BrooklynDan

Oh man, this is an epic surprise. I hope it has the video capabilities of the X-T2. 4K cleanly downscaled from a medium format sensor is gonna look gorgeous, especially if we can adapt old-school Mamiya and Hasselblad glass to it.

Between these Sigmas and the new Angenieux EZ zooms, we finally have some very good, reasonably priced options for full frame cinematography. Weapon 8K owners will be all over these.

I think what's beginning to be increasingly obvious is that Canon is seriously limited in its ability to install high-capacity processing power into its products, which is a big reason why so many of its cameras seem crippled compared to the competition. Now, there is market segmentation at play here in regards to the cheaper cameras. Canon is obviously trying to protect the Cinema EOS division by limiting the feature-set in the DSLR range. But the C700 is top of the line. There's nothing above it, and yet it still looks inferior on paper compared to the Varicam, Amira and F55. One of the reasons why the NX1 seemed so advanced when it came out was because Samsung is the second largest manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. Sony is up there too. So is Panasonic. Canon (and Nikon as well) is a camera-maker first, electronics-maker second. So the hardware is always gonna be a step behind, even if the color science and image quality is there. At the same time, Canon serves a mass market and needs to use economies of scale, unlike Red and Arri, which are tiny companies in the scheme of things, but use pricey halo products in order to develop bespoke hardware that trickles down to lesser models. Scarlets were made from rejected Epic sensors. The Raven is a Weapon 8K sensor cut in half. The development put into the Alexa 65 made the Alexa Mini possible. People forget that an Alexa SXT costs over $100,000. If Canon made a camera at that price, would it be world-beating? And would that hypothetical technology trickle down to lessor models?

According to the just-released Film and Digital Times article, the C700 has a little bit of extra sensor real estate that is only available in 4.5K RAW. Effective image size is 28.9mm x 15.2mm. So while it is not a full height 18mm anamorphic-ready sensor like the Alexa, it does have a little bit of extra vertical dimension so that you can get more field of view out of your anamorphic lenses, much like on the Red Dragon 6K. It seems like it's only available when you attach the pricey Codex recorder on the back, so that's kind of a bummer. Hopefully they enable some sort of Pro Res 4:3 mode so we can utilize that extra height without having to pay for RAW.

It looks....nice. But not really a winner. There aren't many distinguishing characteristics, and the body design looks very derivative. It looks like the Varicam 35 and the Sony F55 had a baby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I was hoping for something more akin to a Canon XL2 in terms of shape. And at the price, it's just way too easy to step up to an Amira. Hell, you can have a used Alexa with a 4:3 sensor for that price and be shooting on the best camera on the planet. I'm sure it shoots a pretty image though. We'll see if that and the hallowed Canon name is enough to move units.

Despite the fact that the decision-makers at Canon often miss the mark, I'm excited to see what the C700 brings to the table. The high-end digital cinema arena is crowded, and there isn't enough room for everyone (See: Varicam 35). And the fact that they're rumored to drop a new anamorphic lens with it gives me some hope. Anamorphic is a big market right now and addressing it will dramatically expand the user base.

At the rental house where I work, the MK II definitely sat on the shelves for a long time while the FS7 worked all day, every day. Lately though, the MK II has been picking up steam, and we've invested in a few more as we start to replace our aging pile of C300 MK Is. But it still has a long way to go to catch up. That said, I can imagine that Canon has been feeling the squeeze, which is why they lowered the price drastically. And while it's still pricer than the FS7 despite the slightly inferior specs, it's not unreasonable considering that the build quality is far superior. The FS7 feels like cheap plastic crap and breaks often. The MK II (as well as the other C-series cameras) is a beast, and holds up to production rigors much better. And the color science is on another level entirely. The Canon RAW output approaches the Reds and Arris as far as color reproduction and dynamic range is concerned. I'm amazed every time I plug an Odyssey 7Q in. The original C300 is a legend, though, and I expect it to continue working for a long time. It's in the same league as the Arri 2C and Eclair NPR as far as its importance as a documentary and low budget filmmaking camera.

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something. Back in the day, I used to drop what my C100 cost on film and processing for a single project. Now I can shoot many projects. With an 8-bit 4:2:0 image that'll hold up on any screen. And I can play back my dailies instantly. Seriously, as time has gone on, people have been getting more and more disgruntled, despite the fact that the wealth of technology at our fingertips is simply staggering. I don't get it.

Annnnndddd......Samyang just killed the game. Great choice for a fast, wide focal length.

I'm afraid that the Varicam LT will be a dud with rental houses, if only because of the bad taste left over from the original Varicam 35. Despite all the good features, excellent codecs and good image quality, it was a total failure. We have one at the rental house where I work and it only went out a couple of times, which means that it never came close to recouping what it cost to buy. Anyway, the Dragon still works, and works a lot. It's very versatile, has great options for frame rates and format sizes, and can be stripped down for gimbal use, or built up with an Optimo and all the trimmings. That said, it's beloved mostly by those who grew up shooting DSLRs and are comfortable with the idea that a camera should be modular and customizable. Older cameraman take comfort in the Alexa and the fact that there's one choice of baseplate, one choice of handle, one choice of shoulder pad, etc. Also, what really keeps RED in second place is the reliability and durability. They freak out a lot. Crash for no reason. Have glitches. Require a very knowledgeable touch. It can be a burden for the cameraman who wants to focus on the craft and the artistry, but must instead spend many hours soaking up technical minutia just to keep his camera running smoothly. I received several hours of instruction on the RED system at my job, and feel that I need several DAYS more in order to really wrap my head around it. Meanwhile, I figured out an Amira in 20 minutes basically on my own.

After spending several months servicing both Canon and Sony cameras at a rental house, Canon's decisions are starting to make sense to me. While they clearly follow a strict marketing playbook and parse out features according to what they perceive as end user needs (like giving LOG to their cinema cameras only), they do spend they time and effort to provide a quality product that lasts. Sony just tends to cram in as much processing power as possible without considering how it might best be used. The FS5 for example cannot output via SDI during 4K recording. The signal just cuts out, so you're pretty screwed if you're using an on-board monitor. The FS7 must be manually switched between SDI and HDMI. It won't do both at the same time. The menus on the Canons are quick and responsive. The ones on the FS7 lag and make you wait for every setting. Takes 25 minutes to upload new firmware. The FS5 is constantly repairing it's image database. And all Sonys are incredibly touchy when it comes to folder structure on the memory cards. God forbid you put in a memory card you used on a different camera, and the Sony won't even be able to access the card in order to format it. I've also gone on and on about how poorly they're built. The C100 and C300 come with a crisp magnesium chassis that is impervious to dents, dirt and scrapes. So while you might not be getting the 4K resolution and high frame rates that you might feel are necessary, you are getting a solid tool that will last long beyond product cycles. Arri brings the same philosophy which is why Oscar-winning movies keep being shot on Alexas, shot in 2.8K. Solid quality over flashy specs.

It's definitely effective in the right hands. I did extensive testing with a 50mm L-series at f1.2, and it followed focus quite organically, maybe not as fast as a human focus puller, but it manages to work without that harsh stepping effect that autofocus motors are known for. As far as alternatives, there are a few systems that seem to provide auto focus from manufacturers like Red Rock Micro, CMotion and Andra, but as far as I know, they're mostly prototypes, probably very expensive, and requires lots of rigging and bolting motors and sonar transmitters to your camera.

Get the MK I and a loupe for the rear screen. Or an external monitor and a rig. The images are nearly the same. I don't know if the MK I looks more filmic, I own one and compared to the MK II, it's more or less equal, but the image is nice regardless. Probably the best 1080p 8-bit image you can get that looks really nice right out of the camera.

I service cameras all day long at a rental house, and it seems to me that as product development cycles have sped up, build quality has gone down. I get FS5s and FS7s coming back from shoots and they are simply in an appalling state. Not built for field work at all. Back in the day, the F3 was a tank. Simply a tank. That camera and other cameras built under their CineAlta banner got much better quality materials. The consumer/prosumer cameras....not so much. I was helping a fellow tech attach a battery grip to an A7S II yesterday. Couldn't get it to work. They sometimes go out six at a time, like GoPros, and come back with two or three in need of repair. These are toys, not professional cameras. That said, Canon isn't immune. I've had to take multiple C300 MK IIs out of commission in the last few weeks due to failing ND wheels. The motors seem to burn out quickly. Meanwhile, original C300s keep on chugging after years of punishment and abuse in the field. Canon DSLRs (as well as Nikon ones) are rock solid, though. You can give them shit for taking forever to upgrade and add features, but they take their time and build heavy-duty, reliable gear.

A good mattebox is a smart investment. It's one of those ergonomic accessories like a follow focus or an on-board monitor that stays with you as you move from camera to camera. If you're using a bunch of different lenses with differing lens diameters, a mattebox can make your life much easier. You can just slide that filter in instead of juggling step-up rings. And if you've stepping up to cine lenses, a mattebox is necessary. You're not screwing anything into a Cooke or a Master Prime. As far as light control goes, I think that you will consistently find yourself shooting snappier and more contrasty images when you slap on a mattebox, particularly if you're shooting with vintage glass. Vintage lenses are great, but veiling glare and poor contrast isn't.

The difference between the Bolex H16 and the D-Bolex is that the original one utilized a form-follows-function philosophy, while the Digital Bolex was the opposite. The Bolex looked that way for a reason, and I believe that it is one of the most elegant cameras ever made. Everything on it has a purpose, and they were a joy to use. I spent many hours with one in my hand back in school, and I never stopped getting a kick out of loading Ektachrome in broad daylight, and winding up that crank. The Digital Bolex was just weird. I loved the image that came out of it. It certainly looked the shit. But how do you handle it? That tear-drop shape has no logic to it, you had to get an external viewfinder just to put it to your eye the way Bolexes were meant to be used, and didn't anybody learn from the FS100 that having a built-in monitor on top of the camera is pointless? And a built-in hard drive? What happen if it fails? You don't want to know how many memory cards I have to toss away at work. Outside of professional media like Codex drives or Sony SxS cards, it's a very touch-and-go situation. The off-the-shelf SSDs are not reliable enough in my opinion, which is why Convergent Design builds their own, and why I want to smash these Atomos recorders on the floor along with they're Samsung SSDs which were built for laptops, not cameras. I think that there is room in the market for a retro-style 16mm digital camera. But it will need a much more functional design, and a lower price tag. Something like a Super 8 camera crossed with a Handycam. That said, I wished that they would have gotten to release a super 35mm camera. Maybe one inspired by the Eclair Cameflex, another timeless camera design. A Digital Cameflex if you will. Complete with Kinoptik-styled prime lenses and a Franscope anamorphic adapter. Now that's a camera I would pay the going rate for. C'est la vie.

Looks pretty good. If you're gonna go for a vintage 8mm or 16mm-style look, I would reckon that an older CCD camera like a DVX100 or an XL2 would be a better place to start than trying to turn shiny full-frame DSLR footage into Kodachrome. These cameras always had really crisp motion cadence (which is why in film school, I always picked a Canon XL2 over newer HD cameras with CMOS sensors), and the smaller sensors do a better job at replicating the deeper depth-of-field of 8mm and 16mm cameras. If you really want to get old-school, dig up a 35mm depth-of-field adapter like a Letus or a Red Rock M2 and throw it on. Grain for dayyyzz....

I own a C100 MK I. It just works. No frills. Pro XLR connections and audio controls at your finger-tips. Just simple reliability in an easy-to-throw-around form factor. Perfect for roving around an arena and getting up close and personal with the players.

Setting up a full frame camera and a medium format camera on sticks and taking equivalent frames would prove nothing to me, because I'm not concerned with stills. I'm concerned with motion, and in motion, the difference between regular formats and large formats is multiplied. It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a big difference between 35mm and 65mm in terms of, well, pretty much everything. Watch The Hateful Eight. Or The Master. Check out IMAX footage from Christopher Nolan's films. Catch a big-screen show of Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hell, check out the new trailer for Rogue One, captured on Alexa 65 with Ultra Panavision glass. The difference is there and it can't be reduced to depth-of-field measurements or millimeters. Something special happens when you shift the focal lengths higher. You might get the same field of view and depth of field from a 12mm lens at T1.4 in Super 16, a 25mm lens in Super 35 at T2, a 50mm lens in 35mm anamorphic at T2.8, and an 80mm in 65mm at T4, but you will notice that the visual impact has radically increased. You can throw math at this all you want, but my eyes don't lie.

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field. Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence! My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.

I've been handling and playing around with medium format Hasselblad and Phase One cameras at my job, and let me just say, the look is something special. It's not just the depth of field. You can get similar results with fast lenses on full frame. Medium format glass tends to be slower. 2.8 or 4 max. But the visual prespective of 645 is unique. The 50mm is a wide angle. You get amazing separation between foreground and background. It's a rich, layered look that you just can't get on a smaller format. I can't wait until medium format video becomes a thing, but it's gonna be a tough road to get there. The cameras are staggeringly expensive ($40K and up), and getting clean, jello-free 4K from the entire 50mp+ sensors will be a technical nightmare.

I feel like 4:3 anamorphic modes will really take off when full-frame cameras with higher-than-4K resolution become commonplace. Most of the cameras named in this thread might be able to record 4:3, but none-the-less, do not quite approach the proper sensor dimensions for anamorphic photography. 1.78:1 or 1.9:1-sized sensors are usually too short to reach that magical 18x24mm academy frame. Plus, you're always cropping a lot of resolution. Which is why cameras like the Weapon and the new Panavision DXL intrigue me. Within the 8K sensor, you can crop out a 4:3-size frame for your anamorphic glass, and still have it be 18mm tall and 4K in resolution. Despite all the love for Arri's Super 35 4:3 sensor, I don't think any other manufacturer wants to go that route and I think that most will skip right ahead to full-frame sensors. I think that'll be fantastic for the anamorphic crowd.

I would love to see what this looks like. Do you get insanely skinny bokeh?

Rubber has a tendency to.....oh, I don't know....deteriorate over time. See: Tires, erasers, rubber bands, pipe seals, condoms, etc. Don't know who thought that it would be a good idea for a steadicam support. And to charge $25K for it? Jebus Christ, you can buy a used Steadicam master sled for half that.