Liam Hall
Veteran
Yep, the incredibly low barrier to entry is a double edged sword and is confusing the market place. Yesterday, I was sure I would buy a C500 with a Gemini, today, I'm not so sure...
C100 Announcement Tomorrow (probably)
- Thread starter cowpunk52
- Start date
- Status
Yep, the incredibly low barrier to entry is a double edged sword and is confusing the market place. Yesterday, I was sure I would buy a C500 with a Gemini, today, I'm not so sure...
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Id buy that if you have a suitable commission. ie they had a rental buget that you can trouser and pay off 80% of the gear in 3 months
The thing about a lens is it will have value in 5 years
Again, the C500 will still shoot wonderful footy in 5 years.. so go for it
What I would avoid is expensive cameras that are outmoded in a year
To me the C500 seems like a 5 year camera to give it the full respect due and on that basis looks pretty cheap
Heck maybe Ill get one!
in contrast my FS100 probably depreciated by 75% - I mean who's gonna buy that now so it cost $3g a year -same will be true of a 8bit cams, so the FS is looking good on the depreciation stakes.
I mean whats a pimped F3 worth?
S
The thing about a lens is it will have value in 5 years
Again, the C500 will still shoot wonderful footy in 5 years.. so go for it
What I would avoid is expensive cameras that are outmoded in a year
To me the C500 seems like a 5 year camera to give it the full respect due and on that basis looks pretty cheap
Heck maybe Ill get one!
in contrast my FS100 probably depreciated by 75% - I mean who's gonna buy that now so it cost $3g a year -same will be true of a 8bit cams, so the FS is looking good on the depreciation stakes.
I mean whats a pimped F3 worth?
S
Last edited:
cpc
Well-known member
The Wide DR gamma may turn out pretty nice considering most people shooting canon log would actually compress blacks/whites anyway. The claimed 800% DR suggests a decently long range above the knee and possibly something below toe, plus rich mids ala rec709; this actually sounds good.
anatusa
Veteran
seems like sony fs700 and c100 are on same price range, but fs700 looks much more tempting: already has AF, 240 frames, 28Mbps 1920 x 1080 50p internal, feature 12bit of sdi....... in my eyes c100 not a concurrent
but c500 is kind of interesting the only thing is price , is there a finale price available already? uk info says 26 000usd against 14000usd for c300..... 12g difference !
its says c100 will get an AF in future... i wonder if same will be added to c300 / c500 - would be a nice option
but c500 is kind of interesting the only thing is price , is there a finale price available already? uk info says 26 000usd against 14000usd for c300..... 12g difference !
its says c100 will get an AF in future... i wonder if same will be added to c300 / c500 - would be a nice option
groveChuck
U-matic Member
Post of the year. No, decade. No, millenium!!! (insert any timeframe here) :thumbsup:
Quite entertaining actually. Although I couldn't identify myself, which makes me think... leprechaun. Having said that probably makes me something else.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Moore's Law...
All very nice having a 5 year outlook until in 18 months time son of BMC is released for a fraction of the $30k C500 and blows the door of it in every important parameter. May not even be BMC V2.0 but some other enterprising entity that can draw together off the shelf technology into an impressive package.
Why wouldn't the BMC be considered a 5 year camera? I don't see 4K being attractive for the vast majority of productions in 10 years let alone 5.
While the C500 specs are impressive and easily sold to a camera owner they'd much harder to sell to a client who is asked to pay a premium over someone shooting with a FS700, BMC or even C100 etc.
My business strategy is to keep as much overhead out of the business so I'm swayed that way. (Having spent ridiculous sums of money in my early career on cameras, computers and software)
HD Studio Belgium
Well-known member
European price setting seems to be way under the 7995$ , already listed at 4875 Euro (5850$) ... and seems to be recording 4:2:2 ?
http://www.creativeventures.be/canon-c100-ef.html
http://www.creativeventures.be/canon-c100-ef.html
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Sure better cams will come along but if a cam can work for you it may still work in a while
I shoot stills on 2005 HD22 (studio/hotels) and a 2008 D3 (location portraits), both expensive, both now 'out of date', both now still keeping clients happy and both a pleasure to use and they completely sated my desire for upgrading stills cameras meaning I have not spent a penny on stills since 2008 - which is good value even though that £20g of kit is now basically surpassed by the D800 which is I guess about £2k
The BMC could indeed be a five year camera for someone - but personally Id like a bigger chip/different lens mount so Ill hold out.
S
Last edited:
anatusa
Veteran
keep in mind the price does not include the VAT, its works for me , but not for everyone!
also for some reasons that website u provided is WAY cheaper then the CVP.... price at cvp for c500 21000e, but here 18000e its a nice difference!
Nirv
Carbonite Member
Indeed, RAW with S35 and E mount at FS100 price is when I'll buy another camera for home stuff.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
thanks I was thinking of this very story or the same idea when the last camera came out... to me its all good... lol.. I guess I'm old... I learned to make films on films... wow now I'm getting depressed... back in the days when just 10 minutes of film... lab... transfer... cost you the price of a T3i...
I find it funny people comparing the BMC with everything now. Look, the BMC is a niche camera, a gadget, a toy. Not everybody buying cameras are desperate moviemaker wannabes dreaming of hollywierd, which is basically the majority of the crowed the BMC is aimed at. Yes, the BMC shoots "RAW" at 2K but it has no ND filters, questionable audio, limited lens choices and lack most features which professional shooters absolutely want and are not willing to put up with the hassle of working without. It's a totally different market. Get over it.
About people asking for 50mbit 4:2:2 in the C100, well, that would make it basically a C300. How would Canon sell C300s then? Think a little.
This camera is nothing more than Canon's answer to the FS100, FS700 and AF100. They don't need to do more than just compete with them.
FS100, cheaper but no ND, no SDI, lacks several professional features and has a bizarre shape.
FS700, has ND and super slow motion but still lacks many professional features and has the same bizzare shape and costs much more.
AF100, has basically all professional features you will ever need, does real variable frame rates in full HD but not super slow motion and it's the least expensive of the bunch. But it has a smaller sensor
C100, has better shape than FS cameras, has ND and professional features and probably will cost in between FS100 and FS700. But no slow motion at all it seems.
They all record to compressed codecs and offer the same 8bit 4:2:2 type of output, although the FS100 is HDMI only.
They all have compromises. Just choose one that fits you. Canon will not give you C300/F3 performance and features for FS100/AF100 prices when the other big two aren't either. And no, the BMC doesn't count.
About people asking for 50mbit 4:2:2 in the C100, well, that would make it basically a C300. How would Canon sell C300s then? Think a little.
This camera is nothing more than Canon's answer to the FS100, FS700 and AF100. They don't need to do more than just compete with them.
FS100, cheaper but no ND, no SDI, lacks several professional features and has a bizarre shape.
FS700, has ND and super slow motion but still lacks many professional features and has the same bizzare shape and costs much more.
AF100, has basically all professional features you will ever need, does real variable frame rates in full HD but not super slow motion and it's the least expensive of the bunch. But it has a smaller sensor
C100, has better shape than FS cameras, has ND and professional features and probably will cost in between FS100 and FS700. But no slow motion at all it seems.
They all record to compressed codecs and offer the same 8bit 4:2:2 type of output, although the FS100 is HDMI only.
They all have compromises. Just choose one that fits you. Canon will not give you C300/F3 performance and features for FS100/AF100 prices when the other big two aren't either. And no, the BMC doesn't count.
Not to mention the ergonomics of the BMC. It's a friggin' box. At least in its naked form, the BMC is not going to be a practical camera to shoot with. At least the Canon, Sony, Panny offerings are relatively usable out of the gates.
THe form factor of the cinema EOS series is one of the big reasons why this camera intrigues me. That, and I can use my collection of EOS mount lenses without any adapters or doohickeys. People only see specs, not reality sometimes.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To me it shows what the technology actually costs and could be sold for, Its also out and out maximised for the price wheras the canons(s) seem hobbled to price point.
Sure its missing everything. If BMC had one twice the cost with ND and sensible lens mount/chip size I would be onboard.
S
dustylense
Veteran
Refreshing that one has his head on this shoulders. You're post is well stated.
THe BMDC crowd is starting to remind me of the RED geeks. I'm glad there is a BMDC, but come on, it's not the second coming of Christ!
David W. Jones
Veteran
Well I'm no fanboy, but I do believe the BlackMagic camera is a bit more than a toy. I would refrain from knocking something you have yet to shoot with.
HeadStAtE!
Member
I was guilty of that! I didn't think about that.
FrontFilms
Member
+1
This is why I'm simply refusing to buy from the big manufactureres for a while. I know what technology cost these days... and I refuse to buy into the product thiering schemes. The only cameras right now that seem interesting, and have realistic price/performance are the F700, rumored $3k FF Sony cam, and the GH3. (Two of which don't even exist yet)
Well, refering to a 2.5k RAW shooting camera with 13 stops of DR as "a toy" is nothing but pure FUD. I really don't understand why somebody would describe such a great step forward (for all production levels) in this way unless they were really just afraid of the competition, or thier own inability to take advantage of it's feature set.
If you ask me, these camera that are still shooting in compressed 8-bit color space for $10k are the real "toys".
Anyways, people are using the BMCC as a basis for price comparisons because it just set a new standard of 12-bit 2.5k RAW... and price/performance/tech is the only real objective way to make comparisons. So using the BMCC as a basis of comprison to what technology should cost... the canon "C" line is WAY WAY WAY overpriced and undserspeced. I think the pricing should be more like:
C500: $4500-$8000
C300: not exist
C100: (with 4:2:2 color space and 60fps in 1080p) $1500-$2500
And, no this isn't a joke. This is what I feel the objective pricing of these systems should be givin the cost of technology in 2012. BMCC is really making it hard to justify shooting on anything in 8-bit world anymore. Heck, even the new $650 Sony NEX-5R shoots 60fps at 1080p and has wifi/app support. The C100 is an absolute JOKE tech wise.
Last edited:
- Status