# Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras



## Etienne (Sep 19, 2014)

Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:

1. The A7s ... a tiny FF low-light monster that can do 4K with a recorder, and almost fit in your pocket.

2. The Upcoming PXW-X70 which seems to beat Canons new XF200 on every spec, and adds goodies like HD-SDI, full size HDMI, wifi control and more ... for $1200 less!

3. The upcoming PXW-FS7 which seems set to clobber the C300 in every way at nearly half the price. Reviewers are saying that this camera will even compete against Sony's own very expensive, and much larger, F5 and F55 cameras.

Can Canon afford to wait? Or will Sony eat their cinema lunch? What do you think Canon will offer against these formidable Sony cams?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:
> 
> 1. The A7s ... a tiny FF low-light monster that can do 4K with a recorder, and almost fit in your pocket.
> 
> ...



Canon had it all in the bag, but seems intent and giving it all away due being too conservative these days, having too much fear of internal cannibalization and too little fear of outside, too focused on milking things for too long.

The 7D2 is a prime example. The image quality is already completely out of date and the camera is not even on the shelves yet.

The worst thing that ever happened to Canon video is the second Canon marketing realized their engineers had accidentally stumbled onto something big (and I saw accidentally, because they were so out of touch that they didn't even imagine anyone would possible want manual controls for video on a 5 series camera! they have these tight little focus groups so all they heard from was some PJ who wanted ultra automatic, easy run and gun video and totally missed the clearly obvious bigger picture, but as soon as marketing realzied the bigger picture they went into we better make some new high end stuff and make sure to cripple the DSLR video as much as possible and proceed as slowly as we can to milk, milk, milk). And now, as you say SOny has a serious movie camera for the price of a 1DC that utterly blows the 1DC out of the water for serious filming. They have the A7S that blow away every single Canon DSLR for in camera 1080p quality (if you want to deal with RAW, the 5D3 with Magic Lantern RAW is good though, but that is only because of some brilliant hackers) and with a $2000 add-on can record a nicer 4k than the 1DC (so that is $4900 for A7S+NinjaShogun+Metabones lens adapter vs $10,000 and the lower priced SONY option gives you better video quality)!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 19, 2014)

PLus it is only a matter of time before an A7S2 arrives that doesn't even need the Ninja to record 4k.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:
> ...



I agree, and I hope this is just part of the leapfrog game, because when Canon gets it right they can hit it out of the ballpark. But Sony seems to be reaching for the stars with these new releases.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 19, 2014)

BTW ... I am still hoping for an all-in EOS-M mark III that can be a APS-C version of the A7s

The Sony PXW-X70 seems like it will have no competition for some time since Canon just released the XF200.

My hope against the PXW-FS7 is that Canon gets a killer C100 mkII on the market soon, at or less than the Sony. Include DPAF accross the entire sensor and they'd have a differentiator. The DPAF would be extremely useful when doing interviews as a one-man-band.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 19, 2014)

Sony has been in the digital Cinema camcorder business for a long time, they created a company in conjunction with Panavision called CineAlta.

Canon is a relative newcomer in Cinema, but strong in broadcast equipment. Now that they have their support center in Hollywood, they are proceeding to move into Cinema. It will take time and $$$. The Hollywood support center is a statement to the Cinema industry that they are serious.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 19, 2014)

Concerning the cinema line, I don't think will see a the C300 successor right now. Expect it in 2015, and of course it will have 4K and 10bit. 

If you need 4K now, buy the FS7 and shoot with it, better than wondering why your C300 doesn't shoot 4K. If you don't need 4K right now, keep shooting beautiful 1080p with the C100/300 until their replacement is due sometime next year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sony has been in the digital Cinema camcorder business for a long time, they created a company in conjunction with Panavision called CineAlta.
> 
> Canon is a relative newcomer in Cinema, but strong in broadcast equipment.



If you look at many of Sony's marketing materials for their broadcast cameras, you'll see them attached to Canon DIGISUPER box lenses (with the Canon logo masked, of course).


----------



## mkabi (Sep 19, 2014)

You know what Canon should do... they should introduce 4K stuff in their Rebels (trully disrupt the industry). I mean everyone is quoting Jobs on "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will..." so do it... but this will just piss everyone else (meaning the companies) off too.

And, their cinema equipment should start with 1080p (forget 720p), 2.5K, 4K & 6K.
Thats if they have the tech.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 19, 2014)

mkabi said:


> You know what Canon should do... they should introduce 4K stuff in their Rebels (trully disrupt the industry). I mean everyone is quoting Jobs on "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will..." so do it... but this will just piss everyone else (meaning the companies) off too.
> 
> And, their cinema equipment should start with 1080p (forget 720p), 2.5K, 4K & 6K.
> Thats if they have the tech.



No it won't. Other camera companies are already introducing 4K into their consumer product lines, so Canon doing it later would still be a dollar short and a day late.

Real leaders don't do it from behind.


----------



## mkabi (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > You know what Canon should do... they should introduce 4K stuff in their Rebels (trully disrupt the industry). I mean everyone is quoting Jobs on "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will..." so do it... but this will just piss everyone else (meaning the companies) off too.
> ...



I didn't know that $1500+ was a consumer product line.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Concerning the cinema line, I don't think will see a the C300 successor right now. Expect it in 2015, and of course it will have 4K and 10bit.
> 
> If you need 4K now, buy the FS7 and shoot with it, better than wondering why your C300 doesn't shoot 4K. If you don't need 4K right now, keep shooting beautiful 1080p with the C100/300 until their replacement is due sometime next year.



I think the Sony PXW-FS7 has caught a lot of people by surprise, including Canon, and they probably don't have anything ready to compete at that price point. 

You're probably right, we won't see a new Cx00 camera for another year, maybe more. In the meantime this FS7 will be all alone in this class. Don't get me wrong, I am a Canon fan, and I became a fan because of the enormous bang-for-the-buck that Canon provided. But these latest Sony's are very compelling. 

If the reviews bear out the specs, then the PXW-X70 will win over the Canon XF200 for me this year. And I was thinking C100 soon as well. Although it is a really nice camera, now it will be a matter of whether Canon introduces something that can compete with the FS7 in the next 6-10 months (provided that independent reviews confirm what the specs promise).


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 20, 2014)

Tugela said:


> No it won't. Other camera companies are already introducing 4K into their consumer product lines, so Canon doing it later would still be a dollar short and a day late.



Canon doing it *now* is a day late and a dollar short. After all, with the right ($1,000) software, you can capture 4K video on a freaking iPhone 5S. The fact that so many multi-thousand dollar DSLRs sold today can't even do what a <$100 cell phone (with 2 year contract) can do is an utter embarrassment, IMO.

It's way past time for Canon to step up their game and quit treating decent video quality as an excuse to squeeze more money out of their customers. It's not an opportunity for an upsell anymore; it's basic functionality.


----------



## Policar (Sep 20, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > No it won't. Other camera companies are already introducing 4K into their consumer product lines, so Canon doing it later would still be a dollar short and a day late.
> ...



Canon's XF Codec is already integrated into a lot of company's workflows. Very few channels broadcast 4k and it's very expensive to post in 4k.

There's a market for 4k in the consumer sphere (youtube distribution), not so much in the professional sphere, that's all 1080p except at the ultra high end. This isn't a consumer device, it's a professional one, and thus it's build on reliability and integrating into conservative workflows, not specs or features alone.

Look at how Arri is destroying Red in broadcast tv and in film... It's not because Arri has the better format (the Alexa does have a better image)... it's because it has an easier to handle, "lower end" codec in a lower resolution. 

Consumers want the best of the best. Professionals want the worst (easiest/cheapest/etc.) that's good enough. If your 2 year old phone does it, stick with the phone.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > No it won't. Other camera companies are already introducing 4K into their consumer product lines, so Canon doing it later would still be a dollar short and a day late.
> ...



While I agree that Canon is slipping behind Sony in recent video releases, it's not near as bad as you imply. 

I can do 4K natively on my Samsung Note 3, but not all 4Ks are equal, and 4K is not necessarily better than 1080p. Specs often don't mean much, except to the marketing department. I'd like Canon offer some pro video to compete with these new Sony's. Do it right, and do it soon. For some reason, I'm attached to the Canon brand, but that only goes so far.


----------



## Policar (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



And an optical finder. And a tested, reliable AF system.

Without lenses and a decent finder (never seen an EVF that even compares), bells and whistles are just... bells and whistles. The 7D II is an actual, useable dSLR, which most dSLR buyers want. If all you want is specs, why are you going with the manufacturer that cares least about them? It's like getting upset when Apple doesn't put the fastest chip in their new rMBP and makes it thinner instead or something.... Canon is about the experience and creating useful tools, not necessarily the highest-specced ones.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

Policar said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Video/cinema cams don't have optical viewfinders.
AF is another big difference, although Canon's new DPAF system looks extremely promising for cameraman-interviewers.


----------



## Policar (Sep 20, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Tell that to the Alexa studio (and every 35mm camera before that), but both the Samsung and 7DII are stills camera anyways.

Fwiw, "cameraman-interviewers" don't use AF, either!


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

Policar said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



Obviously film cameras have optical viewfinder, but not many can afford those, probably no one reading here. Alexa studio is an exeption, but still not affordable. Everything from Sony F55 on down, you know: the cameras mere mortals use, have LCD screens and/or EVF's.

Cameraman-interviewers don't use AF NOW because there isn't a good system available. Canon's DPAF can change that, and many one man bands are already touting the 70D, and C100, for this very reason. So, what was true yesterday, won't be true tomorrow, and some of it isn't even true today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Cameraman-interviewers don't use AF NOW because there isn't a good system available. Canon's DPAF can change that, and many one man bands are already touting the 70D, and C100, for this very reason. So, what was true yesterday, won't be true tomorrow, and some of it isn't even true today.



Careful now...it sounds like you're dangerously close to suggesting there's something innovative about Canon's newest CMOS sensors. You might get some flak for that wild idea...


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Cameraman-interviewers don't use AF NOW because there isn't a good system available. Canon's DPAF can change that, and many one man bands are already touting the 70D, and C100, for this very reason. So, what was true yesterday, won't be true tomorrow, and some of it isn't even true today.
> ...



LOL .... lots of flak ... manual focus is like the 11th commandment to video people. The DPAF technology is brilliant, and possibly revolutionary to video as they perfect it, and I am looking forward to seeing it full-sensor on upcoming Cx00 cameras.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Reviewers claim that the DPAF in the 70D doesn't hunt at all, and tracks fairly well. Combine that with touch screen to spot focus and it is extremely powerful, eliminating the human error. They need to provide really smooth pull, and variable focus speeds from slow to near-instant. Programmable timing isn't necessary because the camera operator can trigger that for planned shoots anyway. I think this is all coming sooner than later. Even magic lantern has programmable focus pull points, albeit a bit kludgey. 

Tracking is another good use of the DPAF, but for me the biggest is just the fact that I can focus my attention on interviewing while the camera compensates for the subjects movements. I could even get three camera angles in focus while interviewing as a one-man-band, or a single cameraman can setup and monitor two cameras, especially with wifi control (sit at one camera, and operate the second remotely, including focus).

The more power, the better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> DPAF and STM are for newbies and consumers that play around making videos, not professionals.



Yep, there are lots of newbies and consumers dropping $12,000 on a C300 to play around making videos.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Let the flak fly. 
Philip bloom , and others making full time income as film makers are either positive on dpaf, or are already using it. OMG and they didn't get your permission? You should revoke their credentials, oh all - knowing master and judge, and fine them for paying canon to install dpaf on their C100 cams. I'm sure they are not using the AF, but just felt like giving canon a few hundred bucks. And pros don't use punch in focus. So many disobedient pros in the world, it must just drive you "real" pros nuts.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sony has been in the digital Cinema camcorder business for a long time, they created a company in conjunction with Panavision called CineAlta.
> ...



Certainly Canon lenses, Sony likely bought Minolta thinking to get some lens expertise. And everyone uses Fujinon broadcast lenses which are surpurb. I think Panavision has a pretty substantial hold on the Cinema lens market, but things do change over time.

And then, there is that company that some have never heard of with a 50% market share in Cinema projection lenses. Schneider-Kreuznach .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> And then, there is that company that some have never heard of with a 50% market share in Cinema projection lenses. Schneider-Kreuznach .



But I suppose quite a few people here are familiar with one of their subsidiaries – B+W filters.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



There are 1000's of pros making a living shooting docs and ENG work either alone or with one assistant. Not all video work is done on a set with a team of cameramen, focus pullers, audio guys, and cable runners and what not. There's a place for AF, and it's actually really easy to not use it if you don't want to; no one suggested that manual focus was a thing of the past, but AF is a tool that will become increasingly useful as time goes on. And I'm sure my blasphemy is making someone's eye's bleed right now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

Etienne said:


> There are 1000's of pros making a living shooting docs and ENG work either alone or with one assistant. Not all video work is done on a set with a team of cameramen, focus pullers, audio guys, and cable runners and what not. There's a place for AF, and it's actually really easy to not use it if you don't want to; no one suggested that manual focus was a thing of the past, but AF is a tool that will become increasingly useful as time goes on. And I'm sure my blasphemy is making someone's eye's bleed right now.



How can that be? The Internet – font of knowledge for computer programmers, biological scientists, and others with no direct knowledge of the broadcast/cinema industry – says you're wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> I just needed to balance Neuro's comment that implied that people are spending $12,000 on the C300 _primarily_ to get DPAF. I don't think that's the case. I'm sure it's a useful feature people want, I just don't think that's THE reason people buy the C300.



My point wasn't that people are buying the C300 for DPAF, but that Canon – a company that spends millions on market research – decided to offer DPAF as a feature upgrade on a $12000 camera aimed at the professional market. That was in response to dilbert's comment that DPAF is for newbies and consumers playing around at making videos...I'm sure Canon knows a little bit more about their market than dilbert. 

I suspect you 'needed' to counter my point as a way to compensate for being called on your gaffe regarding the financial data.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I didn't think you were deadset against AF, like some other purists. And most certainly the C300 is a great camera even without AF. At the moment though, Canon's DPAF is the best available for video, and that's quite an achievement. But Sony's new PXW-FS7 seems poised to destroy C300 sales, if reviews live up to the specs and hype out there, DPAF or no DPAF. Performance is still unverified, and the Cx00 are a known entity delivering stellar low light performance, which might end up being the weak point of the FS7. Time will tell. I hope these developments push Canon into high gear, and urges them to accelerate their C100/C300 mk II development. I'm in favor of the C100 over C300, not just because of price, but size and weight as well. A smaller, lighter camera helps keep you agile, less conspicuous, and into tighter spots. ... all of which leads to greater chance to catch the moment.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 20, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > DPAF and STM are for newbies and consumers that play around making videos, not professionals.
> ...



Lol. You yourself don't even believe those purchasing a C300 are doing so because of DPAF. Troll.

_Edit_
My mistake. I guess you're just bad at getting your point across:



neuroanatomist said:


> My point wasn't that people are buying the C300 for DPAF, but that Canon...decided to offer DPAF as a feature upgrade on a $12000 camera aimed at the professional market.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 20, 2014)

Policar said:


> Canon's XF Codec is already integrated into a lot of company's workflows. Very few channels broadcast 4k and it's very expensive to post in 4k.



That's why you acquire in 4K, post in 1080p, and keep the original 4K assets for future-proofing, much like many studios did with 16:9 content during the first part of the last decade, when most TV sets were still 4:3. Then, when you need 4K versions of the content, you import the EDLs, pull in the 4K assets instead, and bring in people to update the SFX for 4K, if necessary. By the time you actually need the 4K content, computers will be fast enough that much of the 4K post work won't be expensive anymore. 




Policar said:


> There's a market for 4k in the consumer sphere (youtube distribution), not so much in the professional sphere, that's all 1080p except at the ultra high end. This isn't a consumer device, it's a professional one, and thus it's build on reliability and integrating into conservative workflows, not specs or features alone.



Workflows, though, not acquisition. It's very shortsighted to do content acquisition in anything other than the highest quality format you can get your hands on. Downsampling during ingestion should be relatively easy. If it isn't, either hire a programmer or get better editing tools. 




Policar said:


> Look at how Arri is destroying Red in broadcast tv and in film... It's not because Arri has the better format (the Alexa does have a better image)... it's because it has an easier to handle, "lower end" codec in a lower resolution.



I'd imagine a big part of it is also reputation and familiarity. Red isn't even a decade old, whereas Arri has been doing cinema hardware for almost a hundred years. Folks know the name, and they're used to their gear.





Etienne said:


> I can do 4K natively on my Samsung Note 3, but not all 4Ks are equal, and 4K is not necessarily better than 1080p.



Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that the 4K quality on a cell phone would even remotely approach that of a DSLR (or even necessarily be as good as 1080p on a DSLR). I just meant that if a cell phone has the CPU/GPU horsepower to produce 4K output, it's embarrassing for expensive DSLRs to not be able to handle it at all.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 20, 2014)

I think they'll "answer" Sony on a tech/feature level, but not on a price-point level. I think Canon is okay letting go of the budget/indie filmmaker. I don't know the revenue that market brings in for them, but perhaps it's irrelevant. Maybe it's purely a branding decision (i.e. Canon doesn't want to be associated with the low-end video market). Maybe they're okay letting every student filmmaker, wedding videographer, and individual that's getting started in video go to other brands. Perhaps the same person in charge of video strategy also heads Canon's mirrorless strategy :


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 20, 2014)

I think we all agree on this: the C100, C300 has been wonderful cameras for the past 3 years, in my experience the most well-designed AND the best HD image I've ever seen come out of a video camera, they are just truly remarkable when you actually use them and see the image. That's why the C300 became the de facto standard in HD broadcast, taking the Digibeta place in 2012-13-14. That specific camera is a true example of how sepcs are absolutely meaningless when evaluating a camera, everybody dismissed it immediately for the lack of specs yet it turned out to be workhorse you can trust and produce high quality images with, easily, this is what Canon is all about in both videography and photography fields. Look how many people are buying and using the C300 now compared to the Scarlet which was announced at the same time with remarkable specs that everybody predicted the failure of the C300. 

BUT, that was alright and good for the past couple of years, now, Canon HAS to offer 4K resolution, high frame rate, and 10 bit aqcuisition path. They just have to offer these solutions in order to compete with the upcoming (current?) market. Even if people are not in need for those right now, they WANT them. Especially when investing in a camera for their business, they will surely want it to be future proof 4K ready, with HFR and 10bit, that's why I believe the C line will not be purchased in quantities anymore after the FS7 release, it's just not a smart investment to buy a 12K$ 1080p camera right now, even if you don't need it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So...what is your point, exactly? That you need things spelled out explicitly because you can't grasp a simple inference, perhaps?


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 20, 2014)

DPAF is being used by both professional videographers on the C300/100 when manual focus is prohibited and by hobbyiests/beginners when they don't have the skill to manually pull focus as well. It serves both very well. What's wrong with that? It's a brilliant technology.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> I think we all agree on this: the C100, C300 has been wonderful cameras for the past 3 years, in my experience the most well-designed AND the best HD image I've ever seen come out of a video camera, they are just truly remarkable when you actually use them and see the image. That's why the C300 became the de facto standard in HD broadcast, taking the Digibeta place in 2012-13-14. That specific camera is a true example of how sepcs are absolutely meaningless when evaluating a camera, everybody dismissed it immediately for the lack of specs yet it turned out to be workhorse you can trust and produce high quality images with, easily, this is what Canon is all about in both videography and photography fields. Look how many people are buying and using the C300 now compared to the Scarlet which was announced at the same time with remarkable specs that everybody predicted the failure of the C300.
> 
> BUT, that was alright and good for the past couple of years, now, Canon HAS to offer 4K resolution, high frame rate, and 10 bit aqcuisition path. They just have to offer these solutions in order to compete with the upcoming (current?) market. Even if people are not in need for those right now, they WANT them. Especially when investing in a camera for their business, they will surely want it to be future proof 4K ready, with HFR and 10bit, that's why I believe the C line will not be purchased in quantities anymore after the FS7 release, it's just not a smart investment to buy a 12K$ 1080p camera right now, even if you don't need it.



Pretty much agree with everything you've said, including DPAF comment above.
I am hoping Canon goes to town on the C100 mk II soon, I love it's compact size! But that FS7 looks very compelling and is going to be hard to beat from the looks of it.


----------



## Woody (Sep 20, 2014)

To OP: I think you've got it wrong.

From http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-definitely-a-new-e-mount-4k-video-camera-to-be-announced-at-photokina/:

"Sony will be taking design cues from the success of the Canon Cinema series. Will replace FS100. E-mount. 4k. Competitively priced. These will be C100 and C300 killers!!"

Looks like it's Sony that is chasing after Canon, not the other way round. ;D


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2014)

Woody said:


> To OP: I think you've got it wrong.
> 
> From http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-definitely-a-new-e-mount-4k-video-camera-to-be-announced-at-photokina/:
> 
> ...



Let the war continue ... we get better cameras from both companies! With the PXW-FS7 on the way (the camera referenced in the link), it's now Canon's turn to step it up.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning the cinema line, I don't think will see a the C300 successor right now. Expect it in 2015, and of course it will have 4K and 10bit.
> ...



They could have, but instead of carrying on the surprise of their 5D2 and all full tilt they went into milk and follow mode. So now it's Sony and whoever else instead of them.



> You're probably right, we won't see a new Cx00 camera for another year, maybe more. In the meantime this FS7 will be all alone in this class. Don't get me wrong, I am a Canon fan, and I became a fan because of the enormous bang-for-the-buck that Canon provided. But these latest Sony's are very compelling.
> 
> If the reviews bear out the specs, then the PXW-X70 will win over the Canon XF200 for me this year. And I was thinking C100 soon as well. Although it is a really nice camera, now it will be a matter of whether Canon introduces something that can compete with the FS7 in the next 6-10 months (provided that independent reviews confirm what the specs promise).



And it's in the DSLRs where they really had created the revolution, but instead they crippled them to save the mid-high end stuff, where, as predicted, Sony is now hittingback with a vengeance. So what did they cripple their low and mid-end stuff for?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Etienne said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



agreed

I'd still 1000x rather have the A7S video options though than 7D2 video.

Why does the 7D2 still have the same old waxy/blurry 1080p 8bit as it's best quality mode? Why did they even remove the zoomed video mode that would be so useful for wildlife and you know make sense on an action/wildlife cam?

The $2500 A7S puts out nicer 1080p in cam than the $10,000 1DC (so does the 5D3 with ML RAW, granted you have to be willing to deal with RAW). And with the Ninja Shogun, it puts out nicer 4k for $4500 than the $10,000 1DC (and you already have your high-res external monitor included for that $4500).

GH4 4k downscaled to 1080p is better quality than 1080p in cam from 7D2.

Some of the other cams were actually also 'so daring' as to give focusing aids that work while shooting live video and other BASIC usability features that Canon once again declared were not fit for the 7D2 since they are 'ultra-high-end only features' :.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Now maybe Canon is just holding off the good stuff for a soon to arrive 5D4, fair enough and it is a bit higher priced. I used to be all but sure, I do wonder now though.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 20, 2014)

Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet. I have no complaints on the C100/300/500 cameras up until the day Sony released the FS7. The C100/300 are the best in their class but now they've been surpassed by that Sony, they will update them to be conpetitive again, that's how it works and how it will always work. 

It's the low-end market that's lacking. For example, the Canon rebels were a revolution in filmmaking when they first came out, and they were great for that time, but Nikon started making the D5200, D5300, D7100, D3300 that exceed the rebels significantly in image quality, no aliasing/moire, higher detail, better ISO performance, yet Canon never seemed to answer those at all yet, making the Canon rebels markedly inferior to the competition, which is a position I've never seen Canon take, they are always the best. From the rebel, to the 60D, to the 70D, to the 7D, to the 6D, ALL have markedly inferior video quality to the entire competition, for example, the 6D video quality is significantly below the Nikon D3300, or Sony A6000 little APS-C mirrorless, a completely unacceptable situation.

Therefore Canon is only on par with the competetion (and even beyond them) starting from the 5D mk III. Only then you can get a clean image without aliasing or moire with good resolution and lowlight performance and the much-loved Canon colours. And the C100 is absolutely superb of course.

This situation has given the video shooters the feeling that Canon has taken their hands off the low-budget filmmaking market and supporting only those above the 5D level, and they do have the right to feel that. (photographers complain that Canon neglected them in favour of video, a bit annoying for us video shooters to be honest given our situation, we mock these comments all the time on video forums - poor photographers with the limited choices they have)

The 7D mk II is the first step Canon has taken to show they still support the <5D market. For the first time we get a clean 5D-twin image on a Canon that's below 3500$. The 7D mk II is now on par with the competetion (D7100, K3, A6000 etc) 

but that's still a 1800$ camera, now they need to fix it on the 70D, and on the rebels. If they do so, then they will be on par with entire competetion, and for me even that isn't great as ideally we want them to exceed the competetion not just catch up, yet even catching up below the 7D mk II market is not even happening. A completely bizzare situation. 

We are not asking for revolutions we just want the Canon low-end DSLRs to have similar image quality to the rest of the market as the 7D ii and 5D iii do.

Until then, I will probably be buying a 7D mk II after it's been tested. But from initial observations, it has identical IQ to the 5D mk III, same lovely clean image which is a bit better than the D5300/D7100/A6000, making it the first low-budget upgrade for Canon shooters below the 5D mk III price. Canon video shooters need an upgrade for their rebels and 60/70Ds, and the 7D is too high for them. This IQ must trickle down to the rebels otherwise Canon will be losing many customers jumping to Sonys and Nikons. 

That's the situation on the low-end market. If Canon starts doing the same with high-end market (not updating the C line to be on par with the FS7), well that would be a shipwreck. But I don't expect it.


----------



## Udoed (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.



Canon is best in high end? That's the first I heard this. Arri Alexa totally dominates high end. Almost Hollywood movies and TV dramas are shot on Alexa. 

Red, F5/F55 are also much better than C500. 

Canon did better with low end independent filmmakers with C300/C100 combo.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet. I have no complaints on the C100/300/500 cameras up until the day Sony released the FS7. The C100/300 are the best in their class but now they've been surpassed by that Sony, they will update them to be conpetitive again, that's how it works and how it will always work.
> 
> It's the low-end market that's lacking. For example, the Canon rebels were a revolution in filmmaking when they first came out, and they were great for that time, but Nikon started making the D5200, D5300, D7100, D3300 that exceed the rebels significantly in image quality, no aliasing/moire, higher detail, better ISO performance, yet Canon never seemed to answer those at all yet, making the Canon rebels markedly inferior to the competition, which is a position I've never seen Canon take, they are always the best. From the rebel, to the 60D, to the 70D, to the 7D, to the 6D, ALL have markedly inferior video quality to the entire competition, for example, the 6D video quality is significantly below the Nikon D3300, or Sony A6000 little APS-C mirrorless, a completely unacceptable situation.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't say the 7D2 or 5D3 (ignoring ML RAW) are even par. Downsample GH4 4k to 1080p and it's much better. And the A7S has much better 1080p. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the others do now as well. Canon produces very waxy, low detailed 1080p in their DSLRs. (unless you shoot RAW and use ML, that makes the 5D3 video totally awesome for 1080p)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 20, 2014)

Udoed said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the lower-end market below the C100 is the one neglected by Canon not the higher-end one. Up until the FS7 release, Canon were the best in the high-end share, and still are really the FS7 isn't even out yet.
> ...



He meant high-end as the non, major-Hollywood type players see it. You are correct from the point of view of the really big boys though.


----------



## Tugela (Sep 20, 2014)

Canon are out to lunch, so the answer to the OP is "no".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Canon are out to lunch, so the answer to the OP is "no".



If Canon was out to lunch with Sony, Canon would have to buy...Sony can't even afford a bowl of edamame right now. :


----------



## Policar (Sep 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Udoed said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



As someone who has used (in post and on set), the Cx00, FX5, Red One, Red One MX, Alexa, Red Epic, Scarlet, etc. I can say with confidence...

No.

Specs aren't everything. The Alexa is way ahead of the pack, yes. But the b cameras on Alexa sets are usually C100s, C300s, and dSLRs. Sony has great specs but the image isn't quite right and ergonomics are yucky and the F5 has not caught on that much outside high end corporate. Red is a mixed bag, the hardest to use well but it seems some people pull it off. Canon has poor specs but an excellent image and easy ergonomics for low end TV.

I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 21, 2014)

When I say on par with best I mean in the same quality league not identical image quality, no one is ahead of the other. The C500 4K raw image is not lower quality than the Alexa's 2.8k or the Red 5K or the F55s 4K images, they are all in the same ballpark with each one having better characterestics than the others, of course we can argue about these characteristics for pages but in the end it's personal preference and not one being technically superior.

Again C300 = FS700 / F5 image quality. Canon is a tad ahead but same league

C100= FS100 image quality. Canon is also better but not by miles, same league

5D mk III = D800/D4, canon slightly better but same league

7D mk II = D7100/5300/5200/3300/K3/A6000, Canon slightly better (except GH4 being only better in resolution) but same league

there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies. 
it's just now the ones below the 7D mk II now that are way below the conpetetion and actually quite embarrasing for Canon.


----------



## Policar (Sep 21, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.



In my experience (and I have used all of these camera families extensively in post and on set) there are HUGE differences. How have you been using them? Professionally graded at 800 ISO under daylight in a low dynamic range scene they all look quite similar. Push a little further and they're DRAMATICALLY different animals.

•C300 has by far the best low light. Red grain at ISO 800 3200K underexposed a stop looks like C300 grain at ISO 6400 underexposed a stop. Red handles 3200K light horribly. Also magenta highlights.

•Red has the most resolution.

•Alexa has the best color rendition, smoothest grain pattern, least skew (other than F55) by far, and BY far the best roll off of saturated highlight colors. F5 is awful in this regard (clips to saturated color not to white), Canon is ok (WideDR mode best), Red weird (clips to magenta but smoother), etc....

When shot carefully they can be made to look the same, but when shot carefully the DP will usually pick the best for the job. But I find these cameras enormously different.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 21, 2014)

Policar said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Udoed said:
> ...



Yes, but note you say as a B cam. Not as an A cam for the biggest Hollywood productions.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 21, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> 5D mk III = D800/D4, canon slightly better but same league



5D3 as is = a bit better than D800 overall (arguably, depends whether you favor lack of a bit of aliasing vs better detail), but well behind A7S native 1080p or 4k into Ninja Shogun and behind downscaled GH4, perhaps a bit behind some of the other Sonys and others too now

5D3 with ML and shooting in RAW = well better than the Nikons and most of the rest, somewhat better than A7S



> 7D mk II = D7100/5300/5200/3300/K3/A6000, Canon slightly better (except GH4 being only better in resolution) but same league



Nah GH4 downscaled to 1080p is way the heck better than 7D2's waxy, soggy footage. Some of the others have better video quality than it too. And if you compares to the FF A7S.... left in the dust.

Some of the others have better usability features too.

Although the 7D2 does have DPAF for the times that is useful though.



> there are differences but very subtle and nothing embarrasing for any of the companies.



Not true at all. It's embarrassing how much more detailed and natural say A7S 1080p in cam footage looks than in cam 1080p from 7D2 and 5D3 never mind the rest of the Canon DSLRs (and we didn't did even get into adding a Ninja Shogun to the A7S!!!!).

And downscaled GH4 4k looks pretty solid and has way more detail than 7D2/5D3 (unless using 5D3 RAW). I'd say enough to embarrass the Canons.


----------



## Policar (Sep 21, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Absolutely true. Need for Speed was mostly C500, but the for anything over 1-2 million dollars, you'd better have a good reason to use any other camera than the Alexa. With Need for Speed it was low light (and skin tones), for some Red movies it's because they want a ton of resolution for digital effects and don't care so much about a beautiful organic look (Fincher, Ridley Scott) or have relationships with the company or need the tiny handheld rig.

But yes, the Alexa is leagues above anything else out there. Maybe the Dragon is close. 

I wouldn't put the Fx5 or Red above the C500, though. Only the Alexa stands alone.

One thing to realize is that most of the things hobbyists and artists consider "pros" professionals count as "cons."

Easy to use ergonomics for a single operator? Sounds great... 

Most pro ACs will go on about how miserable it is rigging a C300 up to resemble an Alexa or film camera. A single owner/op could not shoot effectively with the large battery hog that is the Alexa, but for a film crew the ergonomics are great.

A great image out of camera? Sounds great...

Not if you have a a LOG-based workflow.

4k... awesome!

Not if your workflow is 1080p. MAJOR shows with millions spent per episode shoot prores 422 instead of prores 444 on the Alexa to save disk space and wouldn't consider 4k. Whereas most artists/hobbyists want to use the highest quality available.

Fwiw, 12 stops of dynamic range from the C300 seems like a big negative, but within that 8 bit codec wrapper of XF cam, it's as good as you can get. Much nicer than Sony's SLOG2 implementation in the A7s, which has weird colors.

Do you really want to be a pro? Then get a job in the camera department. Or do you want to be an artist? Then buy whatever you want. It's weird to me that people trash the elements of the C300 and Alexa that specifically make them attractive to pros (1080p and easy-to-ingest codec for one). Canon won't change that for you, but Panasonic and Sony will. So... jump ship and don't look back.


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2014)

I posted here amongst other places on the week the C100 shipped that there was no point to owning the C100 without the Ninja external recorder. That combo gave you the same direct-to-ProRes workflow of the Alexa along with the same 1080p24 image the C300 or C500 would give you via external recorder (OK plus and minus some minor color science tweaks), for only $7000 then and $5000 today.

The GH4 and FS7 do 4K internally but it's so ignorant to restrict yourself to comparing internal recording only. External recorders are standard throughout professional production, often with many formats being recorded simultaneously for various purposes.

The GH4 has something like 1100 lph resolution internally while the FS7 has an incredibly impressive 1700 lph internal. The FS7 is just about the first cam I'm aware of that really has a workable 4K internal workflow (RED certainly doesn't). It's a formidable entry and does easily outperform the C100/C300 at native ISO, with over a stop better DR and over three times more distinguishable pixels, all into a compressed format on commodity media. The FS7 completely eclipses the CX00 series from what we know now (incl ergonomics), but I have yet to see IR and low-light tests (the Canons are awesome there). SLog3/SGamut3Cine is very workable color though you may prefer Canon Log as a starting point, a matter of taste. The FS7 examples so far haven't had competitively good grading (look at the new Panasonic Varicam demo video for truly pro grading).

Canon has its work cut out for it catching Sony, I think they can do it, but right now Sony is very much in the lead.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 21, 2014)

Policar said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Udoed said:
> ...


As a struggling indie, I have all my fingers crossed for the Sony PXW-FS7, and that's about as $high$ as I can go on a camera. Ergonomics look like they will be great, and I'm hoping IQ will be up there too. I like the fact that it has built-in shoulder mount, extending handgrip control, and so many other nice features right out of the box, like slomo at 1080p, etc.
I am interested in the C100 as well, but at this point I'd rather wait on the mark II version.


----------



## Policar (Sep 21, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Neither the C100 nor the FS7 are appropriate for indie film production. The FS7 outfitted with the HDSDI deck might be, but without timecode sync you're SOL for dual system audio and I have found the timecode sync on the F5 to be unreliable and require a lock it box in the first place.

Rent? I have seen Alexa packages, with lenses, rent for a month for the cost of an FS7. F5 packages are very inexpensive, though I am not wild about the camera... see above.


----------



## Udoed (Sep 21, 2014)

Policar said:


> I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.



Looking on shotonwhat for at high end Hollywood movies, and TV dramas, C500 hasn't been used at all except for a couple of movies. C300 is more popular but with independent lower end filmmakers.


----------



## Policar (Sep 21, 2014)

Udoed said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I would take the C500 over any Red camera other than the Dragon and over the Fx5 any day. Look at the cinematography oscar noms... All Alexa and film. B cameras are all Canon and go pro.
> ...



I'm just stating personal preference, having used all those camera systems, sometimes all on the same production. 

The C500 is certainly the black sheep of Canon's current line up. 

I get that red has some traction, but what "high end Hollywood movies" were shot on the F5?


----------



## peederj (Sep 21, 2014)

No one uses timecode anymore. Plural Eyes is arguably better than timecode given sound travels only 1 foot/ms.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 22, 2014)

Lets sets some records straight on this thread. Sony did not create CineAlta with Panavision trust me I know. 
Sony have brought out the FS7 not because of Canon but because of Blackmagic and the URSA and the AJA Cion, Blackmagic along with Red had massive presence at Photokina. 

Canon have done remarkably well with the C300 less so with the C100 and C500. For serious Motion Picture the Arri Alexa is still outfront followed by the Red Dragon, Arri are also doing really well with the Amira. 
Red have a module to use the Canon ultrasonic motors with a remote control and the camera can also perform these functions via an upcoming smartphone app. this is an area both Sony and Canon miss to be taken seriously at the high end pro end. 
Neither Sony or Canon do full-frame motion picture only Super 35 this means proper anamorphic is out of the question and even the v.good F55 only gets considered for TV. 
Lastly the Alexa success is as much down to its uncluttered user controls and simple menus something both Sony and Canon fail to understand.


----------



## Policar (Sep 22, 2014)

peederj said:


> No one uses timecode anymore. Plural Eyes is arguably better than timecode given sound travels only 1 foot/ms.



lol


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 22, 2014)

Wrong time-code is still widely used.


----------



## Waterdonkey (Sep 22, 2014)

The big trouble for Canon will be the the former ENG shooters - I think we are going to be looking really hard at the Sony PXW-FS7. 
I want the camera on my shoulder, I need a place for a camera light, I need to hang two wireless receivers somewhere- Canon's CX00's have no real estate for that and separate audio is just Blasphemy to an ENG guy. I know I know but man it just unnerves me to have my audio live somewhere else. 
The 10-Bit 4:2:2 50Mbit HD option will allow me to actually deliver this footage to the smaller operations and even some TV clients that have me shoot Special projects or Mini-Docs with that "cinema" look. 
Never mind all the slow-mo options. 
Once that add-on back is available, I can do Pro Res 422 internally, I can mount a big battery with a D-Tap. 
When they figure out H.265 4K or UHD transmission I'll be 4K ready for that too. 

Canon didn't do the ergonomics right and in this regard Sony ENG cameras have been spot on for years.

I know all you film / cinema guys love all the wires and screw-on modular bits and pieces but you gotta' admit that a RED all ENG'ed- out for hand held looks like a ridiculous mound of spaghetti. I say that with love. 

Us former ENG guys want a grab and go... Run and Gun camera option.... Oh and a Zoom rocker! Thats everything to me. All I ever wanted was a big sensor in and ENG body. With the 28-135mm lens I think my dreams have been answered. 

I wonder if NFL films would have bought the Sony FS7 instead of 16 Arri Amiras to replace their film camera's if the FS7 had been available. Even _they_ are on some sort of budget.


----------



## Udoed (Sep 22, 2014)

Policar said:


> I get that red has some traction, but what "high end Hollywood movies" were shot on the F5?



Annie (2014) is shot on F55 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1823664/

And the TV show The blacklist is also F55
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2741602/


----------



## peederj (Sep 22, 2014)

And no, Sony and Canon don't care about the AJA CION, AJA will probably be out of business entirely this time next year. They also don't particularly care about the other CMOSIS cams from Blackmagic, those are only relevant to internet fanboys. The FS7's design process started around the introduction of the C300 and it aimed directly at it in ways they thought Canon would have trouble matching within the product cycle. E.g. the ENG crossover ergonomics as mentioned. But I think Canon will have an answer by NAB, they aren't far off.

Also the C100 does allow LANC focus control. Doesn't work terrifically good but it does work. They will have Wifi focus worked out well for the next generation.

Yes the F55 is being used for high-end TV, I've watched the Wachowskis use it for Sense8.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 24, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> Lets sets some records straight on this thread. Sony did not create CineAlta with Panavision trust me I know.
> Sony have brought out the FS7 not because of Canon but because of Blackmagic and the URSA and the AJA Cion, Blackmagic along with Red had massive presence at Photokina.
> 
> Canon have done remarkably well with the C300 less so with the C100 and C500. For serious Motion Picture the Arri Alexa is still outfront followed by the Red Dragon, Arri are also doing really well with the Amira.
> ...



No offence intended Jeffa but this comment is nearly entirely incorrect information. 

-Sony worked with Panavision in designing many cameras, most notably the F35 which is also rebadged as the Panavision genesis. 
-The FS7 is more likely a response to the most successful camera in its target field (C300) rather than a response to two cameras that have not been released yet, and that are designed for a different field anyway (controlled environments) as they max out at 400 ISO. The FS7 is a documentary camera intended to replace the C300's position. 
-The C100 is more successful than the C300 in sales numbers, both are extremely successful, the most successful video cameras today actually. The C500 is less so due to the fierce competetion from Arri/Red. 
-The C100/300/500 can be controled wirelessly with a smartphone/tablet, giving you a live video feed, ability to change all the settings and start/stop triggering. I used it myself, works brilliantly on the C300, you just put the dongle in its dedicated port and open your web browser on your tablet/phonehhhhh
-Nobody does full frame motion picture cinema cameras, super 35 is the "full frame" of the video world. Red Epic and Scarlet are s35, so are the Arri Alexa and Amira, and Canon C100/300/500 and Sonys FS7/FS700/F5/F55/F65 and Blackmagic ursa and Aja Cion, and all cinema cameras. You don't need full frame to shoot anamorphic, it doesnt have anything to do with that, what you need is 4:3 aspect ratio, only the Alexa offers that. You can still shoot anamorphic on all these cameras given their high resolution though, and of course anamorphic is a very small/niche market. 
-The Alexa's success is not due to the menu interface, it's due to the special colour science they employ, and extremely high dynamic range and very filmic response in the highlight roll off. Skin tones look absolutely lovely on the Alexa, very organic. 99% of the Alexa shooters use it only because it's the closest digital camera to 35mm film in terms of image charachterestics. They would not care less about the menu system as long as everything works, it's all about the image unless it's an ENG camera. Actually the Alexa is the farthest from simplicity and ease of use compared to Canons/Sonys, it's extremely heavy, requires a matte box, EVF, monitor, requires an external Codex recorder, and requires heavy media managment, but that's fine because it's designed to be used in controlled environments where you have time to set up your camera. If you need a ENG style camera they made the Amira for that Canon menus are very simple too. Sonys are fine too.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets sets some records straight on this thread. Sony did not create CineAlta with Panavision trust me I know.
> ...



Interesting post, but I don't thing the C100 offers wifi control.


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 24, 2014)

The Canon WTF-E6 wireless transmitter works with the C100, C300, C500, 1DC, 1DX, and I think the 7D mk II now. It supports autofocus when the DPAF upgrade is installed too.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> The Canon WTF-E6 wireless transmitter works with the C100, C300, C500, 1DC, 1DX, and I think the 7D mk II now. It supports autofocus when the DPAF upgrade is installed too.



The C100 is not included. See here: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/firmware-canon-eos-c100-eos-c300-updates-available/


----------



## Ebrahim Saadawi (Sep 25, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon WTF-E6 wireless transmitter works with the C100, C300, C500, 1DC, 1DX, and I think the 7D mk II now. It supports autofocus when the DPAF upgrade is installed too.
> ...



Yes I was mistaken sorry, the C100 does not have wifi capability. It was listed mistakingly on the B&h page before. The WFT-E60 is compatiable with the C300, C500, 1DC, 1DX and now 7D mk II. 

It seems like such a useful feature to remove from the C100 for product differentiation, the C300 already has the broadcast ready 4:2:2 50mbits codec, 60p, the usable EVF, better articulating screen, HDSDI out, CF cards, and many. The Wifi feature would actually be more useful to the low-end indie market rather than the higher-end one. 

Idea: would anyone be interested if Canon made an even lower-end version of the C100 for around the 5D price point? If it has the same beautiful image but they remove the evf, only 1 SD card slot, the 4:2:2 clean hdmi output, the ND filters, and put is in a smaller/plasticier body, a C50. I think it would be an incredibly powerful upgrade for the Canon DSLR video shooters.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 25, 2014)

Ebrahim Saadawi said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Ebrahim Saadawi said:
> ...



I'd be interested. Or just a C100 mk II with updated competitive feature set.


----------

