Canon Cinema Primes Announced

So it looks like this cinema DSLR is just going to be a niche version of the 1DX, like the astrophotography version of the 20D, and not a totally seperate product. I say that judging from the body design and specs, which lead us to believe it has a different sensor. If they were planning on going this route I personally would have rather they left video nonsense out of the 1DX entirely, and dedicated whatever space/processing power/time that would have saved to making the still aspects of the camera even just a small amount better.


Those cimema lenses though! Wow, I guess the hollywood industry is used to those prices, but for the cost of one of those zooms you could own a full suite of canon's L lenses; it even makes the 500MM F4 L II look affordable. That Cimema prime makes the 50MM L 1.2 look like tiny cheap toy in comparison though, which is saying something.

From what I was told by the Canon rep there will be two versions of this video camera.

One with an EF lens mount, the other with the PL mount.

He said all lenses for this system are 4K lenses.

He did not have specifics on the sensor resolution, but why make 4K lenses for a sensor over 4K.

These camera bodies are designed for the movie making folks and not for Television, not like I would know the difference.

Oh and he threw out a body price of $20,000.00


They will only be sold through a limited number of dealers in limited markets.


.

^^it sounds like the canon rep just reads dpreview.com...

DreDaze wrote in post #13355126
^^it sounds like the canon rep just reads dpreview.com...

Or more likely preview.com listens to Canon ...

Billginthekeys wrote in post #13352423
So it looks like this cinema DSLR is just going to be a niche version of the 1DX, like the astrophotography version of the 20D, and not a totally seperate product. I say that judging from the body design and specs, which lead us to believe it has a different sensor. If they were planning on going this route I personally would have rather they left video nonsense out of the 1DX entirely, and dedicated whatever space/processing power/time that would have saved to making the still aspects of the camera even just a small amount better.

Uhm...No

it uses a COMPLETELY different sensor, it uses an 8 megapixel Super35 sensor, its the same size as the one in a 1DX (Or any other Full Frame 35mm DSLR for that matter) but its a sensor designed from the ground up to excel at recording video

On top of that, and this is said a billion times, the video stuff in modern DSLRs is just a lot of software, its just recording the live view stream and encoding it, it has absolutely NO impact on the still imaging performance because its a completely separate area...leaving it out wouldnt do anything to the price or anything else, it would just be leaving it out for no reason whatsoever

Also two different markets, This is a $20,000 cinema camera for movie production, The 1DX is a $6000 still imaging tool that can also take the place of a decent high end camcorder and do some Cinema-like tricks for those on a budget or for say, TV and that

Theres a huge, Huge difference between the two

KenjiS wrote in post #13356367
Uhm...No

it uses a COMPLETELY different sensor, it uses an 8 megapixel Super35 sensor, its the same size as the one in a 1DX (Or any other Full Frame 35mm DSLR for that matter) but its a sensor designed from the ground up to excel at recording video

On top of that, and this is said a billion times, the video stuff in modern DSLRs is just a lot of software, its just recording the live view stream and encoding it, it has absolutely NO impact on the still imaging performance because its a completely separate area...leaving it out wouldnt do anything to the price or anything else, it would just be leaving it out for no reason whatsoever

Also two different markets, This is a $20,000 cinema camera for movie production, The 1DX is a $6000 still imaging tool that can also take the place of a decent high end camcorder and do some Cinema-like tricks for those on a budget or for say, TV and that

Theres a huge, Huge difference between the two

Thanks for reminding me why I rarely come here any more .

Sorry I upset you so much, especially since I don't seem to have disagreed with you nearly as much as your post indicated. I said, in my post, that it has a different sensor, you reiterated, IN CAPS, that it has a different sensor. That is what a niche product is, something that does one thing extremely well (hollywood movie making) at the cost of other things (still photography), usually accompanied by an even larger price tag ($20,000 instead of $6,000).

And I am sorry, I haven't read a "billion times" that dslr video is all software or whatever, because I don't have the time to sit around a read spec sheets and blogs all day. I just saw the news of these cameras and lenses and thought I would see what people are saying about it.

KenjiS wrote in post #13356367
Uhm...No

it uses a COMPLETELY different sensor, it uses an 8 megapixel Super35 sensor, its the same size as the one in a 1DX (Or any other Full Frame 35mm DSLR for that matter) but its a sensor designed from the ground up to excel at recording video

The super35 sensor is not the same size as the full frame sensor (24x36) , it is 24.3x13.5.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #13356893
Thanks for reminding me why I rarely come here any more .

There's always the Ignore file...

that ND filter button would be something i wouldn't mind seeing in an SLR...

I will buy the prosumer versions of this when it comes out 2 years after this one.

Why are the lenses so expensive? With the lower resolution, what makes the optics so special? I see a whole line of accesories coming out with this including mic's, follow focus, etc.

camera dude wrote in post #13357400
I will buy the prosumer versions of this when it comes out 2 years after this one.

Why are the lenses so expensive? With the lower resolution, what makes the optics so special? I see a whole line of accesories coming out with this including mic's, follow focus, etc.

They are cinema lenses on par with Zeiss CP.2 primes and Angeneiux Optimo lenses. They are completely different than still photography lenses, mainly in that they don't breath when focusing and they maintain focus marks throughout the zoom range.

I use these Angeneiux lenses daily. They cost $100k and up. The Canon lenses are cheap in comparison.

www.angenieux.com/zoom​-lenses/index.php?txt=5

Canon still photography zoom lenses are completely useless in film production. The primes are good, but the zooms drive me nuts and I refuse to use them.

DreDaze wrote in post #13357351
that ND filter button would be something i wouldn't mind seeing in an SLR...

I honestly never got why it would be so hard to integrate an ND filter into DSLRs

its certainly a cool option to have an ND filter activated by the Fn button or something for those times where you need one...

KenjiS wrote in post #13358279
I honestly never got why it would be so hard to integrate an ND filter into DSLRs

its certainly a cool option to have an ND filter activated by the Fn button or something for those times where you need one...

Even better, a whole range of them, from 1 to 10 stops.

Since they would be in front of the sensor, rather than the lens, they could be paper thin and take up minimal space, without having to sacrifice any optical quality for durability. And, in adding them, it would effectively extend the minimum ISO from 100 down to 0.01, for great long-exposure shots.

KenjiS wrote in post #13358279
I honestly never got why it would be so hard to integrate an ND filter into DSLRs

I never got why it is so hard to just buy them if you need them!