C700: How about that C700?

NorBro

NorBro

Major Contributor
You're probably not buying one because you can't afford it (or don't want it), or you're not on here and work in the 1% in places and on things that have equipment provided by multi-million dollar studios/companies...but how about that C700?

Some new-ish clips? Thoughts?

https://vimeo.com/226278529

https://vimeo.com/226201656

https://vimeo.com/227870639

In my opinion...every Canon camera looks the same, lol.

Any other samples out there? The global shutter version recently started shipping too (claims 14 stops with a GS).
 
Last edited:
I think there's a prejudice for Canon on the low end and anti-Canon on the high end. The problem with C700 is that it runs about $50,000 for a Raw image/data acquisition where it runs into more established competitors.

And ... Canon doesn't have a $15,000-$25,000 auto focus zoom that can play well with it. And, if you drop the AF, then you might as well use Alexa. I once guessed that there are 40,000-50,000 Alexa's out there in all its iterations. Mitch said that I was too high (in my estimate, he meant ... I think) but, even at 25,000-30,000, it looks like all good seats on the bus are already taken.
 
Every time I think of the C700 I have to remind myself of why it's better than the C300 Mark II, which I have a hard time remembering why.

C300 Mark II vs C700:

Cons of C700: Heavier, bulkier, has no LCD screen, has no marketable reputation among producers, and costs three times the price of a C300 Mark II.

Pros of C700: Better slow-motion (which I don't use often), (I guess) better ergonomics for shoulder mounting. Same (or very similar) sensor, new processor, maybe slightly better image quality, but pretty much the same. Better ergonomics for a RAW recorder, but at around $25k for the recorder, media, and reader, it's too steep a price to upgrade to an uncompressed RAW workflow, which I don't need (and can still do on my C300s with an external recorder if need be, with a $22k savings). ProRes at some frame rates.


Even if they were the same price, I don't think I'd be interested in a C700 for $10,000. I'm not interested in Canon's previous failed flagship camera, the C500, which debuted at I believe $30k, and now sells used for around $5k-$6k; I think the C300 Mark I is a better camera (smaller, lighter, and actually has a hand grip) which sells new for $5k now. In three years from now when the C300 Mark II is theoretically $5k and the C700 is $6k, I'll likely still prefer the C300 Mark II.

I'm saving up for the Arri Amira, which is perhaps the C700's primary competition.

Amira vs C700.

Pros of Amira: Top name brand recognition among producers, way better image quality, internal ProRes workflow at all available frame rates, better post color grading workflow, no crop or image degradation during slow motion.

Pros of C700: True 4K, 10 stops of ND, better low light, dual record, auto-focus. Huh, all of the pros seem to be in the C300 Mark II, which I already have. Which brings me back to, why is the C700 better than the C300 Mark II? Oh yeah, I wrote a list a few paragraphs ago; I'll have to go check that out.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
I think there's a prejudice for Canon on the low end and anti-Canon on the high end. The problem with C700 is that it runs about $50,000 for a Raw image/data acquisition where it runs into more established competitors.

And ... Canon doesn't have a $15,000-$25,000 auto focus zoom that can play well with it. And, if you drop the AF, then you might as well use Alexa. I once guessed that there are 40,000-50,000 Alexa's out there in all its iterations. Mitch said that I was too high (in my estimate, he meant ... I think) but, even at 25,000-30,000, it looks like all good seats on the bus are already taken.
Click to expand...
But you still have, oh, Netflix, say, of which Arri is not approved for (aside from the 65) since it's not true 4K. So, who have they been going to? Seems the Varicam 35 is popular with Netflix lately. A good alternative to Red which they had been previously using (and still use, but the Varicam is what I've seen listed more on their more recent shows).

Imagine you're a DP or producer for Netflix and are comparing launch videos as a frame of reference for which camera to choose...



 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
In my opinion...every Canon camera looks the same, lol.
Click to expand...

I have to say, based upon just these three clips, I am inclined to agree with you. I see nothing in these images that I couldn't capture with my C200 or with a C300 MKII. The images don't look bad at all, but they don't look like you would want to pay $30k to $50k for a camera to capture them. Personally, if I was spending any more than what I spent for my C200, it would be for a Varicam LT. I was pretty close to buying one but the exorbitant cost of P2 Express cards and the fact that I would need not only the new camera, but new battery system, a good, expensive stack of P2 Express cards, new tripod and head and the fact that it is an absolute tank made me talk myself out of it. I'm getting too old for heavy cameras, I had two Betacams, an F900, DSR500, and a few others, I like toting around small and light cameras much better, especially when traveling. Still really looking forward to trying out the EVA 1. If it is as Varicam-like as a lot of the evaluators are saying, that is really exciting because I find the Varicam images very impressive.
 
As I said before, the 700 was several years too late to the party. And no real compelling features over what's currently available...
 
Eric Coughlin said:
But you still have, oh, Netflix, say, of which Arri is not approved for (aside from the 65) since it's not true 4K. So, who have they been going to? Seems the Varicam 35 is popular with Netflix lately...
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a good camera and has that dual ISO. They also use F55 often (which I am not a big fan of ... nonetheless, one can dial up a look in Raw and Sony can probably throw some promo money behind it). Then there's Alexa65 and the high end Reds.

And Alexa controls the 1-hr TV and features. And, after that, there's really no compelling reason to dive into C700.

On the other hand, should Canon lower the price on C700 replacement - let's presume the same body style - down to $25,000, include compressed Raw/Raw Light to dual CFast 2.0 and release an 18-80 T2.8 for ~ $10,000 that can work with the DPAF, the overall value of the package will be far more attractive.

PS. Canon's promo videos suck. I've seen more "filmic" YouTube clips from 5D MKIV.
 
There already is an 18-80 cine zoom which is faster than Canon's; the ARRI Alura 18-80mm T2.6. A little faster than the T/2.8 you mentioned, no auto-focus, $24k instead of $10k, and it weighs 10.4 lbs.

I've heard the Canon 17-120 auto-focus works with the C300 Mark II, so I imagine it would work with the C700 as well. So there you go.
 
DLD said:
On the other hand, should Canon lower the price on C700 replacement - let's presume the same body style - down to $25,000, include compressed Raw/Raw Light to dual CFast 2.0 and release an 18-80 T2.8 for ~ $10,000 that can work with the DPAF, the overall value of the package will be far more attractive.
Click to expand...

I don't think a lower entry price would do much for sales of a C700(MII). Its concept of being a "true" cinema camera (in contrast to the C300's grab'n shoot verité concept) locks it in a market, that doesn't think much about camera prices.
All that matters here is image quality, reliability and a proven and tested workflow.
And sth like a "collective memory" most DP seem to share, of how "film" looks.
Or maybe more a "collective hysteria" how digital film should look like:)

With lenses it even get's more mystical and I doubt a new/better AF cine zoom would push C700 use much (albeit make C700 users more happy).


DLD said:
PS. Canon's promo videos suck. I've seen more "filmic" YouTube clips from 5D MKIV.
Click to expand...
I always wonder how these promos get committed :)
Still, those are mostly done with none-final versions.
The moment they have final versions running off the assembly line, Canon should approach Indie productions and sponsor their next movies camera department.
So at least one year later, you could say: Well here are some real-world examples.
 
I agree that a major problem with it is the look you're getting out of a large/heavy/expensive camera. In a few of those clips it did look very broadcast tv which is a shame if it's meant to compete with Alexa/Amira. You'd just pick the latter given the choice.

Also I can't deal with the usual Canon caveats on the formats it shoots... for example, it will only do 30fps in 4k prores. At this cost if it has a feature, it needs to be implemented across the board.
 
Spartacus said:
I always wonder how these promos get committed :)
Still, those are mostly done with none-final versions.
The moment they have final versions running off the assembly line, Canon should approach Indie productions and sponsor their next movies camera department.
So at least one year later, you could say: Well here are some real-world examples.
Click to expand...
What's crazy is the camera has been shipping for around eight or nine months now and I have yet to see a single example of narrative filmmaking with it. I haven't even seen a well lit piece with it as The Calling and the Aston Martin video were mostly natural (lazy) lighting.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
What's crazy is the camera has been shipping for around eight or nine months now and I have yet to see a single example of narrative filmmaking with it. I haven't even seen a well lit piece with it as The Calling and the Aston Martin video were mostly natural (lazy) lighting.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I get the Hollywood Reporter, American Cinematographer and the ICG600 Magazine and not a single production I have seen in any of the three have been shot on the C700. I had a chance to use the C700 two times now, just shooting tests, not on a paid project and it's a nice camera. But it's not extraordinary for the money and it's big and heavy like a fully crewed episodic or feature camera. So it doesn't make sense for owner operators nearly as much as a C300 MKII or an Amira or RED. The longer I am in the business, the more I personally dig small and light cameras, especially for what I do. That's what is exciting about the EVA 1, not the price tag, the size, it looks really tiny. And the dual ISO concept sounds amazingly useful. At this point, I don't see much happening with the C700 and I am not sure what Canon could do for a C700 MKII that would entice Hollywood to use it. It would need to look significantly better than the rest of the cameras in the line and on par with the REDs, Arris and Panasonic V-Pure.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
What's crazy is the camera has been shipping for around eight or nine months now and I have yet to see a single example of narrative filmmaking with it. I haven't even seen a well lit piece with it as The Calling and the Aston Martin video were mostly natural (lazy) lighting.
Click to expand...

Well, let`s say someone decided on the 700 two months after it went on sale. After getting to know the camera and maybe shooting tests another two months go by until principal photography starts.
Then a month production. After two more weeks of vacation/ingest, post pro starts aso...
What I´m saying is it may take some time until you see a professional production use a brand-new camera.
That being said: Been there, done that with the C500. After bombing with the 500, the 700 really should have been given (for free) to DPs by the dozen to make an impact.
Best thing Canon can happen IMHO is Jim Frohna using it for his Netflix gigs.
 
The big switch in the high end market will take place when the broadcast/cable TV production goes 4K but it'll be tough for Canon to make inroads there because of its existing rep. Of course, if it puts out a 6K type camera with other compelling features and ARRI keeps calling its Alexa Alev sensor "4K", then the whole market will be up for grabs.

PS. Sony's new full frame camera will also be in the running.
 
I don't care about how cinematic or videotic the test footage looks. I know it's all in the grade. I keep trying to communicate this, but DVXUsers continue to fixate on so-and-so camera's "color science." I thought that all the LUT companies' demos dispelled our concern for a camera's built-in look. Steve Yedlin's color science demo further nails the coffin.

That being said, the difference in look is pretty small these days between a $50,000 camera and a $5,000 camera, or even a $500 camera, at least to an average viewer at average viewing distances.

In my earliest days (high school) I preferred shoulder cameras. I scoffed at handicams as unergonomic --- how could you possible hold it steady? And they were unergonomic as long as they only had a viewfinder and no LCD panel. Gradually I came around, after working with a wedding guy who used the TRV900. A flip out LCD acts as a left handle. It also lets you hold the camera against your chest for stability, instead of having to hold it against your face, as with a viewfinder. It also lets you easily raise it above your head for high angles or down at your feet for low.

Shoulder cams will continue to be a necessity for those who prefer parfocal, long-range, cinema zooms. But even then, you can use accessories to turn your handicam into an Aaton.

Ergocine-Lion.jpg

But you can't strip down a shoulder camera into a handicam (unless it's one of those modular thingamahoosits).
 
Last edited:
combatentropy said:
...Gradually I came around, after working with a wedding guy who used the TRV900. A flip out LCD acts as a left handle. It also lets you hold the camera against your chest for stability, instead of having to hold it against your face, as with a viewfinder. It also lets you easily raise it above your head for high angles or down at your feet for low.
Click to expand...

OMG, I had a TRV900. I had so much fun with that little camera, shot so many cool shots that I couldn't shoot any other way. It was a great camera for it's time. I shot the same way with it and I even had a Steadicam DV for it. It's didn't look as good as our DBeta camera but it looked as good as a cheap analog Betacam. Back when I liked Sony cameras.
 
I am glad I found this thread as I have been personally debating over most of the cameras mentioned: Amira vs C700 vs Varicam LT vs C200. I know that seems like a very wide spread on the budget range there but I am comparing features / capabilities - more or less.

To me, I can't really see much of reason to go with a C700 over the C200; the on-board raw-light of the C200, touchscreen DPAF and they both would seem to have the same Canon look / colors. For the cost difference you could but a whole lot of CF cards for the C200. I also think I read somewhere that Canon has created some sort of "production profile" that is supposed to mimic the Alexa colors almost exactly - not sure if this is accurate OR if it available on the C200 or not.

The Varicam LT seems to have a color / look that a lot of people like; I always seemed to like it as well but I haven't had a Panasonic camera since my old HPX500 so I don't have any firsthand experience with this new crop of Varicams. Plus, it has the dual ISO which seems like it would be extremely useful but again, no firsthand experience to know if it's as useful in practice. Sadly, no AF though but if it did that may push it over the top when you compare price to features / performance.

Then there's the Amira...colors, look, roll-off, etc. and it's priced similarly to the C700. As mentioned above, it's not true 4K but I'm not sure how much that really matters with what the sensor delivers. Surely up-scaling from UHD to 4K could not be that detrimental to the image?

All the above offer similar recording / frame-rate options, on-board audio, etc. The UHD vs true 4K doesn't really matter all that much for what I am producing so the one thing I keep going back to is the whole DPAF and it's usefulness for the OMB stuff I tend to be shooting the majority of the time but I don't know that alone can or should off-set the final image quality...and that's where I get stuck.
 
Hey Jeremy, if you or anyone else out there would like to try out a VariCam LT please let me know. Seeing is believing and we feel that the camera realy stands on its own. I've done this for several people here already and all our impressed and some were moved enough to make a purchase. No pressure, you try it to see if you like it.

Also, in your post I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. The Amira has a 3.2K sensor, of which 2.8K is mostly used. This is what is then uprezzed to UHD (3.8K). You mention uprezzing UHD to 4K, which is not something anyone would do. Those two formats are the same height with a slightly different width, so there would be no point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top