Canon is. The technology in this thing so "mature" (do they still make Digic III or did they have a bunch left over in a back room somewhere) they could probably make a healthy profit selling this camera for $2500.
Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!
- Thread starter Bertholt4
- Start date
- Status
Canon is. The technology in this thing so "mature" (do they still make Digic III or did they have a bunch left over in a back room somewhere) they could probably make a healthy profit selling this camera for $2500.
Not sure where the yes and no comes into play. Either you tell a good story or you don't and 'Iraq in Fragments" was a good story. I'm sure people will buy a C300 but no one in the audience will notice a difference in the image quality. I am sure you could work faster and have less issues with the C300 but to cough up an additional 10k over 5II or a hacked GH2, I'll pass. It makes sense for some to make this investment but I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people on this board don't need such a camera at this price point. If Canon is truly listening, we are still waiting for 5DIII with negligible moire and aliasing.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Hard to say, the C300 doesn't us a Digic III. You'll have to use a Canon XSi or a 40D if you want to try it out, but you'll be limited to just taking stills. Let us know how it works out!
cowpunk52
Veteran
G
Guest
Guest
Was that Socratic methodology? Well, it worked. =)
You know, it is hard to have to back track a little, but I overlooked the price drop of batteries and recording medium, which would effect the Scarlet resale price, if one purchase a lot of media right today. But if media prices drop significantly in the near future (and that is hard to say, because red has a propriety monopoly on that), then that is actually a benefit in the eventual cost of a red system. So, win either way. Price stays the same, resale stays good, price drops, and it becomes affordable to add more, making the body more valuable in resale again.
Cameras like the AF100, FS100, F3, and now C300 are on a shorter road to technological middling than a 4k camera. Add to that, the potential modularity and upgradability of a Scarlet, and one further improves long term costs offset. Additionally, it will be the go-to B-cam for Epic productions, for the next few years.
Now there are arguments that show 4k as being 'uprezzed' 1080p, but a quick look at screen shots and that argument, while still technically true, falls a little flat. Add to that shooting at 16bit and 4:4:4 color space, as opposed to 8bit (and there are arguments for 8bit too, as most chips don't warrant higher sample rates). But technical arguments aside. Also it has an interchangeable lens mount (PL or Canon), as opposed to canon, which can only be PL or EF mount, and cannot be changed at a later date.
Add to this, that availability of a scarlet should be harder to come by for the next year or two, meaning one could even make money on reselling (wouldn't bet on this, but the potential is there).
I personally wouldn't purchase either (at $20K), as productions cover that cost. That is just to say, the closer a C300 gets to $20 G's, the more tempting and comparable a scarlet becomes. The closer the C300 hundred gets to $10K (and I don't think it will) the more it becomes a camera for not only for production and rental, but also for the masses of small production companies and masses of cinematographers that just own a couple dslr's for personal use.
A Good s35 chip is a forgiving selling point now, but in the future 8bit, 4:2:2, 50mbs, and 12 stop DR, will hurt resale value. Not kill resale value, but hurt it. It won't stay close to $16000. And with a replacement, or little brother most likely fast on the heals of the C300, there is potential for the EX3/EX1 scenario. Where the EX3 blew away the EX1 and made it drop in price.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yep, that would seem to work.
The problem with PL adapters on EOS cameras before, is that the EOS cameras were SLRs with flip-up mirrors in them, and many PL lenses just wouldn't fit. Their rear elements could contact or even damage or be damaged by the presence of the mirror. But, as cowpunk52 said, no mirror in the C300 means that the PL adapter should work... shouldn't it?
J Davis
Veteran
of course, no mirror !
Your conclusion does not compute. Let's go down the list:
- C300 has brand new S35 sized image sensor with 4K photosites and all new quadruple parallel readouts at 60p. Compared to: RED sells their S35 sized, 4K photosites MX sensor upgrade for $5800.
- C300 has brand new motorized triple ND filter unit with mechanical backup
- C300 has brand new silent cooling system with heat-dissipating duct and graphite sheet that conducts sensor heat towards the heat sink
- C300 has brand new camera chassis design, optimized to keep the plane of the imaging sensor parallel to the lens mount plane, even if excessive weight and bending force is applied to the front of the camera
- C300 has brand new modular accessories like the side handle and LCD monitor unit
- The entire market for the C300 is probably at best several ten thousand units. Compare to this: in 2010, manufacturers shipped 12.9 million DSLRs. That's an average of 35,000 DSLR bodies every single DAY.
G
Guest
Guest
Sorry to quote you out of context. This is what we all needed to hear though.
Good one, yes the C300 has gaskets and o-rings around access covers, dials and buttons.
I hate to use the car analogy again, but Scarlet is like an SUV and the C300 is like a Honda Civic.
A (true) SUV is great for high performance tasks like pulling trailers, off-roading and stuff like that. They might even get you some tail. But realistically you get no tail and the extent of most people's outdoor excursions is driving into Outdoor World to buy a new fishing rod. But the rest of the time you have to deal with the poor gas mileage, huge vehicle size and overall high cost of ownership.
Scarlet's main attraction is being able to work in RAW and recording at 4K. That's high performance, high-end type of stuff. That's great if you need it, but do most of us really need it all the time? Because for that privilege, you'll have to deal with the short battery life, short record times, high media cost, huge data rates, and possible bugginess all the time.
The C300 is a more practical camera, just like a Honda is a more practical car. A Honda can't do everything, but it can probably do 95% of what an average person needs, while doing it at an extremely low cost of ownership and high reliability.
A lot of people focus only on the downside of the C300's modest specs. But those same lowly specs have upsides too. Low data rates and low power consumption = ease of use, more convenience, more economy and more speed.
I use to be interested in RED (during the days of 3K for $3K and before DSLRs came about), but for me, they're not an option anymore because the long term cost of ownership is too high. This cost is in both money and time. The issue is the huge data rates which creates a long term headache. The cost of those SSD is just crazy. And then the time it takes to offload them? It ends up being almost like capturing tape again in real time. Forget that! Then add any rendering, transcoding or debayering times...the camera is just a gas guzzler in time and resources. Of course, if you need the high performance, then it could be right for you. But definitely not for me.
Last edited:
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Well, I ordered a Scarlet for all of those reasons.
And my "Honda" is an AF-100. (2 actually).
And my "Honda" is an AF-100. (2 actually).
I was thinking this exact thing. 2 steps forward one step back.
And I keep hearing Digic III thrown around as an old sensor thats in the cam . Its not. Its the Digic DV III. Canons most current video image processor.
I looked at the samples on the Canon EOS site and if the lighting is good, the image is beautiful, but when the light goes down, the artifacts and noise in the shadows look positively goofy. Maybe it was the Vimeo encoding. Maybe it's the native mpeg encoding. I don't know, the single 8 megapixel CMOS doesn't seem state of the art for all that money.
So you're complaining about the price, but just in a different way?
And, to think that the audience doesn't notice crappy DSLR footage is outageous: it's one thing to notice, it's another to be able to say why the footage looks "weird". People notice when things don't look as good as they usually do. Just like they notice cheap jewelry or cheap clothes. They NOTICE. they just can't tell you what's wrong because they aren't versed in that area.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Download the native MXF file that was shot at iso 16,000 and make your judgement then.
Last edited:
A lot of that stuff was super high ISO footage. IMO, they should've never let people do that. wait til the camera comes out and let people discover how the high ISo footage looks, you don't put that stuff on a big screen on launch day, no amount of reasoning will get those bad images out of people's heads.
What's outrageous is calling it crappy DSLR footage. Just like any tool, it boils down to the user. There is a lot involved in the final image quality and done right, NO ONE would notice a difference except for the people on these forums. I'm sorry you can't or won't except that but the lighting is probably more important than which camera you use.
Btw.. I saw "Hell and Back Again" last weekend and it looked great!
- Status