C100: First rumor of C100 MKIII

I suppose if EF lenses can work as well as RF lenses (wit an adapter) there's not much of a drawback here. I wonder if they figured out a way to include an ND filter in the mount. There's not much room in there.
 
drummondb said:
I suppose if EF lenses can work as well as RF lenses (wit an adapter) there's not much of a drawback here. I wonder if they figured out a way to include an ND filter in the mount. There's not much room in there.
Click to expand...

What about the RF to EF adapter with the built in ND slot? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433719-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf_with.html

One economic problem with putting an RF mount on the lowest cost EOS C camera is lens cost. The more desirable RF lenses sell for $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 while the cheapest is $500.00. For what will likely be a $4,000.00 camera
(I can't imagine the C100 MKIII retailing for the the same or more than the C200, right?), the RF lenses seem too expensive to make much sense. Of course, you can buy the $400.00 adapter above and use your EF lenses but then
what's the point of putting an RF mount on the camera?

Of course, I have no inside info on any of this but as a probability exercise, putting the RF mount on the C500 MKII would have made a lot more strategic sense. A $16k camera buyer would be considerably more likely to buy expensive RF mount lenses
than a lower end user who would buy a C100 MKIII, wouldn't they?

Who knows for sure? Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
What about the RF to EF adapter with the built in ND slot? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433719-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf_with.html

One economic problem with putting an RF mount on the lowest cost EOS C camera is lens cost. The more desirable RF lenses sell for $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 while the cheapest is $500.00. For what will likely be a $4,000.00 camera
(I can't imaging the C100 MKIII retailing for the the same or more than the C200, right?), the RF lenses seem too expensive to make much sense. Of course, you can buy the $400.00 adapter above and use your EF lenses but then
what's the point of putting an RF mount on the camera?

Of course, I have no inside info on any of this but as a probability exercise, putting the RF mount on the C500 MKII would have made a lot more strategic sense. A $16k camera buyer would be considerably more likely to buy expensive RF mount lenses
than a lower end user who would buy a C100 MKIII, wouldn't they?

Who knows for sure? Time will tell.
Click to expand...

It's true, right now the RF ecosystem is super underdeveloped, because Canon spent all that time making M lenses. It won't be a few years until jumping into RF would make any sense.
 
puredrifting said:
What about the RF to EF adapter with the built in ND slot? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433719-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf_with.html

One economic problem with putting an RF mount on the lowest cost EOS C camera is lens cost. The more desirable RF lenses sell for $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 while the cheapest is $500.00. For what will likely be a $4,000.00 camera
(I can't imaging the C100 MKIII retailing for the the same or more than the C200, right?), the RF lenses seem too expensive to make much sense. Of course, you can buy the $400.00 adapter above and use your EF lenses but then
what's the point of putting an RF mount on the camera?

Of course, I have no inside info on any of this but as a probability exercise, putting the RF mount on the C500 MKII would have made a lot more strategic sense. A $16k camera buyer would be considerably more likely to buy expensive RF mount lenses
than a lower end user who would buy a C100 MKIII, wouldn't they?

Who knows for sure? Time will tell.
Click to expand...

I'll be holding off buying any RF lenses for as long as possible (maybe ever!) but I think if I was starting out I'd at least consider RF lenses after seeing the writing on the wall. Maybe canon are thinking the c100 iii could be perfect as one of their earlier products to help with the (very drawn out) overall transition to RF lenses.
 
My thinking is, if you are in the Canon digital cinema camera ecosystem, the CN E 18-80 t/4.4 and CN E 70-200 t/4.4 are both far superior, operationally for what we do than the RF lenses. The RF lenses are still lenses and come with all of those drawbacks that we all hate when shooting video/digital cinema with still lenses. The CN E compact servos aren't cinema lenses, still lenses or B4 video lenses, they are a brilliant hybrid of all three lens types. If they made them both t/3.5, I'd say they would be the perfect pair for any of the EOS C cameras and even at t/4.4, everyone I've talked to who owns them loves them. Any of the EOS C cameras hum at ISO 1600 and even 2500/3200, ultra shallow DOF is on it's way out thank goodness, Servo zoom, IS, AF, high quality performance, not really expensive for what they are. I'd pay a little more for either of those lenses than a $3k still lens personally. FF is a hindrance, not a help so I don't care at all about that.

People seem a little obsessed that RF is the way to go and I'm not, I want to give it a few years to see if people actually buy them and if they actually become even a 1/4 as popular as the EF mount has been. Who knows, RF lenses could become the next C700. Not likely but possible.
 
The new Canon RF primes are the better than their L counterparts. The new zooms are the first to have IS at f/2.8 and they are about as good as the current L zooms. Photographers are going to buy them.

Also, the new RF zoom lenses have a control ring that can control without noticeable changes in exposure, are parfocal, have enhanced DPAF control, have the newest generation of IS. They are going to be much better than the L zooms for videographers and I am guessing that a lot of videographers will switch. I've always assumed that videographers spend more on lenses then your average photographer, co I would think that Canon would be happy to give them the chance to buy more lenses.
 
drummondb said:
I suppose if EF lenses can work as well as RF lenses (wit an adapter) there's not much of a drawback here. I wonder if they figured out a way to include an ND filter in the mount. There's not much room in there.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing (and only guessing) that we'll see some lower-cost RF lenses coming out around the time a C100-class Cinema EOS camera is released. Maybe just a 35, 50, and 18-55 or so... Enough to get people going.

And as for the ND, ya, that seem like a challenge. But perhaps they can do a thinner electronic ND (as in the FS7mkII), or along the lines of that Panasonic OPF CMOS sensor with it's "built-in" (I think more like thinly-coated) ND: https://news.panasonic.com/global/press/data/2018/02/en180214-2/en180214-2.html

No idea how this will all go, but it could be there's a reasonable way to get ND-like functionality into an RF-mount camera.

But feels like an NAB 2020 announcement, don't you think?
 
RF mount on the entry level EOS Cinema model seems a bit odd unless they price the camera at the C200 level with similar or better features and slowly retire C200, which by the end of 2020 will be three years old.

On the positive side, if you get stuff like this on it, it just might be a huge hit. With any native glass.

 
puredrifting said:
My thinking is, if you are in the Canon digital cinema camera ecosystem, the CN E 18-80 t/4.4 and CN E 70-200 t/4.4 are both far superior, operationally for what we do than the RF lenses. The RF lenses are still lenses and come with all of those drawbacks that we all hate when shooting video/digital cinema with still lenses. The CN E compact servos aren't cinema lenses, still lenses or B4 video lenses, they are a brilliant hybrid of all three lens types. If they made them both t/3.5, I'd say they would be the perfect pair for any of the EOS C cameras and even at t/4.4, everyone I've talked to who owns them loves them. Any of the EOS C cameras hum at ISO 1600 and even 2500/3200, ultra shallow DOF is on it's way out thank goodness, Servo zoom, IS, AF, high quality performance, not really expensive for what they are. I'd pay a little more for either of those lenses than a $3k still lens personally. FF is a hindrance, not a help so I don't care at all about that.

People seem a little obsessed that RF is the way to go and I'm not, I want to give it a few years to see if people actually buy them and if they actually become even a 1/4 as popular as the EF mount has been. Who knows, RF lenses could become the next C700. Not likely but possible.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call them "brilliant". The focus is a "slip clutch" design, like still lenses, with the witness marks inside a window. Both horrible ideas/designs for a lens intended for video/motion. They could have easily given it hard stops with a real/traditional witness mark layout and still made it compatible with AF systems.

That said, if they had had these lenses when the original 300 came out, they would not have been able to keep them on the shelves and I would have probably bought both.
 
DLD said:
RF mount on the entry level EOS Cinema model seems a bit odd unless they price the camera at the C200 level with similar or better features and slowly retire C200, which by the end of 2020 will be three years old.
Click to expand...

What if it's a C200 without the RAW light that records 4K 8-bit ?

This way it doesn't conflict with the C200 and 10-bit footage stays with the C300 and C500 cameras.
 
TheDingo said:
What if it's a C200 without the RAW light that records 4K 8-bit ? ...
Click to expand...

I think that would be a cause for pitchforks.

A more likely scenario is some form of 10-bit XAVC (100-150 Mbps?) to the SD cards without CRL at all. But, as PureDrifting has said on many an occasion, Canon wants RL to be their 4K/6K codec. If so, I assume that C100 MKIII (if that's the name) will have the same one as C200 with the same CFast 2.0 cards rather than C500 MKII and C300 MKIII, which will have the CFexpress.

As to pricing, I am taking the 5D MKIV (~ $2,750 at B&H) and EOS R (~ $1,950, was $2,300 originally) analogy. Canon doesn't seem to be looking at these two models with the same sensor as competing against one another. Or, from a purely business standpoint, they're looking at 5D MKIV as a cash cow and at EOS R as a penetrator, where gaining a market share is more important than the short term profits.
 
DLD said:
I think that would be a cause for pitchforks.
Click to expand...

But the C100 cameras currently only shoot 1080p 8-bit, so C100 shooters would be used to 8-bit.

Giving a C100 Mk3 4K 10-bit could kill off some C200 sales as the lack of 10-bit recording was the number one complaint when the C200 first came out. Lots of folks like me that shoot corporate work and want fast turn around and the ability to hand off footage for the client's team to edit, would generally prefer to hand over 4K 10-bit instead of RAW Light.
 
Right but an RF model won't kill off an EF model. They're headed for a peaceful coexistence, as it were. That's probably how Canon execs think. Pending further developments.
 
DLD said:
Right but an RF model won't kill off an EF model. They're headed for a peaceful coexistence, as it were. That's probably how Canon execs think. Pending further developments.
Click to expand...

Canon makes very good EF ---> RF lens adapters, so I don't think making a C100 Mk3 with an RF mount will make any difference to owners of EF lenses.
 
TheDingo said:
Canon makes very good EF ---> RF lens adapters, so I don't think making a C100 Mk3 with an RF mount will make any difference to owners of EF lenses.
Click to expand...

This would depend on the native RF glass. That 28-70 F2 may be pricey at $3,000 but received top reviews everywhere I saw and would make a perfect companion for a full frame Cinema C series. And they have a couple of 1.2 primes also.

The question then becomes whether C100 MKIII would be full frame if C300 MKIII is only s35. I say, they want launch the RF mount pro style, that's the way to do it.
 
They wanted to dissociate the RF mount from cheap M mount. So the first few lenses that they launched are all better than L series (EF mount) lenses. By providing better quality and higher price of lenses, the RF mount is positioned as premium. Canon is signaling and has also said that RF mount removes the limitations of the EF mount. So the writing on the wall is clear. It will take a couple of years to move to RF mount as it takes that much time to develop sufficient native glass. Rest all can be with adapters. There will be some lower priced RF mount lenses that will follow soon. Also, independent lens manufacturers will launch RF mount lenses.

Canon is a company which gives a free card with a camera. 128 GB CFast card with 1DXII. 512 GB CFExpress is being given with C500MarkII. So why don't you think an EF adapter can also be bundled by Canon? That will solve the problems of people. Why do you think that Canon will miss this trick?

RED has already announced Komodo camera with Canon RF mount. Canon will launch a camera with RF mount. There will be others who will do so in the next few years.

I am fine with Canon's pace because it is slow but steady and gives us products that are sturdy and can take abuse. I don't want a camera with many bugs. Charge me more but don't torture me infront of a client.
 
Canon is giving away the EF-to-RF adapter for both R and RP in the US. It's $99 otherwise.
 
While people love the idea of CRL, I am guessing that the general market for the C100 isn't actually interested in the data rates. Canon could probably save some some money on design by pulling the CRL out of the C200 and just giving us a low bit rate 4K camera. If they went to a full frame 6K or 8K sensor and just gave a simple, compressed 4K full frame/ 2K S35 output like with the original C100, that could be an interesting camera for events/weddings/web promos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top