Jump to content

Canon 4K refresh - C200 and C400 coming at NAB?


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

A C200 with a prores codec would be a beautiful thing indeed.   Will the price will be that "entry level" though? I expect it will be similarly priced to the current C100 if not slightly more.   Of course, entry level is all relative isn't it?  

 

It looks as though Canon is really going to try to move dslr video shooters over into buying something from the C series.  Can't say I blame them,  they've got the dslr market pretty well covered as far as dominating sales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canonrumors said nothing new is coming at NAB.  We'll see who got it right.

 

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/03/much-ado-about-nothing-at-nab-2014-from-canon/

 

"We’re told by various folks that Canon will make some announcements of non camera items that won’t be a big deal to most people. It looks like a quiet NAB from Canon for the second year in a row."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth it to you, JHines...

 

I know a few people who have made good money from the C300 and paid it off in months.... I also know a few people who are still paying off their kitted out scarlet that they were laughing wildly about the day it was launched next to the C300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For tv no one wants raw... DNXHD and prores (often 422 to save space) dominate. C300s are showing up all over the place alongside Alexas as b-cams for tv as well as replacements for ENG rigs for reality. Even at 50mbps you see C300s as B cams for big budget movies and tv... go pro 3s, too. C100 is not renting so hot but seems popular among owner/ops. Canon has done very very well with these cameras... Red is suffering atm for being unwilling to introduce a prores module. And C500 seems like the odd duck, and its raw format is bizarrely implemented. Form factor is at odds with shooting style on larger productions for A cameras...

 

I don't see Canon introducing raw in its lower end models. Prores maybe (hopefully), 4k certainly... But there are plenty of products that differentiate themselves by including raw on the low end already. Canon will differentiate itself through price (for a fully outfitted kit) and ease of use. Wish they'd find a way to coax out a couple stops extra highlight detail and maybe slow motion (less important), but I don't see them focusing on raw video except toward the high end, where their niche is already just weird.

 

Not sure what the appeal of raw is over very good quality intermediate codecs or if it's worth it for small gains in image quality. I'd take 2k prores from an Alexa over anything else in terms of acquisition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not worth it to you, JHines...

 

I know a few people who have made good money from the C300 and paid it off in months.... I also know a few people who are still paying off their kitted out scarlet that they were laughing wildly about the day it was launched next to the C300.

 

Canon C300 Price $13,999

Median US houselhold income $51,017

 

I don't think there are too many people that can successfully run a household while buying $13,999 cameras... at least not in the richest country in the world.  Most of us are on EOSHD because we can't afford $13,999 cameras of any sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon C300 Price $13,999

Median US houselhold income $51,017

 

I don't think there are too many people that can successfully run a household while buying $13,999 cameras... at least not in the richest country in the world.  Most of us are on EOSHD because we can't afford $13,999 cameras of any sort.

 

It's different if it's an investment. I know gaffers with $500k trucks and DPs with $200k camera packages. 

 

That said, I couldn't pay off a C300 in a month! But if you're getting booked consistently at a $1000 day rate wet hire, then sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 10/12-bit 422/444 long GOP codec similar to Sony's XAVC would be excellent for these cameras (part of the H.264 spec). After spending long hours dealing with RAW, I only use RAW when I have no other choice. The 24Mbps FS700 codec still outperforms 5D3 14-bit RAW in resolution and actual dynamic range (due to the better sensor in the FS700). 5D3 RAW wins in color fidelity and post latitude: 10/12-bit 422/444 efficiently compressed is the best of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's different if it's an investment. I know gaffers with $500k trucks and DPs with $200k camera packages. 

 

 

 

No one is saying there aren't outliers.  But you can't own a $500K truck when your household income is $51K.

 

 


 

That said, I couldn't pay off a C300 in a month! But if you're getting booked consistently at a $1000 day rate wet hire, then sure.

 

In fairness he said months with an "s."  I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where someone somewhere could pay off a C300 in months, but for we hobbyists that just isn't realistic.  In my hands a C300 would become obsolete before I earned back even a fraction of the price.  A Panasonic GH4 is a much smaller outlay of capital and if it's image quality really is everything Andrew says it could be then it will be quite future proof.

 

Don't get me wrong.  The C300 seems well engineered and has a stable of lenses that is second to none.  It seems like a tight polished professional product.  If I had a bunch of paying gigs lined up I would definitely use one.  But for those of us who are hobbyists and only make a little money here and there with video the C300 is out of the question.  And there are a lot more of us than there are people who have $13,999 in our pocket to use for just a body... which will be obsolete in <2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying there aren't outliers.  But you can't own a $500K truck when your household income is $51K.

 

 

 

In fairness he said months with an "s."  I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where someone somewhere could pay off a C300 in months, but for we hobbyists that just isn't realistic.  In my hands a C300 would become obsolete before I earned back even a fraction of the price.  A Panasonic GH4 is a much smaller outlay of capital and if it's image quality really is everything Andrew says it could be then it will be quite future proof.

 

Don't get me wrong.  The C300 seems well engineered and has a stable of lenses that is second to none.  It seems like a tight polished professional product.  If I had a bunch of paying gigs lined up I would definitely use one.  But for those of us who are hobbyists and only make a little money here and there with video the C300 is out of the question.  And there are a lot more of us than there are people who have $13,999 in our pocket to use for just a body... which will be obsolete in <2 years.

 

The main difference between a C300 and a GH4 (not that I've used one, but I have used the GH3 a bit) isn't the image quality but the workflow and ergonomics. For a working professional, efficiency on the job and in post is crucial; for a hobbyist image quality is more important if you're a camera nut. Canon caters toward mid-range pros (B cameras for tv; A cameras for indie and mid-range corporate) by making something that's very easy to use and easy to work with in post with good enough image quality. The image is great but not a lot better than much less expensive options (and not a lot worse than anything other than the Alexa, even then it's a fine B camera).

 

The C300 is also an affordable rental. And "future proof" is for your clients to decide. When they demand 4k only then do you need it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While your right to point out Canon needs to step it up, your lionizing of the GH4, a camera that isn't even out yet and one that you haven't even tested in a working environment is a bit speculative beyond reason, borderline fanboy. I use C300's constantly for national broadcast shows because the codec, form factor, storage and power draw ideally suit broadcast work. While you go on about the 4k abilities of a GH4, most pros and networks would take the 1080p of an Alexa any given day. And you seem to overlook the most glaring shortcoming of a GH4 - Micro 4/3's. It's a chip size that's neither here nor there. Too small to give a truly cinematic DOF and too limited in the choice of lenses. Then there are design flaws with the GH4. The HDMI cable will still get in the way of the flip out. Do you know if the 1/4" mount and lens mount have been reinforced since the GH3. I've ripped the 1/4" mount right out of the body from some mild vehicle mount and bent a lens mount with an Olympus zoom. The C 100/300 will easily hold a 70-200 without a lens bracket.

 

In short, please stop talking like the GH4 is a success before you actually used one on a job with paying clients or extensively tested it. This sort of speculation serves no one, except perhaps Panasonic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tim Naylor I'm not sure who you were directing your rant against, since nobody's 'lionizing' anything anywhere in this thread as far as I can tell. If you're referring to Andrew Reid, I don't see anywhere in his article "Canon 4K Refresh" any reference to the GH4 being preferable to the Alexa. I don't know how you managed to rip out the mount of the GH3 body, it's the first time I've heard that one. It must take brute force to do something like that. Also, you say the choice of lenses with u43 mount is limited, whereas in fact, the choice of glass is virtually limitless and growing every few months (thank you, Rokinon!). As for the sensor size, it hasn't limited the imagination of many talented filmmakers. Finally, if you are accusing anyone (still not sure who you're addressing) of catering to Panasonic, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. 

 

BTW, what is 'cinematic DOF'? Everything has to be blurry to resemble film? What about Fellini? Orson Welles? Kalatozov?

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...