Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!

[Lee Saxon]

You, and the other hundred thousand folks wanting a $5k camera, were expecting a $5k camera. They weren't interested in building one. You all wanted to go to Disneyland, they wanted to go to Aspen.

I think you've missed the point on this, man. Loved everything else in your post though, well said.

It's not that we wanted Disneyland and they built Aspen. It's that we wanted a new theme park and they cleaned up the New Orleans Six Flags that's been rotting since Katrina, re-opened it, called it newly built (and revolutionary), and charged $800 for tickets.

 

[OldCorpse]

It's funny to read this thread when you're not emotionally involved. It's like watching a game and you don't give a rat's @$$ about either team. If the price is $16K, I could afford it. But, I would never buy it, because I want to shoot a feature for $10K - it's a hard limit I set myself. The reason is simple. If I scraped and scrounged, I could probably come up with $50K, but I figure it makes no difference - a film at $10K will have pretty much the same challenges as one at $50K, so why spend $50K? If I had access to $700K, fine, that makes a difference, and then the $10K hard limit is silly. But I can at best come up with $50K - so I'm staying with my $10K limit.

And to me, it's similar to the situation with the C300. For various reasons, it makes sense for me to buy the camera rather than rent (long shooting schedule) - and my choice, after a lot of research is a GH2; with accessories, it's about $2K. Now, with accessories, it's probably about $20K for the C300. I don't see the advantage of the C300 to be 10 times over the GH2, so I'm not even worrying about the C300. It's not for me, I'm not the target. But worse - I don't even lust after it. A guy who can only afford a Hyundai might still lust after a Ferrari (to use Barry's example) and so be angry that the price is not the same... but you know what? I don't lust after the C300. I'd rather have an Alexa.

The C300 is a yawn to me. Is it better than the GH2? Sure, of course. But to me, this was not exciting news - no real technical breakthrough unseen in any camera. And this is the point I think Barry is missing when he speaks of price being irrelevant and nothing to even speak about. Because if new tech is not what's noteworthy about the C300 (after all, an Alexa is still way better), then what's noteworthy is what capability/tech you're getting for the pricepoint!

That's why it absolutely DOES make sense to speak of price - not to complain, mind you (as I don't - do you see me complain about the price?), but to discuss whether this is a worthy announcement when Canon is bragging about "world-changing" gear. We have the right to say to Canon - that's a great price for a Ferrari, but sadly, you've given us a souped up Hyundai - to continue with Barry's analogy. What else are you going to discuss? The tech? Only in the context of the price. Because there's nothing technically notable that we can see so far (allowing that maybe once we have production models Canon may spring some surprises) from the camera, so all we can say - this tech for this price, or that tech for that price. So price is absolutely part of the discussion - and I say discussion, not complaining.

For my needs, the C300 is irrelevant. For yours, maybe it is relevant, and it's interesting to hear why, and how you justify your position - in exploring this, we may all learn something, f.ex. about the relative merits of price/performance and how to approach this if you are a micro-budget filmmaker, or a wedding videographer, or a DP on major productions, or a TV guy or whatever. To simply say - "buy or don't buy, end of discussion" is simplistic and nobody learns anything from such bullying. So even though the C300 is not for me, I'm still interested in what people say about this camera and where it's placed in the market and how it might meet or not, the needs of filmmakers of various kinds.

 

[hendosan]

... actually we are fast approaching a point where all cameras will be relatively the same ... and affordable.

When this point happens then it won't be about the gear, the only thing that will matter is your reel

I'm pretty sure we're like 99% there already. A T2i or GH2 and a few decent primes will get you an image that just wasn't possible at that price 5 years ago. You can pixel peep and talk about moire this and rolling shutter that, but for the most part all these large sensor cameras are delivering something spectacular at consumer prices.

Unless I have a serious need for a job, the current crop of cameras is more than sufficient for most of my shoots, and I can rent should the job call for something snazzier. I do think a moderately priced C100 would be something I would definitely buy though - having worked with an XF100 and XF300, I find that the XF100 is an absolute steal when you consider it's price vs. it's bigger brother and I imagine the C100 would follow along the same lines.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

Because the C300 doesn't have things like 1080p60 and 10-bit we will continue to ***** regardless of price. Despite that I see it as a real alternative to the F3. There are many great things about this camera and the same with the F3. Not an easy choice but it's really between these two. They have similar features and about the same price.

A year ago this camera would have been priced to high for me but a lot has happen this year and I've moved beyond DSLR shooting. The way I can justify a purchase is the fact I have everything to make the camera work and be put to work right away. If I didn't have these things it would have been totally out of the question. That's why I'm leaning towards the C300 instead of the F3. I don't have any PL-lenses, I don't have any SxS cards... the cost to swing to Sony would be more than I could cope with.

I understand the frustration of the seemingly high price tag. Feature wise it would have been more appropriate at less than $10k but until charts and tests are presented we don't know if the number one feature - image quality - is in the same league or better than the competition. Be it F3, Scarlet or any other similar priced camera. When some say it can reach Alexa quality were talking a bargain of a price. So let's wait and see. We might be surprised at what 8-bit in camera recording can achieve.

 

[alpi69]

When's the last time you saw an over-exposed, poorly audio recorded, highly compressed film in a cinema? (other than mockumentaries). Distributors care about content after visual. Cameras that have better specs, while they won't shoot a film for you, will certainly make things easier.

True. For many a gold rating by Discovery or BBC is important even if they never deliver to them. You just want to know IF you are in the position you don´t want to be denied because you saved in the wrong place.

 

[J Michael]

A guy who can only afford a Hyundai might still lust after a Ferrari (to use Barry's example) and so be angry that the price is not the same... but you know what? I don't lust after the C300. I'd rather have an Alexa.

Looking for a Land Rover. Will settle for a Jeep. Hope someone will come out with something a little less fiddly, not requiring building a Frankencamera to use in the field. I don't think people were necessarily looking for a FS100/AF100 competitor, those shoes are filled nicely. More like something between them and the F3.

 

[yoclay]

While I agree generally and in principal, it seems to me that telling people to stop discussing the price or "move on" is a little unfair in this circumstance. May I remind people that the original topic and title of this thread is "the new price drop by Canon on theC300". So it seems to me that discussing the price is not only absolutely relevant, but the whole point of this thread.

Further, telling people they should move on as a moderator seems completely normal and a part of the job. However, when individuals who are NOT moderators begin telling this to other members it just seems plain arrogant and disrespectful. In that sense there definitely seem to be more than a few self-appointed moderators here. From my point of view those are just folks trying to impose their point of view while telling others to shut up.

My argument is not so much what the C300 offers for the price, but rather what's left for lesser models that poses questions. If there is indeed a c100 for half the price what less could it possibly offer other than 8 bit 4.2.0? Not sure that would be worth 8-10k to me, unless somehow this new sensor technology was just as supposedly mind blowing for this camera too. Only when the average user gets hands on experience will we really know where the chips fall.

 

[cowpunk52]

called it newly built (and revolutionary)

Canon never called the C300 "revolutionary."

Canon is bragging about "world-changing" gear.

Canon never labelled the C300 as "world changing."

You are putting those labels on the camera yourself, then saying it doesn't fit.

To simply say - "buy or don't buy, end of discussion" is simplistic and nobody learns anything from such bullying.

The problem is, the same points are being brought up ad nauseum, even when they've been answered time and time again. We've gone over: who the target market is for the camera, who will be the type of shooter that can use the features it offers at it's price point, what features it has that compare favorably to other cameras in it's price range, what features it's missing, why it doesn't have 1080p60, what are the innovative features it does have, how it's early performance fared on a 60ft screen, etc, etc, etc. We're continually running around in circles because certain forum members continue to harp on the same subject over and over and over despite their points and concerns being responded to. It get's very old after a while to have to hear the same talking points time and time again.

For example, this was just posted this morning:

My argument is not so much what the C300 offers for the price, but rather what's left for lesser models that poses questions. If there is indeed a c100 for half the price what less could it possibly offer other than 8 bit 4.2.0?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...plains-a-lot&p=2469915&highlight=#post2469915

Now, I'm not trying to pick on anyone here, but yoclay did post on that thread less than two hours after I made a list of what a lower priced model might exclude. Maybe yoclay didn't see my post, even though he was active in the thread only 8 posts later - maybe. But I doubt it.

Further, telling people they should move on as a moderator seems completely normal and a part of the job. However, when individuals who are NOT moderators begin telling this to other members it just seems plain arrogant and disrespectful.

I think the problem is, people interested in the camera feel like they're just being haggled to death over the same talking points by those who have no interest in ever using this camera. Bringing up the same points over and over, even though those points have been addressed and responded to time and time again, is not a way to win over friends.

 

[cowpunk52]

I guess my biggest quandary is - if you're not interested in what 'X' camera offers at 'Y' price point, why do you feel the need to tell others that they're wrong for being interested in it?

I personally don't care much for the AF100, but I'm not in that forum harping on the camera, telling everyone how crap it is for the price and that the GH2 rules! I think the Scarlet has severe limitations that many people aren't considering, but I'm not in that forum telling people that they have no idea what they're getting into, that the cost and workflow is wrong for many low and no budget filmmakers. All those subjects have been addressed in those forums, and they've been responded to. I'm certain that the people still interested in the Scarlet and the AF100 understand the ramifications. There's no reason for me to jump into that forum and climb on my soap box and keep going on about it. That just seems to me to be, well, rude and inappropriate.

Adding to the conversation is one thing. But when the same points are rehashed over and over, in the face of valid responses, nothing is being added anymore.

 

[yoclay]

Sorry Cowpunk52, didn't see that post of yours. I will check it out. I also agree that most of this stuff has been said to death. I certainly do respect the desire to have a productive discussion about the camera. I think the price drop does make it a much more realistic alternative to the F3 and Scarlet, I jist want to see more about how this sensor really performs before drawing further conclusions.

 

[cowpunk52]

I think everybody wants to see how it performs - that's really the only way anyone will know for sure if the price is worth it or not. But no matter what price point it comes in at, I think it's safe to assume we'd all love it to be even cheaper! But it will cost what it costs, and when the camera and footage is released, we'll all make our own decisions about it's value to us and our workflow on an individual level, just like we've done with every camera that's ever come out. Until we really see what it can do, we're all just speculating.

I have to believe that Canon will have reasons for pricing the C300 whatever they finally price it. Canon is not evil, they're not going to be laughing all the way to the bank because of the price they charge - the video division only accounts for a fractional percentage of Canon's profits. They'll price it according to what they think it's worth based on it's performance, components, R&D, and target market. Then the market will decide if they made the right call. If they did price it correctly, it will sell. If they didn't, it won't and the price will eventually be adjusted to the market.

 

[Piolet]

I think the problem is, people interested in the camera feel like they're just being haggled to death over the same talking points by those who have no interest in ever using this camera. Bringing up the same points over and over, even though those points have been addressed and responded to time and time again, is not a way to win over friends.

This is how I feel too. We still have people saying things like the camera should cost $2500. I mean, that's not even reasonable. They keep applying consumer product logic (stuff made in quantities of millions) to professional niche products made in miniscule quantities comparatively and yet they want them to cost the same. But I gave people the benefit of the doubt and tried to gave real information, real facts to help them out, like in my two posts here and here.

Then I made a whole thread about Canon interviews with tons and tons of info to give people insight into the decision making and the practical reasons why the camera's specs are the way they are. Many other posters contributed information, including real world experience at the Paramount event. We all really tried hard to give people information. A lot of people did start to understand the reasoning behind the camera, but I guess some people still don't or just don't agree. They certainly have the right to disagree, but after a while the sensational claims like $2500 just get tiresome.

 

[szimmer]

I guess my biggest quandary is - if you're not interested in what 'X' camera offers at 'Y' price point, why do you feel the need to tell others that they're wrong for being interested in it?

I personally don't care much for the AF100, but I'm not in that forum harping on the camera, telling everyone how crap it is for the price and that the GH2 rules! I think the Scarlet has severe limitations that many people aren't considering, but I'm not in that forum telling people that they have no idea what they're getting into, that the cost and workflow is wrong for many low and no budget filmmakers. All those subjects have been addressed in those forums, and they've been responded to. I'm certain that the people still interested in the Scarlet and the AF100 understand the ramifications. There's no reason for me to jump into that forum and climb on my soap box and keep going on about it. That just seems to me to be, well, rude and inappropriate.

Adding to the conversation is one thing. But when the same points are rehashed over and over, in the face of valid responses, nothing is being added anymore.

+1

 

[mico]

It just goes to show you that for some human nature can't be suppressed. Wanting something so bad yet out of reach, in this case financially, some will try as hard as they can to convince themselves and others that its worthless.

 

[AGMedia]

It's funny to read this thread when you're not emotionally involved.

Canon's November 3rd announcement was about the new cinema division. The C300 was a token, an exercise. Believe me, Canon hasn't invested their future in the C300.

Red, the strange company, reacted to Canon's new division -- not the C300. Canon announced they were getting into Red's business. Red, as usual, reacted strangely.

Don't get worked up over the C300. Canon isn't. I'll bet one of those Barry Green bets that you'll be able to buy the C300 for less than 9K within twelve months. And, no one will care in twelve months. The first half of 2012 is going to be about people discovering that the Scarlet doesn't come close to living up to their expectations. Then comes the 1DX that makes the low light of the F3/FS100 look like junk (recorded to a better codec). In the second half of 2012 comes the "4k" DSLR along with the 5D Mark 3. The 4K DSLR will be cheaper than the C300, and the 5D Mark 3 will be cheaper than the AF100/FS100.

So -- if cost is an issue -- good stuff is ahead. If the C300 sucks -- good stuff is ahead. When people discover the Scarlet sucks for eight out of ten applications -- good stuff is ahead.

 

[ArthurD]

Canon's November 3rd announcement was about the new cinema division. The C300 was a token, an exercise. Believe me, Canon hasn't invested their future in the C300.

Red, the strange company, reacted to Canon's new division -- not the C300. Canon announced they were getting into Red's business. Red, as usual, reacted strangely.

Don't get worked up over the C300. Canon isn't. I'll bet one of those Barry Green bets that you'll be able to buy the C300 for less than 9K within twelve months. And, no one will care in twelve months. The first half of 2012 is going to be about people discovering that the Scarlet doesn't come close to living up to their expectations. Then comes the 1DX that makes the low light of the F3/FS100 look like junk (recorded to a better codec). In the second half of 2012 comes the "4k" DSLR along with the 5D Mark 3. The 4K DSLR will be cheaper than the C300, and the 5D Mark 3 will be cheaper than the AF100/FS100.

So -- if cost is an issue -- good stuff is ahead. If the C300 sucks -- good stuff is ahead. When people discover the Scarlet sucks for eight out of ten applications -- good stuff is ahead.

Do you give lottery results too?

 

[Jadotch]

Canon's November 3rd announcement was about the new cinema division. The C300 was a token, an exercise. Believe me, Canon hasn't invested their future in the C300.

Red, the strange company, reacted to Canon's new division -- not the C300. Canon announced they were getting into Red's business. Red, as usual, reacted strangely.

Don't get worked up over the C300. Canon isn't. I'll bet one of those Barry Green bets that you'll be able to buy the C300 for less than 9K within twelve months. And, no one will care in twelve months. The first half of 2012 is going to be about people discovering that the Scarlet doesn't come close to living up to their expectations. Then comes the 1DX that makes the low light of the F3/FS100 look like junk (recorded to a better codec). In the second half of 2012 comes the "4k" DSLR along with the 5D Mark 3. The 4K DSLR will be cheaper than the C300, and the 5D Mark 3 will be cheaper than the AF100/FS100.

So -- if cost is an issue -- good stuff is ahead. If the C300 sucks -- good stuff is ahead. When people discover the Scarlet sucks for eight out of ten applications -- good stuff is ahead.

I forgot that Canon could walk on water. You don't think Panasonic, Sony,and RED will just stop progression in the next 12 months? JVC may even beat Canon to the 4K market.

But competition is good, and the consumer will make out the best because of what each individual company can bring.

 

[indiawilds]

Lets wait for the official price announcement in US and in other countries. I am sure all of us will be happy if the price is lower. Having said that, I think a lot of users here are unable to realise how great the ISO 16000 footage is. I just came back from a wildlife safari and shot a sloth bear at ISO 12800 with my Mark IV at f2.8 at 200mm (EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM). A look at that footage and the hastily grabbed ISO 16000 footage from the C300 makes me feel that the C300 is really nice and will be put to use in many more places than originally envisaged by Canon. When Canon India gets a C300, I will take it for a test. I am sure, this camera is great. Whether the pricing is low enough to get Return on Investment soon enough is another question.

 

[Tzedekh]

I don't think people were necessarily looking for a FS100/AF100 competitor, those shoes are filled nicely.

If you're OK with 8-bit, sure. Otherwise, there is ample room for improvement at or near the FS100 and AF100's price point. For an extra $500 (if that much), the FS100 could probably have 10-bit HD-SDI (maybe even 12-bit 3G-SDI). Add a log profile and you'd have maybe 80% of the F3 at a third of the price. Same with the AF100. The 1/3-inch HPX250 has P2 and AVC-Intra 100, but is only slightly more expensive than the AF100, despite a more complex imaging block and a 20X lens. I could see an AVC-Intra version of the AF100 for less than $6,000 MSRP. Or even an AVC-Ultra longG 4:2:2 version, to permit the use of cheaper recording media, as long as 10- to 12-bit 3G-SDI were included.

 

[mico]

Canon's November 3rd announcement was about the new cinema division. The C300 was a token, an exercise. Believe me, Canon hasn't invested their future in the C300.

Red, the strange company, reacted to Canon's new division -- not the C300. Canon announced they were getting into Red's business. Red, as usual, reacted strangely.

Don't get worked up over the C300. Canon isn't. I'll bet one of those Barry Green bets that you'll be able to buy the C300 for less than 9K within twelve months. And, no one will care in twelve months. The first half of 2012 is going to be about people discovering that the Scarlet doesn't come close to living up to their expectations. Then comes the 1DX that makes the low light of the F3/FS100 look like junk (recorded to a better codec). In the second half of 2012 comes the "4k" DSLR along with the 5D Mark 3. The 4K DSLR will be cheaper than the C300, and the 5D Mark 3 will be cheaper than the AF100/FS100.

So -- if cost is an issue -- good stuff is ahead. If the C300 sucks -- good stuff is ahead. When people discover the Scarlet sucks for eight out of ten applications -- good stuff is ahead.

So according to you everything sucks but the future. Okay.