Canon Cinema EOS C70 - Ah that explains it then!

[Towd]

In regards to Raw vs Log formats, while its nice to have a the ability to change color temp and ISO in RedRaw, etc.  The Kodak Cineon system, a 10 bit RGB 4:4:4 Log format was the gold standard for over 20 years when scanning film for digital processing in VFX and later for Digital Intermediates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon

Every post house on the planet worth its salt should be comfortable delivering professional results using a 10 bit log "digital negative".  It wasn't until the rise of HD video acquisition over the last 10 years that raw became a thing.  And the early reaction to Red's raw format was mostly met with derision due to its lossy (gasp!) compression format.  Attitudes have definitely changed as people got used to the new formats.

I think the big step up in the video/DSLR space was when we went from 8-bit video recording to a 10-bit log format like the GH5 offered.  The 8-bit log formats from Technicolor's Cinestyle, to C-Log, S-log, V-log are just too prone to banding and color artifacts when pushed heavily.  The ability to shoot raw is nice, but 10 bit log is a totally viable format for any post house to work with and deliver great results.

[Kisaha]

Of course I would love to have everything the world has, thrown into the C70, but I am trying to be realistic.

Yes, I would love it to have raw, and e-ND, and full XLRs, and SDI, and ProRes, and Braw, and other things, but then it wouldn't be the C70, and it wouldn't cost 5000$, or whatever it costs.

I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 

If you compare the C200 release, which HAS raw, you can go and check my opinion back then, and you will see that I was right (same with the first Canon RF cameras), they were stop gap releases, not long time solutions like this C70 is. If you need raw more than what the C70 offers, the C200 will be quite cheap for people to buy it really soon.

Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion, but feel free to express yourself as you like ofcourse, sorry if I sounded autarchic, just can not see the point I guess.

The turning point for me, and a lot other professionals in the field, was 10 bit files, and that will be enough for most things in the near future at least, raw is good to have for cheap (P4K) but it isn't a selling point for me and the pros I see working around me.

Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, joema said:

There are several recent trends that make this difficult to assess. Past experience may not be a reliable indicator.

Historically most use of RAW video has been proprietary formats which were expensive and complicated in both acquisition and post. By contrast both Blackmagic's BRAW and ProRes RAW are cheap to acquire and easy to handle in post. However they are both fairly recent developments, especially the rapidly-growing inexpensive availability of ProRes RAW via HDMI from various mirrorless cameras. If a given technology has only been widely available for 1-2 years, you won't immediately see great penetration in any segment of the video production community. There is institutional inertia and lag.

You're referring to raw out of mirrorless cameras, which is:
1) a very very recent development 
2) quite irrelevant to the pro market when mirrorless cameras are only somewhat rarely used on anything but the lowest of low end newbie professional shoot

(to be fair, I do have a somewhat biased perception, as although I work on plenty of "low/mid budget productions", they are at least high enough budgets they can afford a sound mixer or lighting assistant, and not simply a OMB shoot winging it)

Anyway, these raw shooting mirrorless won't be replacing the likes of a C70/C300mk3/FS7/FX9 any time soon. 

  

11 hours ago, joema said:

Conflicting with this is the more widespread recent availability of good-quality internal 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs on mirrorless cameras. I recently did a color correction test comparing 12-bit ProRes RAW from a Sony FS5  via Atomos Inferno to 10-bit 4:2:2 All-Intra from an A7SIII, and even when doing aggressive HSL masking, the A7SIII internal codec looked really good.

While I agree that good 10bit codecs are sufficient, I will go to the defense of raw and point out this isn't a fair apples to apples comparison as the FS5 sensor itself is quite old & dated. 

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, Kisaha said:

If raw is a necessity, this camera will fail, if it is not, then it will sell amazingly well, and I am betting is going to be the second.

I bet the C70 is going to be Canon's best selling C Series camera since the C100 itself!

(unless the C50 blows us away at an even lower price point, and proves my prediction wrong)

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I own a Pocket, mostly for the reason you just described. I never use it though. In low low end, you can use whatever, it is mostly a hobby, or a side job, in the professional world a C70 will be in everybodies mind, as a A cam for most projects, or B cam for bigger ones.

Bingo, for many the P4K is a perfect A Cam for the hobbyist, indie filmmaker, or part time pro.  Or as a B / C Cam for folks who are the next level up. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

C200 didn't have a broadcast ready codec, and that killed it in sales, Sony with the FS7 just dominated the market for half a decade, and now they have the FX9, Canon strikes back, and the C70 is the tip of the spear.

C200 found its niche for the C100 owners who were happy with everything *except* they wanted "4K". As the C200 was for some kinda a "C100 + 4K 8bit", for many that's all they needed. Plus the C200 had an additional niche for shooters who did everything in house and didn't mind a bit of extra overhead, then the C200 might make sense. 

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I have to see the FX6 though, and whatever Panasonic brings with that BMGH1, or whatever its called, but Canon does it, and Canon is Canon, it survived with sub par products and silly decisions, now they strike back, and they strike hard.

I suspect the FX6 will have a major compromise vs the FX9. What would it be?
Ideas:
1) no TC, maybe even no SDI??
2) old sensor? (please don't reuse the FS5 sensor!)
3) not FF? (doubt it)
4) no 4K 60fps 10bit? (or perhaps FF is only 4K 8bits, and the 4K 60fps 10bit is reserved to only the S35 mode)

 

[BenEricson]

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

I bet the C70 is going to be Canon's best selling C Series camera since the C100 itself!

I think just the fact that the baked in profiles on the Canon looks so damn good, is a huge selling point. No fuss image.  You're getting the image from the 11 thousand dollar C300 Mk3 sensor for around half the price in a small form factor.

I do wish it had an EVF and full sized XLR. There are way to work around those, but you gotta wonder if the C100 or C300 would sell as well as it did with no EVF. The answer is most likely no. 

[ghostwind]

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

That's my thinking too. I actually prefer the C100 style body for this reason. 

Agreed. This thread is mostly about codecs, but to me the ergonomics are just as important. Having named it the C70, that leaves some hope that perhaps they will have a C100MKIII at some point, full XLR, BNC?, larger/modular form factor/ etc. for $2K more. Dunno. Many are saying this IS the C100MKIII, but then they would have called it that no?

[BenEricson]

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Agreed. This thread is mostly about codecs, but to me the ergonomics are just as important. Having named it the C70, that leaves some hope that perhaps they will have a C100MKIII at some point, full XLR, BNC?, larger/modular form factor/ etc. for $2K more. Dunno. Many are saying this IS the C100MKIII, but then they would have called it that no?

Yeah but that is literally the C300 Mk3 and the price is 6k more. 

[Django]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

C200 found its niche for the C100 owners who were happy with everything *except* they wanted "4K". As the C200 was for some kinda a "C100 + 4K 8bit", for many that's all they needed. Plus the C200 had an additional niche for shooters who did everything in house and didn't mind a bit of extra overhead, then the C200 might make sense. 

In defense of the C200, it also introduced 4K60p, internal RAW recording, and Touch DPAF... amongst a host of other features, IO, media and ergonomic enhancements .

It was a lot more than just a C100 with 4K. Aside from 10-bit codec, it actually did more than the at the time flagship C300 mk2!

And that’s the funny thing with Canon. Lower end models often have better features than flagship models but always have the infamous cripple hammer on some crucial aspect.. 

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, Django said:

In defense of the C200, it also introduced 4K60p, internal RAW recording, and Touch DPAF... amongst a host of other features, IO, media and ergonomic enhancements .

It was a lot more than just a C100 with 4K. Aside from 10-bit codec, it actually did more than the at the time flagship C300 mk2!

Definitely, if a "C100mk3" had been released when the C200 was, then the "C100mk3" would have had no raw, and probably a limit of 4K 30fps 8bit (might have had touch DPAF though?). 

But I'm just saying numerous people treated the C200 "as if it is the C100mk3" (for instance, never using the raw functionality), because a C100mk3 itself didn't exist! And still doesn't. 

[SteveV4D]

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

 

I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 

Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion.

Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.

I wasn't contributing to EOS at the time, but I have since expressed criticisms of the P4K in various related threads since despite owning one and it being my primary camera.  I did read the P4K thread extensively, and although preordered, even considered cancelling based on the negatives mentioned there.  And there were many discussed.  Especially soon after the camera was released.  Comments like the camera has a fixed screen and IBIS is as obvious as saying the C70 doesn't have RAW, but such unfiltered discussions meant that when I did get mine, I was fully aware of both pros and cons and what they would mean to my workflow.  Imagine if the thread had focused only on what the camera could do and how wonderful BM was, my early days with the camera might have been quite different.  Maybe frustrated to the point I didn't use it.  To me a discussion on how the R5 gets RAW and the C70 doesn't is relevant.

I appreciate that shooting RAW is still the exception, but if that exception means working with a codec I am happier editing with and grading better, I welcome being that exception.  It doesn't make me a hobbyist or semi Professional.  In fact, I am full-time professional.   I agree its not essential and not a big enough negative to lead me away from the C70.  I'll shoot H264 if necessary.  But it won't stop me wishing the C70 had something users of the cheaper Photo camera R5 soon will have, the ability to shoot RAWlite.  

[mrtreve]

I did notice that the C200 raw had less artifacts than the C300II X-AVC. I would shoot them side by side when I owned both and the CRL codec is much cleaner when you really dig about in Resolve. However the performance of the CRL codec in Premiere was always pretty bad. I'd always end up transcoding so I could work smoothly.

I used my C200 for the first time in ages last week and my new Mac Pro still struggled 😂. I'm guessing this is an Adobe thing?

The main thing I like about the Canon RAW is that if you're happy to transcode, it's more or less writing a fat prores file to the card (at least in terms of colour sampling and bitrate).
 

[herein2020]

10 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Of course I would love to have everything the world has, thrown into the C70, but I am trying to be realistic.

Yes, I would love it to have raw, and e-ND, and full XLRs, and SDI, and ProRes, and Braw, and other things, but then it wouldn't be the C70, and it wouldn't cost 5000$, or whatever it costs.

I have the P4K, I have never shot braw, and that camera has NO AF while the C70 may have the best AF at the price point, less audio options, terrible battery life, no ergonomics whatsoever, less I/O, a smaller sensor ofcourse, no ND - which is like number one priority for video cameras. Why don't you go to the P4K thread to complain about all the issues and omissions, I wonder? 

If you compare the C200 release, which HAS raw, you can go and check my opinion back then, and you will see that I was right (same with the first Canon RF cameras), they were stop gap releases, not long time solutions like this C70 is. If you need raw more than what the C70 offers, the C200 will be quite cheap for people to buy it really soon.

Discussing for ever what a product does NOT have, it is just a waste of time in my opinion, but feel free to express yourself as you like ofcourse, sorry if I sounded autarchic, just can not see the point I guess.

The turning point for me, and a lot other professionals in the field, was 10 bit files, and that will be enough for most things in the near future at least, raw is good to have for cheap (P4K) but it isn't a selling point for me and the pros I see working around me.

Cheap raw solutions is more for hobbyists and semi-pros as I see it in real life. I literally have seen noone shooting raw in anything less than a feature, and definitely not on a C200 (par example), I believe using raw is a lot less important than we believe it is in some forums, and maybe Canon knows it.

I agree 100% with you. I have the C200 and due to the file sizes have never shot raw for a paying job.  For the types of jobs that I do, as long as you WB and expose properly the files sizes of raw don't justify the benefits. YouTubers seems to think raw is the holy grail that will instantly turn their cat videos into cinematic blockbusters.

With that being said, most people when discussing raw seem to think its only benefit is its ability to have more latitude in color grading. I had a long discussion with Blackmagic Design and the real benefit of raw is the fact that it is designed for editing. For this reason alone I wish the C200 and C70 had compressed raw options. I have no problems with the image quality out of the C200, C300, and C70, but I cringe thinking about trying to edit those files after adding titles, color grades, Fusion effects, and transitions.

[independent]

There's no video camera right now that checks off as many boxes as does the C70. That doesn't meant it's the right camera for everybody. 

However, it is amazing to see how many people require a built-in EVF, SDI-port, and RAW. And must let the world know the tragedy of their unmet needs. We all know you twits shoot on iPhones. The C70 has portrait mode too you cunts

 

[Mmmbeats]

Why do people get so worked up about this stuff?  Seriously - it would be an interesting psychological study.

[SteveV4D]

5 hours ago, herein2020 said:

 

With that being said, most people when discussing raw seem to think its only benefit is its ability to have more latitude in color grading. I had a long discussion with Blackmagic Design and the real benefit of raw is the fact that it is designed for editing. For this reason alone I wish the C200 and C70 had compressed raw options. I have no problems with the image quality out of the C200, C300, and C70, but I cringe thinking about trying to edit those files after adding titles, color grades, Fusion effects, and transitions.

To be honest, when I say RAW, I am just as much referring to ProRes or any codec that is easier to edit with than H264 and H265.  As I said before, these are delivery codecs not editing codecs.  Whilst I'd not argue that most here don't need RAW, many would benefit from a codec that edited easier whilst keeping file size to a respectable level.   So my wish is less RAW and more an editable codec other than H264 and H265.

[SteveV4D]

Moving away from the laboured topic of Codecs.  I am interested in a few things in relation to the C70.

Does the camera offer punch in focus during recording?

Does the ef speeedbooster adaptor impede AF in any way.

What sort of lenses are there for RF to start off with and are there any crop given its a S35 sensor.  Any S35 RF lenses out there or just fullframe.  

I'm more familiar with Panasonic lenses than Canon; its been ages since I've seriously looked at one, though the R5 and R6 came close before disappointment again reared its head.

[ghostwind]

10 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Yeah but that is literally the C300 Mk3 and the price is 6k more. 

True. Wishful thinking on my part. Perhaps there is room for something between the C70 and the C300MKIII. Just not a fan of the C70’s form factor.

[maxmizer]

It would not seem true that it mounts the same sensor as the c300mk3 ... Canon makes many sensors ...

Arri's magic is in the electronics and the firmware behind the sensor !!!

 

[Mmmbeats]

1 hour ago, SteveV4D said:

Moving away from the laboured topic of Codecs.  I am interested in a few things in relation to the C70.

Does the camera offer punch in focus during recording?

Does the ef speeedbooster adaptor impede AF in any way.

What sort of lenses are there for RF to start off with and are there any crop given its a S35 sensor.  Any S35 RF lenses out there or just fullframe.  

I'm more familiar with Panasonic lenses than Canon; its been ages since I've seriously looked at one, though the R5 and R6 came close before disappointment again reared its head.

I'm going from memory so I can't verify where I saw these info segments, but I'm fairly confident that:

Yes, you can do punch in while recording (Panasonic have been killing me with the lack of this for years now!).

 

Yes, the speedbooster does impede the AF to an extent.  I believe it works just as well, but the coverage is reduced (from 80% to 60% of the screen real estate).

 

No, there aren't any EF-S-style crop RF lenses as far as I know.  Plus I doubt there will be.  Though perhaps 3rd party lenses (like Sigma) might be adapted? (I'm not so confident on this last paragraph).

[independent]

2 hours ago, Mmmbeats said:

Why do people get so worked up about this stuff?  Seriously - it would be an interesting psychological study.

Ironically, you missed the irony and the joke. And the irony. As well as the joke.