Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
THI
mico said:
Actually it won't. And no ones mentioning something some consider more valuable than money - Time. Rigging, editing, post conversion, transcoding . 5lb vs 15lb. 4:2:2 broadcast vs. Raw

scarlet $14K gets you 23 minutes of 24p 4K shooing on 64GB, 6:1 compression, with single battery life around 30 minutes. If thats enough for anyone then yeah its ready to go. Then copy, debayer, transcode that 64GB and factor in the time.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm thinking the Canon... is because of time...

It'll be nice if we decided to start doing low budgeted commercials... fast in and faster out... and will serve as a nice camera for a feature shoot when ever I get brave and stop being a producer and finally become a director... and yes 1080p will work for the big screen... had footage from my DVX in a film... of course mixed with Cine Alta (F900)...

A lot of time it'll depend on the project... might look into renting Epics for a couple shoots down the road...
 
mico said:
Actually it won't. And no ones mentioning something some consider more valuable than money - Time. Rigging, editing, post conversion, transcoding . 5lb vs 15lb. 4:2:2 broadcast vs. Raw

scarlet $14K gets you 23 minutes of 24p 4K shooing on 64GB, 6:1 compression, with single battery life around 30 minutes. If thats enough for anyone then yeah its ready to go. Then copy, debayer, transcode that 64GB and factor in the time.
Click to expand...

The Red Scarlet starts at $10K for the brain, and by the time it is has the basics to make it a well rounded tool, it will be around $20K, unless you can work around battery life and storage media. Post production will cost even more than a 1080p mpeg2 workflow.

So, yes, it will double the price.
 
Last edited:
The idea that paying an extra few $K for the C300 than it is worth (i.e. paying $16k vs. $12k), just because it will save more time than a RED workflow, is ridiculous.

If there are cameras using the same hardware, wired outputs, and codec of the C300 in the $6,000 range, I hardly believe that an s35 sensor (minus a lens!) costs an extra $10,000.
 
Last edited:
A lot of these posts are right on the money.

If I wanted to produce an independent feature film in summer 2012 with intent to submit it to festivals, hopefully get a theatrical run then sell it and see it turn up on DVD or netflix. When I run the numbers, do the math and look at overheads at my chance of breaking even or making a profit, it makes no sense to shoot with scarlet, the c300 wins hands down.

Why? Because in todays theatrical market a movie shot in 4k has no better chance at turning a higher profit than the same movie shot at 1080p.

Media: $1900 to buy two ssd's and use them in rotation with one offloading while the other shoots. c300 using cf cards win the overhead cost scenario.

Battery: forget redvolts and use a vmount battery on the scarlet puts it on a par with c300. No cost savings either way.

1080p post production: Use a ninja, samurai, or ki pro mini to capture off scarlet hdmi. Until there is a firmware fix you get black borders but you can remove them by scaling up the image 5%. Its no biggie. Slight quality loss to the scarlet in favor of the c300 because of scaling. Additional cost of the recorder but no need for the SSD's. No cost savings in favor of either camera. Lets hope there's a firmware fix for the black borders issue soon.

r3d and 4k post production: scarlet wins on quality but post production increases by $5 grand for the cost of a red rocket card. Advantages? Will the 4k help sell the movie and increase the profit during a possible theatrical run in2012 or 2013? No. So from a pure financial point of view there is no reason to do this other than a love for shooting RAW. But what if this is a film production with a decent budget and camera costs are not such an issue and we want 4k or 5k? Well then they'd bypass scarlet and just shoot with epics. Maybe scarlet as a crash cam.

So why have I got a scarlet on order? Urgh this is a tough question to answer because it makes no sense financially. I guess its because I'm really interested in shooting RAW video for personal projects.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
If there are cameras using the same hardware, wired outputs, and codec of the C300 in the $6,000 range, I hardly believe that an s35 sensor (minus a lens) costs an extra $10,000.
Click to expand...

Well, in fact there are no other cameras "using the same hardware, wired outputs, and codec of the C300 in the $6,000 range," so the comparison becomes null. There are other cameras that are using some or similar components, but not all - and prices of those cameras run from $3,000 to $30,000. There is actually nothing currently on the market that matches the feature list the C300 provides. Ultimately, the market will decide whether the price is worth the value - and I would venture to say that Canon has done and is still doing it's homework on what fair market value will be.
 
Last edited:
... and I love to tinker and futz around with the pre-bayered pixels. But that c300 is some serious machine when it comes to shooting to make money for jobs where 4k is not required. Scarlet needs work-arounds to compete financially in the 1080p fast post production arena.
 
Last edited:
How about we let individuals decide whether it's worth the price or not?

If someone evaluates the product, and their needs, and the price, and decides that it makes sense for them -- then that's all that needs to happen. If someone else evaluates it and decides it's too expensive for them, then they move on. But this thing of people coming in and telling other people "it's not worth it" is ridiculous and rude. It may not be worth it TO YOU, but it certainly may well be worth it to someone else.

If it's priced too high, they won't sell many. If it's priced "right" they'll sell all they want. And the "right" price for this product may not be a price that you (as an individual, any individual) can afford. If that's the case -- well, too bad. Boo hoo and all that. I wish a Ferrari California was $29k, but it isn't -- and I certainly don't go around complaining and griping that "hey, it's a car, it has four wheels and an engine just like the Hyundai does, it should be priced no more than a Hyundai, MAYBE a little higher because of the name, but no way should it be 10x as much!!!" I mean, that's just silly, right?

So enough with the price ramblings. All those who have taken up the "yay, maybe it'll be $10k after all" call in this thread are likely to be grossly disappointed; it isn't gonna be $10k. You know what it will be, when all's said and done? My bet is $16,000. Why do I say that? Because that's what Chris Hurd put in his article, and Chris Hurd is a meticulous, detailed professional who wouldn't make a blunder of putting the wrong price in there. He put in what Canon told him to put in. Now, he's since revised his article to "under $20,000" to match what the Canon announcement said, but -- Chris Hurd doesn't just make stuff up. I would suspect he had good solid information that told him $16,000 and so that's what he put in there, and then Canon marketing threw in a curveball when they announced $20k, but I bet when it all settles it'll be $16,000.

If you can afford it, please continue evaluating and discussing it.

If you can't possibly afford it and your main contribution to any discussion is "it's too expensive!" then please, move on and give it a rest, and let those who are interested in discussing it do so in peace. Thanks.
 
almost everyone here is argumenting having in mind his own job as a reference. that's not the case. scarlet package has a power adapter. some people are working in studios. they don't need batteries. some others can live by just emptying the cards in a computer. some need the 4k/5k for photography addition. some other want to be able to last 12 hours outside. there is tons of different jobs around these cameras. some of them will think the c300 is crappy for their particular job, for some other it will be the scarlet that doesn't fit the workflow. so the decision is just really personal as it's 2 great cameras, but 2 different ones. and there is some dreamers too, that talk about these stuffs without having done anything professional, or even not any personal work for some, and that can talk hours and hours about it, believing in the truth they built by reading forums. i guess serious videographers know what they need immediately without questioning themselves for hours.
 
To add to Barry's point I don;t think the c300 is expensive at all. Especially because I bet you could buy one, shoot for two or three months and finish a feature. Then sell the c300 for pretty close to what you bought it for !!
 
J Davis said:
So why have I got a scarlet on order? Urgh this is a tough question to answer because it makes no sense financially. I guess its because I'm really interested in shooting RAW video for personal projects.
Click to expand...

Because you want to be part of the cool kids who will be saying "I shoot 4K RAW". xD Hehe

I want to be part of the other cool kids, who say "I make and sell movies, for a living."

One of those two are easy to do, and like Mico said everyone will shoot 4K soon enough. THe other one? Not so much.
 
Kholi said:
So why have I got a scarlet on order? Urgh this is a tough question to answer because it makes no sense financially. I guess its because I'm really interested in shooting RAW video for personal projects.
Click to expand...

Because you want to be part of the cool kids who will be saying "I shoot 4K RAW". xD Hehe

I want to be part of the other cool kids, who say "I make and sell movies, for a living."[/QUOTE]




I want to be the first kid on my block to have a bidding war over my first Sundance submission!!!
 
I can afford either camera... its the glass that costs... and that just depends if I don't want to finish the remodel of my house...

I think it just comes down to what your gut feeling tells you... right now until I see it projected... I'm leaning towards the Canon... just like my gut told me to buy the DVX over other cameras... like what some said... just liked the Panny mojo at the time...
 
James0b57 said:
The Red Scarlet starts at $10K for the brain, and by the time it is has the basics to make it a well rounded tool, it will be around $20K, unless you can work around battery life and storage media. Post production will cost even more than a 1080p mpeg2 workflow.

So, yes, it will double the price.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the Canon not the scarlet.
 
David G. Smith said:
Because you want to be part of the cool kids who will be saying "I shoot 4K RAW". xD Hehe

I want to be the first kid on my block to have a bidding war over my first Sundance submission!!!
Click to expand...

:happy:

I've sold films... but looking into going into the faith based market... which ha.. ha.. ha... I've paid actors more money... or at least a 1/4 of their budgets...
 
noooo Kholi ... being part of the cool kids is definitely not it! :smile: I take enough criticism over on RU for my disruptive posts.

I'm actually with delaro and his post on the previous page. If I go through with buying a scarlet it would be for studio use,
because I want to play with RAW and 4k capture. Pieces like Broken (link) I would have loved to have shot with RAW, instead I'm
using color overlays to fix moire because I used a canon DSLR and I've been too lazy to hack a gh2.
All the stuff I do on jdmax.com earns zero revenue. Thats my play area, where I experiment. The jobs I do for money don't go there.

edit:
sorry I originally wrote Barry but I menat to write Kholi, first line corrected
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
How about we let individuals decide whether it's worth the price or not?

If someone evaluates the product, and their needs, and the price, and decides that it makes sense for them -- then that's all that needs to happen. If someone else evaluates it and decides it's too expensive for them, then they move on. But this thing of people coming in and telling other people "it's not worth it" is ridiculous and rude. It may not be worth it TO YOU, but it certainly may well be worth it to someone else.

If it's priced too high, they won't sell many. If it's priced "right" they'll sell all they want. And the "right" price for this product may not be a price that you (as an individual, any individual) can afford. If that's the case -- well, too bad. Boo hoo and all that. I wish a Ferrari California was $29k, but it isn't -- and I certainly don't go around complaining and griping that "hey, it's a car, it has four wheels and an engine just like the Hyundai does, it should be priced no more than a Hyundai, MAYBE a little higher because of the name, but no way should it be 10x as much!!!" I mean, that's just silly, right?

So enough with the price ramblings. All those who have taken up the "yay, maybe it'll be $10k after all" call in this thread are likely to be grossly disappointed; it isn't gonna be $10k. You know what it will be, when all's said and done? My bet is $16,000. Why do I say that? Because that's what Chris Hurd put in his article, and Chris Hurd is a meticulous, detailed professional who wouldn't make a blunder of putting the wrong price in there. He put in what Canon told him to put in. Now, he's since revised his article to "under $20,000" to match what the Canon announcement said, but -- Chris Hurd doesn't just make stuff up. I would suspect he had good solid information that told him $16,000 and so that's what he put in there, and then Canon marketing threw in a curveball when they announced $20k, but I bet when it all settles it'll be $16,000.

If you can afford it, please continue evaluating and discussing it.

If you can't possibly afford it and your main contribution to any discussion is "it's too expensive!" then please, move on and give it a rest, and let those who are interested in discussing it do so in peace. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Shane Hurlbut shoots commercials for television with dslr's, and even contours, and gets paid good money. Good enough is good enough. That's not to say he won't use a C300, but it is saying that a dslr can make big money in the professional realm if used right.

Explaining why the C300 is not worth it, can be valuable information to those who are on the fence about purchasing something they know little about, and there are people that do that sort of thing (and they're probably responsible for 50% of RED purchases). There is a lot of hype around scarlet and c300 right now. The truth is, that HDTV broadcast will not be able to resolve the c300 image noticeably better than a well shot 5Dmkii shot. At least, 99% of the audience will not notice. And if your end target is theatrical, netflix, or web, then a c300 has no added value over a dslr.
 
there is more than just resolution. I'm sure raw if the first argument to buy a scarlet. I've seen tons of divx or dvds of famous/classic movies with some crappy SD resolution and i loved the image because of the colors, the filmic look. being able to push the colors and the image where I want them to be even if it's finishing in a crappy format is just great.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Well, in fact there are no other cameras "using the same hardware, wired outputs, and codec of the C300 in the $6,000 range," so the comparison becomes null. There are other cameras that are using some or similar components, but not all - and prices of those cameras run from $3,000 to $30,000. There is actually nothing currently on the market that matches the feature list the C300 provides. Ultimately, the market will decide whether the price is worth the value - and I would venture to say that Canon has done and is still doing it's homework on what fair market value will be.
Click to expand...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/684198-REG/Canon_4454B001_XF305_Professional_Camcorder.html

I stand corrected. $7500. And I recognize I was simplifying the issue, but I assumed others would be able read into that.

Also, I agree with you, the market will decide. And it is places like this, that we help shape the markets decisions.

How is the Sony F3, not comparable in feature list @$13K? And if the C300 ends up being $16000, how is it not going to be compared to a scarlet, when 25% more gets you more+ longevity, and higher resale value?

Selling existing tech (minus the sensor) for a higher price because it has little competition in the arena is milking the consumer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top