Canon Announces 2nd Generation EOS C100 Mark II

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Call me crazy but I somehow completely believe that Sony will build another "100" class camcorder again in the future to fill that marketing void and challenge Canon's C100 again. (And even Panny's AF101)

They already have there new entry level 6k$ camera. it is called the FS700 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010153-REG/sony_nex_fs700r_4k_nxcam_super_35mm.html
They dropped the price when they announced the FS7. They could wait at least a year with the FS700 as entry level. it's just 500$ more than a C100 mk2 and you get super slowmo, and the ability to do 4k externally!

[Noa Put]

and the ability to do 4k externally!

to a recorder that is as expensive as the camera :) in that way the fs7 is a better alternative.

[Richard D. George]

2015 might be a very interesting year for Canon. Time, as they say, will tell.

For now, I am fully at peace with my choices.

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

to a recorder that is as expensive as the camera :) in that way the fs7 is a better alternative.

Of course it is! I have one on pre order.

But the Fs700, as an entry level camera at 6k, is a lot of a camera! On the C100 mk2, if Canon decide to allow 4k via a firmware update, it will be most definitly on an external recorder via HDMI, since the SD card slot won't cut it.

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Jean-Philippe Archibald

They already have there new entry level 6k$ camera. it is called the FS700 Sony NEX-FS700R Super 35 Camcorder (Body Only) NEX-FS700R B&H

They dropped the price when they announced the FS7. They could wait at least a year with the FS700 as entry level. it's just 500$ more than a C100 mk2 and you get super slowmo, and the ability to do 4k externally!

The FS700 is a great camcorder for the price, no doubt.

But Sony is pushing XAVC now. Even Sony's cheapest cameras have 50Mbps XAVC. The FS700's internal 24/28mbps codec is old and pales when compared to XAVC. (You have to use an external recorder to get the most out of it)

It makes perfect sense to manufacture two cameras with different firmware for 2 different markets. (Sony PXW-FS7 and for the "100" market, the imaginary market PXW-FS1)

"7" Model (formally "700" market) - High end pro crowd = 10bit 4:22 intraframe, full 4K capture. $8K

"1" Model (formally "100" market) - DSLR shooter crowd = 8bit 4:2:0 Long GOP, UHD capture.

There you go, one R&D cost, one assembly line, one parts stock list...TWO markets nicely separated and satisfied by Sony. (I'm certain a fictitious "FS1" would sell like hotcakes)

Look, I don't claim to know anything here. In the end, I'm just talking outa my butt here. (yes, I admit that) However, I think it's highly possible that this is Sony's strategy given that their FS700 and FS100 are similar looking cameras. (-the ND filters and SDI)

CT ;-)

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Jean-Philippe Archibald

Of course it is! I have one on pre order.

But the Fs700, as an entry level camera at 6k, is a lot of a camera! On the C100 mk2, if Canon decide to allow 4k via a firmware update, it will be most definitly on an external recorder via HDMI, since the SD card slot won't cut it.

The proper SDXC card slot WILL cut it. (Panasonic has proven that 4K 100mbps records fine to SDXC)

8bit 4:2:0 UHD at 100mbps would be fine for a C100mk2 firmware update. (I dont imagine that Canon would allow the C100mk2 to have more 4k specs than that.)

CT

[Christopher Young]

In theory a 90MB read 95MB write SDXC card can handle up to 720kbps so Long GOP UHD I think would be quite conceivable. Maybe that's what we will see on the 2015 UHD upgrade that's supposed to be coming for Sony's X70 which runs dual SD card slots.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Andy Wilkinson]

On one of the pictures posted on DSLR Newshooter it looks like Canon put a second Menu Joystick on the bottom left-hand corner of the C100 MkII's LCD. A very useful addition if true!

Can anyone confirm this? I can also see the relocated Menu & Cancel buttons - and what looks like an LCD On/Off button on that panel too. The Viewfinder appears to have an On/Off button too.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/10/2...pixel-cmos-af/

[Jim Martin]

yes, you have a joystick on the new OLED...as well as a menu, cancel, and display (assignable) buttons. Here's a link to the brochure:
http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets...age_102114.pdf

Jim Martin
EVSonline

[Andy Wilkinson]

Thanks Jim, had not seen that brochure link before - answers a lot of (my) questions (for now)... until the inevitable C100 versus C100 MkII "image quality comparison" type videos appear ;-)

[Rakesh Malik]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

As far as the CODEC? Sony's XAVC is not really a "codec" from Sony. The higher h.264 profiles have existed for years and years. Sony just pulled the specification they liked from the same H.264 book that everybody else has access to. They simply wrap it the way they want and give it a logo. Canon could easily do the same with h.264 and call it their own name. (They could just make a single file structure in a common .mp4 container?)

That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.

[Cliff Totten]

No, it's actually true.....

XAVC IS fully H.264 compliant. The CODEC itself (h.264) is pulled strait from the MPEG H.264 white papers.

It may be wrapped in Sony's way with their directory structure but the codec itself is pure h.264 that was developed several years ago by the Motion Picture Experts Group.

AVCHD was also "pure" H.264 and 100% H.264 complaint. (different profiles and tool sets chosen from H.264 and bitrates for XAVC)

It's ALL taken from the MPEG H.264 "bible" and doesn't drift outside of it.

CT

[Rakesh Malik]

In other words, you're claiming that "compliant" means "identical" which is not true. It's not just a different directory structure with a Sony wrapper, or else it would share ALL of the same downsides, and it wouldn't be possible to get higher picture quality for the same bit rate as standard h.264, yet it does precisely that. It's still not ProRes, but that doesn't make it identical to AVCHD.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.

Rakesh - you can't talk of "H264" as a single entity, in which respect XAVC is as much "H264" as other of the other forms H264 may take. Think of H264 as a family - not as an entity.

More technically, something like "H264" will only describe how a compliant signal may be DECODED. The spec doesn't specify the coding process. As this is why two different coders, producing H264 signals which are nominally identical and of the same resolution, bitrate etc may give differing quality for the same signal.

Hence, different coders may take advantage of a range of "tricks" to raise quality for no bitrate increase - but there is nothing laid down as to how many they need to use, or exactly how they do it - just that the end result may be decoded by an H264 decoder. This is especially true in the consumer world - defining a camera as recording AVC-HD at a given bitrate does not uniquely define the quality of the recording. (And that's before even thinking about front end differences!)

In the case of XAVC, it's level 5.2 H264, which means it can take advantage of the highest level of "trick" in that codec at the moment. But it's not just "based" on H264 - it IS H264. It's a subset, true, but that's also true of AVC-HD etc.

[Mark OConnell]

Originally Posted by Rakesh Malik

That's incorrect. XAVC is based on h.264, but it's quite different from what we normally think of as h.264. For one thing, it has higher picture quality at a given bit rate than h.264, but for another it's more friendly to editing and color grading. It's more different than just a new wrapper + brand.

I've been shooting with XAVC for nearly a year now I completely agree with these comments. It's a very robust codec and will really stand up to some abuse in post. It's not what one would expect from h264, which is generally considered best for delivery, as opposed to acquisition/editing.