Something new from Canon on Nov. 3rd...

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Phil Holland

If they don't go with an EF mount I think that would be an utter tragedy and failure on their part.

But if they stayed with the EF mount then they would be saddling any new video lens designs with an extra 35mm of entirely unnecessary backfocus. That makes the wide angle lenses larger, heavier, more expensive, and lower quality. If they made the EF-mount into an adapter that installs over the standard mount, then you could have the best of both worlds, similar to how I mount Nikon and other lenses on top of EF with an adapter.

[Justin Molush]

Lets get even more optimistic and say a modular mount design... buy lens mounts that are hot-swappable onto this revised form factor's own mount for converting AF/iris/lens info and lens functions into whatever the lens is capable of with a variety of menus that adapt to what lens you attach... EF, PL, F-mount, etc...

We can keep dreaming... Its just that using a true full frame sensor eliminates a lot of good 2k/4k zooms designed for previous sensor sizes/formats...

[Phil Holland]

I'm totally for an adapter or modular mount solution as well.

However, Canon is also a lens manufacturer and it's already really easy to adapt Nikon glass to their system. I agree PL support would be nice though.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Justin Molush

Lets get even more optimistic and say a modular mount design... buy lens mounts that are hot-swappable onto this revised form factor's own mount ...

From RED, definitely yes (and they're doing it). From Canon, definitely no. They won't do that.

Originally Posted by Phil Holland

I agree PL support would be nice though.

There seems to be some buzz about the possibility of two Canon bodies, one with an EF mount and another, more expensive one with a PL mount. I can visualize them doing nearly identical twins, the EF version with one max. resolution and the PL version with a higher res. -- perhaps EF 2K or 3K and PL 4K or 5K. Just thinking out loud here.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

From RED, definitely yes (and they're doing it). From Canon, definitely no. They won't do that.

I think a hot-swappable adapter is more likely, since Canon already has the EF adapter for the XL series.

[Chris Hurd]

You're absolutely right about that. I will concede an EF adapter for a PL mount on the body. But not the other way around!

[Jon Fairhurst]

I wonder if this will be a new hybrid.

Canon has had nearly three years to study the impact of the video-enabled DSLR. They didn't go for the quick kill by putting DSLR guts in a camcorder body. They've taken a more strategic (or at least slower) approach.

What about a new kind of camera for high-end photographers and mid-level videographers that pushes 1D customers up to the next price tier. 1Ds cost around $5k. What about a new hybrid that gets the 1D customer to spend $8k while capturing Hollywood types as well?

Imagine a camera that can shoot 24fps RAW with a global shutter. Unlike a video camera, it includes autofocus technology. Switch over to a rolling shutter and shoot 120 fps 1080p or 2k for the cinema types.

Rather than a photo camera that happens to do video, or a video camera that happens to shoot stills, this is truly a dual purpose camera that ups the game for both markets.

Some video aspects would be modular. For instance, it might have mini balanced (or digital) audio inputs. If you want phantom, you need an external preamp. With the external box, the audio quality would be truly professional. An EVF would be another modular option. But that's about it. The only places where modules are separate are where you don't want to burden the photographer (in addition to batteries, memory, and flash units, which are already separate modules.)

That sort of announcement would really be worthy of a big splash in Hollywood. And, yes, it would take EF and PL lenses - if not EF2 lenses with new, electronic zoom and focus features.

An EF2 announcement would also be worthy of a big splash. It's been some time since Canon introduced a new lens interface (EF-S, and before then, FD->EF.)

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

1Ds cost around $5k.

I thought 1Ds cameras like the 1Ds3s cost around $7k? Oh wait, you mean 1Ds, not 1Ds (1Dses? 1Ds'?). That is, 1Ds3s cost less than 1D3s. Gaaaaaaah! I'm beaten by grammar again.

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Some video aspects would be modular. For instance, it might have mini balanced (or digital) audio inputs. If you want phantom, you need an external preamp. With the external box, the audio quality would be truly professional.

I love that idea. What is the closest precedent for something like that in the Canon world? Battery grips? In addition to audio and LCD, I wonder if an SDI/TC module would be a separate breakout (rather than two different modules, as in the XH-A1 / G1).

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Rather than a photo camera that happens to do video, or a video camera that happens to shoot stills, this is truly a dual purpose camera that ups the game for both markets.

An interesting thought, but personally I doubt it. Biggest issue is that certain technical factors really need to be EITHER optimised for video OR for stills for best results - most obvious is resolution of the sensor. There are theoretical ways round it, but in practice they're likely to be power hungry/expensive and probably not worth the effort..

That's quite apart from issues such as ergonomics, connectivity etc etc - it's probably cheaper at the end of the day (and more satisfactory overall) to simply have two dedicated cameras - one for stills, one for video!

Who knows? But if I had to put a bet I'll go along with one of Chris's recent statements:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

There seems to be some buzz about the possibility of two Canon bodies, one with an EF mount and another, more expensive one with a PL mount. I can visualize them doing nearly identical twins, the EF version with one max. resolution and the PL version with a higher res. -- perhaps EF 2K or 3K and PL 4K or 5K. Just thinking out loud here.

I'd fully expect the cheaper one to be 1080p and XDCAM422, and the more expensive one 4k. Probably agree about lens mounts.

[Lawrence Bansbach]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Imagine a camera that can shoot 24fps RAW with a global shutter. Unlike a video camera, it includes autofocus technology. Switch over to a rolling shutter and shoot 120 fps 1080p or 2k for the cinema types.

Totally unnecessary to switch to rolling shutter. CMOSIS/Tower Jazz CMV12000: 4K global shutter runs at 300 fps in 10-bit mode and 180 fps in 12-bit mode. It's year-old technology.

[Daniel Weber]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

Daniel, the FS100 is hardly a consumer camera. It's professional all the way.
Some of the guesses as to the nature of the announcement are really becoming pie-in the-sky. I think some of you are setting yourselves up for a big disappointment. It's OK to dream and all, but there's just not enough info for any type of serious discussion.
I'm leaning toward the announcement having something to do with the "Imagina8ion" contest. That way, if the announcment is on the contest, I'll expect as much. But if it is a new whiz-bang camera, then the announcement will exceed my expectations.

Glen,

I guess my comment was not fully accurate, though if the F3 is "professional", then the FS100 would be more "consumer", especially with the cheap body build on the camera. The line is very blurred though, because "consumer" cameras now put out professional images. That was more of the way that my comment was leaning.

No offense to FS100 owners!!

Daniel Weber

[Simon Wood]

Originally Posted by Daniel Weber

Glen,

I guess my comment was not fully accurate, though if the F3 is "professional", then the FS100 would be more "consumer", especially with the cheap body build on the camera. The line is very blurred though, because "consumer" cameras now put out professional images. That was more of the way that my comment was leaning.

No offense to FS100 owners!!

Daniel Weber

Truly 'professional' cameras generally have 'professional' inputs & outputs. HDMI out is just nasty.

Sony has staggered their line-up such that the least expensive one lacks most professional features (the VG10 having no XLR inputs for instance) the FS100 having no SDI outputs up to the F3 that is partially crippled by a weak-ish codec (I mean they could have given 50mbs easily enough). Whereas the F65 will have it all.

That is not to say that all of those cameras dont produce an excellent image, they do, its just that Sony has purposefully left certain 'pro' features out along the way.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Daniel Weber

I guess my comment was not fully accurate, though if the F3 is "professional", then the FS100 would be more "consumer", especially with the cheap body build on the camera.

It's more about budget levels on a production than being professional. Professionals have been using the DSLRs, which are in many respects even more limiting than the FS100.

[Ben Denham]

Originally Posted by Don Parrish

Canon Global : News | News Releases

"Through the further development of distinctive CMOS image sensors, Canon will break new ground in the world of new image expression, in the areas of still images as well as video".

"The sensor, with a chip size measuring 202 x 205 mm, the world's largest surface area for a CMOS sensor"

Holy Smoly the lenses for that sensor are gonna be a bitch. Say goodbye to DSLR form factor advanages.

[Chris Hurd]

I realize that was tongue-in-cheek Ben, but it's for a telescope. The application (not to mention the cost?) is astronomical.