C300 and C100 Price Drop $6500 and $3000

Nah, from clearly overpriced to just about OK. The C100 for $3000 is a very interesting option (among other things, because it looks like a serious pro camera, which actually matters for being hired in a lot of markets; e.g. my lovely a7S could be an issue for shooting weddings, if I wanted to do that).
 
I would gladly acquire another Mark I for about 2K. as much as I really want the Mark II, I can't see shelling out $5500.
 
Interesting. How come it's now nearly $2K less than the 1DC though? The C300 used to be thousands more than the 1DC.
Originally the C300 was $16K then $12K. Now $6.5K. The 1DC was originally $12K then $8K.

If the C300 is now only $6,500, isn't the 1DC due for another price cut as well?
 
Because Canon doesn't have an $8,000 4K camera aside of 1D C ... unless C100 MK II is upgradable. Even then, the sales of C300 MK II take precedent and, with no C500 MK II anywhere in sight, no one is interested in cannibalizing their de facto flagship model.
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
Interesting. How come it's now nearly $2K less than the 1DC though? The C300 used to be thousands more than the 1DC.
Originally the C300 was $16K then $12K. Now $6.5K. The 1DC was originally $12K then $8K.

If the C300 is now only $6,500, isn't the 1DC due for another price cut as well?
Click to expand...

Yeah my guess is that Canon is lining up the 4K cameras to be the premium stuff.
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
Interesting. How come it's now nearly $2K less than the 1DC though? The C300 used to be thousands more than the 1DC.
Originally the C300 was $16K then $12K. Now $6.5K. The 1DC was originally $12K then $8K.

If the C300 is now only $6,500, isn't the 1DC due for another price cut as well?
Click to expand...

The C300 is being cut to clear out bodies for the C300II. I don't think we will see a 1DC replacement from Canon so there is no rush to clear it out of the warehouses. It wasn't a big seller anyway which is why I don't believe they will have a mkII.
 
The C300DAF. C300PL and the C300DAF kits is not being cleared out and will remain in the product lineup.....

Jim Martin
 
With used F3 cameras selling for less than $3000 how is a C100 for $3000 a good deal? Ok the C100 is smaller. But the F3 is a better camera with more dynamic range, 10 bit 444 and at least does slow motion even if only 720p. Better than nothing as in the C100. Unless you need the smaller size the F3 is just a much better option. If I would buy a HD camera at this point I would want the most features for least money. This is the F3 now.
 
Sttratos said:
With used F3 cameras selling for less than $3000 how is a C100 for $3000 a good deal? Ok the C100 is smaller. But the F3 is a better camera with more dynamic range, 10 bit 444 and at least does slow motion even if only 720p. Better than nothing as in the C100. Unless you need the smaller size the F3 is just a much better option. If I would buy a HD camera at this point I would want the most features for least money. This is the F3 now.
Click to expand...
An F3?....great camera when it came out and it was the first real super 35mm camera with amazing low light. I bet $3000 is for the body only which means it is recording 35mb 4-2-0 color. You have to have the back end to get the higher rez, codec, and color space and it's not cheap.
Everyone wants the most features for the least amount of money but one has to realize that specs aren't everything and some camera companies under spec and some over spec. The C300 out did it's spec sheet with many working shooters in town here saying 'look at the screen, not the sheet". As for the C100, it's a little over 2 years old, the F3 is 5 years old. These cameras have different "DNA"s or looks. The F3 really needs Anton or IDX batteries that cost a lot more than a BP-970 ($150) that runs the C100 for almost 8 hours......so, it's not just the spec sheet, it's the overall package and cost of operation that must be looked at.

Jim Martin
 
Jim Martin said:
An F3?....great camera when it came out and it was the first real super 35mm camera with amazing low light. I bet $3000 is for the body only which means it is recording 35mb 4-2-0 color. You have to have the back end to get the higher rez, codec, and color space and it's not cheap.
Everyone wants the most features for the least amount of money but one has to realize that specs aren't everything and some camera companies under spec and some over spec. The C300 out did it's spec sheet with many working shooters in town here saying 'look at the screen, not the sheet". As for the C100, it's a little over 2 years old, the F3 is 5 years old. These cameras have different "DNA"s or looks. The F3 really needs Anton or IDX batteries that cost a lot more than a BP-970 ($150) that runs the C100 for almost 8 hours......so, it's not just the spec sheet, it's the overall package and cost of operation that must be looked at.

Jim Martin
Click to expand...

+1
 
Sttratos said:
With used F3 cameras selling for less than $3000 how is a C100 for $3000 a good deal? Ok the C100 is smaller. But the F3 is a better camera with more dynamic range, 10 bit 444 and at least does slow motion even if only 720p. Better than nothing as in the C100. Unless you need the smaller size the F3 is just a much better option. If I would buy a HD camera at this point I would want the most features for least money. This is the F3 now.
Click to expand...

Here's that discussion, F3 vs C100. There's a lot of factors that might sway you one way or the other, some people like new vs used, some people have lots of canon glass and don't like adapters, not everyone needs slo mo, or perhaps would rather rent if they need a specific slo mo shot, etc., etc.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?300907-C100-or-used-F3
 
Jim Martin said:
An F3?....great camera when it came out and it was the first real super 35mm camera with amazing low light. I bet $3000 is for the body only which means it is recording 35mb 4-2-0 color. You have to have the back end to get the higher rez, codec, and color space and it's not cheap.
Everyone wants the most features for the least amount of money but one has to realize that specs aren't everything and some camera companies under spec and some over spec. The C300 out did it's spec sheet with many working shooters in town here saying 'look at the screen, not the sheet". As for the C100, it's a little over 2 years old, the F3 is 5 years old. These cameras have different "DNA"s or looks. The F3 really needs Anton or IDX batteries that cost a lot more than a BP-970 ($150) that runs the C100 for almost 8 hours......so, it's not just the spec sheet, it's the overall package and cost of operation that must be looked at.

Jim Martin
Click to expand...

Not to mention the lack of a warranty on an older used camera. Definitely something to consider.
 
Samuel H said:
Nah, from clearly overpriced to just about OK. The C100 for $3000 is a very interesting option (among other things, because it looks like a serious pro camera...
Click to expand...

Of course everyone has an opinion, even if they haven't used the cam ;)

I'm like many that have owned the C100 (at $6k) and found it an unmatched combination of image and usability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top