New Cinema EOS camera announcement

dustylense said:
Then you my friend have no concepts of economics. I bought the original 5d bak in 06 for $3200. The dollar being much stronger in 06. How is that dollar doing today?
Click to expand...

I have a pretty good understanding of economics, thanks. Your post wasn't clear. I had no idea you were talking about USD/JPY fluctuations (given you said nothing about exchange rates or inflation or anything else). "How much would that camera have cost 5 maybe 6 years ago?" is a pretty broad question, to the say the least. In any case, there's a multitude of possible factors at play with regard to pricing, so chalking it up to just the forex rate is probably being overly simplistic.
 
J Davis said:
*by vertical you mean portrait (vertical) and landscape (horizontal) is the terminology
Click to expand...

Yes. I mean as a multimedia wonk I'm constantly searching for the 'ONE' magic orientation to shoot in for multiple deliveries. Used to be 'SQUARE' but increasingly seems to be 'Landscape'. It's a paradigm shift in that it's possible that all image capture will someday be in landscape format, since i predict that most captured images will be video not stills at all. So stills will be relegated to 2D art that ends up on walls, gallery walls mostly and some homes. Case in point. I have NO photos on my walls, only paintings.
 
arroway said:
My disappointment lies in Canon not releasing anything in the 5DM2-FS100 segment that comes anywhere close to the innovative quantum leap of the original 5DM2. This disappointment is amplified when they institute price hikes while simultaneously hamstringing their lower tier items for no other reason then to protect their new upmarket items. Can you really not see why this would leave a sour taste in some people's mouths?

If they can get away with it, if that's what the market will bear...more power to them. Business is business. I might even buy a 5DM3 if nothing else better comes along in the next six months or so.

But I'm still going to root against them on principle.
Click to expand...

some background reading would be helpful to so many in these forums that seem to think that cancer research and technology innovation life-cycles ought to deliver results on a schedule.
I suggest "The Breakthrough Imperative" as a start. Reading some passages will 'set you free'
 
dustylense said:
The dollar being much stronger in 06.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the 'bargain' aspect of a purchase is strongly related to what the real cost is in relation to the buying power of your currency. However, it is not a reflection of the pricepoint, which is what many here are asking about. I've said it before that pricepoint is driven by numerous factors. The most conspicuous is "What the market will bear". That principal has been the basis for my fee structure for decades. Less conspicuous is the notion that these cameras are limited editions, with a clear view to obsolescence in a given time frame. This aspect is very post 1990. I've said this before as well.
It's pointless griping about the price-point of ANYTHING. That's why it's called a pricepoint. Either a person can afford it or not.
What i find most amusing (not related to your quote or posts) is that so many 'of us' feel that we're entitled to Champagne even at a Ginger Ale price-point.
I see this ONLY in America. Everyone seems to be chasing the $1.00 happy meal here.
Good luck all.
 
it really sucks that canon released the c300 for $16,000 because it does eliminate their ability to create a competitive low cost option. i would have paid the same $3500 amount for a 5d mark III type cinema camera that eliminated the pro still photography features and added pro videography features like RAW/or uncompressed hdmi out, xlr audio in, maybe an articulating screen? how cool would that have been to have the 5d mark III photo and the 5d mark III cinema? these are all obviously things they could have had at that price point if they hadn't priced the c300 so high...
..anyways, i'm curious to see what this new dslr could be because the video features have to be better than the 5d mark III if it's going to be more expensive than the 5d, but they can't be better than the c300 if it's going to be less expensive than the c300. so what is the middle ground between those two? it isn't 4k unless they cripple the hell out of it to make it worse than the c300.. how would they do that? give it a terrible codec? it doesn't seem like there really is any middle ground? the 5d mark III already has what some might consider a big advantage to the c300 with it's larger sensor.. some could argue that all the features that the c300 adds actually still leave it inferior to the new full frame 5d mark III. such an odd mix of cameras.

very odd. we'll see what they do, but i think the best we can hope for, and what would actually make me really happy is if they release a more cinema oriented version of the 5d for around the same price. perhaps they figure that the PL mount and access to their $45,000 lenses justifies the increase in price for the c300, and thus, they will trickle most of the other great video features down to a much less expensive dslr... think about the great line of video camera that canon used to have? there was the gl1, the xl1, and all these other "video" cameras that were priced between $2,000 and $6,000... now the only really viable "video" focused option is the $16,000 c300. everything else viable for "cinema" work is a photography first dslr. very very odd. they need a low cost "cinema/video" focused camera. stop effing around. something in the few thousand dollar range. it is so perverted what their line has become. they need to bite the bullet and release a good low cost cinema/video camera. the technology is becoming affordable and inexpensive enough that projects like the digital bolex are now getting off the ground. imagine what canon would have done if scarlet hadn't quadrupled in price. what would they have done if the scarlet had stayed less than $5k? i'll tell you what they would have done, they would have been forced to slash the 1 off of the price of the c300, and make it $6,000 which is probably the price there were initially shooting for when they feared the scarlet would meet it's original price point of $3,000. i can imagine the board meeting where canon's corporate spies reported that the scarlet was now going to be closer to $20,000 for a workable set-up. i can picture the person in charge of pricing breathing a sigh of relief, wiping his sweaty brow, and adding a "1" to the listed price on the poster infront of him.
 
Here's how these nasty Biz Dev people inside the camera companies think:
1) Other than the Pro market, everyone else is a sucker for sexy gear
3) Introduce the High and Low(er) ends of the option scale first. $16,000 & $3,500 hobble the middle
4) watch as the suckers spend millions of hours scratching their heads and emptying out their piggy banks to be 'first in line'
5) steal all the free feedback off the forums
6) incorporate the free feedback into the sweet-spot middle ware
7) release the middle range at $6,000-$7,000
8) sit back, relax and watch the first adopters of line 3) squirm and chafe with frustration and remorse.
I say cancel all pre-orders till after April 30th.
 
Where's line 2?

And I don't know if your assessment is far off accuracy, although it's certainly phrased cynically. For Canon, I predict fully that within a year or so we should see a C100, at the $6k-$7k price point, which will be the camera that most of our membership here would want. Maybe a fixed-lens C300, maybe a 2K-chip version in the way that the XF100 is a single-chip version of the XF300, I don't know. But yes obviously at some point, somewhere along the way, Canon would likely introduce a lower-cost C100, in the same way the XHA1 was a lower-cost version of the XLH1, and the GL2 was a lower-cost alternative to the XL2, etc.

As for cancelling all pre-orders until after a certain date, my stock advice is: don't buy anything at all, until you NEED it. Don't buy because it's fashionable, or new, or because there's heavy marketing. Just wait until the products you're using no longer do what you need, or until some new product adds some new capability that you can make a business case for exploiting. And then buy whatever the best is, that you can afford, at that time, and move on...
 
Don't buy anything until you SEE unadulterated footage out of the camera. If you have to hire one first then so be it. Buying a camera after watching some youtube videos is completely nuts.
 
Canon did say at the November launch that next out of the shoot would be a 4K version of the C300 for more money and then a smaller unit with a fixed zoom for less money.....That being said, I do think we'll see another 'C" series before the end of the year. I'm guessing here that the line up will end up being a camera available at 3 price points......$8000 - 10,000 for the basic unit, the C300 at $16,000, and a 4K version near $30K.....all with the same 4K chip. As for the announcement on April 15th, I think it will be the 4K DSLR that was shown at the Paramount event......just me guessing.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
Jim Martin said:
Canon did say at the November launch that next out of the shoot would be a 4K version of the C300 for more money and then a smaller unit with a fixed zoom for less money.....That being said, I do think we'll see another 'C" series before the end of the year. I'm guessing here that the line up will end up being a camera available at 3 price points......$8000 - 10,000 for the basic unit, the C300 at $16,000, and a 4K version near $30K.....all with the same 4K chip. As for the announcement on April 15th, I think it will be the 4K DSLR that was shown at the Paramount event......just me guessing.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
Click to expand...

Are speaking of the 4K chip in the glass case? Wasn't that to be for the new 1D camera and although 4K, it would be Motion JPEG video? Or was it 4 streams of 1K?
 
fannyslacks said:
it really sucks that canon released the c300 for $16,000 because it does eliminate their ability to create a competitive low cost option. i would have paid the same $3500 amount for a 5d mark III type cinema camera that eliminated the pro still photography features and added pro videography features like RAW/or uncompressed hdmi out, xlr audio in, maybe an articulating screen? how cool would that have been to have the 5d mark III photo and the 5d mark III cinema? these are all obviously things they could have had at that price point if they hadn't priced the c300 so high...
Click to expand...

To be honest (as a C300 owner I might be biased) I don´t think technology isn´t there yet to fit all you want into a DSLR body for 3500.
Looking at and holding the C300 and hearing its fan I am pretty sure there is some serious processing going on that you can´t fit into a body half the size (yet). Add the external XLRs etc and you see the 5D would have to be....well..the C300 which would alienate the still-shooters and after all they do buy the 5D more than the filters do.
 
One more thing about the price: go and hold a C300 and look at the details that went into this body.....I´d say 2.000 to 3.000 of the price go into the development of the body and its ergonomics. The 5D can be so cheap, because the body is ancient.
 
alpi69 said:
To be honest (as a C300 owner I might be biased) I don´t think technology isn´t there yet to fit all you want into a DSLR body for 3500.
Looking at and holding the C300 and hearing its fan I am pretty sure there is some serious processing going on that you can´t fit into a body half the size (yet). Add the external XLRs etc and you see the 5D would have to be....well..the C300 which would alienate the still-shooters and after all they do buy the 5D more than the filters do.
Click to expand...

Well. I'm a technologist and Innovation manager so believe me, it will be possible in time to fit C300 tech into DSLR form factor. A recent news blurb about the smallest circuit recently achieved ( 1 molecule diameter) means that Moore's law is in full force and the consequence is smaller and easier to cool processors > faster cheaper processing = more happiness for all :)
 
BTW. I've had my head in the sand for 10 years it seems. Stopped bye at Best Buy to grab a camera or two and found PLASTIC bodies.. Is this the new norm??
I cannot contemplate upgrading to a DSLR camera that's more fragile than my old point and shoot. Yuck!
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Yes. I mean as a multimedia wonk I'm constantly searching for the 'ONE' magic orientation to shoot in for multiple deliveries. Used to be 'SQUARE' but increasingly seems to be 'Landscape'. It's a paradigm shift in that it's possible that all image capture will someday be in landscape format, since i predict that most captured images will be video not stills at all. So stills will be relegated to 2D art that ends up on walls, gallery walls mostly and some homes. Case in point. I have NO photos on my walls, only paintings.
Click to expand...

Photos are going nowhere, & there's more need for them now then ever. Same with motion.

Different mediums with different strengths.

But increasingly the orientation, & aspect ratio, is dictated by the electronic device it's to be displayed on.
 
Bern Caughey said:
But increasingly the orientation, & aspect ratio, is dictated by the electronic device it's to be displayed on.
Click to expand...

Agree with Bern. Increasingly the device itself is changing shape. Handheld devices rotate and desktops don't. Websites now must morph to be portrait as well as landscape.
 
J Davis said:
Agree with Bern. Increasingly the device itself is changing shape. Handheld devices rotate and desktops don't. Websites now must morph to be portrait as well as landscape.
Click to expand...

BUT where is mass image distribution? let's see:
- up till 2001 it was Print & TV. Let's analyze those for a minute.
Print = Posters (both vertical & Horizontal) mostly in Public venues, magazines and books (99% 8.5"X11" closed and tabloid horizontal opened up), personal and exhibit prints.
TV = SD 3:4 Horizontal
- 2001-2012 Internet + TV.Let's analyze those for a minute.
- Internet Websites (10%-30% global market penetration) 90% Horizontal format on home page (balance of verticals in scroll "below the fold")
TV = 50% SD 3:4 Horizonal 50% widescreen SD & HD landscape
Of the Internet, an increasing share is going to wireless handhelds from smartphones to tablets.
I would shoot everything in landscape format and only shoot 'portrait' for a pre-funded project that calls for it. probably a portrait sitting, though more and more, the landscape format has changed how we portray people.
Since all lenses create a round image anyway, there's no reason we can't have a Hasselblad sized sensor for HD video and simply choose, H or V format for the captures :)
 
Zephyrnoid said:
BUT where is mass image distribution? let's see:
- up till 2001 it was Print & TV. Let's analyze those for a minute.
Print = Posters (both vertical & Horizontal) mostly in Public venues, magazines and books (99% 8.5"X11" closed and tabloid horizontal opened up), personal and exhibit prints.
TV = SD 3:4 Horizontal
- 2001-2012 Internet + TV.Let's analyze those for a minute.
- Internet Websites (10%-30% global market penetration) 90% Horizontal format on home page (balance of verticals in scroll "below the fold")
TV = 50% SD 3:4 Horizonal 50% widescreen SD & HD landscape
Of the Internet, an increasing share is going to wireless handhelds from smartphones to tablets.
I would shoot everything in landscape format and only shoot 'portrait' for a pre-funded project that calls for it. probably a portrait sitting, though more and more, the landscape format has changed how we portray people.
Since all lenses create a round image anyway, there's no reason we can't have a Hasselblad sized sensor for HD video and simply choose, H or V format for the captures :)
Click to expand...

Or shoot higher rez and crop to the format you need and account for both types of uses. I've seen this done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top