# Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III appears in Canon’s product lineup



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2020)

> The Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III we’ve been reporting about for the last couple of weeks has shown up in Canon’s product list, along with a new CN-E 10-25mm cinema lens.
> Below is some Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III that we had previously reported.
> *Canon Cinema EOS C300 Mark III information:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Apr 7, 2020)

I wonder what the price will be. With the c500 at 16k and the c200 at 6k I would guess its around 10k


----------



## cpreston (Apr 7, 2020)

Dual ISO is interesting, although it will be interesting seeing how useful it is in normal shooting if the XF-AVC is still one 10bit.

I was hoping for a new 24-105 Full Frame CN-E, but the 10-25mm is extremely tempting. I would no longer have to carry around my 10-18mm stm for my wide angles.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Apr 7, 2020)

With Canon's cinema cameras sticking with the EF mount it seems like EF will be around for quite some time..


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Apr 7, 2020)

Not sure I could justify paying 10K given the rumoured specs of the R5 but no-crop raw 4K 120P with full DPAF would be a very nice.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2020)

Superb


----------



## Ripley (Apr 7, 2020)

Anxious to find out about the intermediate codec and the price. A CN-E 10-25mm f4 would round out the super 35 CN-E zooms but would be a little disappointing for me.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 7, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> With Canon's cinema cameras sticking with the EF mount it seems like EF will be around for quite some time..



Yep. It’s not like all the millions of EF still and thousands of EF Cine lenses would have just disappeared into the ether or otherwise have become useless if an RF mount had been what Canon had chosen to put on it. Even when Canon completely stops making EF bodies and lenses, EF will still be around for decades more, because the lenses are so easy to adapt to other mounts, especially the newer shallow flange depth mounts, like RF.


----------



## cpreston (Apr 7, 2020)

Ripley said:


> Anxious to find out about the intermediate codec and the price. A CN-E 10-25mm f4 would round out the super 35 CN-E zooms but would be a little disappointing for me.



It could also be a CN-E 10-25mm t/2.8 and cost $25,000. That would be disappointing for me because I'm not working in that league.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Apr 7, 2020)

Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 7, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.



Because the mirrorless camera would NOT sell and it must be marketable. That would be the death knell to Canon mirrorless cameras on the consumer and pro markets if they did not have amazing video capabilities on par or superior to the competition that are doing it. No, most people have no clue how to fully use the still features let alone the video features but they feel good about bragging rights and that is what counts in the marketing and sales world. In other words sell the sizzle.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.


I find it great that I can shoot professional stuff on my still cameras.


----------



## cinemanimal (Apr 7, 2020)

10-25 seems an odd choice. I’m guessing this is a T4.4 AF to match the other 2. The original 4 cinema zooms came out 7 years ago. I owned the 30-105 and really liked it. But I can’t imagine many are considering these lenses anymore. They are not competitive. I’d love to see serious fast (2.8 or better) hybrid Cine AF zooms. Keep them similar to current designs (they are pretty lenses physicaly) but have AF motors that can be switched on and off. IS as well. Might as well make them RF or PL user changeable. I hope your are listening Canon.


----------



## C Tographer (Apr 7, 2020)

I've been supportive of Canon's move to full-frame sensors. But the C300 is the one model that should retain its Super35 sensor, so Canon made the right call. Run & gun reality TV needs S35.

But the bottom end of the range - the C100 / C200 equivalents, should move to full-frame, as those users tend to incorporate a lot of still photo lenses, with composition that moves at a more thoughtful pace.


----------



## rontele7 (Apr 7, 2020)

10-25 makes sense, as that's basically a 16-35mm equivalent lens. Not very exciting, however Canon has been surprising us all a lot lately, so who knows.

That said, I'd be disappointed if the camera isn't RF mount. You can put EF, PL, and RF lenses on an RF mount. With an EF mount, you can only do EF. 

C300 III and R5 seem like a natural A & B camera pair, so it would be strange if they were different lens mounts.


----------



## steve oakley (Apr 7, 2020)

the camera canon should of released 4 years ago especially when they were showing 8K in a C300-2 size body. Not putting an RF mount on it is dumb. Canon already has an EF->RF adapter and could simply include that with camera. They could even offer a PL->RF adapter as well. canon - the company that always misses the mark no matter how close they otherwise get. AHHHHH !!!!!! I'll probably buy one anyway.


----------



## cpreston (Apr 7, 2020)

These specs read to me like Canon is just trying to fill a hole in their lineup in the most efficient way possible. The biggest drawback to the C300 mkII was the lack of high frame rates. Otherwise, it is a really decent camera for corporate and documentary video. The C500II is optimized more for commercial and narrative work. The S35, high frame rates, and dual ISO in the C500II body will fill that corporate and doc at $10,000 to $12,000 hole they have. The next generation will be RF mount.


----------



## melgross (Apr 7, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.


Because shooting video has become more important to those who are mostly still photographers. From photojournalism to wedding work, video has become a necessary part of the business. I know a number of these people, and most use their still cameras for the video., often they have at least three bodies, so one for backup and one on a tripod for video. Why have to maintain a video camera too? It’s just something else to learn, and can’t be used as a backup still camera if needed.


----------



## bandido (Apr 8, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Not sure I could justify paying 10K given the rumoured specs of the R5 but no-crop raw 4K 120P with full DPAF would be a very nice.


You are not in target market for this camera.


----------



## peters (Apr 8, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.


Because photograhy and videography has a lot of things in common - similar concepts of composition, similar technologies, similar people who are interested in the topic. Its only logical to have cameras that can do both - and its obviously possible to build these. 
Its also happening for more than a decade and Canon themself introduced the video topic to photo-cameras with the (back than) groundbreaking (!) Canon 5D Mark II. It offered Full-HD recording on a fullframe - something completely unimaginable at the time. (This was especialy crazy when magic lantern added FHD RAW to it). All of this was achieved while the 5D was still the most popular and pretty perfectly rounded photography camera at the market. Its untill today one of the most broadly used Full-Frame DSLRs.

There is no reason to not implement full-grown video features to a photo camera. While SDI, XLR, V-Mount etc may be nice accessoires - all of these can be worked around. 
Especialy small companies or solo-video/photo guys dont want to buy 2 video AND 2 photo cameras - this way they can stick to just 2 cameras which can do both (nearly) equally well. 

Canon did the market segmentation-game quite some time, with the (for videographers) rather disapointing Canon 5D IV and EOS R cameras and it wasnt realy appreciated by the video/photo-guys.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 8, 2020)

peters said:


> Because photograhy and videography has a lot of things in common - similar concepts of composition, similar technologies, similar people who are interested in the topic. Its only logical to have cameras that can do both - and its obviously possible to build these.
> Its also happening for more than a decade and *Canon themself introduced the video topic to photo-cameras with the (back than) groundbreaking (!) Canon 5D Mark II*. It offered Full-HD recording on a fullframe - something completely unimaginable at the time. (This was especialy crazy when magic lantern added FHD RAW to it). All of this was achieved while the 5D was still the most popular and pretty perfectly rounded photography camera at the market. Its untill today one of the most broadly used Full-Frame DSLRs.
> 
> There is no reason to not implement full-grown video features to a photo camera. While SDI, XLR, V-Mount etc may be nice accessoires - all of these can be worked around.
> ...



1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.

2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> 1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.
> 
> 2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.


Well we can get into the weeds on this, I believe the Nikon D90 was the first DSLR with HD video but it wasn’t a FF and it wasn’t Full-HD, peters said “It offered Full-HD recording on a full frame”, the 5D II was the first to do that.


----------



## jvillain (Apr 8, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.



You need to realize that a camera is really just a computer with as sensor. You are saying Dell should sell a computer that has a word processor but shouldn't be able to use spreadsheets. 

There is also the case of a user like me. When I bought my first camera after they stared adding video features there was no way in hell I was ever going to shoot video. Don't be stupid. Now .... lets just say my thinking has evolved. Here is a question for you. Who has more money invested in gear these days your average photographer or your average videographer? You know who has even more invested? Some one that does both. As an example I have both strobes and video lights becuase you can't shoot video with a strobe and your average video light isn't powerfull enough to stop motion or allow you to truley black out a room. If you think no one shoots video spend some time on youtube. Elementary kids are shooting video on their cell phones. The world has changed forever. If you can shoot stills you should atleast once try using your video features, you might surprise yourself. While we are all locked down what do you have to lose?


----------



## peters (Apr 8, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> 2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.


I think I would challenge this point. There are REALY a lot of accessories, even in professional quality for DSLR and mirrorless cameras out there. A lot of people use it every day as their main video camera. I guess the Lumix S1H is a great example for it. There is pretty much any kind of accessory you may need and it can achieve pretty much anything a "real" video camera can achieve. Even a proper audio interface is available with fullsize XLR controlls and monitor, long lasting batteries with the option for v-mount, full size hdmi out with 10bit (and soon even with raw), groundbreaking great lowlight performance, unlimited video runtime, nearly unlimited lense selection with adapters including anamorphic lenses or motorized zoom lenses, a quite durable body, outstanding ibis, reliable heat management, S35 mode... The market is so big and there are so many high quality options, SLRs cerainly allow for a professional workflow, even much cheaper options like a GH5. 
While video cameras obviously have their place and have usualy more ports build in, its in my opinion not factual to say that many jobs cant be done with a mirrorless camera. 

But maybe I miss something - what are scenarios (that are not incredible specific) that can't be handled with a modern mirrorless camera?


----------



## peters (Apr 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Well we can get into the weeds on this, I believe the Nikon D90 was the first DSLR with HD video but it wasn’t a FF and it wasn’t Full-HD, peters said “It offered Full-HD recording on a full frame”, the 5D II was the first to do that.


Exactly - which is a big difference - full-hd is twice the amount of resolution and Fullframe is twice the sensor size. Which was a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge step back than. If I am not mistaken there where not even video cameras with this specs - at least not for non-astronomical-prices. (And interanal RAW was a crazy extension (though not official)) 
So its only reasonabl to say that innovations like "video features" have their place in the DSLM world


----------



## SteveC (Apr 9, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Why not leave the video stuff to the camera lines and let the cameras focus on...photography.



I'll second what others have said to you.

My last "big" use of a camera was at a zoo. What's better than a bunch of stills to show people, oh, say, snow leopards? A bunch of stills AND some brief video of them moving around. Sure, it's not _great_ video by any means, but it's good enough for showing friends. (I don't have ANY of the supporting gear I'd need for "good" video.) Multiply that by many different animals. I was switching back and forth between pictures and video the whole time. I can't claim a lot of good stuff, but enough people found them interesting, and having both enhanced things. (I did run into someone with much better gear than I have [and the knowledge to use it well] and I greeted him with "I bow to your superior gear!!!" and we got a good chuckle out of that as we both know the fallacy I was lampooning.)


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 9, 2020)

peters said:


> I think I would challenge this point. There are REALY a lot of accessories, even in professional quality for DSLR and mirrorless cameras out there. A lot of people use it every day as their main video camera. I guess the Lumix S1H is a great example for it. There is pretty much any kind of accessory you may need and it can achieve pretty much anything a "real" video camera can achieve. Even a proper audio interface is available with fullsize XLR controlls and monitor, long lasting batteries with the option for v-mount, full size hdmi out with 10bit (and soon even with raw), groundbreaking great lowlight performance, unlimited video runtime, nearly unlimited lense selection with adapters including anamorphic lenses or motorized zoom lenses, a quite durable body, outstanding ibis, reliable heat management, S35 mode... The market is so big and there are so many high quality options, SLRs cerainly allow for a professional workflow, even much cheaper options like a GH5.
> While video cameras obviously have their place and have usualy more ports build in, its in my opinion not factual to say that many jobs cant be done with a mirrorless camera.
> 
> But maybe I miss something - what are scenarios (that are not incredible specific) that can't be handled with a modern mirrorless camera?



Okay, maybe my standards are different than a lot of others, because I’ve been doing this so long and a huge part of how good a tool is at doing it’s job is how well the tool itself is designed to allow me to work and just get out of my way. Just because you can kludge a DSLR rig together to net you a decent end product or give you similar functionality still doesn’t mean its good at the job. You can take a screwdriver and drive a nail if you really want to, but it would have been a lot easier and quicker to use a hammer and more than likely you would have gotten better results.

I know that I’m one of a dying breed, but it gives me good perspective, because I was around a good decade+ before the DSLR revolution. I watched it happen and I’m still here, now. So, I’ve used all the different tools and I know the shortcomings and trade offs/compromises and benefits of the different tools and I can make an informed decision and form an opinion on whether a certain tool is good or better in a certain situation or not or just plain better than another overall. A lot of people today have never used dedicated professional video/cinema cameras and justify the frankenrig DSLR’s mostly because of the money and lack of experience with the dedicated tools.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 11, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> 1) Well, technically Nikon had the first “HDSLR”, the 5D/II is just the one that caught on.
> 
> 2) No they can’t. Maybe if you just mean nothing but how the image looks in/under certain/the right circumstance, but otherwise, no a DSLR/MILC is not going to do the job “(nearly) equally well”. Do they have their uses? Yes. But that’s not the same as the general sense that we seem to be talking about.



The 90D was 720p with an APS-C sensor.

The 5D Mark II was the first camera with a FF sensor that could do 1080p. That's what the original comment above claimed.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The 90D was 720p with an APS-C sensor.
> 
> The 5D Mark II was the first camera with a FF sensor that could do 1080p. That's what the original comment above claimed.




No it didn’t. Re-read his first sentence of that paragraph.


> Its also happening for more than a decade and Canon themself introduced the video topic to photo-cameras with the (back than) groundbreaking (!) Canon 5D Mark II.



The 5D/II may have been “FF” and 1080 and he goes on to talk about that in the next sentence, but that’s not what he said initially. Now, if it had said something like Canon introduced “FF” 1080p video in a photo camera, then that’s different.

I’m not trying to say that the 5D/II isn’t really important in the history of video, but Canon still wasn‘t the first to introduce video in a DSLR.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 12, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> No it didn’t. Re-read his first sentence of that paragraph.
> 
> 
> The 5D/II may have been “FF” and 1080 and he goes on to talk about that in the next sentence, but that’s not what he said initially. Now, if it had said something like Canon introduced “FF” 1080p video in a photo camera, then that’s different.
> ...



"Its also happening for more than a decade and *Canon themself introduced the video topic to photo-cameras with the (back than) groundbreaking (!) Canon 5D Mark II*. It offered Full-HD recording on a fullframe - something completely unimaginable at the time. "

It's really not that hard to understand. It truly is not.


----------



## H. Jones (Apr 15, 2020)

RunAndGun said:


> Okay, maybe my standards are different than a lot of others, because I’ve been doing this so long and a huge part of how good a tool is at doing it’s job is how well the tool itself is designed to allow me to work and just get out of my way. Just because you can kludge a DSLR rig together to net you a decent end product or give you similar functionality still doesn’t mean its good at the job. You can take a screwdriver and drive a nail if you really want to, but it would have been a lot easier and quicker to use a hammer and more than likely you would have gotten better results.
> 
> I know that I’m one of a dying breed, but it gives me good perspective, because I was around a good decade+ before the DSLR revolution. I watched it happen and I’m still here, now. So, I’ve used all the different tools and I know the shortcomings and trade offs/compromises and benefits of the different tools and I can make an informed decision and form an opinion on whether a certain tool is good or better in a certain situation or not or just plain better than another overall. A lot of people today have never used dedicated professional video/cinema cameras and justify the frankenrig DSLR’s mostly because of the money and lack of experience with the dedicated tools.



At work our video team uses C100s, C300s, and mostly C200s alongside the entire catalog of Cinema lenses. But, even with all their literal hundreds of thousands in cinema gear, they also use the EOS R and the 5D Mark IV religiously. Like gimbal work, mounting cameras in various spaces, handheld work, putting a camera on a 10 foot pole and sticking it in the air, and countless other scenarios where they just generally prefer the DSLR format. And that's even with the somewhat "limited" video specs of the EOS R, which would still be incredibly challenging to spot the difference in a shot between the C200 and the EOS R in any of their published work.

This choice they make isn't because of a lack of experience, and definitely isn't because of a lack of budget, it's time tested additional functionality and we use whatever we need to use to get the shots we want in the way we want. It also seriously helps when you're packing to be mobile and can fit many more of these smaller camera rigs alongside one or two of the bigger ones. I know of plenty of shoots where in a quick set up they've only worked off the DSLRs/MILCs for various reasons or we've quickly swapped cameras between videographers and photographers.

I see absolutely 0 reason these cameras shouldn't be considered for professional video work and have whatever features they possibly can to support that mission.

We're all very excited for the R5, and it's nice that even if the R5 is $4000 we could buy four of them for the cost of one of a single C500 Mark II that the video team is considering, with the benefit of having them available for both my coworkers and I in our photo team and for our video team.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 16, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> At work our video team uses C100s, C300s, and mostly C200s alongside the entire catalog of Cinema lenses. But, even with all their literal hundreds of thousands in cinema gear, they also use the EOS R and the 5D Mark IV religiously. Like gimbal work, mounting cameras in various spaces, handheld work, putting a camera on a 10 foot pole and sticking it in the air, and countless other scenarios where they just generally prefer the DSLR format. And that's even with the somewhat "limited" video specs of the EOS R, which would still be incredibly challenging to spot the difference in a shot between the C200 and the EOS R in any of their published work.
> 
> This choice they make isn't because of a lack of experience, and definitely isn't because of a lack of budget, it's time tested additional functionality and we use whatever we need to use to get the shots we want in the way we want. It also seriously helps when you're packing to be mobile and can fit many more of these smaller camera rigs alongside one or two of the bigger ones. I know of plenty of shoots where in a quick set up they've only worked off the DSLRs/MILCs for various reasons or we've quickly swapped cameras between videographers and photographers.
> 
> ...



Please re-read my post. I talk about making a decision and determining if a tool is a good(best) choice In a situation. There have been plenty of times where I’ve used one of my 5D’s in a tight/hide situation or just as an additional lock-off angle in interviews. Heck, if you looked at my dinning room table right now you’d see sitting on top of it a 5DmkIV bolted to a Ronin S.


----------

