Canon launch $8000 Cinema EOS C100

[XXX]

I really like the C100´s style, but I somehow can´t believe the picture (and codec) will be better than a MIII or GH3 in real live.
This market segmentation and feature limiting should finally start of more companies focusing on hacking the formfactor of HDSLRs.
I´m thinking of a cage-like enclosure that adds a C300 side grip, one or two mini XLRs with preamp/phantompower and a high res 5inch display (positioned like on the C100) with a dedicated loupe.
Oh and make versions for the GH3, the D800, MIII and who ever will join the ranks, with a dedicated batterygrip as the connection point, so you can "dock" your camera on/into the enclosure.
Make it 1500$ or up to 2500$ with a built in Ninja like HDMI recorder.
No Lego-like rigs, a solid one-piece construction.
You´d end up around 4000, just where a 8bit 4:2:0 AVCHD camera should sit in 2012.
Basically Edelkrone has to sit down with SmallHD, Atomos and Beachtek - can´t be that hard ;) ;) ;)

[richg101]

I really like the look of this new camera. C300 was too expensive IMO. This should fill a nice gap. BUT. It dawned on me that Canon might soon unveil their 7D mk2. What is the likelihood that they happen to be moving to Avchd on their upcoming hdslr's and they decided to 'rehouse' this new 7d into the c100 form to add perceived value to film makers? will the 7D mk2 not have the same image quality or will they use a different sensor data acquisition as they do on the c300 before the compression is applied? Based on their strategy with the 1DX and 1DC (9000$ price difference but not much difference in technical terms), will there also be a similar 7Dmk2 and C100 situation with the 7dmk2 being $3500 cheaper?

I'm not trying to play devils advocate. just interested to see a reason for canon to release this product considering you can now get 2 fs100's for the price of a c100. Are low sales figures? of the c300 prompting a rethink?

[Germy1979]

[quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1346244112' post='16798']
i dont think that we should be obsessed with CANON marketing strategy any more ...
it was long time ago when they have been only player in the game ...
now we can choose CANON , gh2 (gh3) , sony , BMC , KINERAW etc ....
good times ..
[/quote]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure the Kineraw kills it for $6300. Comparable price range and what not, What's funny is, people are buying these Canons up left and right. It's crazy.

C300 $16,000 ....... Scarlet X (raw) $16,000
C500 $30,000 ....... Red One MX $25,000
5Dmk3 $3500 ....... Blackmagic Cinema Cam. $3000
C100 $6-8000? .... Kineraw S35 $6300

I guess it's just loyalty at this point.

[cameraboy]

at the end this is good thing for as customers ... all that CANON loyalty pushed others to give more for less money (like SONY)...
i dont care if someone would buy this camera or 5D3 i care about response of others players ....

[HurtinMinorKey]

This is what happens when a company gets too old. They have way too many products competing with each other at this point.

This is like MBA 101 stuff Canon figure it out, or else...

http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/CAJ/tab/2

The company has lost more than 20% of it's value since it released the 5d3.

[FilmMan]

The world economic picture isn't rosy. There could be tougher times coming. If a company could secure the market in certain areas, then perhaps they should? If the world economies were moving at light speed and people had extra disposable income then yea - squeeze the consumer. But people don't have piles of extra cash. So it would make sense to over give extras and secure and expand your customer base. I recently saw an add for an "used Red one" selling for $5000!!! The market could get saturated quickly and unless a company really shines, then it will lose market share quicker than anticipated. It'll be an interesting fall as camera makers try for consumer dollars. It could be a rude awakening for some???

[eleison]

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1346264278' post='16862']
This is what happens when a company gets too old. They have way too many products competing with each other at this point.

The company has lost more than 20% of it's value since it released the 5d3.
[/quote]

Canon may not know it, but they want to be the next Sony. Sony currently doesn't want to be Sony anymore and is trying hard to restructure. I think thats why we are starting to see better products from them. After all, they did have to layoff 10,000 employees.

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/technology/how-sony-fell-behind-in-the-tech-parade.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all"]http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all[/url]

Give Canon a year. If they don't shape up, they will be in the same position sony is and perhaps then they will shape up -- if not, BMC, kinefinity, etc. will eat them alive... another japanes company down the tubes....

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1346263607' post='16859']
C300 $16,000 ....... Scarlet X (raw) $16,000
C500 $30,000 ....... Red One MX $25,000
5Dmk3 $3500 ....... Blackmagic Cinema Cam. $3000
C100 $6-8000? .... Kineraw S35 $6300

I guess it's just loyalty at this point.
[/quote]

Unfortunately the industry isn't price sensitive and there's a lot of inertia. By price sensitive I mean that competition can undercut Canon all they like but for a lot of pros it is a non-issue. By inertia I mean industry can be stubborn. Look at how long it takes a company (even a small one) to update the operating system on office workstations, whilst teenagers seem to have no problem upgrading to Windows 7 for instance, the day it comes out.

The C300 is risk free, proven, solid, all the boring things that makes it so wonderful as a filmmaking industry tool.

It is also very well marketed, has huge established base of Canon EF lens users and ergonomically it is very well designed.

Be glad if you are considering a Blackmagic, because you are thinking differently and when your short feature is shot in glorious 2.5k 12bit, it will look a damn sight better than stuff shot on a 7D for similar money.

Jon Connor says it well. Canon have a knack for cynically carving up the market. And it is working for their bottom line. http://twitter.com/jonconnorfilms/status/240874774132318208

Though their risk averse and rather unadventurous business strategy is working, it shouldn't matter to the artist and to those who think outside the box now we have the alternatives for similar money to a DSLR - vote with your feet and forget what the industry chooses to use.

[markm]

In 2011 I wanted to upgrade to a large sensor camera when Canon announced something amazing was going to happen on Nov 5th 2011 that would change everything. So I waited as I knew they were going to transplant a DSLR camera into a video body and would be affordable. After all I large sensor from a DSLR into a video cam WITHOUT a lens couldn't be that hard for Canon..

However up pops a clever marketing strategydisguised as not being a marketing strategy emerges and getting four directors to make cinema like films with the camera they advertised a 4.2.2 8 bit camera for initially what was going to be $20,000.

Lots of people were annoyed as they thought they would be owning one and the realisation that this was only for pro's and out of reach for most of us especially the DSLR community who had pushed for this.

My heart sank as I realised they promised all and delivered nothing. Yes the camera has good resolution and operates in low light Although in my opinion with low light you get to a point where the night sky looks too bright and would be unusable for real film making. If they had made a camera with 10 bit out 4.2.2 for £5000 ALL perfectly doable then I would respect them. It seems they are doing the same again. It's a shame as I always liked Canon cameras in the past. The BMC shows what can be done. Sony could always have put a large sensor into a camera like the EX1 and sold it for the same price and it would have sold by the bucket load instead of puffing it out into an F3 further dividing their pro stuff from their meat and veg consumer market. The canon puts profit before customers. You need a certain amount of goodwill with a loyal customer base. BMC have earned that. Not Canon in my opinion.

Roll on the kinefinity. I had hoped Panasonic would have put a better sensor in the AF100 and 10 bit out But NO they wouldn't do that would they. They all seem to stick together to lock indie film makers out of the professional arena and now another little tempting offer the C100 that in short offers a NEW crippled camera like the children catcher in chitty chitty bang bang that may sway some.

They will have to do a lot more to win back by trust in them now.

[lexicon]

[quote name='lexicon' timestamp='1346247686' post='16811']
[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]9 stops[/b] with REC-709, well, with C-Log you will be able to capture three extra stops, making a total of [b]12 stops[/b].

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


So, basically "Wide DR Gamma" means just an intermediate gamma between REC709 and Canon Log. It's reported by Canon to measure 800%, which as I explained before, means that it adds [b]three more stops[/b] of dynamic range compared to REC709. It is a less extreme gamma than Canon Log, making it somehow usable without -or with little- grading in post, not a bad idea indeed.

Canon website:

[b]Canon Log Gamma and Wide DR Gamma[/b]
Canon Log Gamma preserves shadow and highlight detail for maximum editing and grading in post-production without degrading image quality; contrast and sharpness are subdued with characteristics similar to negative film. Canon Log Gamma emphasizes rich gradients from mid-range to highlights and realizes 12-stops of Dynamic Range (DR). At ISO850, Canon Log Gamma enables 5.3 stops of latitude above optimal exposure (and 6.7 stops below), broadening the available dynamic range in color grading.

[color=#000000][size=2][img]http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/cinema_eos/C100/features/c100_feature_04a.jpg[/img][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=2][size=4]Wide DR Gamma is based on Rec. 709 and is optimized for monitor output or situations requiring less color grading in post-production. Wide DR Gamma exhibits high dynamic range, suppressing brightness while maintaining seamless gradations. A wide dynamic range of 800% preserves latitude for post-production work, but Wide DR Gamma is designed for perfect color "out-of-the-box."[/size][/size][/color]
[color=#000000][size=4]source: [/size][url="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100#Features"]http://www.usa.canon...s_c100#Features[/url][/color]

[markm]

So Canon derives 12 stops by using a gamma curve Surely that means compressing other stuff like maybe skin tones on higher exposures? Think somehow I'd be happier with 14 stops of raw.

[Xiong]

Bring it on I say, more competition. By the time I can afford one i'll have more options to choose from, which is great for guys like me. I too was a little disappointed by the announcement of the 5D Mk.3 and C300, atleast this looks more aimed as me. Maybe its the pressure from Sony? BMC? Kineraw? Good. Love reading the discussions guys keep them coming!

[avrofilmvideo]

No 50P in 2012???
not even 1280-720 50P
BIG MISTAKE

[Andrew Reid]

I am sure that oversampling scan of the sensor, picking up every red, green makes higher frame rates harder on the C300 / C100. It is still a big oversight though.

The FS700 down samples from a 4K sensor at 240fps!

Have Canon lost the CMOS race?

[chauffeurdevan]

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1346269429' post='16880']
So Canon derives 12 stops by using a gamma curve Surely that means compressing other stuff like maybe skin tones on higher exposures? Think somehow I'd be happier with 14 stops of raw.
[/quote]

Hmm, raw is linear, for each bit you have a stop. An 12-bit raw from an ideal sensor will have 12 stops. So the BMCC have max 12 stops of dynamic range. Is it bad ? Absolutly not. People want 14-stops but they forget that for each stop you double the quality and the range. But the BMCC is still far from a Phase One back, or let alone a Nikon D4.

[Andrew Reid]

Interesting. So 10bit raw for example, is only 10 stops? That doesn't seem right to me, but there seems a lot of logic in what you're saying, do continue...

[chauffeurdevan]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346287275' post='16905']
Interesting. So 10bit raw for example, is only 10 stops? That doesn't seem right to me, but there seems a lot of logic in what you're saying, do continue...
[/quote]

Please understand that this apply only to linear raw capture, not to processed data like 8bit with gamma 2.2 (from wikipedia : the dynamic range of an 8-bit JPEG file is about 11 stops) or else.

So let say we have a 1 bit raw file. So for each pixel you have either light or darkness.

Let's get a 2 bit raw :
At 0, you have black
at 1, you have 50% brightness (first stop)
at 2, you have 50% brightness
at 3, you have 100% brightess (second stop)

3bit RAW :
At 0, you have black
at 1, you have 25% brightness (first stop)
at 2, 37,5%
at 3, you have 50% brightness (second stop)
at 4, 62.5%
at 6, 75%
at 7, 87.5%
at 8, you have 100% brightess (second stop)

In fact in linear, your first stop have only one step. As real sensor have noise, you generaly lose a stop or two. That's why sometime the sensor output 14-stops of data, but the manufacturer truncate the two first LSB (least significante bit) of the raw to lighten the weight of the data. eg. Olympus, probably BMCC.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Am I reading the C100's specs correctly: No 50p or 60p? At what list price? In 2012?

I think the BMCC is a far better value than the C100 camera if video quality is more important to you than built-in ND filters, phantom power, and a 1.6 crop factor difference.

I also think that the BMCC's true "killer feature" is not its ability to record uncompressed 2.5K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG, but instead it is its ability to do that [b][u][i]and[/i][/u][/b] alternatively record 1080p 10-bit ProRes 422 HQ using "Film" (log) gamma @ 220-megabits/sec.

ProRes 422 HQ is an industrial-strength, professional 10-bit 4:2:2 codec that can support [i]very[/i] high quality HD video. ProRes 422 HQ requires 1/5th the storage space and disk speed of the BMCC's CinemaDNG files, and ProRes 422 HQ log edits & grades easily on both Mac & Windows. The BMCCs 13-stop dynamic range is essentially the same using either format, only the resolution & color depth changes. CinemaDNG is perfect for projects and budgets that can support it, but ProRes 422 is ideal for everything else, and far superior to AVCHD and most other camcorder codecs.

After seeing John Brawley's BMCC sample ProRes 422 HQ and CinemaDNG files that BMD has posted in their web forum, I think the camera produces spectacular results for $3K US, especially when you factor in all its features and the included industry-leading software.

I'm sure that there are sufficiently well-heeled shooters for whom the C100 is a perfect match, but for shooters looking for maximum HD video quality using industrial-strength codecs, a solid set of professional camera features, recorded on commodity-priced SSD media, and including an excellent software bundle, the BMCC is currently the best value for the money, hands down.

Cheers.

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

[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 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]

There you go again, Philip, with your insistence that the BMCC requires "expensive" add-ons! It's like you can't help yourself …

Let's go down your list:

SSDs are commodity-priced solid state media. Their price is falling rapidly, and they already cost the same or less per GB than most other popular solid state media. This trend isn't slowing down; in fact it's accelerating.

You conveniently ignore that the BMCC includes the ability to record very high quality 1080p 10-bit ProRes 422 HQ @ 220 megabits/sec with almost the same dynamic range as its CinemaDNG mode. ProRes 422 HQ is a very, very good codec, far better than the video codec used by most conventional video DSLRs or camcorders. ProRes 422 HQ is easy & fast to edit & grade in Mac & Windows systems, including relatively old, slow machines, graphics cards, and storage systems. Hard disk drives capable of use with ProRes 422 HQ are so inexpensive it's hardly worth mentioning.

The sample ProRes 422 HQ files shot by John Brawley that are available for download from BMD's website prove that the BMCC is capable of shooting very high quality HD video using this codec.

True, if one chooses to use the BMCC's fantastic uncompressed 2.5K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG recording format for maximum quality there are associated computer system and storage costs. But that's an option, not a requirement. The BMCC's $3K US price can be easily justified even if you never use its CinemaDNG capability (although that would be sad).

As for the cost of other gear such as monitors, shoulder rigs, etc., those are optional and absolutely not required for every shooting scenario, and would be pretty much the same for any camera -- they're not a requirement unique to the BMCC, nor a requirement at all in many cases.

Now you, Philip, may have shooting requirements that would compel you to buy or rent a substantial quantity of add-on gear for use with a BMCC (or any other camera), but your requirements aren't always (if ever) everyone else's requirements.

As for the BMCC's suitability for "event of doc work", BMD disagrees with you, and says so right on the BMCC product page! It says, "… it’s perfect for displacing video-only cameras for work such as sporting events, weddings, music videos and more!"

I agree with BMD. People have been shooting all manner of video, including events, docs, TV news, commercials, comedies, dramas, feature films, and so forth for decades using every manner of video camera, lens, recording format and add-on accessory imaginable. What makes you so certain people won't be able to do the same using a BMCC, a state-of-the-art video camera that includes many features not even available at any price just a few years ago?

True, some cameras have features which lend themselves to shooting certain subjects and in certain situations more easily or with "better" results than others. For example, I might choose a camera with slo-mo capability at a sporting event -- if I could afford to buy or rent it. Same as it ever was.

Cheers.

[Alex Mand]

[quote name='Peter J. DeCrescenzo' timestamp='1346292773' post='16913']
Am I reading the C100's specs correctly: No 50p or 60p? At what list price? In 2012?

I think the BMCC is a far better value than the C100 camera if video quality is more important to you than built-in ND filters, phantom power, and a 1.6 crop factor difference.

I also think that the BMCC's true "killer feature" is not its ability to record uncompressed 2.5K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG, but instead it is its ability to do that [b][u][i]and[/i][/u][/b] alternatively record 1080p 10-bit ProRes 422 HQ using "Film" (log) gamma @ 220-megabits/sec.

ProRes 422 HQ is an industrial-strength, professional 10-bit 4:2:2 codec that can support [i]very[/i] high quality HD video. ProRes 422 HQ requires 1/5th the storage space and disk speed of the BMCC's CinemaDNG files, and ProRes 422 HQ log edits & grades easily on both Mac & Windows. The BMCCs 13-stop dynamic range is essentially the same using either format, only the resolution & color depth changes. CinemaDNG is perfect for projects and budgets that can support it, but ProRes 422 is ideal for everything else, and far superior to AVCHD and most other camcorder codecs.

After seeing John Brawley's BMCC sample ProRes 422 HQ and CinemaDNG files that BMD has posted in their web forum, I think the camera produces spectacular results for $3K US, especially when you factor in all its features and the included industry-leading software.

I'm sure that there are sufficiently well-heeled shooters for whom the C100 is a perfect match, but for shooters looking for maximum HD video quality using industrial-strength codecs, a solid set of professional camera features, recorded on commodity-priced SSD media, and including an excellent software bundle, the BMCC is currently the best value for the money, hands down.

Cheers.
[/quote]

Right on spot!

C100 seems to be a good cam but is really hard to pay that much money when you have the BMCC. Even the sensor that was supposed to be too small is showing really good shallow DOF when needed as guys from BMCuser are showing on tests. Also very very good in low light and build like a tank. The only issue I see is the battery but easy to solve... And with this spectacular image quality.

This camera is so ahead of competition that is really hard to buy an FS100 or a C100. And c'mon it comes with a full copy of Resolve!