open letter to CANON: A new strategy

[jdv]

Exactly. It made sense for Canon DSLR owners to wait until now, b/c one could reasonably expect either a Mark III with the improvements 99% of users want (4:2:2, SDI, reduced moire) or something like the x105 with a S35 chip.

Now, those of us who have been using the Mark II/T2/7D et al as a stop gap have little choice but to look to non-Canon products.

I'll likely keep a couple of pieces of Canon glass, my T2i stuff, and sell the rest. Looks like I'm going to have re-read that AF100 v FS100 thread again... Oy.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

That's the dilemma. Many 7D/5D shooters, like myself, have an EF lenscollection that gathers dust when it comes to video shooting. But there's also a contradiction in that EF lenses are not meant to shoot video with. Endless focus ring, focus breathing, focus by wire in some. I like my Voigtländer lenses better when it comes to video.

I'd love to have PL lenses but honestly I can't afford superspeed primes that is as fast as the still lenses I have. On top of that I like to shoot still images with my 5D and EF lenses so I want to keep these.

So I'm not moving anytime soon and will continue to shoot with my AF101 and Voigtländer glass. All paid for and acting as a money-making-machine.

 

[frantick]

I guess my main gripe, is that it wasn't the 150 ASC's Canon consulted that got Canon to the table (nothing against them), it was the thousands of indie'ers that discovered the 5D/7D/T2i's potential. The ASC's saw what their upcoming competition was, and THEN joined the party.

I realize I can't build this camera, so I shouldn't be whining, but it'd be interesting to see what the actual parts COST is of the C300, like they do with cell phones/iPADS. Since most of it's features have been established for at least a decade now, it can't be much. I realize R&D has to factor in. Kind of reminds me of The Emperors New Clothes.

I guess I'll just wait another 3 years for this 'last-years' technology to 'trickle down' to my price range.

-cp

 

[starcentral]

The best letter should read like this,

"Dear Canon, but the time you read this I will be an X customer...."

(where X is your choice of either the Sony F3 or RED camera).




Seriously though the problem here is everyone wants the best of every world. ie: use this glass here AND there, c'mon guys we never have everything we want... its been like that for years.

 

[maranfilms]

You cannot be serious, can you?

I was only kidding, thats why I had the smiley face at the end

 

[frantick]

My letter would say:

"Dear Canon, would you rather sell 200,000 @ $8,500 or 50,000 @ $16,000?"

Maybe they don't have the resources to produce that many, but I'm sure they would sell.

Did I mention that, even with it's limitations, THIS IS MY DREAM CAMERA!

-cp

 

[combatentropy]

Dear Canon, would you rather sell 200,000 @ $8,500 or 50,000 @ $16,000?

That's a good point. There is a price for everything that nets you the most money. If you charge $1 million, you will make $0, because you sell zero. If you charge exactly what it costs to make, you will also, obviously, make $0. Somewhere in between is the ideal price.

Although some say that those asking for a lower price are just whining, I think that what has gone largely unarticulated is that we're actually rooting for Canon's success (maybe secondarily, but still...). We believe --- perhaps mistakenly --- that if they cleave the price the number sold will more than make up the difference and that Canon should --- again we don't have X-ray vision into their manufacturing costs but we do have hunches based on products already out there --- that Canon should actually come out ahead if they lowered the price of each unit.

 

[jdv]

Oh they won't sell anything near 50,000 units at that price. And it's $20 K, not 16. I'm sure rental houses will pick some of these cams up, but where will the demand come from? Again, bigger shows will want something like an Alexa or RED EPIC, and smaller shows will want to rent something cheaper - either a scarlet or F3.

And it's about much more than unit sales of any one model of camera - it's about lenses. Not only will Canon lose sales on lenses they would have made if they had a $5K and 10K camera, many of the current Canon owners won't be buying anymore glass for their existing cameras. Simply put, many be looking to unload the Canon glass/cameras they have, and will be buying whatever lenses work best with Sony or Panny (which by default eliminates Canon glass).

Thus in one fell stroke, Canon has alienated both new potential buyers and those who've already invested a chunk of change in their products - neither of whom is likely to be buying more Canon glass anytime soon.

 

[f64manray]

that's the hugest issue i have. the no budget dudes with the real stories and imagination were the ones that made this happen, and they (we) are the ones that are getting bitten. How long do we have to wait on this dslr to materialize when its not that hard make. jeez. I have no prob with the new high budget cams....i dont care. Its all good for digital filmakers and more variety...but the very camera and people that brought about this revolution seems will be an afterthought.

I don't think it is an afterthought. It really does take time to get things right in R&D. Even canon has said that the C300 is as it is because they wanted to get in the market NOW and offer something. The only thing that is cutting edge on the C300 is the sensor. The "C" Dslr will be released in 2012. If you want cutting edge technology, I think you'll need to look to the photo division ...except for a headphone jack of course. Apparently they only see over there and are deaf. Even so some respected people in this forum liken the IQ to Alexa from the C300. So, the price performance barrier has been broken yet again. IQ that was at $50-60K can now be had for $20K. But yes, I would sign the petition as it would not sell to me at $20K. I'm also kinda waiting for the "C" DSLR to fall from the Canon tree.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Oh they won't sell anything near 50,000 units at that price. And it's $20 K, not 16. I'm sure rental houses will pick some of these cams up, but where will the demand come from? Again, bigger shows will want something like an Alexa or RED EPIC, and smaller shows will want to rent something cheaper - either a scarlet or F3.

And it's about much more than unit sales of any one model of camera - it's about lenses. Not only will Canon lose sales on lenses they would have made if they had a $5K and 10K camera, many of the current Canon owners won't be buying anymore glass for their existing cameras. Simply put, many be looking to unload the Canon glass/cameras they have, and will be buying whatever lenses work best with Sony or Panny (which by default eliminates Canon glass).

Thus in one fell stroke, Canon has alienated both new potential buyers and those who've already invested a chunk of change in their products - neither of whom is likely to be buying more Canon glass anytime soon.

In fairness, the Scarlet-X has a pretty robust EF lens mount, far superior to the capability of the one on the C300 it sounds. There will be many people using Canon lens with the Scarlet-X.

Also, all we know is Canon has said $20k but that the price was not set in stone, there is a lot of TBA going on. Given these words from Canon, now is the time for people to speak up about how they feel about the price and the justifications they feel one way or another. It's not like Canon isn't a big company with an incredible number of talented and intelligent people, because they certainly are and I have a huge amount of respect for them in many ways. All that said, given they have no fixed price either, it is clear to me that they are trying to determine what that sweet spot is as well.

Just hypothetically speaking, if they announce one price and then come in quite a bit under it, how many people do you think would be absolutely thrilled with them? And the further they come down from $20k, the more people will join in on that.

As many have stated, most of us want Canon to be successful and want to continue to be customers of theirs. We want to be a part of their future. At the same time, there are those who can subjectively look at a product with both an artistic viewpoint and a technical viewpoint that see a bunch of numbers that don't make a lot of sense. And the truth is value is not based on cost alone, it's based on perceptive judgement as well. Obviously Canon is a business, and they'd like to make a decent profit on their efforts, like every other company in the world practically. I don't fault them for that either. But I also feel, as many others do, that the price for the technology seems very off. I'm doing my part to raise my voice in saying hey, I really would like to use your camera, but I can't accept the price per technology. That's all. And after reading words straight from Canon, I believe fully that they were aware this situation would exist and the price point they are thinking is clearly out of the huge number of their users price ranges. It's the reason that you see "Just remember, this is just the first of our cameras" that shows up from them in many correspondences.

When they set that final price, I want to be part of the voices that maybe guides them in taking the profit down a bit to expand the user base. If they know there is a decent number of people who $10k is reasonable to them, maybe it doesn't make it that low, but maybe a lot closer. It's at least a metric for them to consider.

 

[yoclay]

My guess is that when all is said and done this camera will settle in at about 15K. Why? Because that would put it exactly on par with the market for the F3 and a fully configured Scarlet. At that point it becomes a choice of workflow and system logic.

 

[Nuno Dias]

Please don't take offense, but this discussion is far too ridiculous and too amateur for me to enjoy participating in.

Sadly, this wonderful forum is looking more and more like Cinema 5D...

People here clearly can't distinguish a good picture from a bad picture. Its all about numbers. Especially when they don't mean s**t to the picture. Some people here moan about price and specs, but they not only would never buy one, but they wouldn't know what to do with it. Because all they will do is shoot the cat in the street, do low light tests or shoot static shots of trees!

Its sad. And annoying.

And yes, as much as it hurts to hear, Red is the mother of all amateur cameras. Jim sure knows how to lead the blind.

 

[HHL]

Please don't take offense, but this discussion is far too ridiculous and too amateur for me to enjoy participating in.

Sadly, this wonderful forum is looking more and more like Cinema 5D...

People here clearly can't distinguish a good picture from a bad picture. Its all about numbers. Especially when they don't mean s**t to the picture. Some people here moan about price and specs, but they not only would never buy one, but they wouldn't know what to do with it. Because all they will do is shoot the cat in the street, do low light tests or shoot static shots of trees!

Its sad. And annoying.

And yes, as much as it hurts to hear, Red is the mother of all amateur cameras. Jim sure knows how to lead the blind.

True. I am an amateur. Yes, the number 20K matters to me when compared to 14K....especially when it is at about half the specs. Cheers!

 

[Stephen Mick]

And as I posted in another thread…

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you're unimpressed by the camera, the specs or the price, feel free to move along. But openly questioning and criticizing the ethics and motivations of other professionals will earn you a vacation from DVXUser, either temporary or permanent.

 

[Stu Siegal]

When they set that final price, I want to be part of the voices that maybe guides them in taking the profit down a bit to expand the user base. If they know there is a decent number of people who $10k is reasonable to them, maybe it doesn't make it that low, but maybe a lot closer. It's at least a metric for them to consider.

Rick, well said, respect you for taking the initiative here, happy to sign.

 

[Danielvilliers]

Please don't take offense, but this discussion is far too ridiculous and too amateur for me to enjoy participating in.

Sadly, this wonderful forum is looking more and more like Cinema 5D...

People here clearly can't distinguish a good picture from a bad picture. Its all about numbers. Especially when they don't mean s**t to the picture. Some people here moan about price and specs, but they not only would never buy one, but they wouldn't know what to do with it. Because all they will do is shoot the cat in the street, do low light tests or shoot static shots of trees!

Its sad. And annoying.

And yes, as much as it hurts to hear, Red is the mother of all amateur cameras. Jim sure knows how to lead the blind.

You wrote something before about the artist and the technical side. You have to remember that artist always care for his tool because it will help his creativity. How I always complain that I would have liked to be a writer, just a pen and paper to express all my thoughts. Unfortunately I have to use cameras (pro photographer), but I have to know the qualities or limit of my tool. The better it is the more it will help me to create . I like to have the flexibly to post process even if I take great pride in my lighting skill. It just enhances what I can do. It is just amateur photographers that think that photographers just shoot. Every great photographers in the history have had great printers to enhance their photograph from the start. Choosing your development time in Black and white photography is post processing. For me it is not doing one lifetime photo once in a while but everyday that I shoot.

Now saying that 'Red is the mother of all amateur camera' shows your bias, sorry I really dislike the techno jumbo and Messiah promise land that has gone with red, but please this is far far from reality.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Please don't take offense, but this discussion is far too ridiculous and too amateur for me to enjoy participating in.

Sadly, this wonderful forum is looking more and more like Cinema 5D...

People here clearly can't distinguish a good picture from a bad picture. Its all about numbers. Especially when they don't mean s**t to the picture. Some people here moan about price and specs, but they not only would never buy one, but they wouldn't know what to do with it. Because all they will do is shoot the cat in the street, do low light tests or shoot static shots of trees!

Its sad. And annoying.

And yes, as much as it hurts to hear, Red is the mother of all amateur cameras. Jim sure knows how to lead the blind.

I don't believe anyone here has said the C300 shoots a bad picture, I know I certainly didn't. From what I have seen, the imagery looks great. That said, thinking that the C300 is a magical camera that is going to work in all possible scenarios and in certain conditions is basically lying to yourself. Did I show myself shooting a cat in a street? Doing low light tests? Shooting static trees? No, I did not.

Part of my job as a technical director in our productions is to determine where and when a camera can be used. Would I shoot with a 7D attached to a car as it is moving with a non-wide lens? Absolutely not. I've tested which lens combinations with the 7D work okay and which exhibit too much jello.

What about a scene where there are highlights blown out? Should I just shoot the FS100, or test it first and modify the settings to get a smoother roll-off.

What about shooting in urban settings with a 7D, don't you think it would be important for me to test the camera, which I did early on, and find out that Moire was a huge problem with bricks? That's what a responsible person does who is in charge of understanding the technology. When I am not on set helping to make cinematic decisions, I am in the studio making sure I understand where the cameras we are using shine, and where they fall down. I'm testing which rigs work well, and which require rethinking when a new camera is too heavy for an old setup, or the weight distribution is off.

When I've got tons of people on set, if the camera can't handle something and I didn't know it, I am to blame, because there was no reason for me to not know that?

Even the users of the C300 has to change their approach to green screening because the bleed of the key color into the other parts of the image. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm saying it is something they had to learn to use the camera differently, and something they need to know if they were on a set filming under a big budget. They had to understand the technology.

If these things aren't important to you, or you can't understand why people use specs to give them a rough understanding of what to expect, then this isn't the conversation for you. If someone tells me a camera has a read/reset of 25ms on S35, I know what to expect on rolling shutter. It's pretty bad. If a camera has 12ms, I know that I can get away with non-stabilized hand-held up to about 85mm and still get an acceptable picture. Why? Because I've tested cameras with these specs so when someone hands me another camera to use, I quickly look up the specs so I have a rough understanding of what to expect. It hasn't failed me yet.

Do you just ignore the professionals that are also baffled by the price of the C300? I even quoted from an article which you posted saying that price seemed wrong.

And I hate to break it to you, but when it comes to microelectronic design, I am NOT an amateur. I have no clue what your background in hardware and software design is, but I DEFINITELY know my background. Sure, a good picture is important, but a good picture also doesn't set a quantifiable price either on the value of a piece of hardware. A camera is a tool, and the value of a tool is certainly subjective to many different parameters. I recognize that. Most people here seem to recognize that. You seem to only want to focus on ONE aspect of the camera, which is the picture quality. Hey, that's your choice. But being disrespectful of the people here and making assumptions about their capabilities or experience just because you don't agree with them doesn't really help your viewpoint.

And definitely claiming that RED is amateur, be sure to let all the professionals using Red products know this. Also, be sure to let Peter Jackson know, the people filming various televisions shows, and well, I really don't have time to list all the productions. I think you really need to research your facts before making statements that make about as much sense as Canon's pricing.

 

[Danielvilliers]

I don't think I did any personal attack to anybody. I did not state any name, I just wanted to state a simple principal, that any company marketing is going to say that their product is good, better and best and to take it for what it is. It is marketing and not necessarily truth. I did mention that I really like the Laforet short, which exact word was 'impressed'.

 

[Stephen Mick]

I don't think I did any personal attack to anybody. I did not state any name, I just wanted to state a simple principal, that any company marketing is going to say that their product is good, better and best and to take it for what it is. It is marketing and not necessarily truth. I did mention that I really like the Laforet short, which exact word was 'impressed'.

As I said…move along.

 

[starcentral]

That's a good point. There is a price for everything that nets you the most money. If you charge $1 million, you will make $0, because you sell zero. If you charge exactly what it costs to make, you will also, obviously, make $0. Somewhere in between is the ideal price.

Although some say that those asking for a lower price are just whining, I think that what has gone largely unarticulated is that we're actually rooting for Canon's success (maybe secondarily, but still...). We believe --- perhaps mistakenly --- that if they cleave the price the number sold will more than make up the difference and that Canon should --- again we don't have X-ray vision into their manufacturing costs but we do have hunches based on products already out there --- that Canon should actually come out ahead if they lowered the price of each unit.

I agree with this for sure, but I also think for ONCE Canon should have been FIRST in this market not last like every time all the time, each and every time.

To put it bluntly, what a bunch of friggin idiots. In 2008 they accidentally stumble across a revolution and evolution in 35mm digital film making with the 7D/5D only SHORTLY behind RED's launch of Red One in 2007... if things aren't obvious enough they are selling a ton of GLASS in the meantime and then decide to wait 3-4 years to sell a 35mm sensor video camera while other manufacturers come out with large sensor cameras ahead of them?

Seriously, who's left now that hasn't already bought a AF100, Red, F3, FS100, 5D, 7D..... that's going to find it in their heart to buy the C300 now? What market share is left? I bought my F3 and I'm done now.