New Canon 4K camera announcements

[Allan Barnwell]

Now that Canon has officially announced their two new 4K camera models, do you think this will impact sales of their C300 and 5D Mark III for folks holding out for 4K capability?

I'm talking video industry buyers specifically - the 5D is going to keep selling to the rest of the market anyway (and to the budget buyer). But it seems like an interesting predicament for Canon - needing to get a product announced to keep up with competition (like the recently announced FS700), but not wanting to step on their existing product sales.

I'd love to hear feedback from C300 fans.

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group - Professional Video Sales, Rental & Services

[Mark Moreve]

I think the C300 will be predominantly a Broadcast / Corporate camera & the C500 will try to get in on high budget commercials and features. The bottom end of the market will always have the 5dmk3 which leaves the 1dc. I think this will get used in the corporate market that cant afford the c500 but needs 4k so videos that will be projected at events. It will also be a "crash cam " for features
Personally I feel we really don't need 4k except in the features industry. It strikes me, a lot of people talk about 4k but they really aren't aware of the post production nightmare it comes with.

[Chris Hurd]

Allan is referring to the links you'll find in this DVi Industry News thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-...s-nab2012.html

[David Heath]

Yes, it is likely to impact C300 sales..... but, err, so what if the money (and likely more of it!) still goes to Canon in the shape of C500 sales? Think of them as complimentary, not in direct competition.

It was totally predictable, and the only people upset are those who must have the latest and greatest as soon as possible. But the arrival of something along the lines of the C500 was widely forecast, the question was only "when"? If 4k was likely to be important, those people are likely to have held fire.

And for many users good 1080 with a broadcast codec is all they need, why pay more for a 4k facility that they don't expect to use? That type of user will still see the C300 as the preferred model of the two.

[Josh Dahlberg]

I have a C300 on pre-order. I was waiting to hear this announcement before committing. So far it hasn't dissuaded me.

The C300 offers a beautiful 1080 image for content I can deliver to clients now. Easy workflow, robust codec, NDs, XLRs, good monitoring, video ergonomics, SDI, large batteries, 1080 @ 422...

The 4K DSLR lacks all of the above, while gaining some nice features for low budget cinema. The C500 is a long way off, will be in an altogether different budget league, and will have some pretty hefty post requirements (I can happily cut XF footage on my Macbook Air).

I think Canon is very smart differentiating their first 3 Cinema EOS products to this degree. They all have unique selling points and I don't imagine too many C300 early adopters are feeling buyer's remorse today (but please shout out if you are, because I'd love to hear why before I pull the trigger).

It's actually the Sony FS700 that gives me second thoughts... great price and so feature rich. But for me the C300's build, LOG mode, internal 422 and EOS lens mount probably win out on balance.

[Nigel Barker]

I too have a C300 on order (delivery promised for w/c 23rd April) & was slightly anxious about what announcements Canon would have for NAB. Happily I am still eagerly awaiting the arrival of my C300 for all the good reasons that Josh enumerates. I was slightly concerned that they might announce a C100 at about $8-10K but with delivery some months away (1DX was announced about 5 months ago & still isn't shipping).

[David A. Fisher]

Originally Posted by Mark Moreve

I think the C300 will be predominantly a Broadcast / Corporate camera & the C500 will try to get in on high budget commercials and features. The bottom end of the market will always have the 5dmk3 which leaves the 1dc. I think this will get used in the corporate market that cant afford the c500 but needs 4k so videos that will be projected at events. It will also be a "crash cam " for features
Personally I feel we really don't need 4k except in the features industry. It strikes me, a lot of people talk about 4k but they really aren't aware of the post production nightmare it comes with.

Don't know what corporate events you work on, but no one here is doing corporate events with 4K projectors. That includes the big boys like Home Depot, Kawasaki, Frito-Lay, and Wal-mart. You're lucky to even get HD with what the client brings in that they pulled off of youtube the night before their speech....

As far as the 500 goes, I'm curious to the form factor. It looks to me it's just a 300 with a new, bigger fan (and plugs) in place of the grip. Which enforces my theory that the only thing holding back the 300 from 4k, or 120fps 1080p, was just processor heat. I'm really curious about this.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Mark Moreve

It strikes me, a lot of people talk about 4k but they really aren't aware of the post production nightmare it comes with.

that's a bit an overstatement, you can edit 4K, and even 5K raw material on the regular $1500 i7 Vaio with upgraded RAM machine; MB Looks real time, not full res though, but good enough for mobile solution, and it is not much slower than editing h264 on my main editing workstation.
even if you don't deliver in 4K, the amount of details is just incredible when render out 4K let's say to 720, and it is the future anyways

[Nigel Barker]

Setting aside the cost of the camera & any workflow problems shooting 4K video for weddings & other events could be a winner. Just imagine being able to pull 4096x2160-pixel RAW stills off the timeline. Who needs a photographer when you are shooting 60 stills per second? Given the pace of technological change it's only a matter of time before a camera like this is affordable to wedding videographers. I give it 5 years or maybe less?

[Monday Isa]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Setting aside the cost of the camera & any workflow problems shooting 4K video for weddings & other events could be a winner. Just imagine being able to pull 4096x2160-pixel RAW stills off the timeline. Who needs a photographer when you are shooting 60 stills per second? Given the pace of technological change it's only a matter of time before a camera like this is affordable to wedding videographers. I give it 5 years or maybe less?

This is my biggest interest in 4K. I was hoping for sooner rather then now later.

Allan I think there will be some impact to some degree. The C300 still has the broadcast codec ready to go and is $14k cheaper then the C500. I don't think it will impact it a lot at all, but it will to some degree.

[Edward Mendoza]

Love these new camera announcements by Sony and Canon. Just means the "older" stuff (i.e. 5D Mark II and III, FS100, F3, C300) will diminish some in demand and value, yet they're still capable players in the video field.

[Graham King]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Who needs a photographer when you are shooting 60 stills per second?

Are you also going to make your flash go off 60 times per second? Is your shutter going to be at 1/200 to freeze the action at a dimly lit reception? While someone is in the middle of a speech are you going to move the camera to get a better angle?

Sorry but as far as weddings go, this idea of pulling stills out of video is absurd.

[Nigel Barker]

It's not so crazy. Not all photographers even use flash e.g. there is now quite a fashion for using the Lowel id-light & if the lighting is good enough for our video it's good enough for stills. With ever improving low light capabilities of our cameras all we need is to add a little light to aid modelling & this will improve our video as well as stills.

If we were shooting at 60fps we would have the shutter at 1/120 which will freeze most motion. I am presupposing the use of multiple cameras so if we moved to get a better angle it would suit both video & stills. Even for the posed group shots many photographers shoot in burst mode so as to be sure of getting at least one shot where everybody has their eyes open. We would have many more frames to choose from with our hypothetical future 4K+ video camera.

We already get asked to pull stills from the video & when we look we have many great shots to choose from & really the only issue is that the resolution isn't high enough.

[Graham King]

I shoot about 60-70 weddings per year so I get to work with all kinds of photographers from the $1k guys to the $8k guys. You're right, many of the high end photogs don't use flash... until the reception! Now where an amateur might point an on camera flash directly forward, the top photogs will set up strobes on stands with wireless triggers. At this point, there is no way my shutter is faster than 180º. That may be fast enough for some photos but you can't have that kind of motion blur in every photo. That's a major creative decision for a photographer and they don't want motion blur in every shot. How about portrait shots?

I could go on and on. With current and foreseeable technology, this is just not feasible. Why would you want to sacrifice so much by having your photos come from the video? One answer is to save money. Well if you're saving money, you can't afford a videographer with a $15k 4k DSLR.

[Graham King]

Oh and my shutter being at 180º means 1/48 because I shoot everything at 23.976 fps. There is NO WAY I can crank the shutter to 1/120 at the reception. Any self respecting videog/photog cannot seriously consider pulling stills from video in place of having a real photographer.

People will do it, I know that. But the client is going to be sorry.

Edit: I don't mean to be a dick Nigel. I'm enjoying the discussion. : )