C500: Selling point of C500 Mark II/C700

It is Canon's strategy to force adoption of the EF mount. That was the reason for creating two separate camera versions in EF and PL mount. The Cinema primes in EF mount only is part of the strategy. However while launching the more expensive Cinema Zooms, Canon felt that due to the higher cost, it would mostly be affordable for the larger productions who are well entrenched in the PL world and hence the need to go for both EF as well as PL mount. Similarly with the C300 Mark II, Canon felt compelled to offer changing the mount. Canon would not have bothered if the cost of the C300 Mark II were lower.

The recent announcement of the Canon CN-E 18-80 T4.4L IS compact servo lens is a step in the same direction ie. harnessing the good points of the EF still lenses and bringing in the cinema lens quality. More and more guys moving up are using the Canon EF mount lenses. Changing the behaviour of the top cinema guys will take a generation. It will only be helped if future EF lenses are similar or better quality than the PL mounts and with additional functionalities like IS.
 
indiawilds said:
It is Canon's strategy to force adoption of the EF mount. That was the reason for creating two separate camera versions in EF and PL mount. The Cinema primes in EF mount only is part of the strategy. However while launching the more expensive Cinema Zooms, Canon felt that due to the higher cost, it would mostly be affordable for the larger productions who are well entrenched in the PL world and hence the need to go for both EF as well as PL mount. Similarly with the C300 Mark II, Canon felt compelled to offer changing the mount. Canon would not have bothered if the cost of the C300 Mark II were lower.

The recent announcement of the Canon CN-E 18-80 T4.4L IS compact servo lens is a step in the same direction ie. harnessing the good points of the EF still lenses and bringing in the cinema lens quality. More and more guys moving up are using the Canon EF mount lenses. Changing the behaviour of the top cinema guys will take a generation. It will only be helped if future EF lenses are similar or better quality than the PL mounts and with additional functionalities like IS.
Click to expand...

Resistance to EF mount adoption has nothing to do with an 'entrenched' generational resistance to 'the new' and everything to do with the robustness, rigidity and viability of the mount for shooting with solid, metal, highly engineered cinema lenses.

The new positive-locking EF mounts are a huge (and essential) step in the right direction. But they're still not as suited to heavy lenses as the PL mount. If Canon would wake up to that fact, and make their cameras and lenses more readily switchable mount-wise, they'd probably sell a lot more lens to the motion picture market.
 
Guys, Canon looks at the numbers. And the numbers show that they are selling huge volume in EF. So they figure that there is a huge market for EF lenses. They also recognized that the pro video world was mostly PL, so they said, "Fine, we'll make these lenses available in PL mount as well." There was a lot of competition in primes so Canon didn't think there would be as big a demand for their primes in PL, hence the EF mount only for them. But much of the pro video world works in zooms so Canon made both mounts available.

What the company's corporate culture could not wrap it's head around was the idea of interchangeable mounts. This is something they have just never done in any form. They just don't think that way. And remember that most of these lenses and mounts now incorporate electrical connections so this makes the concept of interchangeability even more off-putting to them. Changing a mount on a lens or a camera is simply alien to them. Even making a design that is interchangeable is alien to them. It is something that other companies have done in order to be compatible with Canon products but never something Canon has ever been a part of. It's simply not something that would even occur to them.
 
They don't even want to make the EF mount open-source. Sony is allowing the third party manufacturers - Zeiss, Sigma, Samyang - to make auto-focus capable lenses for the E-mounts. Sony obviously knows that they're very late to that show and are trying to catch up. As they sell more bodies, more people will have the E-mount lenses.

But Canon flips the middle finger to the outside/third party manufacturers. No EF, no AF. And, with the Dual Pixel AF getting darn good, no AF is a big no-no for many. Which is why Canon had invested so heavily into that Dual Pixel technology. The company sees itself as a package deal.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Guys, Canon looks at the numbers. And the numbers show that they are selling huge volume in EF. So they figure that there is a huge market for EF lenses. They also recognized that the pro video world was mostly PL, so they said, "Fine, we'll make these lenses available in PL mount as well." There was a lot of competition in primes so Canon didn't think there would be as big a demand for their primes in PL, hence the EF mount only for them. But much of the pro video world works in zooms so Canon made both mounts available.

What the company's corporate culture could not wrap it's head around was the idea of interchangeable mounts. This is something they have just never done in any form. They just don't think that way. And remember that most of these lenses and mounts now incorporate electrical connections so this makes the concept of interchangeability even more off-putting to them. Changing a mount on a lens or a camera is simply alien to them. Even making a design that is interchangeable is alien to them. It is something that other companies have done in order to be compatible with Canon products but never something Canon has ever been a part of. It's simply not something that would even occur to them.
Click to expand...


What seem odd, is the other big boys have adopted interchangeable mount systems. Even ARRI has started shipping cameras with interchangeable lens mounts.

But I guess the reality is, the consumer market if so lucrative compared to the professional world, that it doesn't really matter to the bean counters at Canon.


I doubt it would make a difference, but lets see a show of hands to give an example.

Would you purchase a set of Canon CN-E prime lenses if they had a user swappable lens mount?

+1 I would.
 
David W. Jones said:
What seem odd, is the other big boys have adopted interchangeable mount systems. Even ARRI has started shipping cameras with interchangeable lens mounts.

But I guess the reality is, the consumer market if so lucrative compared to the professional world, that it doesn't really matter to the bean counters at Canon.


I doubt it would make a difference, but lets see a show of hands to give an example.

Would you purchase a set of Canon CN-E prime lenses if they had a user swappable lens mount?

+1 I would.
Click to expand...

I already own a set, BUT that's my #1 "want" for them, user(field) swappable mounts for EF and PL. I think Canon underestimated these lenses popularity. Heck, Duclos gets a few grand a pop to convert each lens to PL from their native EF. If Canon came out with a "vII" of them with user swappable mounts, I would probably have to contemplate selling my current set and re-buying. Presuming they couldn't come up with a way to retrofit the originals. But, considering Duclos hasn't come up with a way to do it yet, it probably can't be done with the current design.
 
DLD said:
Why would they? They're the 900 lb gorilla here.
Click to expand...

ARRI, Red, Sony, Panasonic among others all have cameras with interchangeable lens mounts.

Adapt and overcome, or get left behind.

FWIW I have not purchased the last 3 Canon C series cameras and CN-E prime lens set for this very reason.
 
I just completed a show that was all Canon EF, unfortunately the 30-300 was only available in PL, so that lived on the Phantom the whole shoot (thankfully Vision Research had the foresight to have a swappable mount). I really love the look of that lens, good competitor to the venerable 24-290.

We used the CN-E set, (which is sorely missing a 35mm option). The 30-105 (quickly becoming my go-to lens), the 30-300, and a few L series classics (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 400).
The Canons on the Amira make a great combination, IMHO.
 
David W. Jones said:
ARRI, Red, Sony, Panasonic among others all have cameras with interchangeable lens mounts.

Adapt and overcome, or get left behind...
Click to expand...
My opinion, FWIW, is that the Canon exec realize that --

1) They're not competing with ARRI, F55/65, Red/Panavision, Varicam for the high end pro market

2) They don't have to chase the market. The market is coming to them anyway.

3) They want to dominate the auto-focus enabled consumer/enthusiast action/wildlife DSLR and the more affordable (C100/C300/XF?) pro segments rather than aim for the ultra high end world.

4) They're likely working on many higher end EF lens projects that will "almost" match the ultra high end performance and will be deemed good enough for a vast majority of pro shooters not working on a scripted US TV network show or big budget features.

With the above guidelines, they will cover pretty much every angle, except the ultra high end. For which they have the CN-E line anyway.
 
bill totolo said:
I just completed a show that was all Canon EF, unfortunately the 30-300 was only available in PL, so that lived on the Phantom the whole shoot (thankfully Vision Research had the foresight to have a swappable mount). I really love the look of that lens, good competitor to the venerable 24-290.

We used the CN-E set, (which is sorely missing a 35mm option). The 30-105 (quickly becoming my go-to lens), the 30-300, and a few L series classics (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 400).
The Canons on the Amira make a great combination, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Bill, they do have a CN-E 35mm T1.5. It was released sometime after the initial "set". I know, because it was hitting the streets right after I purchased the five lens set of 14, 24, 50, 85 & 135 when Canon was offering all kinds of rebates and loyalty cash. It basically worked out to getting five lenses for the price of four. And 0% financing. If you were in the market for some glass at that time, you were almost crazy not to buy. I never went back and added it, though. I don't think I would ever use it enough to justify spending $5k on it. Honestly, I think I can count the number of times I've used the 14 on one hand...
 
Ahh, the production house I was shooting for only has the 5 lens set. I could'nt even put a matte box on the 14, (we had a BT Viv, and an OConnor Obox) so it never came out.
I'll let them know about the 35. Thanks!
 
All this cinema glass talk is making me envious. I only occasionally get to rent one or two or a set and man they are nice. But not in the realm of my budgets. That new 18-80 though, that is in the realm of possibility.
 
puredrifting said:
All this cinema glass talk is making me envious. I only occasionally get to rent one or two or a set and man they are nice. But not in the realm of my budgets. That new 18-80 though, that is in the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Be aware, it's not cinema glass in the slightest. It's focus mechanics are designed around auto-focus - so the repeatable pulls that a proper, manual cinema lens will give you, won't be possible on the new Canon.

Should be great for run-around, non-narrative/commercial stuff, where precise focus control isn't necessary though.
 
Exactly. I shoot mostly EPK and BTS on big TV shows and features so the new lens would be a step up from my EOS glass. I rarely use cinema lenses as I only occasionally have an AC and or focus puller. I occasionally shoot a studio piece/promo and a lot of green screen where a cinema lens makes sense but for all of the running around on the sets, the 18-80 would be perfect. I am curious to see a side by side with the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 18-80 side by side at 80mm with the 18-80 wide open and the 70-200 stopped down to F4. To my eye, the 70-200 is an incredible lens but the test footage I have seen from the 18-80 is impressive as well.
 
The 18-80 doesn't really interest or excite me, but I've been told by a rep that optically it is great and some are saying it's (optically) better than the Fuji 20-120.
 
Well if you're going to hijack my thread to show lens and camera photos then I'm going to join you in hijacking my thread to show what I recently took for marketing purposes of my current stash (just got the Canon 15.5-47 T/2.8)...


IMG_4864edited25074.jpg


IMG_4890edited.jpg


IMG_4892edited.jpg







Bill, how do you balance on the shoulder with the VCT plate and cinema zoom? It'd be very front heavy as you have it setup. You can't slide the lens and camera too far back because then the lens support is behind where the rails start. I put an AB battery on the back of the VCT, but it is still front heavy, such as in the photo below. I just bought a 7 lb Zacuto counterweight (in large part because it was only $45 from Zacuto's b-stock and figured it may come in handy some day), which should be plenty enough (maybe too much) to get the job done, but I don't like the idea of adding that much weight to the setup as a whole.


13612212_878204865619444_3914184495522424138_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top