Canon's new C700

[Ben Scott]

I think lighting, exposure, lenses, production design, and makeup have a greater immediate impact.

Absolutely. Whenever anyone starts a thread about 'cinematic' looking cameras or how to have something look more 'cinematic' it winds me up something crazy because the answer is always 'light it better and have good production design' long before you get to ' the special UNLOCK CINEMATICNESS button is just under this sub menu'.

Sorry about the lack of a Shit -> Shinola knob, but while you might not be able to polish a turd given enough time you can certainly on occasion roll it in glitter.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The image dynamics of any particular camera system are but one instrument in the symphony. That said, I would argue that some cameras provide a larger playground for exploiting things like lighting techniques, production design, etc.

In any case, I still question the attraction of the C700 vs other Canon models like the C300Mk2 and C500 at it's suggested price point. Is it that much better? If it is, I'll be happy to apologize - in the meantime, the cost creates a big "show me" hurdle.

Cheers - #19

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

In any case, I still question the attraction of the C700 vs other Canon models like the C300Mk2 and C500 at it's suggested price point. Is it that much better? If it is, I'll be happy to apologize - in the meantime, the cost creates a big "show me" hurdle.

If I was choosing gear and budgeting for a drama TV series, I'd be seriously considering this camera. Alexa XT starts from $70K for "only 3.2K" if one would perceive value exclusively through numbers, so how much better what is pretty much depends for whom, for what and on criteria and priorities.

Obviously a single shooter is unlikely to go for Alexa XT and Red shooters prioritizing a compact 5K & 6K raw camera are unlikely to opt for a larger 4K production camera. World is a large place and production domain as well. Canon doesn't aim or need to satisfy everyone with this camera, just cater the target segment. C300 and C500 form factor was not optimal for certain types of productions, C700 is more fitting, plus the features and performance are obviously further improved.

Also, product cost doesn't scale linearly with features, nearing the upper part the curve it is exponential. As in many other domains where the assets/performance curve applies. Ask a 100m runner if a second less takes 10% more effort.

 

[Hugues Dagallier]

If I was choosing gear and budgeting for a drama TV series, I'd be seriously considering this camera. Alexa XT starts from $70K for "only 3.2K" if one would perceive value exclusively through numbers, so how much better what is pretty much depends for whom, for what and on criteria and priorities.

Obviously a single shooter is unlikely to go for Alexa XT and Red shooters prioritizing a compact 5K & 6K raw camera are unlikely to opt for a larger 4K production camera. World is a large place and production domain as well. Canon doesn't aim or need to satisfy everyone with this camera, just cater the target segment. C300 and C500 form factor was not optimal for certain types of productions, C700 is more fitting, plus the features and performance are obviously further improved.

Also, product cost doesn't scale linearly with features, nearing the upper part the curve it is exponential. As in many other domains where the assets/performance curve applies. Ask a 100m runner if a second less takes 10% more effort.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Steve Conry]

The image dynamics of any particular camera system are but one instrument in the symphony. That said, I would argue that some cameras provide a larger playground for exploiting things like lighting techniques, production design, etc.

In any case, I still question the attraction of the C700 vs other Canon models like the C300Mk2 and C500 at it's suggested price point. Is it that much better? If it is, I'll be happy to apologize - in the meantime, the cost creates a big "show me" hurdle.

Cheers - #19

Speculation is kinda pointless until the camera is in the world and testing is done. The specs only matter so much, otherwise a lot of cameras that have been widely adopted wouldn't have and visa versa. Saying that you don't see the attraction at the price point just seems premature.

On on the issue of some cameras providing a larger playground for exploiting things like production design I would only note the fact that one of the more common things you hear from big dps, in regards to high resolution cameras, is the need to soften them up a bit using older lenses of diffusion to help sell production design, makeup and effects. Point being--on paper a camera having 4k vs 8k might be undesirable given a price point, when in reality, on some productions, it might be the key selling point.

For example, when Netflix made Marco polo shoot 4k, the dp immediately turned around and found ways to soften the image. They were doing some elaborate sets and a lot of trickery (backdrops, vfx) to sell their locations. As per Netflix requirements, they delivered 4k files, but the image was likely closer to 3k or 2k in true resolution, as they preferred this for what they were doing. This is very common amongst top level productions for various reason, and kind of makes you wonder if these shooters would rather a C700 at 4k, or something else at 8k. Especially if things like ergonomics, color, global shutter, etc. of the c700 were attractive.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Sorry about the lack of a Shit -> Shinola knob, but while you might not be able to polish a turd given enough time you can certainly on occasion roll it in glitter.

There is often this kind of thing in post:

If I was choosing gear and budgeting for a drama TV series, I'd be seriously considering this camera. Alexa XT starts from $70K for "only 3.2K" if one would perceive value exclusively through numbers, so how much better what is pretty much depends for whom, for what and on criteria and priorities.

As far as I know, all the LA productions I've seen only rent the gear, and the cost for a complete Alexa XT package is not that much different than a complete Red Dragon or Panasonic Varicam 35. The camera is minimal -- it's the mounts, the lenses, the storage, the power, the video assist, and all that other stuff that drives up the cost. To producers, it's just another line item on the budget.

 

[Elsie N]

If I was choosing gear and budgeting for a drama TV series, I'd be seriously considering this camera. Alexa XT starts from $70K for "only 3.2K" if one would perceive value exclusively through numbers, so how much better what is pretty much depends for whom, for what and on criteria and priorities.

Obviously a single shooter is unlikely to go for Alexa XT and Red shooters prioritizing a compact 5K & 6K raw camera are unlikely to opt for a larger 4K production camera. World is a large place and production domain as well. Canon doesn't aim or need to satisfy everyone with this camera, just cater the target segment. C300 and C500 form factor was not optimal for certain types of productions, C700 is more fitting, plus the features and performance are obviously further improved.

Also, product cost doesn't scale linearly with features, nearing the upper part the curve it is exponential. As in many other domains where the assets/performance curve applies. Ask a 100m runner if a second less takes 10% more effort.

Pretty much agree. I'm sure camera Agnostics (n.) may rent the camera depending on its rental price, but I just don't see any RED camera owner suddenly moving from RED to this camera.

For me personally, I'm satisfied with the images I get and the workflow that works with them.

Is it possible for another brand of camera to squeeze out 5% higher quality? I doubt it, but even if it could, that last 5% would require too much time and effort to achieve which would make it an inefficient target.

 

[Peter Hybal]

Oh they slapped the old and rusty Raw Canon DSLR color science on a cinema camera.. that color science is for youtube, wedding photos and not for cinema. Eeeew at the color of the leaves in golden hour sunlight.

Funny they resorted to get back to their color roots after already having C100, C300, C300 MkII or C500 on the market.

 

[sam karr]

Oh they slapped the old and rusty Raw Canon DSLR color science on a cinema camera.. that color science is for youtube, wedding photos and not for cinema. Eeeew at the color of the leaves in golden hour sunlight.

Funny they resorted to get back to their color roots after already having C100, C300, C300 MkII or C500 on the market.

So you watched one uploaded and graded video and you made your opinion? I'm glad I investigated more to get the Varicam because there was not a single
uploaded color corrected video online that shows how great its colors are, which I don't understand because it's crazy good out of the box with basics levels, and still people manage to make it look ugly with extra grading (noticing it especially when they upload a graded version and offer the original files too).

 

[Steve Conry]

that color science is for youtube, wedding photos and not for cinema. Eeeew at the color of the leaves in golden hour sunlight.

what specifically about Canon color science do you think makes it only suitable for "YouTube and weddings"? There have been a lot of very beautiful films and photographs made with canons. I'd venture to guess that a good 30-60% of the professional photos we see on a daily basis were made with "rusty raw canon dslr color science" and surely they can't all be crap. It seems pretty hard to imagine not being aware of that so perhaps you are trolling?

 

[Peter Hybal]

So you watched one uploaded and graded video and you made your opinion?

I'm a Nikon guy for a few years now but I have owned 2 Canon DSLR's and have done tons of photos and experiments - I as everyone else clearly recognized the color science in the video so I believe I do have some idea about its limits when it comes to raw processing. Canon's output always felt quite inelastic in comparison to other cameras. Not to mention how inelastic it feels against raw from Red, Sony or Arri.

There have been a lot of very beautiful films and photographs made with canons. I'd venture to guess that a good 30-60% of the professional photos we see on a daily basis were made with "rusty raw canon dslr color science" and surely they can't all be crap.

Never seen any beautiful films from Canon and can you please find a quote where I say it's crap? I'm simply saying Canon colors are not Cinema by a long shot. What works for photos doesn't work for motion picture - I think this has been long established by the old analog motion picture industry. Oh and yes I tried to be provocative but that doesn't give you a right to make strawman arguments.

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I'm a Nikon guy for a few years now ..... Oh and yes I tried to be provocative ....

a few hon'ble fellas discussing here - where's the need for provocation? Are there not enough nikon vs canon debates in photographic forums to chime on?

 

[Peter Hybal]

a few hon'ble fellas discussing here - where's the need for provocation? Are there not enough nikon vs canon debates in photographic forums to chime on?

I think Canon C700 is a provocation for doubting the company itself - seems to me like a rushed product which is mostly an experiment from them to see what will the Pro's think. I don't think they will be successful by reinventing the wheel and maybe it's something they think too but they had to have it confirmed by a costly experiment.

 

[sam karr]

I think Canon C700 is a provocation for doubting the company itself - seems to me like a rushed product which is mostly an experiment from them to see what will the Pro's think. I don't think they will be successful by reinventing the wheel and maybe it's something they think too but they had to have it confirmed by a costly experiment.

It's not always about reinventing the wheel. They just released a safe product and obviously don't want to compete with Red but mainly with the Amira, the Varicam, the Sony. They are safe products you can trust, without bugs, with easy service, which do the job, for people who focus on colors, DR and lowlight more than resolution and framerates. Global shutter, good DR, a bit more resolution than its direct competitors, crazy good autofocus which will please some guys out there. Probably not you, but they don't care.

 

[Cory Harrison]

Never seen any beautiful films from Canon and can you please find a quote where I say it's crap? I'm simply saying Canon colors are not Cinema by a long shot. What works for photos doesn't work for motion picture - I think this has been long established by the old analog motion picture industry. Oh and yes I tried to be provocative but that doesn't give you a right to make strawman arguments.

Blue Ruin looked pretty good. Shot on the c300.

 

[Steve Conry]

I'm a Nikon guy for a few years now but I have owned 2 Canon DSLR's and have done tons of photos and experiments - I as everyone else clearly recognized the color science in the video so I believe I do have some idea about its limits when it comes to raw processing. Canon's output always felt quite inelastic in comparison to other cameras. Not to mention how inelastic it feels against raw from Red, Sony or Arri.



Never seen any beautiful films from Canon and can you please find a quote where I say it's crap? I'm simply saying Canon colors are not Cinema by a long shot. What works for photos doesn't work for motion picture - I think this has been long established by the old analog motion picture industry. Oh and yes I tried to be provocative but that doesn't give you a right to make strawman arguments.

i think you are confusing color depth and color science. The color science of canons are pretty first rate, although they are surely limited in "elasticity" given their often 8 bit color depth.

That said, I believe you have seen several beautiful films that have employed Canon's color science to some degree. And of course, there are many you probably haven't seen.

http://www.thevideomode.com/news/the-famous-movies-and-tv-shows-filmed-on-canon-gear-633/

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/canon-eos-c300-camera

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/cannes-palme-d-or-blue-warmest-canon-c300

http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/gallery/

From docs to dramas, Canons are used a ton for varying types of high end productions every day--not just YouTube videos and weddings. To not recognize this just underlines that you are either uninformed or like I said before, trolling. That said, I am a long time RED owner and own an Alexa. I have never owned a Canon cinema camera, and have no attachment to them, I just don't think we should be writing off a camera we haven't used based on specs and one video.

 

[Visar Sulejmani]

Blue Ruin looked pretty good. Shot on the c300.

Yes, it certainly did. And it was far from the only one shot on Canon's EOS Line-up that looked good or great.

I'm not a fan of MANY of Canon's choices over the last 4-5 years, but you can certainly create some wonderful imagery with those cameras. And if not, there is a chance it's not the camera's fault.

 

[Keith B Plummer]

I've gotten some real nice images out of the c500 Raw. I never was a fan of the top handle monitor stuff but the small body form factor worked and the Canon RAW image is solid. The new body on the c700 I can understand for ENG work but not the cost. Cameras are like film stock for projects. I don't know if a lot of people are going to leave their old Canons for this new one.

 

[Marc Wielage]

That said, I believe you have seen several beautiful films that have employed Canon's color science to some degree. And of course, there are many you probably haven't seen.

Just to point out something interesting: On ShotOnWhat.com, they report the following cameras were used for Ron Howard's movie Rush...

ARRI ALEXA Plus Camera, ARRI ALEXA Studio Camera, Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Camera, Canon EOS-C300 Camera, GoPro HD Hero3 Camera, indieGS2K Camera, indiePOV Camera, Phantom Flex Camera, Red Epic Camera.

:001_unsure:

 

[Steve Conry]

Just to point out something interesting: On ShotOnWhat.com, they report the following cameras were used for Ron Howard's movie Rush...

ARRI ALEXA Plus Camera, ARRI ALEXA Studio Camera, Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Camera, Canon EOS-C300 Camera, GoPro HD Hero3 Camera, indieGS2K Camera, indiePOV Camera, Phantom Flex Camera, Red Epic Camera.

:001_unsure:

Well if Red can put the Revenant on the Shot On Red site...

Haha but really, obviously not everything on that site was shot exclusively on Canon but if you look at the links with reels you can see specific shots that illustrate great color in legit films. The point is that the op said that there was no good "cinema" shot with "Canon color science". The links I provided are to show that there are in fact many films that were shot with Canons, some exclusively and some just for certain scenes, that look great. Something I think many of us already knew but is evidently worth reinforcing.