docu series gave a presentation to a group and I did exactly this and it worked really well. It was just for some b-roll but the wide
was a good side shot and then I moved around the room handheld to get reaction shots and different angles of her presenting.
Click to expand...

Yeah generally that's a really great 2-cam arrangement I think. The ceremony is covered by 2-4 cameras, usually 3.

Shopping for an a7siii, I'm specifically shopping for a gimbal cam and low-light shooter. I'll keep the other cameras I have, though I'm considering selling my HD bodies.

Some parts of a wedding day are like fashion shoots, some parts are documentary with an emphasis on beauty, some parts are macro jewelry photography.

The ceremony itself is usually about 30 seconds of a 4-minute video. Most weddings I shoot end up as a 4-minute music video, maybe with a 1-minute teaser for instagram. Not that many full-length half-hour videos for the companies I shoot for.

The last straight doc b-roll shoot I did I had what you describe, but gimbal instead of handheld. So, a tripod long-lens shooting the speaker and then gimballing around for b-roll and following them before and after. A lot of times, I use the gimbal like a monopod in addition to using it for movement. It's even faster and steadier than a monopod, although you lack the control of a fluid head.

At that shoot, I also had a camera on slider getting shots of the speaker as I moved past people's heads, and also getting some shots of the audience.

Every type of rigging has its advantages and disadvantages and if I can only go with one rig, the choice will depend on the shoot. I suppose handheld is still the best overall balance of options, unless you know you want a lot of smooth tracking shots.
 
"The ceremony itself is usually about 30 seconds of a 4-minute video. Most weddings I shoot end up as a 4-minute music video, maybe with a 1-minute teaser for instagram. Not that many full-length half-hour videos for the companies I shoot for."


I would assume you still have one master camera on sticks capturing the entire ceremony with a wireless audio feed correct? Or do you use a portable audio recorder on groom/officiant and only shoot b-roll on all cameras during ceremony?
 
ahalpert said:
Or for documentary, I dont think that set-up would be fast enough. Or even my last shoot at Christie's, they had the painting lit with a single gallery light and didnt want to rent my lights. It might have been an acceptable noise level with that camera/lens combination, but we definitely would have had to gain up.

Wedding shooting involves numerous types of scenarios. It sounds like you're describing the ceremony?

When I shoot ceremonies OMB for my own company, I usually have a camera on tripod from the back getting a master with a 24-70 or an 18-270 so I can start and end with a wide and punch in during the middle. I'll have a camera on tripod shooting the bride on a 70-200 and repositioning for rings and other CUs. And a camera on gimbal on a 24-105, 24-70 or a 50 shooting the bride coming down the aisle, additional b-roll angles, and left on a light stand as another tripod angle shooting the groom when I want to check the other cameras. I only use primes if it's a dark situation. Having versatility in coverage is more important.

Covering the decorative elements of the reception or ceremony, I usually make a pass with a gimbal on a 50/24-105/24-70, as well as a slider on a 100 and a tripod on a 70-200.

Generally throughout the day, having a gimbal with a standard prime or zoom paired with a tripod (or monopod if there's a 2nd shooter) on a telephoto zoom can cover all the different types of shots you want to achieve. (And leave a slider set up somewhere.) Having a superzoom would let me get all the coverage types by myself, which is sometimes more important than absolute IQ.

But right now I'm leaning towards getting a Sigma 24-70 and possibly following it up with a sigma 50. Maybe get a sigma 70-200 later. I'll stick with the WAs i have because AF is less useful there and the Laowa 12 is MF anyway and has way less distortion than any zooms I've seen at that focal length.
Click to expand...

ahalpert said:
By and large, I don't use zooming during a shot. So, the zoom action of the lens is not that important to me nor is breathing.

If I actually had a cine zoom lens, would that change? Maybe, but not by much.

Most of the zooms I do during b-roll shooting will be cut out. Having a zoom is just about reframing quickly
Click to expand...

Bride coming down the aisle with her father is one moment that the whole shebang is about, and then, instead of her being a star in that moment, there is a operator in foreground trying to mimic ninja walk with weird looking contraption in his hand.

I know that there are situations which require us of hiring additional operators to just hold the camera near the center of the action, like when for eg. president of the state is mingling with public on some events, but I find it distasteful when operator disrupts the protocol by entering the scene.

Save your self of that kind of embarrassment and get the tool which can follow the action without interfering.

What do you do with the gimbal or photo-zoom when the subject is having epiphany or emotional moment which rise the level of the tears in the eyes beyond spilling threshold?

Do you make a subtle push in post trying to fake shallower depth of field as coming closer?
 
Ken1212 said:
"The ceremony itself is usually about 30 seconds of a 4-minute video. Most weddings I shoot end up as a 4-minute music video, maybe with a 1-minute teaser for instagram. Not that many full-length half-hour videos for the companies I shoot for."


I would assume you still have one master camera on sticks capturing the entire ceremony with a wireless audio feed correct? Or do you use a portable audio recorder on groom/officiant and only shoot b-roll on all cameras during ceremony?
Click to expand...

I have a master shot locked off. But the ceremony is basically a b-roll opportunity and the master shot is treated as such. So, its usually used less in the edit than the close-ups.

Wireless lavs on officiant and groom to a camera or recorder. Recorder taking feed from the mixing board (or a wireless transmitter as for my last livestream so I could pipe the board through my F6 to the computer)
 
laverdir said:
Bride coming down the aisle with her father is one moment that the whole shebang is about, and then, instead of her being a star in that moment, there is a operator in foreground trying to mimic ninja walk with weird looking contraption in his hand.

I know that there are situations which require us of hiring additional operators to just hold the camera near the center of the action, like when for eg. president of the state is mingling with public on some events, but I find it distasteful when operator disrupts the protocol by entering the scene.

Save your self of that kind of embarrassment and get the tool which can follow the action without interfering.

What do you do with the gimbal or photo-zoom when the subject is having epiphany or emotional moment which rise the level of the tears in the eyes beyond spilling threshold?

Do you make a subtle push in post trying to fake shallower depth of field as coming closer?
Click to expand...

I miscommunicated. I dont walk down the aisle with the bride. I stand at the altar next to the photographer holding my gimbal and then I swing to the side as she gets there.

If I'm on a prime, I'll let her walk from a wide to a medium. If I'm on a zoom, I may do the same thing. Or I may zoom in and out to get a variety of framings. Depends on my mood. The zooms will be edited around. None of these shots will live for longer than 3 seconds. Nobody wants to wait and watch her walk the whole length of the aisle. I swing to the side on gimbal at the end and catch the giving-away in profile.

At the end for the recessional, I stand in the aisle and gimbal backwards with them (next to the photographer) but by then the show's over.

Incidentally, the bride and groom often treat the whole day like an extended photo op. They give wide latitude for the photogs/videogs to disrupt the proceedings. More latitude than I choose to take. I try to be discreet. Many couples and priests have told me they didn't even notice me. One couple said they were relieved when they reviewed my footage because they came home and asked each other, "where was the videographer all day?" Using a small camera and no lights goes a long way in being discreet.

At any rate, the couples and clients are happy with the product.

Not sure about your question about tears. Are you talking about weddings or in general? Why not gimbal in?

Now we're discussing the benefits of zoom shots generally. Surely, they exist. But I wouldn't say that zooms are particularly favored in most of the shooting I do, though they have a utilitarian purpose.

That being said, i experimented in some cases (narrative, not weddings) with putting my Ronin-S focus motor on the zoom ring and delivered some smooth zooms that way. Yes, the zoom action of the lens is critically important.

If i get an AF camera, it will expand these possibilities since i wont necessarily need my focus motor on the focus ring. And the zoom will effectively become parfocal or - better yet - keep a moving subject in focus and open up new options
 
Last edited:
Canon Rumors has updated their old post about the specs and now make it clear that the "R300" is the C70:

Canon Cinema EOS C50 (Name not confirmed)

Super 35mm 4K sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C200)
No IBIS
RF Mount
Internal ND (10 Stops)
CLog 2 & CLog 3
4:2:0 8bit internally onto SD cards up to 4K60 & 1080/120
No RAW
Dual LP-E6NH battery slot
Price: $3499 USD

Canon Cinema EOS C70 (Name not confirmed)

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
Click to expand...

So...I think I will stick with my A7SIII preorder. I only plan to buy a 24-70 for starters, and it will be cheaper with the lens than a C70. Even with a whole new set of lenses, the price would work out similarly but with IBIS, better lowlight, probably better AF...
 
ahalpert said:
Using a small camera and no lights goes a long way in being discreet
Click to expand...

No lights even for low light dark receptions? What lens/f-stop and iso do you use? Is the 4 minutes to music all you guys deliver and what type of packages do those companies offer (hours, number of videographers, cost)?
 
Ken1212 said:
No lights even for low light dark receptions? What lens/f-stop and iso do you use? Is the 4 minutes to music all you guys deliver and what type of packages do those companies offer (hours, number of videographers, cost)?
Click to expand...

Typically, a worst-case scenario is 1/120 shutter, f/1.4, iso 51200. That's as bad as it gets. Is it noisy? Of course. But, I think, acceptably so as I'm getting a decent exposure at that setting on a Lumix S1 with strong color and detail. Factor in that it's usually shot in HD and then streamed on Facebook, and it's quite acceptable.

More common I'll be at ISO 25600 and f/2. That's a more typical dark dance floor, and that aperture and ISO look less rough.

If there are flashing DJ lights, I'll usually expose for those and be well down from those settings.

My most frequent and highest-paying company mandates no lights because discretion is part of the brand. So, I have to be ready to handle it.

Other companies mandate lights, and I'll usually backlight from both corners. But I'm not a huge fan of that because it makes some angles of the floor virtually unshootable and creates hotspots near the edges, plus it dampens the mood.

I never use an on-camera light.

As much as possible, I try to preserve the atmosphere and ambience/lighting of the scene and try to communicate that in video. Plus, i get better crowd material when they don't know they're being filmed, and when people giving toasts are under bright lights, it makes them more nervous.

It's fun to find good angles and settings to use available light.

An A7SIII would give me cleaner output than an S1 or let me keep using my f/2.8 zoom.

Some of my companies only deliver the music video. Some also deliver an instagram edit. Some offer a longer "documentary" edit as well. I shoot for 6 different companies, plus myself.

2 videographers for an 8-10 hour day is most typical, but I also shoot solo and will shoot anywhere from 6-12 hours. I couldn't speak to the costs, I just know what I'm paid.
 
Run&Gun said:
That usually means you're not getting paid nearly enough.
Click to expand...

Haha. I'm pretty sure I'm the most expensive cog in the machine. But there is a lot of client procurement and management + editing and revisions involved that I joyfully take no part in.

So much of the business is securing couples/clients. If I shot and edited the same number of weddings that i shoot for other people, I would make radically more money from it, but certainly do more work.

The number of emails i have back and forth when securing a couple is mind-boggling. Plus a phone interview. Nevertheless, I'd handle them all myself if I could
 
Getting clients and shooting gigs are two very different tasks and require completely different sets of skills, division of labor is completely normal in this situation
 
ahalpert said:
Canon Cinema EOS C50 (Name not confirmed)

Super 35mm 4K sensor (same as the Cinema EOS C200)
No IBIS
RF Mount
Internal ND (10 Stops)
CLog 2 & CLog 3
4:2:0 8bit internally onto SD cards up to 4K60 & 1080/120
No RAW
Dual LP-E6NH battery slot
Price: $3499 USD

Canon Cinema EOS C70 (Name not confirmed)

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
Click to expand...

Hmm... Interesting. The C70 looks like a less expensive C300 III without internal raw recording. And the C50 looks like a nice upgrade to the C100. But I'm not sure why I would buy the C50 instead of a used C200 that also has raw.

Unless the C50 has better autofocus than the C200. That might put it in a better position.

Waiting for the official specs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top