My opinion - and I have nothing to back this up besides a hunch and cursory observation - is that Canon is working on longer product cycles because those 3-5 year periods often sufficed in prior years. Moreover, this consumer/low end pro end is the one seeing the fastest updates, which are probably connected to the technological advances in the smartphone camera modules. If one looks at the high end, Alexa and F65 are six years old and still hold their value to this day despite the more recent Red offerings.
C100: 7 Weeks to NAB - Anyone hearing anything besides conjecture about a C100 MKIII?
- Thread starter puredrifting
- Start date
'Twas a mix-up. They announced F65 but meant the Pocket Cam.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
If canon wants longer product cycles they should bring out products that are a bit ahead of the curve instead of just on or behind the curve.
these are no longer the betacam days where not much changed in a decade, there is a lot of innovation going on now and you have to keep up or lose market share.
The main selling point of canon these days is colorscience and no hassle with adapters to get those fine canon lenses working.
Now that is nothing to snif at but when clients get horny about 4k and high framerates where do they go?
Does Canon know something we don't about how much 4K is really needed to move a camera in the C100 price range? We don't know sales figures, do we? Like have C100 sales dropped off considerably lately, or are they still moving pretty well? I've always been the guy who rolls his eyes at 4K, so this is probably just confirmation bias, but even though I have a C300MKII now, I'm still mostly using it in 2K mode, or using a C100.
Canon is the dominating manufacturer in the stills and the low-to-mid niche video market. Now, they have lost a huge market share to Sony E-mount in the stills market, to Panasonic in the low end 4K hybrid niche and to Sony in the low-end pro 4K. But their financials look fine.
Sales figures can be estimated via sites like Amazon and B&H. Costs can only be learned via their quarterlies. And the net is what matters.
This would be enough for me!
Plexi Head
Active member
I'm not part of your "we won'y be happy" - C300MKII rocks my world, I love it and I truly hope Canon don't completely forget about it or the C100 which I still use extensively 4+ years after buying it. Interested in why anybody would be unhappy if they use the C300MKII as a guide? Is there something wrong with this camera? When compared to the Sony FS7 the C300MKII is better in every way other than higher frame rates which I don't care about anyway.
NorBro
Major Contributor
You're not understanding. I am not saying the C300 Mark II is a bad camera.
I am saying that if they use the camera as a guide for deciding features for new cameras then - yes - people may not be happy because they will be protecting the C300.
So many features people might want to see in the C100 Mark III or the C200 or something below C300's price may not be there.
How many people would buy a C300 Mark II if the C100 Mark III would have 4K/60p?
And as far as being better than a FS7; that's your opinion.
I am saying that if they use the camera as a guide for deciding features for new cameras then - yes - people may not be happy because they will be protecting the C300.
So many features people might want to see in the C100 Mark III or the C200 or something below C300's price may not be there.
How many people would buy a C300 Mark II if the C100 Mark III would have 4K/60p?
And as far as being better than a FS7; that's your opinion.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Hope you guys are checking out the BMD Ursa Mini Pro that was launched today too! Great camera features, fully configured in a package to compete with the C300 MKII and a potential C100 MKIII or C200 at $5,995.00 body, $1,495.00 viewfinder and probably $500.00 for the shoulder mount kit so $4k less than the C300 MKII. In camera recording to dual CFast for uncompressed DNG, or Prores 4k to dual SD cards, comes with EF mount, user changeable to B4 or PL mount, 4K 60p, HD 120p, built in NDs, nice ergos. Not saying it will have the low light or overall picture performance of the FS7 or C300 MKII, nobody will know for sure until we have multiple tests and reviews. Obviously no DPAF. But this is good, at least in a way, to put the pressure on Canon to make their next pro level camera better. Sony too for that matter. Competition and choices are good.
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's the same sensor as the 4.6K...nothing new besides the body design/body features.
If you would like to check out low-light or overall performance, the tests are available now, lol.
This is not a new sensor. Same native ISO @800 (although questionable)...400 is cleaner many times...1600 possibly usable on some units.
Same picture quality as current 4.6K camera.
If you would like to check out low-light or overall performance, the tests are available now, lol.
This is not a new sensor. Same native ISO @800 (although questionable)...400 is cleaner many times...1600 possibly usable on some units.
Same picture quality as current 4.6K camera.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Aww man, that's dissapointing. I have checked out that sensor. Looks good when lit nicely but not useful for the work I do. I was on the set of a couple shows last year where we did night shoots, in the middle of nowhere with just one or two big sources like 6Ks bounced into a 12x white reflector and that was it for the whole set. I was shooting the C300 with my 28mm 1.8 wide open at ISO 3200 all night, most of the location was in the dark. The BMD sensor would be terrible for that kind of work.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I see on their website that their representation of documentary filmmaking is a guy shooting penguins with a heavy, huge ball of sun on his right. Not late at night, at a dark club, barely lit with twinkle lights ;-)
Jaime Valles
Veteran
I would purchase this C100 Mark III immediately:
4K 30p 8-bit 4:2:2 internal
Two CFast slots
DPAF with touchscreen like the 1DX II
6000$
4K 30p 8-bit 4:2:2 internal
Two CFast slots
DPAF with touchscreen like the 1DX II
6000$
There's a big debate now on the GH-5 various codecs and bitrates. C200 (its fake news name) will probably be "codec limited" as not to eat into C300 MKII sales. There unlikely to be any Raw capability, including the external via the SDI. It *might* have only 8-bit internal and 10-bit external via the HDMI a la GH-4. If so, it'll probably have only SD slots (of course, SD is getting pretty darn fast these days too).
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Don't worry about how Canon's next CX00 will compare against the current C300 mkII. By the time the CX00 is released (fall), the C300 mkIII will be around the corner.
Just like the DPAF was introduced in the C100 before it came to the C300.
Plus, sometimes there is a clear price/performance winner—often the cheaper alternative—but that might only have little influence on the sales of the more expensive unit, as it turns out that there are one or two critical features that are important to productions that couldn't care less if the camera was $8000 or $15000.
Just like the DPAF was introduced in the C100 before it came to the C300.
Plus, sometimes there is a clear price/performance winner—often the cheaper alternative—but that might only have little influence on the sales of the more expensive unit, as it turns out that there are one or two critical features that are important to productions that couldn't care less if the camera was $8000 or $15000.
Only if it also has 120fps in HD.
The c100 is hands down a better camera than the Fs7 - unless you care about 4k and frame rates. Most of us don't need 4k and probably won't for the next couple of years. I'll ask you this question: image-wise, how much can the mkiii better the mkii? I would say in most instances it will be negligible. I don't have any need for it and I think that's true for most people out there. The internal color from the c100 destroys any 10 bit or raw from an Fs5 (for example) and saves me so much money on storage and computer processing power--and the image is so much better. I know everyone knocks Canon for being behind the times, but I could care less about numbers, all I care about is image and ease of use. Blackmagic has a nice image but the sensor needs a ton of light and is a pain to use. I just bought another used c100 for much less than the new GH5; best decision I've made. I had a try at the GH4 10 bit, yuck. Very hard to get a good image out of that camera. Much of this is just marketing rubbish. The c100 will remain relevant for the next 5 years (probably more). There is no competition anywhere near it at that price point. If the best they can do is a 4k upgrade and a bump in the codec, I would suggest instead getting a c100 for much cheaper and a nice lens, unless you crucially need 4k (some people do need this).