Is the C300mkII flopping vs the FS7 at rental? (from EOSHD)

Whew, thank goodness! I was feeling mighty old. I still am old but at least young guys have heard of 10-4 still.
 
The C300II is a good camera
The FS7 is a good camera
The F5/55 is a good camera
The Red W Scarlett is a good camera
The Varicam/LT is a good camera

They are all great cameras. It just comes down to what makes business sense for you. For my business the Fs7 has been a money making machine. Almost 2 years in my hands and it still meets and exceeds any specs my clients want. Its all just gravy now. I don't see as many C300II's as I saw C300I's but the market has changed and there are a lot of amazing options where the C300I had sole market share. I personally think the F5 owners are the ones that have made the smartest business investment as it came out the same time as the C300I and is still going head to head with the C300II in capabilities. That is great longevity in this crazy camera upgrade cycle of our business. I've been asked to shoot more 4K60p stuff lately with a new client and I'm glad I have a camera that can do it.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
The C300II is a good camera
The FS7 is a good camera
The F5/55 is a good camera
The Red W Scarlett is a good camera
The Varicam/LT is a good camera
t.
Click to expand...

Good cameras?
they are all pretty bad imo
firsty the c of g is way too high - mayby not the 5/55
fs7 forgets cache record status
vari takes a week to engage hfr - proxy files lose some audio
5/55 audio cabling idiotic
c300 audio cabling all wrong
none have much meta data
most don't have slower slo mo than my directors iphone

certainly to me the fs7 "won" because it was the cheapest of the cameras that I didn't really like
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I tend to go by a "If you build it they will come" business model. Has worked so far for me. Most of the cameras I've bought, no one was specifically requested that camera prior to me buying it. I bought it, I marketed myself and my work with it, and then work with that camera came in, and I made a good profit.

Let's consider an Arri Amira; I've rarely been asked by a client for it. Is it a popular camera? Yes. I just haven't been asked for it often, which has little bearing on how popular the camera actually is. For sure in large part because I don't currently have the client base that needs that level of camera. But I've considered buying one. And if I did buy one, then I'd need to market to that client base, and start getting clients that would pay for that level of camera.

But to buy a camera only based on what you're currently being asked for...seems a bit short sighted, and not necessarily a good method for growth. Then again, I'm sure your client base works differently than mine.
Click to expand...

That's the route I took on my first P2 Vari, C300 and F55, but I saw the writing on the wall. I'm sure I could work the mark II if I owned one, but for me, what I already own and my market, there is no reason to currently buy one, because there is nothing the mark II really offers a client that isn't covered or surpassed by my mark I or F55 for the clients I mostly serve.

Im not saying it's not a fine camera on its own, because it is. But it's not leaps and bounds over its predecessor. Yeah, it offers 4K and high speed, now, but for someone sitting in my position, it's 4K and high speed offerings are a joke compared to what I already have. So, I already "built it" and they did come.

You're right, our client bases do work differently for the most part(that's not good or bad, they're just different. And some of mine is NOT what it used to be). Looking at your reel and site in the past, you seem to do mostly, or at least a lot of, turn key type stuff, where you are doing it all from start to finish. I'm more or less a hired gun. All I do is shoot. I NEVER edit. I hand over my footage at the end of the day. I'm called for my talent AND the camera I own. In my world, for the most part, if you want to work and work for certain clients, then you own certain cameras, that's the way it is. Otherwise, with few exceptions, you're just wasting money.
 
morgan_moore said:
Good cameras?
they are all pretty bad imo
Click to expand...

10-15 years ago 98% of us were shooting interlaced SD to mini-DV tapes with fixed lens 1/3" CCD cameras costing ~$5000-$10,000. Maybe a few of those people would use 16mm when a project really called for it. Probably about 1.99% of us were shooting with 1/2" or 2/3" broadcast cameras & ENG lenses which cost $30,000-$100,000 for a kit, but very few of us actually owned those cameras. And they still only shot interlaced SD to tape with baked-in low-DR picture profiles. That final 0.01% were shooting on film, and basically everything was rented. Things had pretty much stayed this way for decades, with technology shifts trickling down all the tiers but essentially keeping the differences the same (eg 8mm/Betacam to mini-DV/DVCAM)

Now we have the capability to shoot 4K, HFR, RAW, s35 & log with pretty much every great lens from the past 50 years, all for ~$10,000. And for double or triple that, It's possible for many of us to own the very same cameras being used on big feature films and commercials.

You'd need to have a pretty short memory to think all these cameras are "pretty bad". And being a failure from a business/sales perspective is very different from being a "bad" camera.
 
..and a lot of those old cameras where quite well thougt out. These devices are bad cameras with good computers in side

of course I do get the the fs7 is pretty totally awesome compared to older tech

The maths Of today's camera ownership (even if a rental house owns it) may not be so much cheaper that the old days though with quick "obsolescence" and clients trimming kit rates
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Good cameras?
they are all pretty bad imo
firsty the c of g is way too high - mayby not the 5/55
fs7 forgets cache record status
vari takes a week to engage hfr - proxy files lose some audio
5/55 audio cabling idiotic
c300 audio cabling all wrong
none have much meta data
most don't have slower slo mo than my directors iphone

certainly to me the fs7 "won" because it was the cheapest of the cameras that I didn't really like
Click to expand...

I must be easily impressed, (or my expectations are lower) as I was surprised at all the meta data from the FS7. Been quite happy with its usefulness. The main thing I have to work around is the balance issue, whether on a tripod or shoulder, you have to have some plan to deal with getting it balanced, especially when changing lenses. I tried the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens and it was crazy front heavy on a tripod.
 
Last edited:
Mark Watson said:
I must be easily impressed, (or my expectations are lower) as I was surprised at all the meta data from the FS7. Been quite happy with its usefulness. The main thing I have to work around is the balance issue, whether on a tripod or shoulder, you have to have some plan to deal with getting it balanced, especially when changing lenses. I tried the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens and it was crazy front heavy on a tripod.
Click to expand...

Well the FS7 is pointlessly high at the rear, nothing great about that - it forgets cache record status, has wooly LUT support, baffling menues, no access in PAL to 180fps - to name a few unimpressive things - and to jam timecode you need a £1500 rear box which is pisspoor compared to my iphone which knows the time and the 'stock' 28-135 lens is no good to shoot a sequence on

I still like it though.. it is just not a classic design or in any way developed by or for operators.

Same basically goes for all the other cameras listed.
 
?
o-NEWS-CAMERA-facebook.jpg
 
Personal preference. I would never want a thing like that on my shoulder.

I want small and lightweight powerful boxes...but I could certainly understand how some people definitely would not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top