C100: New C100 Coming down the line?

L

LifeInAction

Member
I have owned a c100 mk i for a few years now and have contemplated adding the mk ii to our lineup, mainly for the 60p addition. We have a gh4 to do some slow motion work but aren't 100% satified with the colors compared to the c100. My questions is, has anyone heard of a c100 mk iii in the works? Is it going to be worth waiting for?

Thanks!
Derek
 
Given the C100 line's popularity, I'm sure that a 4K C100 is in the works. It's just a matter of when it will be announced:

C100: Announced September 29, 2012
C100 ii: Announced October 22, 2014

I wouldn't be surprised if we have an announcement by the end of the year.
 
Last edited:
There are two major trade shows coming up - PhotoPlus (starts tomorrow) and the NAB New York (November, 9th-10th).

If it's not announced there, the next major show is CP+ in Japan in February.
 
Inevitable - it's a big seller for Canon.

I predict internal 4K 4:2:0.
No SDI port, just HDMI 2.0 with 4:2:2 uncompressed.
10 bit 4:2:2 2K / HD
Expanded Dual Pixel focus features like the C300 MK II !!
Similar specs as FS5 in other words but very useful dual pixel focus feature sets.
 
Last edited:
Doctor Wu said:
Inevitable - it's a big seller for Canon.

I predict internal 4K 4:2:0.
No SDI port, just HDMI 2.0 with 4:2:2 uncompressed.
10 bit 4:2:2 2K / HD
Expanded Dual Pixel focus features like the C300 MK II !!
Similar specs as FS5 in other words but very useful dual pixel focus feature sets.
Click to expand...

I know this is just speculation, but me likey.
 
Interesting marketing conundrum. The C300 MKII began life at what, $15,999.00? It is now dropped to $11,999.00? Many think it will be down to $10k by next year, which makes sense. I have to say, if the C100 MKIII was $8k, how many would NOT spend the extra $2k to get the additional features and reputation of the C300 MKII over the C100 MKIII? I have to say, before the C300 MKII came out, I bought the C100 MKI and paired it with the Ninja Blade because in my mind, the C100 MKI used the same sensor, I was and am still not crazy about the C300 MKI codec and the setup was a better value, at the time (this was well before C300 MKI prices plummeted). The C100 MKI + Ninja Blade actually shot a better codec for a lot less money. In shooting between the two cameras for the past two years, I much prefer shooting with the C100 over the 300 MKI, other than I obviously prefer the eyepiece on the C300 MKI. But from a marketing standpoint, NOT having the C300 has lost me some jobs, when out of town producers didn't want me to rent, they only wanted owner operator. Producers hear a buzzword like "C300 is a good camera" and trying to sell them on the fact that the C100 MKI + the Blade is a better setup has been futile, at times. For our next camera, I would not buy a C100 MKIII unless it was under $7k, I would easily spend the extra to acquire the C300 MKII unless they don't drop the price, as many think that they will, to $10k.

Any thoughts? What would you go for if the C100 MKIII was $6,999.00 and the C300 MKII was $9,999.00?
 
Last edited:
Has any C100 ever initially cost over $7k? The only real complaint about Canon is they are overpriced. I think even Canon would hesitate offering a new C100 with 4K for over $7K.

Just speaking for myself, I don't need 10-bit 2K or even any flavor 4K, but I'd sure love to play with it if it were offered in a stable, rock-solid Canon body that matched up well with my older C100's. Speaking just for me, it would have to be in the $5K to $6K zone for me to consider making such a "frivolous" purchase.
 
The original C300 is still retailing for $7K. Canon is refusing to lower the price, despite pressure from the dealers. I don't imagine the C300 II at $10K anytime soon, since it is a fairly new camera and has been lowered very recently by a significant margin. If the C300 II does go to $10K eventually, it will likely take back any market share that Canon lost to the FS7, which has been raised to $8500. It shows you how confident Sony is in its market position that they are raising prices at the same time that Canon is lowering them.

The problem is that the C300 II lacks any kind of 4K 60P output, an essential feature that no price drop can mitigate. Canon really dropped the ball on this one. It's hard to understand how they could overlook what is already offered in the C500. Admittedly, the C500 originally retailed for $30K and was Canon's flagship, so it is perhaps not a fair comparison.

You will also know a 4K C100 III is coming when Canon drops the price on the C300 I to $5K, where it belongs. Until then, I would not hold my breath, even though I have heard from Canon dealers that they expect a 4K C100 III sooner than later.
 
Last edited:
Kinok said:
...
The problem is that the C300 II lacks any kind of 4K 60P output, an essential feature that no price drop can mitigate. Canon really dropped the ball on this one. It's hard to understand how they could overlook what is already offered in the C500. Admittedly, the C500 originally retailed for $30K and was Canon's flagship, so it is perhaps not a fair comparison....
Click to expand...

Yes, and it requires an external recorder and two separate SSD's working in tandem to record 60p 4K. Also, not sure how essential 60p 4K is. Plenty of people have bought C300 MK2's knowing there's no 60p 4K, so I guess they don't consider it essential. Hell, I keep arguing any kind 4K isn't "essential." It's a nice tool, sure, but not essential unless the man with the money demands it.
 
Personally, I would have bought the C300 Mark II on Day 1 if it had 4K/60p...but without, I can't even consider the camera.

I know cameras used to cost zillions of dollars just for SD, but today - with that kind of price - 4K/60p makes some feel better about their investment...and the camera would have been so PERFECT with it.
 
drummondb said:
Yes, and it requires an external recorder and two separate SSD's working in tandem to record 60p 4K. Also, not sure how essential 60p 4K is. Plenty of people have bought C300 MK2's knowing there's no 60p 4K, so I guess they don't consider it essential. Hell, I keep arguing any kind 4K isn't "essential." It's a nice tool, sure, but not essential unless the man with the money demands it.
Click to expand...

Well, if the C300 II has been selling so well, then why would Canon drop the price on a relatively new camera?

The FS7 has 4K 60P and decent set of HFR options, all at a much lower price. There is no excuse for not offering the same options in the C300 II, including 4K 60P internal to their new XF-AVC codec (thus avoiding the 6 GB/s output problem through two SDIs).

I only mention the C500 to point out that Canon could have easily offered the same output option in the C300 II, but they chose not to for whatever reason. After all, the two cameras share the same 4 x 2K RGB image processing, SDI output, and Canon Cinema RAW format (RMF).

Btw, the Odyssey records 4K 60P from the C500 at an insane 700 MB/s, thus requiring 2 SSDs recording simultaneously. The footage is uncompressed RAW and of the highest quality imaginable for such HFR. Whether you or I consider it essential or not is beside the point. Those who require such features, or would simply like to have the option to shoot in 4K HFR, will simply skip the C300 II and go straight to Sony.
 
Last edited:
drummondb said:
Hell, I keep arguing any kind 4K isn't "essential."
Click to expand...
When you're shooting a 100 million dollar Hollywood movie, 4K is not essential because you're most likely using an Alexa. But when your shooting a $5,000-$100,000 corporate video/commercial/short film, 4K is somehow "essential." Weird how that works.
 
Last edited:
drummondb said:
Yes, and it requires an external recorder and two separate SSD's working in tandem to record 60p 4K. Also, not sure how essential 60p 4K is. Plenty of people have bought C300 MK2's knowing there's no 60p 4K, so I guess they don't consider it essential. Hell, I keep arguing any kind 4K isn't "essential." It's a nice tool, sure, but not essential unless the man with the money demands it.
Click to expand...

All of our needs are different. I hardly ever shoot high frame rates unless a job specifically needs it. I shot a series of commercials for LAUSD a couple of years ago and the directive specified "to be shot at 72-120 fps, shots of kids in a classroom, cheering" so we rented an F55 and shot it. But for my work, slow motion is rare, I mostly shoot EPK, BTS, marketing and web content for the studios and HFRs are just not needed much. So the C300 MKII missing 4K 60P wouldn't matter much to me. It would be very nice to have but I would never buy an FS-7 and it's very unpleasant colors, just to gain HFRs. In my scenario choosing between the C100 MKIII and the C300 MKII, if the C100 offered 4K 60p or higher frame rates, that would make it a tougher choice. But from a client perspective, I have never had a client ask for a Sony camera, but have had plenty ask for the C300.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
When you're shooting a 100 million dollar Hollywood movie, 4K is not essential because you're most likely using an Alexa. But when your shooting a $5,000-$100,000 corporate video/commercial/short film, 4K is somehow "essential." Weird how that works.
Click to expand...

That's largely because studios understand marketing better than most corporate clients. They know that the Alexa image is going to look beautiful when projected at 2K or 4K. Whereas corporate clients really just jump on the marketing bandwagon that 4K must be the best thing since sliced bread. I know, pretty dumb when 90% of corporate/commercial/short film is viewed on 4" phone screens almost exclusively these days. I used to worry a lot about people viewing our work on their 27" iMac or 15" laptop screens. Now I have been seeing lots of numbers and surveys and it is kind of interesting that most of our work is viewed mostly on phone screens on YouTube or Vimeo. That's why I am convinced that the push for 4K origination, the idiotic pursuit of 6K and 8K production gear is so dumb for most applications and most audiences. I am now convinced that super high resolutions are primarily an excuse to stall true camera innovation, which is a hell of a lot more expensive to innovate in than cranking up the lines of resolution. As in everything else, it's all about the money. Why spend hundreds of millions in pushing the boundaries of imaging technology (thank God a few like Lytro still are) when you can just order higher resolution imagers from your imager source and market the increased resolution as "innovative" and "bleeding edge"? (RED Helium, oh brother!) I am amazed more in our industry don't see what a lame marketing move increased resolution is. As witnessed by the Arri cameras, increasing resolution doesn't make the image look better, making the image look better is what matters. Better color fidelity, greater DR/latitude, those are what we should be pursuing.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
The C300 MKII began life at what, $15,999.00? It is now dropped to $11,999.00? Many think it will be down to $10k by next year, which makes sense.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the C300 MkII will eventually be priced at $10k, likely by NAB. Canon became a discounter, why they cut the price of the C300 rather than discontinuing it is disappointing. They turned their backs on owner operators who need decent resale value in order to continue to invest. Buying into Canon after two discount cycles makes sense for me. Even at $6999 the C500 is still in stock. If they are in stock by NAB 2017 expect a blow out. I am looking to add one or two bodies and waiting for a possible blow out of remaining C300 Mk1 stock by the end of the year.

If a C100MKIII comes out in the next month or so I would be very interested.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
When you're shooting a 100 million dollar Hollywood movie, 4K is not essential because you're most likely using an Alexa. But when your shooting a $5,000-$100,000 corporate video/commercial/short film, 4K is somehow "essential." Weird how that works.
Click to expand...

So weird, in fact, that it might not be totally accurate. :smile:

How is 4K essential to you on $5,000-$100,000 corporate videos commercials, and short films?

I'm genuinely curious, and I'm not wholly uneducated on the matter. I run the video team of a Corporation with several hundred million in sales each year. I have done since 2010. I've worked on hundreds of projects with all kinds of budgets from zero dollars to 5 figures. And I've coordinated with outside agencies occasionally on much larger-budgeted national spots. And no one above me has ever asked about 4K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top