Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon's new C700

NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
Really struggle to see the difference now between any of the top end cameras.... is there any one else out there who thinks we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...

I was just about to write the same thing. I think it's to the point where it is really difficult to tell the top end cameras apart, and we are really looking. I bet you my mom won't even come close to being able to tell them apart. So even though I agree in theory, that it's not about the cost or the specs, but ultimately it us about the image, if you can get a cheaper, lighter camera with more features for less money, that looks very similar, why get the more expensive one?
 
Jose Mojica said:
I was just about to write the same thing. I think it's to the point where it is really difficult to tell the top end cameras apart, and we are really looking. I bet you my mom won't even come close to being able to tell them apart. So even though I agree in theory, that it's not about the cost or the specs, but ultimately it us about the image, if you can get a cheaper, lighter camera with more features for less money, that looks very similar, why get the more expensive one?
Click to expand...

I can only assume you are comparing the "cheaper one" to the RED line of cameras. If so you should name the "cheaper one" and the "more expensive one".

There are people on here who are anal about their image and do not care what anyone's grandmother sees. '-)
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I still maintain that for the C700 to be a sales success it needs an owner-operator friendly price tag. IMO, in 2016, that price point is under $15K including VF and a couple of media cards.
Click to expand...

You do realize that under that criteria, there is no Red camera product with an "owner operator friendly price tag"?
 
Elsie N said:
I can only assume you are comparing the "cheaper one" to the RED line of cameras. If so you should name the "cheaper one" and the "more expensive one".

There are people on here who are anal about their image and do not care what anyone's grandmother sees. '-)
Click to expand...

True :)...The less expensive one in my example was my Scarlet-W. What I was trying to say was I'd much rather pay $10,405 for my Scarlet-W, than $28,000 for the Canon C700.

When we were comparing cameras, looking at Scarlet-W, Varicam LT, Canon C300 Mark II, etc. we spent a lot of time looking at images, and after grading we felt we could tell our story with any of those images. With proper lighting, color grading, etc. we felt any of those cameras could do a good job. But when we compared the specs, resolution, weight, ease of workflow in FCPX, definition of RAW, etc. we felt Scarlet-W came on top. And I believe at the time, it was the cheaper option too. But my point was, yes, image was the first thing we looked at, dynamic range, colors, but at the end, cost, specs, weight, workflow, became more important.

I know visually there are differences...I love the RED look over the others, but I do think we have crossed a threshold where digital cameras have become so good that I feel image-wise you can't go wrong with any of them.
 
Jose Mojica said:
True :)...The less expensive one in my example was my Scarlet-W. What I was trying to say was I'd much rather pay $10,405 for my Scarlet-W, than $28,000 for the Canon C700.

When we were comparing cameras, looking at Scarlet-W, Varicam LT, Canon C300 Mark II, etc. we spent a lot of time looking at images, and after grading we felt we could tell our story with any of those images. With proper lighting, color grading, etc. we felt any of those cameras could do a good job. But when we compared the specs, resolution, weight, ease of workflow in FCPX, definition of RAW, etc. we felt Scarlet-W came on top. And I believe at the time, it was the cheaper option too. But my point was, yes, image was the first thing we looked at, dynamic range, colors, but at the end, cost, specs, weight, workflow, became more important.

I know visually there are differences...I love the RED look over the others, but I do think we have crossed a threshold where digital cameras have become so good that I feel image-wise you can't go wrong with any of them.
Click to expand...

All good points... and something that came to mind when reading your post was the comparison of image. I suppose any camera can be graded to different "images" but I was just thinking that REDCODE RAW may offer a wider range of "images" due to RAW manipulation... not to mention ever-evolving color science.
 
Jose Mojica said:
True :)...The less expensive one in my example was my Scarlet-W. What I was trying to say was I'd much rather pay $10,405 for my Scarlet-W, than $28,000 for the Canon C700.
Click to expand...

For 10400$ you just get a brick. Good luck to shoot anything with a brick.
 
Jose Mojica said:
...
But when we compared the specs, resolution, weight, ease of workflow in FCPX
...
Click to expand...

Please don't use FCPx as a reference for anything ever, it might cause a rip in a space-time continuum.
 
Ugo Del said:
For 10400$ you just get a brick. Good luck to shoot anything with a brick.
Click to expand...

True...about $15,500 + cost of v-mount batteries of choice gets you a shooting package, that's including a 120GB and the mini mag reader. But that's still a lot less than $28,000 for the C700 body.
 
I stopped reading at "external raw recording." Could not be more over that.

I'm sure the AF on the EF version will be better than Raven, and it'd be nice if there was a PL (and Nikon) version of Raven. And Raven doesn't have anamorphic IIRC. But at about $16k less well-equipped (probably $20k after the raw recorder)...

Given what Red's doing, these C700 specs are about what the C300 price point ought to have, to be blunt about it.
 
If perception is everything, then maybe the marketing people at Canon priced it higher deliberately. IOW, if at first your product doesn't sell, raise the price. Cynical, but profitable. RED does everything to keep the price reasonable.

Wasn't Fury Road shot with a BlackMagic? That camera is quite cheap. Should they have chosen a more expensive camera (even though they're renting)? Some might have said yes. There's a common experiment which asks participants to choose between two kinds of apple juice. One is in a generic container, the other with a fancy label. Usually the one with the fancy label is perceived as tasting better, even though the apple juice in each container is the exact same product. Maybe people who shoot with RED cameras should say that they rented an old Arri D-21.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Wasn't Fury Road shot with a BlackMagic? That camera is quite cheap. Should they have chosen a more expensive camera (even though they're renting)?
Click to expand...
It was shot mostly on Alexa M in Arriraw, but every big action movie these days is shot on a lot of different cameras. The last couple of Transformers have used Arris, Reds, 35mm film, GoPros, you name it. When they need to throw a camera into danger, like in the middle of a car wreck, it's better to use a $5000 Blackmagic Production Camera or a $995 Pocket Camera than it would be a $50,000 Red Weapon or a $50,000 Alexa.

Major films are typically shot on Raw, but then all the finishing in post is frequently done in EXR 16-bit or DPX just to make the VFX workflow simpler.

You can't rent an Arri D-20 or D-21, because Arri pulled them all off the market. My memory is that they were all considered "experimental" in the road leading to Alexa. They actually made reasonably good pictures, and I much preferred them to the Panavision Genesis.
 
To each their own i suppose. I think its also dependent on which body you are looking at. Some people are making some amazing images on sony's and of course, that can be said of any camera. I've just never really had a good experience working with them. Always prefered the color coming out of Canons at similar price points, personally. But again, to each their own.

Ben Scott said:
Doesn't exist if you're shooting in Cine-EI mode, and is about as true in 2016 as the one about all Red footage having 'plasticky skintones'.
Click to expand...
 
Sort of agree... for the most part the cameras seem less and less like they are driving the aesthetic of a film and more and more like a blank canvas. Lenses, production design, wardrobe, light, camera language, grade all have a much bigger impact than the subtle differences in image from top tier cameras. The things that have a bigger impact on the camera side are the ergonomics (which depend on what you are shooting) and perhaps the frame rates that you might need for a given project.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA said:
Really struggle to see the difference now between any of the top end cameras.... is there any one else out there who thinks we have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Click to expand...
 
Steve Conry said:
Sort of agree... for the most part the cameras seem less and less like they are driving the aesthetic of a film and more and more like a blank canvas. Lenses, production design, wardrobe, light, camera language, grade all have a much bigger impact than the subtle differences in image from top tier cameras. The things that have a bigger impact on the camera side are the ergonomics (which depend on what you are shooting) and perhaps the frame rates that you might need for a given project.
Click to expand...
Steve is 100% right here. I've said for a long time that the single biggest factor I see in different camera material is the quality of the lighting, and that's all the work of the DP.

Put the exact same camera in the hands of two different people in a given day, and you'll get very different pictures back. It's even more apparent when one is an experienced DP, and one is not.

Of all the factors that determine image quality, I'm not sure the camera is even in the Top 5. I think lighting, exposure, lenses, production design, and makeup have a greater immediate impact. That's assuming the cameras are at a reasonable level in terms of build quality -- I'm not comparing a Red Epic with a GoPro, or a Sony F55 with a Blackmagic Pocket Camera. Where things get into a gray area are when you compare a Panasonic Varicam LT with a Red Dragon, or a Canon C500 with a Sony F55. Once you match them in post with color correction, the A/B differences on a big screen are more subtle than you might think they are.

Trust me, if you throw really bad lighting and lenses at a Red Weapon, you're still going to wind up with bad images. The talent and artistry of the DP has a huge impact on the final look. And we have no Shit -> Shinola knob in post.
 
I know visually there are differences...I love the RED look over the others, but I do think we have crossed a threshold where digital cameras have become so good that I feel image-wise you can't go wrong with any of them.
Click to expand...

Depends where you set the bar.
At 2k/HD display a well crafted shot from a 3 chip camera isn't shabby.
On a 4K display/projection the resolution difference is clear.
Ditto 8k.

The resolution threshold is still a moving target.

mike brennan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top