It's green and gold, baby.
C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors
- Thread starter Run&Gun
- Start date
chris f
Veteran
The more I think about the C500MKII I feel like it was created by a Canon web tracking AI bot that knows me better than I do....
I've been a Canon owner/operator (including the original C500) for 10+ years straight and it's more convenient to stay within the system plus:
Made all the things I don't want optional to cut down the price:
-extra XLRs? never needed them
-crappy viewfinder that I never use and gets in the way, no thanks
-V-Lock battery mount? gross. Riding with gold mounts for life
-locking EF mount, don't need em
-optional PL mount? only touched a PL mount lens once in my life
Added the three new features I really want:
-Image stabilization in camera (assuming it's at least half decent)
-Proper 4K image (5.9k down sampled)
-A solid non-raw option that I can hand over to normal clients at the end of the day
Threw in a few bonuses:
-Full frame sensor, so now I only need the affordable 24-105 f/4 zoom to complete a great, versatile set of full frame lenses that I already own and work great with Canon's autofocus
-Since there's no viewfinder, this should be able to fly on my Ronin-M no problem for lightweight gimbal work + with the new stabilization *should* make my gimbal work even smoother
-Footprint isn't much bigger or heavier than the C200, so I don't need to buy new/heavy duty support gear - can continue to use my cheap tripod, EasyRig MiniMax, etc.
All that AND they know that I'd be just the type of sucker that instead of being satisfied making great rental profits on my paid off C200s for the next couple of years, would rather start a new 2-year lease on a camera that will be more convenient/fun to use with a quality increase that my clients won't notice at all (but I'll think it's cool), and that I probably won't be able to charge more for than what I charge for my C200s. Priced juuuuust low enough for me to convince myself that I should buy it, even if it's mostly only for my own enjoyment.
I've been a Canon owner/operator (including the original C500) for 10+ years straight and it's more convenient to stay within the system plus:
Made all the things I don't want optional to cut down the price:
-extra XLRs? never needed them
-crappy viewfinder that I never use and gets in the way, no thanks
-V-Lock battery mount? gross. Riding with gold mounts for life
-locking EF mount, don't need em
-optional PL mount? only touched a PL mount lens once in my life
Added the three new features I really want:
-Image stabilization in camera (assuming it's at least half decent)
-Proper 4K image (5.9k down sampled)
-A solid non-raw option that I can hand over to normal clients at the end of the day
Threw in a few bonuses:
-Full frame sensor, so now I only need the affordable 24-105 f/4 zoom to complete a great, versatile set of full frame lenses that I already own and work great with Canon's autofocus
-Since there's no viewfinder, this should be able to fly on my Ronin-M no problem for lightweight gimbal work + with the new stabilization *should* make my gimbal work even smoother
-Footprint isn't much bigger or heavier than the C200, so I don't need to buy new/heavy duty support gear - can continue to use my cheap tripod, EasyRig MiniMax, etc.
All that AND they know that I'd be just the type of sucker that instead of being satisfied making great rental profits on my paid off C200s for the next couple of years, would rather start a new 2-year lease on a camera that will be more convenient/fun to use with a quality increase that my clients won't notice at all (but I'll think it's cool), and that I probably won't be able to charge more for than what I charge for my C200s. Priced juuuuust low enough for me to convince myself that I should buy it, even if it's mostly only for my own enjoyment.
JPNola
Veteran
Why would you be "embarrassed" to bill for your gear? Or was that sarcasm? There's so much dripping sarcasm in this thread along with people trying to be witty and cute that it is difficult to tell when people are joking. Post activity that doesn't seek to assist, inform or learn but instead only seeks to be entertaining and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Chat-room material.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Okay, then explain the value of using a loupe. In my experience, it's way faster to have a dedicated monitor and a seperate dedicated viewfinder than to deal with taking a loupe on and off depending on your situation.
I used to use Zacuto Z-finder loupes and also had the Cinevate Cyclops loupe and am glad I'm done with those days. I sold two of them I had; the Zacuto Z-finder loupe for my C300 Mark II is collecting dust somewhere in this house. Used it maybe once or twice and didn't like working with it.
The problem with loupes is then your monitor turns into a viewfinder, which means you always have to have your eye up to the camera in order to do anything. I was an AC on a shoot once where they were renting my C300, had the Zacuto loupe on it, and for me to change a very basic camera setting, I had to pick up the camera and put the loupe to my eye. Forget about doing slider shots, low tripod shots, etc. I want versatility without taking the time to take a loupe on and off.
NorBro
Major Contributor
35 pages to choose from and that's what you single out as sarcasm?...lol
[And this is how DVXuser has been since Day 1.]
I am very serious.
In short - without writing a novel about it - many new age clients do not understand the concept of charging for gear you own.
This is an old-school mentality that is not as acceptable today as it once was.
And I personally do not believe in it, and wouldn't strain potential relationships by asking for a separate amount of money/rental fee for my gear.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I think it really comes down to the typical different types of clients.
If you work directly for the client where they are some marketing director then they often don't know equipment well, so you typically don't charge a rental rate/kit fee.
If you work for producers who request specific equipment from you, then you typically charge a rental/kit fee.
For the latter, which is most of my type of work, we can justify more expensive equipment as long as we can find the clients willing to pay the higher rental prices. For the first, a person really just needs a camera that can make them happy, and not the client, because the client doesn't know anything about cameras. Thus, for the first, it becomes more about producing, storytelling, editing, etc., and less about the equipment.
If you work directly for the client where they are some marketing director then they often don't know equipment well, so you typically don't charge a rental rate/kit fee.
If you work for producers who request specific equipment from you, then you typically charge a rental/kit fee.
For the latter, which is most of my type of work, we can justify more expensive equipment as long as we can find the clients willing to pay the higher rental prices. For the first, a person really just needs a camera that can make them happy, and not the client, because the client doesn't know anything about cameras. Thus, for the first, it becomes more about producing, storytelling, editing, etc., and less about the equipment.
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Yeah, NorBro, stop being so sarcastic so we can learn things on this forum. I'm tired of people joking around. As I'm self employed time is money, and for every minute I waste reading stupid jokes on forums when I should be educating myself, I'll be invoicing the lot of you.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
A separate kit fee is important for taxes. That’s what I always tell clients and then no problem.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Years ago I was at Filmtools, & observed Jim Martin trying to talk a couple of customers, believe they were Swedish, out of buying a full Steadicam kit. Would have been a quick sale as they were traveling home the next day, but instead he showed them how a monopod might better suit their needs. Don’t think I’ve ever shook Jim’s hand, & certainly he’s never sold me anything, but earned my respect that day.
cpreston
Veteran
I doubt that I could charge much more for the C500 II over my base kit rate for my C300 II, but I have a feeling the camera will be useful for getting more work based only on the 4K 60p and when the client says they want to shoot in "RAW" despite not having any idea what that means. One of the nice things about the Canon cameras is they also shoot the proxy files which some clients decide are good enough. Anyway, I discovered that charging a kit/box rate for certain items was the only way to protect myself from doing a lot of extra work. If I charge an all in rate for clients I don't have a past relationship with, they end up requesting half the stuff I own and I am working twice as long and hard to pack, load, and use the equipment. So now if I hear something like, "Oh, you have a crane, why don't you throw that in even though we probably won't use it", I can just tell them the rate for the crane and they will say never mind. Or they spring for the crane and now I'm making more money.
Run&Gun
Veteran
There’s nothing wrong with a package rate, it’s probably how most of us operate, but it doesn’t have to include everything and when something is requested that’s not a part of it, you do just as you said. I just went through a version of that a few months ago. Producer asks the day before the shoot if I have a second camera available for the shoot. “Yes sir, as long as you’re willing to pay for it”. Producer, “I think we’ll be ok with your cam and mine”. Then the producer the morning of the shoot, “Do you have a second camera you can bring for the shoot?”. Me, same answer as the day before, but this time he agreed and said bring it. Obviously he was expecting me to just throw it in when he asked the first time, because I’m sure a ton of the people that shoot for them do. That’s one of the problems with all of the inexpensive gear and the people that it has brought into the industry. You have guys that don’t really have any skin in the game, because they basically just own a few dslr/mirrorless cameras or inexpensive video cameras and they’ll throw two, three, four cams out for nothing on a shoot and then producers/clients get used to that and expect everyone else to do the same.
cpreston
Veteran
In my case, I still just show up with a second camera because I like to have a backup and both cameras are already packed in the same case, but the client doesn't need to know that unless they suddenly realize the shoot really requires an extra camera. I certainly understand the desire not to nickel and dime a client about equipment, but there isn't any upside in not charging for equipment and it keeps me from starting to feel resentful of certain clients or the rental houses or freelancers that are charging for equipment.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The conversation has evolved...of course you'd charge more for some of the extra gear mentioned above, especially if you didn't have it.
(You don't use your operating money to rent people gear.)
A freaking crane? I would double the entire rate. Forget the rental fee; it would be a stress rate.
My original comment was mostly just for the camera. I wouldn't charge a fee to bring the one camera I already owned. Throw in a lav or two? A light? Sure. I guess it also depends on the rates; maybe with higher ones one may not see a need for it. Like what's the difference between charging $1000 for the day and $500 for the camera, or just starting off by saying your day rate is $1500 for the day? Or $2500? Or $5000?
(You don't use your operating money to rent people gear.)
A freaking crane? I would double the entire rate. Forget the rental fee; it would be a stress rate.
My original comment was mostly just for the camera. I wouldn't charge a fee to bring the one camera I already owned. Throw in a lav or two? A light? Sure. I guess it also depends on the rates; maybe with higher ones one may not see a need for it. Like what's the difference between charging $1000 for the day and $500 for the camera, or just starting off by saying your day rate is $1500 for the day? Or $2500? Or $5000?
I'm in the first camp. I sell myself as a filmmaker first, not even as a DP alone because I also direct, then I offer equipment tiers for the video quality (ex XT3 vs C200). Hell, about a third of the jobs I do I actually hire a DP and just direct.
My camera choice is based solely on the capabilities it offers me so I can do a better job, not based on client demand.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
I like to look at it differently with the gear. I have a kit and that kit goes out on its own rate that is separate from mine. When someone asks about dropping individual line items I say, "Look, it's not like that's going to be doing me any good sitting at home on the shelf and I wouldn't want either of us frustrated on the shoot when it would have been nice to have that item along. I'd rather just work with you on a package price so we're both happy."
Producers are people too. Work with them honestly and it leaves a better taste in everyone's mouth.
Producers are people too. Work with them honestly and it leaves a better taste in everyone's mouth.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Ha, ha, I admire your honesty.
It's funny, a lot of those are the exact same argument points, word for word, of why I won't be selling off my C200 to buy a C500 MKII. But I'm older than you and think paying off multiple mortgages on several houses is a better investment than more camera gear that depreciates extremely rapidly.
If things change and the C500 MKII becomes the same as the C300 MKII was and the FS7 currently is, you know, the low to medium end "it" camera, if it would get me more work/new work or I could increase current client rates for it, then I would buy it in a heartbeat.
But I think it will take at least a year or two for that to happen, IF it happens.