Canon C700 at IBC 2016 but no 1D C Mark II. Have they killed it off?

[cls105]

Everyone including philip blooms cats hahahha. Youre my favorite writer in the game.

so is used 1dc for 4000 usd worth it?

i hate grading.

[ND64]

I dont know where this "nice image" came from, I dont consider Canon colors "nice". Its not natural at all, and contain lots of hue shift. it was just better than what other "photo" camera makers were delivering. in raw cinema game, it means nothing. 

[Jimmy]

8 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Skin tone? You mean some people like the almost fake tan skin tone of the Canon gear?

The Varicam has the most accurate skin tone capture out of any of the cameras, and I don't know how you could possibly say that Canon's skin tone will be better than the Alexa...?

I guess in your rush to decry the Canon... you missed the part where I said it's place might be in 4k acquisition for the streaming sites, ruling out Alexa from my particular point.

[AaronChicago]

I think it's silly that streaming companies won't accept the Alexa's 3.2K file upscaled to 4K.

[Jimmy]

2 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

I think it's silly that streaming companies won't accept the Alexa's 3.2K file upscaled to 4K.

I think they do make some exceptions. But it seems most A cam stuff needs to be 4k.

This is the only little gap in the market that I can see the c700 gaining ground... some don't like red or Sony and seem to overlook the beautiful varicam

[jax_rox]

14 hours ago, jcs said:

That's right, skin tone. When I show models and actors shots from Canon vs. for example Sony or Panasonic, they almost always prefer Canon for skin tone (stills and video).

Stills cameras or digital cinema cameras? Before or after a grade? There's a very big difference between an A7s and an F55, and a huge difference between a GH4 and a Varicam.

Plus, they all get graded. And look, making actors look good is part of the job, but most of the time I'm shooting to serve a story, not simply to do beauty on an actor or model. Of course, there are times when you are shooting for exactly that, but to be honest, I'm yet to hear a complaint about a RED or an Alexa on those shoots. In fact, most of those types of shoots are more likely to request a RED well before a C300.

If I was doing stills only, I'd probably use a Canon. But we're not talking stills. We're talking high-end digital cinema cameras.

14 hours ago, jcs said:

Isn't Canon the number one stills camera in the world? Aren't there a lot more people shooting stills on Canon than people are shooting video with ARRI?

A video camera and stills camera are two very different things, but apart from that, the fact that there are more people shooting stills on Canon means only that Canon has a good brand name in a large market. Arri has a better brand name in a smaller market. There are also a lot more people watching television on cheap HD sets than expensive 4k ones. That doesn't mean the cheap HD sets are better, nor does it make their manufacturers more knowledgable about how to make TVs look good. Arri have also made film scanners (not just image scanners), the sensor in the D20 is essentially straight out of an Arriscan. Arri have been making cameras longer than Canon have, and have collaborated with some of the best lens manufacturers in the world to make lenses. 

Canon certainly have some knowledge and expertise, but I couldn't say definitively they know more than anyone else. Selling printers and scanners doesn't inherently mean you know more about colour, nor does selling more of your product in one market than another product in a different market (especially when you consider you appear to be comparing numerous camera bodies that range in price from <$1k to $30k, to a handful of bodies that start at $30k).

I'd argue Kodak, the company that at one time manufactured film as well as digital sensors, knows a lot about colour too, but their sales sure don't reflect it. Does that mean they made bad business decisions, or that they know nothing about colour?

14 hours ago, jcs said:

That's the only way they're getting away with releasing cameras that don't seem to have competing features, yet they still outsell the competition. The reason must be color, or is it something else?

I don't know how you can possibly say this given the C700 hasn't even started shipping, yet you seem to be suggesting that it is (or will?) outsell the competition somehow.

I can't find specific sales figures for their cinema division, but please feel free to share with me the figures (in comparison to the other manufacturers) and show me by how much, exactly, they're outselling their competition in their digital cinema camera division.

If you're talking stills, it's the same reason Coke outsell Pepsi. Brand name. 

8 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

I dont know where this "nice image" came from, I dont consider Canon colors "nice". Its not natural at all, and contain lots of hue shift. it was just better than what other "photo" camera makers were delivering. in raw cinema game, it means nothing. 

This. Canon's colours are far from accurate, but I guess if you use one camera enough, you get used to it. 

6 hours ago, Jimmy said:

I guess in your rush to decry the Canon... you missed the part where I said it's place might be in 4k acquisition for the streaming sites, ruling out Alexa from my particular point.

I'm in no particular rush to decry Canon, as I said at $15k this camera is potentially competitive. In terms of the streaming sites, it appears that most have switched to (or are newly originating in) Sony, Varicam or RED. 

And I would be surprised if Arri don't have a 4k+ Alexa coming soon for this exact reason (and I've heard whispers that it isn't too far away). The ALEVIII sensor is over 6 years old, and is still just as good, if not better than every other camera out there, so will be interesting to see what's in store for a 4k Alexa

[fuzzynormal]

14 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

Y'all have fun still giving a crap because I sure don't.

Eh, those that are technically inclined will fret about this sort of stuff.  If you've got an artistic bent chances are you just use whatever and make it happen.  I envy the latter as they're the ones that are more likely to have successful careers.  

Wish I could be so, but cameras to me are like jangly shiny keys in front of a baby.  

I can't help but be enthralled with 'em for some reason.  It's a stupid concern as I realize the chances of that interest having a positive effect own my career is minimal --and growing more so by the day.

14 hours ago, jcs said:

They almost always prefer Canon for skin tone.

Sure, but how do they feel about the actual productions and stories made with those skin tones?  What's really the more important pursuit after all?  Hey, idealized skin tone might be the end-all-be-all for some people.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose, just asking about priorities.  Are the priorities more creative than technical or visa versa?  Depends on the camera op's responsibilities I guess.

[DBounce]

16 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

1DX II is clearly not a broadcast camera, it does not have to comply to industry quality standard (lines of resolution, colour sampling, bitdepth etc. in 1080p). Canon can do whatever they want to keep the cost down and to keep the camera cool and reasonable battery life.

Plus, the 4K mode downscaled to HD is likely going to be approved by EBU for HD Tier 1 use, 1DC and XC10 were approved a long time ago, and as far as I know remain the only DSLRs capable for broadcast use.

Well it certainly saw extensive use capturing video footage during the Olympics.

[jax_rox]

4 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I think it's silly that streaming companies won't accept the Alexa's 3.2K file upscaled to 4K.

I think it's an example of people making decisions who don't really understand the nuance of acquisition. They're looking from a perspective of delivering the highest quality you can get on your TV set.

I guess, technically, a show originated on the A7sII or GH4 would have more chance of getting through than something shot on an Alexa...

Which is strange to us, but I guess if you're looking at a paper spec sheet, and you see one originating in UHD, the other upscaled, you would probably assume the one being upscaled would be of poorer quality..

[AaronChicago]

Someone here needs to interview for that job.

7 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

I think it's an example of people making decisions who don't really understand the nuance of acquisition. They're looking from a perspective of delivering the highest quality you can get on your TV set.

I guess, technically, a show originated on the A7sII or GH4 would have more chance of getting through than something shot on an Alexa...

Which is strange to us, but I guess if you're looking at a paper spec sheet, and you see one originating in UHD, the other upscaled, you would probably assume the one being upscaled would be of poorer quality..

 

[jax_rox]

I'd also suggest it's probably easier to police a blanket 'everything has to originate in at least UHD' rule, than it is to assess the spatial resolution quality of every piece of original content that comes through..

[Caleb Genheimer]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Eh, those that are technically inclined will fret about this sort of stuff.  If you've got an artistic bent chances are you just use whatever and make it happen.  I envy the latter as they're the ones that are more likely to have successful careers.  

Wish I could be so, but cameras to me are like jangly shiny keys in front of a baby.  

I can't help but be enthralled with 'em for some reason.  It's a stupid concern as I realize the chances of that interest having a positive effect own my career is minimal --and growing more so by the day.

Sure, but how do they feel about the actual productions and stories made with those skin tones?  What's really the more important pursuit after all?  Hey, idealized skin tone might be the end-all-be-all for some people.  Nothing wrong with that I suppose, just asking about priorities.  Are the priorities more creative than technical or visa versa?  Depends on the camera op's responsibilities I guess.

There's a price bracket/performance sweet-spot where a camera magically disappears into complete irrelevancy for 99% of people. This one hits that sweet-spot. I'm sorry, but $30K (likely more)?! I'm sorry, but that places it squarely as a rental cam in almost every case, and up against ARRI/RED offerings. 

I know what Alexa (and even Amira) can do, and sorry, but a Canon won't come close. Not even ballpark. I feel gross mentioning them in the same sentence. And if ARRI ain't your style, there's a high chance that RED has you covered, and in many cases for well under $30K.

If by chance you're REALLY docu, I'd throw my money at however many Sony FS-5s you need. That new electronic ND should be a complete run -n-gun game changer.

If you're still not covered by those options, you're either Nolan/Tarantino, and only film will do, or you're one of the countless professionals that realize: any of a number of DSLR/mirror less cameras will get you damn near close enough, for 1/10th the cost, in 90% of situations, if you know what you're doing.

I LOVE pouring over gear specs, especially cameras, and mentally crunching the numbers. But almost since the 5DII, Canon have been consistently making cameras that just don't match up in the price/performance categories. I'm not saying they don't make good cameras, they do. But they're either too pricey vs the competition, too late to the party, or too flawed.

At the risk of being "that guy" that brings the Samsung NX1 into every thread, that's what I've shot on since it came out, and I fully expect it to last another 1-2 years as my a-cam. I have ISO mapped to one wheel, Aperture to another, and Shutter Speed to the third. White Balance is a button press away (though quite frankly the AWB produces more pleasing color than the presets 90% of the time), and a variable ND filter fills out the kit alongside that killer 16-50 zoom, which pulls focus like a champ with no hunting. It truly resolves UHD and 1080p. Works for me. There are folks with Sonys, Panasonics, Nikons, Fujis, and even Canons that would say the same. 

At this point I glance at new Canon offerings, and read them in-depth later when I need a good laugh.

[Ak Ns]

People speak like canon invented a new camera. its just rebranded Varicam. Not an inch less or more. 

[BrooklynDan]

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?

[Damphousse]

3 hours ago, jax_rox said:

I think it's an example of people making decisions who don't really understand the nuance of acquisition. They're looking from a perspective of delivering the highest quality you can get on your TV set.

I guess, technically, a show originated on the A7sII or GH4 would have more chance of getting through than something shot on an Alexa...

Which is strange to us, but I guess if you're looking at a paper spec sheet, and you see one originating in UHD, the other upscaled, you would probably assume the one being upscaled would be of poorer quality..

The A7SII and GH4 shoot raw?!  Or were you just saying something completely false and hyperbolic for comedic effect?

 

Quote

Netflix commission stipulates the need to capture 4K RAW...

http://www.missiondigital.co.uk/marcella-the-netflix-challenge/

[jax_rox]

7 hours ago, Damphousse said:

The A7SII and GH4 shoot raw?!  Or were you just saying something completely false and hyperbolic for comedic effect?

No, they shoot in UHD natively. There's nothing that suggests Netflix only accepts content originated in raw acquisition, just that they won't accept anything originated with a spatial resolution <UHD.

That's the point. A blanket rule is a bit strange, and suggests that an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa originating in 2k or 3.2k despite the fact that we all know the Alexa footage would probably look better.

There are plenty of productions shooting Varicam and F55/65 that don't shoot raw and still end up with mass distribution, including on Netflix. 

[Damphousse]

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

No, they shoot in UHD natively. There's nothing that suggests Netflix only accepts content originated in raw acquisition, just that they won't accept anything originated with a spatial resolution <UHD.

That's the point. A blanket rule is a bit strange, and suggests that an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa originating in 2k or 3.2k despite the fact that we all know the Alexa footage would probably look better.

There are plenty of productions shooting Varicam and F55/65 that don't shoot raw and still end up with mass distribution, including on Netflix. 

Look man there is no scenario where Netflix is turning down Alexa footage and accepting GH4.  Don't be ridiculous.

Netflix originals require 4k and raw.  Other stuff that they have on their service can be Alexa, B&W film, whatever.  My advice is sign up for a free trial and just watch a few shows.  This is really not something to argue about.  Tons of B&W film stuff from decades ago on there... and Alexa stuff.  And definitely no GH4 Netflix originals.

https://youtu.be/b_vGQyWm3o4?t=2m30s

[jax_rox]

53 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

Look man there is no scenario where Netflix is turning down Alexa footage and accepting GH4.  Don't be ridiculous.

Netflix originals require 4k and raw.  Other stuff that they have on their service can be Alexa, B&W film, whatever.  My advice is sign up for a free trial and just watch a few shows.  This is really not something to argue about.  Tons of B&W film stuff from decades ago on there... and Alexa stuff.  And definitely no GH4 Netflix originals.

https://youtu.be/b_vGQyWm3o4?t=2m30s

I'm not suggesting that's what's happening. But the blanket rule suggests that you can't use an Alexa to shoot, say, B-cam, but you could use an A7sII. The point of the argument isn't 'wow the GH4 is the best camera ever', the point of the argument is 'how ridiculous is it that technically a GH4 could pass but an Alexa won't'.

And Netflix have no say over non-original content. I'm not suggesting they won't accept Alexa gear, just that on Netflix original content it's not acceptable.

Which is crazy, surely. 

But again, feel free to not understand the argument once more and throw some more random condescending comments around..

[Damphousse]

8 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

I'm not suggesting that's what's happening. But the blanket rule suggests that you can't use an Alexa to shoot, say, B-cam, but you could use an A7sII. The point of the argument isn't 'wow the GH4 is the best camera ever', the point of the argument is 'how ridiculous is it that technically a GH4 could pass but an Alexa won't'.

And Netflix have no say over non-original content. I'm not suggesting they won't accept Alexa gear, just that on Netflix original content it's not acceptable.

Which is crazy, surely. 

But again, feel free to not understand the argument once more and throw some more random condescending comments around..

Just to reiterate.  There is no scenario where Netfilx will accept GH4 footage but will turn down Alexa footage.  You can bold whatever you want and sneak in "B-cam" and use waffle words like "suggests" but all that internet forum dancing around does not change the facts on the ground.

You seem to want to fixate on the word 4K and want to completely ignore the word raw.  I realize that advances your bizarre hyperbole but there is nothing in Netflix's criteria that says, "we will never bend the rule on 4k but sure nonraw is fine".  Don't just cherrypick what you want to hear to fuel your internet rage.  Read their guidelines.  Watch their howto video.  There is a very specific reason they require raw.  They spend half the video talking about raw and it makes sense and frankly to me is more important than 4k.

Really man it just isn't cool coming on here and spreading rumors and getting people all hyped up over something that is just not true.  Netflix is not turning down Alexa for GH4.  Please stop saying that or at a minimum please provide links as I have to actual proof.

[Damphousse]

Just in case anyone wants to know the real deal here is a document discussing Neflix's criteria and approved cameras.

Approved Camera List

Canon C300 Mk II
Canon C500
Panasonic VariCam 35
Panasonic VariCam LT
RED Dragon
RED Weapon
Sony F55
Sony F65
Blackmagic Design  URSA Mini 4.6K
Blackmagic Design  URSA 4.6K

And of course this caveat...

Secondary Cameras:

● Any cameras other than the primary camera (crash, POV, drone, underwater, etc.) must be  approved by Netflix. 

● Test footage should be shot and provided to dailies and post­production to ensure compatibility with  primary camera.

 

Absolutely nothing about accepting the GH4 while simultaneously rejecting an Alexa.

Netflix Originals Cameras.pdf