C100: C100 overpriced?

Luckily the C100 is sold at $4800 here in South Africa, perfect price. Cameras are usually very overpriced here compared to the US but Canon SA really did me proud with this move. We also earn less per job so the price cut is justified.
 
I have looked long and hard at Canon's C100 & C300, as I have been mulling over a replacement camera for our newly purchased Sony F35 which along with a set of Cooke Speed Panchros destined to be rehoused at Van Diemen, Cartoni Dutch head, and Weaver Steadman 3 axis, were all liberated from a tabletop food location shoot a little while back. My whole issue with the Canon offerings is not the price, but the lack of different lens mounts. Same issue with the new Canon Cine lenses. Hey, I realize Canon is Canon, and they sell EF mount lenses. But if they offered their new cine cameras with a swapable mount system, and or their new Cine primes with changeable mounts, I would be all over a couple of new Canon cameras and a full set of cine primes. As it is now, I'll just keep on using a couple of our other in-house cameras, and rent when needed, until Canon comes out with their replacements for the C100 & C300.

All the best!

Dave
 
I think the C100 is priced right were the market is selling cameras at right now. The C300 is the one I think should be less. I'm not going so far as to say it's overpriced but I do feel you should get the whole enchilada for what it sells for. Canon held back a few features that just should be included.

I agree with you David. The C300 should have had a swappable mount. That alone would have made it a no brainer for high end users who have already invested in PL but would like to use the camera with EF as well. It's all doable. Just look to RED.

Either way I'm happy with both cameras for a least another couple months. :laugh:
 
i think their decision to make only canon mounts stems from the fact that they're canon, and they know it, and if there were any company that could make themselves a new standard in video lenses, it's canon. heck, they've launched 3 cinema grade cameras and sets of great cine primes and zooms. it makes the adopter have to base his or her camera decision on the lenses (as usual). and with the canon mount, you have probably the most vast array of choices, including all EF and EFs lenses ever made, then theres the slew of nikon manual lenses and even af lenses with aperture adapter, and they covered in the last end by making those cine lenses. the only people it will negatively affect are those who are heavily invested in PL lenses, and i'm sure they did plenty of calculations to figure out that those where either: people who will want to switch because of the camera system, or people who don't represent a large percentage of the markets they are targeting.
 
Canon wants to make EF mount as the defacto standard. They believe that due to the huge amount of EF lenses in the wild, there is a big chance of EF mount getting established in the cine segment.

They knowingly created two different cameras with EF and PL mount. When C300 was launched there was a lot of attack on canon because of this decision and everybody thought that PL mount was the one to buy. However, a lot of cameras with EF mount is being sold. Emboldened by that, Canon launched C100 with only EF mount and didn't make a PL mount version. It is also a fact that Canon thought that people will migrate up from DSLRs to C100 and won't need PL.

To assure the Cine guys that the EF mount is strong, Canon has made a lock in the C500.

With the Cine primes Canon's focus is on the EF mount. The zooms though covering S35, has the PL mount version or EF version separately. Demo camera models are mostly all EF mount in most of the countries. Also, during the launch of C300, Canon ensured that the EF mount was released to the market earlier and the PL mount couple of months later. It is all strategy, and Canon is doing it right. In a couple of years the EF mount will become much more widely accepted even in the cine world.

Don't expect mount swapping for Canon cameras. Private players will come out with swappable mounts for the lenses though.
 
Canon got a lot of flack from the rental houses for not making the cine zooms a swappable mount. They are now. The PL version of the C300 doesn't sell nearly as well as the EF mount. Not that that is a surprise. It's going to take a long time for the evil plan of getting cinema folks to go EF. People love there lenses more than the cameras they put them on.
 
David W. Jones said:
I have looked long and hard at Canon's C100 & C300, as I have been mulling over a replacement camera for our newly purchased Sony F35 which along with a set of Cooke Speed Panchros destined to be rehoused at Van Diemen, Cartoni Dutch head, and Weaver Steadman 3 axis, were all liberated from a tabletop food location shoot a little while back.

All the best!

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave- are you saying your F35, glass and support walked? That's painful to even read!!!

Did you get rid of your AF100?
 
If one thinks that a camera that delivers the image the C100 gives and keep in mind that 90% of what you need to make a camera function (XLR, ND, waveform, etc) is built into the C100 and you still think it's over priced????? My answer would be that you are hard to please.
 
The thing that annoys me about the C100 is that the only reason for not having the OPTION of a better codec and not having a better EVF is because the C300 exists. It's all well and good to argue that the AVCHD codec does the job but that is besides the point.

These two things don't actually cost a lot of money to implement but are the only two reasons for someone to buy the C300 over the C100. Of course Canon still wishes to sell the C300 for twice the price. But not only do I not want to spend twice the money for two simple things, I much prefer the lighter and smaller C100!

It's not surprising though as Canon are the masters of market segmentation. But knowing Canon is half an inch away from creating a camera which would be ABSOLUTELY perfect for it's application - but refuses to do so - really gets under my skin.

I hope the day comes when new players - such as Blackmagic - help put an end to this kind of market segmentation and force the big guys to put out the best products they can.
 
The problem with Black Magic and others, is that they make sensors in a box with great recording options, but on camera features are slim. Where Canon/Panasonic and Sony make fully featured cameras with limited internal recording options. Either way you have to buy something extra if you want the best of both worlds.

Imagine if the C100 was internally 10 bit Pro Res HQ like the 995 pocket.....I shutter to think what Canon would charge for that. On the other hand, I doubt Black Magic would make a C100 type camera with Raw/Pro Res and sell if for at or under $5,000. If they did, EVERYONE would buy it. lol
 
Last edited:
draculr said:
The thing that annoys me about the C100 is that the only reason for not having the OPTION of a better codec and not having a better EVF is because the C300 exists. It's all well and good to argue that the AVCHD codec does the job but that is besides the point.

These two things don't actually cost a lot of money to implement but are the only two reasons for someone to buy the C300 over the C100. Of course Canon still wishes to sell the C300 for twice the price. But not only do I not want to spend twice the money for two simple things, I much prefer the lighter and smaller C100!

It's not surprising though as Canon are the masters of market segmentation. But knowing Canon is half an inch away from creating a camera which would be ABSOLUTELY perfect for it's application - but refuses to do so - really gets under my skin.

I hope the day comes when new players - such as Blackmagic - help put an end to this kind of market segmentation and force the big guys to put out the best products they can.
Click to expand...
The same old tiring argument.
If you gave the C100 the came codec as the c300 and the same evf as the c300 you would HAVE a C300. Have you looked through a C300 EVF? There is a reason that very EVF on the C300 makes the C300 cost more. Same with the codec. THe C300 is broadcast ready out of the box. Had SDI out and Genlock. These are features that make the camera cost more.

Kinda like a car. Take a basic model of any car and leave out A/C, power seats and windows, a navigation unit and the sunroof. Make it $15,000. Now, go look at the same car with all those features. Does is not cost more?

Finally. Go into any pro video camera store and look through the EVFs of the XF300 and XF100. You soon realize why the EVFs on the C300 and C100 are the way they are.

And finally finally... Put a simple $700 ninja on the C100 and you have a camera that takes the exact same picture quality as the C300 with its internal codec (if not better because you you are recording higher bit rate Prores).
 
dustylense said:
The same old tiring argument.
If you gave the C100 the came codec as the c300 and the same evf as the c300 you would HAVE a C300.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. But my point was that the C300 obviously is not worth double the C100, and the fact it exists in the market means they purposely had to make the C100 suffer.

I don't need to look at the EVFs in the XF300. I have an $800 Fuji X-E1 sitting right next to me which has an EVF at least as good if not better than the C300. They really don't cost that much and neither does a better codec.

You seem to be okay with paying an extra $7-8000 for two simple features that should be in the C100. Or living without them. You might even make the money back from the Cameras quite quickly. But I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend Canon for doing it? Do you gain anything by doing so?
 
draculr said:
That's what I said. But my point was that the C300 obviously is not worth double the C100, and the fact it exists in the market means they purposely had to make the C100 suffer.

I don't need to look at the EVFs in the XF300. I have an $800 Fuji X-E1 sitting right next to me which has an EVF at least as good if not better than the C300. They really don't cost that much and neither does a better codec.

You seem to be okay with paying an extra $7-8000 for two simple features that should be in the C100. Or living without them. You might even make the money back from the Cameras quite quickly. But I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend Canon for doing it? Do you gain anything by doing so?
Click to expand...
If not, they why is the C300 everywhere. I don't know... I'm tiered of this "is canon overpriced". I've been working with canon stills and video cameras for 20 years and every camera has performed. THe only issue I've ever had was when a FW400 port on the Canon 1Ds MK2 got a little loose. Took it in to get fixed and walked out in 1 hour good as new from Canon service.

I'm not defending Canon. Just so happens that I have $20,000 or so in Canon glass. The systems have made me millions over my 20 year career. They work and keep on working. A couple hundred or thousand bucks isn't setting "me" back. Think about it. When you invest into a camera system with interchangeable lenses, you have to think more of the lens system than the camera. I used to be Nikon. But Canon kicked Nikons butt 8 to 10 years ago on the digital Dslr front. So I switched over to Canon. Now I have a extensive EOS lens system.

Maybe most the complainers are 20 year olds that are just starting out. Not sure. But my mind thinks so.

To everyone that thinks Canons are too expensive. Buy something else. Stop worrying about it.
 
They charge people different price for the same product. They probably charge the big shots( we better win a award first) half price or loan them the C300. This is the marketing strategy, they had been doing htis for the last 2 decades.
 
My C100 paid itself off in about 6 months and I bought it full price in February. The codec argument is weak - how many people shooting a $7K camera are going to broadcast? I think most people just obsess on the specs. I saw a C100 film I shot on a big screen next to a lot of DSLRs and a few Reds, and I thought ours was the sharpest looking of the bunch to be honest. Granted a lot of that was the finishing studio, but you can get a lot of mileage out of this cam. And that was the internal codec.

C100 records audio in, takes my Canon glass, builds fast, and is ultra reliable. I bought a little LCD hood from smallHD and use the EVF constantly when outside - focus is tack sharp and I expose using the histogram.

People who complain mostly haven't used the cameras and are just looking at specs. If you're regularly shooting for broadcast I don't think another $8k really makes that big of a difference, you'll bill that on your camera body in two weeks. And if you can't afford a $6K camera you a probably heading into the wrong business.
 
remsyatassi said:
My C100 paid itself off in about 6 months and I bought it full price in February. The codec argument is weak - how many people shooting a $7K camera are going to broadcast? I think most people just obsess on the specs. I saw a C100 film I shot on a big screen next to a lot of DSLRs and a few Reds, and I thought ours was the sharpest looking of the bunch to be honest. Granted a lot of that was the finishing studio, but you can get a lot of mileage out of this cam. And that was the internal codec.

C100 records audio in, takes my Canon glass, builds fast, and is ultra reliable. I bought a little LCD hood from smallHD and use the EVF constantly when outside - focus is tack sharp and I expose using the histogram.

People who complain mostly haven't used the cameras and are just looking at specs. If you're regularly shooting for broadcast I don't think another $8k really makes that big of a difference, you'll bill that on your camera body in two weeks. And if you can't afford a $6K camera you a probably heading into the wrong business.
Click to expand...

I agree with all you said here. I was filming a BTS video at a photo shoot recently where the 5D Mark3 owning photographer asked his assistant (but said it loud enough for me to hear) "what's so special about the C100 compared to the 5d mk2 or mk3?" I heard them talk about full frame sensor and it being no better than APS cameras. I just smiled and thought "Google it!" I did and that's why I leap frogged Mark 3. It's funny how people have an opinion on a camera based on Internet hearsay and never having used it. The C100 specs don't tell the full story at all.
 
I shoot my first job Tuesday on my new C100 to support footage on a commercial shot on the C300. I have provided footage from a 5D before and it will be interesting to see how the footage from the C100 holds up and how the editing workflow goes. I have a Ninja 2 coming later this week but I feel confident the material on the internal cards will hold up fine as long as I get the exposure nailed. Since I have used the C300 for several shoots I am looking forward to using the C100 because it just has a bit more simple ergonomics.

I think the camera is going to pay for itself fast and all the lenses and accessories will work with the C300 when I need to rent. I agree with most other owners that the only thing I really miss at this point is 60p.
 
I'm not going to weigh in on the comparisons to the C300 and price, but I do wonder how any vendor can get away with charging $6K for a camera and not have a decent EVF on the unit. I love my C100 and I would never be able to afford the C300 at this point, but I have a hard time understanding how incredibly cheap the EVF is and how it is placed. I understand the "tier" system and how Canon needs to protect it's higher end camera, but still, I'd expect something better than this on a $6000 camera. I mean, I have an old Canon HV20 that cost $800 5-6 years ago that has basically the same viewfinder system.

I would just think that for $6K you'd get a really good EVF and for $13K you'd get a really great EVF. Then on sub $1k camera you would get garbage. The C100 deserved something a little better.
 
icicle22 said:
I do wonder how any vendor can get away with charging $6K for a camera and not have a decent EVF on the unit.
Click to expand...

I've shot PD150, Z1, Z7, EX1, and all of them - especially the EX1 - had EVFs that made the C100's little peephole feel useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top