G
Guest
Guest
I personally see the camera more as a 10-12K price. Anything over that is "desirability".
Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!
- Thread starter Bertholt4
- Start date
- Status
I personally see the camera more as a 10-12K price. Anything over that is "desirability".
G
Guest
Guest
There is an arresting moment in Walter Isaacson’s biography ofSteve Jobs in which Jobs speaks at length about his philosophy of business. He’s at the end of his life and is summing things up. His mission, he says, was plain: to “build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products.” Then he turned to the rise and fall of various businesses. He has a theory about “why decline happens” at great companies: “The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesman, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues.” So salesmen are put in charge, and product engineers and designers feel demoted: Their efforts are no longer at the white-hot center of the company’s daily life. They “turn off.” IBM [IBM] and Xerox [XRX], Jobs said, faltered in precisely this way. The salesmen who led the companies were smart and eloquent, but “they didn’t know anything about the product.” In the end this can doom a great company, because what consumers want is good products.
excerpt from a steve jobs bio, by walter isaacson
excerpt from a steve jobs bio, by walter isaacson
Pros better be wary. Once there's a camera that does 24P and gives you the ability to mimic film-like depth of field, and costs 999.99, their jobs are gonna be in jeopardy!
-- The common DVXuser, circa 2005
It's almost 2012: who lost jobs because of "the revolution"? Raise your e-hand.
But let's be realistic: even if all cameras were created equal, all cinematography reels are not. So, what person with money--who needs to see a return on that money and has any sort of business sense, is going to hire someone who basically has no idea what they're doing just because they have a cheap camera?
So, cool, now the camera is cheap. Thanks for making that happen. I can hire the guy or gal that's actually cut out for the job at their rate because I don't have to pay a lot for the camera anymore. Appreciated.
So, cool, now the camera is cheap. Thanks for making that happen. I can hire the guy or gal that's actually cut out for the job at their rate because I don't have to pay a lot for the camera anymore. Appreciated.
http://vimeo.com/30215350?pg=embed&sec=30215350 Check out Mobius at 5:40... if that's native 720/60, then I want me some more.
Edit: Whoops - I guess it wasn't 720/60. Here's Vincent Laforet's quote from his blog:
"We shot at 30fps at 1080 – and never removed it. Never went to 720p – didn’t try or test it as we knew this would be projected on a 60 foot screen at Paramount."
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
C300
The C300 seems like a camera that is listening to the market needs, but not really innovating. Almost everyone has something they don't like about it (even if it is only the price, new or old), but at the end of the day, you have to come to terms with the fact that most of your complaints are not game enders for the cameras viability as a great tool for almost any situation. And that is a tell-tale sign of a product based off market feed-back.
The C300 seems like a camera that is listening to the market needs, but not really innovating. Almost everyone has something they don't like about it (even if it is only the price, new or old), but at the end of the day, you have to come to terms with the fact that most of your complaints are not game enders for the cameras viability as a great tool for almost any situation. And that is a tell-tale sign of a product based off market feed-back.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
+1
Agreed. The only people going to suffer, is the rental houses, but those people will probably just turn to selling, so they may not suffer either.
G
Guest
Guest
I worked on a project with two camera operators using the same cameras. Later talking to the editor, he asked if we were using different cameras, as one of the operators was so much better, it looked like they had a better camera.
If you want to pre-order, then maybe you are right. If you are the type that rents a camera before buying, you can easily gain knowledge of the things that are not going to be in a spec sheet. Colour rendition, skin tones, highlight rolloff, DR etc.
Quite why you think the C300 is based on 3 year old tech is beyond me. The codec is fairly old, but the sensor sure as hell aint.
Anyway, can´t wait to test one of these babies out.... If they hit the street at $13k or below, I can see it being a big seller.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Give a precedent for a S35 cinema camera with internal broadcast codec at that price point and you might begin to be taken seriously. It's pretty clear that what the C300 offers at it's price point, even if it were $20k, is a combination of features and performance that has never been available before. I don't know why you feel like you deserve a $6k-$8k price point when you have no clue about the cost of technology within the camera.
Depends on what you're shooting. While I have no doubt that it would be possible to intercut C300 and 7D footage if needed, you had better be sure that the 7D footage isn't a wide shot, doesn't show detail, isn't shot at ISO's higher than 1600, has no rapid movement, and most of all doesn't have aliasing and moire. As far as the 1Dx looking better, it will probably resolve more than the 7D and 5DII cameras, but it's pretty much guaranteed to not match the resolution or color fidelity of the C300, thanks to it's vastly superior codec and sensor technology. Also, Canon have stated that the the All-I codec in the 1Dx will not create a better or more robust image than the h.264, it will only make it easier to edit. And they don't claim to have eliminated the aliasing and moire, only "reduced" it.
That is a very special kind of deductive reasoning.
Last edited:
I still don't think the camera is why people get hired or lose work.
On the crappy jobs perhaps, but they never paid well to begin with.
On any serious production the cost of the camera is a pittance.
It's the labor and logistics which are expensive.
Look when a guy says "Why do we need an actress or a model, we can use my daughter?", I am running for the exits.
I was definitely being facetious.
G
Guest
Guest
Adding to the Steve Jobs' bio excerpt:
It’s not just the salesmen. It’s also the accountants and the money men who search the firm high and low to find new and ingenious ways to cut costs or even eliminate paying taxes. The activities of these people further dispirit the creators, the product engineers and designers, and also crimp the firm’s ability to add value to its customers. But because the accountants appear to be adding to the firm’s short-term profitability, as a class they are also celebrated and well-rewarded, even as their activities systematically kill the firm’s future.
In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it’s easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.
If the firm is in a quasi-monopoly position, this mode of running the company can sometimes keep on making money for extended periods of time. But basically, the firm is dying, as it continues to dispirit those doing the work and to frustrate its customers.
As the managers find it steadily more difficult to make money playing solely defense, they become progressively more desperate and start doing ever more perilous things, like looting the firm’s pension fund or cutting back on worker benefits or outsourcing production to a foreign country in ways that further destroy the firm’s ability to innovate and compete.
There is another way
What’s interesting is that Steve Jobs lived long enough to show us at Apple[AAPL], in the period 1997-2011: what would happen if the firm opted to keep playing offense and focus totally on adding value for customers? The result? The firm makes tons and tons of money. In fact, much more money than the companies that are milking their cash cows and focused on making money. Other companies like Amazon [AMZN], Salesforce [CRM] and Intuit [INTU] have demonstrated the same phenomenon and shown us that it’s something that any firm can learn. It’s not rocket science. It’s called radical management.
Fifty years ago, “milking the cash cow” could go on for many decades. What’s different today is that globalization and the shift in power in the marketplace from buyer to seller is dramatically shortening the life expectancy of firms that are merely milking their cash cows. Half a century ago, the life expectancy of a firm in the Fortune 500 was around 75 years. Now it’s less than 15 years and declining even further.
Why do managers keep on this path that is systematically killing their firm? For one reason, it’s more difficult to add value than to cut costs. For another, the executives have found ways to reward themselves lavishly. As Upton Sinclair has noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...onan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/
It’s not just the salesmen. It’s also the accountants and the money men who search the firm high and low to find new and ingenious ways to cut costs or even eliminate paying taxes. The activities of these people further dispirit the creators, the product engineers and designers, and also crimp the firm’s ability to add value to its customers. But because the accountants appear to be adding to the firm’s short-term profitability, as a class they are also celebrated and well-rewarded, even as their activities systematically kill the firm’s future.
In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it’s easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.
If the firm is in a quasi-monopoly position, this mode of running the company can sometimes keep on making money for extended periods of time. But basically, the firm is dying, as it continues to dispirit those doing the work and to frustrate its customers.
As the managers find it steadily more difficult to make money playing solely defense, they become progressively more desperate and start doing ever more perilous things, like looting the firm’s pension fund or cutting back on worker benefits or outsourcing production to a foreign country in ways that further destroy the firm’s ability to innovate and compete.
There is another way
What’s interesting is that Steve Jobs lived long enough to show us at Apple[AAPL], in the period 1997-2011: what would happen if the firm opted to keep playing offense and focus totally on adding value for customers? The result? The firm makes tons and tons of money. In fact, much more money than the companies that are milking their cash cows and focused on making money. Other companies like Amazon [AMZN], Salesforce [CRM] and Intuit [INTU] have demonstrated the same phenomenon and shown us that it’s something that any firm can learn. It’s not rocket science. It’s called radical management.
Fifty years ago, “milking the cash cow” could go on for many decades. What’s different today is that globalization and the shift in power in the marketplace from buyer to seller is dramatically shortening the life expectancy of firms that are merely milking their cash cows. Half a century ago, the life expectancy of a firm in the Fortune 500 was around 75 years. Now it’s less than 15 years and declining even further.
Why do managers keep on this path that is systematically killing their firm? For one reason, it’s more difficult to add value than to cut costs. For another, the executives have found ways to reward themselves lavishly. As Upton Sinclair has noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...onan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/
An All-I codec with a huge bitrate will automatically be very much better and more robust than the standard h.264 wrapper they are using now. There is no way that they are even on the same page. Some employee saying that it will be easier to edit does not discount that fact.
Adding to the Steve Jobs' bio excerpt:
It’s not just the salesmen. It’s also the accountants and the money men who search the firm high and low to find new and ingenious ways to cut costs or even eliminate paying taxes. The activities of these people further dispirit the creators, the product engineers and designers, and also crimp the firm’s ability to add value to its customers. But because the accountants appear to be adding to the firm’s short-term profitability, as a class they are also celebrated and well-rewarded, even as their activities systematically kill the firm’s future.
In this mode, the firm is basically playing defense. Because it’s easier to milk the cash cow than to add new value, the firm not only stops playing offense: it even forgets how to play offense. The firm starts to die.
If the firm is in a quasi-monopoly position, this mode of running the company can sometimes keep on making money for extended periods of time. But basically, the firm is dying, as it continues to dispirit those doing the work and to frustrate its customers.
As the managers find it steadily more difficult to make money playing solely defense, they become progressively more desperate and start doing ever more perilous things, like looting the firm’s pension fund or cutting back on worker benefits or outsourcing production to a foreign country in ways that further destroy the firm’s ability to innovate and compete.
There is another way
What’s interesting is that Steve Jobs lived long enough to show us at Apple[AAPL], in the period 1997-2011: what would happen if the firm opted to keep playing offense and focus totally on adding value for customers? The result? The firm makes tons and tons of money. In fact, much more money than the companies that are milking their cash cows and focused on making money. Other companies like Amazon [AMZN], Salesforce [CRM] and Intuit [INTU] have demonstrated the same phenomenon and shown us that it’s something that any firm can learn. It’s not rocket science. It’s called radical management.
Fifty years ago, “milking the cash cow” could go on for many decades. What’s different today is that globalization and the shift in power in the marketplace from buyer to seller is dramatically shortening the life expectancy of firms that are merely milking their cash cows. Half a century ago, the life expectancy of a firm in the Fortune 500 was around 75 years. Now it’s less than 15 years and declining even further.
Why do managers keep on this path that is systematically killing their firm? For one reason, it’s more difficult to add value than to cut costs. For another, the executives have found ways to reward themselves lavishly. As Upton Sinclair has noted, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...onan-on-steve-jobs-and-why-big-companies-die/
Yeh, all of this is interesting because as a shareholder of Apple I definitely think they are milking the cash cow and guilty of all the things Jobs pointed out. I am seriously concerned. The disconnect between the initial presentation, the actual needs of the professional and the final product known as FCPX indicates that they are in decline to me. Where was the intelligent management in this? They spent 10 years building a brand and knocked it down overnight in a purely amateur way. The problem is that they did this in a Media area with many high profile professionals, the very same people who inadvertently give it a cool factor every time you walk into their office.
Going purely for the consumer market and forgetting the professional you have been courting is the kiss of death. When the top goes, it won't be long before the rest follow.
Last edited:
Wow. Ok. Now I know for a fact that you're only listening to marketing jargon...
They makes statements like this so that people won't believe it's going to have a more robust image than the C300... which it MAY.
+1.
Have you worked with the 175mb/s GH2 INTRA codec yet? It's like RAW with 4:2:0 sampling. It holds up 10x's better than the XF codec, even with the 4:2:2 color space. (yes, I have worked with it).
Last edited:
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
I saw the images and I have to tell you that Canon's claims of "organic noise" is a load of b.s., IMHO.
Some of the images I saw were considerably noisy, and there was nothing especially film grainy or organic about it. It was actually rather disappointing when compared to an F3, Alexa or Epic (but not when considering the price of these last two cameras).
If you want to know what a C300 looks like, the closest thing I can point you to is an XF300. At the same DoF, they look almost identical if the contrast is not too extreme. Which makes sense, b/c they share the same DIGIC DV III image processor.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
The price should be the highest price the most people are willing to pay for it that turns Canon a profit. The logic that the tech is 3 years old so it should only be $6k-$8k doesn't make sense, especially if they can make more money selling to for $4K-$6k more to a slightly smaller pool of people.
As an example, personally, I believe Macs are overpriced and refuse to buy one when I can build a Win7 PC for 1/3 the price with much better performance. But plenty of people value other things besides specs and are willing to plunk down for it. I don't presume to think that my set of criteria is superior to a Mac user's, only different and applying to myself. I would think that the huge volume of EOS glass out there would be a big selling point of this camera, plus the internal 4:2:2 I-frame (it is I-frame, isn't it?) color space alone would justify the price for three year old tech to a lot of folks.
dustylense
Veteran
Have you ever shot with the XF300? I have the XF105 and I will tell you that I love the noise/grain. It's tight and uniform. Now stick that on a s35 sensor and BAM! Then, watch it on your broadcast monitor or HDTV and BAM, it's gone. Looks great....
- Status