# Can Canon Cinema EOS Keep Up?



## DanThePhotoMan (Sep 14, 2014)

So with Photokina going on this week, I can't help but wonder what Canon has planned for the Cinema EOS line, especially after the announcement at IBC about the Sony FS7. I've mainly been doing documentary work the last few years, and the C300 has been one of the most popular cameras I've seen among other documentary shooters, but I think it's quite clear that spec wise it just doesn't hold its own against the newer gen cameras from other companies. 

I had been eye balling the C300/500 for a while, but wound up going with the A7s because of the smaller form factor (pretty important at the time as we ran into some trouble trying to get an HPX-250 through customs in India) and cheap 4k ability available next month. No regrets whatsoever there.

I'm a Canon boy at heart, and I would love to stay with them. I was planning on waiting to see what their next line of cinema bodies would bring as I'm not in a rush to buy anything, but the Sony FS7 really started to change my mind. Personally, I just don't see how Canon can match the specs of that camera at that price point, especially after seeing how much of a lack luster upgrade the 7Dmk2 received. Though that may not be a fair comparison between the 7Dmk2 and the next cinema camera, and I know Canon must have been pretty serious to jump into the cinema world as they did, but I just simply feel like they have not shown anywhere near the amount of innovation in order to keep up with other companies in the cinema world. The C100-500 are amazing cameras for what they are, there's no doubting that, but I just keep feel like they continue to be dwarfed by every single new announcement from other companies.

Who knows, they may announce something this week at Photokina and blow us all away, but I truly feel like if they gave us something that was half of a real upgrade with no 4k but added 1080p @ 60fps, I wouldn't be surprised at all.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 14, 2014)

Canon C300 and C500 are designed to work on video serious and offer ergonomics, autonomy recording, line of lenses, etc., that do not offer photographic cameras. When you have a shooting schedule quite critical, and one day lag costs several thousand dollars, cinematographic cameras are unsurpassed.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Sep 14, 2014)

Absolutely, and agree with you. But look at this spec list real quick:

-Super 35mm Sensor
-UHD 3840 x 2160 at launch (DCI 4K is planned for early 2015)
-Dynamic Range: 14 Stops
-Base Sensitivity: ISO 2000
-Internal 4K XAVC 10-bit 4:2:2 (Intra/Long GOP) up to 60fps
-1080p up to 180fps
-MPEG HD, 4:2:2, 50 Mbps (HD only)
-Apple ProRes (with future upgrade and XDCA-FS7 extension unit)
-12-bit 4K or 2K RAW recording (with XDCA-FS7 extension unit and external recorder)
-Slow & Quick Motion for over-and under-cranking
-Dual XQD card slots (with dual recording support)
-Supports S-Gamut3Cine/S-Log 3 encoding
-Environmentally sealed electronics
-Built-In ND Filters

That's Sony's new FS7. Just go head and compare that the C300 for a second. Now, the FS7 body costs $8,000.00 vs the newly reduced C300 body for $11,999. Looking at that, why in the world would anyone choose the C300?

I know I'm starting to sound like a Sony fan boy, but I'm not trying to. I have a bag full of L glass and love my 5Dmk3 and 6D to death, but on a spec vs price ratio, it is ever increasingly making less and less sense to stay with Canon for the Cinema line when for the same price as the C300 I can get a body, external recorder for uncompressed 4k, and a lens.


----------



## Policar (Sep 15, 2014)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> Absolutely, and agree with you. But look at this spec list real quick:
> 
> -Super 35mm Sensor
> -UHD 3840 x 2160 at launch (DCI 4K is planned for early 2015)
> ...



These cameras are all investments. Once enough of your clients are asking for 4k that you feel you'd make more money investing in 4k, invest.

I do think Canon has nicer colors and the codecs are much more manageable (had a really rough time posting with F5 footage and found the camera difficult to work with on set, too) but if you need these specs, this is sure a lot cheaper than the competition! Remember, though, that the XDCA-FS7 is a necessary requirement to get timecode sync, and that's the key differentiating factor between the C100 and C300 (and the FS700 and F5).

If I had clients asking for 4k I'd take a good look at this. If you do, it looks like an awesome choice! The sample footage looks really bland to me, but I thick SLOG3 seems like a big enough improvement on SLOG2 (which I found quite awful) that it might be less trouble getting nice looking footage out of this than people have gotten out of the F5 and FS700, both of which have very "video" colors, odd noise, and an unpleasant color channel clipping that certain varieties of SLOG3 have mitigated according to Art Adams.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Sep 15, 2014)

I definitely agree Policar, the footage looked bland, but I think the choice in lighting and post are at fault there. Who knows though, it could just literally be a terrible camera. I'll definitely have to see more footage before any decisions are made.

It's not even necessarily that I have clients asking for 4k. For instance, I'm leaving in two days to film a short documentary in Kampala, Uganda until early October. Being able to shoot an interview in 4k and editing in a 1080p timeline allows me cover a Medium, Medium Close, and Close Up, all with one camera. Granted, I would prefer having a two camera setup, but when you're the only operator and have to worry about bag restrictions on some of the smaller planes, as well as setup and tear down time, sometimes you can only have one camera with you. I don't even care so much for exporting in 4k as 90% of people who watch everything do it from barely HD laptop screens or their phones.


----------



## InterMurph (Sep 15, 2014)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> and cheap 4k ability available next month.


What do you mean by this? When you say "cheap 4k ability", I think "recording 4K to flash cards", like the Panasonic GH4.

But I haven't heard of such an announcement; is it something else?

Thanks.


----------



## peederj (Sep 15, 2014)

*peederj*

Canon already have all the required technology in the C500. That huge heatsink I think is purely a decoy, made to make it look like they had to strain to get 4K HFR out of the C100 form factor. They likely didn't, it's just a way of assuring upsales.

The things Canon didn't have in the C500 are instructive: a 4K codec and a storage format for one. They just had the same 50mbit MXF 1080p30 of the C300 onboard, and let you record 4K outboard. Tech has moved forward though and now there's Cfast and plenty of codec options for them to choose from. They could leave everything else as it is, just upgrade the line with Cfast cards and a 4K/HFR codec and call it C200/400/600. The sensor is already a 4K/HFR capable sensor as demonstrated in the C500.

I hope the ergonomics get a refresh too though because they really aren't shoulder-mount capable cams. The Sony FS7 shows how a cam should be set up...we shouldn't have to go to Zacuto for a relocatable EVF, a grip relocator, a shoulder pad or basic rails. And a power zoom rocker on the grip, movable DPAF points, the basic ergonomic complaints we had with the 1st gen C series should all be addressed in this refresh. Aaton cat-on-the-shoulder balanced design please.

But if Canon don't have the next line ready they can just upgrade the storage format and codec to remain relevant. If the C500 is already at max spec externally they could just leave it as-is until they have a new design. They have to do something right away though because the 4K train has left the station.


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Sep 15, 2014)

InterMurph said:


> DanThePhotoMan said:
> 
> 
> > and cheap 4k ability available next month.
> ...



I'm talking about the Atomos Shogun. It allows the A7s to record 24fps at 4k ProRes 4:2:2. It's $2,000.00 for the recorder and $2,500.00 for the A7s, so that's $5,500.00 for absolutely beautiful 4k with the best lowlight in the business. Just don't plan on shooting any action sequences with it, the rolling shutter is horrid.

But, that's relatively cheap 4k. Not flashcard cheap though; that would be great.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 18, 2014)

As a Canon guy I really am jealous of this Sony FS7 offering, though to be honest, we are comparing a 2014 model to a 2011 model. I find it very hard for me to justify investing in a camera for this business without it being 4K and raw. Even if 4K is not here yet, it will be, and spending more than 5K in a 1080p just seems like a bad investment business-wise at this truning point. I know clients are going to start asking for it, and I know that I personally will love having it, so I am not willing to pass on 4K just to find out I need to upgrade next year, this makes the C line (except c500 and 1Dc) a very dangerous investment right now when they're three years old and not new and shiny with the latest market buzz (4K). 

I am one of the ones who do believe there'a something special about Canon colour science. But I am sure with some effort I can get a Sony to look just as good, it will take some practising though. 

I would think twice before investing in a C100/300 right now where the FS7 is a very wise and safe bet.


----------



## Waterdonkey (Sep 23, 2014)

DanThePhotoMan said:


> Absolutely, and agree with you. But look at this spec list real quick:
> 
> -Super 35mm Sensor
> -UHD 3840 x 2160 at launch (DCI 4K is planned for early 2015)
> ...



YUP +1


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 23, 2014)

A lot of you guys are far more technically savvy than I am in these areas, but could it be that Canon know that 4K is going to go away very fast, and are spending their R&D money on 8k?

It is said that Windows 9 will support 8K resolution:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/windows-9-support-8k-display-resolution-improved-dpi-scaling-1466483

And Dell recently announced a 5K display:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/05/dell-5k-ultrasharp-display/

And yet not many of us at all have got TV that can give us 4K content. 

Could Canon be focussing on a market that is not yet here yet, as the 4K market, in my eyes at least, looks like it is going to be swallowed up pretty fast?


----------



## peederj (Sep 24, 2014)

The 5K displays allow full-res editing of 4K with some "chrome" (UI controls) around it. They are just a doubling of the equivalent 30 inch display resolutions from the HD era (2560x1600 or something like that).

8K is more or less ridiculous I doubt delivery of motion will exceed 4K at least to consumers. There will be some IMAX-style theaters with 8K perhaps.

But sooner than 8K is 6K, that's out already in the Alexa 65 and the RED Dragon. This extra resolution will allow repo (reframing in post) and stabilization for a 4K deliverable.

Post (CGI/VFX/Roto etc.) pipelines for 4K are still rare. 2K/HD is going to be used for a while and if upscaled well it can work too. We like 24p because of the blur remember.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 24, 2014)

peederj said:


> 8K is more or less ridiculous I doubt delivery of motion will exceed 4K at least to consumers.



Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.

I think if Windows 9 is going to support 8k resolution displays, then I am sure that the GPU cards needed will eventually be made, as will the displays themselves, then the cameras and memory cards and all the marketing that goes with this enormous wheel of industry and commerce to tell us how much we need 8k.

We may not need any of this, but it is coming, and probably sooner than we think.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 24, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.



Of course, you can see the difference, but its how far you are sitting to see this difference. Not to mention screen size. Apple's retina display, the ratio - screen resolution : screen size is variable to suit minimum viewing distance. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display

In my honest opinion, I don't think 4K TVs will catch on...
Not only is there a lack of 4K content, but people will not see the value. Sure the price of 4K TVs are dropping, but seriously... 1080p came out at the perfect time. People were upgrading their TVs, they wanted larger televisions, flat screen and obviously 16:9 widescreen TVs... which only started appearing after 2001. Even then it was pretty thick, remember those 4:3 tube TVs? That wasn't too long ago. The massive transition from 4:3 tube TVs to 16:9 flat screen TVs was the real reason of the acceptance of 1080p.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 25, 2014)

4K is not going away. It's here to stay as the next standard for video resolution at both cinema and TV. Not yet but soon, and I also believe the push beyond 4K will not happen soon and 4K will be a standard for a very very long time. 

As the technology companies are pushing 4K, I can gurantee you that in a year or two, people will buy a TV that just happens to have 4K, and the same with cameras, all cameras will shoot 4K therefore content will be readily available everywhere, from mobile phone cameras to reds/alexas. 

4K is the next medium, it's not going away like 3D. It's the sweet spot and the push to 8K will not happen for a very very long time. If I am investing in a camera for my video business I definitely want it to be 4K otherwise it's a very short-term investment. I would only buy a 1080p camera for consumer prices under 3000$ for example because I could use it for a year or so where 1080p is still the standard. 

If you shoot 4K once it's very hard to go back. The resolution advantage you get from downscaling to 1080p is lovely, the reframing ability, panning, stabilization, keying advantage, it's just better even if you're not outputing in 4K. Think of it as we do in the photography world, while most of our work is not output in 20 megapixels, we prefer to have that extra resolution for many reasons, even if we're outputing 2mp files to FB. Televisions are not smaller than large prints now, why should be accept 2 megapixels while photographers don't accept less than 20+? Perfect 2 megapixel images can look stunning, but 8 megapixels is a much more reasonable resolution and it IS the next standard. Canon surely knows that and in a couple of years their entire line up will shoot 4K video, they jist are always a bit slower than other companies like Sony, but when they do it they do it in the correct time and deliver an excellent product, conservative company but reliable. They are not always conservative though and they did make the first 4K DSLR years before panasonic and Sony made theirs, it's easy to forget. 4K will come to the C line upgrades first, then probably to their consumer camcorder line, then to the DSLR line starting with the 5D mk IV and trickling down the line to the rebels, then to their point&shoots. I think it will take a long time, perhaps 3-4 years unfortunately.


----------



## peederj (Sep 25, 2014)

8K video is over 33 megapixels. Canon still don't have a stills camera that shoots that.

There is a certain quantity called "enough" and I think 4K is about that. 24/48 audio is already enough. There are post processes that benefit from a larger capture resolution and processing space. But for consumer delivery 4K video may be standard for decades, most likely the change from there isn't just going to be resolution (it will be holodeck etc.).


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 25, 2014)

mkabi said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.
> ...



I agree 100%, I was just quoting things I heard when video on the web started becoming just a little popular, which is why I said "when people were saying", as they are the things I heard.

I have always shot video in 1080p as it is always better to future proof whatever you are making. When I have a camera than can shoot 4K I will do the same, as it is better to downsize that to 1080p if necessary or just keep at 4k if the file sizes etc permit.

I think the advancement of technology is great, and while 4K will be around for a long time, I think it will not remain the top res for as long as 1080p has, which is why I would not be surprised to hear about cameras which shoot at even higher than 4k in the not so distant future.

If Windows 9 is going to support 8K resolution then my thinking is that some companies will just jump to that. I, and many others will not buy a 4K TV as my relatively new 1080p TV is fine for now. 4 or 5 years then I may change.

Like I said I am not good at the physics and maths behind all this, I just have a feeling that 4K will not be the "top" res for as long as some think it may be.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 26, 2014)

expatinasia said:


> I, and many others will not buy a 4K TV as my relatively new 1080p TV is fine for now.



Oh yeah, I'm in the same predicament. I'm planning on waiting for 8K before upgrading my television, and hopefully by then, televisions will be some nano technology, paper thin material that you plaster on the wall.

I don't know what it is with people nowadays... its definitely G.A.S.
But people are going through technology like cell phones, it used to be computers....
In any case, when I buy something, I hope it lasts me 10 years as long as it gets the job done. Cars, television, cameras...

I mean don't get me wrong... if you're a professional and your profession's sustainability involves being with the top of the line tech. then by all means. But if you can do the same job as the next guy with something old and inexpensive... then do it and be proud that you saved that bit of money.

You have to think about retirement...

I will admit, I have G.A.S. too. And, I want a 1D-C... and spec wise the 7DII is only 4 fps short, crop and missing 4K. But are those enough to pay a premium of $8300 more? Hell no. And, I know with the current system I have... it will not support 4K. By the way, I run on 8 Xeon cores running at 3Ghz, 25Gb of RAM and 2 SSDs on a MAC.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Oct 5, 2014)

The 1DC has all the advantages the 1Dx has over the 7D. Plus, in video it delivers an entirely different league of image quality, even beyond the C100/C300. The APS-H 4K mode that works great up to 12,800 ISO is absolutely unique, with the infamous canon colours, great resolution and dynamic range, it's a very very filmic image that is up there with highest-end cinema cameras today. The super 35mm crop looks exactly identical to the C300 in C log, it's one of the best 1080p images out there, not to mention on DSLRs. The full frame mode looks crap though, very similar to the 5D and 7D mk II, good but a whole different league. 

The 1Dc would be the perfect camera if they put in some focus and exposure assist features, plus an articulating screen. Why not!


----------



## SPG (Oct 18, 2014)

Are we comparing a camera that isn't even available yet to one that came out three years ago? Or are we comparing one that isn't out yet to one that hasn't even been rumored?


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Oct 21, 2014)

Yes we are. Because these are the offerings from each company NOW. The C300 vs FS7 is a very valid comparison now, and one that many will be interested in. When a C400 comes we will compare that to the FS7, but for now the c300.


----------



## joe1946 (Oct 24, 2014)

mkabi said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely agree with you there, but I also remember very clearly when people were saying similar things about 1080p. Things like why bother, shoot in 720p, nobody can tell the difference etc.
> ...


In a few years most TVs will be 4K UHD and most smartphones and cameras will shoot 4K UHD video.


----------



## Niki (Oct 24, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> The 1DC has all the advantages the 1Dx has over the 7D. Plus, in video it delivers an entirely different league of image quality, even beyond the C100/C300. The APS-H 4K mode that works great up to 12,800 ISO is absolutely unique, with the infamous canon colours, great resolution and dynamic range, it's a very very filmic image that is up there with highest-end cinema cameras today. The super 35mm crop looks exactly identical to the C300 in C log, it's one of the best 1080p images out there, not to mention on DSLRs. The full frame mode looks crap though, very similar to the 5D and 7D mk II, good but a whole different league.
> 
> The 1Dc would be the perfect camera if they put in some focus and exposure assist features, plus an articulating screen. Why not!



+1

I shooting advertising…with kodak..super 35mm for high end…and for everything else c300 (i mentioned this before) I have used the 1dc and thought the same thing…if only it had more features it could replace the c300 and I could also use it for stills


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 24, 2014)

peederj said:


> 8K video is over 33 megapixels. Canon still don't have a stills camera that shoots that.
> 
> There is a certain quantity called "enough" and I think 4K is about that. 24/48 audio is already enough. There are post processes that benefit from a larger capture resolution and processing space. But for consumer delivery 4K video may be standard for decades, most likely the change from there isn't just going to be resolution (it will be holodeck etc.).


If I did work for recording in studios of Hollyood, I would invest in 8K in the near future.
Why? 
Because the display screens in theaters is the same size of a bus. But why not get excited with 4K? 
Because homes today do not have (and never will) screens the size of a 4-door car, which would show overt improvements compared to 1080P.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 24, 2014)

joe1946 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



How many Full HD channels exist?
Note: Look at your local cable company, are they fooling you with HD channels?
Remember HD is 720p & Full HD is 1080p.

Here, let me help you, click this link & scroll down to chart to see what channels offer 1080p.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States

And, 1080i isn't 1080p.
1080i is actually almost as good as 720p or worse.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/1080i_vs_720p

SO... content wise... few have caught up to 1080p.
What makes you so sure that 4K will be here in a few years?


----------



## joe1946 (Oct 25, 2014)

mkabi said:


> joe1946 said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...


4K UHD TVs will outsell 1080p TVs within two years. Just because Canon does not have any 4K cameras under $9,000 does not mean 4K is dead. There are millions of 4K cameras sold every month to consumers and 4K UHD TVs will be a hot seller this Holiday season.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 25, 2014)

Sales of 4K TVs not reach 1% of the total market. In the future may reach 5 or 10%.
Let's talk honestly... How many people have room for a 80 inch TV in the living room, and the necessary distance to the couch? 

The future is 4K display on giant screens in theaters. However, 8K is possibly better suited for that use. This reminds me of the video cameras 720P, which never became hegemonic because most preferred to the direct jump from 480 to 1080 resolution.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 25, 2014)

joe1946 said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > joe1946 said:
> ...



Dude are you listening to what I am saying?

Forget Canon not producing 4K cameras under $9,000. Just forget it, Canon doesn't produce TVs either.

Listen carefully now.
There is NO cable channel producing 1080p signal, why do you think that all of a sudden that TV channels will suddenly produce 4K signals? Do you think that because Panasonic has 4K cameras under $2000 that will suddenly make Cable channels 4K????


----------



## joe1946 (Oct 25, 2014)

mkabi said:


> joe1946 said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...


Dude, you are 100% wrong.
"It’s not just the manufacturers saying this, either. For instance, AV industry legend Joe Kane, of Joe Kane Productions, stated during a presentation at the recent IFA technology show in Berlin that ‘a year or two from now you won’t be able to buy a 1080p TV.’

Where sales are concerned, 4K TVs have already achieved a 6% global sales penetration despite currently costing considerably more than 1080p TVs. And with 4K prices plummeting daily and 4K panels rapidly supplanting 1080p ones on shop shelves, this 4K penetration figure is going to explode in the next 12-24 months"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/09/12/the-ps4-and-xbox-one-are-already-out-of-date/


----------



## mkabi (Oct 25, 2014)

Alright Joe1946, lets use some common sense... hopefully you dont' need to quote anyone.
Suppose I gave you $7000 tomorrow.

Thats enough to buy a Gh4 and a 4K TV, right?
Hopefully a 65 inch 4K TV, no?

You are going to film in 4K with the Gh4, and you are going to edit the 4K video on your computer. Then how are you going to put this 4K video that you made on this 4K TV?

Stream it from your computer?
Hook your 65 inch TV directly to the computer?

How many 4K videos can you make that will entertain you on a constant basis?
How many 4K videos can you contain on your hard-drive?

EDITTED TO ADD: It may be true, there may not be a 1080p TV available to purchase down the road, it may be replaced by affordable 4K TVs. But given that you already have a 1080p set, in working and good condition, would you go and buy another TV? And, if you do get a 4K TV, are you using it to its full potential? I mean, I believe that I am using my 1080p to its full potential simply by playing Blu-ray movies... but I don't know if I can get 4K content if I go buy a 4K TV tomorrow.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 25, 2014)

One more thing... I would like to add...
Joe1946, I am glad you posted that link...

I can forgive Microsoft with their X-box One...
But Sony, seriously? They should be pushing 4K with the PS4. So dissappointed in Sony... what the hell? You have 4K TVs, you have a 4K Cameras... and what do you do to one of the most well received gaming console??


----------



## tom1 (Apr 7, 2015)

> they jist are always a bit slower than other companies like Sony, but when they do it they do it in the correct time and deliver an excellent product, conservative company but reliable.



Yes you are right , but there is something more -price new product is always so expensive , all other company quickly go down with price , but canon keep ridiculous price so long . Look for c300 just now price drop , this camera has only 50i


----------



## Tinky (Apr 16, 2015)

When Canon launched the c300 mk1 a lot of people scoffed that it was only only 1080, and that there were then already cheaper 4k options.

I'm a working cameraman, at that point I worked for Europes largest news publisher, so I was on a lot of shoots, press launches, sports events (manager q&a sessions etc)

It seemed then and seems now that everybody was using c300's. The popularity was in spite of what I was reading on forums, probably written by folk who had handled a spec sheet but never been near a c300 in their sleep.

At that point I was shooting on a mix of ENG, XF and DSLr, and I'll confess that I've only used the c300 on a handful of occassions.

But the success of the camera, to my mind, depended on a few factors, and I think these still apply today to a greater of lesser degree to the mk2, which is facing the same negativity, despite very few folk actually having used one in the wild:

- 50i codec low compression codec. It's what broadcast wants, and what DSLRs cannot deliver
- complete solution, one battery, one record button, good audio built in, works out of the box
- lens compatability, no need for flakey third party adaptors, lenses work as they should
- compact form (no plinths, no guddle of cables to fail)
- iq. High but clean base iso with built in filtration (no horrible fader nds)
- transparent design. Operators can get a good handle on the camera immediately.

Now, none of these are headline features, and not one of them is unique to the c300, and the same is true of the c300mk2.

They are a staid, sensible choice. One might say even dull. 

But look at it this way... your lenses just work, your editor can cut straight away without transcoding, you can bump up the iso without gritting your teeth, you lift it out your bag, switch it on and hit record, you don't need metabones (version 5 are we on now?) you don't need a battery the same size as the camera or an external recorder.

I can't think of another camera that ticks all of these boxes, not costing at least double or triple the money.

There are some great bits of kit been launched, it continues to be an exciting market. There are better cameras, but they are costing more money. Much more money.

There are cheaper cameras that seem to offer more, but which past experience tells me will either be buggy, impossible to get hold of, require severe adaptation, or have terrible iq.

Canon, by being conservative, and by making kit that people actually need TO MAKE A LIVING TODAY, and which PEOPLE CAN DEPEND ON TODAY, actually lead the market.

The Op asked, 'can canon keep up?', with whom? The Joneses? Why on earth would they want to do that?

I predict that the c300mk2 will be something less of a success than the mk1', mainly because the only real upgrade incentive is 4k, which people at a factual / news / general broadcast level don't need, and their c300 mk1s are plodding along quite happily.

The cinema moniker to me is something of a misnomer. Despite every 20 year old being a DoP these days, there are still many wner operator camerramen, and the majority aren't getting work in the movies. And besides, thats more where I would expect to see your hired f65s, your hired alexas.


----------

