Jump to content

Has Canon planned a Formidable Attack


sanveer

Recommended Posts

Why suddenly a leap forward? This is like 2 generations ahead of what they were offering until now.

I am wondering about the design and manufacturing of the chips and sensors, and ofcourse I am waiting for the real products to be tested..

The only company pushes 8K devices right now is Samsung, by the way. It seems beneficial for both companies to go the same way. Canon produces the videos and Samsung displays them, or else, where are you going to watch those images? As far as I know the Samsung Qleds are the cheapest way to watch 8K at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's $16,000! S1H arguably has the same image for $4k.

The C300 was a success because despite the underwhelming specs, the image was great and had a broadcast codec. This new model seems great as it still continues as documentary camera, with better Dr, a

Obviously Canon made improvements, they couldn't be as bad as they were. Just look at this quick test I made between my two camera bodies (Canon EOS R and Panasonic S1H). Same settings (except I had

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Avenger 2.0 said:

To sell RF lenses. Pretty sure the 5DV will somehow not have 8k like the R5.

Do you believe they had the tech and manufacturing capabilities 2-3 years ago, but they didn't care? Why their first RF cameras were so dissapointing, and almost obsolete when the new ones come out, then?

It is pretty obvious, and stated by the same Canon board members in interviews and the such, that they couldn't cope with the resources and technology of Sony. 

Suddenly, while they were 1 step behind, they are 1 and a half in front?

I want to learn more about their chips and sensors, it is not a philosophical discussion, I want the science behind all these.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Lets hope not, on youtube there is already a guy with a test unit though, so it might not be that far off. 

With corona virus wrecking the supply chain that the main reason for delay, you cant get raw material out to process and refine.. hence all those assembly factory from a lot of companies is on halt atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

These two. Sony was reaching a sort of critical mass with professionals that needed more video capability.

So Canon seems to be swinging for the fences to win them back.

R5 ~$4k, RF glass easily ~7.5K (holy trinity set), $1K in bits and bobs (EF-RF adapter, etc...)

Thats $12.5K for a straight RF investment. Of course it is lower for people coming with EF glass, but eventually they will want some of that RF goodness. That’s $8K in lens lock-in (the ultimate form of lock-in for a brand).

DPAF, 4K120p, and 10-bit clog are a tasty combo for many people, even Sony brand loyalists.

For videos EF lens is better because you get VND mount adapter, so much better than front screw on ND that have problem with backlight situation, reflection issues, colour shift and loss of micro contrast.

RF lens for me is more still oriented 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

The C300 III specs look positively tame for $10k compared to the EOS R5 for less than half the price.

Just like the original C300 where people criticised it for crappy 8bit and weak specs compared to Sony!

It sold like hot cakes.

Conclusion, pros really don't care about image quality and just want to look impressive on set :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

The C300 III specs look positively tame for $10k compared to the EOS R5 for less than half the price.

Just like the original C300 where people criticised it for crappy 8bit and weak specs compared to Sony!

It sold like hot cakes.

Conclusion, pros really don't care about image quality and just want to look impressive on set :)

But what if the R5 has weak dynamic range and bad rolling shutter. 

Pros are suckers for dynamic range. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Was it the need to ensure a new mirrorless lens mount succeeds on the market vs Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic & Sony?

If so, I'd have expected Canon to have pushed to give the new C300 an RF Mount option, to show that Canon supports RF Mount all the way up to the top!

After all Sony of course uses E Mount for FX9 and even for VENICE!
 

  

3 hours ago, ntblowz said:

For videos EF lens is better because you get VND mount adapter, so much better than front screw on ND that have problem with backlight situation, reflection issues, colour shift and loss of micro contrast.


Imagine if you could pair that VND with the NDs of the C300mk3, if it had an RF Mount, you could shot even on the hottest day in the Sahara Desert at f0.7! Just whack in all that ND at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The C300 III specs look positively tame for $10k compared to the EOS R5 for less than half the price.

But the EOS R5 misses heaps of what the C300mk3 has, they're aimed at very different markets.

 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Just like the original C300 where people criticised it for crappy 8bit and weak specs compared to Sony!


The C300mk1 sold in era when 10bit internal was a rarity in the low/mid tier professional productions. Who else did??? RED didn't, they did raw internal (and for this market niche, many didn't want to touch 4K raw back then). ARRI did, but they were priced for an entirely different end of the market.  There was BMD, but it was a baby company still having teething issues. 

The C300mk1 sold like hotcakes because it had a great 1080 8bit image, with a 50Mb/s industry standard broadcast codec (that was the downful of the otherwise superior Sony PMW-F3, only 35Mb/s internal). Together with all the other expected features (NDs/SDI/TC/etc) at a great price. 
 

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Conclusion, pros really don't care about image quality and just want to look impressive on set :)


They do care care about image quality, but also put a just as high priority on workflows, both on set and for post. For many types of shoots they do the R5 fails there to be the primary camera.

The C300mk3 just might maybe capture a bigger share of the low/mid end cinema market (defined as: priced over $6K but under $25K) than the EOS R5 will capture of the high end FF stills market. (defined as: FF cameras primarily for stills which are priced over $2.5K)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Canon has finally realized that who is buying a DSLR for Video either don't want a dedicated cinema cameras (like me as I do a lot of photos too my 1Dx II and 1Dx that I just sold had both more than 200k clicks each on it ) or they have a limited budget < 4k usd..... thus a dedicated optimized for video DSLR does not make too much sense as it covers only the second group and the margins are too low.

So they go all in with the video features in they photo DSLR and with a single SKUs, body etc try to cover all the above markets with their photo models.

Then they have finally a good structure on their C line:

Cinema FF 6k RAW C500 II < 16K USD

Documentary, Action, etc S35 4K RAW 120 fps, top DR C300 II <11K USD

Entry level S35 4K RAW 60 fps C200 < 5.5k USD (here they should add the middle 10 bit codec)

Below 4.5k USD is DSLR territory

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I think Canon has finally realized that who is buying a DSLR for Video either don't want a dedicated cinema cameras (like me as I do a lot of photos too my 1Dx II and 1Dx that I just sold had both more than 200k clicks each on it ) or they have a limited budget < 4k usd..... thus a dedicated optimized for video DSLR does not make too much sense as it covers only the second group and the margins are too low.

So they go all in with the video features in they photo DSLR and with a single SKUs, body etc try to cover all the above markets with their photo models.

Then they have finally a good structure on their C line:

Cinema FF 6k RAW C500 II < 16K USD

Documentary, Action, etc S35 4K RAW 120 fps, top DR C300 II <11K USD

Entry level S35 4K RAW 60 fps C200 < 5.5k USD (here they should add the middle 10 bit codec)

Below 4.5k USD is DSLR territory

 

 

There is an RF with XC style body coming according to rumor, I think that is probably the entry level cinema line replacing C100?

 

C200B is now $3999, but you have to add ur own monitor/grip/handle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The C300 was a success because despite the underwhelming specs, the image was great and had a broadcast codec. This new model seems great as it still continues as documentary camera, with better Dr, a few more frame rates, a variety of codecs and a new modular system. It's an improvement of an already solid model. Documentary cameras don't need the high resolution of the c500. Just a good codec with decent resolution and solid audio quality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...