C100 Announcement Tomorrow (probably)

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrontFilms said:
+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.
Click to expand...

Why are you even posting on this thread? If the camera doesn't work for you, why do you feel the need to tell people it shouldn't work for them either? The BMCC seems like a really exciting bit of kit, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it a toy, I would say that it's an experimental camera (heck, even BM says the same thing about it). A lot of people can't base their businesses and livelihoods on experiments. The BMCC comes with a plethora of drawbacks that makes it a very difficult camera to use for many production environments; it can't be used as a baseline for what a modern camera should do. The C100 offers a lot of shooters many benefits over the BMCC that make it very much worth the cost.

Furthermore, I somehow doubt you have a lot insight into the details of digital cinema camera development, as most of us on this forum don't. People will value the features that help them do the job they need to do. Most need far more than just 1080p60. My advice would be to try and be a little more open to the needs of other camera professionals. Nobody is wrong for liking or being interested in the C100 or any of the Canon Cinema EOS line. I seem to remember a lot of folks getting just as fired up against the C300 when it came out, and labeling it DOA without any consideration of it's features - but now we see what a huge success it has been for Canon. Let's see what the C100 can do before we try to sweep it under the rug.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
Why are you even posting on this thread? If the camera doesn't work for you, why do you feel the need to tell people it shouldn't work for them either? The BMCC seems like a really exciting bit of kit, and while I wouldn't necessarily call it a toy, I would say that it's an experimental camera (heck, even BM says the same thing about it). A lot of people can't base their businesses and livelihoods on experiments. The BMCC comes with a plethora of drawbacks that makes it a very difficult camera to use for many production environments; it can't be used as a baseline for what a modern camera should do. The C100 offers a lot of shooters many benefits over the BMCC that make it very much worth the cost.

Furthermore, I somehow doubt you have a lot insight into the details of digital cinema camera and development, as most of us on this forum don't. People will value the features that help them do the job they need to do. Most need far more than just 1080p60. My advice would be to try and be a little more open to the needs of other camera professionals. Nobody is wrong for liking or being interested in the C100 or any of the Canon Cinema EOS line. I seem to remember a lot of folks getting just as fired up against the C300 when it came out, and labeling it DOA without any consideration of it's features - but now we see what a huge success it has been for Canon. Let's see what the C100 can do before we try to sweep it under the rug.
Click to expand...
+1.

C500 for $4500-$8000. So you expect Canon to make 100,000 of these cameras to cover the cost of R&D and setting up the manufacturing line while telling ARRI and RED to go pound sand? I would only think that is why you are not a CEO at Canon. Plus, you compare the Sony NEX-5R to the Canon c300 or C500? Why are you worried about C100/300/500's then if you can compare NEX-5n's to them. Looks like you made your choice. Should be fun telling Ford that you can shooting their new Super Bowl ad on the NEX-5N. Hey, I forget, where is that ND wheel on the NEX-5N again? Dude come on. That is just unrealistic.
Regarding the BMDC. We have seen maybe 4 minutes of footage total from this camera. So far it looks good. We have seen ZERO minutes from the C100. But I've watched enough and shot enough with the C300 to understand that the C100 packs that very same sensor. Proven quality in production workflow.

Have you ever bought an expensive wine? Why are they expensive. usually because production is low and they are aged. Have you ever seen the price of some custom Les Paul guitars with hum bucker pick-ups? Why are they expensive. Because they only make a limited amount. SO you equate the price of the C300 which is hard to rent not only because they are already rented, but because there just aren't that many of them like there are 5D's and NEX-5n's or Gh2's. Go ahead, call up Canon cinema and fake place an order for 6 C300's. They will most likely say your order will be complete 6 weeks from now. They build them upon orders. As production rises due to demand, price will drop. Thats called supply and demand.
 
Last edited:
I'm just tired of waiting on Panasonic to deliver an upgraded or better model to there AF100 that I have. It's worked great for 2 years for me and my clients. I even purchased another one from a DVXUser sponsor. 60P over-cranking is very important to me but the image from the C300 is the next type of image I'll be providing my clients in 2013. Thank You Canon for providing this model. I'll be snapping one up hopefully launch time. Anyone interested in a AF100 for $2300 shipped in November? ^__^
 
----------------------------

Line drawn for Magic Cam talks in this thread. There's nothing new to be said about the comparison. Don't want the C100? Move on, and thanks.
 
I reckoned Canon has no problem selling the Canon C100, C300 in bulk to news agency and broadcaster as compared to BMCC.
I'm amused why some people think Canon would just launch some camera without having done their own market research. Gosh, Canon is not some neighborhood store.
 
Boon said:
I'm amused why some people think Canon would just launch some camera without having done their own market research. Gosh, Canon is not some neighborhood store.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Canon does do market research, they're just aiming at very different markets than what many of us would like to think.
 
kylevant said:
I'm sure Canon does do market research, they're just aiming at very different markets than what many of us would like to think.
Click to expand...

and hitting. The team I shoot with has several on order With Jm Martin at FilmTools for multihour extended doc shoots, perfect cam for that. Actually, cannot see any better cam, even the C300, for that. And we just sold the FS100s that were driving us crazy, but that is another story of ergonomics that would work only for Klingons and Romulans but not humans.
 
Last edited:
Adamsenoj said:
Frontfilms, may I ask you if you are a working professional or a hobbyist?
Click to expand...

Both... work in editing/graphics/3D... writing/shooting for fun.

I'm sure that the C100 will make great looking pictures and fit into a workflow for many people... but I'm surprised people aren't more vocal about the slow-rolling and intentional stagnation of tech that seems to be going on. The graphics, audio, and editing areas of production are so far ahead of these acquisition tools (besides Red and such) it's crazy. We shouldn't even be talking about 8-bit compressed acquisition in 2012... it's like Microsoft paint compared to Photoshop. The C300 takes great looking images, but the same codec can be found in a $3000 XF camera! There is no reason for these crazy mark-ups and segments they're creating. The C300 is what the C100 should be. The C500 should be what the C300 is... even priced less. It just seems very ludicrous when looking at everything as a whole...

Anything touting itself as "pro" these days and/or costing over $1500 should be in the 10-12 bit 100-200mb/s range. 24mb/s 4:2:0 should just be (like someone mentioned) an extended redording documentary option... and this could easily just be a "mode" there is no need for a whole $5000-$8000 camera system shooting to a codec that even a cell-phone could handle. Harddrives are cheap... Laptops can handle 200mb/s prores just fine. This isn't 1995.
 
FrontFilms said:
Both... work in editing/graphics/3D... writing/shooting for fun.

I'm sure that the C100 will make great looking pictures and fit into a workflow for many people... but I'm surprised people aren't more vocal about the slow-rolling and intentional stagnation of tech that seems to be going on. The graphics, audio, and editing areas of production are so far ahead of these acquisition tools (besides Red and such) it's crazy. We shouldn't even be talking about 8-bit compressed acquisition in 2012... it's like Microsoft paint compared to Photoshop. The C300 takes great looking images, but the same codec can be found in a $3000 XF camera! There is no reason for these crazy mark-ups and segments they're creating. The C300 is what the C100 should be. The C500 should be what the C300 is... even priced less. It just seems very ludicrous when looking at everything as a whole...

Anything touting itself as "pro" these days and/or costing over $1500 should be in the 10-12 bit 100-200mb/s range. 24mb/s 4:2:0 should just be (like someone mentioned) an extended redording documentary option... and this could easily just be a "mode" there is no need for a whole $5000-$8000 camera system shooting to a codec that even a cell-phone could handle. Harddrives are cheap... Laptops can handle 200mb/s prores just fine. This isn't 1995.
Click to expand...

If there were the definitive camera that shot RAW 16/bit motion for $1,500 you would see a jump in unemployment beyond belief. These companies are trying to make livings too. How about this analogy. Let's say you worked really hard to build a production Co and you got to a place where you have work with budgets of $30,000 per job and you worked every week and you have 15 employees. I would say to you congrats on your success financially. But what if someone came along and just smoked you behind the camera with a T2i and charged $5,000 per budget and you lost 75% of your client base because that more talented guy is comfortable with undercutting you $25,000? (Don't say it's fantasy, IT HAPPENS and MORE than you might think).

This is business dictated by market and demand. No camera company is going to give you an Alexa spec'd $1,500 camera. They would have to sell BILLIONS of them to make a profit due to the technology and increase their production employees 10 fold in order to make those cameras while paying each employee $2.00/day. People go into business for ONE thing, to make a profit. PERIOD! Do you want a $1500 alexa knowing that someones father is working 12 hour days for $2.00/day? If so, shame on you and I suggest you google Chinese sweat shops. We want a fair price, but you're asking for the whole ballpark at a communist price. (Im not calling you a communist, but it's the theory of it).

When you think of it, cameras today are so affordable compared to what they were even 5 years ago whe you look at specs and image delivered. AF100, FS/100, Scarlet, C300, Gh2, the list goes on and on. You want it al but you don't want to pay for it. The problem is there are guys that CAN pay for it, that is the MARKET. I hope Canon sells 40,000 C100's in the first 2 quarters upon release. I want them to do well so they can continue to make products that are not only incredible, but affordable compared to only 5 years ago.

If you can't grasp this, might I suggest you looking into a business economic course. No offense intended, OK.
 
Dusty I have bought 2 16mp stills cameras in my career (16mp is 'alexa' performance in stills is good for a DPS in glossy - as good as film etc),

The first cost me $10K used - kodak pro back, the next cost $.6k -sony nex5n new

The first had a top ISO of 200, the second is good to 1600

The first is made by a company that is bust, the second is still employing people

You might want to think about that. It certainly clarifies my thoughts on the future of digital motion cameras.

How long will it take for that paradigm shift to happen - I dont know - is the c100 a good stopgap in that time - probably very.

S
 
Last edited:
I believe C 100 priced appropriately for what it does and what it has, it's pretty much a C 300 without a few of the perks, it's as close as I can get to a C 300 and better than a dslr, more versatile than a black magic cinema camera, seems like the camera for us so far :)
 
dustylense said:
If there were the definitive camera that shot RAW 16/bit motion for $1,500 you would see a jump in unemployment beyond belief. These companies are trying to make livings too. How about this analogy. Let's say you worked really hard to build a production Co and you got to a place where you have work with budgets of $30,000 per job and you worked every week and you have 15 employees. I would say to you congrats on your success financially. But what if someone came along and just smoked you behind the camera with a T2i and charged $5,000 per budget and you lost 75% of your client base because that more talented guy is comfortable with undercutting you $25,000? (Don't say it's fantasy, IT HAPPENS and MORE than you might think).

This is business dictated by market and demand. No camera company is going to give you an Alexa spec'd $1,500 camera. They would have to sell BILLIONS of them to make a profit due to the technology and increase their production employees 10 fold in order to make those cameras while paying each employee $2.00/day. People go into business for ONE thing, to make a profit. PERIOD! Do you want a $1500 alexa knowing that someones father is working 12 hour days for $2.00/day? If so, shame on you and I suggest you google Chinese sweat shops. We want a fair price, but you're asking for the whole ballpark at a communist price. (Im not calling you a communist, but it's the theory of it).

When you think of it, cameras today are so affordable compared to what they were even 5 years ago whe you look at specs and image delivered. AF100, FS/100, Scarlet, C300, Gh2, the list goes on and on. You want it al but you don't want to pay for it. The problem is there are guys that CAN pay for it, that is the MARKET. I hope Canon sells 40,000 C100's in the first 2 quarters upon release. I want them to do well so they can continue to make products that are not only incredible, but affordable compared to only 5 years ago.

If you can't grasp this, might I suggest you looking into a business economic course. No offense intended, OK.
Click to expand...

Congratulations Dusty, that was one of the most confused and ignorant rants I've ever read. You are the one needing a business course as your grasp of capitalism and understanding of communism is rather poor. I thought communism made prices high and wild west capitalism drove them lower?

BTW, have you heard of Moore's Law? You might want to read up on it. Why do you think cameras are cheaper now than 5 years ago?

You're also scared of free market forces, sorry but kids with BMCs are going to smoke the establishment just like they did with their DSLRs. The BMC is a lens bolted to a recording device and has the ergonomics of a house brick but to some it will be their $3k Alexa and it will take some big scalps. DSLRs being used for video resulted in all the Pro large sensor camcorders hitting the public years before the camera companies would've done. The BMC, if successful, should be another step change in the camera landscape. Competition is good and creates opportunities and spreads wealth not unemployment. If your company is fat and flabby and only survives because it has huge equipment wealth then look out! This is good for everyone and the economic version of natural selection as only the fittest survive.

I did find it touching your concern for Chinese factory workers, did you type that sat wearing GAP jeans and Nike trainers?
 
OK Personal remarks are to stop in this thread. Re read the forum guidelines, have some cool aid and chill.
 
Cameras are cheaper now more than 5 years ago because there are MORE OF THEM TO CHOOSE FROM WITH SIMILAR SPECS. Sony's , canons, Olympus, nikon, pentax. And within them many models to choose from. Ever walked into a Best Buy and seen how many Canon point n shoots there are at the SAME time. Then there are 3 nikon point n shoots. then there is 2 casios? How about a cell phone stand in Best Buy. What drives price down is competition in the free market.

Funny. I paid $3400 for a Canon 5d mark ONE while I paid $3400 for a Canon 5d Mark III. But in the middle I paid $2800 for a canon 5d mark II.
I did it for you. I looked it up (I already understood it, but for your sake): Moores Law. Taken from the easy pages of wiki: Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster)


Then, I'll just post some more, OR MOORE if you like: The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who described the trend in his 1965 paper.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The paper noted that the number of components in integrated circuits had doubled every year from the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 until 1965 and predicted that the trend would continue "for at least ten years".[SUP][5][/SUP] His prediction has proved to be uncannily accurate, in part because the law is now used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[SUP][6][/SUP]The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.[SUP][7][/SUP] All of these are improving at (roughly)exponential rates as well (see Other formulations and similar laws). This exponential improvement has dramatically enhanced the impact of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy.[SUP][8][/SUP] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
This trend has continued for more than half a century. 2005 sources expected it to continue until at least 2015 or 2020.[SUP][note 1][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has growth slowing at the end of 2013,[SUP][13][/SUP] after which time transistor counts and densities are to double only every 3 years

The last line there kinda says it for you

I can post more if you like, but this far I have not read much if anything about things getting and "CHEAPER". I real a lot about processors doubling. Transistors doubling. Funny, just 18 months ago I only had 8 gigs ram in my laptop and now I have 16gigs. But, I paid a little bit more for the newer one???? Anyhow......

I'm all for competition. LOVE IT in fact. But I'm also a proponent of a company's ability to set what THEY think is a fair price dictated by market demand. There is a huge demand for oil, but is oil cheap. Well, were told it's in short supply. Or is it being held back. Same for corn, wheat, grain. For example. Say we both cut hair for a living. Just because you cut for $40, does that mean I have to cut for $40? Maybe I want to charge $60. Maybe I went to a better school than you did. Maybe I live in a more affluent area??? Lot's of factors. More than just 240/fps anyway or lack of 720/60. Canon has chosen to release now THREE brand new cinema cameras in under a year. One entry level, 1 with more spec that they SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON DOING R&D, and one 4k device. IN ONE YEAR. LESS THEN A YEAR. They also have 3 new HDSLR's on the market , again in less than a year. Do you think for a second that they can place the C100 at the price of $4000? Kinda would throw a dent in the C300 sales right? Maybe toss a dent in the 5Dmk3 too? How does under cutting their own product create a path for recovering the R&D, tooling, marketing and everything that goes into making cameras? Canon not only is competing with other companies, they are competing with themselves. How many C100's will they sell vrs the Mark III? Or, how many will they produce of each? I'll take a wild guess and say Mark III 10,000,000 vrs C100 2,000,00, maybe less.. It's all planned out by people much smarter that you and I.

If your comprehension of Moore's Law were so infallible, why did I pay $8000 for the Canon 1ds in 2003 and then go on to pay $8000 for the Canon 1Ds mark II in 2007? That is 5 years apart. Same price. But 1 went from 11 megapixels to 16.7 megapixels. But then the Canon 1Ds Mark III came out. Guess what it cost? Yep $8000. But from mark I to mark II to mark III, what happened? Oh, processors speed doubled, then doubled again.

I havent made in my 20 years MILLIONS of dollars by chance. Do I have a million dollars? NO. But over 10 years of making 6 figures/year, I've done something something right as a business.

Why the attitude? Maybe next post you can start off with a sentence like: I'm gonna have to disagree with you.

And yes, I can feel for the Chinese factory worker. I have that right. It's my right. While I sit here in American Eagle jeans made in America and I wear shoes made in ameraica, I can feel for who ever I choose. I've been to China, 5 TIMES on assignment. It's hard to avoid Chinese product, it's everywhere! But I don't get your angle.
.....ANd finally... If Moore's law was to drive things cheaper, then why is Apple the most valuable company on the planet? Aren't they known for overpriced items? I guess my Macbook Pro retina broke that law??? Shouldn't cars be cheaper today than in the say late 80's? I can go on....
I hope you have a nice holiday weekend. Maybe tomorrow will be the 18 months where something doubles in speed for you.

They're just cameras Nirv. Don't get so upset. They take pictures. But they don't make pictures.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
If your comprehension of Moore's Law were so infallible, why did I pay $8000 for the Canon 1ds in 2003 and then go on to pay $8000 for the Canon 1Ds mark II in 2007? That is 5 years apart. Same price.
Click to expand...



Nice of you to torpedo your own argument. If you don't understand why you torpedoed your argument that business class you recommended is waiting.

I don't believe for one moment you've made MILLIONS unless it was in Lire.

BTW, Dusty old fella, it's lens not lense!
 
Wow you people are eating each other over a camera, the two are completely different beast can't they live in harmony :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top