C200: The Canon C200 Petition

I think a lot of people would be happy with a true burger analogy in the camera world. By that I mean the ability to add extras at an increased price. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pay an extra $400 and get a 10bit codec?

The frustration is not because of cost it is because of Canon leaving the feature out and not giving the option unless you buy an entirely different and higher priced camera. To reverse the analogy, what if McDonalds decided to eliminate cheese from the quarter pounder in an effort to sell more big macs? How well do you think that would go over in the marketplace? But somehow this behavior is o.k. in the camera world?

I agree it is an entitled attitude to say a private company should do something. They have every right to succeed or go down in flames if they choose to. But that does not mean it is good behavior or that people can not be unhappy with it.
 
If the petition is providing feedback to Canon as to what its customers want, why is this a bad thing? If I were Canon, I'd see this as a great opportunity to save money, gain customers, and increase sales.

Under no circumstances do I think Canon "owes" anyone anything, and they should be free to make and sell whatever they wish, but their old-fashioned business tactics will bite them in the derrière.

Also, I would have worded the petition differently, so I'm not holding this particular petition up as how best to convey your needs to a large company.
 
For many reasons, I think automotive comparisons are far more accurate and useful than hamburgers when it comes to cameras and their features.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think a lot of people would be happy with a true burger analogy in the camera world. By that I mean the ability to add extras at an increased price. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pay an extra $400 and get a 10bit codec?
Click to expand...
That's what the Arri Amira does with it's different paid firmware updates. But people still complain about having to spend $5-10k for a firmware file that is less than one megabyte.
 
Mitch Gross said:
For many reasons, I think automotive comparisons are far more accurate and useful than hamburgers when it comes to cameras and their features.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but burgers are funnier. Or, in Rome, do as the romans. Somehow, burgers represent the appropriate level of this discussion....

Bassman2003 said:
To reverse the analogy, what if McDonalds decided to eliminate cheese from the quarter pounder in an effort to sell more big macs?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that isn't what is happening here. The C100 or C200 camera lines never had any cheese to strip away. They are the entry level cameras priced against their entry level feature set.

Canon tested the waters somewhat with the C500. But they didn't particularly hold the C300 mkII back to drive sales to the C500.

I don't necessarily feel like "defending" Canon, but I just don't buy into that whole cynical way of thinking. I understand the concept of a multi tiered approach of entry level, work horse and full pro. We might not agree on how Canon (in this case) shall split the features over the tiers, but it's not up to us. If Canon leaves too much on the table, other companies can act and sweep those potential customers into the fold.

I guess what we all DO agree on, is what features would be nice to have in a camera.
 
I agree the camera market is set in stone the way it is. I find I am all too happy to ***** about Canon as they have disappointed me a lot in the past five+ years. More power to 'em. I think the C200 with a 10bit 4:2:2 mp4 codec would be about the closest anybody has come to a perfect large sensor workhorse camera. A normal person would think they might want that crown.

It would be more palatable to me if the differentiated with sensors rather than features. We all need features but can work with varying levels of sensor image quality. Pay up for the better sensor but let me, the buyer of the workhorse camera have a beefy codec to work with. Or a great viewfinder. Or 24bit audio etc... But sensors are where they get their economy of scale so that is not their approach. Anyway, no point in discussing impossible scenarios.
 
AndreeOnline said:
... Nah, your example here, relating to this story, is more like a customer going to BK asking for a ribeye between the buns. I am 100% sure that Canon will let you buy a C300 mkII if that is the feature set you want. As a customer you need to pick from options up for sale. You can't just say "But, I WANT..." …unless you are one of my 6-8 year old daughters. They still try to pull tricks like that. But they will grow out of it..."
Click to expand...
No, a rib eye or a higher grade meat is an additional marginal cost. A 10-bit vs. 8-bit codec practically has no marginal cost difference on this level camera. It does at the bottom end but not at $7,500. As to "have it your way", it was a BK main PR campaign of a decade ago. You want pickles and onions? - have it your way. They're not worried about someone wanting a large order of fries for the price of the small one.

puredrifting said:
... the cameras may change, but the company and its mindset remain the same.
Click to expand...
That's right. Unless there's a great market disturbance, the relationships between these conglomerates will remain relatively constant. There have been rumors about Fujinon taking over Nikon or them cooperating in some way but it's one of those 'we'll believe when we see it" situations.

As a side note, if I were Jannard/Land, I'd try to use their high end sensors on a still/hybrid camera and their old sensors on a fixed lens series of models rather than on a smartphone.

puredrifting said:
I learned all about this when I produced a Drifting documentary in 2004. American race fans were mortified that in the Japanese form of sanctioned drifting, called D1, the judges are often employed by the same corporations sponsoring the cars/teams/drivers. If you don't know the sport, Drifting is scored very much like figure skating, it's not racing, it's scored on a performance. Totally subjective. And the big sponsored cars and drivers almost always win at D1 events. No underdogs, no upstarts. Few upsets...
Click to expand...
I know nothing about drifting, aside of a few clips here and there, but it doesn't surprise me one bit. The biggest problem with figure skating was always the judging. Even in 2014 Sochi, Vlad ended up bribing everyone, so a completely unknown Russian girl got the gold medal. And it's likely was a cheap buy too. Christine Brennan (IIRC, in the USA Today or maybe in her WaPo blog) broke down the winner's performance on a replay and basically showed how her every move, spin, jump, landing was not done according to the grade rules and yet on the receiving end of the top scores. And, of course, the 2002 Olympics were fixed by some very notorious figures in the Russian mob.
 
hoju said:
If the petition is providing feedback to Canon as to what its customers want, why is this a bad thing? ...
Click to expand...
Because it's based on erroneous understanding of what does come with it.

But, as PD said, Canon has been through this grinder before and is going through it now with 6D MKII. No 4K for a $2,000 camera even as Panasonic has it in their $500 G7? It's a problem they're willing to dance around.

And, if you ever check Canon Rumors or Fred Miranda forums, their members basically go along with the company's marching orders.

Mitch Gross said:
For many reasons, I think automotive comparisons are far more accurate and useful than hamburgers when it comes to cameras and their features.
Click to expand...
The problem is that auto market has about five dozen brand names instead of just five - is Nikon still in business? - in the photo/video industry.

Of course, I do wonder why Mustang has a 4-cyl turbo and 8-cyl naturally aspirated engine but the 6-cyl Turbo is only available on Ford trucks and selected SUV's.

And Fusion Sport.

Eric Coughlin said:
That's what the Arri Amira does with it's different paid firmware updates. But people still complain about having to spend $5-10k for a firmware file that is less than one megabyte.
Click to expand...
But aren't these updates fairly commensurate with ARRI's price tags?

It's like one of my friends says, "A friend wants a Mercedes, she drives a Mercedes ... but she pays Mercedes maintenance prices too".
 
here's my 2 cents based on a burger fanatic, you can't walk into burger king and order the patty 'medium rare', same with mcdonalds, its a consumer chain so you get what you get! Canon is a big corporation catering to mass market consumers. If they were a boutique company like RED or ARRI, things would be different! you can then pay for adds on! Also there are more auto makers than camera makers, so the competition in cars is massively different than cameras, not a fair comparison!

let's face it, regarding 16 bit audio, most users of C200 will not waste that much time tweaking audio, so having 24 bit, regardless of whether its 2017 and we are entitled to 24 bit audio is moot! in most practical usage, 16 bit audio is fine for most applications, if you are an audiophile and have time to tweak in pro-tools etc, yes 24 bit is the way to go, but canon anticipates most of its C200 user base will not be hardcore audio nerds!

Andree, i take it you are interested in buying the C200? i find your sensor/codec discussion very informative, seems this board is full of hate and complains lately! i hope dvx don't turn into another 'andrew reid' blog lol. That guy has been criticizing canon products for years and yet Canon just bats an eyelash... the fact that canon is allowing internal RAW is a surprise move and a good one; esp at this price point! you are not gonna see EVA-1 with internal raw at this price point, only raw out, so there's that!
 
AndreeOnline said:
I kind of feel you are directing this at me when you quote me like that... but I am pro the raw codec.

Your conclusion at the bottom is off, though. It's easy to understand that it would be a great addition to this camera if you could trade some IQ for longer recording times. It's a simple trade-off. But the jump from 12bit raw to 8bit 420 is huge.

I completely agree with you that instead of feeling robbed of that option, I choose to feel happy about the 12bit raw – which really was a surprise.
Click to expand...

Not directed at you, but at the conversation around the petition in general. Canon's broadcast grade 4:2:2 8-bit i-frame codecs are really quite good though. A more compressed 10 bit codec at the same data rate may not really gain you much, especially if it is winding up on the web anyway.
 
AndreeOnline said:
To tell you the truth, the only thing that frustrates me in these discussions are:

Volvo makes the luxury SUV XC90. You can buy it with a few different engine options and a WHOLE LOT of various add-ons. A larger engine and more add-ons cost more. Very few people are confused by this.

If you go to Burger King and buy a menu with burger, fries and a soft drink you pay X. Very few people get confused when asked for more money for that additional burger. Or even extra cheese, bacon or whatnot.

But somehow... with cameras... there is this pretty loud clique of users that seem to think that as soon as a manufacturer has proven that they CAN build something, then it should immediately be crammed into a product sold at the lowest price that manufacturer has ever sold a product in that category.

I can honestly say that I don't get the frustration. Surely, the mechanics of modern business are easy enough to understand?

If someone can break this "I'm entitled"-argument down in a way that makes sense – please go ahead and do so!
Click to expand...

Logged in JUST to upvote this comment. Couldn't have said it better. The only reason Blackmagic sells their cameras so cheap is because they are new and don't yet have the cache that Canon has. RED did the same with the high end market. That's not to say if you don't think something is a good value that you should shut up about it or not vote with your dollars. We all should because we need to let companies know what we want and need. But the way people talk about segmenting markets does imply they don't get that Canon wants to charge more for certain types of features than others because that market is willing to pay for them.

If you NEED 10-bit/422 and don't want to shoot RAW, you're probably in a market that is being paid by or hopes to be paid by a broadcaster, and can afford to buy the more expensive model. If you're excited by the RAW shooting, you probably fit the profile I do: An indie-type who also makes money shooting jobs for clients and would rent something more powerful if they need it (or bolt on a recorder). Look, I'd like to have it too (I signed the petition), but I don't begrudge Canon selecting features that work for different market segments. I wasn't wronged by this and if someone offers something better I'll buy that instead...
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
The best part is when you spend lots of money to get your 10 bit camera, you avoid all that banding, marvel in your edit suite how clean and unbandy your footage looks, you're so cool, life is good. Then you upload it to Vimeo and Youtube and the upload has the same banding your 8 bit camera had.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Notwithstanding all else, to me it's very simple- if you do NOT ask, it's all but guaranteed NOT to happen.

I believe, at this point, Canon wishes to set the bar very low re a codec update in 2018 - promise less/ deliver more/ protect their existing, and more importantly, future products. I believe that Canon wishes to ensure that the C200 does NOT become the B cam to the C700, they will announce another, more expensive, camera to fill that void. And I strongly believe it's not some type of updated C300mkii.

So if you wish to participate in the petition and send a message to Canon, please do. If you do not, for whatever reason, then that is also fine. But, to reiterate, one thing is certain, if you don't ask, you'll never know. :)

There are currently 35 supporters of the petition, and yet my post from yesterday has been viewed 948 times.

I do, reasonably, find it puzzling that not even 10% of readers decided to support the petition.

What's the harm in asking Canon to include a feature that exists in another product, in their new C200- we are NOT asking them to reinvent the wheel...

https://www.change.org/p/canon-c200-do-it-right
 
jbregar said:
They declined to support it because its pointless.

Canon isn't going to pay a lick of attention to your petition. If they DO it'll be to laugh.

What do you hope to realistically accomplish?
Click to expand...

I agree with JB, the camera is done and in production or being shipped right now. How often has Canon slapped their head when faced with consumer grumbling and totally changed their marketing strategy of EOS C cameras mid-stream?
 
They'll listen to some complaints but they'll pay more attention if a model is not selling. In other words, one can ask for different things but it's the market that does the loudest talking. C300 MKII for $10,000 seems like a much better deal than C300 MKII for $16,000.

PS. In the US and Germany (maybe EU in total), Sony has dethroned Nikon for the second place in the full frame market. Because Sony delivered a lot more bang for the buck.
 
10-bit 4:2:2 is about 20 years old. At what point will all of you who defend Canon's crippling say, "Okay, this is stupid"? Will it be in 2020? 2030? 2050? When?
 
tenbit said:
Notwithstanding all else, to me it's very simple- if you do NOT ask, it's all but guaranteed NOT to happen.

I believe, at this point, Canon wishes to set the bar very low re a codec update in 2018 - promise less/ deliver more/ protect their existing, and more importantly, future products. I believe that Canon wishes to ensure that the C200 does NOT become the B cam to the C700, they will announce another, more expensive, camera to fill that void. And I strongly believe it's not some type of updated C300mkii.

https://www.change.org/p/canon-c200-do-it-right
Click to expand...

The C400 will be announced next year, guaranteed. It will have everything the C200 has but also everything the C300 MK II has. It will also cost twice as much as the C200. It's not too hard to see where Canon is going with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top