C200: $1,000 Price Drop.....C500MKII coming soon?

[Eric Coughlin]

So, considering plummeting prices and rocketing performance of the equipment, I can see a $3,000 - 6,000 - $12,000 C200 - C300 MKIII (4K, CRL raw, PDAF) - C500 MKII (6K C700 sensor, CRL at various compression ratios) spread, with C200 moving into the entry level in the Canon lineup to replace C100 MKII.

Plummeting prices? Canon's entry level C-series now costs $6,500 after being out for awhile while the C100 was released at $6500. So, C200 costs more and in many ways is the replacement of the C100. The C300 Mark II I believe costs more than the C300 Mark I did this long after release. Meanwhile at the high end, Arri is charging $70k for an Alexa Mini LF and $120k for an Alexa LF. I get that low end cameras are way better than they used to be, but I don't see the cost of cameras that professionals use having gone down over the last 10 years. Sure, we can now get professional results for less than a Betacam, but in terms of the last decade, the prices are about the same if not more, I would say.

 

[DLD]

When I joined this site, 1D C was the most affordable 4K camera at $12,000 and I don't think there were any 6K cameras out there. Amongst the most popular models were BMD Pocket because it had Raw and a 5D MKIII Raw hack. Mitch was working for Convengent Designed, which charged, IIRC, $3/GB for their SSD's and were working to license ProRes from Apple on the FS-700 4K upgrade.

C300 MKI was $16,000 and was only 1080P. C500 was $20,000, a $5,000 drop of its first price drop.

Now, C300 MKII is almost half the price of MKI. The only camera from that era that is still being sold on the retail level is C100, which was $8,000 seven years ago and is $2,000 now. Which would make this a 75% price drop.

PS. But that's just part of the digital tech. The first Sony Qualia 1080P projector was $30,000 in 2004. Nowadays, you can get a quality 1080P projector for under $500.

 

[combatentropy]

 

[puredrifting]

The price drop on the C200 is already trickling into used prices. Just snapped up a C200 body (with EVF) with one battery for $3800. Building it back up with parts from B&H, I can be up and running all day (2x BP A60 batteries, enough MSATA drives for 4 hours of Canon Raw Lite) for about $6200. Not too shabby.

Damn! Nice score. Patience is it's own reward.

 

[NorBro]

*its

(I know that's annoying but noticed it a few times now and maybe pointing it out could be helpful.)

 

[puredrifting]

I still really don't get the full-frame cinema thing. Seems like far more of a pain in the ass than a creative boon. You can get pretty wicked shallow DoF from S35 if you want, I certainly don't usually want shallower. I'm usually stopping down to avoid razor-thin DoF.

I couldn't agree with you more, that's what frustrated me so much walking around CineGear, just hearing all of the masses mindlessly droning on about how great FF is.
It really isn't, its definitely a PITA and one step forward, two steps back. I really hate ultra shallow DOF too, its so dated looking. I tell you, our industry is filled with Lemmings.

 

[puredrifting]

...Seriously though, how the heck is 8K going to come into serious play?? Ridic.

For the foreseeable future, 8K is the Emperors New Clothes. No basis in the real world, techno nerds only need apply.

 

[puredrifting]

*its

(I know that's annoying but noticed it a few times now and maybe pointing it out could be helpful.)

Eyema ryter, I shud no batter ;-)

 

[NorBro]

Seriously though, how the heck is 8K going to come into serious play?? Ridic.

The thing about the 8K though is that realistically it's only for less than 1% of people right now just how 4K was at one point in time.

Like how many people were paying $20K for a RED ONE in 2007, you know? Or something else?

I didn't get my first 4K camera until 2014. 7 years later!

So just because 8K exists now doesn't mean it has to immediately come into serious play for everyone. I know it may seem crazy now and really difficult to comprehend, but you might look back at this thread in 5 years and laugh because of how much more the world has changed again in such a short period of time.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

When I joined this site, 1D C was the most affordable 4K camera at $12,000 and I don't think there were any 6K cameras out there. Amongst the most popular models were BMD Pocket because it had Raw and a 5D MKIII Raw hack. Mitch was working for Convengent Designed, which charged, IIRC, $3/GB for their SSD's and were working to license ProRes from Apple on the FS-700 4K upgrade.

C300 MKI was $16,000 and was only 1080P. C500 was $20,000, a $5,000 drop of its first price drop.

Now, C300 MKII is almost half the price of MKI. The only camera from that era that is still being sold on the retail level is C100, which was $8,000 seven years ago and is $2,000 now. Which would make this a 75% price drop.

PS. But that's just part of the digital tech. The first Sony Qualia 1080P projector was $30,000 in 2004. Nowadays, you can get a quality 1080P projector for under $500.

I don't think your comparison is fair because you're comparing similar tech specs of years ago to prices now for similar specs. A more fair comparison would be what was expected of professionals back then. For example,, 10 years ago 4K wasn't standard even though it was available. So, my comparison was the cost of cameras that professionals used then compared to the cost of cameras that professionals use now, and I'm not seeing much of a change. 10 years ago you had the Red One at around $50k, film, the 5D at $3k, I think the Arri Alexa was just coming out at around $80k, and then various camcorders like the Sony EX-3 at $8k, broadcast cameras in the $40-$80k range.

The C100 Mark I was never $8k; it started at $6,500. The C300 Mark I about three or four years after release was down to $8k and now the C300 Mark II three or four years after release is at $9k, so similar prices after a similar amount of time on the market.

All I'm saying is I'm not seeing professionals spending any less on cameras than they have been spending in the last 10 years.

The only people really saving now are consumers who are skipping out on buying cameras because their phones have good enough cameras built in, then again, phone bills and the costs of a smart phone have gone up compared to the flip phone plus separate camera era so even that may come at a higher price.

 

[cpreston]

The real benefit for 8K full frame is going to be image quality at high ISO. My understanding is that current cameras are bumping up against the limits of shot noise. Full frame lenses already exist at cheap prices, so why not add it as an option?

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The real benefit for 8K full frame is going to be image quality at high ISO. My understanding is that current cameras are bumping up against the limits of shot noise. Full frame lenses already exist at cheap prices, so why not add it as an option?

I always hear it's larger pixels that can contribute to better sensitivity, so if you increase both the resolution and sensor size equally then you'd not gaining anything in terms of high ISO capabilities. Take the Alexa 35mm vs the Alexa 65 which has four Alexa sensors stitched together; as far as I'm aware the image quality is exactly the same in terms of ISO performance, color rendition, etc., with the only difference being that it's a larger image (resulting in a large format look with shallower depth of field) with more resolution.

The downsides are you need larger, heavier, and more expensive lenses, as well as the depth of field being more shallow than what many would prefer.

Super35 and medium format both have their own looks, advantages, and disadvantages, and while cameras will continue to progress in technology, I don't see medium format becoming a standard that out-dates Super35.

 

[sgttom]

Do we really need better ISO performance than say something like the Lumix S1 is providing with a 6k sensor downscaling to 4k? I guess you can never have too good.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Do we really need better ISO performance than say something like the Lumix S1 is providing with a 6k sensor downscaling to 4k? I guess you can never have too good.

I just want to be able to shoot at f/32 in a sealed off cave with no lights and use the ISO to make it night for day without image degradation.

 

[klk]

Take the Alexa 35mm vs the Alexa 65 which has four Alexa sensors stitched together; as far as I'm aware the image quality is exactly the same in terms of ISO performance, color rendition, etc., with the only difference being that it's a larger image (resulting in a large format look with shallower depth of field) with more resolution.

.

I have to disagree with this statement based on experience. You can definitely push the Alexa 65 one stop deeper over the Alexa XT. I have used the Alexa 65 as an operator and uncredited 2nd unit dp. (The assigned AD called me that, as we were setting up shots, blocking background and lighting). (DP was Julio Macat- Home Alone, The Wedding Crasher, etc) My job is to stay consistent with production, and the AC's told me they routinely go 1600 ISO and have gone 3200 on the show. We normally do not push beyond 800 ISO with Alexas.
(BTW I was brought in to hand hold the Alexa 65 as I did a fair amount of handholding on Alexa XTs on one of the directors previous films.)

On a second note: I went to the Alexa Mini LF intro at Arri Brooklyn last winter. Arri had the Alexa 65, Alexa Mini LF and Alexa LF on display, all shooting the same still life. What shocked me was the difference between the Alexa 65 image on Sony monitors VS the Alexa Mini LF. THe 65 looked buttery smooth and Mini LF looked coarse in comparison. Regardless of what sensor is used, one can only assume the advances in processing is fairly significant.

 

[Jaime Valles]

The price drop on the C200 is already trickling into used prices. Just snapped up a C200 body (with EVF) with one battery for $3800. Building it back up with parts from B&H, I can be up and running all day (2x BP A60 batteries, enough MSATA drives for 4 hours of Canon Raw Lite) for about $6200. Not too shabby.

Nice. At that price I would seriously consider a C200. $7500 was too much for my budget, but roughly $5000 is definitely doable for me.

 

[QuickHitRecord]

Nice. At that price I would seriously consider a C200. $7500 was too much for my budget, but roughly $5000 is definitely doable for me.

Yeah, at that price it was finally time to make the move. As I recall, you are (or were) a C100 shooter as well. The C100 didn't really leave me wanting for much. I just need to be able to offer 10-bit 4:2:2 4K to go after more agency work. I'll probably hang onto one of my C100s for clients who don't need or want 4K (and for multi-angle setups, if I can get the two cameras to match properly).

Crazy to read through this thread and be reminded of the starting price of the original C300. At the time I never thought I would be able to own a camera like that. And yet here we are, less than a decade later; I am by no means a "big shot" DP and yet I am able own several of these cameras without breaking the bank.

 

[DLD]

I don't think your comparison is fair because you're comparing similar tech specs of years ago to prices now for similar specs...

I am using the sole objectively measuring criterion, the effemeral like-for-like. Tastes and preferences will always remain subjective regardless of the underlying technology.

Side note - the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) used a similar standard of judging the consumer price inflation by adjusting for quality. In my opinion, they vastly overvalue the improvements whether those are in horsepower of automobiles or resolution of the TV screens.

I always hear it's larger pixels that can contribute to better sensitivity, so if you increase both the resolution and sensor size equally then you'd not gaining anything in terms of high ISO capabilities. Take the Alexa 35mm vs the Alexa 65 which has four Alexa sensors stitched together; as far as I'm aware the image quality is exactly the same in terms of ISO performance, color rendition, etc., with the only difference being that it's a larger image (resulting in a large format look with shallower depth of field) with more resolution...

Alexa65 has three ALEV III sensors stitched together, Alexa LF has two. Technically, the ISO performance should be identical but I assume that the processing power in the 65 is far greater.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, at that price it was finally time to make the move. As I recall, you are (or were) a C100 shooter as well. The C100 didn't really leave me wanting for much. I just need to be able to offer 10-bit 4:2:2 4K to go after more agency work. I'll probably hang onto one of my C100s for clients who don't need or want 4K (and for multi-angle setups, if I can get the two cameras to match properly).

Crazy to read through this thread and be reminded of the starting price of the original C300. At the time I never thought I would be able to own a camera like that. And yet here we are, less than a decade later; I am by no means a "big shot" DP and yet I am able own several of these cameras without breaking the bank.

Dude! That is awesome! Glad to hear about your C200 aquisition!

 

[Guest]

I am using the sole objectively measuring criterion, the effemeral like-for-like. Tastes and preferences will always remain subjective regardless of the underlying technology.

Side note - the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) used a similar standard of judging the consumer price inflation by adjusting for quality. In my opinion, they vastly overvalue the improvements whether those are in horsepower of automobiles or resolution of the TV screens.

Alexa65 has three ALEV III sensors stitched together, Alexa LF has two. Technically, the ISO performance should be identical but I assume that the processing power in the 65 is far greater.

Noise grain will appear finer on the stitched higher resolution sensors. So, at the same noise performance, the larger format and higher resolution should allow for an extra stop in exposure or gain.