C300: What would it take for you to purchase a C300 III?

Y

yophoto91

Active member
Just curious, knowing how conservative Canon is, what new features can we reasonably expect/hope for in the next C300 that would make you pay roughly twice that of a C200 or $5-7k more than the current C300 II price?

Here's what would likely sway me to pony up the extra $$$$ in a C300 Mark III:

-Brighter/Sharper/slightly larger (say 5") screen. Would like to see a similar quality screen from say their 5D IV on their cinema line. Would be worth the slight trade-off in battery life, IMO.
-Improved EVF that isn't glued to body
-Pass-through/Power-out enough to juice a third party monitor/EVF
-Similar body design of the C200 that nixed the clamshell design of the audio inputs/monitor
-More rigid monitor mounting options to prevent image shake when using touch-AF
-A bit more DR wouldn't hurt
-A bit better low light performance wouldn't hurt
-4K60p is good enough for 99% my needs, but 72p, 96p, or 120p non-cropped at 4k or roughly 2.5k may be nice to separate it from the C200
-ProRes
-Improved color science/color profiles (vague as hell, I know) that allows for a more "film-ic" look straight out of camera

By the way, anyone else want Canon to release their own 7" HD High-Bright monitor (with decent color) that could utilize their touch-screen AF? Typically I try to stay away from proprietary accessories, but I would easily pay $1-2k for that if it also had a few physical buttons for false color, peaking, waveform, etc.

What would it take for you?

Mark
 
  1. FF 5.9K sensor (downsampled to True 4K)
  2. No RS (could be corrected in camera if not using GS)
  3. Eye-tracking AF
  4. 3D depth-plane visualization for AI-boosted 3D semi-manual AF
  5. 4K60(+)
  6. Even smaller+lighter than C200 (XLR audio in body etc.)
  7. 12-bit 444 RGB 4K H.265 option
  8. Color accurate + calibrated (and can be tuned again without service visit: e.g. X-Rite via USB on camera) VF + LCD
  9. Color accurate HDMI + SDI (matches internal recorded content when viewed on calibrated displays)
  10. 8+9 = no more color surprises in post!
  11. AI WB (guarantees WB is correct during shoot- no more guesswork, chip charts etc.)
  12. AI-boosted skin tone "hold" when in mixed / "terrible" lighting (e.g. spikey spectrum light sources): faces + skin tones are "known", so can hold accurate color while rest of scene is left alone
  13. No magenta/green issues
  14. No sensor smear
  15. ISO / level / contrast invariant accurate color science (use AI if necessary. AI chips are cheap and draw ~1 Watt for 4 Teraops/sec!)!

This would be slightly disruptive ;) and all of these features could be shipping with today's hardware. All these features in one camera would sail past all the competition (made similar suggestions to ARRI: good color science isn't enough anymore (look at all the Sony and Red content now on Netflix). If Sony applied AI to color science- they could be first with these kinds of features given their technology portfolio).

@yophoto91: I've performed extensive analysis on the C300 II to create filmic skin tone accurate settings for the C300 II. It was an extraordinary amount of time and work. Now that the work is complete, it will take an extraordinary camera to motivate an upgrade.
 
Depends on when it comes out, it's already been rumored for quite a while but personally I think it will just be a 6K C200 with the 4:2:2 10 bit XF-AVC codec everyone whines about (in other words, the same as the C300 MKII), Cinema RAW Light with dual card slots and a few other tricks up it's sleeve like external RAW recording option as well for the 5.9k image. I doubt it will be full frame. I doubt it will be shoulder mounted, I doubt it will have almost any of the things JCS is hoping for, many of those would require bleeding edge engineering and generally Canon doesn't do that.

Personally, I am happy with the C200. Since they shipped the XF-AVC upgrade that duplicates the file naming system for the CRL, I had an epiphany. The C200 is simply a CRL camera, period. The XF-AVC is intended for proxy workflows, period. The camera is not intended for broadcast, it's intended to shoot CRL, period. That's why I doubt that the 4:2:2 10-bit codec will ever come to it, that's not why Canon made the camera. When it only had the .MP4 codec, many of us were thinking that it should be a good enough codec for non-CRL work and for some it is. But take a good objective look at the C200 today with the new firmware, it's a freaking $7,500.00 internally recording RAW camera. Period. Stop thinking about it as handicapped because it doesn't have a 4:2:2 10-bit XF-AVC codec. It's not handicapped, it's intended for anyone shooting it to shoot RAW. Perfect short form, commercial, music video and indie film, and it's pretty good for documentaries if you don't need to roll 6-12 hours of footage per day, almost 3 hours of CFast 2.0 cards, if you buy the Egodisk cards, is only $1,500.00, that's not outrageous for a $7,500.00 camera. Not intended for weddings, long events and for other users who need to roll all day. If that's you and you want a Canon, buy the C300 MKII, it's perfect for that!

I'm not saying I agree with Canon's marketing strategy but at least now I understand the intent. If you think about it that way, it's really quite a disruptive camera seeing that it comes from one of the big three Japanese. As far as the C300 MKIII/C400 or whatever it will be called, I think that will be for the exact same audience as the C300 MKII, users who need a mid-range codec but then they'll be able to shoot two slots of CRL as well. If you look at how Canon has historically marketed and segmented, it all makes sense, even if it doesn't to you. Viewed through their lens though, it now makes a lot of sense to me. They do need a C100 MKIII for it to make total sense though, just a C200 without CRL for $4k to $5k. That would work, especially if they gave the it 305 Mbps XF-AVC codec from the XC-15 to V60/90 cards like the EVA 1.
 
puredrifting said:
I doubt it will have almost any of the things JCS is hoping for, many of those would require bleeding edge engineering and generally Canon doesn't do that
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd bet money you are right :) That said, a well-funded small team could build such a camera in under a year. That is, if each component could be put together into a camera system and not be encumbered by patents and/or the licenses made business sense (I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if everything on that list has already been patented). "Better than ARRI" color science can be solved with machine learning (AI), and again, the real-time inference engines (Intel Myriad etc.) are ultra cheap, low power, and already used in DJI drones. The iPhone X has an AI inference chip (.6 teraops/sec). Lightning connector supports USB 3.0 (640MB/s), 10-bit 4K 60p is 622MB/s (3840*2160*10*60/8), so an iPhone X* could possibly be used along with an external large sensor and output tiny H.265 4K60p (and below). The question is who would license a cost effective sensor (+ AF system for Sony/Canon/Panasonic etc. lenses). Thus it's rather amusing that the iPhone X has more computing power than a C300 II / C700 ((and probably Alexas as well (using ancient FPGAs)) and uses far less power!), if only it had access to a better sensor. It's certainly possible to shoot just about anything with an iPhone, however the built in sensor RS is extreme, DR is limited, limited lens options, etc. Sony and perhaps Panasonic could potentially provide more of those list items in a future consumer camera. Highest priority: AI color! (Sony is getting closer with AF)

* Here's a wild idea: purchase iPhone Xs, take them apart, wire up a better sensor directly to the PCB, repackage and sell haha!
 
jcs said:
Yeah, I'd bet money you are right :) That said, a well-funded small team could build such a camera in under a year. That is, if each component could be put together into a camera system and not be encumbered by patents and/or the licenses made business sense (I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if everything on that list has already been patented). "Better than ARRI" color science can be solved with machine learning (AI), and again, the real-time inference engines (Intel Myriad etc.) are ultra cheap, low power, and already used in DJI drones. The iPhone X has an AI inference chip (.6 teraops/sec). Lightning connector supports USB 3.0 (640MB/s), 10-bit 4K 60p is 622MB/s (3840*2160*10*60/8), so an iPhone X* could possibly be used along with an external large sensor and output tiny H.265 4K60p (and below). The question is who would license a cost effective sensor (+ AF system for Sony/Canon/Panasonic etc. lenses). Thus it's rather amusing that the iPhone X has more computing power than a C300 II / C700 ((and probably Alexas as well (using ancient FPGAs)) and uses far less power!), if only it had access to a better sensor. It's certainly possible to shoot just about anything with an iPhone, however the built in sensor RS is extreme, DR is limited, limited lens options, etc. Sony and perhaps Panasonic could potentially provide more of those list items in a future consumer camera. Highest priority: AI color! (Sony is getting closer with AF)

* Here's a wild idea: purchase iPhone Xs, take them apart, wire up a better sensor directly to the PCB, repackage and sell haha!
Click to expand...

Agreed, phone technology is far surpassing supposed innovation in mid and high line digital cinema cameras. That's why I think in 2-4 years, we'll look back on cameras like the FS7, C300 MKII, etc. and laugh because a $1,000.00 smartphone will have surpassed them in most areas at a fraction of the cost, size and weight. I think you and I are in agreement that computing power and clever software and implementation trumps almost all of the optical challenges and image stabilization issues eventually. Fake shallow DOF, variable zoom/FOV, it's all just number crunching, right? Sure, today fake DOF doesn't look nearly as good as real shallow DOF with a cinema lens, but give it time. Also, the bar keeps moving further and further toward most people watching most programming mostly on a 3-5" smartphone screen, not on a 70" 8K TV set so in a way, this stuff will mainly just matter to the olds like us who actually have and watch TV screens, the rest of the world has the attention span of a Mosquito and consumes media in tiny chunks on their smartphones while doing three other things.

My 23 year old daughter doesn't own a TV and barely uses her laptop, it's all phone, all of the time. My 32 year old sister doesn't own a laptop or TV, just an iPhone X. That's the future.
 
6K Field swappable sensor a la Sony Venice.
Multi-mount, easy to swap EF/PL in field.
Frame rates
Increased DR
More HD-SDI outputs
Raw light or ProRes raw, or selectable compression rates.
IBIS
Global shutter
 
puredrifting said:
My 23 year old daughter doesn't own a TV and barely uses her laptop, it's all phone, all of the time. My 32 year old sister doesn't own a laptop or TV, just an iPhone X. That's the future.
Click to expand...

We've been moving to more isolation / division / passive / consumption for years. Phones are mostly passive solo content consumption devices vs. computers which are mostly content creation devices / business tools (resulting in various forms of active productivity). Everyone who posts on this forum is actively creating content (in addition to any video projects etc.). I do my best to encourage the younger generation to spend time creating vs. passive consumption, especially wasting too much time playing video games (which is one of the things I do professionally (write video games / simulators / VR / AR)). 360 cameras and 3D audio is cool, as is VR and video games, though when folks become addicted it's not healthy. Again, those activities are isolating. What human beings thrive on is connections to other human beings. Remember 'back in the day' as a kid loading up the car / station wagon with entire family and/or friends and going to the drive in. The ultimate big screen (great mono audio too haha). Going on a date to the drive in was also a much different experience vs. the theater (similar to Netflix at home ;) ). So many people binge watching shows on Netflix (solo)- ultimately people are happier watching with at least one other person, and can be really enjoyable with a group.

I think we are in store for a shift in global consciousness to get back to unifying people, empowering people to be productive, to create, and to share watching content together on a large screen vs. on phones. A big screen TV with a high-end / decent surround sound system and comfy couch / chairs (recliners etc.) with friends / family / pets is such a vastly more enjoyable experience than watching something on a tiny phone screen with comparatively weak audio (decent headphones can be OK). I'll watch short YouTube videos on the phone every now and then (and when testing our own content), however I almost never watch movies/shows on the phone (and never with others). We much prefer HDTV + surround sound!
 
jcs said:
We've been moving to more isolation / division / passive / consumption for years. Phones are mostly passive solo content consumption devices vs. computers which are mostly content creation devices / business tools (resulting in various forms of active productivity). Everyone who posts on this forum is actively creating content (in addition to any video projects etc.). I do my best to encourage the younger generation to spend time creating vs. passive consumption, especially wasting too much time playing video games (which is one of the things I do professionally (write video games / simulators / VR / AR)). 360 cameras and 3D audio is cool, as is VR and video games, though when folks become addicted it's not healthy. Again, those activities are isolating. What human beings thrive on is connections to other human beings. Remember 'back in the day' as a kid loading up the car / station wagon with entire family and/or friends and going to the drive in. The ultimate big screen (great mono audio too haha). Going on a date to the drive in was also a much different experience vs. the theater (similar to Netflix at home ;) ). So many people binge watching shows on Netflix (solo)- ultimately people are happier watching with at least one other person, and can be really enjoyable with a group.

I think we are in store for a shift in global consciousness to get back to unifying people, empowering people to be productive, to create, and to share watching content together on a large screen vs. on phones. A big screen TV with a high-end / decent surround sound system and comfy couch / chairs (recliners etc.) with friends / family / pets is such a vastly more enjoyable experience than watching something on a tiny phone screen with comparatively weak audio (decent headphones can be OK). I'll watch short YouTube videos on the phone every now and then (and when testing our own content), however I almost never watch movies/shows on the phone (and never with others). We much prefer HDTV + surround sound!
Click to expand...

While everything you say makes sense and is supported by science, DNA and psychology, it seems to not apply much to people under about early 30s. Almost every young person I know and most older younger adults, like 28-40, seemed to be glued to their phones almost every waking hour and cannot put them down. Since we launched our recent FB page for our next film, the FB metrics tell me our page is being consumed 92% on smartphone. Granted, it's Facebook, not Netflix but still. I hope you are right that we will go back to communal experiences more, but I await the outcome, it feels like people are just wanting to isolate even more and more.
 
puredrifting said:
While everything you say makes sense and is supported by science, DNA and psychology, it seems to not apply much to people under about early 30s. Almost every young person I know and most older younger adults, like 28-40, seemed to be glued to their phones almost every waking hour and cannot put them down. Since we launched our recent FB page for our next film, the FB metrics tell me our page is being consumed 92% on smartphone. Granted, it's Facebook, not Netflix but still. I hope you are right that we will go back to communal experiences more, but I await the outcome, it feels like people are just wanting to isolate even more and more.
Click to expand...

It's a dopamine feedback loop addiction. Drug addition is best broken by helping people build/strengthen connections to other people. This has also been verified to work with animals. In a rat study, rats that were isolated stayed addicted. Rats that were allowed to be around other rats broke the addiction. If one hasn't been observing what's going on in the world right now, when one looks closely, as with a magnifying glass, the tides are changing; a new direction is happening, world wide. If each of us makes efforts to connect with others, it accelerates.
 
Honestly? I have a C200, and that allows me to shoot RAW at high speed with high dynamic range. I don't hand cards off right after shooting to a tv station; I don't shoot docs where I have hours of footage a day. So I wouldn't spend any money trying to get a broadcast codec and am shooting RAW all the time. I've already added a Tentacle Sync to it, so the timecode thing is solved. I don't need higher than 4K resolution and don't care about shooting FF. I don't rent my camera, so I could care less about it's position in the marketplace (though I do think the C200 is selling well).

A C300 III would almost certainly be larger, heavier and more expensive, so I actually don't know what they could do to make me go through the trouble of selling a camera that is actually pretty perfect for me.

Spending those few thousand dollars on real cinema lenses would be a better use of my money...
 
Fahnon said:
Honestly? I have a C200, and that allows me to shoot RAW at high speed with high dynamic range. I don't hand cards off right after shooting to a tv station; I don't shoot docs where I have hours of footage a day. So I wouldn't spend any money trying to get a broadcast codec and am shooting RAW all the time. I've already added a Tentacle Sync to it, so the timecode thing is solved. I don't need higher than 4K resolution and don't care about shooting FF. I don't rent my camera, so I could care less about it's position in the marketplace (though I do think the C200 is selling well).

A C300 III would almost certainly be larger, heavier and more expensive, so I actually don't know what they could do to make me go through the trouble of selling a camera that is actually pretty perfect for me.

Spending those few thousand dollars on real cinema lenses would be a better use of my money...
Click to expand...

What he said ^^^^^^^
 
I expect that the C300 III will use the full frame sensor from the C700. That will warrant the creation of a new camera that feels like a significant upgrade. It would also probably make me want to buy the camera, but probably not at the initial offering price.
 
cpreston said:
I expect that the C300 III will use the full frame sensor from the C700. That will warrant the creation of a new camera that feels like a significant upgrade. It would also probably make me want to buy the camera, but probably not at the initial offering price.
Click to expand...

I have a date with the C700FF at Canon this week, it will be interesting. Based upon the market segment for the C300 MKII, that would be a strange move IMHO, the C300 MKII is most often used in BTS, documentary, corporate with a bit of broadcast. The whole FF thing is barely gaining traction and once again, IMHO, is nothing but a ploy to sell new cameras and lenses to a market that is already saturated, the benefits of FF are almost negligible in my mind but I am open to being convinced otherwise, I am shooting the C700FF this week and am working on getting my hands on the Sony Venice. A FF C300 MKIII, I just can't wrap my head around that existing but stranger things have happened.
 
yophoto91 said:
Just curious, knowing how conservative Canon is, what new features can we reasonably expect/hope for in the next C300 that would make you pay roughly twice that of a C200 or $5-7k more than the current C300 II price?

Here's what would likely sway me to pony up the extra $$$$ in a C300 Mark III:

-Brighter/Sharper/slightly larger (say 5") screen. Would like to see a similar quality screen from say their 5D IV on their cinema line. Would be worth the slight trade-off in battery life, IMO.
-Improved EVF that isn't glued to body
-Pass-through/Power-out enough to juice a third party monitor/EVF
-Similar body design of the C200 that nixed the clamshell design of the audio inputs/monitor
-More rigid monitor mounting options to prevent image shake when using touch-AF
-A bit more DR wouldn't hurt
-A bit better low light performance wouldn't hurt
-4K60p is good enough for 99% my needs, but 72p, 96p, or 120p non-cropped at 4k or roughly 2.5k may be nice to separate it from the C200
-ProRes
-Improved color science/color profiles (vague as hell, I know) that allows for a more "film-ic" look straight out of camera

By the way, anyone else want Canon to release their own 7" HD High-Bright monitor (with decent color) that could utilize their touch-screen AF? Typically I try to stay away from proprietary accessories, but I would easily pay $1-2k for that if it also had a few physical buttons for false color, peaking, waveform, etc.

What would it take for you?

Mark
Click to expand...

This is a good list.

For me I'd say:

- Raw lite / prores
- 4K highspeed
- less tall, lighter
- removable evf for gimbal work
- less rolling shutter / improved motion cadence
- user changeable mount for PL/EF
- a good solution for mounting the EVF-V70 in the correct spot for shoulder mount. Something like the Alexa Mini EVF mount.

I also agree it should have a more cinematic look built in. The rec709 LUT is fine, but not the most inspiring thing to look at while you're shooting. I rarely feel like I'm shooting a movie when using the camera, but can get nice results in the grade... so it should be possible provide something that looks cooler in camera!

I like the battery system, cfast media and the reliability.

Basically the main things that make me aspire to an Arri over my Canon is the cinematic look and the high frame rates. Knowing how these things go, we'll probably only get a few of these things on the wish list, but it will probably be just enough to get us to upgrade.
 
mrtreve said:
This is a good list.
I also agree it should have a more cinematic look built in. The rec709 LUT is fine, but not the most inspiring thing to look at while you're shooting. I rarely feel like I'm shooting a movie when using the camera, but can get nice results in the grade... so it should be possible provide something that looks cooler in camera!
Basically the main things that make me aspire to an Arri over my Canon is the cinematic look and the high frame rates. Knowing how these things go, we'll probably only get a few of these things on the wish list, but it will probably be just enough to get us to upgrade.
Click to expand...

ARRI is much simpler, and at the same time, provides a more general solution for looks. They've got Log C gamma (with Log C ALEXA Wide gamut) and Rec709 (LC709A). That's it. Accurate, well known "no surprises" color, without endless menus and settings (as with Sony, Canon, etc.). For complete versatility, they also offer 3D LUT support, which can be viewed live, recorded with embedded look metadata along with the LogC files, or baked into ProRes for super fast turn around. So for the next camera, Canon- please toss all the complexity, and simply provide accurate color, along with 3D LUT support. Want to surpass ARRI? Throw in some AI processing to deal with difficult lighting (mixed / low quality / spiked spectrum), AI boosted WB for skin tones, even better AF and manual boosted AF, etc.

As far as camera size- a DJI drone with the Intel Myriad AI processor is comparatively tiny and extremely light weight- it flies! It has massively more computing power than current cinema cameras. There's no technical reason to keep giving us large, clunky, hot/power-hungry, noisy (fan), heavy cameras. Make them as small and light as possible, with built-in IS (that eliminates the need for a gimbal/steadicam for most shots). In a few years we'll look back and laugh at these ridiculous (but back saving) contraptions people had to use to deal with heavy, antiquated camera tech.

As for FF vs. S35 (crop): FF is super useful, provides wider field of views, shallower DOF (without having to source exotic lenses you may not have on hand), and can take full advantage of the image circle of one's (sometimes extensive) FF lens collection. Then, if you want extra reach, you can in-camera crop FF to S35 (or to use a crop/S35 lens). I started out on the FF 5D2, then 5D3, FS700+SB, A7S, A7S II, and now the 1DX II, and prefer to use the entire lens / FOV / DOF provided by the FF image circle. While marketing folks claim "magical 3D" effects with FF (no magic: just extra shallow DOF with available lenses), it's really about versatility, and being able to fully use lenses one has on hand. There's zero chance I'll purchase another S35 camera at this point. Though in the future, tiny sensor computational cameras will be able to provide high-quality shallow DOF in a package the size of a cell phone (or smaller!).
 
I would buy a 6k raw lite C200 MK II for $7500 in a year or two ;)

Canon simply needs to continue developing on what they have with the C200. Its an amazing camera. I’ve been a “Red guy” since the original Red One M. The C200 converted me.
 
yophoto91 said:
Just curious, knowing how conservative Canon is, what new features can we reasonably expect/hope for in the next C300 that would make you pay roughly twice that of a C200 or $5-7k more than the current C300 II price?
Click to expand...

40k 300fps RAW light field.
 
C300 Mk3
-FF sensor
-60-120 fps 4K
-slightly bigger C200 body- ditch the monitor unit!!!
-RAW lite, Prores option
-Locking ring EF mount as STANDARD equipment
-PL mount- field switchable
-daylight viewable touchscreen monitor- standard
-built in wifi/bluetooth so AC can monitor and pull focus via tablet
-built in streaming for client monitors(ipads)
-improved DPAF

Problem is, that would make the C700FF obsolete...
 
AlkaliDigital said:
I would buy a 6k raw lite C200 MK II for $7500 in a year or two ;)

Canon simply needs to continue developing on what they have with the C200. Its an amazing camera. I’ve been a “Red guy” since the original Red One M. The C200 converted me.
Click to expand...

AlkaliDigital, what kind of shooting do you do? Scripted or doco? How do you find the image out of the C200, compared to red?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top