Canon EOS RP specs leaked, features 26MP sensor and 4K video

[Mattias Burling]

Catering to the needs of others = wrong ?

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

What about all the rest of the productions that shot with different cameras?

What about all the rest Oscar winners that didn't use a Canon?

What about the vast majority of tv and studio tv work beeing created but other manufactures?

Aren't those self explantory arguments?

I think the results speak volumes, Arri, Panavision for Feature films and Canon for documentaries.

As for what about the ones shot with other  brands? Well, they simply didn’t make the cut... they were not considered to be worthy. It’s really that simple.

I think if your goal is to impress the Academy you should plan wisely in every aspect of your production; from story, script, talent, crew, sets and yes cameras also.

Is it possible the Academy favors the Canon image? Sure, why not? Most people love the image Canon's produce. Is that thought really so surprising?

Here’s a quick takeaway... Winners choose Canon. 

Got a problem with that statement? Let’s see your Academy award winning documentary shot on a Panasonic? 

I’m not saying you couldn’t shoot one... who knows? But I’ll bet if you do, you’ll be confessing you actually used a Canon?

Ok I’m bustin balls a bit.., but there is clearly a correlation. If you listen to most of the people here, they will tell you that no one uses Canons for doc work anymore... Sony owns the market. Well, if that’s true, it’s even less probable that all the documentaries that were nominated were shot on Canons... and yet despite massive odds in Sony’s favor, only the documentaries shot on Canons were nominated. 

Now I understand that there’s much more to it than choice of camera... but at the end of the day my initial thought remains true... winners choose Canon. 

Tech geeks sit around pixel peeping, oogling technical specs and shooting test charts. I myself was guilty of this... till one day I sat down after comparing footage from all the top contenders and reached an astonishing conclusion; The image matters... motion matters... that’s what people see. Ease/speed of use matters that’s what allows you to get the shot. When I put these things first the choice was clear... Canon.

We have enough detail... too much honestly. Sharper lenses, more resolution is not the answer. That’s only useful in industrial cameras or medical devices. For cinematic imagery we have more than enough detail. 

Canons match well to Arri’s in every aspect save for dynamic range... and that can be controlled with thoughtful camera angles most of the time. I believe the people that have the talent to win or be nominated for an Academy award put image first. I think tech specs are for nerds. I can’t recall ever watching a movie trailer where they focused on dynamic range or low-light performance as reasons to see their movie. No one cares... no really, no one cares. Virtually everything currently out cinema camera wise is frankly good enough. If you can get usable 6400 ISO that’s super flexible. Turning night to day is just foolish.., damit, just shoot in daylight if that’s your goal.

Many will rebut these comments, but in the end the results are irrefutable. Nuff said!

 

[ade towell]

Yay I've got a Canon camera - I'm a winner

[slonick81]

40 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Winners choose Canon. 

What do loosers choose?

Do winners win because of Canon?

Will someone win for sure just by choosing any Canon product (specifically, EOS RP)?

[DBounce]

13 minutes ago, slonick81 said:

What do loosers choose?

Do winners win because of Canon?

Will someone win for sure just by choosing any Canon product (specifically, EOS RP)?

Let me simplify this, winners choose Canon because they are focused on image, ease/speed of use. They view the camera as a tool. The footage is the product. For them image is first and ease of capturing the image is important so they can capture that footage with little fuss. They are focused on reliably and fast service should a issue arise. Canon is well known for providing a system that is well suited for professional needs.

Using Canon does not ensure a win... but clearly those with the talent to win favor Canon. 

[currensheldon]

It should also be noted that many of these documentaries took 2-3 years to produce, shoot, edit, and release - and then another year or so to be nominated for an Oscar. So, this is not a reflection on what cameras documentaries are shot on in 2019, but rather what people wanted to shoot on in 2014 to 2016. That doesn't mean that three years from now, all docs will be shot on Sonys, but just a point that it's not really about what is released now.

With that said, even in 2019, Canon has the nicest looking image and the most reliable products in the doc-budget space. I wouldn't be surprised if the next few years many doc films are still shot on Canon cameras.

However, they need to be careful because many people in the doc space want to shoot on Netflix-approved cameras just in case Netflix wants their film - low budget or not. So crippling cameras to not have 10-bit 422 could cost them in a few years in the awards space. On my last 3-4 shoots, the client requested 422 10-bit 4K - which I use an EVA-1 for. All Canon has is the C300II and it's an amazingly lovely image, but the design is terrible and the general specifications are starting to get a bit old.

Canon just needs to understand that the C300II should die, release a souped-up C300 III and charge as much as they want for it, while also simultaneously releasing a compact C100 III with the 4K 10-bit 24-30fps that documentaries want and sometimes are required to have - anywhere under $7k.

I WANT to use Canon but have been using the EVA-1 and FS7 more on shoots because it's required. As a filmmaker/DP, it is frustrating to like a specific image (like Canon) and not be able to use it because it doesn't have the required specs. 

--

Canon's Lineup Should Be:

C300 Mark III (THE BEAST) - 8K upgradeable sensor, 60-96fps in 4K, internal raw, 10-12 bit at all resolutions - $15,000
For: Anyone who wants the highest quality Canon image. 

C200 (THE RAW CAMERA) - An affordable internal raw camera. Great B-Cam to C300 productions that need a camera on gimbal at all times - $7500
For: short docs, music videos, commercial producers. 

C100 Mark III (THE DOC/BROADCAST CAMERA) - 4K 10-bit 422 in HD and 4K. 120fps 10-bit in HD. 30-60fps in 4K. - $5499
For: One-man band crews, documentary filmmakers, owner-operators. 

--

Seems fairly obvious to me. Yes, the C300II will die, but if they don't let it die than I think they're going to lose out once Panasonic, Black Magic, and Sony release their next generation EVA, Ursa Mini, FS5, and FS7. ANY cinema/video camera released without 10-bit 4K from this point forward is a complete oversight. 

 

[slonick81]

42 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Using Canon does not ensure a win... but clearly those with the talent to win favor Canon. 

So, some nice films were shot with Canon's high end cinema cameras, thus we should accept limitations and marketing crippling of EOS RP and buy it in desire to be assosciated with talented winners?

[thebrothersthre3]

Eh I don't think the Academy cares that much what something is shot on. 

Canon definitely makes sense for Doc work though. 

[Castorp]

Wow somebody wrote a silly comment about Canon and Apple users being for art snobs and suddenly the Canon people are losing it? hahaha If anything many artists don't care too much about what they're using and just go ahead and make the work. Cameras are being used over years and years and insecurity isn't  projected into what camera is being used and the need to have "the best". The Canon RP looks to be a great camera making great work. Canon's are great. I've never liked the colour or lenses myself but sure wish I did. Sigh, condemned to being a loser I guess *shrugs* As is poor loser-NASA and countless other institutions that rely on, for example, Nikon. 

[mercer]

Idk, I think someone posted a link in a Canon thread that showed all of the Acadamy Award Doc nominations were shot on Canon cameras and a bunch of people came here to dispute the sense of shooting on a Canon.

The reality of the situation is this...

NOBODY CARES WHAT CAMERA YOU USE!!!!!!!!!!

They only care about the STORY you tell with that camera.

Case in point, I recently watched The Florida Project and I really enjoyed it. While watching the credits I learned it was shot on film and then i also saw the Filmic Pro logo. Immediately I looked online and learned that the last scene/sequence was shot on an iPhone and you know what... while I watched the film... I didn’t even notice. And after learning the iPhone was used... I didn’t even bother to go back and see if I could tell the difference because I enjoyed the story.

[webrunner5]

I don't think NASA has used a Nikon camera since the film days of the F4. Now they use a Panasonic camcorder it looks like. I am sure they use other brands though, maybe Nikon still? Can't find much New info. All the photos of the Astronauts are using REALLY old cameras that I have found.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/974.html

[ade towell]

23 minutes ago, mercer said:

The reality of the situation is this...

NOBODY CARES WHAT CAMERA YOU USE!!!!!!!!!!

They only care about the STORY you tell with that camera.

This. Particularly true for documentaries

All the other stuff in this thread has gotten silly. 

[DBounce]

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

The reality of the situation is this...

NOBODY CARES WHAT CAMERA YOU USE!!!!!!!!!!

I agree, but they do know what they like image wise. This is why Arri dominates the Academy Awards as the camera most used on winning films. Same is true for Canon in the documentary world.

It’s not about the camera, it’s about the imagery. Or do you think it’s all just a coincidence? 

The audience may not know or care what cameras were used, but they certainly know what imagery they prefer. 

Let me tell you what they really do not care about... lofty spec sheets.

[ade towell]

No it's totally about the story. Nobody cares if one image has slightly nicer colour than another if the story isn't compelling. I haven't seen any of them but I bet all those nominated documentaries have good stories. That's what makes them successful

[mercer]

1 minute ago, DBounce said:

I agree, but they do know what they like image wise. This is why Arri dominate the Academy Awards as the camera most used on winning films. Same is true for Canon.

It’s not about the camera, it’s about the imagery. Or do you think it’s all just a coincidence? 

The audience may not know or care what cameras were used, but they certainly know what imagery they prefer. 

Idk, I think the majority of people would accept a pretty crappy image if the story was good.

With that being said, I love the Canon image, I own a Canon camera and rejoice when I hear news like this. But I think only a small portion of the members of The Academy that vote would even notice the IQ of the camera used. But then again, it could be subliminal.

On another note, if you look at the Doc competition for Sundance, Canon doesn’t have as good a showing. They have a lot but so does Sony. Even the GH4 has one. And there are even a ton of camcorders used in Sundance docs. 

And if you look at the narrative films... nearly every film was made with an Alexa... interestingly at 3K ProRes or less for the most part... with a decent number shot at 2K ProRes.

So although I agree with the spirit of your comment, and agree that a lot of folks around here choose to dismiss Canon while a lot of professionals making films choose to use them, I really don’t know if I could be as hardlined as you but I couldn’t agree with the silly anti-Canon “art” post someone else made either.

However, this is an interesting discussion when you add the Sundance films into the mix and would make a great new thread. 

[Mattias Burling]

44 minutes ago, mercer said:

Idk, I think someone posted a link in a Canon thread that showed all of the Acadamy Award Doc nominations were shot on Canon cameras and a bunch of people came here to dispute the sense of shooting on a Canon.

Yup, some are just easily triggered and rather have an endless debate about Canon instead of spending time using their Sony, Panasonic or what have you.

Why Canon brings out such strong emotions I will never understand. I never see the same behavior in threads about other brands, even though they have just as many shortcomings and are holding back etc. And their users aren't being called snobs or apologists. It's like an online mass psychosis. 

Entertaining at times but mostly exhausting.

[mercer]

4 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Yup, some are just easily triggered and rather have an endless debate about Canon instead of spending time using their Sony, Panasonic or what have you.

Why Canon brings out such strong emotions I will never understand. I never see the same behavior in threads about other brands, even though they have just as many shortcomings and are holding back etc. And their users aren't being called snobs or apologists. It's like an online mass psychosis. 

Entertaining at times but mostly exhausting.

Yeah it really is. While I don’t agree that a Canon camera is the path to an Academy Award doc, the fact that people are even coming around this thread to dispute why all of this year’s nominated docs were shot on a Canon is just an exercise in futility. Facts are facts.

I don’t visit many other forums than this one, but from the opinions around here I would think that Canon shouldn’t even be in business anymore but then when you go to Instagram, it seems that a lot of working pros use Canon cameras. Not that I care if they do or don’t but I think even Ed David sold his UMP for a C300 ii because, I believe, he said the image from the C300 Mark II was closer to an Alexa.

[thebrothersthre3]

I think there are industry standards. People shoot on a camera mainly because its the camera to shoot on. 

People have no clue if something is shot on Film vs an Alexa. They would have no clue if something was shot on an Alexa vs a Sony or a Canon or whatever it is you shoot on. 

I wouldn't either. Professional films almost always have great lighting, which is most of the battle and of course talented colorists. 

I remember one of the DOP's or maybe it was the director for one of the latest James Bond movies was commenting on how they went digital and it was much more convenient etc.. Later for the next movie they switched back to film and he commented on how he thought the digital skintones were just off(this is an Alexa we are talking about). I am sure the guy knows what he is talking about but I would have no clue which of those films were shot on digital or film. All the James Bond films looked amazing to me. 

 

[Mattias Burling]

20 minutes ago, mercer said:

I don’t visit many other forums than this one, but from the opinions around here I would think that Canon shouldn’t even be in business anymore but then when you go to Instagram, it seems that a lot of working pros use Canon cameras. 

I can count the pros I've come across not shooting CaNikon for stills on one hand. And I'm one of them, so maybe four in total when excluding myself.

[thebrothersthre3]

Last wedding I worked on was Sony and the one before that Nikon and the one before that Nikon. Though I feel weddings can be sort of the low end of professional work lol. (not to offend anyone I do them myself).