B&H has this on their site.

Super 35 sensor. Hope its "reasonably" priced. ;)

Canon EOS C100 EF Cinema Camcorder (Body Only) B&H Photo Video

http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images345x345/889545.jpg

Wow. This is what I (almost) dreamed of. Not sure I am over happy with AVCHD 4.2.0 codec but I guess they had to protect the C300. Very interesting! Non-compressed HDMI out sounds highly useful too.

Nice find, thanks for posting!

too bad it comes too late, i already switch to Sony

Image on this link of C100 shown at a slightly different angle. $8000.

Canon announces EOS C100 cinema camera, confirms October shipping for the C500 -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/29/canon-announces-eos-c100-cinema-camera/)

Here's a link to the official Canon USA product page for the C100.

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C100 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100)

10-bit through HDMI and we have a winner. "Non-Compressed" is vague...

Liking everything else though, how similar is the sensor to the C300 I wonder?

According to the specs/press release the sensor is identical to the C300.

"The EOS C100 sports the Super 35mm Canon CMOS Sensor and Canon DIGIC DV III Image Processor of the C300"

Certainly bodes well.

So, if you take the C100, add an Atomos Ninja, don't you basically have a C300 for thousands less?

According to the specs/press release the sensor is identical to the C300.

"The EOS C100 sports the Super 35mm Canon CMOS Sensor and Canon DIGIC DV III Image Processor of the C300"

Certainly bodes well. There is stuff I read about 4.2.2 colour space mentioned somewhere too - but I can't find it right now!

It does say 4:2:2 on the Canon website. But AVCHD is 4:2:0, so maybe they're referring to the HDMI output?

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C100 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100#Specifications)

Yes I just corrected my post as I went back and double checked the official specs. You quoted me as I was in the middle of editing. I wonder what it'll have on that HDMI - 4.2.2 would be great!

Is that a Neutral Density filter switch?

2, 4 and 6 stops ND.

At DPreview: Canon announces EOS C100 professional video camera: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/29/Canon-announces-EOS-C100)

Looks like a great camera. I would guess it makes great images. Although the Canon site only states 60i, 30p & 24p. No 60p. Now it is clear why Canon did not 'go there' with the 5DMKIII. Pricing is going to be very important as this space is hotting up. The GH3 is going to be a comparison even though many will say apples to oranges etc...

This is the first shot I've seen of the back/LCD area.

B&H has this on their site.

Super 35 sensor. Hope its "reasonably" priced. ;)


It will be available from November 2012 at a price of $7,999. (From DPReview)

Now, for bigger piggy banks...:

Canon has officially announced the EOS C500, the professional 4K video camera output that it promised at the NAB trade show in April. A continuation of the concept of the C300, it can capture Raw 4K video footage and offers frame rates of up to 120fps in compressed 4K. It also captures 2K footage (2,048 x 1,080 pixels) at 12-bit, with 4:4:4 Y'CbCr chroma sub-sampling for high colour resolution. The company has also confirmed four cinema EOS lenses alongside it - the EF mount CN-E15.5-47mm T2.8 L S and CN-E30-105mm T2.8 L S, and the same optics in PL mount (known as the CNE15.5-47mm T2.8 L SP and CN-E30-105mm T2.8 L SP respectively). The C500's price will be in the region of $30,000.

It looks very nice. It's a shame about the AVCHD rather than MXF but otherwise Canon would have a hard job differentiating it from the C300. They do the same with the XF100 & XA10 which have the same sensor & very similar specs except the former records on MXF on CF & the latter AVCHD on SD but costs 3/4 of the price.

It's got many features that would be very nice to have on the C300 e.g. built-in microphone & auto-this&that especially Push AF. The screen appears to be attached properly to the body rather than on the audio module.

It's half the price of a C300 but I expect there will still be lots of squealing from those who can't even afford a 5D3 complaining that it's not under $2000.

Nice. Poor mans C300 but still, better than nothing.

I like the 'Exhaust Vent' on the left side. Does that mean that the sensor is getting quite hot for the camera to need an exhaust vent? So it begs the question: what about the increased noise, which comes with sensors getting hot? Curious to read and see the first serious test in real world situations.

L

So, if you take the C100, add an Atomos Ninja, don't you basically have a C300 for thousands less?Not really as one of the big attractions of the C300 is that you don't have to bolt an external box on to record in decent quality nor do you use expensive media like P2 or SxS just decent Compact Flash cards.

I like the 'Exhaust Vent' on the left side. Does that mean that the sensor is getting quite hot for the camera to need an exhaust vent? So it begs the question: what about the increased noise, which comes with sensors getting hot? Curious to read and see the first serious test in real world situations.

LThe C300 is fan cooled but you can only hear it if you put your ear right up close. The sensor is identical to the C300 so presumably so must be the cooling.

The GH3 is going to be a comparison even though many will say apples to oranges etc...The GH3 is a replacement for the GH2 which is a $1000 stills camera that shoots fairly decent video but has awful ergonomics. There is no comparison at all.

CVP in the UK are now taking pre-orders at a fraction under £5K (including VAT), that's £4,162.50 ex VAT to my business. Very tempting...

Canon Cinema EOS C100 EF (C-100, 100C, EOS) super 35mm digital cinematography camcorder with EF lens mount (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/canon_eos_c100)

I see it selling very well. The big negative is obviously the codec - it wouldn't cost any more, or mean any engineering issues to have produced it with the 50Mbs 422 codec - so why not do so? I think we can all guess the answer to that........

That said, this is firmly in the price camp of the AF100 and the FS100. It's pretty safe to predict from the C300 results that this wll beat the AF100 hands down for quality in several key respects, and the inclusion of built-in NDs and a seemingly more ergonomic form should also give it the edge over the FS100. Whilst the C100 would be better with the 50Mbs 422 codec, with AVC-HD it's no worse than the AF100/FS100 - merely the same in that respect.

Arguably, it's likely to prove the better buy of the three.

The GH3 is a replacement for the GH2 which is a $1000 stills camera that shoots fairly decent video but has awful ergonomics. There is no comparison at all.

True from a pure point of view but if I am paying the money I can compare anything i want :)

The lack of 60p on the camera is a deal breaker for me. I do not have a large issue with AVCHD.

This thing is looking very sweet! Does anyone know if it has a waveform monitor?

The lack of 60p seems like a huge oversight, I almost wonder if it was a mistake in the spec listing. I'm sure the camera is "theoretically" capable of at least 720 - 60p.

Update:

It does have a waveform monitor! Damn you Canon! How much of my money do you want?!?

I think it might be....also, it lists "uncompressed HDMI out with time code superimposed on the screen"....that can't be right. I've a a few calls into my Canon contacts.....and I'm sure Chris is also doing some investigations...

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Lots of photos here:
Canon Professional Network - Canon EOS C100: the ideal camera for independent videographers (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cinema_eos/canon_eos_c100.do)

Handgrip is outboard on the side...can't tell if it's one position or multiple.... not much of an eyepiece for the eyepiece shooters.... what were they thinking? :-)

I'm pretty sure the eyepiece is on the back top...

oops, must have misread -

Just got off the phone with the higher ups at Canon......the HDMI out is the HDMI standard 8 bit 4-2-2 color and the timecode is NOT superimposed on the screen.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

ps. my phone has been ringing off the hook for info and wanting to place orders for the C100!

Just got off the phone with the higher ups at Canon......the HDMI out is the HDMI standard 8 bit 4-2-2 color and the timecode is NOT superimposed on the screen.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

ps. my phone has been ringing off the hook for info and wanting to place orders for the C100!

Thanks for clearing the HDMI issue up, Jim. The rumor mill is going crazy. Not bad for the first day, huh?

And do you have further news on the expected price?

Thanks Jim. Very useful info.

I am still working out what positions and angles that articulated/flippable Back LCD might be capable of so if anyone has any info on that I am all ears.

Yes Glen, quite a day......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

the press release says that the HDMI has 3:2 pulldown. Is this the only way it feeds out?

I see it selling very well. The big negative is obviously the codec - it wouldn't cost any more, or mean any engineering issues to have produced it with the 50Mbs 422 codec - so why not do so? I think we can all guess the answer to that........

That said, this is firmly in the price camp of the AF100 and the FS100. It's pretty safe to predict from the C300 results that this wll beat the AF100 hands down for quality in several key respects, and the inclusion of built-in NDs and a seemingly more ergonomic form should also give it the edge over the FS100. Whilst the C100 would be better with the 50Mbs 422 codec, with AVC-HD it's no worse than the AF100/FS100 - merely the same in that respect.

Arguably, it's likely to prove the better buy of the three.

How do you think it will compare to the FS700?

The C100, in my book, is better simply because it has the same magic chip that's in the C300 & C500. Slo-mo is nice but, and I read this somewhere 2 years ago, on average, about 3% of all projects...so I'm much more concerned about everyday performance...and this camera, like it's brothers, will save you money everyday on lights alone.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

What is the sensitivity score between those? I think Bloom did one some time ago, but I don't remember the details. The FS100 and 700 are known to be pretty awesomely sensitive in their own right though. Not as clean at the high ISO level as the c300 perhaps but still pretty great. So I don't know.

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect. But that's by the by. The price point and being a clear upgrade in most respects from a DSLR while still keeping the lenses without fuss makes this number pretty great. Although if its presence starts dropping the FS700 down a bit, I might have to think harder).

How do people think C-log will go with AVC? I'm not as enamoured with ultra flat profiles on DSLRs as I once was. Fun now and then but it's easy to forget compressed 4:2:0 doesn't take much punishment. Will this be better y'think? (obviously good with an external)

the slow mo would require lighting kit support, so i didnt go for that in the end. FS700 is a nice bang for the money but the form factor was a killer for my run and gun use.

I stopped watching FS700 video samples months ago. There's only so much slo-mo video I can take. EVERY video was a slo-mo example. Enough, already.

What is the sensitivity score between those? I think Bloom did one some time ago, but I don't remember the details. The FS100 and 700 are known to be pretty awesomely sensitive in their own right though. Not as clean at the high ISO level as the c300 perhaps but still pretty great. So I don't know.

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect. But that's by the by. The price point and being a clear upgrade in most respects from a DSLR while still keeping the lenses without fuss makes this number pretty great. Although if its presence starts dropping the FS700 down a bit, I might have to think harder).

How do people think C-log will go with AVC? I'm not as enamoured with ultra flat profiles on DSLRs as I once was. Fun now and then but it's easy to forget compressed 4:2:0 doesn't take much punishment. Will this be better y'think? (obviously good with an external)

Canon has included an electronic extension to C Log that appears to stuff 3 stops more DR into C LOg AVCHD. Perhaps to make it comparable to the C300's MPEG2 C Log. Not sure.

People seem to like flat profiles on the GH2 and the 5D, both 4:2:0 cams.

some first LCD position info.

(I also think that if more people could afford more than 3% of slo-mo they would definitely use it. The FS700s influence has yet to be felt there, I suspect.

The amount of slow motion you use depends on the types of productions you're making. For example you're more likely to use it in a commercial than say a drama. Some really smart slow motion is at say 36 fps, not the wow look at this really sloooow motion. Overall 3% probably covers a broad range of productions, which mostly involve using natural actions like speech and trying to keep the pacing up, rather than slowing it down.

Will the footage be accepted by BBC?

AVCHD/Mpeg 4 is not okay with the BBC or Discovery.....they probably allow 20-25% max of any given project. Anyone across the pond could clear this up????

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

AVCHD/Mpeg 4 is not okay with the BBC or Discovery.....they probably allow 20-25% max of any given project. Anyone across the pond could clear this up????

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Probably need to use a Nanoflash to get approval.

C100 + Nanoflash = C300 (roughly the same codec, and the same chip).

The BBC might with an external recorder like the Nanoflash, similar to the FS100 or AF100. Of course, as mentioned, it could fit in with the percentage SD content they allow.

I posted about the standards required by the BBC (via the EBU) in another thread - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd-video-d-slr-others/510356-nikon-d4-passes-but-d800-fails-ebu-bbc-broadcast-quality-test.html#post1750845

Most important to note though is that the EBU (or BBC) doesn't now simply "pass" or "fail" cameras - they rate them on a tiering system. It's all in two documents, Tech 3335 describes the measuring process - but it's the sister document R118 that describes how to interpret those results - and which defines the rules! See EBU TECHNICAL - News - Are your cameras tiered enough for HD? (http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/cache/offonce/news/are-your-cameras-tiered-enough-for-hd-27jan12)

For unrestricted use, the camera would have to fit into Tier 1 or Tier 2L, and I'm afraid the use of AVC-HD would restrict it to Tier 3, no matter how good the front end would be.

Add an external recorder and that is no longer an issue, and based on the C300 results I strongly suspect it would then be seen as good enough to be considered Tier 2L. Good news, though it couldn't be definitely said until it's been tested.

I foresee a large number of C100s being sold as a package with a nanoFlash...... :-)

That's exactly my rationale too! C100 + Recorder = C300 picture quality at a much reduced price :-)

For those that are interested I've put a detailed rationale of why I pre-ordered the C100 here. Personally, I think demand for the C100 will be huge so I wanted to get on a UK suppliers pre-order list very quickly!

CanonC100 (http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/MoreInformation/CanonC100/CanonC100.html)

Over many months I've looked really hard at the FS700 etc. but in the end I've voted with my wallet for the Canon.

The article is still work in progress - and I know we all have different needs and wants from a camera, as well as budgets - but it might be useful to someone who is about to make a purchase decision.

Why are the BBC so pedantic yet when you watch some documentary or news coverage the resolution is a disgrace as if shot on an old Hi8 camcorder??

News has always had lower technical requirements than programmes due to the diffilcuilties of the tight schedule, keeping costs down and needing portable equipment. 24 hour news coverage has only increased these pressures. The important thing is getting pictures by any means and these days that can include using the internet. Although I gather that can have issues of it's own, including bandwidth.

Most of the BBC documentaries have been SD until very recently and the standards for those are lower than HD. Now, with everything now going digital with highly compressed HD channels, they want to minimize the artifacts in the transmission chain on their flagship HD channel.Given the much lower costs and the range of compact cameras that can now meet these standards, I suspect the argument against lowering them doesn';t really hold water any more.

There are cable channels which will accept lower spec HD material, so you need to check their requirements..