4K

John KM/linhof · Mar 4, 2013

This probably not the correct forum, but here goes. If you are using a Panasonic P2 for HD video and want to move to 4K is the Canon still/video camera viable? Or should one go straight to the RED system. I was at a trade show last week where Canon was showing a 4K EOS-1D C and an EOS C500. It looks like 2 C500 plus a set of lenses is around $100K. Canon does not compete with RED according to Canon but are they an alternative?

Eric Stemen · Mar 4, 2013

Haven't used the Canon 4K stuff, but we use a Red Scarlet at work. They are pretty easy to use and having 4K raw is pretty nice. You could get two Scarlets with accessories for less than $100k.

Francis Carver · Mar 4, 2013

John KM/linhof said:
John KM/linhof wrote:

I was at a trade show last week where Canon was showing a 4K EOS-1D C and an EOS C500. It looks like 2 C500 plus a set of lenses is around $100K. Canon does not compete with RED according to Canon but are they an alternative?

Wow, I bet that the Canon folks could not admit that they would be competing with the Red cameras, as Canon will have a long and windy road to trying to catch-up to Red and Sony.

The 4K camera leader of today is SONY, followed closely by RED. Sony just has a lot more 4K camera options that Red does. But for those who say that Red makes the better 4K camera, I would not argue against that vehemently.

Canon with is 4K DSLR and its weird EOS C500 is definitely at the rear of the 4K pack.

As for their prices, Canon's new series of cinema lenses and EOS Cinema series cameras should be at no more than at 50% of the price where they are, that is a basic concept in business if you want to break into someone else's closely guarded territory. I definitely cannot see why anyone would want to pay top money for a Canon branded PL-mount S35 cine lens, when the long established, undisputed quality leaders at comparable prices there are Cooke, Carl Zeiss, and Angenieux for the zooms.

John KM/linhof · Mar 4, 2013

Yes the Canon guy said they don't compete with Red/Sony. They want $25K for the 500C and 20K for a long zoom (30-300 I think?) A set of primes was around 30K. Thanks for your perspective, as I am new to the 4K world. I come from the Minolta/Sony world with the Sony A850 still digital.

Francis Carver · Mar 4, 2013

John KM/linhof said:
John KM/linhof wrote:

Yes the Canon guy said they don't compete with Red/Sony. They want $25K for the 500C and 20K for a long zoom (30-300 I think?) A set of primes was around 30K. Thanks for your perspective, as I am new to the 4K world. I come from the Minolta/Sony world with the Sony A850 still digital.

Wild Tiger · Mar 6, 2013

John,

Today the technology has reached to such an extent that one can create exceptional imagery with either Canon, Sony or RED. Everybody has their strengths.

If you want resolution, RED has the edge.

If you want low light, Canon leads. Canon came to the 4K game last year with the C500 and the 1DC DSLR. The C500 is a traditional camera with 4K raw. Exceptional imagery in a very small package. Check the film Man & Beast:

The 1D C is a disruptive technology. 4k packed in a DSLR form factor. A lot of guys are going for it to create special PoV shots as well as for narratives. People using RED EPICs are also using the 1D C.

The Canon cinemal lenses are available in PL and EF mounts. Those are very sharp and are costly as well. I am using the EF mount still lenses. I haven't used the C500 so can't comment on it. To affirm the low light capability of Canon, I am sharing a link to my preview film on leopards shot with C300 and various canon lenses

I would suggest that take the C500 and lenses on rent and test for yourself. Those are very nice. All the best!

John KM/linhof · Mar 6, 2013

Wonderful tiger pictures!

I want to shoot macro. I have a Sony/Minolta 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. What Sony etc. 4k camera will allow me to use this macro lens? Although obviously not designed for video will it be suitable?

Wild Tiger · Mar 6, 2013

Hi,

Thanks. Happy that you like my images.

I haven't used the Sony 100mm macro. So no idea about that. If you are using the Sony F5 or F55 for 4K, you should be able to use this lens as well as any canon lens through an adaptor.

The Canon 100mm is pretty sharp and does well while filming in 4K.

John KM/linhof · Mar 6, 2013

Thanks. Weren't they Leopards, my mistake.

Francis Carver · Mar 6, 2013

Wild Tiger said:
Wild Tiger wrote:

If you want low light, Canon leads. Canon came to the 4K game last year with the C500 and the 1DC DSLR. The C500 is a traditional camera with 4K raw. Exceptional imagery in a very small package.

It is somewhat confusing to say it this way, Wild Tiger. Canon's EOS C500 camera DOES NOT RECORD 4K RESOLUTION VIDEO, maybe you should also mention that in your description of it. The fact that it is a camera head that has output connectivity is not the same thing as a camcorder capable of recording video internally to flash media or SSD.

Canon EOS Cinema C500 4K OUTPUT CAPABLE Camera Head $26,000 at B&H

The other Canon-cam, the EOS 1D C is basically an EOS 1D X DSLR with a factory hackware "firmware upgrade" that unlocks its 4K video potential for an additional $6,000 in capital outlay over what the 1D X does and costs.

Canon EOS 1D X versus the app. $6,000 more expensive 1D C

Wild Tiger said:
The 1D C is a disruptive technology. 4k packed in a DSLR form factor. A lot of guys are going for it to create special PoV shots as well as for narratives. People using RED EPICs are also using the 1D C.

Whereas I am not too sure about the "disruptive" part, but if you buy this Canon EOS 1D C DSLR or the Canon EOS CIiema C500 from B&H, these expensive cameras are TOTALLY NON-RETURNABLE for any reason whatsoever. Something to ponder over, hmmm?

Cy Cheze · Mar 8, 2013

With 4k, you quadrupple cost of capture, complicate the workflow, and all for the sake of ...?

Aside from Hollywood, what commercial clients (if any) will pay for the additional cost or trouble?

When viewed on YT at 5mbps and 480p on an 8" screen, was it worth it?

Meanwhile, there is a $5k JVC device that shoots 4k in four mp4 files, but which apparently has not sold much. JVC has not yet launched an affordable 4k display. No chicken, no egg, no chicken, etc.

Wild Tiger · Mar 10, 2013

The C500 is not a camcorder. It is a professional cinema camera to shoot RAW. In these days of modular systems, it has been designed to output raw for recording in an external recorder, simultaneously recording 2k proxies for easy of editing.

Recording 4K RAW directly would have resulted in a bulkier camera.

B&H normally doesn't take back expensive items. However, you may ask them the actual reason for not taking back 1DC. I love their service.

Wild Tiger · Mar 10, 2013

Cy Cheze said:
Cy Cheze wrote:

With 4k, you quadrupple cost of capture, complicate the workflow, and all for the sake of ...?

Aside from Hollywood, what commercial clients (if any) will pay for the additional cost or trouble?

When viewed on YT at 5mbps and 480p on an 8" screen, was it worth it?

Meanwhile, there is a $5k JVC device that shoots 4k in four mp4 files, but which apparently has not sold much. JVC has not yet launched an affordable 4k display. No chicken, no egg, no chicken, etc.

I agree that at present there are no viewing options for 4K. In the future there would be hopefully affordable 4K TVs and 4K projectors. One good argument is to "future proof" your footage. For broadcasting, later when 4K becomes a reality, you can show it in 4K, provided the content will have an audience in future.

Creating a 1080p file from a 4K capture will also give you more sharpness. It can also give more flexibility to the Vfx guys. If you are struggling for more footage, than a 4K footage at times can be used to crop and create an alternate PoV. I am not saying that it would be a major reason, but it can be used like that as well.

Francis Carver · Mar 10, 2013

Wild Tiger said:
Wild Tiger wrote:

The C500 is not a camcorder. It is a professional cinema camera to shoot RAW. In these days of modular systems, it has been designed to output raw for recording in an external recorder, simultaneously recording 2k proxies for easy of editing.

Recording 4K RAW directly would have resulted in a bulkier camera.

You keep talking around the Canon Bush, Wild Tiger. For instance, you talk of "in the days of modular systems." One might think that you had in fact meant that the Canon EOS Cinema C500 was one such camera model, like the Sony PMW-F5 and F55 are (it is of course not).

Of course, the EOS C500 from Canon is not a camcorder but a video camera head (I had identified it as such). Problem going with the Canon is, Canon does not even make an external 4K RAW recorder for it, so what you gonna connect your $26,000 4K capable camera head to exactly?

Maybe this is why B&H has it offered on a strictly NON-RETURNABLE condition?

Wild Tiger said:
B&H normally doesn't take back expensive items. However, you may ask them the actual reason for not taking back 1DC. I love their service.

I pretty much do know why they would not take back that one, not hard to imagine based on the initial reports.

Francis Carver · Mar 10, 2013

Wild Tiger said:
Wild Tiger wrote:

Wild Tiger said:
If you are struggling for more footage, than a 4K footage at times can be used to crop and create an alternate PoV. I am not saying that it would be a major reason, but it can be used like that as well.

If a production crew today is forced to "find footage" by chopping away 4K video masters to derive and arrive at camera angles and footage downscaled to 1080 HD.... they probably should have shot the whole thing on S-VHS Standard Def in the first place, anyhow. :-(

rialcnis · Mar 13, 2013

Arrifllex. No one mentioned Arriflex.

Francis Carver · Mar 13, 2013

rialcnis said:
rialcnis wrote:

Arrifllex. No one mentioned Arriflex.

That much is true. These days, they go by the name of ARRI, and they do not have anything that can record in 4K resolution at all. Too bad, really. Maybe one day?

silyn · Mar 13, 2013

For example Gemini 4K RAW Recorder and there are other options. Usually, camera brains/bodies/heads (for this class of cameras) do not include recorders - would make little sense to do that (but as usually you are not aware of things like this). Of course you would insist that Canon should have created its own recorder - just because, I would guess, from your perspective.

As far as not returnable nature of C500 (as well as C300 and C100) it seems like this is a policy imposed by Canon. I do not have any hard evidence, but there are indirect clues (including what I hear from Canon or the fact that all stores selling EOS CXXX line of products do not allow returns. But who cares, right? Who would buy this junk?

Francis Carver said:
Francis Carver wrote:

Francis Carver said:
Problem going with the Canon is, Canon does not even make an external 4K RAW recorder for it, so what you gonna connect your $26,000 4K capable camera head to exactly?

rialcnis · Mar 13, 2013

Francis Carver said:
Francis Carver wrote:

Francis Carver said:

rialcnis wrote:

Arrifllex. No one mentioned Arriflex.

Click to expand...

That much is true. These days, they go by the name of ARRI, and they do not have anything that can record in 4K resolution at all. Too bad, really. Maybe one day?

Well if I won a contest to get a full system of any brand digital cinema camera I think I'd choose the Arri.

Francis Carver · Mar 14, 2013

silyn said:
silyn wrote:

For example Gemini 4K RAW Recorder and there are other options.

Is that what YOU use, silyn? Wow, now I am definitely impressed. That thing costs more than an Atomos Samurai or Ninja, wow!!!

silyn said:
Usually, camera brains/bodies/heads (for this class of cameras) do not include recorders - would make little sense to do that.

The better cameras -- Sony CineAlta PMW-F65, F55, and even the cheap PMW-F5 have modular 4K recording units that attach right to the read end of the camera's main body, making the camera head and recorder a singular unit.

With many of the others, you have to shop around for ueber-priced 3rd party external recorders that requires cabling back and forth, external separate power supplies/batteries, all that nuisance.

silyn said:
Of course you would insist that Canon should have created its own recorder.

I did not insist that they should have done so -- but because they did not do so, people are going to be buying a heckuva lot more Sony PMW-F5s and PMW-F55s than they are going to be buying Canon C300s, you see.

Heck, you can get a Sony CineAlta PMW-F5 WITH the modular 4K recorder for $22,00 total -- whereas the camera body alone (no lens, no recorder) of a Canon EOS Cinema C500 is $26,000.

You do the rest of the math -- as many others out there probably will.

silyn said:
As far as not returnable nature of C500 (as well as C300 and C100) it seems like this is a policy imposed by Canon. I do not have any hard evidence, but there are indirect clues (including what I hear from Canon or the fact that all stores selling EOS CXXX line of products do not allow returns. But who cares, right? Who would buy this junk?

Good one, you got me there, silyn.

4K

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts