Yeah, absolutely... but that C300 Mark III/C400 is now like $7500 so the actual pricing did scale down with the expectations.Yep. But I guess it’s all relative to what you’re used to buying and the market segment(s) you serve. When the OG C300 came out, people in my world thought they were an absolute steal. ~$15K(and you could use “cheap” still lenses) vs. $40K-$100K (+$20K-$30K a pop broadcast zoom lenses) for VariCam’s and F900’s.
But that was well over a decade ago, and the overall business has had a shift and reset. The market still exists for $40k+ cameras, but it’s arguably much smaller now, with quality dedicated video cameras existing that only cost ~$5K-$15K and hybrids that only cost a couple $K, that can do a lot of what we used to use those for. And with that, the expectations from many people today and what they are generally willing to pay for equipment isn’t what it used to be. A ~$15K camera with the capabilities of the C300/Fs7 was considered a bargain a decade ago. Today, outside of the high-end, a ~$15K camera (with even higher specs and more features) is often considered “too expensive”.
I haven't used a C400 and likely won't because I really hate dual slots of different types and speed capabilities because I dual record nearly everything I do... but it seems like a hell of an entry at $7500. The C500 Mark II at $6500 is a REALLY good deal. I've seen new C300 Mark IIIs for $5k. Those are all extremely compelling.
Could you sell the C300 Mark III for $15k now? No... but Canon never did that that I know of. I think it launched at $10k with the C500 Mark II at $15k.
And I get it, you can get an R5 or Sony A7 variant for $2000 or so and make some gorgeous footage... but there is something to be said for the real cine cameras and how easy they are to handle under pressure. Most probably won't pay for that, but I respect it. I don't look down on anyone who doesn't tho.