Doug_EX
Well-known member
I was thinking in US dollars.
C100: C200 price predictions
- Thread starter Fishflavour
- Start date
Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
Whatever it is it will seem to be too expensive compared to its competitors.
$7,500 brings it a tad too close to C300 MKII. Usually, pricing is in 100% increments - $6,000, $12,000, $24,000 and so forth. This gives buyers a choice, where various accessories can fill in the gaps. Presuming the SDI is for 4K/60p, the external recorder and media would do this under the double-the-price scenario.
PS. This will also depend a little on what happens with C100 MKII. It should go down to $3,000. Currently it's at $4,000. If it goes down to $3,500, then the C-series might be $3,500-$7,000-$12,000- $28,000 (which is close enough).
Better yet, $3,000-$6,0000-$12,000-$24,000.
...That's a given, but how much cheaper than a C300 Mk2 ?
So if B&H currently have the C300 Mk2 at $12K and the C100 Mk2 at $4K, does that put the C200 at $8K ?
Dafilman21
Carbonite Member
That is what I am thinking even though to me it should probably come in around $6500
puredrifting
Major Contributor
If it has the good 10-bit 4K 60p we all want, I think it will sell at $8k. If it is too hobbled or handicapped, yes, $6,500.00 sounds better.
...But the C300 Mk2 doesn't have 4K 10-bit 60p internal recording, so would Canon put this in the C200 ?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
C300 MKI had only 720 60p when the C100 MKII showed up with 1080 60p. Of course, this "could" have 4k 60p.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
No real point in speculating about price, unless it's tied to some specs.
I see a price range from $5995-$8495 that makes sense—all depending on spec. Sure, we know most of it from the C100-300, but in terms of fps and codec quality we don't really know. And those two factors can easily shift the camera up or down the 'price ladder' by $2000-3000.
We now know it has CFast, so that's a somewhat good sign, even if it doesn't mean all that much. It will be the standard going forward, regardless.
But upgrades from the C100 mkII will be 4k and at least a codec on the level of the XC10/15 (intra frame AVC). Even with "just" those two bumps, in combination with the more compact form factor we see in the images, it will be a very nice camera to work with.
If it gets bumped to the C300 mkII sensor, gets Canon Log 3 and 10bit.... well... then I guess Canon will get pretty "lucky" with this one.
And if it does come in at the higher end of the spectrum, spec wise… will you guys really care if it's $6k or $7.5? You'll get it anyway.
Stuff like the GH5 isn't even close to be a competitor (on so many levels, and it's not because it's a "bad" camera) and even the entry level RED stuff is way more expensive. URSA Mini Pro is quite a bit larger and needs a different workflow.... The Sony FS5 and FS7 cameras are the only real competitors here. And there is room for both Canon and Sony in the market. I think it's very good that we have at least that amount of competition.
No... I think the C200 will sit right where Canon wants it to sit. My guesstimate is that it will have a 'serious' price in the sense that it will be targeted towards people earning money with the camera. I'm also hoping the C100-series gets one more round of updates with at least the XC10/15 codec, but where the price stays at the DSLR-level.
The new name indicates a "next level" camera. Just the fact that we now have 4k warrants the new name—Canon needs to separate this from all the previous C100s out there, so they could't go with C100 mkIII, even if they wanted to. Most people don't hang on forums and revel in the "details"… I'm also hoping for a beefed up codec like I said. For me, that puts the camera around $7495-7995. With room in both directions for us to be pleasantly surprised, or once again mildy annoyed with Canon's balls in terms of milking its customers.
In any case the camera will be very popular and sell well.
I see a price range from $5995-$8495 that makes sense—all depending on spec. Sure, we know most of it from the C100-300, but in terms of fps and codec quality we don't really know. And those two factors can easily shift the camera up or down the 'price ladder' by $2000-3000.
We now know it has CFast, so that's a somewhat good sign, even if it doesn't mean all that much. It will be the standard going forward, regardless.
But upgrades from the C100 mkII will be 4k and at least a codec on the level of the XC10/15 (intra frame AVC). Even with "just" those two bumps, in combination with the more compact form factor we see in the images, it will be a very nice camera to work with.
If it gets bumped to the C300 mkII sensor, gets Canon Log 3 and 10bit.... well... then I guess Canon will get pretty "lucky" with this one.
And if it does come in at the higher end of the spectrum, spec wise… will you guys really care if it's $6k or $7.5? You'll get it anyway.
Stuff like the GH5 isn't even close to be a competitor (on so many levels, and it's not because it's a "bad" camera) and even the entry level RED stuff is way more expensive. URSA Mini Pro is quite a bit larger and needs a different workflow.... The Sony FS5 and FS7 cameras are the only real competitors here. And there is room for both Canon and Sony in the market. I think it's very good that we have at least that amount of competition.
No... I think the C200 will sit right where Canon wants it to sit. My guesstimate is that it will have a 'serious' price in the sense that it will be targeted towards people earning money with the camera. I'm also hoping the C100-series gets one more round of updates with at least the XC10/15 codec, but where the price stays at the DSLR-level.
The new name indicates a "next level" camera. Just the fact that we now have 4k warrants the new name—Canon needs to separate this from all the previous C100s out there, so they could't go with C100 mkIII, even if they wanted to. Most people don't hang on forums and revel in the "details"… I'm also hoping for a beefed up codec like I said. For me, that puts the camera around $7495-7995. With room in both directions for us to be pleasantly surprised, or once again mildy annoyed with Canon's balls in terms of milking its customers.
In any case the camera will be very popular and sell well.
The Panasonic competitor isn't GH5. It's that other camera, whose name shan't be revealed for another few days and then will only be referred to in hush tones.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Since when has Canon come out with a well priced C-series camera? They are always over priced then come down after a year or two. $6500 would be reasonable, more like $8500 to $10,000.
deltoidjohn
Veteran
I'm going to be pessimistic here and take a swing that it will be slightly under $10,000. That's assuming 4k30p 10-bit, 1080p60 max. Closer in price to the C300mkII that the C100mkII, missing a lot of what the C300mkII has, but cheaper by just enough to entice those who can't afford the C300mkII.
This is talking US dollars.
Just my guess, based on Canon's generally-higher-than-expected release prices.
This is talking US dollars.
Just my guess, based on Canon's generally-higher-than-expected release prices.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Very unlikely. But who knows! $10,000 is way too close to the C300mkII. I still think it's gonna be around $7,500-$8,000.
Last edited:
Doug_EX
Well-known member
I did not know that. Will keep this is mind! Thanks!
I did a little search and found out that it's not a matter of country but a matter of language. In french (my native language) we put the symbol at the end and there is no '','' to seperate every group of 3 numbers...only spaces.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yea, I just mentioned what we do in the USA; I don't know what they do in other countries.
I only also mentioned Canada because people would look at your location and may assume you're referring to Canadian dollars if you kept writing it like that, which you have.
It doesn't matter anyway, who cares really, ha. Just figured you may want to know.
I only also mentioned Canada because people would look at your location and may assume you're referring to Canadian dollars if you kept writing it like that, which you have.
It doesn't matter anyway, who cares really, ha. Just figured you may want to know.
Doug_EX
Well-known member
No problem! It's good to know!
The best guess yet.
In the most of Europe, it's also done that way. I think (though not sure) that it comes from the basic language - "such and such is making a zillion pounds/euros/kroner/rubles per year".
The Euro time/date standards are also different, "1/22/2017".
Which, nonetheless, doesn't excuse the Canadians, eh.
PS. Speaking of hockey, eh, sports. The US leagues/pubs will list the host teams as second, "Leafs are @ Blackhawks". The Euros will list home teams first, "Bayern is hosting Arsenal". After much complaining, MLS has gone to the Euro format. The other leagues have not.