Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!

[acoelho1]

Ignorance is bliss when your talking out of your ass. By using insults and off the wall analogies don't really make your argument stronger. I liked how you didn't mention the documentary I referenced. I made it a point to ask the people I was with if they noticed any issues with the image quality and they all said no. Go watch for yourself and take a look at the article below regarding your vodka reference. It's mostly marketing than any added benefit.

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080521_901688.htm

 

[Kholi]

A documentary isn't any measure of camrea quality.

You can shoot one on a cellphone and be hailed as the next comin.


You're not talking about if an audience can tell. You're talking about if an audience cares. Winning any sort of award is not a measure of camera quality nor whether an audience NOTICES the differences between a tehcnically superior format or an inferior one.

Is this really that hard to understand?

 

[Guest]

I think you guys agree on more than you think.

 

[mico]

All I know is that there is renewed interest in the Canon because of a rumored price drop and if Canon is listening and reading I believe there are at least 25 people from this thread alone that would purchase the C300 if it was priced in the $12,000 - $14,000 US price range. Canon thats over $300,000 from just this thread in this economy.

 

[Guest]

All I know is that there is renewed interest in the Canon because of a rumored price drop and if Canon is listening and reading I believe there are at least 25 people from this thread alone that would purchase the C300 if it was priced in the $12,000 - $14,000 US price range. Canon thats over $300,000 from just this thread.

I would. But I'd be leaning towards the around $13K and lower, but by the time the price gets down there, I may be considering something else.

 

[acoelho1]

A documentary isn't any measure of camrea quality.

You can shoot one on a cellphone and be hailed as the next comin.


You're not talking about if an audience can tell. You're talking about if an audience cares. Winning any sort of award is not a measure of camera quality nor whether an audience NOTICES the differences between a tehcnically superior format or an inferior one.

Is this really that hard to understand?

I guess for us idiots and mongoloids it is. Let me be clear for the 99th time. If done right, the audience will not tell a difference. Just like no one could pick out the more expensive vodka in that article I referenced. They won't notice anything other than if the story is good or bad. It's that simple. You disagree.. fine. Move on.

 

[Guest]

I guess for us idiots and mongoloids it is. Let me be clear for the 99th time. If done right, the audience will not tell a difference. Just like no one could pick out the more expensive vodka in that article I referenced. They won't notice anything other than if the story is good or bad. It's that simple. You disagree.. fine. Move on.

But what about that vodka commercial where they held a blind test, and the people chose their brand? @.@

 

[Kholi]

The context of my mongoloid post was not in reference to you or anyone on this board. I meant the audience that you keep referring to as incapable of noticing the difference.

 

[William_Robinette]

It's a camera, not a religion. Can we remember that when posting please?

 

[Guest]

The context of my mongoloid post was not in reference to you or anyone on this board. I meant the audience that you keep referring to as incapable of noticing the difference.

For what it is worth, I knew what you meant.

Both of you guys are apparently concerned with excellence. We are all aware that a good camera can make a difference in a production, but on the list of important things, the camera falls way down the list. Sadly. So, it can be argued, that a lower end camera can be overlooked, because at the end of the day ALLLLLLL cameras and viewing mediums are a pale representation of what we see with our eyes.

None of us would argue that a good camera can't make a difference, and none of us would argue that story and acting are more important than anything else in a film, but yet we are all arguing.

The C300 is a tool with pro necessities, re-hashed tech with a fancy sensor, and a lot of hype. It can and will make money for many pros in the near future. Most of the people that will be making big money off of it, could afford it even if it cost $40K, but at $20K it has perked the interest of smaller productions and those who would like to own their own camera. Is it worth some dreamer putting it on a credit card to make that movie? No. At $16K it will serve many pros well, despite the marginal price gouge. When the price drifts into the $13K region, it will be because something else has replaced it in the niche market. And by then, it may not even be the camera we want anymore.

I hardly doubt, that anything I have written in this thread will change a working professionals decision whether to buy or not to buy a C300. If they are working, than they know how much they can afford. What I do hope, is to add perspective for those that are considering 'jumping' in to production, and are weighing the pros and cons. When I look into a purchase online, I look at the negative feed back first. Not for facts, but for perspective.

This camera is aimed at professionals who already are making a lot of money. People that are currently too busy making money to be bothered with an extra couple thousand dollars for a tool that is going to be working for them right now. They will bring the price down after they have saturated their target group, and then they will come down. Also, if they sold it at $12K, they probably couldn't keep up with the orders.

But for me, I would love to have a nice camera in the $6-$13K range, for personal use, and the occasional job. It is sad that companies won't put a good codec and curve in their cameras, because even though they would make a lot of money, they make a lot more money trickling down the tech options. (who said trickle down doesn't work?) Could a company sell an S35 camera with a good capture format, time-code, and feature set of a dslr for under $5K and still make money? Absolutely! They could make a killing. How many pros would use a $3K camera without pro options like HD-SDI and such, that produced a good image? I think a lot of pros would. Would they miss the pro options? Yes. Would they go back to $20K cameras? That depends on the budget of the project.

I am sorry to be asking for something that everyone is saying won't ever happen, but if the consumer doesn't voice their opinion, then how is a company supposed to know what I want? And hopefully along the way I find others that think the same way I do, and eventually companies will listen.

I have a soft spot for RED, because they brought 4K/s35/12.5 stops DR/RAW-16bit/4:4:4 to the $30K range at a time when Panasonic sold the Varicam for $65K. Jannards pets are out of my price range, and they do not always meet my needs, but they changed the game and gave added value to their customers, and now they are reaping the benefits. Canon similarly did so, practically on accident, with the 5DmkII. We'll see where the C300 lands in probably a few days.

 

[Guest]

It's a camera, not a religion. Can we remember that when posting please?

For some of us, this is religion.

 

[Piolet]

It is sad that companies won't put a good codec and curve in their cameras, because even though they would make a lot of money, they make a lot more money trickling down the tech options. (who said trickle down doesn't work?) Could a company sell an S35 camera with a good capture format, time-code, and feature set of a dslr for under $5K and still make money? Absolutely! They could make a killing. How many pros would use a $3K camera without pro options like HD-SDI and such, that produced a good image? I think a lot of pros would. Would they miss the pro options? Yes. Would they go back to $20K cameras? That depends on the budget of the project.

Well, the good news is Canon has been willing to put the XF codec all he way down to the $3,000 XF100. Other companies like Sony and Panasonic seem to not be as willing and they often use codecs to tier their products and upsell. They might not be able to do this much longer if competitors like Canon tip the balance. Overall, I think there's a good chance that a lot of this technology will trickle down because of these things:

1. The video market is expanding because more still photographers are crossing over and providing dual services.
2. There is demand for more motion imaging content with the internet age.
3. There is increased competition between all the manufacturers.
4. DSLR, ILC and CSC video capabilities will continue to get better due to consumer still photography demands. This forces the video industry to innovate beyond that in order to command a price and usability premium.
5. The high-end will move forward with 4K, high bit depth and high frame rates, leaving room for current HD acquisition technology to lower in price.

 

[Mike Harvey]

But what about that vodka commercial where they held a blind test, and the people chose their brand? @.@

Neat trick I learned right after college from a friend my liver learned to hate... buy one of those Brita filter pitchers, then run the cheap vodka through it a few times. It comes out much smother and tastes like the more expensive stuff.

I know, way off topic

 

[Guest]

Well, the good news is Canon has been willing to put the XF codec all he way down to the $3,000 XF100. Other companies like Sony and Panasonic seem to not be as willing and they often use codecs to tier their products and upsell. They might not be able to do this much longer if competitors like Canon tip the balance. Overall, I think there's a good chance that a lot of this technology will trickle down because of these things:

1. The video market is expanding because more still photographers are crossing over and providing dual services.
2. There is demand for more motion imaging content with the internet age.
3. There is increased competition between all the manufacturers.
4. DSLR, ILC and CSC video capabilities will continue to get better due to consumer still photography demands. This forces the video industry to innovate beyond that in order to command a price and usability premium.
5. The high-end will move forward with 4K, high bit depth and high frame rates, leaving room for current HD acquisition technology to lower in price.

Yes, the landscape has changed for video cameras. There are vastly more people out there who claim to do video, than there were 15years ago. Also, the competition is more fierce and the profit margin slimmer. But the consumers' need for a better image at a lower cost has definitely changed. They do not all need XLR, HD-SDI, genlock, s35, 4K, amazing hi-res color accurate evf's, or many other great features, but they do need better low light and better codec. At least a codec that doesn't suffocate the camera's capabilities. That's just rude. =)

Technology has changed what is high end, and what is normal. My brother in law will be getting a cell phone that has a 720p screen and dual 1.5ghz processor for free, by adding a line to his phone plan. Seeing what a $650 dslr can produce under the cloud of codec manipulation gave us all that "aha! I was right!" moment, because it was proof that products were intentionally tiered, and cheap technology had a lot of potential.

 

[Guest]

Neat trick I learned right after college from a friend my liver learned to hate... buy one of those Brita filter pitchers, then run the cheap vodka through it a few times. It comes out much smother and tastes like the more expensive stuff.

I know, way off topic

Dang it. I wish you had never said that. now I am going to have to try it!

 

[lennywood]

Neat trick I learned right after college from a friend my liver learned to hate... buy one of those Brita filter pitchers, then run the cheap vodka through it a few times. It comes out much smother and tastes like the more expensive stuff.

I know, way off topic

off topic, but good advice. thanks.

 

[alpi69]

Have you seen footage from Sony's FS100? It's incredible and that camera can practically see in the dark...Sure, the ergonomics are a complete disaster and the codec is 4:2:0 but surely the C300 is not worth $8000 more than the FS100, is it?

Oh it is. First of all. The FS100 doesn´t have the "lush filmlook" of a F3 or C300. Second, ergonomics are a huge part for many professionals. The option of internal ND´s, native Canon mount, truly usable viewfinder and 15 self-assigned buttons plus modular build with remotely controls (via the handle or via WiFi-device), 422-codec all are little pieces that lift the C300 way above the FS100.
The AF100 is good in ergonomics, but also doesn´t have the look, is not as good in low-light and lacks resolution.

The options are out there. The question is: is the C300 worth several FS100s FOR YOU or ME? And not, if its technology is worth its price.

Interesting bit that no one´s talking about here though: while in LA Canon announced this as a cam for filmmakers, in Berlin I heard they placed it into the television-market! And suddenly the viewfinder and the codec are FEATURES and not DEALBREAKERS!

 

[LiamR]

Oh it is. First of all. The FS100 doesn´t have the "lush filmlook" of a F3 or C300. Second, ergonomics are a huge part for many professionals. The option of internal ND´s, native Canon mount, truly usable viewfinder and 15 self-assigned buttons plus modular build with remotely controls (via the handle or via WiFi-device), 422-codec all are little pieces that lift the C300 way above the FS100.

Which is why it cost more than twice as much, why do people even bother comparing when it is completely irrelevant.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I wonder what we would ***** about if the C300 were priced at $6K?

 

[Guest]

I think, since we are talking about vague terms, like "lush filmic", it might be interesting to see an old 5DmkII video by Vincent Laforet.

http://vimeo.com/19102609

Watch it in HD.

Then watch the 720p version of Mobius, and suddenly the gap of image quality is closed.
http://vimeo.com/31525127


Majority of web content today is in a highly compressed format. Hulu, netflix, youtube, and vimeo, all mostly have nasty looking video.

Screen shots:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/Mobius720P.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37533131/Mobius1080P.png