Canon 4K refresh - C200 and C400 coming at NAB?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

feel free to stick to your TV crap

Ouch! Learn to be a bit more diplomatic with your words, Andrew.

[leo]

Some people don't feel professional or serious if they don't drop a few thousand dollars to canon for a little bump in image quality.

Well, no matter how much they bitch about, a puny gh4 will murder a c300 that costs 14k $, we should understand the grief they are going trough.

And we can have cinematic sdof with voigtlanders and even a 1.4 fstop rokinons or superb 1.2 Panasonic.

Wonder at how much c300 will go on ebay after pana has gh4's in stores, man o man the canon guys will suffer.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Some people don't feel professional or serious if they don't drop a few thousand dollars to canon for a little bump in image quality.
Well, no matter how much they bitch about, a puny gh4 will murder a c300 that costs 14k $, we should understand the grief they are going trough.
And we can have cinematic sdof with voigtlanders and even a 1.4 fstop rokinons or superb 1.2 Panasonic.
Wonder at how much c300 will go on ebay after pana has gh4's in stores, man o man the canon guys will suffer.

Oh please don't think the GH4 is going for the C300 market. Or the C300 owners are suddenly going to switch to GH4s.

I can assure you that we, c300 owners are not going through "grief" over the GH4. If the GH4 turns out to be indeed "better" than the C300 as you claim, I would simply sell my C300 and get a GH4. And have 5 thousand dollars saved. Nothing to grieve about, no?! :D

But I don't think I will. The C300 is a totally different camera. It's a real video camera. A camcorder. It has a proper form factor. A super 35mm sensor. It records to a broadcast approved codec internally, that's incredibly efficient and flexible. It has dual CF card slots. It has proper exposure and focus aids, waveform, rgb parade, customizable peaking. It has a proper EVF and proper connections (though you get these connections with the YAGH add-on). It has the best autofocus implementation in the industry with the upgrade. It has full compatability with Canon's lenses with IS. It has internal ND filters. It has a wider DR. The list goes on!

The GH4 seems to be a great (awesome?) camera. I have one on preorder. Will it replace the C300? No it won't. Don't be blinded by how awesome it is to the point of trashing every other camera on the market :)

[Quirky]

A C200 with a prores codec would be a beautiful thing indeed.   Will the price will be that "entry level" though? I expect it will be similarly priced to the current C100 if not slightly more.   Of course, entry level is all relative isn't it?  

 

It looks as though Canon is really going to try to move dslr video shooters over into buying something from the C series.  Can't say I blame them,  they've got the dslr market pretty well covered as far as dominating sales. 

 

The C-series is Canon's way to start moving towards mirrorless, and it sort of makes sense. They're choosing to start from a niche market of pro/prosumer video, where they have no market domination, and thus much less to lose. When that's done, they will eventually (have to) start doing the same on the huge mainstream market, where they still rule, and hold the market hostage with their ageing dSLR-only product line. 

 

Some people may point at the EOS-M and say that Canon's mirrorless business is a joke, but I'd say it's not. The C-series is pricey for sure, but other than that, that is their actual mirrorless line. For now. In relative terms, the C line is already doing much better than the EOS-M line globally. When shooting video only, the C line simply makes more sense than the EOS dSLR line. Even though their pricing model may not always seem to make much sense.

 

The EOS-M is just a glorified Ixus or whatever, a me too product which may evolve into a real mainstream product some day, or it may not. Dump the bar of soap point-and-shooty body, and the lens mount should be quite useable for anything up to S35, wouldn't it. Probably without 4K to start with, though. Unless they'll merge the C-line and the new M mount at some point, and base their future mirrorless product line on something like that.

 

I'm not a Canon fanboy, far from it, but we got to admit that in this particular opera, Canon is still the fat lady, and the fat lady hasn't sung her last aria yet. How long will the audience stay listening to the same old opera is another story, though. And getting a bit off-topic, too, I suppose.

[Quirky]

Well, no matter how much they bitch about, a puny gh4 will murder a c300 that costs 14k $, we should understand the grief they are going trough.

Wonder at how much c300 will go on ebay after pana has gh4's in stores, man o man the canon guys will suffer.

 

That's nerdy-nam-nam relevant and of any interest only to a small bunch of gadget nerds on these online forums.

 

For the rest of the world, the fact that even Canon have a semi-sensible pro/prosumer video camera line without dominating the market is a good thing. The situation within the pro/prosumer video niche is healthier than over the mainstream camera side. There will be plenty of users for both Canon C-series and the Panasonic hybrid line. Including Sony, Blackmagic and others, too.

 

Things are different inside the mainstream photo and photo/video hybrid segment, where the market is stagnant and sales dropping, thanks to Canikon. Even the competition from the likes of Fujifilm, Panasonic and Sony are hoping that Canikon came up with new (mirrorless) stuff, because it would help their sales efforts, rather than "murder" them.

 

As for stuff coming into eBay, I for one am looking forward to seeing both GH3's, Canons and other gear coming for sale with lower prices. That won't murder anyone. Interesting times ahead, for both aspiring and pro filmmakers. Whichever brand they're using.

[Escapist]

The main difference between a C300 and a GH4 (not that I've used one, but I have used the GH3 a bit) isn't the image quality but the workflow and ergonomics. For a working professional, efficiency on the job and in post is crucial; for a hobbyist image quality is more important if you're a camera nut. Canon caters toward mid-range pros (B cameras for tv; A cameras for indie and mid-range corporate) by making something that's very easy to use and easy to work with in post with good enough image quality. The image is great but not a lot better than much less expensive options (and not a lot worse than anything other than the Alexa, even then it's a fine B camera).

 

The C300 is also an affordable rental. And "future proof" is for your clients to decide. When they demand 4k only then do you need it. :)

 

I'd say like that's more of the difference between a C300 and a Blackmagic Camera. DSLR's may have worse workflow and ergonomics, but Blackmagic have terrible ones. 

 

[leo]

Oh please don't think the GH4 is going for the C300 market. Or the C300 owners are suddenly going to switch to GH4s.

I can assure you that we, c300 owners are not going through "grief" over the GH4. If the GH4 turns out to be indeed "better" than the C300 as you claim, I would simply sell my C300 and get a GH4. And have 5 thousand dollars saved. Nothing to grieve about, no?! :D

But I don't think I will. The C300 is a totally different camera. It's a real video camera. A camcorder. It has a proper form factor. A super 35mm sensor. It records to a broadcast approved codec internally, that's incredibly efficient and flexible. It has dual CF card slots. It has proper exposure and focus aids, waveform, rgb parade, customizable peaking. It has a proper EVF and proper connections (though you get these connections with the YAGH add-on). It has the best autofocus implementation in the industry with the upgrade. It has full compatability with Canon's lenses with IS. It has internal ND filters. It has a wider DR. The list goes on!

The GH4 seems to be a great (awesome?) camera. I have one on preorder. Will it replace the C300? No it won't. Don't be blinded by how awesome it is to the point of trashing every other camera on the market :)

Gh4 has proper exposure too, histogram, peaking, and even if it didn't had that, a 400$ smallHD would do all of those and on a much better screen quality.

Sound might be the problem with a gh4 but who shoots serious stuff with the onboard sound, surelly you use external recorders for better sound and sync it.

Then there is the DR, c300 has amazing DR but we don't know what gh4 has, a resize from 4k to full hd might give some good DR.

The definite nail in the cofin is the output of gh4, this can't be denied in any way, 4k 10 bit 422, how can c300 beat this ? it's four times the resolution, and raw, in a professional enviroment you already use super expensive sound recorders and external monitors, any advantage c300 might have for what it has on the body is out the window.

Now, if the 4k raw output isn't enough to make c300 obsolete you are left with this, c300 14000$ vs gh4 1700$, with 14000$ you get one gh4, a few prime lenses and maybe a cheap 4k external recorder for raw from atomos when it comes.

See, it's not that i hate Canon, it's more that i love Panasonic for not holding back, i get that Canon can launch a gh4 killer anytime, but they are holding back to make more money, what would be the point of giving consumers everything at once, this is no way to make more money.

[jonpais]

@Leo Panasonic doesn't shoot 4K RAW. Maybe you mean 10 bit 422? or perhaps time-lapse photography?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Gh4 has proper exposure too, histogram, peaking, and even if it didn't had that, a 400$ smallHD would do all of those and on a much better screen quality.

Sound might be the problem with a gh4 but who shoots serious stuff with the onboard sound, surelly you use external recorders for better sound and sync it.

Then there is the DR, c300 has amazing DR but we don't know what gh4 has, a resize from 4k to full hd might give some good DR.

The definite nail in the cofin is the output of gh4, this can't be denied in any way, 4k 10 bit 422, how can c300 beat this ? it's four times the resolution, and raw, in a professional enviroment you already use super expensive sound recorders and external monitors, any advantage c300 might have for what it has on the body is out the window.

Now, if the 4k raw output isn't enough to make c300 obsolete you are left with this, c300 14000$ vs gh4 1700$, with 14000$ you get one gh4, a few prime lenses and maybe a cheap 4k external recorder for raw from atomos when it comes.

See, it's not that i hate Canon, it's more that i love Panasonic for not holding back, i get that Canon can launch a gh4 killer anytime, but they are holding back to make more money, what would be the point of giving consumers everything at once, this is no way to make more money.

Yes there solutions to most of the problems cameras have. That's the thing about DSLRs and blackmagics that's making them unappealing for the professional TV/broadcast world:
-For camcorder form factor: We add a rig.
-For a good codec and double-recording media: We add an external recorder.
-For exposure and focus assists: We add an External monitor or EVF
-For good sound: We add an external recorder, or add on box
-For ND filteration: We add a mattebox
-For mounting lenses: We add adapters
-For a microphone: We add an external one
-For tiny battery-life: We add an external battery solution

And we end up with: :D



That's the joy of these Canon cameras, they are a complete package that works, the professional industry embraced them because of that, that's why I am very excited for their successors (c200/400) and that why I don't think a gh4 (or any DSLR) will kill a c300,  

I am not trashing the GH4. It's a gamechanger. An industry earthquake! I am just replying to the notion that the gh4 will kill the c300. and it's unfair to compare it to a c300, that's not even what Panasonic are aiming for.

Very excited though to see how the 4K image out of the GH4 will compare to the C300's 1080p in terms of resolution/detail/dynamicrange/color. I am optimisitic for the GH4.

[Policar]

Tim, feel free to stick to your TV crap and puny thin image, and I'll enjoy my raw and 4K cinematography tools for under $2k. Deal?

 

TV crap pays the bills.

[etidona]

Canon has been smart enough to think at the market niche that buys more stuff and that doesen't care spending $3k more for a comfortable workflow: wedding videographers. 

Internal ND and Mic alone makes me slant for the eventual C200 over the gh4. It is worth extra 3k? If it makes the difference between doing simple and easy shots and changing 10 ND filters per day manually (and keeping it clean and scratch free), or loosing audio because of the mic off for 3 months consecutively, or looking like ropocop in a church.... yes it's worth it.

[Harvey Walton]

I love how people slate a camera they have never used. How looking and comparing spec sheets actually means anything? I use C300'S FS700's DSLR's etc for actual paid work and the C300 is by far the best camera - the work flow, battery life, build in ND's and the sharpness of the image blows my GH3 away. Just because the GH4 provides better specs on paper doesn't mean its a 'Game changer'. I'm fed up of all the fanboys and crap content this site has been churning out lately...

[dafreaking]

You hit the nail on the head etidona with the wedding bit. Also, low light performance. I doubt the GH4 will be ever to match it. Though would be very happy if it did.

[Damphousse]

While you go on about the 4k abilities of a GH4, most pros and networks would take the 1080p of an Alexa any given day.

 

Why does this keep getting said?!  Do people not realize an Alexa is an $80,000 camera?

 

Neither Andrew nor anyone else has said the 4K video from a Samsung Note 3 is better than any 1080p camera out there.  Let's have a reasonable conversation fellas.  There are multiple routes to improving image quality.  Going to 4k in a well engineered camera is one way... and dropping $80,000 on a 1080p Alexa is another.  Even if the $80,000 option looks better it isn't an option for 99% of us.

[jcs]

The Alexa gets brought up frequently as it's the camera that currently creates the nicest imagery. The Amira will be around $40k with the same quality. Prices will continue dropping until that kind of quality (and more) will be available on a cell phone.

The best (and closest to true 4k resolution) 4k camera is the Sony F65 (Red Dragon might now compare well?). The 1080p from that camera looks amazing even on Apple TV streaming (see Oblivion). Fully kitted it could run $375k+, but now can be had for as little as $46k on eBay, and rents for $500/day- not used much. It has great color handling, 16-bit raw, etc. Yet the Alexa gets used much more: super easy to use, reliable, great skintones out of the box, ProRes for fast workflows etc. The Alexa is also sexier as a product, starting with the name: note they don't use a letter-number name like most other cameras. The Alexa is the Ferrari of cameras- admirers will bring it up often.

Regarding going off topic- folks talk about what gear they enjoy or admire; this isn't a strictly moderated forum. That said and back on topic, if Canon's new 4k cameras are as easy to use and look as good as their other C cameras, they will sell/rent well to folks doing this for a living (vs a hobby).

[Adam Penney]

While your right to point out Canon needs to step it up, your lionizing of the GH4, a camera that isn't even out yet and one that you haven't even tested in a working environment is a bit speculative beyond reason, borderline fanboy. I use C300's constantly for national broadcast shows because the codec, form factor, storage and power draw ideally suit broadcast work. While you go on about the 4k abilities of a GH4, most pros and networks would take the 1080p of an Alexa any given day. And you seem to overlook the most glaring shortcoming of a GH4 - Micro 4/3's. It's a chip size that's neither here nor there. Too small to give a truly cinematic DOF and too limited in the choice of lenses. Then there are design flaws with the GH4. The HDMI cable will still get in the way of the flip out. Do you know if the 1/4" mount and lens mount have been reinforced since the GH3. I've ripped the 1/4" mount right out of the body from some mild vehicle mount and bent a lens mount with an Olympus zoom. The C 100/300 will easily hold a 70-200 without a lens bracket.

 

In short, please stop talking like the GH4 is a success before you actually used one on a job with paying clients or extensively tested it. This sort of speculation serves no one, except perhaps Panasonic.

 

I'm glad someone finally said it.  This is right on.  

[Tim Naylor]

I bring up Alexa because some on this thread think 4k is going to save the world. My apologies if I was "ranting", that was less than pro of me. My intent was to point out, that the IQ of the GH4 is purely speculation here as Andrew or no one on this thread has actually used it in any meaningful way. If it's great, more power to it! But until anyone's actually taken it to the mats, so to speak, how can you begin to say it beats out the C300's IQ. The tone here is beginning to feel like Reduser, a never ending toast to 4k while missing the big picture.

 

Sorry Andrew if my working on "TV crap" offends you. It's how many of us have to make a living along with shooting feature and commercial crap. Not all of us are lucky enough to own our very own blog. In my world, what makes a good camera is more than just spec sheets. There's a reason why the Epic at 5k rarely makes an appearance these days on film or TV sets and not at all at the Academies. I still use it for commercials here and there because producers love to punch in post (they don't know what they want on set). I sold mine last year because I felt the colors were thin and honestly couldn't sell it to clients for all but a few jobs.

 

So while slaying the 300, Mr, Reid, don't overlook areas that the Gh4 comes short - the C300's XLR's, Built In ND's, Insanely high ISO, Log C, and better lens choice. 

 

To your relief, I realize I stepped into the wrong playground and bid this forum adieu as I return to my TV, Movie, Doc, and Commercial Crap.

[Go4Kyourself]

Well said Tim. Some pragmatism from the shop floor. 

 

This thread is about whether or not Canon will bring 2 new C cams out at NAB. I think not. 

[Oliver Daniel]

Tim, feel free to stick to your TV crap and puny thin image, and I'll enjoy my raw and 4K cinematography tools for under $2k. Deal?

 

What a disappointing comment - I thought this site would be more respectable than that. 

 

Does it really matter what anyone chooses to shoot on, as long as it suits them and their work? 

 

Not trying to step on your toes when I say this, but a lot of this TV crap happens to be technically and creatively brilliant, and absolutely puts the work of any well known knowledgable bloggers way into the shade. We don't question the spec of the cameras the 'TV crap' people use, who cares as long as its awesome? 

 

I myself have had many music videos broadcast on TV, the first bunch which were shot on the Canon 60d. It just so happens the decision makers saw past the 'puny thin' image and thought what I created was good enough to be slotted between Iron Maiden and Metallica videos. Not boasting, just saying! 

 

As for the topic, C200 and C400? Cool! Obviously going to be popular if true. 

[Andrew Reid]

TV crap pays the bills.

 

You misunderstood me. I'm talking about the image aesthetics of the cameras. The C300 looks 'TV'. The GH4 looks like 'cinema'. You will see...