Mike P.
Well-known member
Assuming it ships on time, the specs aren't over-exaggerated, and it works as it should, it would deserve the sales it'd inevitably get.
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
I know I'm Not the only one that feels bad for AJA Cion
- Thread starter shashbugu
- Start date
Assuming it ships on time, the specs aren't over-exaggerated, and it works as it should, it would deserve the sales it'd inevitably get.
- Banned
- #22
egon touste
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
im not sure red has ever ticked all those boxes .. red normally fails the first two (but have a subject to change clause so its ok). the third has been 'iffy at times. i think they qualify for number 4, overall though. still a tall ask for any manufacturer nowadays, with turnaround times so fast
Alex Kiritz
Well-known member
Kind of hilarious that under the "Cameras Used" section they have listed just about every camera but Red. It's like they don't want to give anyone any ideas.
David Peterson
Well-known member
The middle falls away. Buy above $40K or below $5K ... or buy used high end for a "middle" price. Or just rent
I'd say the Sony FS7 is positioned nicely to own in the middle range, but much more on the cheaper end of the mid range than the C300mk2 is.
Also there is the URSA Mini, which just manages to squeak under $5k but could be viewed very much so as a "mid range" camera.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
I guess one of the big questions is what lies ahead in terms of future development for this camera? Is there a possibility for a LOG mode? Will they continue to tweak things like the other camera manufacturers have?
- Banned
- #26
Hrvoje Simic
Banned
Yup. I love Jon and Nick - great guys IMO - but - the Cion is DOA. With the democratization of tools driven by technology - the "middle" always falls away. There is always a "top" end and a "bottom" end - and they in fact expand. The "middle" falls away and get replaced by "used, second hand high end" as opposed to new "middle" solutions.
Anything above $5K and below $40K is "middle" - and in that budget - you are better off buying used "high end".
Now, the Canon C300 MK II is clearly shooting for the "middle" and it will be interesting to see how that camera sells as the C300 out sold expectations - as opposed to the C500 - which are piled in a warehouse right now. But there are a lot more options now on the "lower middle" than when C300 launched.
But yeah ... Cion for $9000 vs. C300 MK II for $16K .... I suspect TONS more folks will drop the extra $6K for C300 MK II.
But you have to ask ... C300 MK II for $16K or a used Dragon for $18-$20K ESPECIALLY after Weapon starts rolling out.
The middle falls away. Buy above $40K or below $5K ... or buy used high end for a "middle" price. Or just rent
While I agree with your point I'd propose another context regarding the mid segment and FS7 and C300mk2.
It is obvious that camera market has become pretty saturated from low end to high end and that attempting to draw customers in that mid segment is not the smartest move without some kind of competitive advantage.
The competitive advantage of FS7 and C300mk2 is run and gun and practicality with good enough recording for many. While supporting expansion and option for higher quality recording. They are not aiming for primarily raw shooters. There is no proper run n' gun large sensor camera below FS7. DVX200 may very well become a great choice but DVX200 is a fixed lens camera with inferior sensor in both DR and sensitivity.
C300 Mk2 offers 12 bit 4:4:4 in 2K with more manageable file sizes. That's something else. Plus there is a 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 requiring one third of 4K Prores HQ. That's a big deal for a documentary shooter and a small crew with fast-to-broadcast project or low budget film making. Canon knows color. Now they seem to have a 15 stop sensor. I'd say C300mk2 is likely to provide an excellent looking out-of-the-box imagery, which is why the price is what it is. I wouldn't be surprised to see it as a B cam for a bunch of features and even A cam for many mid budget ones. Canon does not need to compete with lower end for this camera to be successful.
While C300 is more handheld challenged (though it beats many other cheaper LEGO style solutions), FS7 is a proper shoulder mount camera for documentaries and UHD broadcast. It is well thought through for a standard shooting style and all-in-one body form. Plus E-Mount opens up lens choices. There is no way one can get that quality for cheaper price with that practicality of run n' gun shooting. What it lacks is a proper wide angle servo zoom which doesn't cost like a better car and lens makers are still lagging behind.
Although those two cameras are technically in mid-segment price wise, they are excellent price/performance choices when they are perceived inside the market they are primarily intended for. Not all folks need 500GB-1TB per hour or their workflow allows that approach and related compromises. If one wants to shoot a TVC or a music video or a short promo, cheaper solution might do the trick. If one needs to run around in unpredictable circumstances, work fast and deliver soon, no raw or post work is going to re-shoot the missing shots or bring back lost time.
Plus there is the reliability thing and peace of mind when your ass is on the line for something headed to broadcast. That doesn't appear as fast as price reductions or grow proportionally to bit rate. Plus there is the low light thing and I wouldn't expect miracles from more affordable alternatives.
Mike P.
Well-known member
What does the C300mk2 have that the FS7 does *not* have? That is to say, what are the C300mk2's selling features above & beyond what is provided by the FS7 (which is almost half the price and came out half-a-year ago)? I know text can be contextless, but I'm not being rhetorical; I'm actually interested/curious.
All the other BM's have a "film mode" which is substantially flatter and akin to a LOG mode... Being that everyone does their own "log mode" (RED's is supposed to be identical to cineon, but a stop darker than everyone else's footage, Arri Log-C boosts the blacks substantially more than most other Log modes, S-Log, C-Log, etc.), I fear it's starting to get subjective, but really shouldn't be. There are also "BM-Log-to-Rec709" LUTs in Resolve, so I think they've already got a "Log" mode for all of their cameras.
Steve Sherrick
Well-known member
But I'm referring to AJA and the CION. Will they implement a log mode or are they going to keep it as is?
Michael J Brennan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Not crazy as its buyers understood the economics of buying a camera that delivered great hd results for their clients.
Yes they will buy 4k but only when it is imperative or no extra charge. They will be able to afford it as they are spending bare minimum today to maximise their profit. You could say they beat everyone else in price performance in the most sought after format.
mike brennan
Marc Wielage
Well-known member
I don't think this is really true. I find I have zero problems adjusting Arri Log-C or RedLogFilm -- it's about the same in terms of blacks, and actually does kind of feel like a negative film scan.
There is no real standard for Cineon 10-bit log files from film. I worked for at least six different companies (including Cinesite, ILM, and Technicolor), and none of them had the same standard for what a piece of 35mm negative would come out as. In fact, the problem I had is different departments and divisions in different areas had different in-house standards. The real problem happened when the log material would change week-to-week, or if different operators were involved. If anything, I think digital cameras are much more consistent in this area. And a LUT is not necessary -- it's very simple to do this Rec709-normalizing correction in one layer or one node.
Mike P.
Well-known member
Yeah, I agree... That's what I was saying. Like originally I was like, "pffftttt $16k? Canon, stop drinking."... Then I used it and was like, "that was...really, really easy." Like it's one of those cameras whose paper specs kinda blow, but its functionality/ease-of-use and "just gets it done with solid results" are far more valuable. Who knows, maybe the same holds true for the Cion? ...Maybe? ...I doubt it (even if it did, I still wouldn't buy one.)
I'm going by what Jarred/Graeme have said about RLF (saying that Log-C is it's own thing, whereas RLF is 'mathematically identical to cineon.') I don't know what that means in terms of real-world application though; all I know is that it's the reason RED never released an official "RLF-to-709"LUT" (like how Arri do on their LUT-generator site), instead saying "that's what the RGs are for." As for the "boosted blacks", I mean shadows/lift, not the black-point. When comparing identically shot frames, Arri's ISO800 is noticeably brighter (maybe flatter?) than RED's (MX's, anyway) in the lower half of the IRE range. As for a the BM-Flim-to-709 LUT, I was merely trying to point out that I thought BM *does* have a "log" mode, since there are BMlog-to-709 LUTs built-in to Resolve. I completely understand not needing LUTs to normalize an image. Conversely, you would definitely know better than I would. And I don't disagree with what you've said. I was merely saying that it seems everyone has their own "brand of log" and the term gets thrown around quite a bit given the differences between all of them (but I thought that's what ACES was kind of for).
The irony is that it's all for naught, as Steve was talking about the Cion, *not* BM cameras. I didn't realize they/Aja didn't have a log mode, and given that I haven't used one, I can't confirm either way (it just seems weird for a "digital cinema camera" not to have one).
Last edited: