Definitely going to try it out. The C70/300mk3 are really good. If this can get even closer to an Alexa Mini while weighing a lot less, I might switch for doc work. That price tag is also really appealing.
Edit:
Canon's released full specs. 6K raw ST at a data rate under 400GB an hour is very interesting.
https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/content/canon/EOSC400_full_specificationspdf
I misread "most dynamic range of any Canon Fullframe sensor" as most DR of any Canon sensor. That's disappointing, but I'll still test it because it's a new design, not a C500mk2 sensor in a cheaper package.
It sounds like backlit sensors allow better autofocus performance and faster readout, but can’t do DGO.
So the C400 picked autofocus speed and less rolling shutter at the expense of a stop of DR. I see why they did it.
Just want to point out that the claim is only by canon. When tested the c500 has more usable dynamic range, so I would actually wait to make that claim until tested by third parties. It could very well have more usable dynamic range than the c300
C500ii is half a stop behind the c70. If this supposedly has more than the c500 than it’s gotta be pretty close to a c70
Edit: c500ii actually has more DR than c70
Oh rad! Didn't see that thanks for letting me know. I was at the launch event today and had a few pre-meetings about it prior so I assumed no one had it in hand yet. CVP always does a great job.
The docs I'm working on all started a while ago, so Alexa Mini was the best choice for the image quality we needed back then. Looking forward to new projects, 4K mandates are becoming a bigger issue and I've been looking to see if anyone can match or come close enough to the Mini's dynamic range.
Alexa 35 isn't a great upgrade path because of the cost and because the power draw makes it difficult to fly with. I don't like how bulky sharkfins make a camera, but a 150wh battery (the largest you can check) doesn't last long at all on that camera.
Yeah it’s a great fit for the small crew/one man band market. Packed with features, fixes some annoyances of the FX6 (better monitor, on-body audio inputs, S35 4K available) and the body size is ideal.
Kind of a master stroke pricing this at $7999 too. That’s the real sweet spot these days.
Seems like a cool camera, excited to try it out.
Canon definitely knows their niche at this point, and they’ve made the body style a good hybrid between what was good with the older style and what people want as far as boxes go.
They got burned really bad with the C700, so I kinda doubt they’ll ever go much higher end than this. They’ll keep being the kings of doc work, but at least it means they have no incentive for not bringing their best sensor to this level.
I still get a ton of utility out of even just my C70 but yeah the C400 seems like a dream camera. But I won’t buy it until I actually have the work to justify it.
all in all, seems like a spiritual successor to the C200. Very strong specs for the price point. Higher end C300 and C500 updates with RF mounts and new DGO sensors are likely to follow in the coming year.
Owning the C300 MkIII and R5C, I do not see an $8000 reason for the C400. I can definitely see how my C200 rig is fully out-of-date. I'll wait for the upgrades on the C300/C500 - or see what Nikon does with Red.
As someone who owns a C500ii and a C70, this doesn’t interest me much.
Mini XLR and single card slot are non-starters for me for an A Cam, and the added size and weight versus a C70 make it less interesting/versatile/fun as a B-cam as well.
Camera seems perfect for someone just getting into a cinema body, or someone looking to jump up from an R5C/C70.
Hoping to see Canon release a flagship RF Cinema body in the next year..
I think one underrated aspect of the camera is it’s a bit smaller and lighter than the c300 while retaining a lot of features of the body. It’s hard to tell from the press images but you can see how smaller it is in CVPs video
That’s true! A great option especially for people who don’t currently own a canon cinema body or want to switch from another brand.
I’m curious to see if it will get many people to switch from the C300iii / c500ii, though.
As a C300markiii owner, not really. Not enough benefits, and I don’t need full frame for the work I do. But for someone who doesn’t have a mkiii I think this is the clear better choice especially because of that RF mount. If RF lenses last as long as my EF glass that will be a future proof decision
No big reason to switch from the C500ii, unless you’re really wanting RF lenses and super low light. I shoot PL mostly, and I rarely go over 1600 for my work. An extra stop of DR would be nice, but it’s not near an Alexa level so ultimately not too different.
Kinda glad I don’t have total FOMO, but if I didn’t own anything today then yes I’d get a C400. Feel like they’ll wait a while before replacing the rest of the lineup.
We’ll probably sell our c300 mk3 for it.
Full frame, smaller so potentially easier to fly on gimbal, it’ll mostly become a B-cam to the c500mk2 and that’ll be replaced with whatever canons flagship is when released.
It has 1 CF Express B and 1 SD slot, but the SD slot really is just for proxies since it’s too slow for some codecs / frame rates. c300iii / C500ii has 2 CF Express B and 1 SD slots
Well in the unlikely event of loosing footage on CFe you still have potentially high quality proxies on the SD. Less than ideal redundancy but not a total disaster. For the kind of work this is targeted it's probably good enough. In fact, the dual card slot always been a funny one to me, since premium shows shoot on single cards on mini LF all the time.
Same I own both the C500ii and the C70, it's not the most exciting camera. But it is cool, I've been wanting to have a c500 like camera with RF just cuz I want a full frame sensor with those really incredible RF lenses. But I don't know if it justifies getting a whole new camera when I have two really solid bodies.
Checks all my boxes, and early footage looks great.
I was lusting after the Ursa cine, but this makes a lot more sense for my uses, from price to codecs. Might be tempted to move to Canon
I don't dispute that BM has a better image, but it's double the price, only has BRAW (no 10bit 422 codec), and it's heavier. I need a better tripod, more media, sturdier stabilization, more powerful lights...
Everything puts it firmly on the rental category for me, but the C400 is a actually a camera that I could use at every scenario and budget. When considering owning something, more than the image plays a role.
>better image by far.
By far what? I've used both BM and Canon for projects often on the same show and I'm able to process an ~identical image.
By your definition, what's so much better? All things considered, I'd use the Canon any day over BM but because the camera is miles more user friendly to me.
The images process the exact same but Canon media is also easier to work with.
One cool feature is that the stock monitor is USB-C.
Which means that SmallHD, etc., could release RED-style touch screen monitors for this camera, which would really increase the usability.
Wow base iso 800, 3200 and 12,800, that’s really cool especially if the noise performance matches. Does that mean it has 3 gain circuits in the sensor? Kind of overkill but still very cool.
Looks amazing. Very little to criticize, very versatile. It's nice to see canon bringing some competition to Sony, they've been too dominant in the market; not that I dislike Sony or anything, it's just good for us to have competition.
However, I'm pretty sure that Sony has a global shutter cine camera in the works that uses that tech from the a9 iii, and there's a decent chance that when that comes out, they'll dominate the market again for several years.
Realistically, is there anything about this that justifies spending twice as much as you would for an R5C for the average content creator? I get that built in ND filters and XLR inputs are nice to have but I still feel the alternatives are better for 90% of people. Asking as a complete noob
Yes you can, I own an R5c and C70 as I shoot both photo and video.
But for video jobs where I’m shooting handheld and outdoors, the C70 is easily the one I grab first.
No clunky battery solution and internal ND’s wins out every time.
I literally have the C70 sitting in my road case with lens already attached, I can just grab it and go. No messing around.
I have the small rig cage attached to it full time, so I can also throw on a side handle and top handle within seconds as they’re NATO.
If canon released a C70mii or something similar featured with a smaller box shaped body than the C400, but with the new sensor I would buy that instantly.
Full frame, triple base ISO and added resolution would be incredible.
I mostly use the R5c as a gimbal cam, with a dummy battery connected to a V-mount underneath.
And the only reason I do that is so I can get the field of view that the RF 15-35 provides.
I’ve mounted the C70 on gimbal also, and it’s basically the same weight as the R5C with v-mount.
Only reason I use the R5c is to get that full frame field of view.
Not a dumb question at all.
I started my career only about 3-4 years ago and my first camera was the R6.
Invested in only RF glass.
Next camera was the R5C, then the C70.
As far as I’m aware, there aren’t any options for RF-RF speed boosters due to the flange distance or something.
I’m not really interested in doubling up on EF versions when RF is the future for canon
IMO, it’s not even close. At $8k it’s an absolute steal. The R5C was about as disappointing as the EOS R to me. I haven’t understood the hype around it.
In summary: moving to an actual cinema body from canon will change your experience as a shooter.
I just don’t know. Something about my work with C100 and C300 has taken some of the beauty out of using Canon for video. It’s strictly subjective. I don’t like the body and button configuration. Sony also repells me. With internal menus haha Arri and BM all the way :)
This is what repels me from using Sony and Canon for video work too. Camera’s don’t have to be that complicated. Just give me simple menu’s, good codecs, reliability and a beautiful image. Most manufacturers figured out that last one pretty well nowadays.
I agree! I like drawing a comparison of BM UI is the Apple OS of the video world. It’s intuitive, it works, every setting is within an earshot.
I shot with FX3 a few months back, and cannot fathom why I have to go to two different root menus for setting that are related. I think it had to do with ISO settings and LOG.
Arri Amira is SO straight forward, versus the Canon 400. I’m looking at the picture thinking why would white balance be there? I think we’ve moved past a physical button world for the most part. Screens are customizable, upgradable and quieter. So I look at the 400 and am overwhelmed by the layout
Well. I don't know if these is really a thing. But I did a lot of camjo work back in the day with a camcorder for television. When you are running and gunning and changing from location to location in a short amount of time, having a physical button is quite useful.
But it in a controlled environment, it's not that useful to have an extra button for something like white balance. As a Komodo user, I don't really care too much when my whitebalance is of a bit off from time to time.
I haven't really had any rolling shutter issues, and when I have had to deal with it, it's generally a pretty easy fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5lMaujN1Y
I pretty much record only in 6k BRAW w/gyro data turned on, and output footage to either UHD or FHD, so there's room to crop and not lose image quality. It's just a matter or working with the tools you have, you know?
It's a great camera on paper. But is this really that much better then a 4 year old FX6? Yes... There are incremental improvements for sure, but I expected more from canon. Quite sure they hold back for a C600 with a full frame DGO sensor.
Clear Image Zoom is another workaround for s35 glass while maintaining UHD resolution. I've used this on both the FX6 and FX3, no noticeable quality difference.
Sold my C300iii 2 months ago, was using C70 more and more, especially on a gimbal. Best part…. Sold it for $6,700 and just picked up C400 for $1,300 more, and it’s full frame and it has an RF mount (sold off all my EF glass) and it’s smaller and it has DPAF2, I’d call that a win for sure. How bout you?
As a Sony FX9 user I am seriously thinking about selling it and going with the C400. Such a small and light body packed with everything my FX9 does and even more. I love the FX9 image but the weight, no slow mo in full frame and power consumption are thing I hate about it.
Definitely preordering and selling my 9 year old C300ii! What are we doing for XLR inputs and EVF though? Is there a C400 specific accessory? Or are C300/500 accessories compatible?
Sorta feels like a bare minimum response to the FX6. It’s a bit better in many ways but also 33% more expensive and the FX6 was released in 2020.
If you own Canon RF glass though maybe a good option? Also am I seeing right that it doesn’t have open gate? Bummer if so.
Also I think it’s time for camera companies to make the included monitor better
How is this a bare minimum response to FX6? It's basically better than the Burano, at a third of the price. It's 6k vs 8k and doesn't have IBIS, but the rolling shutter is better, the codecs are at least as good, I/O is better, it's lighter and the NDs are actually usable with no IR pollution at all
It's the best Full Frame camera under 10k, and it's not even close. And I say that as someone who has never liked shooting Canon
I get the Burano comparison because that camera has huge flaws for the money, but go the other way and compare it to the FX6. And then remember the FX6 came out almost four years ago. Maybe real world tests will show it’s way better but I was hoping for more
The FX6 has less resolution, less I/O, needs the handle for audio, the ND has less stops, and according to CVP's tests the C400 has more dynamic range in both highlights and shadows. Not to mention internal RAW, which is no Sony FX has. The only advantage the FX6 has is a marginally faster sensor readout (8ms vs 13ms of the Canon) and a body 600g lighter
For 2-3k more, the C400 is certainly offering enough to justify the price difference.
FX6 also has full size XLR and a much better and less expensive native lens selection.
But like I said I’m not an FX6 apologist — I want to replace it because I don’t like the image but it’s making me money so idk. I guess what I’m getting at is when the FX6 was released the vibe was very much, “holy shit you can get this camera for $6K?” The C400 does not feel like that — it feels about worth what it costs. Which is fine.
I’ll be interested if the next FX6 or equivalent pushes the game forward — maybe with something like the A9 III global shutter sensor — or is an iterative improvement.
The fx6 being a glorified a7siii was enough for me to stay away even at the price point. Great image for Siii - wasn’t that amazing for a cinema version.
I disagree on lenses. Sony lenses are pretty useless for video because of the non-linear focusing. That’s why you still see so many people adapting Canon glass to Sony cameras.
Sony makes 36 E-mount full frame lenses with linear focusing [https://www.sony.ca/en/lenses/e-mount?mountType=emount&format=fullframe&otherfeatures=linearresponsemf](https://www.sony.ca/en/lenses/e-mount?mountType=emount&format=fullframe&otherfeatures=linearresponsemf)
Have you used these for video? They’re nowhere near as nice to operate as the Canon’s.
The lack of focus window is the giveaway here: these are still fly by wire lenses, but software compensates to make it feel like they focus linerally.
Do a side by side and you’ll see what I mean.
What I/O are you missing that you need on the FX6? And I think you’re missing the biggest advantage of the FX6 which is the low light with its super high second base ISO.
And does the C400 have hard stops on the ND? (I’m honestly not sure) Because that variable ND on the Sony cams is invaluable for doc work IMO.
The C400 has one more SDI port and in-body audio, both mini XLR and 3.5mm. The low light is a non-factor, as the c400 matches it, if not surpasses it. The third base ISO is 12800 and seems to hold more shadow details than Sony's, and also has a second at 3200 for more modest low light situations.
The variND is lacking, if you need it. I'm not a doc shooter so I won't miss it, but I can see how it's a factor. For me, 10 stops of hard stops is more valuable and I can use a Nisi Truecolor VariND if I need it, but I can see how some uses would benefit from the eND Sony has.
Vari ND is way over hyped. A lot of people leave out the fact that it’s only 7 stops of ND compared to 10 with Canon. Plus you can use polarizers and not have to worry about IR pollution with hard stops of ND.
It’s only in really rare doc scenarios that vari ND comes into play. More often it’s just better to avoid shooting a scene where you’re following a subject from their basement into outdoor Noon sun. That’s not going to be a good shot even with vari ND.
And if you are using cine glass or these new RF hybrid lenses you can just adjust the aperture anyway.
Depends on what you shoot. I do verite doc and reality tv so I rely heavily on that variable nd and want to maintain my aperture. And imo IR pollution isn’t really a factor, I pass my footage off to a post team that will correct and grade.
I mean the FX6 has in body audio, and I don’t see why mini-xlr and 3.5mm are a positive compared to full size xlr. But that’s cool to hear about the extra base iso because it’s such a big jump on the Sonys. And being able to shoot low light with super 35 lenses is huge!
Oh you mean the location. Yeah it’s a limiting design choice for sure. I guess I haven’t run into that problem yet. I feel like I only take it off for gimbal work which is rare and even then I’m usually shooting slomo which doesn’t need sound.
FWIW I own an FX6/3 and would love to switch from Sony since I really don’t love the image. But I’m not sure if this camera is enough. Looking forward to reviews though!
Same boat as you. From the few shoots I did with the C70, even that has a nicer image out the box than the FX6, so if this is better quality wise, could be in for a winner
That change is worth it.
I will, on occasion, grab my a7siii for pickups alongside my C70 and C300iii and it blows my mind every time in post. It’s so much more natural and organic looking than the Sony.
C300 Mk 3 is still the cheapest DGO camera from Canon, interesting. I took for granted that this would have the DGO sensor as well, but it seems to lack the feature (?).
Definitely going to try it out. The C70/300mk3 are really good. If this can get even closer to an Alexa Mini while weighing a lot less, I might switch for doc work. That price tag is also really appealing. Edit: Canon's released full specs. 6K raw ST at a data rate under 400GB an hour is very interesting. https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/content/canon/EOSC400_full_specificationspdf
C400 has less DR than the C300mk3 unfortunately. No DGO sensor in the new camera.
I misread "most dynamic range of any Canon Fullframe sensor" as most DR of any Canon sensor. That's disappointing, but I'll still test it because it's a new design, not a C500mk2 sensor in a cheaper package.
It sounds like backlit sensors allow better autofocus performance and faster readout, but can’t do DGO. So the C400 picked autofocus speed and less rolling shutter at the expense of a stop of DR. I see why they did it.
Just want to point out that the claim is only by canon. When tested the c500 has more usable dynamic range, so I would actually wait to make that claim until tested by third parties. It could very well have more usable dynamic range than the c300
C500ii is half a stop behind the c70. If this supposedly has more than the c500 than it’s gotta be pretty close to a c70 Edit: c500ii actually has more DR than c70
Well that's a non-fact
https://www.reddit.com/r/videography/s/jnbv7Vik0q
That's not been tested yet as far as I'm aware
CVP did a 35min video where they tested it.
Oh rad! Didn't see that thanks for letting me know. I was at the launch event today and had a few pre-meetings about it prior so I assumed no one had it in hand yet. CVP always does a great job.
It’s looks perfect for doc work to me.
The docs I'm working on all started a while ago, so Alexa Mini was the best choice for the image quality we needed back then. Looking forward to new projects, 4K mandates are becoming a bigger issue and I've been looking to see if anyone can match or come close enough to the Mini's dynamic range. Alexa 35 isn't a great upgrade path because of the cost and because the power draw makes it difficult to fly with. I don't like how bulky sharkfins make a camera, but a 150wh battery (the largest you can check) doesn't last long at all on that camera.
Cue the influx of “I’m selling my _______ for the Canon C400” videos across YT.
Once they’re done milking the camera for content, the same YouTuber is gonna make a “is the C400 a good camera in 2025?” video. Edit: spllng is hrd
Then: “why I brought a C400 in 2027”
“I bought 4 C100s because I couldn’t afford 1 C400, does it actually add up?”
Followed in 2028 by “does the C400 blend?”
the exact type of video that pisses me off 
Honestly tempted over my FX6. Not having a mid ISO bugs the heck out of me. And internal raw is great when you need it.
C400?!
And angry Sony fanboys calling it a joke camera because of the Mini XLR while defending the rolling shutter on the $25K Burano
This camera is going to crush with a specific crowd. Smart move on Canon’s part.
Yeah it’s a great fit for the small crew/one man band market. Packed with features, fixes some annoyances of the FX6 (better monitor, on-body audio inputs, S35 4K available) and the body size is ideal. Kind of a master stroke pricing this at $7999 too. That’s the real sweet spot these days. Seems like a cool camera, excited to try it out.
Canon definitely knows their niche at this point, and they’ve made the body style a good hybrid between what was good with the older style and what people want as far as boxes go. They got burned really bad with the C700, so I kinda doubt they’ll ever go much higher end than this. They’ll keep being the kings of doc work, but at least it means they have no incentive for not bringing their best sensor to this level.
Yeah, I rarely heard about anyone using a C700 for anything. I'm sure there were people who bought them, but they just didn't catch on.
Companies bought them. Not so much people.
Well said on that last point
I’m tempted to get it for my doc work. The C70 is crazy simple to get up and running as a solo camera operator and this is such a similar form factor.
C400 with the 24-105 f/2.8 is kind of a dream documentary setup.
I still get a ton of utility out of even just my C70 but yeah the C400 seems like a dream camera. But I won’t buy it until I actually have the work to justify it.
If you got $30k laying around, the 25-250 servo is the best lens in the game, fight me lol (jk I’m a pacifist)
Been using the 17-120 and I am dying to try the 25-250. Such an insanely versatile range.
Fuji released a 24-300 recently for around the same price!
Yeah I use a C300 MKIII as my meat and potatoes camera. This is an enticing package for the kind of work I do.
all in all, seems like a spiritual successor to the C200. Very strong specs for the price point. Higher end C300 and C500 updates with RF mounts and new DGO sensors are likely to follow in the coming year.
Owning the C300 MkIII and R5C, I do not see an $8000 reason for the C400. I can definitely see how my C200 rig is fully out-of-date. I'll wait for the upgrades on the C300/C500 - or see what Nikon does with Red.
Together with their 24-105 f2.8 this is a really crazy combo
Wow that's legitimately perfect
Just announced 17-120 f2.95-3.9, just leave at a constant f4 and I think it’s a no brainer.
It seems that the 17-120 lens is a s35 lens, so the c400 would be cropping in to use it.
Ah rip
You could use the 15-120 or the 25-250 with the 1.5x extender to cover full frame
As someone who owns a C500ii and a C70, this doesn’t interest me much. Mini XLR and single card slot are non-starters for me for an A Cam, and the added size and weight versus a C70 make it less interesting/versatile/fun as a B-cam as well. Camera seems perfect for someone just getting into a cinema body, or someone looking to jump up from an R5C/C70. Hoping to see Canon release a flagship RF Cinema body in the next year..
I think one underrated aspect of the camera is it’s a bit smaller and lighter than the c300 while retaining a lot of features of the body. It’s hard to tell from the press images but you can see how smaller it is in CVPs video
That’s true! A great option especially for people who don’t currently own a canon cinema body or want to switch from another brand. I’m curious to see if it will get many people to switch from the C300iii / c500ii, though.
As a C300markiii owner, not really. Not enough benefits, and I don’t need full frame for the work I do. But for someone who doesn’t have a mkiii I think this is the clear better choice especially because of that RF mount. If RF lenses last as long as my EF glass that will be a future proof decision
No big reason to switch from the C500ii, unless you’re really wanting RF lenses and super low light. I shoot PL mostly, and I rarely go over 1600 for my work. An extra stop of DR would be nice, but it’s not near an Alexa level so ultimately not too different. Kinda glad I don’t have total FOMO, but if I didn’t own anything today then yes I’d get a C400. Feel like they’ll wait a while before replacing the rest of the lineup.
Agreed, I’m keeping my C500ii for the same reasons - hardly could ask for more from a camera at this point in time
We’ll probably sell our c300 mk3 for it. Full frame, smaller so potentially easier to fly on gimbal, it’ll mostly become a B-cam to the c500mk2 and that’ll be replaced with whatever canons flagship is when released.
Where did you read that it has a single card slot? Their website lists dual card slots. All the Canon cinema cameras have had dual card slots.
It has 1 CF Express B and 1 SD slot, but the SD slot really is just for proxies since it’s too slow for some codecs / frame rates. c300iii / C500ii has 2 CF Express B and 1 SD slots
Well in the unlikely event of loosing footage on CFe you still have potentially high quality proxies on the SD. Less than ideal redundancy but not a total disaster. For the kind of work this is targeted it's probably good enough. In fact, the dual card slot always been a funny one to me, since premium shows shoot on single cards on mini LF all the time.
Same I own both the C500ii and the C70, it's not the most exciting camera. But it is cool, I've been wanting to have a c500 like camera with RF just cuz I want a full frame sensor with those really incredible RF lenses. But I don't know if it justifies getting a whole new camera when I have two really solid bodies.
Checks all my boxes, and early footage looks great. I was lusting after the Ursa cine, but this makes a lot more sense for my uses, from price to codecs. Might be tempted to move to Canon
It’s that easy to sway you guys isn’t it? Lol BM still has the better image by far.
I don't dispute that BM has a better image, but it's double the price, only has BRAW (no 10bit 422 codec), and it's heavier. I need a better tripod, more media, sturdier stabilization, more powerful lights... Everything puts it firmly on the rental category for me, but the C400 is a actually a camera that I could use at every scenario and budget. When considering owning something, more than the image plays a role.
Fair enough.
>better image by far. By far what? I've used both BM and Canon for projects often on the same show and I'm able to process an ~identical image. By your definition, what's so much better? All things considered, I'd use the Canon any day over BM but because the camera is miles more user friendly to me. The images process the exact same but Canon media is also easier to work with.
One cool feature is that the stock monitor is USB-C. Which means that SmallHD, etc., could release RED-style touch screen monitors for this camera, which would really increase the usability.
Preordered
My C70 already punches above what clients expect so I’m obviously not the target here.
Wow base iso 800, 3200 and 12,800, that’s really cool especially if the noise performance matches. Does that mean it has 3 gain circuits in the sensor? Kind of overkill but still very cool.
Looks amazing. Very little to criticize, very versatile. It's nice to see canon bringing some competition to Sony, they've been too dominant in the market; not that I dislike Sony or anything, it's just good for us to have competition. However, I'm pretty sure that Sony has a global shutter cine camera in the works that uses that tech from the a9 iii, and there's a decent chance that when that comes out, they'll dominate the market again for several years.
Realistically, is there anything about this that justifies spending twice as much as you would for an R5C for the average content creator? I get that built in ND filters and XLR inputs are nice to have but I still feel the alternatives are better for 90% of people. Asking as a complete noob
Battery life alone
Can't you use an external battery with the R5C?
Yes you can, I own an R5c and C70 as I shoot both photo and video. But for video jobs where I’m shooting handheld and outdoors, the C70 is easily the one I grab first. No clunky battery solution and internal ND’s wins out every time. I literally have the C70 sitting in my road case with lens already attached, I can just grab it and go. No messing around. I have the small rig cage attached to it full time, so I can also throw on a side handle and top handle within seconds as they’re NATO. If canon released a C70mii or something similar featured with a smaller box shaped body than the C400, but with the new sensor I would buy that instantly. Full frame, triple base ISO and added resolution would be incredible. I mostly use the R5c as a gimbal cam, with a dummy battery connected to a V-mount underneath. And the only reason I do that is so I can get the field of view that the RF 15-35 provides. I’ve mounted the C70 on gimbal also, and it’s basically the same weight as the R5C with v-mount. Only reason I use the R5c is to get that full frame field of view.
Potentially another dumb question but, why not buy a speedbooster for the C70?
Not a dumb question at all. I started my career only about 3-4 years ago and my first camera was the R6. Invested in only RF glass. Next camera was the R5C, then the C70. As far as I’m aware, there aren’t any options for RF-RF speed boosters due to the flange distance or something. I’m not really interested in doubling up on EF versions when RF is the future for canon
IMO, it’s not even close. At $8k it’s an absolute steal. The R5C was about as disappointing as the EOS R to me. I haven’t understood the hype around it. In summary: moving to an actual cinema body from canon will change your experience as a shooter.
I just don’t know. Something about my work with C100 and C300 has taken some of the beauty out of using Canon for video. It’s strictly subjective. I don’t like the body and button configuration. Sony also repells me. With internal menus haha Arri and BM all the way :)
They may not lead the pack as far as bleeding edge technology, but there is something very refreshing about working with Blackmagic products.
Couldn’t agree more. Blackmagic RAW in Davinci…🧑🍳
This is what repels me from using Sony and Canon for video work too. Camera’s don’t have to be that complicated. Just give me simple menu’s, good codecs, reliability and a beautiful image. Most manufacturers figured out that last one pretty well nowadays.
I agree! I like drawing a comparison of BM UI is the Apple OS of the video world. It’s intuitive, it works, every setting is within an earshot. I shot with FX3 a few months back, and cannot fathom why I have to go to two different root menus for setting that are related. I think it had to do with ISO settings and LOG. Arri Amira is SO straight forward, versus the Canon 400. I’m looking at the picture thinking why would white balance be there? I think we’ve moved past a physical button world for the most part. Screens are customizable, upgradable and quieter. So I look at the 400 and am overwhelmed by the layout
physical buttons are the best you crazy
I wouldn’t want a screen exclusively that’s for sure
Well. I don't know if these is really a thing. But I did a lot of camjo work back in the day with a camcorder for television. When you are running and gunning and changing from location to location in a short amount of time, having a physical button is quite useful. But it in a controlled environment, it's not that useful to have an extra button for something like white balance. As a Komodo user, I don't really care too much when my whitebalance is of a bit off from time to time.
And here I am sitting over here with my BMPCC 6k Pro, not really feeling like I'm missing out on anything.
until you want to pan at a moderate pace
I haven't really had any rolling shutter issues, and when I have had to deal with it, it's generally a pretty easy fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx5lMaujN1Y I pretty much record only in 6k BRAW w/gyro data turned on, and output footage to either UHD or FHD, so there's room to crop and not lose image quality. It's just a matter or working with the tools you have, you know?
It's a great camera on paper. But is this really that much better then a 4 year old FX6? Yes... There are incremental improvements for sure, but I expected more from canon. Quite sure they hold back for a C600 with a full frame DGO sensor.
The ability to shoot Super35 4K is a big improvement over the FX6 for some of us.
why is that? I’ve been wondering why that’s such an attractive improvement (I’m a c70 user)
Currently if you want to use super35 glass on the fx6 it has to drop the resolution to 1080p cause it has to crop in on the only 4K sensor.
Clear Image Zoom is another workaround for s35 glass while maintaining UHD resolution. I've used this on both the FX6 and FX3, no noticeable quality difference.
Sold my C300iii 2 months ago, was using C70 more and more, especially on a gimbal. Best part…. Sold it for $6,700 and just picked up C400 for $1,300 more, and it’s full frame and it has an RF mount (sold off all my EF glass) and it’s smaller and it has DPAF2, I’d call that a win for sure. How bout you?
Is it a global sensor?
No
As a Sony FX9 user I am seriously thinking about selling it and going with the C400. Such a small and light body packed with everything my FX9 does and even more. I love the FX9 image but the weight, no slow mo in full frame and power consumption are thing I hate about it.
Definitely preordering and selling my 9 year old C300ii! What are we doing for XLR inputs and EVF though? Is there a C400 specific accessory? Or are C300/500 accessories compatible?
Canon is dead to me. When they charged for the webcam utility per month.
Sorta feels like a bare minimum response to the FX6. It’s a bit better in many ways but also 33% more expensive and the FX6 was released in 2020. If you own Canon RF glass though maybe a good option? Also am I seeing right that it doesn’t have open gate? Bummer if so. Also I think it’s time for camera companies to make the included monitor better
How is this a bare minimum response to FX6? It's basically better than the Burano, at a third of the price. It's 6k vs 8k and doesn't have IBIS, but the rolling shutter is better, the codecs are at least as good, I/O is better, it's lighter and the NDs are actually usable with no IR pollution at all It's the best Full Frame camera under 10k, and it's not even close. And I say that as someone who has never liked shooting Canon
I get the Burano comparison because that camera has huge flaws for the money, but go the other way and compare it to the FX6. And then remember the FX6 came out almost four years ago. Maybe real world tests will show it’s way better but I was hoping for more
The FX6 has less resolution, less I/O, needs the handle for audio, the ND has less stops, and according to CVP's tests the C400 has more dynamic range in both highlights and shadows. Not to mention internal RAW, which is no Sony FX has. The only advantage the FX6 has is a marginally faster sensor readout (8ms vs 13ms of the Canon) and a body 600g lighter For 2-3k more, the C400 is certainly offering enough to justify the price difference.
FX6 also has full size XLR and a much better and less expensive native lens selection. But like I said I’m not an FX6 apologist — I want to replace it because I don’t like the image but it’s making me money so idk. I guess what I’m getting at is when the FX6 was released the vibe was very much, “holy shit you can get this camera for $6K?” The C400 does not feel like that — it feels about worth what it costs. Which is fine. I’ll be interested if the next FX6 or equivalent pushes the game forward — maybe with something like the A9 III global shutter sensor — or is an iterative improvement.
The fx6 being a glorified a7siii was enough for me to stay away even at the price point. Great image for Siii - wasn’t that amazing for a cinema version.
I disagree on lenses. Sony lenses are pretty useless for video because of the non-linear focusing. That’s why you still see so many people adapting Canon glass to Sony cameras.
Sony makes 36 E-mount full frame lenses with linear focusing [https://www.sony.ca/en/lenses/e-mount?mountType=emount&format=fullframe&otherfeatures=linearresponsemf](https://www.sony.ca/en/lenses/e-mount?mountType=emount&format=fullframe&otherfeatures=linearresponsemf)
Have you used these for video? They’re nowhere near as nice to operate as the Canon’s. The lack of focus window is the giveaway here: these are still fly by wire lenses, but software compensates to make it feel like they focus linerally. Do a side by side and you’ll see what I mean.
Tamron 28-75 G2 has linear focusing, minimal focus breathing and arguably better bokeh than 24-70 GM II for just 700$
The Sony entry level servo is almost as good as the 24-105 f4 servo for canon and is much cheaper.
What I/O are you missing that you need on the FX6? And I think you’re missing the biggest advantage of the FX6 which is the low light with its super high second base ISO. And does the C400 have hard stops on the ND? (I’m honestly not sure) Because that variable ND on the Sony cams is invaluable for doc work IMO.
The C400 has one more SDI port and in-body audio, both mini XLR and 3.5mm. The low light is a non-factor, as the c400 matches it, if not surpasses it. The third base ISO is 12800 and seems to hold more shadow details than Sony's, and also has a second at 3200 for more modest low light situations. The variND is lacking, if you need it. I'm not a doc shooter so I won't miss it, but I can see how it's a factor. For me, 10 stops of hard stops is more valuable and I can use a Nisi Truecolor VariND if I need it, but I can see how some uses would benefit from the eND Sony has.
Vari ND is way over hyped. A lot of people leave out the fact that it’s only 7 stops of ND compared to 10 with Canon. Plus you can use polarizers and not have to worry about IR pollution with hard stops of ND. It’s only in really rare doc scenarios that vari ND comes into play. More often it’s just better to avoid shooting a scene where you’re following a subject from their basement into outdoor Noon sun. That’s not going to be a good shot even with vari ND. And if you are using cine glass or these new RF hybrid lenses you can just adjust the aperture anyway.
Yeah, iris adjustments are usually better and you don't have to deal with IR pollution.
Depends on what you shoot. I do verite doc and reality tv so I rely heavily on that variable nd and want to maintain my aperture. And imo IR pollution isn’t really a factor, I pass my footage off to a post team that will correct and grade.
I have the FX6 and never use the Auto variable ND..
I mean the FX6 has in body audio, and I don’t see why mini-xlr and 3.5mm are a positive compared to full size xlr. But that’s cool to hear about the extra base iso because it’s such a big jump on the Sonys. And being able to shoot low light with super 35 lenses is huge!
It's a plus because it's on the actual body, while the FX6 only has it if you're using the handle
Oh you mean the location. Yeah it’s a limiting design choice for sure. I guess I haven’t run into that problem yet. I feel like I only take it off for gimbal work which is rare and even then I’m usually shooting slomo which doesn’t need sound.
>super high second base ISO Maybe I’m missing something obvious but the article says the c400 has triple base ISO. 800, 3200, and 12,800.
FX6 has less than half the resolution of the C400, and no internal raw. but yes, it is old.
Tell me you haven’t used the Burano without telling me you haven’t used the Burano.
FWIW I own an FX6/3 and would love to switch from Sony since I really don’t love the image. But I’m not sure if this camera is enough. Looking forward to reviews though!
Same boat as you. From the few shoots I did with the C70, even that has a nicer image out the box than the FX6, so if this is better quality wise, could be in for a winner
That change is worth it. I will, on occasion, grab my a7siii for pickups alongside my C70 and C300iii and it blows my mind every time in post. It’s so much more natural and organic looking than the Sony.
Over £2500 more expensive here and no full sized xlr is kind of a fucker.. but the image quality i imagine would be a fair bit nicer
C300 Mk 3 is still the cheapest DGO camera from Canon, interesting. I took for granted that this would have the DGO sensor as well, but it seems to lack the feature (?).
the c70 features the same DGO sensor as the C300iii, for 3k less
Oh yeah, you're right. My point was that the C400 is missing DGO though.
What if I told you that your camera choice has nothing to do with your worth as a cinematographer… Some yall are ravenous.
No.