C300: Canon at NAB2015 starts to make "headlines"

So if C300 Mk I is now $6500 (goodbye resale value) I think that bodes very well for what they're going to pack into the Mk II - what I'm thinking might be another $16k camera out of the gate.
 
Graham King said:
So if C300 Mk I is now $6500 (goodbye resale value) I think that bodes very well for what they're going to pack into the Mk II - what I'm thinking might be another $16k camera out of the gate.
Click to expand...
After I checked the date, I went to B&H and, surely enough, the Dual Pixel version is $6,999.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062483-REG/canon_0044c002_eos_c300_cinema_eos.html

So, as I had thought, they dropped the price big time to clear the inventory, although the sales numbers have been tanking since the FS7 release.
 
Yikes, $2,999.00 for a new C100 MKI, I paid $5,000.00 in November. So long resale value! ;-) The C300 now is a great value, wish I had the $7k to buy one. $7k versus $17k for the C300 MKII. I guess a lot of this will come down to your market and clients. If they don't care about 4K (mine don't at all, I had the GH4 and two of them requested that I NOT shoot 4k as the file sizes were too large and we only deliver 1080 to the studios), the time to buy the C300 is now, what a killer deal. I wonder if the introduction of the C300 MKII will make the C300 as undesirable as people think it will be?
 
Wow, used C100s will sell between $2000 - $2500. Thats pretty crazy. I expect used C300s will sell for $5k. Thats bonkers!
 
Boon said:
Price drop can't be worse off than Blackmagic camera.
Click to expand...

How so? I bet canon users just lost about what bm owners spent on a whole camera though...

Then again value drops are inevitable and pretty much no product is immune to it. The value of cameras drops rapidly whether or not the manufacturer changes the msrp....
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
Wow, used C100s will sell between $2000 - $2500. Thats pretty crazy. I expect used C300s will sell for $5k. Thats bonkers!
Click to expand...

With such prices people shouldn't complain about lack of video features in the DSLRs. Anyone shooting videos can now easily buy the C series cameras instead of depending on DSLRs for budgetary reasons.
 
IronFilm said:
... Be nice if the FS7 comes down in price enough for it to be affordable for even me to get! ha
But I highly highly doubt it...
Click to expand...

FS7 has been selling really well but, I agree, there has to be a ripple effect. Even if there aren't many C300's left, C100 MK II is a new model and its price is being lowered too. Plus, whatever comes from Panasonic as AF-200. JVC's new 4K for $4,000 camera isn't awful looking either (with the right lens).
 
DLD said:
FS7 has been selling really well but, I agree, there has to be a ripple effect. Even if there aren't many C300's left, C100 MK II is a new model and its price is being lowered too. Plus, whatever comes from Panasonic as AF-200. JVC's new 4K for $4,000 camera isn't awful looking either (with the right lens).
Click to expand...

The C100 Mark II is still $5499 unless I missed something.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
I feel for anyone who was waiting to sell their C300 till after Nab. In one day their potential used sales price drops $4K. Ouch.
Click to expand...
Why? Who would buy a used C300 at $11,000 or so with NAB around the corner? I wouldn't even buy a used C300 for $6000. And I love the C300. And if you owned a C300 for the past 2 years, you should have made your money back 100X's its original cost. If you haven't, why do you have a C300?.

I always laugh when camera prices drop and people say, "I just lost my investment value". Investments grow in money. Ya know, like a SEP IRA, a Roth, even a savings account at 2%. When I buy a camera as an "investment" it's because I'm investing that I will sell images with the camera. What the camera is worth 2 or 3 years later is near meaningless. Especially if there are cameras released since then that cost 40% less with 80% more features. But like I said, you should have profited with the camera 1000% while in ownership working with it.

Who didn't see this coming? The second the Fs7 lunched at $8000, C300 users should have put their cameras up for sale if they felt they needed to maximize their "investment" resale factor. Or just hold on to it, book a job next week, and go out and make $8,000 and not worry about what your camera is worth. You should be worried about what YOU'RE worth.
 
dustylense said:
Why? Who would buy a used C300 at $11,000 or so with NAB around the corner? I wouldn't even buy a used C300 for $6000. And I love the C300. And if you owned a C300 for the past 2 years, you should have made your money back 100X's its original cost. If you haven't, why do you have a C300?.

I always laugh when camera prices drop and people say, "I just lost my investment value". Investments grow in money. Ya know, like a SEP IRA, a Roth, even a savings account at 2%. When I buy a camera as an "investment" it's because I'm investing that I will sell images with the camera. What the camera is worth 2 or 3 years later is near meaningless. Especially if there are cameras released since then that cost 40% less with 80% more features. But like I said, you should have profited with the camera 1000% while in ownership working with it.

Who didn't see this coming? The second the Fs7 lunched at $8000, C300 users should have put their cameras up for sale if they felt they needed to maximize their "investment" resale factor. Or just hold on to it, book a job next week, and go out and make $8,000 and not worry about what your camera is worth. You should be worried about what YOU'RE worth.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Totally agree Dusty, I can recall going through serious gyrations back in the day when I was almost taking out a mortgage to buy a top of the line Betacam, nearly $75k with the lens and batteries and dockable BVV5 recorder. To us, that camera was definitely an investment because we did use it for years to make many times it's value but we also sold it four years later for $45k so the depreciation wasn't that bad considering how much money it made us and how much in rentals it saved us. That's why today, I only buy sub $5k cameras because they are all disposable. I don't think a lot of people today realize how things were just a few short years ago when a 35mm package cost a quarter of a million dollars, AVIDs cost $75k and Betacams cost $50k. We are living and working in an era when you can shoot a feature film on an iPhone and almost all cameras under $5k shoot better images than $30k cameras did just a few years ago. The upside is that all of this technology is amazing, it improves by leaps and bounds. The downside is that it is almost all disposable and only "current" for six months to a year, then it's value rapidy plunges.

Hobbyists think of cameras as investments because they think they are going to buy it, shoot with it for a year or two, then hopefully sell it for as much as they paid or a little less. Most working pros rent the expensive stuff and may own a lower end camera to use for low budget projects or self-funded projects. Most working pros look at a camera exactly as you do, a piece of gear that will generate rentals and or revenues to the bottom line. That's where I am at with the Amira. I have had a chance to shoot with it, fell in love with it and would love to own it. But my company's clients won't pay for it so what would be the point? They will pay for a C100 or C300 but not a $50 or $100k camera, the amount of work and the budgets don't justify it most of the time. I agree, there is no thinking of camera gear as an investment, they are disposable tools that allow you to create the images your clients will pay for, nothing more. I think investment in cameras used to be owning a S16 or 35mm film package that you had sunk $50 to $300k into with all of the glass and attachments and add-ons. There was a LONG period where the technology really didn't change for years and years and you could amortize that investment and sell the package for very close to what you bought it for or for even more if you were at the right place at the right time. That paradigm only works when the technology is largely stagnant as it was in film cameras between the late 70s to late 80s. I had an Arri SRII package for years and nothing really changed except for the addition of color versus B&W video tap. That camera package was an investment as I shot with it and rented it out. But the video/digital cinema cameras of today? Not investments, just a place to park some money to make a lot more money, then take the loss and buy the next generation.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
Why? Who would buy a used C300 at $11,000 or so with NAB around the corner? I wouldn't even buy a used C300 for $6000. And I love the C300.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy it for that price (which is why I have an FS7) but people were buying it for $8-10K used which I think convinced some owners value would hold. I totally agree with the idea of a camera as an investment only due making $$ over its life which I consider 2 years these days and only own what will make me a good return in that time frame. That said selling your camera last week and selling it this week for far less has to sting for anyone. Its just business and who doesn't want to get max money they can which was my point. I said nothing about the camera as an investment in my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top