Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!
- Thread starter Bertholt4
- Start date
- Status
The Red One MX had 12 stops. The EPIC is supposed to have 13.5 stops which should also be Scarlet's spec. Canon claims 12 stops for C300. I have to take any DR spec with a grain of salt until I do my own testing, but I'm only going what others claim in what I posted for now.
I am honestly more interested in what the next Nikon DSLR and the Canon 5D Mark III
brings to the table in DSLR Form factor than a
Sony F3 vs Canon C300 low light shootout at $20K+ equipped with their lenses...
Plus, I could pull nice stills with DSLR's as needed, instead of stuck at 1080p...
I thought everyone told Canon we want RAW video, yet instead we now have the C300 at 50mbit,
essentially a double priced $6800 Canon 1DX with 8 bit output, no RAW option...
OR, rather we now have an intentionally video-disabled Canon 1DX and a longer wait for the
5D Mark 3 , as long as the C300 sells...
Don't get me wrong, I like clean hi ISO images and nice organic noise according to others who saw it live,
but a part of the images were aided by $6800 primes and $40,000 zooms.
Either way, more choices are a great thing when i rent next year,
and I'm certain they'll be hot rental bodies...
brings to the table in DSLR Form factor than a
Sony F3 vs Canon C300 low light shootout at $20K+ equipped with their lenses...
Plus, I could pull nice stills with DSLR's as needed, instead of stuck at 1080p...
I thought everyone told Canon we want RAW video, yet instead we now have the C300 at 50mbit,
essentially a double priced $6800 Canon 1DX with 8 bit output, no RAW option...
OR, rather we now have an intentionally video-disabled Canon 1DX and a longer wait for the
5D Mark 3 , as long as the C300 sells...
Don't get me wrong, I like clean hi ISO images and nice organic noise according to others who saw it live,
but a part of the images were aided by $6800 primes and $40,000 zooms.
Either way, more choices are a great thing when i rent next year,
and I'm certain they'll be hot rental bodies...
Last edited:
I didn't. RAW is not the be all, end all. Time is money, and RAW takes time.
I'd far rather have an internal 4:2:2 / 10 bit / low compression codec. The C300 is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, one day we will see an option for raw and codec... much like raw/jpg mode on a DSLR. RAW can be great if you messed up a shot or have alot of time in post... but how many of us NEED it?
KyleProhaska
Veteran
No it shouldn't...not even close.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
+1, this is where it should be.
I think this is half the problem.... Some people are forming an opinion using a spec sheet rather than an image - What about DR, colour rendition, low light etc.... attributes that are not always easy to put down as a quantifiable spec... The 12 stops DR given by Canon will almost certainly be a conservative number.
I admit, 8bit is a shame, but it is not the end of the world. People have been happily grading 5DII footage and the C300 will hold up better in post, due to the 4:2:2 space.
+1000. I haven't seen any camera yet that would warrant an upgrade from my 5DII. Still waiting for 5DIII. I've given up on Nikon for video.
+1. I agree about the 4:2:2 / 10 bit, low compression internal recording codec... but for me as a choice.
Sony F65, Red Scarlet/Epic and Arri Alexa give you RAW and other compression options.
With Red, it's an external choice with 3rd party for Prores or DNxHD, but it's there if you need it.
I think it fair to say in 2012 every DP wants to record RAW and low compression simultaneous (even if only for redundancy)
if there's no financial penalty other than increased storage cost.
Creatively, Canon telling us no RAW is a letdown to me...
It's like telling a Jazz Musician you can't bend notes for expression... BUT, that's what brings the music alive,
that creative expression in bending the notes.
... Same analogy for RAW and post editing, the creative flexibility, once you have it is tough to give up for other features.
There's a lot of good in this camera, but I do believe Canon has the RAW technical expertise,
just not the product at this time.
If the C300 had RAW recording also, seriously, sign me up- SOLD...
Last edited:
cowpunk52
Veteran
I find that this is a rampant attitude in the online world and internet forums, but rarely reflects real life. I have a strong feeling that most people who debate technology based on a spec sheet have never used the equipment they're talking about.
Last edited:
What other option is there? Of course I've never used this equipment -- the camera has not been released yet so all we have is the specs...and...BASED SOLELY ON THE SPECS, it's not worth $13k.
Flawed comparison... Through hardware/software a camera can be told to do something. By nature a Jazz Musician can't.
Story of my life.
Its not based solely on specs. As an option you've got 4 C300 short films to actually see what it can do, thats 4 more than you can see from the scarlet, and regardless of the online compression you can certainly make informed judgements from them.
dustylense
Veteran
Yep! Plus you have 1,000,000 5dmk2 shorts online to judge from. Now take away the moire, aliasing, and the codec. Now give it a sharper image and know that you have pro features and you get the C300. And, it will work every time you turn it on. Then you get a better codec that is still easy to work with in post (speedy).
Lets be honest here the only reason raw was ever on the radar was when RED announced a $17.5k camera and then a $3k for 3k camera. We then said what the hell and were willing to submit to the RAW workflow issues, high cost of media, more hard drive space, overnight rendering etc. Once reality set in that it would cost 30K+ for a manageable camera and the 3k for 3k got nixed and the thought of all the upgrades to computer equipment and the ever increasing volume of redusers screaming "you must also get a $6K REDrocket card" we bailed for the sanctuary, even more so now with rumor of a lower price, of a c300 camera that shoots out of the box without any computer upgrade necessary that gives us more than acceptable quality, tailored , in canons words, for the independent film and tv community.
The announcement for scarlet didn't change that for most of us because we know the true cost of that camera and all it entails and wanted the Canon to be our camera but not at 20K. The rumored lower price brings us back and you can have your raw and we will have gamma log and painless, (in money and mind), image making. And also with a c300 camera that most likely will be dependable.
The announcement for scarlet didn't change that for most of us because we know the true cost of that camera and all it entails and wanted the Canon to be our camera but not at 20K. The rumored lower price brings us back and you can have your raw and we will have gamma log and painless, (in money and mind), image making. And also with a c300 camera that most likely will be dependable.
Last edited:
This doesn't work. Image is mostly subjective. With this logic... the 5D MarkII, with FF35 video, should have been $150,000 then when it was released then. Because, even with the shortcomings, the IMAGE is still amazing to this day. You can say what you will about the Canon DSLRs... but the images they were putting out were only available in $100,000 systems at the time. ($25k for Red)
Cameras should only be sold on specs and data rate alone. It's the only objectively quantifiable measurement that can be made. So, with the tech level (nearly 3 years old) the C300, like someone already said, should only be around $6k-$8k.
I can't help but think that anyone who thinks otherwise is only threatened by the thought of it ending up in too many hands and competing with their work. Most pros (who are going to make their money back anyways) would LOVE the price to stay at $20,000. Probably $30,000. Just so less people would be able to afford it. People will deny this. But, deep down, this is the psychology at play.
Also, if we're just going on "image" alone. Then the C300 and 7D are not going to look much different once projected to an average audience. And honestly, the 1Dx, if it really does resolve a full 1080p image... with that 300mb/s codec and FF sensor... might even look better than the C300. I'm willing to be the 1Dx will actually have better DR and less noise.
Last edited:
It was said, countless amounts of times, way back at the beginning of all of this that the C300 should be coming in at 10-12K. Most of us that had heard rumors long before the announcement kept saying that. I hope that 12K is the mark.
Really can't wait to get my hands on this camera. Built-in NDs, CF cards, What looks like incredible DR, small yet sizeable body, XLR ports (not needing phantom power)... the list goes on.
Only thing I can see being a bit of a pain is the 720/60 but, hey. As we've seen with DSLRs apparently 720 is plenty for a lot of people. It's not like those things actually resolve 1080, anyway. And, at least I know a C300 will resolve more than 720, so the 720/60 might actually look damned good, without having to crop out of the S35 to get it.
Paper is paper. When the images start coming in it'll be a different story.
Really can't wait to get my hands on this camera. Built-in NDs, CF cards, What looks like incredible DR, small yet sizeable body, XLR ports (not needing phantom power)... the list goes on.
Only thing I can see being a bit of a pain is the 720/60 but, hey. As we've seen with DSLRs apparently 720 is plenty for a lot of people. It's not like those things actually resolve 1080, anyway. And, at least I know a C300 will resolve more than 720, so the 720/60 might actually look damned good, without having to crop out of the S35 to get it.
Paper is paper. When the images start coming in it'll be a different story.
- Status