Canon announces C300 Mark II, XC10 and new codec XF-AVC

[Mat Thompson]

"C300mkII actually looks a lot better than I had expected. I think they've certainly done enough to prevent a tidal wave of C300 owners switching over to the Sony FS7"

"Hot Cakes"


Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options.

[Noa Put]

It's double the price, 8k for the fs7 vs 16k for the c300II according to B&H prices, I"m sure the c300 will particulary do well in rental houses.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options.

I'm HARDLY a Canon fan, having owned Sony and JVC cameras exclusively for the past 15 years but what Canon does better than both historically is motion, especially in 24P. Sony's FS7 is struggling with aperture control on EF lenses and is a pain to edit right now in certain codec choices.

I PERSONALLY think it's a little high and the value isn't there for a price tag twice that of the Sony but for those with a catalog of Canon lenses and the ability to pay for the camera quickly through work, it's a pretty amazing setup.

Price ONLY matters if you can't recoup it.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Mat Thompson

"C300mkII actually looks a lot better than I had expected. I think they've certainly done enough to prevent a tidal wave of C300 owners switching over to the Sony FS7"

Plus the fact that you can actually buy an FS7 right now and the C300mkII will be... October?

[Philip Lipetz]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

No Long-GOP option for 4K in XF-AVC is going to really hurt longform productions like concerts. We also don't need another XAVC that isn't compatible with Sony. It's Canon MXF all over again.

The XC10 looks like it uses 8-bit Intra only recording, not Long-GOP. It seems like it uses 310mbps for 8bit 4:2:2 and 410mbps for 10bit 4:2:2.

And big miss is the lack of 50p/60p on the C300mkII. It will not qualify for Discovery's acquisition requirements.

The XC10 has an mechanical shutter to minimize rolling shutter effects

[Steve Struthers]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I like the xc10 for about $1500. For $2500.... Naaaah.

$2500 is really pricey for a camera that has a fixed, non-interchangeable lens with no power zoom, and offers a maximum resolution of only 12 megapixels. I realize megapixels aren't everything, as a well-engineered sensor that is sized properly can produce better images than one with more megapixels.

I've seen reports the suggested retail price of the XC10 is going to be closer to $1999USD than $2500.00. But the competing Sony and Panasonic models are going for around a grand or less - although the Sony doesn't offer 4K video.

Looks like Canon are just trying to cash in on the 4K craze and trying to charge more for it, as usual. It's interesting to see that Canon haven't even tried to offer a dedicated pro-grade 4K camcorder, while Sony and Panasonic have already done so.

Bottom line, Canon aren't going to find many buyers at their proposed price point. If they chop the price to $1299, they may have a chance of scooping up a few people who otherwise might opt for a Sony RX10 or Sony FZ1000, given that these cameras are consumer grade, as is the XC10.

Lately Canon have seemed to be in a pattern of being a day late and a dollar short and only offering incremental to modest improvements in their products.

[Ken Plotin]

XC10 specs don't show 24p mode in HD. Also, no viewfinder.
Ken

[Ray Lee]

"Really ? - Why would you go for this when you can get an FS7 for £4000+ Cheaper and you get many more frame rate options."


For me I think its a little overpriced as well BUT for the big boys RAW output, color modes to match ARRI, even more dynamic range, 2k and 4k output simultaneously, and a PL mount are probably enough to justify it. Its priced like a GoPro when you think about what the large and medium budget movie types have into the Alexa kits. Seems like it would be cool to own a "cheap" camera that matches your ARRI rentals

If you have Canon EOS lenses, its probably worth the IS and lens communication


If both cameras were available a months ago, things what would have got me to at least look at the C300 even though its more than I really wanted to spend...

C300 the better screen and EVF (my $200 phone and 3 year old $500 iPad have a better looking screen than my FS7 and FS700) this is ridiculous and at some point when I can get a quality image EVF like the Zacuto Gratical (sans all the LUT's, outputs and high end processing) for around $1200 I will.

Better AF and more important for me better focus assist tools. Also being able to move the focus point and magnification area around is a big deal.

The color profiles... for the stuff I shoot people do not know what to do with SLOG and just ask for a baked in look so the WideDR look of the C300 (real color, high DR but a bit flat not LOG) sounds pretty cool... something I could deliver thats a step up for tweaking but so easy to grade a monkey could do it.

For the doc style sporting events I shoot being able to do 1080 to an SD card would be amazing... I could keep a copy on CFA$T and they could just walk away with the SD I need a swiss army knife, most people probably don't

Also I end up shooting in bright horrid direct sun (motorsports) so the low 100 ISO, 800 ISO base or the extra ND would be really nice



Starts to eat up the price difference once you factor the RAW back option and a new EVF, but I absolutely hate the super tall Canons with the audio/LCD tower on top of that. and RAW is a bit out of my league so its cool to not have to pay for it till I need it (or even just rent it)

[Mark Fry]

Originally Posted by Ken Plotin

... Also, no viewfinder. Ken

Not as such, but there is a "loup" to go over the rear screen which has much the same effect

[Steve Struthers]

And at least the LCD display articulates, so that if you want to change the viewing angle with the loup attached, you can. That should make the loup an attractive and useful proposition for users that work in really strong lighting conditions and a simple viewfinder shade isn't enough.

Flaws aside, the XC10 is looking to me more like a poor man's C100.

[Dylan Couper]

Originally Posted by Steve Struthers

Lately Canon have seemed to be in a pattern of being a day late and a dollar MORE.....

Fixed that for you... :)

[Chris Hurd]

Have to say I'm disappointed by the lack of a remote jack on the XC10... no LANC / Control-L. As you all know, I'm the poster boy for remote lens controllers. Although in this case I suppose you could gaff-tape your iPhone to the tripod pan handle and connect via WiFi.

But it just ain't the same!

[Jon Fairhurst]

The XC10 could be interesting for budget green screen work. It's 4:2:2. It's not 10-bits, but it is 4K. That could provide very clean detail for keys intended for 2K renders. (From an information point of view, quadrupling the pixels is similar to adding two more bits of information.)

Further, the 1-inch sensor is something like a 1.7x crop factor compared to APS-C. This may limit low light shooting and shallow DOF effects, but those aren't critical for green screen anyway. It's expected to light things well in a GS studio and it's generally better to keep the foreground object sharp for a crisp key.

Regarding the C300 mkII, it could be really sweet. I've rented the FS7 a couple of times and I love the high-speed shooting for b-roll, but I'm not in love with the look. It's not bad by any means, but there's something that says "electronic video" to me. With the new C300 offering 120 fps, killer dynamic range, less rolling shutter, native EF lens mount (I've broken a Metabones adapter), and the Canon look is a nice combination. I'll be curious to see the local daily rate...

[David Parks]

The XC 10 has a strange mix of features.

* High bit rate proprietary H.264 codec (400plus Mbs) That should be fun to edit! :)
* But has a slow lense 5.6 on telephoto!
* Canon log - Make matching other C EOS cameras easier
* But no add on module for professional xlr and video ports

And requires expensive media CFast 2.0. at $400.

Comparable cameras from Panasonic sell for less than $1000.00 I feel $2,500 is way overpriced for the feature set.

[Jim Martin]

Cfast cards will get bigger and the price will go down faster than the Sony cards.....also, after the C300 MK II comes out and you are out shooting in the sticks, or just not a big city, and you suddenly need to get a card reader, chances are you'll be more likely to find a Cfast reader at a computer store than a Sony card reader........

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com