Canon launch $8000 Cinema EOS C100

[jgharding]

It's just so much bloody money! I love the 550D with Magic Lantern, cheap enough to own and chuck about, great for promo projects that only really have 720p delivery. I love the RX100 as a B-cam: sharp as anything, 50/60p, the same AVCHD rate as this and so well stabilised you can do away with tripod and just screw a handle into it.

But the C100 will hire for about 100 quid a day I think, so though I'm sure I'll hire them occasionally (my favorite hire guy pre-ordered one today) I won't buy it myself.

The BMD looks great as a buy though because my vanity projects are likely to be films, so I'll want quality rather than turnaround speed. It's nice to see things hotting up so much.

[Philip Lipetz]

Why choose over BMCC? To avoid costs of SSDs, graphic cards for post, rig, monitor, audio xlr rig, and HUGE storge costs. The BMCC has ver very limited low light and is not suited for event or doc work, and that is according to them.

Also, the C100 has XLRs I handle, allowing for a much more compact setup than a c300. Have to see of color banding is an issue with the AVCHD codec.

[TC]

[quote name='peederj' timestamp='1346247039' post='16807']
Canon claims the C100's color space is 4:2:2.
[/quote]

Interesting. AVCHD is a codec based on the MPEG4 standard. The C300's codec is MPEG2. MPEG4 is (as you might guess) more advanced and therefore more efficient. The in camera image will be almost identical. Rather like Canon's XA10 vs XF105.

It's less than 6 months since the C300 started shipping. I would be extremely annoyed if I had shelled out $15,000 for a C300.

[lexicon]

[i]"The camera has a ‘new wide dynamic range’ feature measured at 800%. I am not sure why they don’t measure it in stops overall, I have no clue what this means!"[/i]

I interpret it as having [b]three more stops of dynamic range[/b] than what you get with a standard gammas (REC-709).

Say that what you get with REC709 is 100% (e.g. 8 stops). Well, if you manage to capture [b]one more stop[/b] of light within the legal signal (0 to 100 IRE output, see figure) you have reached 200% (you should represent that percentage on the input-axis of the traditional input-output gamma curve graph). If you manage to fit [b]another extra stop[/b] of light within the legal signal you have reached 400% (you have doubled 200%). Finally, If you manage to fit [b]a third extra[/b] [b]stop[/b] of light within the legal signal you have reached 800% (you have doubled 400%).

So, 800% means that with the C-Log mode you can fit three extra stops of light within the legal signal compared to standard gamma (REC-709). In other words, if the camera captures, say, [b]8 stops[/b] with REC-709, well, with C-Log you will be able to capture three extra stops, making a total of [b]11 stops[/b].

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/14106/503e18bf2d9e2_HypergammasandSLogcurves.jpg[/img]
[source of the figure: Alister Chapman, xdcamuser.com]

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='riccardocovino' timestamp='1346242292' post='16794']But in terms of specs the comparison with the FS700 is embarassing: for the same price we have 240fps, 4k-capable body and universal mount.[/quote]

Although the FS700 + 4K will likely be double what a C100 costs, it is certainly a massive factor.

The universal mount too, massive factor for me. Not for everyone but I need that LOMO, PL, Canon FD, Leica M lens mount and I already have full EF support with the Metabones adapter on FS100.

I'd be clicking 'pre-order' today on C100 if it had an EOS M mount instead of EF.

[cameraboy]

[quote name='Philip Lipetz' timestamp='1346247420' post='16809']
Why choose over BMCC? To avoid costs of SSDs, graphic cards for post, rig, monitor, audio xlr rig, and HUGE storge costs. The BMCC has ver very limited low light and is not suited for event or doc work, and that is according to them.

Also, the C100 has XLRs I handle, allowing for a much more compact setup than a c300. Have to see of color banding is an issue with the AVCHD codec.
[/quote]
if u buy Ferrari u need good set of tyres ...
and u can buy good ones for 4000$ difference :)

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='Philip Lipetz' timestamp='1346247420' post='16809']
Why choose over BMCC? To avoid costs of SSDs, graphic cards for post, rig, monitor, audio xlr rig, and HUGE storge costs. The BMCC has ver very limited low light and is not suited for event or doc work, and that is according to them.

Also, the C100 has XLRs I handle, allowing for a much more compact setup than a c300. Have to see of color banding is an issue with the AVCHD codec.
[/quote]

It is hard to tell so early especially without having shot with both cameras but I speculate that the BMD will have quite the edge on image quality in good light. I am able to get more out of the highs and lows of the sample cinema DNG raw files than I am out of my OM-D E-M5 raw stills. For a $3k video camera this is new territory and if anything it is almost Alexa territory.

I only have doubts about the sensor size and low light. Handling maybe. We'll see. Wooden Camera cage is superb.

The BMD's large screen is nice to have too, saves having the bulk of a monitor for a lot of stuff.

Should get my final retail unit next week.

For sure the C100 has a more 'practical' form factor. I prefer the way it looks, and having handled the C300 I don't doubt it will be superb for handheld work with minimal rigging.

[cameraboy]

avchd 422?
looks like a new flavor of H264 ...
if thats true and i own c300 ...
o boy ...

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346247212' post='16808']
It's just so much bloody money! I love the 550D with Magic Lantern, cheap enough to own and chuck about, great for promo projects that only really have 720p delivery. I love the RX100 as a B-cam: sharp as anything, 50/60p, the same AVCHD rate as this and so well stabilised you can do away with tripod and just screw a handle into it.

But the C100 will hire for about 100 quid a day I think, so though I'm sure I'll hire them occasionally (my favorite hire guy pre-ordered one today) I won't buy it myself.

The BMD looks great as a buy though because my vanity projects are likely to be films, so I'll want quality rather than turnaround speed. It's nice to see things hotting up so much.
[/quote]

I hear you. It is a lot of money for me too, I don't need an FS100 AND a C100, AND a GH3, AND a BMD. It is getting silly. The investment is better off on the screen. Although the C100 is getting much warmer for me, and has addressed a heap of concerns I had about Canon recently, I cannot see myself selling my FS100 for it purely because of the lens mount and the fact I can use the Blackmagic for optimal resolution and workflow in good light. FS100 is my low light tool and for when S35 sensor size is important. BMD for when dynamic range, skin tones, resolution is key. C100 would be nicer than both to handle, and a lovely cam for sure but it cannot replace either of them until it has a universal mount and raw codec. That is asking a lot. FS100 and BMD both have better unique selling points for me personally.

I know the majority might be better off with a C100 for commercial work though. It is going to FLY off the shelves because it is well priced and very practical.

Not quite exciting enough in the specs department though. No 240fps, no raw, no 12bit colour, no full frame. Sony and Blackmagic have all that covered under $8k.

[Simco123]

The reason why it is around $5k-$6k and not $15k as in the EOS Cinema 1C is because it doesnt have 1DX capability for stills included. As a bonifed semi high end video camera the price correctly reflect what the camera actually capable of. On the other thread Andrew wrongly trying to compare the video ability of a $3k dSLR in the 5DIII with a bonifide video camera in the BMC and felt short changed when much of the $3k cost in the 5DIII is actually devoted to stills. It is like complaining that a kettel doesnt make as good a toast as a toaster even though this toaster cannot boil water for a cuppa it did'nt matter to Andrew because he only bought the kettel for its ability to cook toast :rolleyes:

[cameraboy]

but CANON told as that 5D3 is kettle that makes perfect toast ...
:)

[Alex Mand]

[quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1346248670' post='16819']
but CANON told as that 5D3 is kettle that makes perfect toast ...
:)
[/quote]

Touché!

[jgharding]

Another good point: the [b]XF100 [/b]camcorder is about 2500 quid and has their MPEG2 [b]50mbps 422[/b].

The use of the lower bitrate codec in this seems like obvious product tiering, if indeed the resulting footage is noticeably poorer, which it may or may not be. Hmmm, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. If it's of equal quality to C300 it'll kill the aforementioned for a lot of users.

The Canon MPEG2 is pretty damn good. Not all codec implementations are equal, regardless of MPEG type or bit rate. But yeah, more bits is usually better, so I'm getting pretty sick of 24mbps when the quick SD cards write at 760mbps (96MBps).

Canon have, for all their faults, killed higher-end products before though: the 550D made the 7D redundant for many people, unless they wanted to shoot in the rain with L-lenses, or shoot a lot of still frames per second. So it might be that they're doing the same again, and opening up the market a bit.

As I said elsewhere, I just finished a long shoot on FS700 and I only really like the slow-motion, the form factor was so hard to deal with compared the the C300, all corners and awkward places for buttons. But I AM IN LOVE :wub: (lol) with the slow motion! It's so good! :) Again though, the low bitrate codec is such a shame, cos the slow motion is tied to that codec as it can only be recorded internally.

I wish the whole 24mbps thing would just hurry up and f-ing die! :unsure:

[TC]

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346249697' post='16821']
Another good point: the [b]XF100 [/b]camcorder is about 2500 quid and has their MPEG2 [b]50mbps 422[/b].
[/quote]

What were they thinking??? We know from the C300/C100 that the codec alone should be worth $7,000...

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346249697' post='16821']
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I'm getting pretty sick of 24mbps when the quick SD cards write at 760mbps[/font][/color]
[/quote]

Yep. It may have made sense in 2005. But we are in 2012 now.

[Andrew Reid]

Well said JG. Perfectly positioned and set to fly as the C100 is, in some ways it just is not good enough or interesting or unique enough in 2012. It should have come out a year after the 5D Mark II.

Don't look to actual manufacturing costs as any guide - the mark up on these cinema cameras and prices people are readily prepared to pay for them are hideous relative to actual unit costs, even when all the R&D is factored in. Canon are a business though and I would do the same in their shoes. I wish I could bang on some XLR jacks from Maplin, add an MPEG2 chipset from the XF and call it $15,000.

But pros don't care do they? To them it is a bargain and all that matters is - can they make their investment back on one? To many the answer is a yes.

[FilmMan]

Give us a 4K option with this camera for a little bit more and then we're talking. Perhaps C150? C175? C200?

[Andrew Reid]

Indeed 4K add-on and universal mount and I am there.

But they'd never undercut the C300 like that. Not for $8k. Not a chance in hell. And I don't blame them to be honest. C100 is going to sell brilliantly. FS700 has the legs on specs but not the mass market appeal and ergonomics.

[miseducation]

ND + Log + 4:2:2 (if that pans out) = really appealing little camera from Canon. If I had bought a C300 this year as an owner/operator I'd be furious. No 720p60 is a curious choice considering the FS700 as the main competitor but I guess that's Canon inability to give a fuck about its its competitors for you.

Even if on paper there's no reason to like it over FS700 (hard to compare BMC for now, totally different beasts) I can't be the only person excited about being able to own a C300 I can afford.

[miseducation]

At least one thing is for certain, my 5D isn't going to last the year as a part of my kit.

[TC]

Yeah, I suspect the 4:2:2 is a mistake. As cameraboy points out, it is not part of the AVCHD 2.0 standard.