# Canon U.S.A., Inc. Introduces New Flagship EOS C700 Cinema Camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 1, 2016)

```
<em>Ideal for Major 4K Cinema, Television, and On-Demand Streaming Productions</em></p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>MELVILLE, N.Y., September 1, 2016</strong> – Canon U.S.A., Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, announced today the next step in the evolution of the Cinema EOS family of professional cinematography products with the new EOS C700, EOS C700 PL and EOS C700 GS PL cinema cameras.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Featuring a completely new, customizable, modular design, the EOS C700 meets the demands of today’s productions – from feature films to documentaries to episodic dramas. The EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL cameras feature a Super 35mm 4.5K sensor<sup>1</sup> with wide dynamic range, and can be ideal for productions requiring 4K UHD TV or 4K DCI cinema deliverables. The EOS C700 GS PL features a Super 35mm 4K sensor with a global shutter to enable the distortion-free capture of subjects moving at high speeds. In addition to supporting the earlier XF-AVC<sup>2</sup> recording format, the cameras also support Apple<sup>®</sup> ProRes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Recognizing that customers today demand flexibility and the ability to respond to the changing needs of productions, the EOS C700 allows users to convert between EF mount and PL mounts, and between a standard CMOS image sensor and a global shutter CMOS image sensor at Canon service facilities<sup>3</sup>. The EF lens mount provides compatibility with Canon’s diverse lineup of over 70 interchangeable EF lenses as well as enabling use of Canon’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF technology. While the EOS C700 PL and EOS C700 GS PL allow use of industry-standard PL lenses and compatibility with Cooke /i metadata communication technology.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><!--more--></p>
<p dir="ltr">For those wanting to shoot and deliver High Dynamic Range (HDR)<sup>4</sup> content, the EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL are ideal – providing 15 stops of latitude<sup>5</sup>, Canon’s proprietary Log Gammas (Canon Log3, Canon Log2 and Canon Log) and renowned color science. Additionally, these cameras seamlessly integrate with Canon’s professional 4K displays (DP-V2420, DP-V2410 or DP-V1770) for on-set color management and review that conforms to SMPTE ST 2084<sup>6</sup> standards of HDR display.</p>
<p dir="ltr">To complement these powerful new acquisition tools, Canon has turned to its trusted partner Codex to provide a fully-integrated (no cables) recording and workflow option. The combination of the EOS C700 camera with the optional Codex CDX-36150 recorder allows for high-speed 4.5K RAW recording at up to 100FPS, 4K RAW at up to 120FPS, 4K ProRes at up to 60FPS, 2K ProRes at up to 240FPS and XF-AVC at up to 60FPS.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Canon’s new EOS C700, EOS C700 PL and EOS C700 GS PL are the first Cinema EOS cameras to support anamorphic shooting  by utilizing a “de-squeeze” function for monitoring<sup>7</sup>, making possible the creation of images with the 2.39:1 aspect ratio typical of cinema productions. Furthermore, enabling Full HD high-frame-rate recording at a maximum of 240 fps (crop<sup>8</sup>), the camera enables smooth playback, even when slowed down, for great emotional visual expression.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Along with the announcement of these cameras, Canon is also introducing optional accessories OLED 1920×1080 Electronic View Finder EVF-V70, Remote Operation Unit OU-700, Shoulder Support Unit SU-15, Shoulder Style Grip Unit SG-1 and B4 mount adapters MO-4E/MO-4P.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL are currently expected to go on sale in December 2016, while the EOS C700 GS PL is currently expected to go on sale in January 2017. The EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL will have a list of $35,000.00 each** and the EOS C700 GS PL will have a list price of $38,000.00**.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## melbournite (Sep 1, 2016)

*Introducing the Canon Cinema EOS C700 Digital Cinema Camera*

Haven't seen an article on it here yet, so just thought I'd share. Wow, it even makes a photographer drool. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nhrG48Y86Y


----------



## drama (Sep 1, 2016)

$30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.


----------



## LordofTackle (Sep 1, 2016)

Hm, i don't have any real experience with video but one thing that struck me: why don't they offer the EF mount version with the global shutter sensor? ???


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 1, 2016)

This is a great day for Red users, who get the same features for half the money, or much better specs for the same money.


----------



## Bernard (Sep 1, 2016)

drama said:


> $30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.



It's aimed at rental houses and big budget productions.
Motion pictures don't buy cameras, they rent them. This camera competes with Arriflex and Panavision cameras.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

Bernard said:


> drama said:
> 
> 
> > $30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.
> ...



I've seen REDs on ebay still up in the $20k range. ARRIs are even more expensive. Sony F55 is also in this same range. There's a quite a bit of a market it's aimed at. I just can't speak for how competitive all the specs are because I don't know a ton about that industry's demands.


----------



## HarveVideoStuff (Sep 1, 2016)

Bernard said:


> drama said:
> 
> 
> > $30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.
> ...



It doesn't compete with the aforementioned cameras at all. Right now Canon are announcing a barrage of disappointing new products, 5d4, xc15 and now this! All under spec'ed and generally disappointing


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 1, 2016)

This Canon 2017 model pretty much does the same as the Red Epic MX I ordered in 2011.
Not impressive when at the same time there will be a 6K GH5 for 5% of the price of the C700.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 1, 2016)

Not been able to find out the sensor dimensions if its full height S.35 then it has a fighting chance for anamorphic if its not then no it will not. 

This camera hardly moves the game on from the 2012 Sony F55 with a similar form factor (the F55 also has a new 4K raw recorder from September), it doesn't match Red particularly the new Helium sensor for the Dragon & Weapon and is way behind the Alexa MINI, Alexa SXT and the announced Panavision DXL, sure all those cameras have a rolling shutter (not the F55) but in practise this has not been an issue. 

It will do well in TV but I'm not so sure in Cinema, I don't know of a single film production using Canon CN lenses and I suspect its mainly going to disrupt Sony F55 business either in sales or rental.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 1, 2016)

Bernard said:


> drama said:
> 
> 
> > $30,000 without the modules? And with those codecs? I have no idea who this is aimed at.
> ...


Neither Arri or Panavision are going to lose any sleep, .5K more than the 2012 Sony F55, dual pixel but otherwise almost identical spec.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 1, 2016)

With just a S35 sensor will it be able to do anamorphic? For 2x i thought you needed something more like a 4:3 sensor (thinking of my GH4 here).


----------



## Meatcurry (Sep 1, 2016)

The fact that the sensor is changeable/upgradable may be the game changer here?


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 1, 2016)

Did anyone else catch that the 15 stop dynamic range only applies to the normal CMOS shutter? The global shutter sensor's dynamic range is never mentioned. So, it's a choice of dynamic range or global shutter, but not both.

"The EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL cameras feature a Super 35mm 4.5K sensor1 with wide dynamic range..."

"The EOS C700 GS PL features a Super 35mm 4K sensor with a global shutter to enable the distortion-free capture of subjects moving at high speeds."

"...the EOS C700 and EOS C700 PL are ideal – providing 15 stops of latitude"


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 1, 2016)

Bad ass camera.

Crazy to think that many people wanted some of this stuff on the 5D Mark IV. That's definitely not realistic and we gotta pay for that stuff. People on Youtube with "Oh it should have this" checklist stuff are lame. 

RED cameras are upgradeable, too. It's nothing new. 4K, 4.5K, 6K, and 8K resolution truly does not matter at this level of filmmaking. Actually, it's irrelevant. 120 FPS is more than enough to do great slo-mo.

The higher price is about color science, dynamic range, and work flow. Basically, we have to pay for that distinctive look that cannot be recreated in post and by any other camera. Apply any type of LUT you want, but the skin tone and certain colors cannot be matched. Canon cannot recreate ARRI's look and vice versa. Same goes for RED.

Canon feels confident that they can compete with ARRI. That's cool. I need to see more demos.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> Bad ass camera.
> 
> Crazy to think that many people wanted some of this stuff on the 5D Mark IV. That's definitely not realistic and we gotta pay for that stuff. People on Youtube with "Oh it should have this" checklist stuff are lame.
> 
> ...


 No people really wanted a useful codec and a log profile. Software that is was already out on other cameras for years.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Sep 1, 2016)

Everything with this is cool and all, but there's one question I have. Does it have a loud cooling fan that kicks in after a few minutes of shooting?


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 1, 2016)

> No people really wanted a useful codec and a log profile. Software that is was already out on other cameras for years.



I get it. 

Before I stepped on to Canon's products, I researched Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, and BlackMagic before committing. It came down to the lens and how Canon only updates their cameras once every 4 years. I liked that. There is no rush for me and I don't have to spend money quickly like Sony updating their stuff every 14 months.

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

If you want useful codecs and logs, we have to buy the C100-C300 line. Canon made their message crystal clear with the 5D Mark IV. Hell, we should have gotten the message with the 5D Mark III. When the 5D Mark II was making huge steps in filmmaking, the C100 and C300 did not even exist. 

BUT, the 5D Mark IV is still a great filmmaking camera for internet work, documentaries, events, weddings, and run N gun promo. Hollywood will still use the 5D Mark IV because it's very affordable. If I had the Canon 5D Mark IV right now, I definitely will NOT buy the Canon C series. Canon did not want us to think that so...

Canon wanted to have another avenue for money hence the Cinema series with everything that filmmakers want. The 5D line will never be a serious Camera A for filmmakers like us, but we can still make some damn good film stuff with the Mark IV though. Again, it's a great camera depending on what type of filmmaker you are.


----------



## SchnauzerFace (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> 4K, 4.5K, 6K, and 8K resolution truly does not matter at this level of filmmaking. Actually, it's irrelevant.



Eh, not so sure I agree. When doing any sort of compositing, the difference between 4K and 8K is far from irrelevant.

The happy reaction: This looks like a fantastic camera and I hope to get my hands on it (or, more likely, my hands on footage) sooner rather than later.

The more honest reaction: This looks great, but it's not the Arri-killer people were expecting. Good specs all around, but it's not the leap forward that Canon needed if they wanted to really announce themselves as a serious contender in features. RED and Arri could release incremental upgrades -- they've already got every DP's attention. But Canon doesn't have the feature market share to release a camera that's nothing more than "really nice."

15 stops of DR and Global Shutter and 4.5K RAW? Very, very cool, but nothing about this screams louder than the competition, and it's not priced attractively for today's market. These specs and price point could have been a game-changer about 3 years ago, but there's too much competition and too much on the horizon for DP's to take this seriously as an Arri-killer.

Can't wait to see lots more test footage, and I can definitely see this finding a market in TV. But I fear Canon hit a triple when they really, really needed a home run.


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 1, 2016)

Editors were compositing well before 4K. I think we'll be fine at 4K. Anything after that is more butter. Filmmakers have to start thinking as a movie goer, "Hey does 4K, 8K make my story any better?"

NOPE. It doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant. The increased resolution magnifies the mistakes on screen. LOL.


----------



## SchnauzerFace (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> Editors were compositing well before 4K. I think we'll be fine.



True. Advances in technology are irrelevant and pointless because we used to get by with older equipment. 

Sent from my Typewriter.


----------



## SchnauzerFace (Sep 1, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> NOPE. It doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant. The increased resolution magnifies the mistakes on screen. LOL.



So I guess compositing = projection? Not talking about 8k projection. I'm talking about compositing. 

Lol?


----------



## bsbeamer (Sep 1, 2016)

Thanks for this distraction. I really wish I could afford this and the fast cinema zooms. Even on rental with typical project budgets it would be a stretch for most of my work.

Back to realistic budget planning...


----------



## preppyak (Sep 1, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> This Canon 2017 model pretty much does the same as the Red Epic MX I ordered in 2011.
> Not impressive when at the same time there will be a 6K GH5 for 5% of the price of the C700.


Actually, there wont be a 6k GH5, they've already confirmed that its just 4k.

That said, its hard not to agree. When a GH5 can deliver 4k/60 and internal 4:2:2 10bit for <$2000, its kind of crazy that Canon is just clearing some of these hurdles in their cine line. Its especially embarassing to see the XC15, which has a lesser sensor, lesser output options, and is priced over a GH5.


----------



## cpreston (Sep 1, 2016)

preppyak said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > This Canon 2017 model pretty much does the same as the Red Epic MX I ordered in 2011.
> ...



Yeah, but to my ears, the XC15 has a preamp noise floor that is a good 15dB less than the internal preamp on the GH5 and the XC15 has better noise reduction above 3200 ISO while maintaining the same DR. For some of us, that is worth the extra $500 price difference between the two cameras.


----------



## Policar (Sep 1, 2016)

SchnauzerFace said:


> Mr. Milo said:
> 
> 
> > NOPE. It doesn't even matter. It's irrelevant. The increased resolution magnifies the mistakes on screen. LOL.
> ...



I'm just curious what projects you're working on in 8k? The only thing I can think of would be the new Guardians of the Galaxy, which is rumored to be the first project finished above 4k.

In my experience most high end compositing and visual effects houses (on the highest end feature films) still finish at 2k or prefer to render CG elements at 2k because working in 4k is so much more expensive. Personally, I don't know anyone working in 8k now, but I'm not working on the ultra high end. (I work in network tv, cable, and web, which is all 1080p and 2k, also as a composition artist.)

Anyhow, interesting... I disagree with you in that I prefer to work at 2k because past that point the increase in cost for RAM, SSDs, monitoring ability, etc. grows exponentially, and all the shows I'm on finish 2k or 1080p with very rare exception of a 4k finish, which is difficult to monitor on a color accurate screen and the amount of extra RAM and SSD storage we've needed has slowed us down and been very costly. To be fair, I work pretty exclusively with Alexa footage, which only has an upscaled 4k mode that uses corners of the lens that can be problematic anyway. So for me and for tv other than Netflix, Which mandates 4k acquisition and finish, 2k seems far preferable for post and the sups and artists I work with (many having worked at ILM, Zoic, The Mill, Legendary, etc.) all agree. 

But it's interesting to hear that at the very highest end (and at this point you've sort of outed yourself as working on Guardians 2, because I can't think of anything else in post finishing above 4k) that the extra resolution is making a difference. What advantages do you find? What was missing from your previous workflows that is now available? Just curious, as I'm hoping to get into higher end work as my skill-set develops. 

I have had the opposite experience and it does make me reconsider some of my biases hearing that you've found a great improvement working in 8k. Given unlimited horsepower, I can see no downside to extra resolution, but I also don't see much difference above oversampled 4k for big screens and 2k for normal-sized screens visually... because lenses don't resolve far beyond that. But I get that you say the advantages are compositing-specific. But with Mocha and Boujou I'm already trying to cheat the solves by reducing the amount of information sampled at 2k to speed solves up, and I'm getting sub-pixel accurate tracks at 1080p that look no worse (or not visibly worse) than the same work done at a higher resolution and down sampled. I do agree that the lack of gate weave has made a huge difference in the transition from film to digital and that more is better all else being equal, but I haven't noticed any such improvements myself and feel like I must be doing something wrong if that's the case.


----------



## Camerasheik (Sep 1, 2016)

The problem Canon and others are faced with is something other industries have already faced. Technology is destroying their business model.

Look at cars, a modern mass produced car has levels of comfort, performance and reliability that twenty years ago was beyond the most exclusive hand crafted coach builders. Modern exclusive brands have to find different ways to justify their premium price. Some of the greatest marques have disappeared due to their inability to adapt to change.

Lenses tell a similar story, Sigma, Tamron and others are, thanks to computer aided design and manufacture, able to produce lenses with optical quality that can compare to the very best. All they currently lack is the AF algorithm. Once they crack that and they will, other than snob value how could you justify shelling out 3x £$ for L / Nikkor?

Bodies follow the same trajectory, it's quite clear that the computing power inside a EOS 5D iv, 1DX ii or D5 can handle all types of motion codecs. If a 5D iv can push 4K motion Jpeg through its pipes what could it do with an efficient codec? Canon are quite aware that if they released the true capability of the latest DSLRs it would cannibalise the high end Cxxx series.

The technology (hardware) is in the DSLR, the limits are entirely artificial. Panasonic, Olympus, Black Magic and god help us Fuji are breaking the model. Think Canon, think Hispano- Suiza. Who? Exactly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Suiza


----------



## cpreston (Sep 1, 2016)

Camerasheik said:


> If a 5D iv can push 4K motion Jpeg through its pipes what could it do with an efficient codec?



Probably overheat.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 1, 2016)

*Too little to late, says an opinion piece on News Shooter *http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/09/01/opinion-is-the-canon-c700-an-owneroperators-dream-camera-or-just-another-also-ran/

_"The problem I have with the C700 isn’t with the camera itself, it is with the timing. It’s like Canon engineers got in a DeLorean and went back to the future. The camera would have been a great option two to three years ago ... I applaud Canon for finally making a camera that I think people will like, but for me it is a case of too little, too late._


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.

[/quote]

This post shows the exakt problem:
Too many Canon users just seem to think that Canon products are a bit expensive.
In reality the prices would be justified, if Canon wouldn't artificially limit the specs in their products.
Canon does not implement a lot of important and convenient features, although they easily could do it.

It looks like they make innovation as slow as possible to milk consumers as long as possible.
Too many Canon photographers also don't seem to realize yet how great many video features could be for their photo work as well.
In many ways the Canon product range does not offer great functions of competitors like Sony, or makes them 5x as expensive:

- Filming and reviewing through an EVF: Canon doesn't offer it in any large sensor camera.
- Silent Photo Shooting: Canon doesn't offer it in any large sensor camera.
- Ability to use speedboosters: Not possible with a Canon product.
- Focus Peaking: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Zebra: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- 4K shooting in Full Frame: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting in any zoom range between Full Frame and the middle 8 MP crop: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting with 60fps: Canon offers it from 6500 bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- 1080p shooting with 120fps: Canon offers it from 6500 bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- 720p shooting with 240fps: Canon doesn't offer it.
- 4K shooting in 3840 width: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- 4K shooting with an efficient codec: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Shooting 4K Video in Log Mode: Canon offers it from 6000+ bucks on, but not with modern video features.
- HDMI out in 4K: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
- Adapting APS-Crop Lenses: Not available in any Canon 4K camera that also shoots photo.
- Fully assignable buttons incl. a third wheel for ISO: Canon doesn't offer it. 
- Installation of apps: Canon doesn't offer it.
- Audio and other things through a Multi Hot Shoe: Canon doesn't offer it.
- Articulating screen: Not available in any Canon 4K camera that also shoots photo.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> I get it.
> 
> I didn't expect Canon to do that MJPEG stuff, but I somewhat expected them to withhold their c-log from DSLRs. Canon's DSLRs are stills cameras with high video abilities. Their vision for their business is different from us, the consumers. We want this, we want that, but Canon is like "Hell to the No. You want full frame 4K? You pay that. You want c-log? Pay more." It's business.



Yes, you do get it. 

People seem to think Canon's objective is to please them, cater to their whims, and give them everything those people want. No...Canon is not your friend. Canon wants to make a profit and return value to shareholders (in fact, they're legally obligated to do their best to achieve the latter). Even if they cater to peoples' whims sometimes, it's only because they feel it's necessary to do so at that particular time.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> This post shows the exakt problem:
> Too many Canon users just seem to think that Canon products are a bit expensive.
> In reality the prices would be justified, if Canon wouldn't artificially limit the specs in their products.
> Canon does not implement a lot of important and convenient features, although they easily could do it.
> ...



So your assertion is that Canon's success - even with professionals - is due entirely to ignorance and brand loyalism? Pretty arrogant.

Incidentally, all companies "artificially limit specs" as you put it. Well actually, it's not artificial - different products have different prices, being aimed at different target consumers, and then the features are fitted into the price constraints with headroom for profits. That's called business, and everyone does it. All you're really saying is, Canon products are too expensive. That's fair enough, but let's not dress it up as some evil conspiracy, eh?

(Sorry, I had to repost this as the quotes were messed up).


----------



## nehemiah (Sep 2, 2016)

This line of criticism seems to occur with almost every new Canon product. Not enough features / Too expensive / Could sell much more if they priced lower or included new features . . .

When I started to first read this forum, I thought Canon was going to bomb on these products after reading all the expert opinion here. Since then Canon has had huge sales figures, getting awards like camera of the year, and is one of the leaders in patents, etc.

They probably know even now fairly accurately in what ballpark the sales figures will be for the 5D4 and this video camera. Things that are nice are very expensive nowadays, even more so than before.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

So your assertion is that Canon's success - even with professionals - is due entirely to ignorance and brand loyalism? Pretty arrogant.

Incidentally, all companies "artificially limit specs" as you put it. Well actually, it's not artificial - different products have different prices, being aimed at different target consumers, and then the features are fitted into the price constraints with headroom for profits. That's called business, and everyone does it. All you're really saying is, Canon products are too expensive. That's fair enough, but let's not dress it up as some evil conspiracy, eh?

(Sorry, I had to repost this as the quotes were messed up).
[/quote]

You did NOT read my list above with app. 20 detailed examples of features that are now - in the year 2016 - are clear to be future standards, much requested and appreciated for the work of photographers and filmmakers, but held back by Canon. A lot of pros already did flee from Canon and Nikon, and more will do, because:

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE CANON PRODUCT LINEUP DOESN'T OFFER A LOT OF NECESSARY AND MODERN FEATURES AT ALL. 

It is proven in 20 facts in the list above. But as listed in detail above, the prices aren't the problem, and there is also no conspiracy - there is just a clear Canon sales strategy to implement all obviously missing features as slow as possible in coming products. This is Canon's right. Now it's the consumer's right to give Canon a shitstorm. In 2008 the 5D2 had 95% positive feedback, like the A7R2 in 2015. in 2016, the 5D4 has 50% negative feedback, and there are many good reasons for it. Nobody can deny it.

Most criticism also doesn't come from amateurs or Sony fanboys, it's coming from pro Canon users and lovers who need these new products for their work between 2016 and 2020, and can't afford to deliver reduced quality or spend extra work hours to compensate the limitations of the Canon cameras. Nobody wants to carry around and pay 3 heavy bodies to do what competitors like Sony have shown can be done in one small camera. I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2. Do I prefer to work with Sony products in general? No way. Do I prefer to work with the best balance of logistics, workflow and quality available on the market? Hell yeah.

So even if I don't care too much about the prices, they have to be investigated and compared. The prices of the new Canon products would be okay, if they added more of the features that are obvious and needed. The prices would have been okay if they released products with the current specs 3 years ago, like Sony did with the F55 that Canon did clone today with the C700. The prices are too high when the competition has much better specs for less money.

BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT CANON STILL HOLDS BACK A LOT OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY NOW THAT CAN'T BE BOUGHT AT ALL, IS NOT AVAILABLE IN ONE PRODUCT WHERE IT WOULD BE LOGICAL, OR IS CRAZY MORE EXPENSIVE LIKE THE COMPETITION.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mr. Milo said:
> 
> 
> > I get it.
> ...



I was struck by the fact that Canon does not have a truly 4K full frame video solution out there- at any price. Pretty amazing. 

There is a way to cater to shareholders and deliver value to your loyal consumers- it's called being unafraid to cannibalize your own products Steve Jobs said it and did it. If he didn't, we might still be carrying both a click-wheel iPod and a flip phone in our pockets. If Canon pulled out the stops (no pun intended) and gave full frame 4K to the masses, they have no idea how many 5DIVs they would sell on top of what they already ship. Most people who buy the C300IIs would still buy them and all would be right with the world. This is really just a lack of imagination on Canon's part. But they are a truly conservative company.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2016)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Milo said:
> ...



Of course they do, they spend millions on market research whereas you know nothing 
(Jon Snow) and don't spend a penny on market research.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You miss the point entirely- they need to stop looking at the market research and make products that deliver value. They view shareholders vs. customers (at least DSLR video customers) as a zero sum game, and it's not. Everybody can profit here. They'd have tons more DSLR video customers if they offered a video feature set that blew away the competition. They just don't have the courage or imagination to take that risk. 

Despite the arrow, I shall live, then die, then live again. Getting geeky, isn't it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2016)

transpo1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



No you miss the point entirely. Canon are the number 1 interchange lens camera manufacturer in the world, they are also the number one SLR camera manufacturer, obviously their market research and subsequent product lines are doing something right. They have researched the feature set of what they see as competing products and believe they have got it right. History has illustrated they in general they are right. The cameras they release appeal to enough people and "deliver value" well enough for those people to pay, that you think they are wrong is nothing new, but they have proven you wrong for the last 14 (?) or so years.

Every time Canon release anything, from a $40 WiFi card to a $70,000 camera there is a long list of pundits saying it is doa, but that just hasn't proven to be the case.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No doubt they've seen success in the past. But some would say we're entering a new era, where companies have to disrupt themselves and their own business models to succeed in the future. Canon were first to give us full frame video in a DSLR with the 5DII- and what a great camera. It wasn't perfect- it only shot 30p in the beginning with no 24, but the video feature was so popular they later gave us a firmware update to give us 24p _deliver value_ in that camera and came out with the 7D with 24p and more. They had video cameras at the time- it was a disruptive business model. But they gave us something _extra_ in addition to what was expected from a DSLR camera at that time. Now they are generally withholding features that could potentially sell more cameras. In New York, where you used to see a lot of 5DIIIs among tourists, hobbyists, prosumer stills and video people, and professional video people, you don't see many anymore. Now you see a lot of Sonys. So, yeah- I don't trust their market research nor view it as the Holy Grail. Plenty of great companies atrophied over time, all the while thinking their market research was great. And market research is only as good as the ears it is falling on.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 2, 2016)

Really surprised that a (cinema) camera that costs US$35,000+ has three pages of comments!

I wonder if there will be even one CR member who will buy it (buy to rent excluded)!


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> [..]
> In many ways the Canon product range does not offer great functions of competitors like Sony, or makes them 5x as expensive:
> [..]
> - Focus Peaking: Not available in any Canon camera that also shoots photo.
> [..]



The EOS M3 and M10 feature focus peaking. And if I'd go pedantic: Magic Lantern adds focus peaking to most (all?) EOS cameras it's available for, so it's 'available' for a lot more.

Having said that, I don't disagree with you, it would be nice if Canon would export neat software features to their complete line up.


----------



## LDS (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> In 2008 the 5D2 had 95% positive feedback, like the A7R2 in 2015. in 2016, the 5D4 has 50% negative feedback, and there are many good reasons for it.



Negative feedback for a camera which is not sold still, and almost nobody had a chance to use? It looks just an emotive response, not a factual one.



douglaurent said:


> I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.



If Canon can sell expensive cameras to people who almost don't use them I believe they have the best business model around... why should they change it? Why are you going to buy a camera with that negative feedback "with very good reason for it"?


----------



## drama (Sep 2, 2016)

HarveVideoStuff said:


> Bernard said:
> 
> 
> > drama said:
> ...



This was my point. You can get far better for that money. The only reason I could think of for wanting a Canon brain is if you're shooting using Canon glass on a big shoot, but even then, the global shutter doesn't work with a Canon mount. It's mystifying. Perhaps it's marked up to make it seem a big deal when they slash the price in six months?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

transpo1 said:


> No doubt they've seen success in the past. But some would say we're entering a new era, where companies have to disrupt themselves and their own business models to succeed in the future. Canon were first to give us full frame video in a DSLR with the 5DII- and what a great camera. It wasn't perfect- it only shot 30p in the beginning with no 24, but the video feature was so popular they later gave us a firmware update to give us 24p _deliver value_ in that camera and came out with the 7D with 24p and more. They had video cameras at the time- it was a disruptive business model. But they gave us something _extra_ in addition to what was expected from a DSLR camera at that time. Now they are generally withholding features that could potentially sell more cameras. In New York, where you used to see a lot of 5DIIIs among tourists, hobbyists, prosumer stills and video people, and professional video people, you don't see many anymore. Now you see a lot of Sonys. So, yeah- I don't trust their market research nor view it as the Holy Grail. Plenty of great companies atrophied over time, all the while thinking their market research was great. And market research is only as good as the ears it is falling on.



And so we end up where these threads always end up (well, almost...you didn't specifically mention Nokia): Canon is ******* unless they do what internet experts such as you suggest. We get it. 

Of course, Internet experts said that mirrorless would kill dSLRs in five years and Canon was ******* unless they jumped into mirrorless with both feet...that was 7-8 years ago. There were ample complaints about cost and lists of 'missing' features when the Cxxx lines launched. In spite of all the wailing about how the Cinema EOS line would be a failure for all those reasons, Canon seems to have sold enough of them to continue to update – and now expand – the lineup. 

When the C700 Mark II and C900 launch, please come back and tell us how the C700 was a failure, and then predict doom for the new models, for Canon's cinema line, and for Canon as a company.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 2, 2016)

You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha

I love all these 1 post wonders, makes me chuckle it does lol


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha
> 
> I love all these 1 post wonders, makes me chuckle it does lol


Mirrorless will kill the DSLR star.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> arthurbikemad said:
> 
> 
> > You do have to laugh.... and they said video would kill the radio hahaha
> ...



First music video on MTV. How many music videos do you see on MTV today?


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

LDS said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > In 2008 the 5D2 had 95% positive feedback, like the A7R2 in 2015. in 2016, the 5D4 has 50% negative feedback, and there are many good reasons for it.
> ...



Officially non-existing features (compared to the competition and what would have been possible) plus the price are facts that can be criticized even if nobody had used a product yet. I am sure that every implemented feature in the 5D4 or C700 will work great. 

The dualpixel autofocus of my 1DX2 is excellent for example - but also includes another dumb Canon decision that can make paying customers angry, as without any logical reason Canon did limit the dualpixel photo use in the 1DX2, compared to the cheaper 5D4. 

It shows Canon's tactics: always buy one more camera and another, if you want to work with all those features. But nobody can carry 3-4 different models. I would prefer to pay 3x the price just to have all features in one model - as this one model had to be bought 2-3x anyway to have immediate access to all focal lengths. The clear impression is that Canon does not really think of the needs of the customers. Sony and Panasonic give the impression that they deliver more than what people would have expected. In the longterm Canon will see that this is not the slow competition game anymore they played with Nikon for decades.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.
> 
> If Canon can sell expensive cameras to people who almost don't use them I believe they have the best business model around... why should they change it? Why are you going to buy a camera with that negative feedback "with very good reason for it"?


I am a perfect example how much money Canon LOSES, not how much money Canon makes anyway with random features. Instead of 1x 1DX2 and 5DsR I would have ordered 2 of each, and instead of 1x 5D4 i would have ordered 3. That makes one person and 4 expensive cameras that Canon didn't sell, which is a reason why Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units. 

This means all people in this forum who think everything is great with the specs of the new cameras pay up to 25% more money themselves for them. Maybe they should now care as well, even if they don't need all possible and logical features right now???


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt they've seen success in the past. But some would say we're entering a new era, where companies have to disrupt themselves and their own business models to succeed in the future. Canon were first to give us full frame video in a DSLR with the 5DII- and what a great camera. It wasn't perfect- it only shot 30p in the beginning with no 24, but the video feature was so popular they later gave us a firmware update to give us 24p _deliver value_ in that camera and came out with the 7D with 24p and more. They had video cameras at the time- it was a disruptive business model. But they gave us something _extra_ in addition to what was expected from a DSLR camera at that time. Now they are generally withholding features that could potentially sell more cameras. In New York, where you used to see a lot of 5DIIIs among tourists, hobbyists, prosumer stills and video people, and professional video people, you don't see many anymore. Now you see a lot of Sonys. So, yeah- I don't trust their market research nor view it as the Holy Grail. Plenty of great companies atrophied over time, all the while thinking their market research was great. And market research is only as good as the ears it is falling on.
> ...


We operate C300/C300MKII along with Arri Alexa, Red Epic / Dragon, Sony F65, Sony F55 and I'm somewhat uncertain of where exactly Canon is pitching this camera based on their publicity. If you do the math the aspect ratios are full sensor 1.85:1, the lower combinations 1.90:1 then under effective pixels 1.78:1 (16x9). They claim its suitable for anamorphic but don't show either a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 combination. Aside from dual pixel in GS form its the same overall specification Sony has had on the F55 since 2012 with a similar form factor. Sony are putting out a new 4K raw recorder for the F55 this month so on paper you would say the target for Canon was the F55. 
That will not convince Arri or Red using DOPs to make the switch into Hollywood movies with the C700 for starters the Arri Alexa 65 and Red Weapon 8K camera have lifted the bar with their bigger canvas sensors. Throw in lenses from the likes of Zeiss, Cookes, Leica, Panavision etc. and episodic TV is where this camera is more likely to go with Panasonic & Sony being the chief losers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> The clear impression is that Canon does not really think of the needs of the customers. Sony and Panasonic give the impression that they deliver more than what people would have expected. In the longterm Canon will see that this is not the slow competition game anymore they played with Nikon for decades.



YAPODFC. :

The 'clear impression' for a few years now has been that Sony is producing innovative products in response to customer demand. During those years, Canon has gained ILC market share and they remain the market leader, with Sony no where even close.

In the longterm you will see that the Sun will become a red giant star and destroy Earth. You have been warned.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2.
> ...



Don't conflate you saying Canon are ******* with my satisfaction with the new specs. Nowhere have I expressed an opinion on the 5D MkIV specs.

As for higher prices, really? The 5D was launched at $3,500 in 2005.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon charges higher prices now to compensate the decrease in overall sold units.
> ...



The 5D launched at $3300 in 2005, which is actually $4050 in today's dollars.

#slappedbyhistory


----------



## gsealy (Sep 2, 2016)

I believe that the low end camera (5DIV dollar range) that the video people crave will come from Sony, Panasonic, or Fuji. Look at the recent Fuji cameras: the X-T2 ($1600) and the x-A3 ($600). Both are 24MP and have 4K. They have a ton of features. Are they what video guys want? No, not yet. But the thing is Fuji is getting closer. I am thinking Fuji sees a big price gap between these cameras and what features they have, and what the 5DIV has. Can Fuji create a camera that sells for say $2500 that has 4K-60P, 10 bit, and so on? You bet they can. And there are lens converters from the "X" mount to the "EF" mount. Then too, the Panasonic GH5 is supposed to be a killer camera, and then there are amazing rumors about the Sony A7III.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I stand corrected, Wikipedia has it at $3,299.

But you know where I got the misinformation from? Take a guess, go on. Yep DPReview......

P.S. If you put 5D in Google the second image is the first hit. Kinda scary and if I was Canon I wouldn't see the joke in this anymore. That is a picture supposedly demonstrating a lack of DR, that is false, and was actually shot with a 5DSR not a 5D MkIV! And it's not even tagged with that in the caption. But we know captions aren't important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Either way, Canon is clearly not "charging higher prices now," but some people's perceptions affect their personal reality. 




privatebydesign said:


> But you know where I got the misinformation from? Take a guess, go on. Yep DPReview......



I guess Rishi stayed in bed that morning, seeing as how getting up in the morning to deliver correct information is so important to him and all. :


----------



## LDS (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I would prefer to pay 3x the price just to have all features in one model



You.

Many others won't pay $9000 or more for a 5D IV, especially for features they don't use. Every company has to find a "sweet spot" for its products to maximize both the price they can sell, and the number of customers, for a given market target. The 5D line is not targeted at the relatively few people who are willingly to spend 10K for a camera. Many 5D users don't do video at all, for example.

And would have you really bought three 5D IV at 10k each?

Still photos and video may have very different needs. Some people prefer separate cameras designed for each tasks. Other may prefer a single one. How large these groups are, and and how much are they willingly to spend for a camera is the real problem.

Much depends on what feature level you expect from a camera. "4K" and some other numbers alone may mean very little. It depends how flexible it is to shoot proper 4K footage - and how it fits into your equipment (if you don't rent) and workflow.

Maybe it turned out that an SLR body is not exactly what most customer need. The C700 form factor is also different from the C500 - it's a bigger camera because it looks customers asked for something like this. Probably if Canon based its designs on CanonRumors only it would deliver different products...


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Just to be clear- I did imply Canon would face challenges in the future if they don't disrupt themselves, but they are not ******* (I know they'll be relieved to hear this). What we're saying is that they could be doing so much _better_. 

And along with their excuses / lies on Twitter about HDMI 1.4 not being available at time of 5DIV development, well- we can say that this thread does end up where it usually does- 

Canon deliberately hobbles video features on its flagship prosumer DSLRs
They're late to the party with their C700 entry and forgot to bring the wine
They refuse to give any 4K full frame options to video users- which I think is a tremendous oversight to their potential _additional_ market.

Also, I think it's important to note that the reason many of us voice this so passionately is that we want to love Canon and want them to succeed. We own glass and have invested in the 5D series and other cameras for many years. So that's why the passionate voicing of our opinions- in the continued hope that they are heard, and that they listen.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> You did NOT read my list above with app. 20 detailed examples of features that are now - in the year 2016 - are clear to be future standards, much requested and appreciated for the work of photographers and filmmakers, but held back by Canon. A lot of pros already did flee from Canon and Nikon, and more will do, because:
> 
> THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE CANON PRODUCT LINEUP DOESN'T OFFER A LOT OF NECESSARY AND MODERN FEATURES AT ALL.
> 
> It is proven in 20 facts in the list above. But as listed in detail above, the prices aren't the problem, and there is also no conspiracy - there is just a clear Canon sales strategy to implement all obviously missing features as slow as possible in coming products. This is Canon's right. Now it's the consumer's right to give Canon a S___storm. In 2008 the 5D2 had 95% positive feedback, like the A7R2 in 2015. in 2016, the 5D4 has 50% negative feedback, and there are many good reasons for it. Nobody can deny it.



A list of features isn't 'facts', and it doesn't prove anything. And as others have pointed out here and elsewhere, this 'Canon will fail, its products are not competitive' line has been brought out every time a new product is released. And yet they continue to do well. Incidentally, you said "Too many Canon photographers also don't seem to realize yet how great many video features could be for their photo work as well" but your list has few features that have any impact on stills shooting at all.



douglaurent said:


> Most criticism also doesn't come from amateurs or Sony fanboys, it's coming from pro Canon users and lovers who need these new products for their work between 2016 and 2020, and can't afford to deliver reduced quality or spend extra work hours to compensate the limitations of the Canon cameras. Nobody wants to carry around and pay 3 heavy bodies to do what competitors like Sony have shown can be done in one small camera. I own a 1DC, 1DX2, 5DsR and soon a 5D4, but in most cases I leave the house with two Sony A7R2. Do I prefer to work with Sony products in general? No way. Do I prefer to work with the best balance of logistics, workflow and quality available on the market? Hell yeah.
> 
> So even if I don't care too much about the prices, they have to be investigated and compared. The prices of the new Canon products would be okay, if they added more of the features that are obvious and needed. The prices would have been okay if they released products with the current specs 3 years ago, like Sony did with the F55 that Canon did clone today with the C700. The prices are too high when the competition has much better specs for less money.
> 
> BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM IS THAT CANON STILL HOLDS BACK A LOT OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY NOW THAT CAN'T BE BOUGHT AT ALL, IS NOT AVAILABLE IN ONE PRODUCT WHERE IT WOULD BE LOGICAL, OR IS CRAZY MORE EXPENSIVE LIKE THE COMPETITION.



So you've bought every Canon body recently released, but take your Sony out with you. What does Canon conclude? That their cameras sell. They don't care what you do afterwards. You bought it. If you're so upset (and all the capital letters suggest you are) then stop buying. And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

scyrene said:


> And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.



Wait, you mean that if a manufacturer puts 4K video into a camera and it overheats after a few minutes of use, people might be unhappy? Who would do something like that? :


----------



## davidhfe (Sep 2, 2016)

scyrene said:


> So you've bought every Canon body recently released, but take your Sony out with you. What does Canon conclude? That their cameras sell. They don't care what you do afterwards. You bought it. If you're so upset (and all the capital letters suggest you are) then stop buying. And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.



I am among the more cynical people in this universe, and even I have a hard time thinking that *anyone* at Canon would consider a person purchasing but not using one of their cameras is a successful transaction.

Canon's balance sheet might not care, but as an organization they absolutely do.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



A unique, outstanding, no competition product with more features than you can expect can always be expensive. I bought a 1DC for 12.000 and was happy with it at that time by the end of 2012. I would have been happy with the price of the 5D in 2005. I am not happy with the price of the 5D4, looking at all circumstances with its limitations. I would pay twice the price of the 5D4, if it wouldn't have its limitations.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.
> ...



The Sony's don't overheat. It's a myth. I had 5D2's that did overheat and a 1DC with software bugs. Canon is not more or less reliable than Sony.


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 2, 2016)

davidhfe said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > So you've bought every Canon body recently released, but take your Sony out with you. What does Canon conclude? That their cameras sell. They don't care what you do afterwards. You bought it. If you're so upset (and all the capital letters suggest you are) then stop buying. And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.
> ...



I sometimes use the Canons where they have their specialty strength. And I rent them out to those people who did not try the products of the competitors yet, which is why they don't know what they're missing (like many in this forum). In total, Canon is not successful when they only sold half of the amount of cameras to me they easily could have. And in the end all of us pay 4000 instead of 3000 bucks for a 5D4, because Canon sells less units as many people do prefer Sony now, and has to raise prices so they still can make a profit.


----------



## Policar (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



The A7S I used must have been one of the mythical ones then.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 2, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> And in the end all of us pay 4000 instead of 3000 bucks for a 5D4, because Canon sells less units as many people do prefer Sony now, and has to raise prices so they still can make a profit.



Outside of your own head, where is the evidence for this?


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 2, 2016)

Hey douglaurent,

Don't ever buy Canon gear ever again. Just dump your Canon gear on Craigslist and go over to Sony. Then delete your Canon Rumors account. You keep buying Canon stuff and yet hype up Sony on these forums for some reason. Why? Waste of time.

And Sony's gear does overheat. I worked with the mirrorless. It overheated a few times.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 2, 2016)

davidhfe said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > So you've bought every Canon body recently released, but take your Sony out with you. What does Canon conclude? That their cameras sell. They don't care what you do afterwards. You bought it. If you're so upset (and all the capital letters suggest you are) then stop buying. And workflow, ergonomics, lens selection are all very relevant - pros especially aren't going to hop from one system to another for the sake of a few features. They want something solid and reliable. Canon knows that, so maybe they can hold back features longer than their competitors - because it's the competitors who are playing catch up in terms of sales. That's just life, I'm afraid. No point in getting angry when it rains.
> ...



Why? So long as sales are healthy, why on earth should they care if I take pictures with it, keep it in the original box as a collectors' item, smash it with a baseball bat...?


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 3, 2016)

scyrene said:


> davidhfe said:
> 
> 
> > I am among the more cynical people in this universe, and even I have a hard time thinking that *anyone* at Canon would consider a person purchasing but not using one of their cameras is a successful transaction.
> ...



Well, if it's sitting in a box (or smashed with a baseball bat) that customer probably was not happy with the product. If anything they might be bitter/soured towards the company in general. They will not be a repeat customer, they may not even buy unrelated products from said same company, and may share their negative view with others. 

I can assure you what a customer does with a product, how they use it, react to it, etc. is very valuable information to a company and they certainly do "care". Corporations spend a small fortune in usability testing, focus groups, voice of the customer, etc.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 3, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > davidhfe said:
> ...



You're missing my point. If they sell a camera, they've succeeded. If they lose a customer, that's bad. But this guy said he'd bought all the recent top of the line bodies, and would buy the next one. So he's still a customer, and a good one. If he chooses not to use his Canon bodies, nobody cares. Only IF he stops buying them (and there's no reason to believe he would, if he hasn't already) does it matter. And even then, as Neuro is at pains to point out with infinite patience, one customer is not important. It's overall sales and profits they care about.

Of course they do research to see how people react. But they don't care what you or I do with our gear, so long as we're not stealing their patents.


----------



## Mr. Milo (Sep 4, 2016)

Back to the C700. It's a great FIRST step for Canon into competing with RED and ARRI. Remember that Canon is a stills company first. Their foundation is not built on video.

The C700 is obviously not for us. It's for indie and Hollywood productions. For the people bitching about "Hey it's too late" or "this is based on 2011 technology" and the ridiculous " I can get this on a Sony FS7, Blackmagic Ursa, etc" This is stupid crap.

Those people had absolutely no intentions on buying the C700 and can never afford it.

On a major film project, I'd absolutely rent the C700. It has everything I need to make a great looking film product. I see this camera as comparable to the ARRI Amira; that's a compliment.


----------



## Bernard (Sep 5, 2016)

Mr. Milo said:


> Back to the C700. It's a great FIRST step for Canon into competing with RED and ARRI.



Mr Milo, I agree.

Arguably, it isn't their first step; the C300 and C300-2 have been quite a success and are being used on a lot of productions.

The most important factors in this market are support (hardware and workflow), image quality, and reliability. We know that Canon can do well in these categories, so there's a good chance that they will become a mainstay of motion picture rental houses.


----------

