Canon's Upcoming RF cinema camera rumored specs

P.S. a7SIII and Pockets are still higher on the cinema list...for now.

And so is the 12K UMP @#4, surprisingly. With C70 @#5.
 
Has anyone seen a clear example of the DPAF working well on this camera? Most of what I'm seeing is pretty deep DOF or some pretty significant misses in shallow DOF (i.e. Canon's promo music video). It is concerning to see this as well as Potato Jet's R6 review, which shows the newer DPAF 2 missing like crazy.
 
Thinking about this camera (I am semi seriously after an FS7 replacement) I dunno - i just dont like the fat.

Can I imagine this being my a camera when the shape just feels all wrong.

-how are you supposed to hold it and see on a sunny day?
-how wide is it once you add XLR and hdmi?

Im not joking about sunny days, my most fun jobs in the last 5 years have been portugal and zambia.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsvmq4vF967/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
 
@ChrisY

Do you really lthink the codec is flawed?

The reels look good to me. Im not after 1gbs - just something solid and grown up.
 
It would seem that all RF lenses are full frame? So one has to get at least an a adapter or ideally the 'speedbooster'

Assuming that one wants 24-105 FF reach or 17-80 S35 reach

--

A sony will have that reach with a 24-105 or the 28-135
 
morgan_moore said:
Thinking about this camera (I am semi seriously after an FS7 replacement) I dunno - i just dont like the fat.

Can I imagine this being my a camera when the shape just feels all wrong.

-how are you supposed to hold it and see on a sunny day?
-how wide is it once you add XLR and hdmi?

Im not joking about sunny days, my most fun jobs in the last 5 years have been portugal and zambia.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsvmq4vF967/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
Click to expand...

Nice pic - are you shielding the camera from the sun with a shopping bag there?

What's interesting is how much the camera looks like the XC10 but lacking the loupe assembly:

caxc10body_2.jpg
caxc10body_4.jpg

That camera is also 4.9" wide as opposed to 6.3" for the C70.

Still, if you rig an EVF to it in a similar placement to your FS7, wouldn't it have worked to shoot those storm drains?
 
morgan_moore said:
It would seem that all RF lenses are full frame? So one has to get at least an a adapter or ideally the 'speedbooster'

Assuming that one wants 24-105 FF reach or 17-80 S35 reach

--

A sony will have that reach with a 24-105 or the 28-135
Click to expand...

That may change if they release an APS-C RF mount camera, which I think is in the rumor stream. I wouldn't wait for those lenses, though.

Why not just get the 18-80 Canon and use a regular RF to EF adapter? Seems like the best ENG lens option to me for less than $10k or $20k in terms of optics, mechanics and features.

In terms of the codec - wasn't chris just saying that the HFR is long-GOP only? Wouldn't be a huge problem for me although occasionally all-I is my mandated deliverable and is probably easier for the computer to process
 
ahalpert said:
Nice pic - are you shielding the camera from the sun with a shopping bag there?
Click to expand...

It happens in that shot it was a monsoon downpour - I was just looking for a shot where I had proper eye protection.

--

Yep the XC10 kind of has it right - I tried it at a show and thought it to be a nice camera in terms of ergonomics. It was on the list when I bought my nikonz6 which won because Im such a nikonian and could be both a 'small cam' but do double duty hanging off the back of my 400 and other things.
 
ahalpert said:
Why not just get the 18-80 Canon and use a regular RF to EF adapter?
Click to expand...

Its an option - a bit steep for me (at $4g it gives the sony a margin with $2.5g for thier lens) - the RF flange distance should enable them to replace the very dated 17-55 with something a bit more everything at the sub $1000 range.

Whats the costs?
Canon 3999 (camera) 100 (adapter) 4000 lens +250 batts?
FX6 4999 (camera) 0 (adapter) 2500 lens + 250 batts (which I already have)
 
morgan_moore said:
It happens in that shot it was a monsoon downpour - I was just looking for a shot where I had proper eye protection.

--

Yep the XC10 kind of has it right - I tried it at a show and thought it to be a nice camera in terms of ergonomics. It was on the list when I bought my nikonz6 which won because Im such a nikonian and could be both a 'small cam' but do double duty hanging off the back of my 400 and other things.
Click to expand...

Never liked the XC10-loupe. Never used it. XC10 had great ergonomics,
great c-cam, except for soft, slow lens. Sold mine.

I hope some 3rd party (kinotechnic?) makes a magnetic loupe for the C70, that you can pull out when needed.


Anyway. I pre-ordered the C70.
As a C300m2 B-cam or A-cam when beeing more compact.

But not a easy choice.

A7siii has EVF, can do super low-light and is lighter, cheaper
C70 has ND, DCI, stronger battery and is more compatible with C300m2.
Both have 422 10 bit, AF and 4 channel audio (with sony hot shoe adaptor).

I have some Sony-gear too and some of their primes are smaller (for instance zeiss 55mm), another plus. So Almost changed system.... but well..
 
morgan_moore said:
Its an option - a bit steep for me (at $4g it gives the sony a margin with $2.5g for thier lens) - the RF flange distance should enable them to replace the very dated 17-55 with something a bit more everything at the sub $1000 range.

Whats the costs?
Canon 3999 (camera) 100 (adapter) 4000 lens +250 batts?
FX6 4999 (camera) 0 (adapter) 2500 lens + 250 batts (which I already have)
Click to expand...

Looks like those costs shake out pretty evenly?

I think the canon may be a better lens optically. I also think I may have seen the 28-135 periodically rushing during zooming in more than one review video, although the reviewers didnt mention it. I could be wrong. Also, it cant do a crash zoom because it's like zoom by wire. I think I may have read some reviews about it breaking at the mount as well.

My feeling is the 18-80 is a better product. If I wanted to get a FF eng type lens for my A7SIII I would still get the 28-135 for lack of other options.

But if you're choosing a lens and then whichever camera will hang off the back of it, the 18-80 might be a better choice?

They could have replaced the 17-55 long ago. I dont think it's a guarantee that they will.

But I agree that a 24-105 on either camera (with a speedbooster on the c70) is the budget way to go.

I'm going to experiment with a motor driving the zoom ring of my sigma 24-70 on the A7SIII and seeing if in combo with the AF I can get smooth results with consistent focus. It would be amazing to be able to do that with the tamron 28-200 although I think its zoom mechanics may not be up to snuff
 
Its interesting to buy a camera to hang off your lens - I think this is where it is going. Indeed the canon is probably more of an adult product.

My canon 70-200 F4 was brilliant, Im far less convinced by sony lenses (to me sony is a new company for DSLR) which might be pure bias as even my joke 17-55 (3.5-5.6?) barrell distortion special still work perfectly and it cost $8.99 my 18-200 sony makes me ill when I touch it.
 
Wait but the canon is 5500 not 3999 (is that the UK price?) So I guess the Sony might be a tick cheaper. But we dont even know the price yet.

I think Sony actually makes pretty nice stills lenses in their GM and G lines. I just think there's a reason the 28-135 is so much cheaper than the 18-80. But canon doesn't even make a FF servo zoom. Yet

I think Sony is coming out with more FF cine zooms (but a holy trinity and not a superzoom?)

It'd be nice to see tamron and sigma get in the ENG lens game
 
I meant just flip it - which it does. (thanks everyone!) This means an image without it sticking out the side.

Im sure it doesnt tilt until swung out.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top