Canon Eos One 4K video camera - and Jackie Chan

Samuel H said:
A low level of cometition in the camera market can support that, but if a new player comes in with good products and a lower price, Canon can only adjust their prices, fight on a different front (marketing and brand perception, usability, unique features, etc), or fade away. The C300 seems to have been very succesful on the usability front.

On the "cheaper equipment turns you into a commodity and hurt your income" debate, I tend to think it's not like that. Right now, talent makes the difference, not equipment, and that's a good thing. Lower prices hurt untalented people who had the money to buy expensive cameras, and help talented people who can only afford the cheap cameras. And I think that's good.
Now, the fact that everybody can learn how to shoot great images easily and cheaply (among other things, by reading stuff here on dvxuser), together with the lower price of cameras, that can have a significant effect. But keeping away the newbies is just not an option anymore.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this line of thinking. I used to be an illustrator in a former life (I only draw my own storyboards these days) and the "equipment costs" are a pencil and paper. I was a poor kid in Brooklyn and had the same tools that people who were doing brilliant work and making millions had.

I think it should come down to how well you can market yourself and how good you are with that camera, rather than people not being able to afford the chance to work with that gear.
 
"Canon can only adjust their prices, fight on a different front (marketing and brand perception"

We gots Chackie Jan!!!
 
Bassman2003 said:
As it becomes cheaper and cheaper to make better and better images, careers get that much more marginalized.
...
As a working pro, I want to be able to make images that "normal" people can not. That is a start of job security in the freelance world. ... If every camera costs $1,000 I do not see a lot profit going forward over the long term.
Click to expand...

Michelanglo was only hired because he used the expensive paintbrushes. ;)

I shoot on a 60D with kits lenses. Seriously. I work a full time salary position at a media company doing corporate videos and I do corporate videos as side work as well. My average rate is about $75 an hour freelance, shooting or editing. Never once was I told my camera wasn't good enough. It's worth about $600. Easily within the reach of any consumer.
Also, I fully admit I'm not the best. There are people out there better than I am. Which is not to say I don't do good work. But I know my limits. I get hired because they need someone to do the work, someone with experience and I get recommended by others.

My point is, don't worry about the college kid with the amazing new DSLR who will work for $10 an hour. If the only thing that separates you from them is your "even more expensive" camera, then you need to go about things differently.

A couple years ago I had to hire a video team in California because it was cheaper to do that then fly my team out there. I put out an ad and ignored all the lowballers. I looked for people who knew what they were doing. My first indicator being "do they know how to budget a shoot based on a livable wage?" From there we got technical and even that wasn't so much about their gear. I needed to know they could duplicate the look of the videos I shot at the headquarter offices here, but out there at their satellite offices. Everything turned out great.
 
Fahnon said:
It absolutely is not ridiculous, its ambitious. The af100 was about $5k at release. I'm saying throw the gh4 sensor, which currently sells in a $1,800 body, into a different body that was about $5k. The fs7 and the blackmagic URSA do high speed 4k in-body and are $8k and $6k respectively. Hell the URSA even does raw internally for that price.

If your point is that Panasonic won't do it because market conditions will allow them to maximize profits by charging more to a market that will pay up, fine, but the idea that a camera spec'd as I described HAS to cost $10k is just wrong.

The reason Canon sells for that much is because they're canon and have the name to command that price. Not to me, but obviously to a lot of people. Look back to the release of the c300 and again to the c100 and you'll see a wave of comments saying the cameras were overpriced for the specs they had. And that's even more true today.
Click to expand...


If people just buy Canon products because of the name as you allege, then why C500 did not get highly popular?

You are right that the Canon C300 and C100 were thoroughly panned here and in other places. And it is not just the critics who believed it. Even RED threw its might against Canon and launched the RED Scarlet in a simultaneous head-to-head launch with the C300. Like you many people said that C300 was under-specd. So why Canon sold tons of C300? The minute I got my C300 and charged the battery, it worked. It works anytime, everytime, anywhere and everywhere. As a professional, you need a camera which works all the time. You can create a golden or titanium camera but if its software gives you problems, then it is just a paperweight for that much time. If its features are not available at the time you buy, then those specs have no meaning. The lovely files, the super easy workflow where you can even edit from a laptop, small size of camera, low light ability, recording to cheap CF cards..... I can go on and on about the strengths of the C300.

If BMC with their cheaper cameras could have provided similar files, with dependability and usability of Canon, then it would have taken away the customers of Canon. At the end of the day, if you earn your living from this, then you have to also think of reducing your cost and you won't stick with a company if they are not competitive.


We can't just have a feeling of entitlement. You can demand a RED Dragon with all accessories or an Arri Alexa at 15k or thereabouts. And if we don't get it, shall we scold them? If so, then after sometime no one will take this forum seriously.

Different products are meant for different segments. This is a free market economy. If you don't like don't buy.
 
indiawilds said:
You are right that the Canon C300 and C100 were thoroughly panned here and in other places. And it is not just the critics who believed it. Even RED threw its might against Canon and launched the RED Scarlet in a simultaneous head-to-head launch with the C300. Like you many people said that C300 was under-specd. So why Canon sold tons of C300?
Click to expand...

You kind of got me thinking, maybe RED should try a sub $5k camera. Something closer to a C100/mkII. Plastic body, older MX sensor, shoot 4K to ProRes & H.265 at 30p and 1080 at 60p. Record to cheaper CF/SD cards. It may not have the margins that Epic and Scarlet and soon Weapon may have, but the lower price and easier to manage specs would help build market saturation of their name. They've got enough legacy hardware and experience now that they should be able to repackage some of that and do a lower end camera with less specs more efficiently.
 
Last edited:
indiawilds said:
If people just buy Canon products because of the name as you allege, then why C500 did not get highly popular?

You are right that the Canon C300 and C100 were thoroughly panned here and in other places. And it is not just the critics who believed it. Even RED threw its might against Canon and launched the RED Scarlet in a simultaneous head-to-head launch with the C300. Like you many people said that C300 was under-specd. So why Canon sold tons of C300? The minute I got my C300 and charged the battery, it worked. It works anytime, everytime, anywhere and everywhere. As a professional, you need a camera which works all the time. You can create a golden or titanium camera but if its software gives you problems, then it is just a paperweight for that much time. If its features are not available at the time you buy, then those specs have no meaning. The lovely files, the super easy workflow where you can even edit from a laptop, small size of camera, low light ability, recording to cheap CF cards..... I can go on and on about the strengths of the C300.

If BMC with their cheaper cameras could have provided similar files, with dependability and usability of Canon, then it would have taken away the customers of Canon. At the end of the day, if you earn your living from this, then you have to also think of reducing your cost and you won't stick with a company if they are not competitive.


We can't just have a feeling of entitlement. You can demand a RED Dragon with all accessories or an Arri Alexa at 15k or thereabouts. And if we don't get it, shall we scold them? If so, then after sometime no one will take this forum seriously.

Different products are meant for different segments. This is a free market economy. If you don't like don't buy.
Click to expand...

A point of clarification: I didn't say people "just buy canon because of the name" as if the cameras had no merit other than the badge. I said, and fully believe, people pay more than they would because of the name. Same with Arri. The c500 didn't catch on because there are limits to the effect. The c300 is an awesome camera, just priced too high for me to actually buy. Not because it's out of reach, but it just makes more sense to me to rent at that level. I've done some work I'm very proud of on them (rentals), and if I were doing docs I probably would have bought a c100 and a ninja blade. Since my personal projects are narrative, I did in fact buy BMD and a canon dslr.

I don't think BMD has the track record and rep in the camera world yet to dethrone Canon and they stumbled with their launch. Maybe the next go-round with more mature firmware they can make inroads. I think a better example is Sony who with the $8k fs7 absolutely will start biting into Canon's sales of c300's imo.
 
roxics said:
You kind of got me thinking, maybe RED should try a sub $5k camera. Something closer to a C100/mkII. Plastic body, older MX sensor, shoot 4K to ProRes & H.265 at 30p and 1080 at 60p. Record to cheaper CF/SD cards. It may not have the margins that Epic and Scarlet and soon Weapon may have, but the lower price and easier to manage specs would help build market saturation of their name. They've got enough legacy hardware and experience now that they should be able to repackage some of that and do a lower end camera with less specs more efficiently.
Click to expand...

I think they tried this with the scarlet. It was supposed to be 3k for $3k, but ended up being $9k. Maybe like you say this is a good time for them to do it because of the legacy hardware experience. Would be awesome if they could make it work this time.
 
Red doesn't have enough of a market penetration to do a sub-$5,000 - or even $10,000 - ready to shoot camera. Neither does ARRI, for that matter. Unfortunately for them, that's where the market is going.
 
I think RED will, sensibly, stay out of the race to the bottom. There will always be a place for the elite, be it cutting edge specs or perfectly functioning cameras like the C300. The prices may drop accordingly, but there will always be a top bracket.
 
Jay Birch said:
I think RED will, sensibly, stay out of the race to the bottom. There will always be a place for the elite, be it cutting edge specs or perfectly functioning cameras like the C300. The prices may drop accordingly, but there will always be a top bracket.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on what they choose. But I wouldn't say it's a bad idea to get into the lower end as well. Sometimes you can make more money selling more of something that is cheaper than less of something that is expensive. Obviously they have their niche on the high end and if they're happy there, so be it. But I certainly wouldn't be against them doing a sub $5K camera. ;)
 
The problem for RED is that if they want to delve into the low end, then all the accessories have to follow suit, which I bet makes them more money than the camera itself. They would need ultra cheap battery and storage options, with 3rd party options. It is a murky world that I am not sure they would be wise to enter.

The other issue is large scale, worldwise customer service.
 
That is an insane price drop. I guess its a sign of what Canon plans to launch at NAB this year. I am guessing there is going to be lots of 4K video capabilities in Canon's near future
 
Jim Martin said:
It's not and we have them to sell at these new low prices........

Jim Martin
Click to expand...

Without revealing too much about your business: does that mean you have to actually take a loss on them? Sorry, I have no idea how it works with dealers/suppliers/retail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top