C300: C300 Mk III Coming Soon

I think that for 2000usd the c100 mark i its a super true video camera. Super cheap cards. 4k sensor super 35mm. With great image detail. The avchd its amazing for such a lowbitrate. 2x xlrs. Great audio pre amps. great neutral color build in ND filters...and the colors...the skin tones.
I know i want more. I dont like the price of the mark ii but the mark one its the best true cinema look video camera for 1500 usd used - 2500 new...i know no slow motion no 4k...but i dont hear anyone that used canon cinema line that dont say...amazing little camera and work worse.
 
DLD said:
That's correct. If - in principle - there's enough demand for their "video only" cameras, then Canon can live long and prosper. In this particular juncture, however, Canon is losing on several fronts by not having either a DSLR with pro video features or an affordable 4K camcorder. C300 MKII seems to be doing well enough but it's only one model. The new Panasonic Varicam LT is priced roughly in the same price range ($16,500 and up) and a lot of pro shooters will select that over MKII. Then there's new Red cameras vying for the same niche. And one can expect Sony to update F5 any second now. To defend its territory, Canon better be nimble, Canon better be quick.

BTW, I will assert that, within a year or two, pretty much every pro camera will be between $5,000 and $16,000. Sure, there'll be your $300,000 Alexa65's and so on but a Varicam LT is already more than sufficient for a big budget TV series or a feature film.

The total digital camera sales topped out at over 120,000,000 units shipped in 2010 but are expected to slump to 35,000,000 in 2016. Smartphones, with their ever improving built-in cameras, are having the P&S market for lunch (~100M shipped in 2010 down to ~ 20M in 2016 for an 80% reduction). The larger ILC's are holding steady in volume but their margins are eroding quickly as well. Sony A6300 at $1,000 is probably more than the bulk of enthusiast/low end pro users will ever need. If the NAB'16 delivers a "giant leap" type of a model, such as promised by Sony (or BMD back in 2015 with their 4.6 Mini), then the $15,000+ priced pro market will be crushed. The photo companies are diversifying into other areas but future consolidation is definitely in the offing.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of statistics, so I will give you an anecdote. I have a C100, 1DC, and a GH4. The C100 is my A cam. I bring out the 1DC when I need photos or a b-cam and use it almost entirely in S35 mode. I don't use the GH4 at all. For some reason, almost everything I do is better served by using the old C100. None of my clients are asking for 4K and everything I do is easier with a dedicated video camera body. I drool over the C300 mkii because I want the AF. I am Canon's market and I know almost everybody I work with is perfectly happy using Canon's products and none of them want to go back to using DSLR's for large sensor video work.
 
cpreston said:
... I am Canon's market and I know almost everybody I work with is perfectly happy using Canon's products and none of them want to go back to using DSLR's for large sensor video work.
Click to expand...
Well, no. You're a very small part of the overall Canon market, as defined by the number of units shipped and revenues generated in their imaging division only. Their top sellers are the sub-$1,000 Rebel series, as they are for Nikon (3-series) or Sony (A5 and A6 series). As prices go up, margins go up as well but the overall sales decline. The rest is what earns CEO's their pay - some companies can prosper catering to a higher end crowd as with ARRI and Red; some work the low end/mid-end such as Olympus, Pentax or Fuji and others are big enough to cover the entire gamut such as Sony and Panasonic. Your self-described niche of ~ $5,000-$10,000 is unlikely to be sustainable in the long-term for any manufacturer because it doesn't allow him to spread his R&D costs over a wide range of models. And, as a side note, many folks accuse Canon Cinema series ergonomics being too similar to the DSLR rather than to a camcorder (Alexa, AJA Cion) style.
 
DLD said:
Well, no. You're a very small part of the overall Canon market, as defined by thAne number of units shipped and revenues generated in their imaging division only.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know I am a very small part of the market. How big is the market for people who want both an enthusiast level DSLR and require 4K video? How big is that market relative to videographers that want a video camera? How big is that market relative to the number of people who want a DSLR but are turned off by 4K video and all of it's requirements?

Quite frankly, if you are trying to make money as a videographer, you should be renting. And if you are renting, are you going to rent a Rebel, even if it had 4K?

Yes, everybody on this board that isn't already working $20,000 or more projects would like a sub $1000 camera that does everything. We are insignificant to any company's profits.
 
cpreston said:
Yes, I know I am a very small part of the market. How big is the market for people who want both an enthusiast level DSLR and require 4K video? ...
Click to expand...
Well, as soon as Sony A6300 was announced, it went immediately to the top of the B&H mirrorless charts. So that's one indicator.

Another indicator is that Nikon and Panasonic have just released a bunch of 4K enabled point&shoot / bridge cameras.

As to what the videographers want, the answer is obvious - they want C300 MKII for $1,000. The wait won't be long.
 
cpreston said:
That's a lot of statistics, so I will give you an anecdote. I have a C100, 1DC, and a GH4. The C100 is my A cam. I bring out the 1DC when I need photos or a b-cam and use it almost entirely in S35 mode. I don't use the GH4 at all. For some reason, almost everything I do is better served by using the old C100. None of my clients are asking for 4K and everything I do is easier with a dedicated video camera body. I drool over the C300 mkii because I want the AF. I am Canon's market and I know almost everybody I work with is perfectly happy using Canon's products and none of them want to go back to using DSLR's for large sensor video work.
Click to expand...

Great post. C300MKII is more than AF, even though it is great. The most drool worthy feature of the camera is the final image. Not sure why this is not talked about more. 4K has been a revelation to a guy that could have cared less. 4K gives you so many more options in post it is ridiculous.
 
There are people here who are just hating C300 Mark II because of its price. The files are really lovely. There are all kinds of 4K available in the market. Even the Go Pro 4 shoots 4K. However, I mostly use that to shoot 2.7K at 50p. Guess some people here would call it madness to shoot at 2.7k over 4k with the Go Pro. The question is how detailed are the 4K files. And that is where the C300 Mark II scores. I find the 4K of C300 II to be really good.

Also I believe some people here are not able to fully visualise how important the DPAF in C300 Mark II can be in their scheme of things. It is a life saver in many situations. C300 Mark II would replace many higher priced cameras in high budget projects (especially with the alexa look).
 
DLD said:
And, as a side note, many folks accuse Canon Cinema series ergonomics being too similar to the DSLR rather than to a camcorder (Alexa, AJA Cion) style.
Click to expand...

That's why I have a love hate relationship with my C300. Beautiful picture, but horrible ergonomics, layout and connections.
 
cpreston said:
Quite frankly, if you are trying to make money as a videographer, you should be renting. And if you are renting, are you going to rent a Rebel, even if it had 4K?
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you come to that conclusion?! I'm not trying to be rude, but that's one of the craziest things I've ever read on this board. The real money is in OWNING your gear and using it on your shoots. I make ~double my rate on the gear(depending on the client, the breakdown goes anywhere from ~1.7x-2.2x). In other words, I make triple what I would just billing for labor. If I had to do this working mostly with rented gear or shooting for someone else with their gear, I would probably rethink things. At the very least, my bank account would be very different...
 
I am with Run and Gun on this one. I use my own stuff and it allows for so much flexablity, and I just feel confident knowing what I can deliver and knowing the gear.
 
Run&Gun said:
Where in the world did you come to that conclusion?! I'm not trying to be rude, but that's one of the craziest things I've ever read on this board. The real money is in OWNING your gear and using it on your shoots. I make ~double my rate on the gear(depending on the client, the breakdown goes anywhere from ~1.7x-2.2x). In other words, I make triple what I would just billing for labor. If I had to do this working mostly with rented gear or shooting for someone else with their gear, I would probably rethink things. At the very least, my bank account would be very different...
Click to expand...
Exactly! You rent only when client asks for something specific but then you charge accordingly.
 
Depends. If you're in the high end market (Arri, film, Red, F65), you often rent. Hopefully at that level if you're a DP without gear you can also charge more than a typical $500 per day without gear; most big-wig Hollywood DPs probably don't own much in terms of expensive cameras, but may be charging $2000-$4000 per day. If you're in the low end (GH4, 5D, A7s) to medium end market (C300, F5, FS7), then often you use your gear too often for renting to make sense and buying turns out to be far more profitable and makes you more marketable.
 
Last edited:
slidemaster said:
I am with Run and Gun on this one. I use my own stuff and it allows for so much flexablity, and I just feel confident knowing what I can deliver and knowing the gear.
Click to expand...

When I hire videographers to cover events I can't, I won't hire anyone that doesn't own their own gear. Number 1, it ALWAYS ends up costing me more. Number 2, I'm never confident they know the gear well enough. Or have the right lenses and audio equipment. Number 3, I have to question their talents if they can't be bothered to buy their own equipment. It takes 1000s of hours to develop talent. If you don't have your own gear chances are you're not spending as much time shooting. And number 4, personally I'd rather see the videographer get more money than a rental facility.
 
As some are pointing out, there are other advantages to owning your own gear besides just money. There is of course money, but there's knowing the gear inside and out and having what you need and like to do the job properly, there's having it available and ready at a moments notice, which if you're like me and shoot a lot of network and broadcast, is a necessity(heck, I've gotten calls for emergency rentals, too). There's knowing how it's maintained, taken care of and set-up. You can pick-up five same model cameras from five different owners and I bet not a single one would be set-up exactly the same. And there's the bonus of the rental market, too. I've rented every model of my cameras out in the last 10 months with the exception of my tape Vari. I bet I actually rent out my C300 and F55 as much as I use them.

Someone brought up the high-end market. When you're talking about feature films and national commercials, that's a different animal(usually). I''m speaking to most of the people on here that are probably NOT doing feature films with multi-multi-million dollar budgets. BUT, I do know guys(individuals) that own Alexa's and RED's. I think the sandbox below "feature films" may surprise some people. Now I'm not trying to say that there are as many owner/ops with Alexa's as there are with C300's or FS7's, but it's not a nonexistent demographic either.
 
The real question is besides slow motion what cant the c300 mark II do? If you put that aside it can do more than the Alexa and Red straight out of the box
 
mraaron895 said:
The real question is besides slow motion what cant the c300 mark II do? If you put that aside it can do more than the Alexa and Red straight out of the box
Click to expand...

The lack of ProRes is a bit of an issue, and the over-all shape being a bit less suited to the traditional Operator & 1st AC setup of a typical union show (not a huge deal, but it's an annoyance). Certainly though, if Canon had come out with their own Varicam 35 type camera they'd have established themselves quite a bit better than Sony or Panasonic in that arena. Their zoom lenses are already very respected, second only to Fuji. Their primes are pretty good too, I'd rate them higher than CP2s, but I wish they had hard stops at infinity.
 
I wish Canon would announce paid firmware/hardware upgrades for C300II with 4K60fps. Also maybe lower the price to something like $14K. They still have a lot to offer but they have to be more flexible and open to what is asked. It's a little strange that their dslr (1dxii) has higher frame rates than their top of the line camera.
 
Last edited:
The 1DXII has an inferior 8 bit codec and a record limit of 30mins. Once you have graded a C300MK II Image you will never want to go back to 8bit.
 
mraaron895 said:
The 1DXII has an inferior 8 bit codec and a record limit of 30mins. Once you have graded a C300MK II Image you will never want to go back to 8bit.
Click to expand...
Well I know all that (and exact 1DXII and C300II specs) I was strictly referring to frame rates not bit depth. Higher frame rates is not a luxury nowadays but necessity - end customers ask for it (ie. food commercials - it HAS TO be in slow mo) thus Canon should offer that in their flagship camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top