New Canon Cinema Camera to sit between C300 and C100?

[Darren Levine]

hardware aside, i don't see how they would be able to give the c50 60p, or for that matter, anything over 30p, since it's all to obvious the only reason the c100 doesn't do 60p is c300.

they play an odd little game. my guess is they'll strip out the ND filters and call it an fs100 killer. i would hope they'd consider giving the c300 the firmware option of up to 100mb, and give the c100 a boost as well, and leave the current c100 codec for the c50

the biggest difference between large companies like canon, and smaller companies like BM, is that BM is trying to squeeze every last bit of functionality in the hardware they've chosen, canon on the other hand is finding ways to cripple their hardware. it makes sense from a supply perspective, because using an existing chip is more cost effective than to design a lower end one, but it certainly leaves them open to speculation and criticism.

 

[traviswears]

the biggest difference between large companies like canon, and smaller companies like BM, is that BM is trying to squeeze every last bit of functionality in the hardware they've chosen, canon on the other hand is finding ways to cripple their hardware. it makes sense from a supply perspective, because using an existing chip is more cost effective than to design a lower end one, but it certainly leaves them open to speculation and criticism.

Frustrating as a consumer, agreed. The 24 image from the C100 is LOVELY but it's depressing that my 3 year old AF100 had more features for less money. Then again, we're all still buying the cameras. They don't have much incentive to add features or price them lower when everyone is still snatching them up.

 

[stefancolson]

Why does Canon have to continuously break my heart?

I love the C300 ergonomics. Hands down the best feeling camera I have ever shot with, from documentary shooting to events to features. We could make beautiful music together. It would be true love, except:

Non-interchangeable mounts!? ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME? The only difference between the two SKUs is the mount, and it's not something that can be swapped either by the end user or at a service center?
No raw option? That beautiful sensor, Canon's years of working with raw image processing, and frakking C-Log, all tied to an 8-bit 50mb codec? It's a pretty great codec, but it will break apart in post if you push it hard (especially with all that extra range with C-Log crammed into a smaller space).
No decent slowmo? 720p60 on this camera is a joke. My GH2 looks better at 720p60. Half of the damn Canon DSLR videos on the internet prominently feature slowmo. Slowmo makes sense for the purported suggested uses of the camera. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
This is the most amazing tool for documentary and event work, and an absurdly wonderful tool for low-budget indie cinema. Except that it lacks (thanks purely to the marketing department) some very key features for that kind of work that make life more difficult.

Now the C100. Similar fantastic ergonomics and a similar image. All we have to do is strip away HDSI and Genlock and all of the expensive stuff that we don't really need on a documentary/event/low-budget cinema camera.
Wait, where's my sweet viewfinder? Really? We're going to just say F*&$ these great handheld ergonomics by requiring a bulky external viewfinder for real-world use? That basically strips us of one of the camera's biggest strengths...
Wait, AVCHD? The XF codec was good enough for the cheap little XF100, but this camera at double the price can't have it? So now we're going to cram all of that C-Log data into a smaller, less robust codec?
Ok, I get it. I complained about the slowmo option in the C300, so now you just take it away completely. Crappy HFR is better than no HFR.

But that's ok, because here comes the 1DC, my dream camera. A DSLR that produces 4k video that is an exact match for the images that come out of its stills side? True moving stills in this wonderful, tiny, hand-holdable form factor! I'm imagining myself shooting coverage with a 1DC, 70-200 IS II, and a Z-Finder, laughing at those poor fools with their 40+lb Red One MX shoulder rigs.
Ok, so the DR and resolution isn't quite as good as the competition (mainly Scarlet). No bigs.
Ok, so there's a definite price premium here as compared to the scary similar (from a hardware standpoint) 1DX.
Wait a minute, MOTION F&*%ING JPEG? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!?!? Codec breakup and banding issues on a >$10k camera???
500MB/SEC!?!?!?! How the hell did Canon come up with a CF solution that is more expensive and cumbersome than basically anything else. The one thing that was sure to be a checkbox on the 1DC side compared to all of the competition was file sizes/storage space/affordable media. Way to eliminate your own market. Sorry documentary shooters. Sorry wildlife shooters. Sorry small-budget shooters (still need that DIT and mountain of pricey media, not to mention even MORE hard drive space).
24p only!? Are you just blindly committed to doing the opposite of the rest of the market?

Even the C500 can't record 4k in camera!? Maybe instead of cameras Canon should start selling whatever it is they're smoking instead. I have always loved Canon gear. I like so much of what they're doing. The C300 is almost there. So close. Painfully close. The 1DC is my dream camera. I want clean, sharp 4k with solid DR and a good codec in a DSLR body. Give me an image on par with Red's offerings without any connections or firmware features beyond that of a DSLR. Just a tiny, magical image box. You guys are so close. A better, more efficient codec will do it. Even at that ridiculous price.

It's hard to imagine what Canon would offer us at $3-4k. Would it even have an S35 sensor? Would it even do AVCHD at 24mb? We can rule out any higher frame rates, NDs, C-Log, etc. What's left?

 

[Gary Huff]

Half of the damn Canon DSLR videos on the internet prominently feature slowmo. Slowmo makes sense for the purported suggested uses of the camera. WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

I don't get this. 720p60 on DSLRs is abominable bad-quality wise. So why don't you just do 1080i60 and use something like FieldsKit to convert it? Will probably still be better looking than 7D 720p60. And, on top of that, I still haven't found anything I need to shoot slo-mo with on my C100 to even test that workflow. I'd have to go out and shoot dumb crap like cars or something going down my street.

This is the most amazing tool for documentary and event work, and an absurdly wonderful tool for low-budget indie cinema. Except that it lacks (thanks purely to the marketing department) some very key features for that kind of work that make life more difficult.

I can't recall the last time I saw a documentary that had legitimate slo-mo work (legitimate meaning shot at a higher frame rate).

Wait, where's my sweet viewfinder? Really? We're going to just say F*&$ these great handheld ergonomics by requiring a bulky external viewfinder for real-world use?

Really, almost every single viewfinder built into the camera body these days is c-r-a-p. I'm shooting shoulder mount. That rear viewfinder? Useless. Add an Alphatron to your C100 package? Still cheaper than the C300.

Wait, AVCHD? The XF codec was good enough for the cheap little XF100, but this camera at double the price can't have it?

Documentary color correction? Please. AVCHD is far stronger than XF, 4:2:0 aside. It's a more advanced MPEG-4 vs MPEG-2, the same quality for half the bitrate at least. I'd rather have this option.

So now we're going to cram all of that C-Log data into a smaller, less robust codec?

I wouldn't really be shooting a documentary in C-Log...it's still 8-bits, and you can use a Ninja-2 and get a much better codec than XF.

 

[stefancolson]

I don't get this. 720p60 on DSLRs is abominable bad-quality wise. So why don't you just do 1080i60 and use something like FieldsKit to convert it? Will probably still be better looking than 7D 720p60. And, on top of that, I still haven't found anything I need to shoot slo-mo with on my C100 to even test that workflow. I'd have to go out and shoot dumb crap like cars or something going down my street.

Agreed that the 60p options on DSLRs are pretty bad quality-wise. That's something that I would have expected to be better on a C series camera. And overcranking is right there in the C100s purported wheelhouse: Weddings? Slowmo has a definite place there. Events? Definite slowmo possibilities. Low-budget narrative? Definitely a need for slowmo there. Music videos? Even for corporate work there are times when 60p would be appreciated. Just because you're dismissive of it's potential applications doesn't mean that nobody has a use for it.

I can't recall the last time I saw a documentary that had legitimate slo-mo work (legitimate meaning shot at a higher frame rate).

Not even counting the docs that use slowmo extensively as an integral part of their premise, have you not seen Planet Earth? Life? Baraka? Seems like most modern nature docs use slowmo pretty heavily. It's also become a common device in a wide range of docs. If you haven't seen it it's because you haven't noticed, not because it isn't there.

Really, almost every single viewfinder built into the camera body these days is c-r-a-p. I'm shooting shoulder mount. That rear viewfinder? Useless. Add an Alphatron to your C100 package? Still cheaper than the C300.

My point is that the viewfinder on the C300 is fantastic, and the ergonomics of that camera are great - WITHOUT a rig of any kind (thanks largely to that fantastic viewfinder). The reduction in useability of the viewfinder in the C100 as compared to that of the C300 negates much of what makes the form-factor so special. What advantage do these cameras have ergonomically when shot with a shoulder mount? Any camera is fine on the shoulder with a rig and external viewfinder. This isn't a contention on price, it's about ergonomics and useability. In run and gun situations the ergonomics of the C300 are one of its biggest assets, and much of that mojo is missing from the C100 precisely because of the crappy viewfinder.

Documentary color correction? Please. AVCHD is far stronger than XF, 4:2:0 aside. It's a more advanced MPEG-4 vs MPEG-2, the same quality for half the bitrate at least. I'd rather have this option.

I don't have any first-hand experience with the particular AVCHD implementation in the C100, but I'll take the XF files out of the C300 (strictly from a codec standpoint) over anything I've seen in an AVCHD cam any day of the week. Particularly for grading. Let's agree to disagree on this one, but I'd rank the XF codec in the C300 as pretty near the cream of the crop as far as 8-bit codecs go.

I wouldn't really be shooting a documentary in C-Log...it's still 8-bits, and you can use a Ninja-2 and get a much better codec than XF.

Sure you CAN slap an external recorder on it, but I shouldn't have to work against a cameras strengths to get it to perform at peak potential. Once it's rigged up with a shoulder rig, external viewfinder, external recorder, battery solution, etc. much of the idea behind a camera in this form-factor is gone.

It's not that the C100 is a bad camera, far from it in fact. It's just that it's so close to being an incredible camera. With a better viewfinder, workable 60p and the XF codec it would be an absolute beast. As is it requires the same bogus ergonomic workarounds that anything else in the category does, while making some heavy compromises.

 

[Gary Huff]

Weddings? Slowmo has a definite place there. Events? Definite slowmo possibilities.

Yeah, and most of the time it's "fake" slow-mo...why? Because if you're primarily shooting the event/wedding at 24-30p, adjusting both your frame rate and shutter speed for 60p becomes a huge hassle.

Low-budget narrative? Definitely a need for slowmo there.

I wouldn't call that "definitely".

Music videos?

This is when I've used slow-mo 99.9999% of the time, so you're right there.

Even for corporate work there are times when 60p would be appreciated.

Barely. Last gig I was on with a FS700, it was kind of stretching it to find elements to shoot with the slow-mo option. It ended up being something that barely qualified its use.

Just because you're dismissive of it's potential applications doesn't mean that nobody has a use for it.

But I'm not going to way overstate it either.

Not even counting the docs that use slowmo extensively as an integral part of their premise, have you not seen Planet Earth? Life? Baraka? Seems like most modern nature docs use slowmo pretty heavily.

And most of these utilize a frame rate that's far higher than 60p. So are you going to start bitching that the C300 doesn't give you 120p? 240p?

Any camera is fine on the shoulder with a rig and external viewfinder.

Exactly my point. And I run with a shoulder rig for that kind of shooting, not hand-held because, no matter how much I practice, the shoulder rig is better. And rear viewfinders aren't useable for that situation.

In run and gun situations the ergonomics of the C300 are one of its biggest assets, and much of that mojo is missing from the C100 precisely because of the crappy viewfinder.

And in run and gun, I use a shoulder mount because I care about quality, and both the 100/300 are the same viewfinder-wise in that regard.

I don't have any first-hand experience with the particular AVCHD implementation in the C100, but I'll take the XF files out of the C300 (strictly from a codec standpoint) over anything I've seen in an AVCHD cam any day of the week.

If you don't have experience, then perhaps you should avoid making sweeping declarations? It makes you sound foolish.

I'd rank the XF codec in the C300 as pretty near the cream of the crop as far as 8-bit codecs go.

50Mbps MPEG-2? Please.

Sure you CAN slap an external recorder on it, but I shouldn't have to work against a cameras strengths to get it to perform at peak potential. Once it's rigged up with a shoulder rig, external viewfinder, external recorder, battery solution, etc. much of the idea behind a camera in this form-factor is gone.

Except for the fact that you can still hand-hold the C100 with a Ninja because it's incredibly light.

It's not that the C100 is a bad camera, far from it in fact. It's just that it's so close to being an incredible camera. With a better viewfinder, workable 60p and the XF codec it would be an absolute beast. As is it requires the same bogus ergonomic workarounds that anything else in the category does, while making some heavy compromises.

Well, you can keep on complaining, and I'll keep on shooting.

 

[stefancolson]

Dude, no reason to be a dismissive prick about all of it. I know that's kind of your deal around here, but it's really unwarranted. I voiced what disappointed me about the camera, and you respond by telling me that the things I want in a camera aren't important or relevant. I point out some specific use cases and a way of shooting with the C300 that I wish were possible with the C100. You respond by telling me that you don't shoot that way because you care about quality. Is your opinion really that I'm just some idiot who has completely irrelevant preferences and nothing to bring to the table professionally? Do you really think that you know everything? Have you not considered that maybe we want different things out of a camera and have different preferred workflows and shooting methodology? Or do you just to prefer to live in a world where you are right, anyone with a differing opinion is wrong, and there is no gray area in between?

 

[jdv]

I can't recall the last time I saw a documentary that had legitimate slo-mo work (legitimate meaning shot at a higher frame rate).
.

Then you've literally never seen a doc on wild life. Or ancient battles. Or extreme weather. Or physics (one of the most famous shots in film history is the bullet through the apple shot with high speed footage). Or cooking. Or ballet. Or... well, you get the idea.

 

[Gary Huff]

Or physics (one of the most famous shots in film history is the bullet through the apple shot with high speed footage).

Which is not 60p. Far from it.

 

[Gary Huff]

Have you not considered that maybe we want different things out of a camera and have different preferred workflows and shooting methodology? Or do you just to prefer to live in a world where you are right, anyone with a differing opinion is wrong, and there is no gray area in between?

That's not it at all. I'm just tired of everyone complaining about every single little thing that, in reality, makes little to no difference. The point is not to talk someone up ten grand in their camera purchase, the point is to realistically weigh the pros and cons.

There's too much jumping to the highest price point for this stuff when it's not necessary.

 

[LyleGorch]

I don't get this. 720p60 on DSLRs is abominable bad-quality wise.

I think its actually possible to do quite excellent 720 slomo on a hacked GH2. 720 60p with FM2, shutter speed over 1/100, stands up very well.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

That's not it at all. I'm just tired of everyone complaining about every single little thing that, in reality, makes little to no difference. The point is not to talk someone up ten grand in their camera purchase, the point is to realistically weigh the pros and cons.

There's too much jumping to the highest price point for this stuff when it's not necessary.

It's 2013 and cameras much lower are shooting 60p (GH3 at $1300 has decent 1080p60) there is no reason Canon shouldn't have 1080p60 on the $14,000 C300 and $6,000 C100.

I really like the Canon C series cameras they function great for what I've been using them for but it is silly that when I need highspeed I have to put down the $14,000 camera in my hand and pick up a cheap DSLR in order to meet my needs.

 

[Gary Huff]

I think its actually possible to do quite excellent 720 slomo on a hacked GH2. 720 60p with FM2, shutter speed over 1/100, stands up very well.

I completely agree. If you really need 720p60 and you have a C100, I think adding a GH2 is the best option.

 

[alaskacameradude]

That's not it at all. I'm just tired of everyone complaining about every single little thing that, in reality, makes little to no difference. The point is not to talk someone up ten grand in their camera purchase, the point is to realistically weigh the pros and cons.

There's too much jumping to the highest price point for this stuff when it's not necessary.

What 'makes little to no difference' to you, is a deal killer for some of us. Everyone is different and
has different needs. There are hobbyists, wedding shooters, corporate videographers, event
shooters and freelance news shooters and much more here besides the traditional narrative folks.
i just got a 5k corporate job, precisely because I could shoot 1080 60p. That 5k sure matters
to me!

 

[stefancolson]

I shoot and light for a living. I'm behind a camera every single day. I've logged a good 300 hours on the C300, as well as spent considerable time editing and grading footage from that camera, so I know it's ins and outs pretty well. I know what I like, how I like to shoot, and what I want in a camera. For me the issues I pointed out are dealbreakers, particularly when there's usually a budget for rentals to work with. I'm glad that you're happy with the tools you've purchased, but those same tools are not quite a perfect fit for me. They come close, but there are (in my eyes) glaring omissions that, in reality, make a significant difference. I HAVE realistically weighed the pros and cons. You're not the only pragmatic person on these boards. I've worked with the GH2 extensively over the past year because it offers such a great image for the price. I shoot with what I have or have access to, because that's my job. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion or specific wants and needs in new gear (which are founded in realistic, measured logic) that are different from yours.

 

[Gary Huff]

I don't care what you buy. I only care that FUD isn't spread.

I was worried about the lack of 60p only, until I realized that I've used it for only two gigs since the T2i was released. On top of that, if hardware isn't an issue, 1080p60 could be added to the C100 since it is now in the AVCHD spec. If I need it outside of that, I can use FieldsKit with 60i, use my 60D, get a GH3 (a possiblity) or rent a FS700 and get 120fps instead.

The C100 + Ninja-2 is the right tool for my job, which is shooting and lighting productions for corporate and narrative, the vast majority with are done at 23.976. If the C100's price point limitations are something you can't get over, and you have the budget for it, by all means, get the C300. It's absolutely the better camera, just not $8500 better in my opinion.

 

[alaskacameradude]

I don't care what you buy. I only care that FUD isn't spread.

I was worried about the lack of 60p only, until I realized that I've used it for only two gigs since the T2i was released. On top of that, if hardware isn't an issue, 1080p60 could be added to the C100 since it is now in the AVCHD spec. If I need it outside of that, I can use FieldsKit with 60i, use my 60D, get a GH3 (a possiblity) or rent a FS700 and get 120fps instead.

The C100 + Ninja-2 is the right tool for my job, which is shooting and lighting productions for corporate and narrative, the vast majority with are done at 23.976. If the C100's price point limitations are something you can't get over, and you have the budget for it, by all means, get the C300. It's absolutely the better camera, just not $8500 better.

FUD isn't being spread if someone says the C100 isn't an option for them because it doesn't
have 1080 60p. And I have to say I find it amusing how many people will jump on a person
who posts something to that effect, telling them that 1080 60P 'isn't important' or 'is almost
never needed' or 'just do it in post'. Just my wild guess here, but if someone says they need
1080 60P, I take them at their word and don't try and convince them they don't need it.
There are cameras that will do it, so if you need it, I would as a general rule, name a list
of the ones that do it. I won't list ones that do 720 60p or 1080 60i, cause that's not what
they asked for. You don't have to jump to a high price point to do 1080 60p, even the
little Nex 5n will do it. Not important to you, that's fine I'm not going to try and convince
you that it should be. But if it is important to someone (like me) than I need it, and people
telling me it doesn't matter, doesnt help things. So if you need 1080 60p, you can get it
in a Sony FS700, FS100, VG20, VG30, NEX 5N, Panasonic AF100 or GH3. I'm sure there
are others out there, those are the big sensor cams that do it off the top of my head.

 

[Barry_Green]

Just my wild guess here, but if someone says they need 1080 60P, I take them at their word and don't try and convince them they don't need it.

That's not a wild guess, that's common courtesy. You're extending the other person the courtesy of assuming that they do indeed know what they need. Thanks for doing so; wish everyone here would consider doing the same.

 

[Noel Evans]

To add, it doesnt seem likely that the C100 or C300 will ever do 1080 / 60P. If they're priority options for you work, wrong cameras.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I don't think there is even close to enough daylight between the C100 and C300 for an intermediate model. Maybe if they dropped the C100 price (which they should do anyway, I think).