Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it possible for anyone to give three good reasons why, as of now, any film must absolutely be finished in 4K? And why would these films benefit from it in ways that would clearly be an advantage to the public viewing experience?

Please mind to exclude: Films with heavy post production work, and it being future proof. Those already are a general agreement, (although questionable.)

Thanks.
 
ArthurD said:
to go back to C300, I would love to see some footage, maybe it's wonderful, but i went on the scarlet road. I understand the issues that bother people about it but these "issues" are what lead me to red. I've done digital photos for years and suddenly went back to film medium format, I suddenly noticed how lazy i became with digital. With 10 exposures medium-format film, poor sensibility, etc, i really discovered again what is framing,CC, lighting, thinking a shot, etc and my work is better since this experience. What I mean here is it's hard to understand people who want not less than 20000 iso or nothing, 2 days of battery life and a lot of insane specs. Too much assistance in these machines lead to uniform pictures. I'm just afraid, like what I saw in those 4 C300 shorts that the image will be solid but will just have the same look whatever you tweak in post. Scarlet is more work, but there is no creativity without work. Raw is like having a film negative. You watch 100 Red videos on vimeo and you have 100 different image styles, some are really crappy, but some are really speechless.
Click to expand...

Quite a few contradictions here. If you love shooting MF on film, if you like its discipline, then I imagine you shoot transparencies, which at most will give you a 7 stop latitude, so why is Raw suddenly so important to you? You either welcome self-discipline, or you don't. Getting it right on camera is, I believe, the main lesson from working on film, and why you said you enjoyed it in the first place. And its not like the C300 is trapped under lock and key, is it? More like film, if anything...

So, have you seen the C300 footage or not? There were four short films shot on it (plus a trailer for another oncoming short), all of them widely available on the net. They are four different types, genres, looks and aesthetics. They could even have been shot on different cameras if we didn't know better. On the other hand, there is nothing available on the Scarlet, but yet, that's the one you've purchased...

Are you sure you were ready to commit on purchasing any camera?
 
Nuno Dias said:
Is it possible for anyone to give three good reasons why, as of now, any film must absolutely be finished in 4K? And why would these films benefit from it in ways that would clearly be an advantage to the public viewing experience?

Please mind to exclude: Films with heavy post production work, and it being future proof. Those already are a general agreement, (although questionable.)

Thanks.
Click to expand...

"must?"
 
Nuno Dias said:
Quite a few contradictions here. If you love shooting MF on film, if you like its discipline, then I imagine you shoot transparencies, which at most will give you a 7 stop latitude, so why is Raw suddenly so important to you? You either welcome self-discipline, or you don't. Getting it right on camera is, I believe, the main lesson from working on film, and why you said you enjoyed it in the first place. And its not like the C300 is trapped under lock and key, is it? More like film, if anything...

So, have you seen the C300 footage or not? There were four short films shot on it (plus a trailer for another oncoming short), all of them widely available on the net. They are four different types, genres, looks and aesthetics. They could even have been shot on different cameras if we didn't know better. On the other hand, there is nothing available on the Scarlet, but yet, that's the one you've purchased...

Are you sure you were ready to commit on purchasing any camera?
Click to expand...

We may be getting off topic a bit, but I think it noteworthy to reemphasize how important it is to get it right in-camera, even if shooting with raw.
 
ArthurD said:
What I mean here is it's hard to understand people who want not less than 20000 iso or nothing, 2 days of battery life and a lot of insane specs. Too much assistance in these machines lead to uniform pictures. I'm just afraid, like what I saw in those 4 C300 shorts that the image will be solid but will just have the same look whatever you tweak in post. Scarlet is more work, but there is no creativity without work. Raw is like having a film negative. You watch 100 Red videos on vimeo and you have 100 different image styles, some are really crappy, but some are really speechless. Anyway, the C300 will be a great new tool too.
Click to expand...

You can be creative in camera too. You do it this with lighting, composition, filtration and set design. There's no question RAW gives you more flexibility in post, but this flexibility has limits too because you're just tweaking exposure/color/possibly framing. In post you can't duplicate getting real coverage optically (which affects the perspective of foreground and background elements) and you can't change the lighting.

The power issue is just convenience. I love convenience because I just want to use the camera to shoot. That's what I'm really after: to shoot something. The camera should just get out of my way and be as transparent a tool as possible. But if you have to change the battery every 36 minutes that's just annoying. And that's just standby mode!

The low light sensitivity has other benefits than just being able to shoot in no light or at super high ISOs. So like if ISO 20,000 is usable, then ISO 3200 or 6400 is cleaner comparatively to other cameras. I can then shoot at those high-moderate ISO with a smaller aperture and get a bit more DOF, like f/4 vs. f/1.8. With a less sensitive camera in the same situation, you'd have to shoot wide open which could lead to buzzing your focus annoyingly all the time. I really dislike that.
 
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...

As always, Barry, your words server our community well.

I will say however, as much as I'm NOT a fan of complaining about the price, or specs, or whatever......we should consider that "full scale revolt" has been working these days. (Netflix, Bank of America for example) So, while I'm not a fan of it.....maybe with a deeper/closer look, I actually am.

Maybe I should suggest that we have a thread SPECIFICALLY to complain about the price. Here's why....

When Canon makes an announcement and sees thousands, nay tens of thousands, nay hundreds of thousands of complaints on the interwebs, it has an impact. Now, 10 years ago, probably not.....but the paradigm is shifting to account for public opinion, and specifically on the internet. (A PRIME example would be what recently happened to Olympus and the associated drop in their stock.) Although the roots of that situation are completely different, what's not different is how the public CAN and WILL use the internet as a "fulcrum" to leverage a company in the desired direction. Of course, it may produce NO OUTCOME at all.....I think many would have said that complaining about the new "bank fees" would be "pointless and fruitless".....NOT SO. The same with Netflix...(uh, who won that one BTW? That company is scared witless and with good reason....the power of public opinion on the internet has forced them to revoke their prior plan and has resulted in the loss of Billions of dollars. )

This is a new world where the displeasure of the customer may reach the eyes of millions, nay...hundreds of millions on the right platform.

So I agree with you, Barry, that there is no reason to force others (who are interested at the price that it is) to eat YOUR (the person complaining) "sour grapes".

HOWEVER, I think that all of that complaining actually serves a purpose for all of us, and that is to communicate the direction we'd (those expressing their displeasure) like for them (Canon) to head.

NONE OF THIS changes the simple fact that if we hit them at the cash register.....NOTHING will speak louder.
But none of them are for sale yet.....so what to do? How about expressing your heartfelt displeasure with the price range of the product? Seems like the only means of helping Canon to know where you (anyone who wants a different price range) want them to head.

I'm NOT saying that this is my opinion. I feel like they missed the boat at 20K. No biggie, I expressed those thoughts and favored the alternative(s).
And as MUCH AS I HATE the tone of discussions here (on DVXUser) since the announcement.....I SINCERELY BELIEVE that there is good reason for it:

Hey Canon, we'd LOVE to see you make history!!! Here's OUR INPUT on where you missed the boat!!!

Will this help Canon? Are they even listening? This thread gave me hope, and made me think that ***MAYBE*** they are listening. I am PERFECTLY AWARE that this may be the price that they intended from the beginning. So maybe not....but it's pretty tough to watch other groups who have had an impact doing the same thing (B of A, Netflix)...and NOT try to get the same result doing the same thing.

Does complaining help? Uh...maybe...I find it hard to read, but then again, maybe Canon does too. :)

Mad love to DVXusers everywhere!
 
Neex said:
A quick note for your list; I don't think the C300 has XLR inputs either. Could be wrong though!
Click to expand...

C300 has 2 XLR inputs as part of the LCD module. Both are +48V phantom power. The body of the C300 also has a 3.5mm input jack, but that doesn't seem to be +48V powered.
 
Nuno Dias said:
Quite a few contradictions here. If you love shooting MF on film, if you like its discipline, then I imagine you shoot transparencies, which at most will give you a 7 stop latitude, so why is Raw suddenly so important to you? You either welcome self-discipline, or you don't. Getting it right on camera is, I believe, the main lesson from working on film, and why you said you enjoyed it in the first place. And its not like the C300 is trapped under lock and key, is it? More like film, if anything...

So, have you seen the C300 footage or not? There were four short films shot on it (plus a trailer for another oncoming short), all of them widely available on the net. They are four different types, genres, looks and aesthetics. They could even have been shot on different cameras if we didn't know better. On the other hand, there is nothing available on the Scarlet, but yet, that's the one you've purchased...

Are you sure you were ready to commit on purchasing any camera?
Click to expand...

no contradiction here. with film you don't shoot hours and hours of material. you just think your framing and shot precisely. and then the negative can be tweaked a lot in colors etc. maybe you never tried medium format with film at all so you don't know what i'm talking about. you're the one speaking of doing commercials as art if I remember correctly, so i'm not surprised about your always-aggressive-comments :) I've seen the shorts, i've downloaded and tried to work with the mxf too. they are different genre but same image. anyway, you don't care no? you're the alexa's master
 
Last edited:
Piolet said:
You can be creative in camera too. You do it this with lighting, composition, filtration and set design. There's no question RAW gives you more flexibility in post, but this flexibility has limits too because you're just tweaking exposure/color/possibly framing. In post you can't duplicate getting real coverage optically (which affects the perspective of foreground and background elements) and you can't change the lighting.

The power issue is just convenience. I love convenience because I just want to use the camera to shoot. That's what I'm really after: to shoot something. The camera should just get out of my way and be as transparent a tool as possible. But if you have to change the battery every 36 minutes that's just annoying. And that's just standby mode!

The low light sensitivity has other benefits than just being able to shoot in no light or at super high ISOs. So like if ISO 20,000 is usable, then ISO 3200 or 6400 is cleaner comparatively to other cameras. I can then shoot at those high-moderate ISO with a smaller aperture and get a bit more DOF, like f/4 vs. f/1.8. With a less sensitive camera in the same situation, you'd have to shoot wide open which could lead to buzzing your focus annoyingly all the time. I really dislike that.
Click to expand...

I was not speaking about doing everything in post. quite the opposite in fact. But the raw and 4k permits to finalize the work super precisely regarding colors, resolution, etc. (always better to start from a 4k raw image to go down in term of resolution, colors tweaking, after). and watching a lot of shorts made with 5d and so on, i dislike the fact that people think "ok i can shoot at 6400iso so let's just shoot without any lighting thought", then it's not anymore creative, it's just real life copying and it's ultra boring. of course it depends on your taste and what you're after.
 
Last edited:
Sean Brown said:
Wont know how much it is till its shipping.
Click to expand...

In france we know.
http://www.videoplusfrance.com/recherche?text=EOS_C300&select=
14300€ including vat.
And until now, it was always the same for any electronic product. price in euro = US price in $. so I'm pretty sure it will be 14300$ in the US. Just compare the french prices of the cameras on this website with the american ones and you'll see.
Sony F3 in france: 14000€, B&h: 14000$
AF100 in france: 4700€ vs 4700$ in B&h
Canon XF105 4000€ vs 4000$
etc etc
 
Last edited:
I remember using a 16mm cam with a 30 sec max record time and a 10 minute mag. Limitations have always been around and there have been those who are willing to put up with them it just depends on your style and what content you are trying to capture.

I don't know what reasons you are looking for for 4k distribution, all I know is here in Toronto one of our biggest theaters has all 4k screens, but continues to play 2k files of all movies including 4k movies. Now some could have slipped through in 4k that I missed, but now I herd that Fincher and his next movie "girl with the dragon tattoo" is going to be finished in 4k. Honestly I don't care why I just want to see a Fincher movie in 4k I'm certain it will be an amazing experience.

I guess I can answer why I want to see it, because 4k projectors make 2k look better otherwise why spend the money, and I have seen movies there and they do look great. because I want to see it projected in it's intended state, because I'll take all the detail I can get when they are trying to immerse me in a story. Finally because I would like to see a movie projected at 4k so I can say if I notice the difference rather than having others tell me there isn't any based on some numbers they crunched. Like many in this world I need to see it for my own eyes and at this point I have yet to see a theatrically distributed film shown in 4k. I have however being Canadian seen plenty of Imax movies and I'll tell you they look great and I can definitely tell the difference there, so I can imagine there being more room for improvement in the resolution department before we can no longer perceive the changes.

but this is all off topic, and just my opinion, we are getting picky but lets be honest the right tool for the right job makes everything a whole lot easier.

have a good one!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ArthurD said:
no contradiction here. with film you don't shoot hours and hours of material. you just think your framing and shot precisely. and then the negative can be tweaked a lot in colors etc. maybe you never tried medium format with film at all so you don't know what i'm talking about. you're the one speaking of doing commercials as art if I remember correctly, so i'm not surprised about your always-aggressive-comments :) I've seen the shorts, i've downloaded and tried to work with the mxf too. they are different genre but same image. anyway, you don't care no? you're the alexa's master
Click to expand...

Listen, don't assume this or that, I've shot enough medium format film, Hasselblad, Yashica, Mamyia 6/7, 645, even the the toy Diana, I own them all. I shot large format for years out of pure fun, you even know what that is?

Ok, that's out of the way.

No one was being agressive. I was pointing to you that you clearly talk out of your rear, and don't have the slightest clue of what film making is, and also you clearly have more money than sense.

And yes, commercials are art, at least in a way you can only dream of achieving in your own 'artistry'. So please, don't ever be that obnoxious and unpleasant again.

Now, move on. A little more intelligently, please.
 
Nuno Dias said:
Listen, don't assume this or that, I've shot enough medium format film, Hasselblad, Yashica, Mamyia 6/7, 645, even the the toy Diana, I own them all. I shot large format for years out of pure fun, you even know what that is?

Ok, that's out of the way.

No one was being agressive. I was pointing to you that you clearly talk out of your rear, and don't have the slightest clue of what film making is, and also you clearly have more money than sense.

And yes, commercials are art, at least in a way you can only dream of achieving in your own 'artistry'. So please, don't ever be that obnoxious and unpleasant again.

Now, move on. A little more intelligently, please.
Click to expand...

you already made a thread closing this week. maybe you should just reconsider the way you act. and i will not play with you at the "who get the biggest" game, I believe in the modesty-low profile-talent link :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top