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

The high end market has sailed. One might as well call it the LF market. ARRI owns almost all of it. End of story.

Which should be OK for Canon because there's a lot more money on the consumer end and they own about 40% of it. And the consumer priced gear is getting really good.

IMO, now the company needs to issue glass deemed worthy of its better cameras and its Dual-Pixel auto focus. Overall though, the pure image quality from this generation of video hardware is beating the human retina already. The next step is the workflow improvements - low light/high ISO, IBIS, slo-mo, built-in LUT's, in-body digital effects such as the elimination of lens breathing, maybe some sort of a folding/rolling OLED monitor, etc.

And, if I were a gear guesser, I would expect the lower end C200 MKII be a 6K APS-C and a higher end C700MKII an 8K full frame.

But I have no inside knowledge whatsoever.
 
I would give Canon the benefit of the doubt and say they do understand the market, but they just wanted to see if they could have one final hurrah with the C700 in 2015/16, which keep in mind was a time still filled with 'broadcast camera prices' and many not as aware minds as today.

Supposedly they made some updates to it based on feedback, but it was too late by then.

A lot has changed since then and I don't think they would ever try to release another $30K camera.
 
Ill say it a million times.. 'the market' is not all backlit poppy fields

An arri with no AF is completely useless for locking onto a 200MPH F1 car with an 800 5.6 and 200FPS is p_ss poor

500fps+, no clubbins hanging all over it, internal transmitter, waterproof, laser fast AF

Even earphones with no curly cable would be a major tech leap for broadcast operators! (especially ones that that talk to/from director)

So there you have it .. huge hole in the market for expensive cameras.. F1, ice hockey football, nike adverts,

But when they make a c700iii or whatever they will film somone skipping through the poppies with DP Eduardo using ancient cookes.. just showing a 700iv to be a poor Arri copy.

Maybe not even a poor copy, but until there is a spare in an argentinian rental house its just too risky
 
But that's not the regular market...something like that is a specialty camera for the once in a blue moon someone needs to lock onto a 200MPH F1 in 500FPS who doesn't work in that field already using Phantom and company, AF or not.
 
I dunno - loads of action sports going on every country every day.
i stills world i know 10 news sport togs to every hasselblad toting art/fashioner
 
For sure, but how much slow-motion do they broadcast, you know? A lot of the very slow slow-motion that is captured live is used later in other pieces when they create additional content, documentaries, etc.

60p-120p is more than enough for a catch or goal, etc when watching on TV.

Nevertheless if anyone is thinking of making them they are still very much welcome; cheaper, lighter, less power hungry...these kind of cameras would be great for nature programming, too.
 
morgan_moore said:
I dunno - loads of action sports going on every country every day.
i stills world i know 10 news sport togs to every hasselblad toting art/fashioner
Click to expand...

theoretically you could do this with arri and cine lenses using a lidar system attachment which are already available. I doubt you would get the amazing subject selection and tracking that is offered by on-sensor PDAF implementations. but you're at a bit of a mismatch between PDAF and arri, IMO, because of the lenses. There isn't a PDAF system that I know of which is engineered to connect to and drive an external motor. And if you want to use any available cinema lenses, including heavy ones which probably couldn't be driven by dinky internal motors even if you wanted to do it that way, then you'll be needing an external motor solution.

That would be interesting, to see PDAF on-sensor in an ARRI camera that connects to an external motor driving the focus. But, of course, PDAF pixels have drawbacks for imaging quality. Those drawbacks have mostly been solved through engineering, I believe. But if you really want the best imaging, you'd probably eschew them altogether.

Maybe it would make more sense to put PDAF into an Amira-type camera. Let it speak directly to some brand of stills lenses with internal motors or to an external motor driving focus gears. But I doubt they will do this. Seems more like a move for RED
 
ARRI doesn't design their sensors - whoever makes it for them afterwards, with the ALEV being done by On Semi - with the AF, so it's LiDAR or a Sonar based rangefinder module like microTape. MicroTape states that it has a 6 meter/21 ft range. New LiDAR can do 50m+ (with the heavy stationary units going up to 200m).

What Canon can do for its niche is to have a full editing/correctional suite in body, so any natural physical aberrations are instantly corrected, as it's done in smartphones. And with crappier lenses and in much cheaper bodies.
 
DLD said:
ARRI doesn't design their sensors - whoever makes it for them afterwards, with the ALEV being done by On Semi - with the AF, so it's LiDAR or a Sonar based rangefinder module like microTape. MicroTape states that it has a 6 meter/21 ft range. New LiDAR can do 50m+ (with the heavy stationary units going up to 200m).

What Canon can do for its niche is to have a full editing/correctional suite in body, so any natural physical aberrations are instantly corrected, as it's done in smartphones. And with crappier lenses and in much cheaper bodies.
Click to expand...

How is lidar going to distinguish between a racecar and the road from 100 feet away? Or one racecar and another?

there are downsides to correcting flaws in post (or "in body" which is really in post). You're pitching solutions for the rest, not the best
 
ahalpert said:
there are downsides to correcting flaws in post (or "in body" which is really in post). You're pitching solutions for the rest, not the best
Click to expand...

Canon knows its own deficiencies better than others and can save its shooters a lot of time by making them live and on the go.

BTW, Zeiss recently made a camera with an in-body editing suit. It didn't sell well due to its price but it can be done.

And, as a side note, your Sony A7SIII has a digital zoom and a lens breathing correction (selected Sony glass only). It's the first step of many.
 
ahalpert said:
..but you're at a bit of a mismatch between PDAF and arri, IMO, because of the lenses. There isn't a PDAF system that I know of which is engineered to connect to and drive an external motor. And if you want to use any available cinema lenses, including heavy ones which probably couldn't be driven by dinky internal motors even if you wanted to do it that way, then you'll be needing an external motor solution...
Click to expand...

I film sports and im bored of the chat of this 2003 antique arri thing especially dressed up like spider with flimsy wires all over it at $5k per blob.

I just want my 400 2.8 to pop sharp and still be sharp when runner crosses the line.
 
morgan_moore said:
I film sports and im bored of the chat of this 2003 antique arri thing especially dressed up like spider with flimsy wires all over it at $5k per blob.

I just want my 400 2.8 to pop sharp and still be sharp when runner crosses the line.
Click to expand...

Get an a7rV. End of

But if you want the best image quality, it's another discussion
 
DLD said:
Canon knows its own deficiencies better than others and can save its shooters a lot of time by making them live and on the go.

BTW, Zeiss recently made a camera with an in-body editing suit. It didn't sell well due to its price but it can be done.

And, as a side note, your Sony A7SIII has a digital zoom and a lens breathing correction (selected Sony glass only). It's the first step of many.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that these features are available in-camera or that it's useful to have them. I'm saying that there are good reasons to work with a superior lens that has corrected for these issues to begin with.

(Also, my a7siii didn't get lens breathing correction although my a7iv has it)
 
ahalpert said:
I'm not disputing that these features are available in-camera or that it's useful to have them. I'm saying that there are good reasons to work with a superior lens that has corrected for these issues to begin with.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just a thing. The original Alexa had an in-body upscaling from 2.8K to 4K but that was mostly a PR replacement for post. Most cameras have an in-body lens correction, which can also be done in post but saves time if it's in-body. Presumably a high end "consumer" camera will have a slew of similar options that s shooter can activate or leave alone. The basic idea is that, if a smartphone has it, so should a hybrid.
 
Image correction was pioneer by hasselblad.

probably when developing the 28mm 645 lens which is very wide fov

they determined rhat a simple “fisheye” design with a digital correction out performed a physically corrected rectilinear lens.

the lens caused some outrage as despite the price it was rubbish when used with film (the roll stuff) and marked a step change to digital at the top end
—-

ivthink knowing the Hasselblad/phase one history in stills is useful.

very wonderful high resolution images (16 bit in 2003) but too slow for 80% of work


which is exactly how i feel about arri
 

Attachments

  • CC7B2B05-26D0-4874-8E14-121B0F28CD19.jpeg
    CC7B2B05-26D0-4874-8E14-121B0F28CD19.jpeg
    56.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Image correction was pioneer by hasselblad.

probably when developing the 28mm 645 lens which is very wide fov

they determined rhat a simple “fisheye” design with a digital correction out performed a physically corrected rectilinear lens.

the lens caused some outrage as despite the price it was rubbish when used with film (the roll stuff) and marked a step change to digital at the top end
—-

ivthink knowing the Hasselblad/phase one history in stills is useful.

very wonderful high resolution images (16 bit in 2003) but too slow for 80% of work


which is exactly how i feel about arri
Click to expand...

I can’t speak about the rest of the world, but in the US Arri is used a LOT in the high-end sports doc/feature world(mostly Amira’s, mini’s, miLF’s and now the A35, as they continue to trickle out into the world). Stick & Ball and motorsports…. Not exactly slow, plodding and planned out.
 
The NFL (Films) went for Amira's as soon as ARRI came out with them. But, for the last two years, the NFL broadcasters added the shallow--depth-field experience, which basically means a "consumer" Sony camera (A7RIV or even A7III) on a gimbal or a special balancing rig, if it's FX-6/FX-9.

The trick caught on globally because the international soccer (aka FIFA football) coverage has also adopted the idea.

But for regular game footage, I assume, TV networks still use small sensor broadcast cameras with mammoth lenses. Because Jon Rahm needs to be in focus.
 
They adopted the Venice into a lot of their work which is why the small Sony mirrorless' made sense.

Personally I thought a small ARRI cube would have come sooner rather than later (like years ago).
 
DLD said:
The NFL (Films) went for Amira's as soon as ARRI came out with them. But, for the last two years, the NFL broadcasters added the shallow--depth-field experience, which basically means a "consumer" Sony camera (A7RIV or even A7III) on a gimbal or a special balancing rig, if it's FX-6/FX-9.
.
Click to expand...

S35 is also a shallow DOF experience. We're talking a difference of about 1 stop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top