Canon's 4K Cinema EOS Official Announcement & Latest Info-NAB 2012

Emanuel said:
OK, but from $1000 up to $15,000 there is a road 15X longer. I think what everyone says is: why twice the price (DSLR-wise) ?
Click to expand...

It depends who you are and what you shoot. Can you put a price tag on 1-2 stops of DR? Or ASP-H sized 4K (not available anywhere else)?

Like most technology.... The gap between low range to mid range is usually much bigger, for much less, than the gap between mid range and high range.
 
Jay Birch said:
It depends who you are and what you shoot. Can you put a price tag on 1-2 stops of DR? Or ASP-H sized 4K (not available anywhere else)?

Like most technology.... The gap between low range to mid range is usually much bigger, for much less, than the gap between mid range and high range.
Click to expand...
Well, 1 stop is twice the light, so should 2-stop mean 4X the price? LOL

There is another short answer: motion pictures. A cinematographer can get substantial more than a still photographer as average. So, the manufacturer can charge more. Hey, twice is a bargain! -- it would say the RED fanboy in me I am not : D I am only a RED supporter as many ;-)
 
Last edited:
Jay Birch said:
It depends who you are and what you shoot. Can you put a price tag on 1-2 stops of DR? Or ASP-H sized 4K (not available anywhere else)?

Like most technology.... The gap between low range to mid range is usually much bigger, for much less, than the gap between mid range and high range.
Click to expand...


^ This.

I shot video for a company that built drag race motorcycles. They said getting a Suzuki Hayabusa into the 8-second 1/4 mile time wasn't too difficult. It was getting that extra second off to the magical 7-second times that really took a huge amount of cost and technology. What seemed incremental was actually a big leap in engineering.
 
I like RED too (well, the products, not a huge fan of the company). I see the Scarlet having just as many pros and cons as the C-DSLR.... and both are similar prices. This is why I am unsure about why people think the pricing is so wrong.

Of course, I am basing my thoughts on the idea that the C-DSLR will have similar image quality to the C-300.
 
Jay Birch said:
I like RED too (well, the products, not a huge fan of the company). I see the Scarlet having just as many pros and cons as the C-DSLR.... and both are similar prices. This is why I am unsure about why people think the pricing is so wrong.

Of course, I am basing my thoughts on the idea that the C-DSLR will have similar image quality to the C-300.
Click to expand...
I even think for certain kind of work, the C-DSLR beats Scarlet, even more than the opposite. The problem here is without Scarlet, Canon could even charge substantial more in a very likely different form factor.

It is quite funny how a lot of people praise the fact to pay thousands more for form factor?! Never understood such silliness.

Believe me, Canon could charge $3,500 for their 4K DSLR. They simply know who needs it, will pay 4X the price. It is a pity.
 
Emanuel said:
Believe me, Canon could charge $3,500 for their 4K DSLR.
Click to expand...

How does that differ from Scarlet though? If anything, I imagine the tech to bring compressed 4K in a DSLR is far more advanced than the tech to deliver RAW 4K in a bigger body.

This is my only question really.... Why was Scarlet hailed as a bargain, and this camera a rip off?

Both are technical miracles... both have flaws.

My only answer is that one is in a DSLR body and people have a pre-conceived price ceiling on what a DSLR should cost (regardless of spec).

We are talking about the world's smallest, lightest 4K camera... It will likely have a beautiful, cinematic image and uses cheap media and batteries. It will probably have a street price of $12k.

If I told someone that, without mentioning the DSLR form factor... People would say it was a bargain.
 
Will Turner said:
I'm sorry to be the one that tells you this.. but EVERY major technological corporation does this. They cripple tech and release improvements gradually and incrementally, in order to make the most money. It's standard practice and I'm amazed that you think it's 'ridiculous'?

Your not a canon rep are you..? Or indeed a rep from any other major manufacturer?
Click to expand...
though i dont disagree about that concept of crippling (hello sony 1/3" cams) i disagree about the mk iii's capabilities.

It is what it is. It doesnt fulfill what you want it to be because thats the way it is made. A stills cam first and video 2nd.

And no im no canon rep. I dont even like the mk iii enough to buy one. It shoots pretty images but not what i am looking for
 
Jay Birch said:
How does that differ from Scarlet though? If anything, I imagine the tech to bring compressed 4K in a DSLR is far more advanced than the tech to deliver RAW 4K in a bigger body.

This is my only question really.... Why was Scarlet hailed as a bargain, and this camera a rip off?

Both are technical miracles... both have flaws.

My only answer is that one is in a DSLR body and people have a pre-conceived price ceiling on what a DSLR should cost (regardless of spec).

We are talking about the world's smallest, lightest 4K camera... It will likely have a beautiful, cinematic image and uses cheap media and batteries. It will probably have a street price of $12k.

If I told someone that, without mentioning the DSLR form factor... People would say it was a bargain.
Click to expand...
Who? I bet RED fanboys at first hand, but you could never mention the label... : D

First off, RED was/is not a DSLR manufacturer. Canon, it is. 4K DSLR is a natural evolution which places the manufacturers of motion picture acquisition devices in trouble such as RED. What has Canon decided to do? To charge at least as much as their next competitor in the motion picture sector, RED.
 
Is this just 1D X with different firmware?

Well I guess it's just a matter of time before someone opens them both...
 
VGurcu said:
Since you repeated 3 times let me tell you 'elitist' and a $12000 product' do not mix well together.(Not even in the filmmaker's universe)

Low budget indie filmmaker doesn't mean 'a filmmaker who can't effort a camera', it mostly means a filmmaker not having a studio backing for distribution.
As so many people mentioned, currently there are great cameras(Canon or others) for almost every budget bracket. If you can't make a worthy film with whats available now perhaps its time you look at yourself to see whats lacking.
Elitists have nothing to do with that....
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
kylevant said:
At the end of the day, many of us just feel abandoned. My t2i is still awesome to me, but I have feeling that it's going to be the last Canon DSLR for video that I own. The little guys relationship with Canon is over. Hail Sony and Panasonic and mirror-less cameras.
Click to expand...

Wow this is really getting rather silly. I'm starting to feel like this thread is turning into a self-written obituary, and I'm completely at a loss as to why this should be the case.
 
PappasArts said:
Jay who said that? Did someone actually say that the new CANON EOS-1D C technology should be under $1000.

Now that's CrAzY! Yeah maybe in 5 years we'll see it around the 3 to 5K range. Not under a grand, especially not now.
Click to expand...

No one said that. What was said though is that Canon could give us a lot more in the t4i. Full HD out on recording, no soft video like MKIII, no moire or aliasing, etc, and a great codec. They have the technology. No one said 4k, hell, we're all still hanging around waiting for decent HD from Canon in a REAL DSLR.

brynsank said:
Wow this is really getting rather silly. I'm starting to feel like this thread is turning into a self-written obituary, and I'm completely at a loss as to why this should be the case.
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? Canon gave us everything we wanted and called it the c300. Then they gave us an alright MKIII - nothing revolutionary, along with a price increase. Then a 4k DSLR, and want to charge us $15,000 for it. That's a series of disappointments to many of the DSLR-shooting crowd. So this 4k DSLR is just the straw that broke the camels back. People are tired of this behavior, and it's being echoed across the internet.

The real truth is that at $15k, Scarlet starts becoming a reality for many. I'm sure that if you're willing to drop $15k on a camera then you sure as hell don't want to have all the usual DSLR troubles. It's not a cinema camera, it's still a DSLR. If they had zebras, focus peaking, waveforms, viewfinders, and whatever else you usually find on a cinema camera in the body of a DSLR then it wouldn't have been an issue - people will have overlooked the DSLR form factor. But now: It's still a DSLR, a really cool one yes, but still a DSLR with DSLR disadvantages - at $15k.
 
brynsank said:
Wow this is really getting rather silly. I'm starting to feel like this thread is turning into a self-written obituary, and I'm completely at a loss as to why this should be the case.
Click to expand...

Why?, because the majority of people all over the internet thinks this camera is overpriced, (go take a look at different forums, I already did). Not everyone in this forum is a well paid professional filmmaker, there are students, freelancers, indie filmmakers, etc. For a student renting is not an option, this was truly a dream Cam, but we feel Canon put it in the sky out of reach for many of us.
 
So you want the camera but can't afford it. So what? Buy something you can afford and make the best images you can with it. Become a complete badass that runs out of places to stash all the money you made with the camera you can afford, then buy three of whatever cameras you want. Canon is in business to make money, not to build a 4K camera for whatever price you have in your mind as being "fair". If you are a student, freelancer, indi filmaker, it's not like there aren't more affordable choices out there than a freaking C500.

I want an Alexa, but I cannot afford it, so I bought an AF100. It's better than I am. I'll bet an FS100 is better than you are.
 
_JD_ said:
... Become a complete badass that runs out of places to stash all the money you made with the camera you can afford, then buy three of whatever cameras you want.

... I want an Alexa, but I cannot afford it, so I bought an AF100. It's better than I am. I'll bet an FS100 is better than you are.
Click to expand...

This... I like.
 
People thought DSLR means low cost. One should realise that an "A Class Merc" is costlier than many B or C class cars of other manufacturers.

Frankly speaking we are forgetting the options available.

If your production needs 4K or you want to make it future proof, then go for the 1D C. Else, use the 1D X or the 5 DIII. A well written and well shot film is more important and one can circumvent a few shortcomings. Ofcourse a few shortcomings can't be circumvented and one needs to live with it.

The 1D C will intercut well with the C300. So it is designed to play a role in large productions. I was under the impression that the 1D C will be around 10000 USD. I hope by the time it is launched, the prices will be close to the 10K USD mark.

This is a difficult time to buy cameras, as we don't know how fast they will depreciate. Every few months we get a new "latest and greatest" camera. So camera collection is now a very expensive hobby. :)

Unless we get the camera to pay for itself in a few months, then it doesn't make sense to buy. Better to rent or borrow if possible. Or see if Canon can loan it to you. :)
 
I think the main concern (or maybe confusion) I have with the MSRP price of the 1DC is that it's $8,200 more than the MSRP of the 1DX and the only differences (aside from the C on the front of the body) could potentially be all firmware based and even if there are some hardware changes what does the C really give you over the X that makes it warrant the added $8,200? I can't think of any and for that matter I can't think of any real advantages of the 1DC over the C300. I guess I'm trying to figure out the point of the 1DC in general because to me it seems Canon already has this area of the market covered with the C300.

I think a better move would have been to price the 1DC around $8,000-$10,000 with the performance of the current C300, release the C500 as they did, and to upgrade the C300 with some of the additions found in the 1DC (lower quality 4k, uncompressed HD out HDMI) at its current price point.
 
Last edited:
All I see is a lot of opinions here and assumptions about what Canon is thinking and why this or that costs what it does. Even if the cost of manufacturing the dream camera some seem to want was low, there's a lot more to the "cost" of making such a camera beyond the parts in it and the cost of putting it together. Someone said up top that they could charge $3500 for their $15000 DSLR. Really, you know that how?

I think it's really foolish to say outright that there's some sort of conspiracy going on. Of course companies develop certain products and keep a lid on just how "good" the product is when they have an entire line up. That's business, but I highly doubt any Canon exec. is laughing and rubbing his hands together at the idea, as some of the attitudes here seem to indicate. It's just business folks, not a conspiracy, and you're nothing but a consumer. Your opinion doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters is their profits and how what the think is the best way to reach those heights. They'll compromise here/there to appease the market as much as is necessary, but any businessperson with an eye on the dollar would know you don't go much farther then that if at all.

I've heard on good authority that RED makes a boatload off their cameras in terms of profit vs. the cost of making the cameras and the parts involved. RED does very well in that regard. What comes back to bite you is the R&D that goes into creating something like the EPIC or Scarlet, and the massive amounts of money to be returned to you if you want to break even or profit. That all needs to be considered here as does the overhead of all their video/camera departments, the employees who create these amazing feats of engineering, and all sorts of other things. Canon has a mortgage too you know ;)

If you think they're overcharging like crazy then that's fine, but don't go making brash sweeping statements when none of us have seen the breakdown sheets of what it costs to make these things.

To those saying Canon has forgotten the little guy, that's hogwash. They gave us the MKIII with plenty of improvements. While I realize there are things that could've been better, is that ever not the case? The inevitable outcry of disappointment is always the case with new tech or cameras, but those who are satisfied are happy to buy. With the whole line-up that Canon has upcoming, do you really think they were at all interested in making the MKIII the Canon GH2 (image quality wise)? Given how so many influential folks have figured out ways to rig the MKII and work it into their workflow and on-set experience, Canon would be CRAZY to make the MKIII everything everyone wanted because most would end up just buying that instead of the higher-end. Even if you think that's still their fault, nobody said you had to keep on buying. :) If you don't like it, move to another company or product.

We DON'T know all the reasons for why these companies do what they do. All I know is Canon isn't likely to go under because people on DVXuser (or beyond) don't like the prices of all their new tech. I'm sure there's enough who do, and at those prices they'll probably survive. ;) Canon is very much like Apple in that regard. They just say "here it is, deal with it" and at that point all you can say is yes or no. Not that difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top