Is Canon getting ready to release new cinema camera/s? Big C200 Price reduction

Gordon Willis would have called this, "The Sherwin Williams shots".

I think it's pretty for about 10 seconds. Then it becomes distracting.
 
lol, surely you've seen worse in almost all movies in the history of cinema...people constantly missing or overshooting focus for a second here and there. Some scenes are flat out fuzzy for multiple seconds because that was probably the best performance (or the only one).
 
BTW, it's not that I don't like ARRI cameras or their lenses. It's just that I think they went over the top with these images. I would have liked to see a more subdued palette.
 
It's a pretty standard ARRI palette, but I'd agree that the wider focal lengths can be distracting if used too much because they start to throw everything off.
 
this arri film is saying 'we make some wides and some telephotos' and they do and they are good

Its just a test.

---

As for the focus buzz - its becoming a joke when an fx3 can track a kidde down a bmx track but a $700/day puller and $5000 preston or arri HMU5 cant focus on a girl hugging a tree - IN a DEMO VIDEO of what excellent solutions they offer.

I learned long ago (2003?) that my eyes on location looking at some 4in viewer could not get a level of sharp that would stand the scrutiny of a 10ft screen.. af tickling has to be the future.
 
DLD said:
A) There's a lot of reasons to post something that looks nice. That's how sample/highlights/product reels/demo rolls work. That's how all camera manufacturers advertise. Because not many like crap.
Click to expand...

Correct. There's a reason for a manufacturer to produce an ad like that. But not for you to show it here to demonstrate the capabilities of cheap cameras.

You can put together a highlight reel of Tesla autopilot executing complex maneuvers or Panasonic's old depth from defocus technology working flawlessly. It's not indicative of typical performance and won't show you points of failure, which is what we need to evaluate.
 
DLD said:
Gordon Willis would have called this, "The Sherwin Williams shots".

I think it's pretty for about 10 seconds. Then it becomes distracting.
Click to expand...

The whole point of that video is to let people evaluate their ultrawides and super telephotos. That's it. And it does so quite capably
 
morgan_moore said:
these people need af - painful focus buzzes - which doesn't matter until you are saying “we are best on the planet”
Click to expand...

Maybe. (Not noticeable to me on my phone.) But the creative focus pulls would be difficult to do using AF, so they'll certainly need the same manual focus potential. Also, according to Brawley, autofocus control is built in to high-end focus systems, so they do have autofocus available already
 
horns do have a tracking mode if you spent week calibrating your lenses and strap on a couple of KG of garbage to your rig. Its not like crocodile eyebrow mode though which is now on $500 mirrorless and your daughters phone.

--

I used the word af tickle carefully - that is an af system designed for the arty pulls to be dne by a human and the robot just tickles so the eyes are sharp not the nostrils.

that where arri should be facing.

Anyway what is this thread about? :)

arri fcus. also it assumes you can get sharp off thier 4in monitor. horns at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFXVN0_lNq0
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
The whole point of that video is to let people evaluate their ultrawides and super telephotos. That's it. And it does so quite capably
Click to expand...

ARRI has been making the same videos since Alexa appeared in the wild. It's their shtick. It's obviously working. But not everything has to look like ARRI.
 
I've been saying this forever now, but I'd love to see someone make a very big Hollywood movie with larger-than-life A-listers with a C300 Mark III or a FX6, etc.

Assuming the talents' contracts would allow that, it would be cool to see. I know handfuls of successful films were made with similar gear or even less (like the Sony mirrorless horror movie and a few C300 HD flicks), but I mean a really big movie with mostly a prosumer camera.

It's well-known that high-society businesses, people spend millions on wining and dining and traveling, throwing away so much money, that the small amounts in comparison to renting/using ARRI by default is not even a thought (which I feel like why it hasn't changed regardless of quality).
 
I dont see why that is seen as the tree to climb.

Messi (footballer?) at 400fps, that is canon homeland, or the F1

I grew up in the stills world of hasselblad for fashion/art and the big canikons doing sport and news.

canon need to domintate news/doc which they are currently gifting to sony.

(I fooooking hate gifting as a word.. giving)
 
If they don't make another C700 or something similar, at least as a frenemy for the Venice, then that's what they will indeed continue to do; primarily focus on news/doc/corporate, YouTube, everything else which they already do well, along with Sony, including of course photography.
 
C500 MKII is now down to $11,000 in the US. C700MKII (or whatever it's called) then will be $16,000 and C200 MKII will be $8,000.

Neither will be a thread to Venice/Alexa, much like Venice isn't a threat to Alexa either. The question isn't "Canon in the high end world" but the size of the non-high-end world. And that is growing and growing. And C200 is good enough for it already.

The other question is the competition in the sub-$10,000 sector because Nikon and Panasonic want a piece of it too and R5 & R6 were huge successes for Canon.

And the ever dwindling MFT and small but still alive APS-C are good enough for YouTubing and all the local work - real estate, corporate, weddings, etc.
 
I don't understand why it would matter or prove anything to shoot a big budget film with a cheap camera. It's been done already anyway. A bunch of movies have been shot with an iPhone even. Possession of Hannah grace was shot on sony a7sii with a production budget of $7.7 million and grossed $43 million.

Bts:

Alpha-Universe-POHG-DF-03477.jpg

All the accessories, lighting and support equipment are the same as on any other shoot. That's why the cost of the camera itself is only a fraction of the camera budget

And where does this idea come from that arri cameras don't deserve to be dominant. do ppl really think inertia is the only thing keeping them in use. They make the best cameras. And now they have the Alexa 35, which nothing else can touch. I don't understand this entire discussion
 
DLD said:
C500 MKII is now down to $11,000 in the US. C700MKII (or whatever it's called) then will be $16,000 and C200 MKII will be $8,000.

Neither will be a thread to Venice/Alexa, much like Venice isn't a threat to Alexa either. The question isn't "Canon in the high end world" but the size of the non-high-end world. And that is growing and growing. And C200 is good enough for it already.

The other question is the competition in the sub-$10,000 sector because Nikon and Panasonic want a piece of it too and R5 & R6 were huge successes for Canon.

And the ever dwindling MFT and small but still alive APS-C are good enough for YouTubing and all the local work - real estate, corporate, weddings, etc.
Click to expand...

CVP had a good summary of why the C700 MK I wasn't a success.

Canon doesn't seem to have done any market research (i.e. asking rental houses, DPs) outside of Japan. (The old Galapagos syndrome strikes again.)

And as we have seen with the R-series cameras (superb video autofocus), the still camera division seems much more responsive to customer needs than whatever department makes the C-series cameras.

 
norway said:
CVP had a good summary of why the C700 MK I wasn't a success.

Canon doesn't seem to have done any market research (i.e. asking rental houses, DPs) outside of Japan. (The old Galapagos syndrome strikes again.)
Click to expand...

I’ve said repeatedly, Canon just does not understand the “cine camera” market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top