C300: Canon at NAB2015 starts to make "headlines"

BrandonT said:
Good info. If this show needed to hire a camera op with gear at a location, do you think that they would have required the C300, or would they have been open to the C100 Mark II? I'm guessing it would be C300 or no hire.
Click to expand...

The C100 is an owner/op camera for weddings. The C300 is a professional camera for tv production and high end corporate.

The image quality is basically the same. But that tasty genlock makes the difference. AF100 and Scarlet owners laugh at the C100 as they would a 7D or worse... I was denied the opportunity to be a free PA on a corporate shoot over having a C100 instead of a C300, seriously. Even the hvx commands more respect in the professional market. As a wedding shooter or low end corporate shooter with a smart way to deal with audio or running it straight to camera, and generally as a preditor/shooter you'll do fine with a C100 if you can record sound straight to camera, but...

The C300 commands respect from bigger clients.

As I mentioned, the Mk II will blow people away. But it won't come cheap I don't expect.

Are you in it for you (C100 Mk II) or in it for the rental (C300)?
 
Policar said:
... They all just need to wait a week before feeling very differently. DLD is hinting at inside knowledge fwiw. I just wish someone knew the price, as I can't imagine this monster will be cheap.
Click to expand...
The rumored price of $17,000 was posted earlier in this very thread.

I have long thought that C300 MKII will be a direct FS7 competitor at around $10,000 but, rather than battling another quality product head on, Canon seems to want to offer a lot more at roughly double the price. We shall soon see what that entails.
 
DLD said:
The rumored price of $17,000 was posted earlier in this very thread.

I have long thought that C300 MKII will be a direct FS7 competitor at around $10,000 but, rather than battling another quality product head on, Canon seems to want to offer a lot more at roughly double the price. We shall soon see what that entails.
Click to expand...

PM me. Clearly you know more than you're revealing publicly.

$17k is higher than I'd hoped. But based on the feature set I'd say the only competition is the Alexa Mini, and even that offers less at twice the price.
 
Run&Gun said:
You do understand what focus peaking is and how it works, right? Not trying to be an @$$hole, even though I am really good at it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. THe problem is usually more about clearly being able to judge focus on a smaller screen in bright daylight, coupled with the extremely short focus throw on a non-cinema lens.
 
BrandonT said:
Good info. If this show needed to hire a camera op with gear at a location, do you think that they would have required the C300, or would they have been open to the C100 Mark II? I'm guessing it would be C300 or no hire.
Click to expand...

I lost a shoot last month because I didn't have a C300. Producer came from back east to California, they loved my reel, wanted to hire me, but then an "old buddy" of the producer contacted them, he had the C300, I had the C100 + Blade, they hired the C300 shooter, even though I told him that the C100 with the Blade is recording a much more robust signal from the same sensor. They don't care, producers who aren't technical only know what they have been told/indoctrinated on. In your position, I would buy the C300 over the C100 MKII in a heartbeat, though overall I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. It's all about name recognition and for the next couple of years, producers on reality/doc lower end type shoots are going to be asking for the C300. I don't think most will care about the C300 MKII, just the C300 name. If I could afford to, I would sell off my C100 and get the C300 but don't have the money to.
 
Last edited:
Policar said:
PM me. Clearly you know more than you're revealing publicly.

$17k is higher than I'd hoped. But based on the feature set I'd say the only competition is the Alexa Mini, and even that offers less at twice the price.
Click to expand...

Me too. I posted the $17k list Policar. That is what my source told me. Obviously I can't reveal who it is, but let's just say I would have no reason to not believe him and he is in a position to know. He would have no reason to tell me either, I kind of brought it up in a discussion about other gear and he gave me the high points. Who knows though, could have been a Red Herring from the Canon person he spoke with?
 
puredrifting said:
Me too. I posted the $17k list Policar. That is what my source told me. Obviously I can't reveal who it is, but let's just say I would have no reason to not believe him and he is in a position to know. He would have no reason to tell me either, I kind of brought it up in a discussion about other gear and he gave me the high points. Who knows though, could have been a Red Herring from the Canon person he spoke with?
Click to expand...

What did you hear about dynamic range and high frame rate? $17k, unfortunately, sounds spot-on. But from what I've read the feature set is legitimately groundbreaking, especially for under $20k. Getting mixed opinions on dynamic range, though. Is the 15 stop spec for the C300 Mk II or the C500 Mk II? If the price is that high for the little guy, I'm assuming both.
 
BrandonT said:
Some really good points here, guys. I'd like to continue this discussion. I hope no one feels like I'm hijacking this thread with the C100 Mark II vs. C300 (OG) discussion. If so, we can start a new thread. That's probably not a bad idea. Otherwise, here are some thoughts and questions on it.

Erik, it's definitely a business decision and not a want. I like the C100 Mark II very much. The main point I have is that having the C300 "should" get me in the door to be qualified for more work. Namely, the local 1 - 3 day freelance shoots for different cable network shows (Discovery, A&E, HGTV, CMT, & Food being the ones I most often see on Staff Me Up).

As far as the Ninja Star, I know the device itself is more affordable. But with the higher cost of the CFast cards, I think I'm better off with the Ninja 2 or Ninja Blade in the long run.

The C300 has the required 50 mbps bitrate that is required by networks. Which "should" also mean that it produces a better picture in some ways. But it sounds like the C100 Mark II has the better sensor between the two. Especially in regard to low light. Do you all agree?

What is it like shooting on the MXF file format? Does it get past some of the irritating things of AVCHD, especially in regards to clip spanning? I always feel like I need to prep an editor (who I've never even spoken to, normally) about AVCHD in my log notes on the hard drive that I ship back to freelance clients.

The C300 has gen-lock. Which would help me with two-camera events, assuming it can jam sync with my Panasonic AC130A (which I think it can). And will be almost necessary for two-camera reality show shoots. That was a major PITA recently (for the editor, at least), when I was used to being able to sync with my AF100.

On that last note, we're having some success with pitching our reality show that we've been working on to a major network. Just finished a second version of the sizzle reel, and it's going around to the producers and execs right now. We shot this version from their notes on the first version. So if it happens (the main interested party is one of those that I listed above), I have been pretty well betting that they'll need it on the C300. And I know that our editor, whoever that might end up being, will need the TC synced between it and whatever we get as a second camera. Probably whatever Canon makes that is on the same level, but with a 1/3" sensor and 20x zoom. Of course, this is all an "IF" right now. And the outcome will probably be the biggest deciding factor in all of this.

TLDR; most of my work is becoming freelance camera operator right now. And I want that side to increase over the full service client work. So the advantage of the C300 to me is that that seems to be what is required or requested by production companies and cable networks. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Wrong thread dude. Also, all of this info is available elsewhere. The C300 has been out for a long time. Google is your friend.
 
traviswears said:
Also, wasn't the list price on the announced C300 higher than the actual sale price once it was released?
Click to expand...

It was announced at "around 20k" I think and ended up being more like 17k.

The C100 was announced at $8k and went up for sale at $6500.... but the C100 Mk II was announced at $5500k and sells for the same, so.... $17k might be just right.
 
traviswears said:
Wrong thread dude. Also, all of this info is available elsewhere. The C300 has been out for a long time. Google is your friend.
Click to expand...

This discussion came about on its own from other people in this thread. I just continued it. And no, there's not much good info out on the C100 Mark II vs. C300 (as in, which as actually a better camera, that makes a better image). I've checked. I found a little, but I trust a lot of the folks here. That's why I post here. Some of this discussion is about the psychological aspect of producers thinking which camera is better (without that necessarily being based in fact), and therefore which they hire, and which you will make more money with. That info isn't out there in "Google is your friend"-land, either. Most of us here are here because we use these tools to make money.

Yes, the C300 has been out a long time. However, the C100 Mark II has not. Granted, I asked a couple of technical questions that can be Googled, but that was not the overall point of the post. Unless you skimmed it, you could see that. So c'mon, that was uncalled for. If the prevailing thought is that this discussion doesn't belong in this thread, I'll gladly make a new post. But others are contributing to the discussion, too, and it's going to be one that continues being asked about.

Policar said:
The C100 is an owner/op camera for weddings. The C300 is a professional camera for tv production and high end corporate.

The image quality is basically the same. But that tasty genlock makes the difference. AF100 and Scarlet owners laugh at the C100 as they would a 7D or worse... I was denied the opportunity to be a free PA on a corporate shoot over having a C100 instead of a C300, seriously. Even the hvx commands more respect in the professional market. As a wedding shooter or low end corporate shooter with a smart way to deal with audio or running it straight to camera, and generally as a preditor/shooter you'll do fine with a C100 if you can record sound straight to camera, but...

The C300 commands respect from bigger clients.

As I mentioned, the Mk II will blow people away. But it won't come cheap I don't expect.

Are you in it for you (C100 Mk II) or in it for the rental (C300)?
Click to expand...

I have an AF100, and I definitely wasn't laughing at the C100 Mark II when I bought it. But I get your overall point. And that falls in with what I was thinking with side grading from the C100MII to the C300.

As far as your last question, I take it that you were meaning is my main business full service clients that don't know one camera for another, or is it for freelance day-rate work (rental). If that's what you meant, then it's both. And the side that I want to expand more is the freelance stuff.

puredrifting said:
I lost a shoot last month because I didn't have a C300. Producer came from back east to California, they loved my reel, wanted to hire me, but then an "old buddy" of the producer contacted them, he had the C300, I had the C100 + Blade, they hired the C300 shooter, even though I told him that the C100 with the Blade is recording a much more robust signal from the same sensor. They don't care, producers who aren't technical only know what they have been told/indoctrinated on. In your position, I would buy the C300 over the C100 MKII in a heartbeat, though overall I think the C100 MKII is a better camera. It's all about name recognition and for the next couple of years, producers on reality/doc lower end type shoots are going to be asking for the C300. I don't thinbk most will care about the C300 MKII, just the C300 name. If I could afford to, I would sell off my C100 and get the C300 but don't have the money to.
Click to expand...

Cool. Thank you for sharing that info. I don't think that this prevailing thought is going to change, do you? And good to know that you think producers are going to continue asking for the C300. I actually currently own the C100 Mark II. And I don't regret the purchase one bit. It was a great step up from the AF100, and I needed a Canon C series camera. But now that the prices have come down on the C300, I can use it as a swap or sell to side grade to it. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Policar said:
What did you hear about dynamic range and high frame rate? $17k, unfortunately, sounds spot-on. But from what I've read the feature set is legitimately groundbreaking, especially for under $20k. Getting mixed opinions on dynamic range, though. Is the 15 stop spec for the C300 Mk II or the C500 Mk II? If the price is that high for the little guy, I'm assuming both.
Click to expand...

Did not hear anything about those. It will be interesting to see what Canon has up their sleeve.
 
BrandonT said:
Cool. Thank you for sharing that info. I don't think that this prevailing thought is going to change, do you? And good to know that you think producers are going to continue asking for the C300. I actually currently own the C100 Mark II. And I don't regret the purchase one bit. It was a great step up from the AF100, and I needed a Canon C series camera. But now that the prices have come down on the C300, I can use it as a swap or sell to side grade to it. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I don't think this will change for at least a year or two. I shoot EPK/BTS/Documentary and television shows for the studios and production companies who service the studios and the C300 is the standard. You are also fine with the FS7, F55. C100 they will take if they are not that camera specific, we are in post on pieces for several TV shows that I shot on the C100 MKI + Ninja Blade combo and have received nothing but accolades for the quality of the green screen keys, the look and feel of the footage, the sound and my clients love the ease of use of the Blade. We were shooting with the 5D MKIII a lot and the conversion time, moire and separate audio that had to be synced were all not good for our clients. The C100 + Blade mitigated all of these issues and with good lighting, it is an amazing little camera. But as we try to expand to other production companies as freelance, I wish I had the C300, the name recognition can't be beat. I do rent them occasionally, we rented three of them for a big piece we shot at the Writers Guild for a live screening with insane huge lenses, the C300 worked fine. If I can land a few more projects in the next few months, I would like to keep the C100 and buy a C300, new or used for even less. I think if you want freelance business, you are handicapping yourself by NOT having a C300, at least here in LA. In GA, you would know more than I would, I have never shot there.
 
Bern Caughey said:
I've been under Canon NDAs & they never shared accurate pricing. Perhaps if I was a retailer they might have.
Click to expand...
They would but then they can also change it - i.e., lower it - on a whim when the camera is actually released. They base it on the pre-order data.

Of course, on a retail level, the sales staff will then be told to hold their line on the most in-demand cameras and be more flexible on those gathering dust on store shelves. That will be especially noticeable in the rental rates.

As a side note - while the C300 MK I price has been lowered to ~ one third of the original MSRP, C500+ Q7 kit (includes two 256 GB SSD's, some accessories and the Canon Raw license) is selling for $18,000. So, that's the current price of recording Canon s35 4K Raw and should serve as a reference for the rest of the Cinema line, at least, for the time being.
 
lol here is my guess or my wish list guess...

$13,000 for the camera... shoots only 4k... no raw... but does shoot pro res (you have to purchase the add on, etc. for the F7S... that way they protect the C500 and its replacement for those who want raw... and for me it better shoot up to 60p...
 
1D X was dropped to below $5,000. If there's a unified replacement for it and 1D C, I wonder if it could have 4K in a DSLR style body for about $8,000, thus filling out that niche.

steve phillipps said:
Or have an FS7 for half the cost. Unless it's the same price as the Sony or does 120 fps at 4k I don't know why people would buy it at double the price. Just my thoughts. Steve
Click to expand...
Well, obviously, it'd have to deliver more than FS7 does... about $8,000 more.
 
DLD said:
1D X was dropped to below $5,000. If there's a unified replacement for it and 1D C, I wonder if it could have 4K in a DSLR style body for about $8,000, thus filling out that niche.

Well, obviously, it'd have to deliver more than FS7 does... about $8,000 more.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody really wants another 1DC, they probably just want a C300 that does 4k. At $8K another 1DC type camera makes no sense if it's not competitive with the A7s/GH4 in price, nor much smaller than the C300 in size. You're just paying a lot of money for a 1D X, which barely any videographers need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top