Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

davedv said:
The ND filter is designed to fit into the 20mm flange back RF system. Motorised variable ND filter (2/4/6/8*/10* stop)."
Click to expand...

Terrible language.

When building a solid state device of course everything is designed to fit in!

(what? we made the built in ND but realised it doesnt fit?? Of course it fits!)

One would only suggest that an optional extra was deisigned to 'fit in' - it sounded like you could have speedbooster or ND.

Anyway Im sure you are right :)
 
The C70 looks like a real winner for pragmatic shooters:

  • S35 DGO sensor (high end DR)
  • forward looking mount, RF
  • optional Canon developed EF to RF speed booster (no brainer)
  • selection of Log profiles
  • up to 10-stop internal ND
  • DPAF
  • Pro codecs (10-bit 422 qualifies) with focus on efficiency
  • 120 fps using full sensor
  • small-ish
  • light-ish

Looking forward to the presentation
 
morgan_moore said:
Indeed - it is (on paper) a winner. A must have subject to the Fx6 being the same but better (and FF)
Click to expand...

Hard for me to see the FX6 being better...though I suppose one might like the form factor more depending on one's needs.

Canon form factors sort of fall through the cracks for me. I like having a shoulder mount camera (FS7) and a small gimbal camera (mirrorless). Canon cinema cameras are sort of the worst of both worlds. Unless you just like barehanding and gut camming.

That being said, Canons take nice images. But I'm starting to think that the sony color disadvantage is overhyped and there are just too many people who dont know how to make Sony cameras sing
 
AndreeOnline said:
The C70 looks like a real winner for pragmatic shooters:

  • S35 DGO sensor (high end DR)
  • forward looking mount, RF
  • optional Canon developed EF to RF speed booster (no brainer)
  • selection of Log profiles
  • up to 10-stop internal ND
  • DPAF
  • Pro codecs (10-bit 422 qualifies) with focus on efficiency
  • 120 fps using full sensor
  • small-ish
  • light-ish

Looking forward to the presentation
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one who said you wouldn't buy a camera with the intention of using a speedbooster?
 
ahalpert said:
Hard for me to see the FX6 being better...though I suppose one might like the form factor more depending on one's needs.
Click to expand...

Obviously it is my own opinion (but I am right!)..

Having a fixed screen on the back wont work for gutcam or on a sunny day. One will have to hold it like Aunt Doris filming with her iPad.
Having a wide not long body means problems on gimbals
Throw in an HDMI and XLRs poking out somewhere wierd and one is moving toward the FX6 being a way better shape for operation in a small crew robust/rough and tumble environment.

My FS100 was about perfect in the small non shoulder cam genre of form factors.
 
ahalpert said:
Weren't you the one who said you wouldn't buy a camera with the intention of using a speedbooster?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, I might have said that I don't want to buy a camera that would rely on a Speedbooster. The context was probably the P4K and my EF lens collection.

The issues I want to avoid are the above mentioned mismatch between lens format and sensor size and relying on 3rd party products developed by tinkerers to bridge the gap. I've come to accept Metabones' line of products as good enough*, but I can't say the same of some of the other "popular" brands competing on price.

As luck would have it, Canon saves me from any would be 'tricky spot' by calling it an EF to RF mount adapter. I don't know if I've said this previously, but I luuuv those. So there's that.




*= I don't want to be like RED and use "anything is subject to change" as a crutch for not thinking things through, but I think I like to reserve the option to change my mind within reason as technology progresses.
 
Canon have done themselves a huge favour with a AF speedbooster.

As a S35 cam one really had to buy (for actuality use) the (more) costly 18-80 but now one can get the 24-105 and booster which is probably cheaper (and not as good!)

S
 
I would see the speedbooster as almost mandatory on an RF-mount camera with a S35 sensor, since basically all RF lenses are designed for FF
 
Samuel H said:
I would see the speedbooster as almost mandatory on an RF-mount camera with a S35 sensor, since basically all RF lenses are designed for FF
Click to expand...

Theoretically you could just get a regular EF-RF adapter. Or a PL-RF adapter. But I would definitely get the speedbooster if I got this camera
 
Samuel H said:
I would see the speedbooster as almost mandatory on an RF-mount camera with a S35 sensor, since basically all RF lenses are designed for FF
Click to expand...

Speedboosters must be for EF not RF lenses as the take advantage of the wider flange distance of the EF system ??
 
ahalpert said:
I'm pretty confused about how it can record 4K120p All-I to SD cards. Not that All-I or 120p matter THAT much to me, but these details are probably fuzzy and it probably doesn't shoot 4K120p all-I xf-avc.
Click to expand...

The C300iii 4k 120p is something like 820Mbps (if I'm remembering correctly). That's basically 100MB/s, and I'm pretty sure the fastest SD cards can sustain that.

I wonder if Canon have included that new SD-slot-compatible form of CFexpress in the camera?
 
Grug said:
The C300iii 4k 120p is something like 820Mbps (if I'm remembering correctly). That's basically 100MB/s, and I'm pretty sure the fastest SD cards can sustain that.

I wonder if Canon have included that new SD-slot-compatible form of CFexpress in the camera?
Click to expand...

Is there faster than V90 which does 90MB/s? I'm a little bit confused, because Sony put a CFexpress-A slot in the A7SIII just to deal with the 600Mbps bitrate. Sure, that might have been just an arbitrary choice, and obviously a V90 would be able to handle that.
 
newsshooter article: https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/09/24/canon-eos-c70/

price is $5500

120p is indeed long-GOP only it seems

2.58lbs, 6.3" wide

"a few hundred dollars" for the speedbooster, which can be screwed into the camera with 4 screws if you so desire

Audio is recorded in high frame-rate modes, which is nice. but saved to a separate .wav file, strangely.
 
Last edited:
Oh nice - there's a tripod mounting hole in the side, the menus rotate, and there is metadata to tell the NLE that you're shooting vertically.

I don't love the video samples Teddy posted. The skin tones look nice, but overall I'm not wowed. I hate the way that guitarist music video looks. But obviously I just don't like the grade.

It is possible that the C70 will not match the C300III for IQ. There is a lot more that goes into producing an image than just the sensor, not to mentions questions of quality control of the sensors themselves.
 
Last edited:
Well it's not really a camera for me, but it's still a little beast. As a b-cam to a C300iii (particularly one that just sort of lives on a Ronin-S or similar), it sounds pretty fantastic though.

It's Long GOP over 30p though unfortunately.
 
morgan_moore said:
Speedboosters must be for EF not RF lenses as the take advantage of the wider flange distance of the EF system ??
Click to expand...

I think that is correct. The reason Speedboosters even work is EF lenses are designed for a longer "flange back" distance, hence those lenses have a more acute (ie steeper) light cone which would normally spill way beyond a micro 4/3 sensor like a GH5, which is designed for a shorter flange-back distance. The Speedbooster optics bends the light cone to less-acute angle to properly fill the sensor and picks up "optical speed" in the process.

RF lenses are designed for the short flange distance and FF sensor of a mirrorless camera so the light cone exiting the lens is already shaped for that. You can't insert optics to make it even less acute or it would be vignetted on the sensor. However in theory a mirrorless camera with FF sensor and Super35 mode might accommodate an EF lens and speed booster, but only in Super35 mode.

For similar reasons the Canon EF-to-RF variable ND adapter will only work with EF lenses. I don't think it's practical to make a similar filter adapter for RF lenses, as there would be no space to put the mechanism. If you displace the lens forward to provide more space for the ND mechanism it would apparently require a teleconverter, which would add expense and hurt optical speed. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433719-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf_with.html/qa

That is also probably why no mirrorless camera or 3rd-party lens mfg has made a "variable ND throttle" adapter for RF-to-RF, E-mount to E-mount or L-mount to L-mount. I think they are only possible when adapting the older long flange-back distance lenses to newer mirrorless cameras with shorter flange-back distances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top