# canon is not for poor film makers anymore! 47,000$??!!!



## ssrdd (Nov 4, 2011)

CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!

I laugh at myself for being poor.


----------



## Caps18 (Nov 4, 2011)

There still are 1% of the people with lots of money that can afford something like this. 

It is probably more of a commercial camera market thing rather than a individual consumer camera. They saw that there is a real market for small HD cameras with true depth of field. If they can sell some of these instead of the basic 5DM2, they will.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 4, 2011)

There's nothing stopping you from still using a cheap DSLR with video and EF mount still photography lenses. The results will be as good (or bad) for the money as before. If anything, the cost to jump onboard with the 5D is less than before, which is good.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 4, 2011)

Well, keep in mind that those lenses, all of them, are on the inexpensive side of the spectrum. Less then a third of the price of our current cine lenses of similar FL/aperture.
As for being on a budget - the camera is overrated, if I have the choice between a well executed shot in SD and HD footage that only shows every flaw, shortcut or compromise the clearer the choice is obvious.


----------



## Arjay (Nov 4, 2011)

Once youâ€™ve blown your budget on the EOS C300, there is nothing stopping you from mounting the EF 50mm f 1.8 on it... 
Seriously, the entire EF lens lineup could be utilized, special effects such as with the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
or the F 800mm f/5.6L IS USM extend the possibilities...


----------



## sjprg (Nov 4, 2011)

Doesen't matter the cost of the camera. Its such a small portion of the filmakers budget anyway.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 4, 2011)

Arjay said:


> Once youâ€™ve blown your budget on the EOS C300, there is nothing stopping you from mounting the EF 50mm f 1.8 on it...
> Seriously, the entire EF lens lineup could be utilized, special effects such as with the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM
> or the F 800mm f/5.6L IS USM extend the possibilities...



Except that you'll have to focus it manually. Quite honestly, the Canon XF100/105/300/305 camcorders are looking better and better, unless you need to make movies in very little light or want to have minimum DOF.

Maybe I should have kept all the manual focus FD lenses I sold in 1997.


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 4, 2011)

ssrdd said:


> canon is not for poor film makers anymore!



GASP! You're SO right! All of their current lineup has had it's movie function removed via an OTA update and our DSLR's no longer record movies! AHHH!! What will we all do?!?! On top of that, CR is reporting that all future DSLR's will be stripped of this feature as well. Finally, it's been reported that the sun will not rise tomorrow either!

Seriously man, this camera and the lenses aren't for the budget filmmaker. And the fantastic capabilities of today's DSLR's is no less fantastic than it's always been. And the future DSLR's should inherit some sort of tech from the new Cinema line as well to improve their systems. If anything, the introduction of the Cinema line is a bonus for DSLR's! Chill with the doom and gloom.


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 4, 2011)

Sure it's out of most everyone's price range, but it wasn't meant for the masses. Canon released this first to come out strong introducing the whole EOS Cinema line and make an impression on Hollywood and get some cred with the bigwigs. 

Next logical move would be to release a more prosumer level (but capable) Cinema DSLR, which they are in the process of doing. They know how hungry we are for a reasonably priced, really awesome camera, and I'm sure they'll deliver. Business is business, and I think they made the right move.


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 4, 2011)

Yep a prosumer Cinema DSLR would sell like hotcakes. Think of all the 5Ds & 7Ds that sold that will only be used for video purposes.

I just want a high MP still camera with limited Video capabilities. So a 5d3 or even 5d2(once it goes back on CLP) will work for me.


----------



## Cannon Man (Nov 5, 2011)

i think this is really good news, 5D owners will be complaining that they don't have the best video for under 2000 bucks but those who are serious about video won't mind the price.


----------



## Cannon Man (Nov 5, 2011)

I'm guessing the 1D body C camera will be the king of dslr video and i don't thing there will be a video only orientated 5D.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 5, 2011)

Of course, the word "synergy" comes to mind - Canon already has made it seem as if the push for the EOS Cinema system is having effects that will come to regular DSLRs as well. Remember, if they hadn't cared about HD video at all, we'd just be shooting stills and nothing else - beyond maybe VGA clips (which have been standard in many cameras for a long time).


----------



## Woody (Nov 5, 2011)

This is just the start. It's hard to say where Canon is heading after this.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 5, 2011)

ssrdd said:


> CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
> what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
> but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!
> 
> I laugh at myself for being poor.



This type of equipment is rented, not purchased. If you are seriously making motion pictures, you may find they cost less than other similar lenses. If you want to take home movies of your kids, this is not the kind of equipment to consider.


----------



## ssrdd (Nov 5, 2011)

C300 full HD 
8MP 
6MB
24x14mm lens coverage 
60 fps in 720p
MPEG-2 compressor 
8bit depth 
20,000$


RED Scarlet 4K
14MP
100 plus MB
27x14mm lens coverage 
60 fps in HD RAW
24bit depth
15,000$[kit Includes..64GB SSD,5'' touch LCD,etc]


Love my canon film cam, i almost traveled with it for every good and sad moments in my life, now since last 2 years same with the 5dmk2, plus its giving me an oppertunity to earn my living. how wonderful is that.
For an independent film makers like us india, its hard for us to get good deal from rentals companies, for that reason i want to have my own cam, which can shoot a minimum quality range video for big projections, which i can not do with current dslr. i waited for an year to see this changes which i can not afford it my self. may be a i have to think about other possibilities of moving on with new brand. may be....


----------



## AdamJ (Nov 5, 2011)

dilbert said:


> haha, I've been to India. I know what you guys mean by "good deals". You want quality but you don't want to pay for it.



I hope I'm not alone in finding this remark objectionable.


----------



## AG (Nov 5, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Except that you'll have to focus it manually.



If you are having to use auto focus as a film maker your doing it wrong ;D


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2011)

AG said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Except that you'll have to focus it manually.
> ...



I'm so new at this that I'm sure I'm doing it wrong, but how about when shooting a documentary, a wedding or sports where the subjects move rapidly and unpredictably? Not everybody has the _time_ to pull out their tape measure and consult their DOF charts. For that matter, why do cameras like the 1Dx have autofocusing?


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 5, 2011)

main problem is 80% of all photographers have no clue about cine lenses and cameras.

neither technology wise or what cinematographer need/want. 




> If you are having to use auto focus as a film maker your doing it wrong



exactly.. and when you wonder why then this camera is not for you anyway. 


http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/other/products/what_makes_the_difference/manual_focusing_with_af_camera_systems.html


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2011)

Gothmoth said:


> main problem is 80% of all photographers have no clue about cine lenses and cameras.
> 
> neither technology wise or what cinematographer need/want.
> 
> ...



Or maybe you have a very narrow definition of "cinematographer" or "cinematographers" are just stuck in the 1970s. Oh, by the way, I know exactly why this camera is not for me. For a while, I couldn't understand why Canon made an EF version at all, until I started reading the promotional literature on the Canon USA website, concerning changing focus of a remote camera, something not possible with PL lenses. Maybe, at some point, Canon will add autofocusing with the ability to (remotely) select the focusing point(s) or have the camera maintain focus on a particular pattern of colors, something which both the 1Dx and my $700 Panasonic camcorder does.


----------



## samueljay (Nov 5, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> AG said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...


For things like that, you'd better hope you have a very capable focus puller or camera operator 

Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually. Camera's like the 1DX have advanced auto focus because they are made for still photographers, where auto focus is a massive advantage (I wouldn't know though, I still focus everything manually if the gear allows it)


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2011)

samueljay said:


> Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually.



So professional wedding photographers, documentary photographers and sports photographers are not "filming seriously"? You seem to be assuming that photography is always (or maybe just mostly) at the _center_ of the whole situation, something that is absolutely not true a good percentage of the time. Very often, we're just there trying to get the best images we can, in the middle of chaos.


----------



## ssrdd (Nov 5, 2011)

haha, I've been to India. I know what you guys mean by "good deals". You want quality but you don't want to pay for it.
[/quote]

Do u know about regional film in india[not HINDI film [bolleywood]?
we make independent minimalistic films for a budget of Max 20,000$.And the thing is we have 65mm projectors all over. 
so the distributers or buyers or exibiters or finaciars look for the quality to get a good quality of movie, then only they can sell it. Now, of-course i have the tiny budget, but i need to get going to present it to the audience....end of the we all get marginal profits. 

I worked in europe for a rental company, i have seen millions exchange over night during film making process, but its different in here....little money,little dreamers,little market,little appreciation, little profits, and little hope.

U think u guys know much about us....
well i really don't know, how u feel when u read it. 
tx.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 5, 2011)

ssrdd said:


> C300 full HD
> 8MP
> 6MB
> 24x14mm lens coverage



Why is it called Super35 ? It's only 24mm wide, and the diagonal is less than 28mm.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 5, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> ssrdd said:
> 
> 
> > C300 full HD
> ...



Originally, because the film stock was 35mm wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35


----------



## samueljay (Nov 6, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> samueljay said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but anyone who is filming seriously will always have the time to focus properly and manually.
> ...


Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures. People here seem to assume that features that are made for still photography (auto-focus and exposure) should be included in cinema styled cameras, and end up assuming that the product is bogus because it's missing these 'standard' features, when the reality is, cameras in that price range are not for the market you're describing at all, these are cinema camera's with cinema lenses, for people shooting films, where every shot will be on a shot list, set up, exposed and focused manually (and pulled during the scene). Of course wedding photog/videographers, doco makers, and sports videographers are shooting seriously, but they won't be using a camera like the C300 

Also as many people here have mentioned before, I don't really know anyone myself that actually buys a camera or lenses like this to use just for themselves. Most people will be renting them / renting them out. I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 6, 2011)

> Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.



+1

I have been avoiding this topic because I'm not personally interested in video. But, after people started attacking Samueljay I had to come to his defense. 

I've had some experience with commissioning television spots and I can echo what Sam's saying. At least in St. Louis and Chicago, the two markets I'm familiar with, I've never worked with someone who owned their own equipment. I do know of a small, family production company in St. Louis that owned equipment and an edit suite and made their money by renting the equipment, themselves and their edit suite out to other firms in between their own jobs. But in their case, they focused on a couple of very narrow niche markets for their own work and used the equipment, their skills and the edit suite to help pay the bills. 

I can't understand why anyone feels compelled to complain that Canon (or any other company) decides to expand their market and offer new, innovative products. Anything that extends the technology and helps their bottom line is going to mean more goodies for the rest of us at less cost.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 6, 2011)

ssrdd said:


> CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S (EF mount) lens for 45,000 to 47,000$ each?
> what did happened to you, canon?, I waited for an year to see better cam than 5d, in an affordable range!
> but finally what we have is FULL HD cam for estimated 20,000$ price range!!
> 
> I laugh at myself for being poor.



So canon has prodced some new products that are out of your price range. They have not stopped selling the EOS line of cameras that opened HD video to so many users. The fact that the T3i is a better video camera than the 5DII speaks volumes about the future of low cost high quality video. And this new high end (or low pro end) will pay huge dividends to the low end in the near future.

Ask yourself what you can do with the equipment you can afford, and then think about why you have not done it yet, and change that.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 6, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You and Sam are changing the subject. Defining ownership is not the same as defining how the equipment is used. My objection, stated as clearly as I know how several times in this thread, was that some people seemed to think that automatic focusing and exposure had no place in "serious" filming. I was merely trying to point out that there are several kinds of "serious" filming that Sam had not considered. I didn't misunderstand Sam; I objected to his ignorance and arrogance, as politely as I know how.


----------



## samueljay (Nov 6, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > > Sorry, you misunderstood what I meant. When I said anyone 'filming seriously' I meant people that are shooting motion pictures... I work in advertising and gear is never bought to do a television commercial, always hired. We only have one video camera in house (an XF1) and that is just for stuff like vox pops.
> ...


There's no need for that :\ Sorry if I upset you Bob. The fact remains that these camera's are not for that market or purpose, I never said that wedding or sports video taking was not serious, or the people doing it are not serious about their work, only that the features they want, won't be found in a camera like this, because it is a cinema camera, and these are cinema lenses, and auto focus and exposure aren't used in this nichÃ¨ field.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 7, 2011)

If you want fun, google how much a set of panaflex lenses would cost...


----------

