Canon set to announce 4K 120fps RAW C500 and Cinema 1D 4K DSLR - specs and price revealed

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=Per Lichtman link=topic=569.msg3750#msg3750 date=1334187781]
I think that people had some rather unrealistic expectations for this launch.

Canon's flagship DSLR, the EOS-1D X(with HD rather than 4K video) is set around $6,800 body only. To think that they would cannibalize its sales with a 4K camera at lower price point before the 1D X has even been made widely available seems a little odd.
[/quote]

I wasn't expecting the 4K EOS to be much less than $10,000 to be honest.

But if it was 1D X priced there is no way on earth it would cannibalise 1D X sales. That is sold to stills guys and press pack.

So what if it did cannibalise it anyway?

If you don't cannibalise yourself, someone else will.

Does Canon care if you buy a $7K EOS 4K or EOS 1D X? No. As long as you don't buy a Sony.

[miseducation]

Despite my not being able to own it at 10k, it is a pretty remarkable thing to be able to shoot 4K on a full frame sensor in a Canon workflow, especially if it writes to CF cards.

The Scarlet is an exceptional creature but its 4K raw workflow with proprietary (and very expensive) media excludes it from rental consideration for me.

A 4k cinema 1d becomes a very appealing rental option as an A-cam with this feature set, especially the log-profile.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=miseducation link=topic=569.msg3761#msg3761 date=1334193617]
Despite my not being able to own it at 10k, it is a pretty remarkable thing to be able to shoot 4K on a full frame sensor in a Canon workflow, especially if it writes to CF cards.

The Scarlet is an exceptional creature but its 4K raw workflow with proprietary (and very expensive) media excludes it from rental consideration for me.

A 4k cinema 1d becomes a very appealing rental option as an A-cam with this feature set, especially the log-profile.
[/quote]

Totally agree.

It is very appealing to me as well.

The arguments about the low end are also valid. Everyone here is equally valid to be happy / unhappy in their own ways.

I just wish Canon would give us a proper interchangeable lens video camera or video DSLR for $3000. It doesn't have to be 4K or even full frame. Just progressive. We haven't really moved on in all these years at the low end.

[Chad]

I'm with Andrew. Just dying for a larger sensor, interchangeable lens video camera to properly replace the DSLR for video shooters. I would have thought by this time here in 2012 there would be more options than the Sony FS-100.

Actually, now that i think about it, what i'd love is a Canon C-300 at about half the price, lol. Most everyone seems to think it's way over priced anyway!

[Sara]

Funny thing is that the Canon 1DX was announced nearly SEVEN 7 months ago - and still hasn't shipped yet.

We have a LONG way to go before we see these cameras in the hands of reviewers and see what they are capable of.  Even if they ship soon, their price is way up there to protect the 1DX and C300 (overpriced). 

Sony might mop up if the FS700 ships soon.

[jeffdeponte]

It slays me to read posts where people think that a camera should cost $x and not $y. So funny! Canon are in business, yes [u]business[/u], to make money, not to give you free tools! And, if youʻre on this forum, donʻt you already have a GH2? If you have a GH2, whatʻs keeping you from making films/making money?

ROTFLMAO!

[meltycat]

[quote author=jeffdeponte link=topic=569.msg3766#msg3766 date=1334204415]
It slays me to read posts where people think that a camera should cost $x and not $y. So funny! Canon are in business, yes [u]business[/u], to make money, not to give you free tools! And, if youʻre on this forum, donʻt you already have a GH2? If you have a GH2, whatʻs keeping you from making films/making money?
[/quote]

yeah, good point jeff.  every decision Canon makes is perfect and we have no right to question it or voice our opinions. 

[Maxine]

No wonder that many people hate Canon. I would rather go back shooting 16mm or 35mm film like in my college days...

[Tim]

Does this do 3D? I think that's something that should be considered before saying it's an 'EPIC killer'. Although if Peter Jackson and James Cameron buy up 50 of these things like they did the EPIC, then I'd agree it's an EPIC killer.
:D

[hmcindie]

Epic doesn't really do 3d. Well it does, but with a huge mirror system. You need to plug in two epics with a mirror and suddenly it's quite cumbersome. There is a reason why Avatar was shot with 2/3" cameras and that was their size.

Every camera can do 3d with a mirror system.

[aaronofnero]

[quote author=meltycat link=topic=569.msg3767#msg3767 date=1334205508]
[quote author=jeffdeponte link=topic=569.msg3766#msg3766 date=1334204415]
It slays me to read posts where people think that a camera should cost $x and not $y. So funny! Canon are in business, yes [u]business[/u], to make money, not to give you free tools! And, if youʻre on this forum, donʻt you already have a GH2? If you have a GH2, whatʻs keeping you from making films/making money?
[/quote]

yeah, good point jeff.  every decision Canon makes is perfect and we have no right to question it or voice our opinions.
[/quote]


well, everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, so that should always be welcomed. However, it seems most people's opinions these days are very self-centered and lower-margin considerate. It would be fantastic to have a solid video camera in the $2k-$3k range, but we have such unrealistic, high expectations. It really doesn't matter what technology is currently capable of and gloating over. The fact of the matter still exists that we can produce 1080p footage on a variety of cameras currently between 600-6000 dollars, and not 10 years ago did these tool equivalents cost over $100,000. If you're an aspiring director, you should use what you can afford, and work up your name to where you can afford to buy these higher priced cameras, and then move to complain about them. We are very fortunate with what we can get our hands on this day and age, and how competitive companies have become over their products. We also have to consider the sheer price point of the components and assets for these cameras that are extremely high-priced as well. If you can only afford an 5dmkIII, why are you complaining over cameras that are designed for the use of lenses that start at a minimum of 3-5grand a piece? The FS700 looks fantastic, and Canon may not be able to touch that right now, but I'd go pretty far to say that canon out-sells Sony video products just in their lens department alone. Canon makes plenty of money, and they obviously want to appease the customer, but not give you everything you want at the price you dream of. Yes, they ought to not want to cannibalize themselves either, but lets be honest.. how likely is that? How inventive has Arri really been in all of this? Yet, they're still the highest-sought after PRO camera for television, movies, and commercials. They are a reliable company who make a reliable product, but a product with a trusted name rather than preferred speculation over the cameras capabilities. Until you have a scenario like Kodak (where the technology changes), you won't see any of these companies fall to cannibalization. It's comparative to new bands popping up the music industry. Companies will create new products, and fans of that company will stand by that company regardless of the company's decisions, and the clout and respect of a company will survive over others. A good point was made above that Canon doesn't care if their 1Dx and EOS 4k are priced the same.. they ideally want you to buy one or the other instead of turning to Sony. However,  They're not going to be terribly concerned that Sony releases an FS700 for 8-9 grand. People will still shell out 10k for a Canon product because they trust or prefer Canon. Same argument for clothing companies, obviously not to such an extreme extent, but still relevant.

[bradleyg5]

They can charge whatever they want, there is no competition at all. Full frame is not the same as super 35 or Micro 4/3rds you can't compare products.

Saying they need to price against Sony is like saying the 1dx has to compete with the 7d price wise.

The Panasonic and Sony cameras get absolutely slaughtered in low light and I have little doubt this camera will continue the trend.

Although definite QQ no way I'm going to be able to afford that, I was hoping it would fall between the 5dIII and 1dx as well. No such luck.

If the Cinema 1d doesn't have clean HDMI out though, that's pretty brutal. Hopefully you don't need a additional recorder to capture 4k footage. They should just put SATA 3 connections on these 4k Cameras, consumer SSD are going to be vastly faster/high capacity than whatever they can come up with.


Those lens aren't going to be full frame I take it? Why are cinema lens typically zoom lens by the way?

[tobyloc]

[quote author=bradleyg5 link=topic=569.msg3773#msg3773 date=1334225498]
They can charge whatever they want, there is no competition at all. Full frame is not the same as super 35 or Micro 4/3rds you can't compare products.

Saying they need to price against Sony is like saying the 1dx has to compete with the 7d price wise.

The Panasonic and Sony cameras get absolutely slaughtered in low light and I have little doubt this camera will continue the trend.

Although definite QQ no way I'm going to be able to afford that, I was hoping it would fall between the 5dIII and 1dx as well. No such luck.

If the Cinema 1d doesn't have clean HDMI out though, that's pretty brutal. Hopefully you don't need a additional recorder to capture 4k footage. They should just put SATA 3 connections on these 4k Cameras, consumer SSD are going to be vastly faster/high capacity than whatever they can come up with.


Those lens aren't going to be full frame I take it? Why are cinema lens typically zoom lens by the way?
[/quote]

I think you can compare full frame and S35/M43, you just have to bear their strengths and weaknesses in mind, as well as lens options. It's really only on the fast, wide angle or super shallow dof that full frame shows a clear advantage, in other areas it has a clear disadvantage. Many people prefer the S35 size. Also, Sony cameras definitely haven't been slaughtered in low light, 2 of the best 3 decent cameras for low light are Sony and the FS100 is the most sensitive of them all, the FS700 is supposed to be comparable.

Otherwise agreed, Canon can charge whatever they think is right for the market, not that I think they're getting their prices right for the market, unlike Sony, but the 4K DSLR has a good feature set for a full frame camera, is actually less than I thought it might be (and probably less than they intended) and will interest many people.

I've never really understood the cinema zoom obsession either, especially at the cost of T stop, but I imagine it's because cinema cameras are traditionally huge and hard to move around, so flexibility in focal length is important and they don't care about cost, it's a very different world to photography.

[jaybirch]

Canon look set to release a Full Frame 4K camera for under $10k..... and the majority of people say it is overpriced  :(

Based against what? It literally has NO competition, ZERO.

If $10K (or rental of a $10K camera) is out of your budget, you simply do not need 4K.
1) Your money is better spent elsewhere, 4K will not sell your film.
2) There are extra costs required for things like set design in the 4K world.. (compared to shooting on 5DII, for instance) and, of course, editing, storage etc.

btw - the C500 sounds stunning. I was about to buy a Scarlet, but will hold out for more news. I hope it shoots 4K to a nice internal codec too. RAW is great, but not always needed, even on a 4K production.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=jeffdeponte link=topic=569.msg3766#msg3766 date=1334204415]
It slays me to read posts where people think that a camera should cost $x and not $y. So funny! Canon are in business, yes [u]business[/u], to make money, not to give you free tools! And, if youʻre on this forum, donʻt you already have a GH2? If you have a GH2, whatʻs keeping you from making films/making money?

ROTFLMAO!
[/quote]

Of course it is a business. And a business is about giving people what they want.

If Canon continue to ignore video on the consumer, prosumer and low end of the pro market because they are focussing on the $10,000+ stuff, they are going lose a chunk of market share worth billions of dollars.

5D Mark III video users have spoken - that cam just isn't good enough, and there's no solution in sight.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=bradleyg5 link=topic=569.msg3773#msg3773 date=1334225498]
They can charge whatever they want, there is no competition at all. Full frame is not the same as super 35 or Micro 4/3rds you can't compare products.

Saying they need to price against Sony is like saying the 1dx has to compete with the 7d price wise.

The Panasonic and Sony cameras get absolutely slaughtered in low light and I have little doubt this camera will continue the trend.
[/quote]

This isn't quite correct.

Competition - Sony have announced they are going to be pushing 4K to rehabilitate their flagging TV business. They are going to put 4K in consumer devices like their full frame SLT camera. It may still not be a product aimed at cinematographers but it is certainly competitive.

Panasonic and Sony in low light? The FS100 is better than the 5D Mark III's video mode in low light. Panasonic have yet to show their hand with a recent generation large sensor video camera but the GH2 does very well in low light for the price.

Then there is Nikon - showing a VERY keen interest in DSLR video at the moment, and rounding up a bunch of influential pros to seek advice for improvements on future DSLRs.

[Tzedekh]

[quote author=jaybirch link=topic=569.msg3775#msg3775 date=1334228948]
Canon look set to release a Full Frame 4K camera for under $10k..... and the majority of people say it is overpriced  :(

Based against what? It literally has NO competition, ZERO.
[/quote]
It's not a problem with 4K for $10K, it's with every compromise Canon has deliberately built into the camera that hobbles it: 8-bit 4:2:0 MJPEG codec, probably hobbled HDMI, etc.

[b]EDIT:[/b] It's official. While it's 4:2:2, it's still only 8-bit, even out of HDMI. And the MSRP is $15K. Kinda makes Scarlet-X look good.

[sandro]

I think this signs the end of video dominance for Canon? Its clear for them they only way to get a real 1080p on their DSLR you have to spend at least 10k

[markm]

aaronofnero

The problem is we know what the hacked GH2 can do at £700 So how should we be grateful for paying a huge price for a what I think is neccesary like added ND filters.

All I personally would like is a large sensor 1080p 25fps camera with 10 bit out Nd filters a few cine gammas and Slog. We know thats easily achievable The af100 Nearly did it. Just needed a better sensor 10 bit out and slog and bingo. So why should doing that cost any more than £5000? Surely at £7000 you can have 1080p slow motion too.

The Sony fs700 4K should be good if you want to colour correct but they only made it 8 bit Although I think if you downconvert uncompressed 8 bit 4k to 1080p it will give more colour information. But then you need the recorder that isnt even built.

Therefore we can see how manufacturers are deliberatly crippling cameras putting on bells and whistles that amount to gimics. How people are resorting to uncrippling cameras like the canon mark 3 removing the OLPF or even the Nikon D800 and adding a anti moire filter. There is a lot of people now uncrippling Putting right or adding stuff to crippled cameras by manufacturers eager to make as much as possible and protect high end equipment.

This has become like a game of how can manufacturers make as much as possible and how customers can sidestep. Its the hunter and prey and I have to say I don't think much. Today Sony announced 10,000 job losses. Many will think poor Sony cutting back. But now I feel suspicious, are they cutting back or getting rid of some of their higher paid workers and replacing them with cheaper ones in the near future. Some might say thats business But I say loyalty fair play and a reputation are also valid promotion or at least used to be. Maybe in todays uncaring world we bought this on ourselves.
As a customer I want to see manufacturers make money and improve. What I don't like seeing is fleecing tactics. It should be easy really as business has to compete. What we seem to be be seeing though is a collaberation between camera manufacturers to protect their interests. In the business world that is illegal. Capitlism is good but it needs rules without rules capitilism is evil. Sorry I just feel so disapointed whenever they bring their new wares out and leave consumers out in the cold.

At this moment in time I have a GH2 and might upgrade to a Nikon DSLR whereas what I really want is a proper video camera so I dont have to mess about with fiddly menus and ND filters.

FAT CHANCE.

[bradleyg5]

dpreview has the info up, it's 10k EUROS not 10k dollars. No focus peaking and baffling no zebra strips, it uses the exact same sensor as the 1Dx from the looks of it. Not terribly impressive to think it has less usability than a 5dII with magic lantern.

Plus it doesn't even do 4k in full frame mode, I retract my previous statements. It looks like it's just a 1dx hacked into producing 4k video at a messily 24fps.

Made for a world I know little about, I can't see using this for low end commercial work or documentaries that's for sure.