Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

eosc70.jpg

A clearer picture from Canon Rumors. Updated specs too:

  • 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
Click to expand...

It looks a little... odd... with that top handle but I think I like it? If I can get clean 10-bit image at ISO 1600 with no noise reduction required and reliable face tracking, I will seriously consider replacing my C200 with this.

Just wondering how on earth this thing takes BP-A batteries.
 
The batteries will either lay horizontally as they do with all of those cameras, or possibly sit vertically around the grip area like with other previous systems (RED, Kinefinity).

There aren't many things I really can say that I "hate" about cameras, but Canon's handles/mic holders are a strong dislike.

At least this one has the LCD built-in (very good).
 
NorBro said:
There aren't many things I really can say that I "hate" about cameras, but Canon's handles/mic holders are a strong dislike.
Click to expand...

I didn't mind it on the C100s but I would replace this handle with something smaller. It defeats the purpose of the compact body.
 
NorBro said:
The batteries will either lay horizontally as they do with all of those cameras, or possibly sit vertically around the grip area like with other previous systems (RED, Kinefinity).

There aren't many things I really can say that I "hate" about cameras, but Canon's handles/mic holders are a strong dislike.

At least this one has the LCD built-in (very good).
Click to expand...

If the LCD is on the back (which I assume it is) and doesn't flip out it's a problem for shooters that handhold on their chest. This is what made the c100 mk1 problematic to shoot with and was solved on the c100 mkii...
 
There appears to be a hinge by the vent in which I think the LCD would flip out and also sit back normally with the smallest BP-A battery tucked in (if it's back there). The bigger batteries would create conflict and you'd always have to work the battery around the LCD and/or have limited movement with the LCD.

Nevertheless the few who would like to use it against their chest could grab an external monitor if the LCD doesn't flip out (per usual).
 
Interesting that they removed the $6300 rumored price from the rumors. I could be interested in this for the right price
 
NorBro said:
Nevertheless the few who would like to use it against their chest could grab an external monitor if the LCD doesn't flip out (per usual).
Click to expand...

A third party screen would not have tap focus.

Im thinking that this will be desirable but the FX6 will have a couple of little things (speedbooster- no fullframe - cost ? )

Also a thinner profile helps, as does a monitor that works with gutcam.

Really this 'DSLR' shape only works with a viewfinder so one can hold it in the traditional 'to the eye' manner - this looks like it will have to be waved out front like granny with her new mobile phone.
 
My biggest concern is I heard it’ll only record H.265 since it only uses SD cards. Also I’m curious what he means by “no internal raw at launch”. That almost sounds like a potential feature with a firmware upgrade. I doubt they’d do external ProRes raw since they love CRL but maybe they’ll have the dual SD/CF express A slots like the a7siii? Either way next week will be interesting.
 
The C300 Mark II has ProRes RAW so that's most likely the one we'll see unless it's a delayed CRL FW update (even maybe a new one at more compressed ratios for SDXC cards).
 
I hope either one is the case. I’ve loved raw on the C200b so I’d hate to give it up. For those who have used the C300mkIII and the C200, would you prefer the image of the DGO sensor at 10 bit XFAVC or the C200 in 12 bit CRL?
 
CRL is only 12-bit upto 30p. 60p CRL is 10-bit.

Good quality 10-bit XF-AVC on SDXC cards goes a long way since most would never tell the difference but would gain the extra space.

IMO, all of the 8-bit, 10-bit, RAW conversations with Canon were pretty moot up to some point because overall the images stayed pretty clinical no matter the codec/format.

Canon has its look and it's safe and not very exciting.
 
Angry Leprechaun said:
My biggest concern is I heard it’ll only record H.265 since it only uses SD cards.
Click to expand...

I'm actually interested to try the H265 + proxy workflow on the A7SIII. Everyone has different needs for their editing workflow but as long as you can record simultaneously proxies, it might give me the best of everything (small file sizes + fast editing turnarounds)

Plus, if it's like the A7SIII, it will only need to shoot H265 for the highest framerates
 
NorBro said:
IMO, all of the 8-bit, 10-bit, RAW conversations with Canon were pretty moot up to some point because overall the images stayed pretty clinical no matter the codec/format.
Click to expand...

This is the first time I've heard Canon color described as clinical. I agree that it's very consistent and that everyone, including myself, is basically content to lean on the standard Canon color palette.

But i have zero problem with that. And if you want to grade it differently, you can still do so
 
Angry Leprechaun said:
I hope either one is the case. I’ve loved raw on the C200b so I’d hate to give it up. For those who have used the C300mkIII and the C200, would you prefer the image of the DGO sensor at 10 bit XFAVC or the C200 in 12 bit CRL?
Click to expand...

Tough call. Side by side with our C300 MKII footage, the C200 CRL footage looks noticeably better, sharper, more detail. But the DGO sensor looks noticeably better than the sensor in the C200 or C300 MKII.
It will be an interesting comparison once this new camera is available.
 
ahalpert said:
This is the first time I've heard Canon color described as clinical. I agree that it's very consistent and that everyone, including myself, is basically content to lean on the standard Canon color palette.

But i have zero problem with that. And if you want to grade it differently, you can still do so
Click to expand...

First time? Doubt it. People have said it way before I ever did in the past years.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just how it is and that's a very good thing for many.
 
NorBro said:
First time? Doubt it. People have said it way before I ever did in the past years.

Nothing wrong with that; it's just how it is and that's a very good thing for many.
Click to expand...

I dont understand the labeling here. People call Sony color and Zeiss lenses clinical because they aim to be neutral and flavorless. Technically correct but lacking character.

Canon color seems warmer to me in the skin tones, usually produces deep blue skies, and varied greens but not so loud and sickly as can happen on Sony. I think of Canon color as being commercially neutral (and sort of like iPhone color in a way). If clinical means safe then I guess you could call it clinical... but it doesn't seem clinical to me in the sense of faithful, neutral reproduction
 
People also use the word clinical as an interchangeable term for "boring". At least on forums. This is where I learned about its use and description years ago. And that's maybe related to lacking character.

The word has "unemotional" as part of one of its definition and I think that's actually how I would describe Canon images too.

If you go back to what I said, I never mentioned the word colors - you slid it in there.

By using the term images I meant the overall output and feel that they provide. Boring, stale.

If I would have been referring only to the color science I too would describe it as neutral and warm.
 
Canon is boring compared to what, BM? Can you elaborate on why you feel that way? Is it possible that you're just bored because you've seen it so much? And aren't neutral and warm contradictory descriptors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top