C200: The Canon C200 Petition

[combatentropy]

I have a few questions to the DVXUser community in general.

1. When you shop for a house and see one that you like, I assume you are like most people. You offer them an amount less than is on the sign. You certainly don't say, "You're asking too little. I would like to buy your house for $10,000 more than what you're asking." So why is it different with cameras? Many times someone on this forum has voiced that they think a camera is too high. There are some people who then get after the person. It is like a friend who tags along with you as you shop for a house, who says when you are negotiating with the buyer, "Come on, the house is at a reasonable price. Just pay what they're asking." Why are you doing this?

2. These same people say that a company has a right to charge whatever it wants for a camera. If it can charge a thousand times what it costs to make, more power to them. So, then, why don't you say the same thing for buyer, especially since you are on their side (you are a buyer, not a camera company --- at least most of you). Why don't you say, a buyer can petition that a camera be priced at whatever the buyer wants," just like you say, "a seller can charge whatever they think they can get away with"?

Now a few caveats:

A. The people who ask for more for their money aren't asking for the moon. I think, in general, they are just negotiating aggressively. Usually it's about one or two features that they think could be added without too much expense to the company. For example, a 24 fps option on a camera that only does 30 fps, or a 10-bit 4:2:2 option on a camera that does 8-bit 4:2:0 and raw, especially when there's a DSLR that has it. They have no way of knowing 100% for sure if this request is reasonable. But it sounds reasonable. And all the company has to do is say No.

B. I don't have delusions that a post on DVXUser can change the world. But I also don't think it does nothing. It is probably a little bit more powerful than my vote for President of the United States. My vote for President is diluted among millions of other voters. And yet I still voted. I think the companies do some kind of online research, I don't know if DVXUser is in their list of sites to browse. But there are some retailers here, a Panasonic employee, and a writer who may sometimes talk with people at Panasonic. Plus at NAB and other conventions there are representatives of the company. I'm not saying we're gonna change the whole product line-up, but it would be something like voting if a rep said to his boss, "Wow, like 25 people asked me on the NAB sales floor when Canon was going to introduce a camera with global shutter at a reasonable price" (ahem).

Now back to my questions. One more:

3. If the lack of a feature (like 10-bit 4:2:2) is merely an artificial crippling, then in a capitalist economy that would open the company up to being undercut by a competitor. If it's true, like the petition says, that Canon could have stuck Prores in the C200 and kept it the same price, then it should be true that Sony or Panasonic could make a camera with all the features of the C200, plus Prores, and sell it for the same price. Then everyone would buy the Sony or Panasonic version, and no one would buy the Canon version.

This is where I'm sort of at a loss. There seems to be some competition --- for example, Panasonic finally put 10-bit 4:2:2 in a DSLR. But it's not what I would call aggressive competition. Improvements don't come at the rate I would expect. Something seems held back. Now there are two possible explanations:

X. My expectations are too high. The camera I ask for isn't possible at the price I ask for.

Y. It isn't a capitalist economy. The companies aren't, in fact, fully competing with each other. There is some sort of collusion.

DLD has said that collusion is legal in Japan. Can anyone point me to some reading on this? It's hard for me to believe. And even if the Japanese companies are a cartel, what stops an American company (or Korean or German or whoever) from sprouting up, offering the camera with all the unlocked features at a reasonable price, and putting the old guard out of business?

I feel like these questions are so basic that I'm missing something huge.

 

[DLD]

... DLD has said that collusion is legal in Japan. Can anyone point me to some reading on this? It's hard for me to believe. And even if the Japanese companies are a cartel, what stops an American company (or Korean or German or whoever) from sprouting up, offering the camera with all the unlocked features at a reasonable price, and putting the old guard out of business? ...

I think cartel is a part of a capitalist economy. If the cartel was open and openly discussed - look up Jeffrey Kessler's law suit against the Japanese TV manufacturers - then the market will adjust accordingly to more of a multi-competitor arrangement. If it's hidden, then it tends to stay closer to what it is.

As to why the US, Korean or Chinese manufacturers don't try to bust it, Samsung tried with NX1. The camera blew every one of the competitors on specs ... and still failed in the market dominated by the mountings. And Kodak failed due to own shortcomings. But Red and BMD mostly succeeded because the gap between the technology advancement and its introduction to the market was far too long and thus, much like Samsung NX1, Jim was able to beat his competitors on specs. What worked for Red was the universality of the pro camera mounting - both in type (PL) and a relative lack of the electronics connections for auto-focus. NX1 also might have been a prelude to a long time frame of successes ... but even those weren't worth it to Samsung, as they have their hands on too many projects as it is.

BTW, some interesting points that I may need more time to mull over.

 

[NorBro]

What worked for RED (and Blackmagic) is providing cinematic-looking motion pictures!

(And both offer AF, but it's of course not as good as other systems.)

 

[puredrifting]

...There (are and will be) better cameras around but Raw Light off a good sensor is more than good enough.

In a year, I am going to repost these words when we are all drooling over the C300 MKIII or C400 that has variable data rate Cinema RAW Light. 6.5k imager, ultra whizzy, doo hickey processing and face tracking with mind control instead of lame touchscreen like the old C200 has ;-) It's never enough. We're greedy.

 

[Mitch Gross]

How would you describe that market, Mitch?

China is far less interested in large sensor cameras. Hugely different market. Can't give details because it's proprietary info, but imagine if all the Western World liked vanilla ice cream and bought 1M gallons a year. But then one part of the world only liked chocolate, but they bought almost 1M gallons of it all by themselves. That's China.

 

[Mitch Gross]

One of the big drawbacks of the VariCam LT, in my opinion, is it's single primary record slot. I'm all for having a "proxy" media slot, like an SD card, etc., in addition to the primary, but I think a professional imaging device should have at least two record slots that support spanned recording, if not spanned and dual record options.

There's a big difference between the C200 single CFast slot and the VariCam LT's single ExpressP2 slot. You can record a LOT longer on a single P2 card of similar size.

 

[DLD]

As a side note, cartels (of traditional types) are outlawed in the US by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But that's the state putting its five cents in. Under less interference, cartels are common sense. The best example of a cartel that government had a very difficult time in breaking was the organized crime. Since it functions outside of the laws as it is, the government can not force, for example, the Gambino family to compete against the Genovese or the Lucchese. Cartels have also been common among the US pro sports leagues, at least, from the historical perspective. In this instance, the government and the courts had power to interfere and exercised it. Out went the reserve clauses and in came free agency. A free market solution to that would have been a competitive league such as AFL, USFL, WHA, WBA, etc. Of course, AFL aside, these challengers mostly floundered a la NX1.

 

[Mitch Gross]

I've been layin low for a few months....and it's the same thing on the blogs..."I want twice as much stuff for half the price". Oh peshaw!....Anyway, as Mitch said and I have repeated a bazillion times, Canon (and other Mfgs) reads the blogs. They know what you want, no need for a petition.
In other news here in LA, I was at the grand opening for the new Canon Burbank Experience Center on Saturday (press day was last Weds.,VIP party Weds. night)....it is awesome and you can read up on it in the various trades. Keslow Camera acquired Clairmont Camera (Denny retired)...and Cineworks (Samy's pro division) should be open soon!

Jim Martin

I can assure you all that based on the private emails I have received, yes, the manufacturers do monitor this and many other forums and social media. Most just silently listen. I'm the rare bird that also posts.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'd be careful with Amira, considering that it's not a "real" 4K camera - with 4K seemingly having become the buzzword around 2015 - and ARRI just might come out with a 4.5K-5K camera of its own soon. That, of course, doesn't mean that the camera will cease being in demand but that a high percentage of clients might move on from it.

Of course, I am not your accountant either. I might have been one but I dropped accounting as a major before my senior year ... and that was long, long ago anyway.

Well, I already own two C300 Mark IIs for clients who either don't have the budget for an Amira, or care about resolution tech specs more than image quality. I find the Amira at 3.2K is sharper than C300 Mark II 4K, though I haven't done side by side tests. I think it's absurd we live in a world where people would prefer a duller 4K image over a sharper 3.2K image, simply because of tech specs. But as I said, if the client wants native 4K, I'll still be able to provide it.

It's quite possible a new Amira is about a year off. It's also possible it's further off. The way I see it is if the new Amira drops the value of the old one by say $10k, and that's a year out...well, if I haven't made at least $10k off of the camera over a year of time then the camera must not be doing well for me in general. A year is a long time in the camera world. As I'd already said, after a year I'd probably want a new camera anyway. I could then sell the old Amira and upgrade to the new, or keep the old if the new one isn't worth the upgrade, or is significantly more expensive. I hope the new Amira has dual record; I'd almost prefer that over 4K. 4K footage always looks bad when the only memory card got lost, stolen, corrupted, etc.

At the end of the day I just want the camera that is the best for what I do. I've shot with several models of Red, played with the Varicam LT, shot with the Sony FS7, the Arri Alexa XT, Canon obviously, and for narrative and commercial work I like the Amira the best. I think the Amira is likely overkill for corporate and event shoots where it will slow you down and it's lack of autofocus is lacking, so the Canons are great for that. For documentary work, I'm not really sure which I'd like better. The stripped down C300 with AF lenses is easier to shoot with, while the Amira has a better image.

I think you can assume Eric's already done his homework on the camera.

Eric, can you go give a brief explanation of how you see joint ownership panning out?

What if you're both booked on the same day? What if you postpone work because your coworker books a job then his job falls through (annoying, delaying making money)? Split insurance?

No pressure to answer if any of this is too personal.

Thanks!

We've discussed different ways of doing it. I believe our current thought is to book the camera on a first come first serve basis, so whoever books first gets to use it. So if I get a call and my co-worker has already booked it on his shoot, then it's not available for me. But, the same could be said if I owned a camera all to myself; if it's already booked on another shoot, I can't double book the camera. We'd talked about doing a 50/50 split of all income from the camera, but that could be complicated for company jobs (non-freelance) where the camera is not a line item.

If we're renting it out to someone we mutually know, then we'd split the rental. Otherwise, it'd mostly be first come first serve. We both typically do half deposits to book the date for our clients, particularly for bigger jobs (so probably most or all Amira jobs), so if a shoot fell through we'd still have the half deposit.

My co-worker has a bigger equipment insurance policy than I currently have, so we may just use that, of which I may pitch in some for it. I need to upgrade my equipment insurance policy in general, but I've been saying that for awhile. If I upgrade mine I guess it'd sort of be double insured, and whoever is using it would use their policy if something were to happen.

 

[Mitch Gross]

1. When you shop for a house and see one that you like, I assume you are like most people. You offer them an amount less than is on the sign. You certainly don't say, "You're asking too little. I would like to buy your house for $10,000 more than what you're asking." So why is it different with cameras? Many times someone on this forum has voiced that they think a camera is too high. There are some people who then get after the person. It is like a friend who tags along with you as you shop for a house, who says when you are negotiating with the buyer, "Come on, the house is at a reasonable price. Just pay what they're asking." Why are you doing this?

Your comparison has issues. Every house is different, and is influenced by the lot, the spot on the street, the neighborhood, the taxes in the area, the schools, etc. A camera model is a set commodity item. A manufacturer could spit out 10,000 of them and each will be effectively identical. There's a whole bunch of other stuff involved in the manufacture, sales channel, dealers, import fees, etc. that all get involved in what it takes to make cameras -- very different from buying and selling houses. And when a company decided to make a camera, there is an enormous development cost involved in designing, testing and then ramping up to manufacture, and those costs must be amortized across the many units that are then sold after. The development might mean millions of dollars that must be invested and floated over time before money can start coming back to pay for it. There are some equally specific costs structures in building homes, but it is a very different system that really does not compare.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

There's a big difference between the C200 single CFast slot and the VariCam LT's single ExpressP2 slot. You can record a LOT longer on a single P2 card of similar size.

I think dual record for backup is more important than spanned recording for extra run-time. Lexar 512 GB Cfast will give you 60 minutes record time in RAW Light, which is enough for most shoots including interviews. Though, I suspect RAW Light won't be used for interviews much, not just because of the cost of memory cards, but also because of the cost of hard drive space and workflow. I'd imagine for the types of shoots using RAW Light, likely narrative and commercial, that 30 minutes should be enough for most cases.

I just did a shoot today with the C300 Mark II dual recording to CFast (and the proxy record so sort of triple slot recording (love it)). Get back to the studio, and the editor absent mindedly puts the CFast card into a Compact Flash card reader. The card gets stuck, we wiggle it out, put it into the proper Cfast reader and it's not recognizing the card in the computer. Are we sweating at this point? Not really, just perhaps over a possible $579 loss of a memory card, but we know the footage is safe because we dual recorded so the second card is ready to be properly copied over right away, which is what we did.

The original card was then put back in the camera and it was reading the files there. I still need to check if the card is okay or not. But the point is, we weren't sweating thinking we'd lost data simply because one of the cards had an issue, which with any single card recording camera we'd be freaking out (I guess proxies can work as a backup, but it's far from ideal).

I'm with Run&Gun that dual record should be a feature available in all professional cameras.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I have a few questions to the DVXUser community in general.

Thank you for structuring your thoughts in a clear and understandable manner and getting to the point.

1. When you shop for a house and see one that you like, I assume you are like most people. You offer them an amount less than is on the sign. You certainly don't say, "You're asking too little. I would like to buy your house for $10,000 more than what you're asking." So why is it different with cameras?

You sell a house on the market. The price is determined by the highest amount someone is willing to pay. Products/goods like cameras, computers, watches, cars... are not typically sold like this. A manufacturer iterates over several prototypes, decides on a design and then makes a calculation to fix the correct price to cover materials, design, manufacturing and so on. But the final price isn't just to cover all these costs + an arbitrary margin. Premium products have larger margins depending on target customer and perceived 'exclusivity'. We end up with tiers of products ranging from 'best price', consumer, premium, professional and luxury. All depending on many factors, and I don't think I need to go deeper here.

2. Why don't you say, "a buyer can petition that a camera be priced at whatever the buyer wants," just like you say, "a seller can charge whatever they think they can get away with"?

Let's consider us all as a large group of friends that hang out. Imagine we organised a large event where Canon was invited as a presenter; maybe to talk about all their white papers in person and explain their most important technologies. At the end there was a Q&A and someone would stand up and say they wanted the C200 with 10bit in addition, but priced like the C100.

I would be embarrassed. That's the simplest answer I can give you. I'd be embarrassed for that person and I would be embarrassed for myself, since being part of this larger group we all represent each other. The reason for this is because I understand how these things work. If I went into a nice store to buy a proper coffee machine and my mother happened to tag along, and when it was time to pay she'd try to haggle for a discount? I'd be embarrassed again (in a way that only mothers can embarrass their sons). That doesn't mean I don't love her. It's just one of those situations...

At some level I think it's time to act the part. I personally think that once we start talking about professional gear, we have already stepped over that line in the sand.

A. The people who ask for more for their money aren't asking for the moon. I think, in general, they are just negotiating aggressively. Usually it's about one or two features that they think could be added without too much expense to the company.

Answered in part above. This is not how it works. It's not about added cost/expenses in making the product. We can understand/accept it, not understand it or maybe not want to understand it.

It is difficult to sell an expensive, small volume product while simultaneously offering a much cheaper, 90% capable version to the masses. Yet the expensive product might be very important to recuperate many of the R&D costs. The group of people buying the expensive, professional product often sell appropriately priced services to cover the cost of high end gear.

IMPORTANT: If you couldn't run a successful video business, or make an indie film solely with a C100… it's not the gear that is the problem. An I'm even talking about the original C100. You can get one of those, plus extra battery and media and external monitor and possibly entry level support for $4000. At the VERY least, a package like that would EASILY let you produce content—that if good enough—would allow you to go to the next level.

B. I don't have delusions that a post on DVXUser can change the world… I'm not saying we're gonna change the whole product line-up, but it would be something like voting if a rep said to his boss, "Wow, like 25 people asked me on the NAB sales floor when Canon was going to introduce a camera with global shutter [at a reasonable price]".

Again, with the exception of price—I think I've explained my position above—asking for features here or on conventions is a great way to make Canon and others get their priorities straight. It's just that when someone asks for something that doesn't reflect how I feel, I write a response to balance the scales of how this forum –as a whole – is regarded. Sigma's Cine line of lenses was partly born because people were using the 18-35 a lot and the community spoke up and pushed Sigma over the edge to go ahead and try it.

3. If the lack of a feature (like 10-bit 4:2:2) is merely an artificial crippling, then it should be true that Sony or Panasonic could make a camera with all the features of the C200, plus Prores, and sell it for the same price. Then everyone would buy the Sony or Panasonic version, and no one would buy the Canon version.

Yep. It would sort itself out, so there is no need to worry about it.

This is where I'm sort of at a loss.

I hope I could answer some of your questions about some of the posts you've read in this thread.


-------------------------

Personal opinion:

1. I don't want professional gear to be as cheap as possible. If the best tech is available to the masses—in today's self publishing world—it gets more difficult, not easier, to sustain a profitable business. Websites like 5er, where companies can have graphics and logos made for $5 are completely destroying a chunk of that business. And the kids selling their talent for nothing—hoping they'll make a living at it someday—only find they themselves brought their future salaries down to minimum wage.
2. Today's entry level cinema cameras are already good enough to allow any up and coming filmmaker show their talent. Even 8bit, long GOP is in no way a limitation.

The rest, people, is lust for delight.

 

[DLD]

In terms of cameras and cars vs. homes, the differences aren't as large as one may think. In the real estate sector, the differences - let's exclude the condo pricing, which is far more uniform by the building - can be rather quickly analyzed by a computer for a site like Zillow. You take the lot size, house size, the location, history of comparative prices vs. the nearest block and you can get a fairly accurate estimate that doesn't include the remodeling costs but those are generally well known too in prices per foot. To me, that isn't that different than a camera comparison - this has a better sensor but a crappier codec and that one has both a better sensor and a top notch auto focus and the last one has the most kick-ass image you can find. As an old accounting major - garbage in, garbage out and there's your approximate market price. Mind you, the manufacturers do spend a lot of time and energy on the spread sheets and marketing surveys (informal or otherwise) and they generally do know the product map for every other manufacturer for the next couple of years --- and they still miss their estimates.

How do they miss it, one asks? Well, if an item is not in stock and is constantly on back order, then it's priced too low. If it's sitting in warehouses and store shelves, then it's priced too highly.*

*This concerns the products without the initial quality control problems such as those that have troubled BMD and presumes the model working as intended.

BTW, all decisions in the grand scheme of things are subjective, which is not to say irrational. For a given price, does one want a bigger house or the one with a view? Does one want a used naturally aspirated car that one can add a brand new aftermarket turbo/supercharger or a used turbo/supercharged car? Does one want straight ahead speed of a Camaro or corner handling of a Porsche? Does one want to pay more for a camera with an internal Raw or is 10-bit XAVC good enough for the majority of jobs?

Eric's reasoning on Amira vs. C300 MKII a few posts earlier is a perfect illustration of a highly logical thought process that many go through. One can still err at the end but he hardly be faulted for not considering most of the variables involved.

 

[DLD]

(to make a separate post on C200)

I've brought this up before with Panasomic's paid V-log upgrades for GH4 and GH5. There's also a case of F5 being easily hacked to record 4K and subsequently being offered with a paid 4K upgrade by Sony. Then there's a (free?) Log upgrade for 5D MKIV. Which leads me to -

if Canon offered a 10-bit 405 Mbps XF-AVC for $500 more, most potential buyers of the model would not question this decision. It's the fact that, from an outsider's perspective, the product is self-crippled to such an extend, it shows a gross contempt by the manufacturer to its potential customer. Even on the pro-Canon sites like CR and FM, the lack of 4K on 6D MKII has been met with derision. On more neutrally inhabited forums, Canon takes even a bigger beating. Granted, should the next model out of Ohta-ku (that's Canon HQ for those who can't read Japanese) be a high performer that is also incredibly rich with features, most of the "Canon sucks, I'll never buy another Canon model for as long as Canon lives" crowd would eagerly stand in long lines to purchase it anyway but, skipping by that rare exception, camera pros do have long memories.

Oh and the personal negotiation in the electronic biz usually stays in the retail portion of the transaction. "Say, Jim (and I don't mean Jim Martin), I like that XYZ gadget but it's priced a bit too high for my taste. Can we do something about it?" And that slots it into the same category as my recent favorite Zillow listing - you don't negotiate with the builder; you negotiate with the property owner at the point of sale.

 

[rob norton]

We've discussed different ways of doing it. I believe our current thought is to book the camera on a first come first serve basis, so whoever books first gets to use it. So if I get a call and my co-worker has already booked it on his shoot, then it's not available for me. But, the same could be said if I owned a camera all to myself; if it's already booked on another shoot, I can't double book the camera. We'd talked about doing a 50/50 split of all income from the camera, but that could be complicated for company jobs (non-freelance) where the camera is not a line item.

If we're renting it out to someone we mutually know, then we'd split the rental. Otherwise, it'd mostly be first come first serve. We both typically do half deposits to book the date for our clients, particularly for bigger jobs (so probably most or all Amira jobs), so if a shoot fell through we'd still have the half deposit.

My co-worker has a bigger equipment insurance policy than I currently have, so we may just use that, of which I may pitch in some for it. I need to upgrade my equipment insurance policy in general, but I've been saying that for awhile. If I upgrade mine I guess it'd sort of be double insured, and whoever is using it would use their policy if something were to happen.

Thanks for this Eric!

I was mostly concerned about overlap. Not that one of you would, but you wouldn't want the other guy holding all of these non-concrete dates, only to have them fall through. But I guess your success is his success in this case. As long as you're not saying no to too many jobs demanding the Amira. I guess you could still hire then buy the second body if you were in demand that much. The half deposit sounds like a great idea.

 

[indiawilds]

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

Canon's new C200 digital cinema camera has great potential, arguably more than the C700 given it's small size.
But it needs a solid, "high performance" codec in addition to Cinema Raw Light.
Rumor has it that Canon will, in early 2018, install the same, or similar, codec that's in the C300 Mark1- 8bit/422/50Mbps.
However, what is needed is a "high level codec" offering, at the very least, the same 10bit/ 422/ high bit rate, intraframe, codec that's in the C300 Mark2 - or a Prores equivalent.
We are not that interested in buying the C300Mark2, or the C700, but we are very interested in a C200 if it provides us the, long term, creative freedom we need and desire.
Please "sign" this petition and send a clear message to Canon USA's CEO, Mr. Joe Adachi, so he can pass our request to Canon Japan.

I thought there is so much online hate for Canon that any petition will get a million people signing up in a day.

 

[puredrifting]

I thought there is so much online hate for Canon that any petition will get a million people signing up in a day.

In LA, you see a lot of Canon cameras in low to medium end production for there being so much hatred for them ;-) I still have yet to see an FS7 in the wild here. Not saying they aren't out there, but in my little EPK/Doc/BTS world, they are absent.

 

[tenbit]

Having never visited this website prior to posting a link to the petition I started, I find it fascinating that there has been dozens and dozens of posts, from mostly a small group of people, with a wide range of comments, but yet less than 50 who have signed the petition. Even if you believe the petition has little chance in succeeding why not sign anyways? Is one to understand that those who are interested in purchasing, or using, the C200 have NO interest in a 10 bit/ 422 codec and would prefer 8bit/ 420/ long GOP ? If so, that is really quite something. "If one doesn't try failure is guaranteed". https://www.change.org/p/canon-c200-do-it-right

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'm actually in favor of the opposite petition, the petition to leave 10 bit 4:2:2 out of the C200. As an owner of two C300 Mark IIs, I would not appreciate Canon cannibalizing my $36,000 investment so soon by releasing a C200 which with 10 bit 4:2:2 would then be closer to being better than the C300 Mark II, but at a lower price point, thus more quickly out-dating the C300 Mark II. The C300 Mark II still does have various other advantages, but 10 bit 4:2:2 is perhaps the biggest differentiating factor. I'm happy with Canon's choice to cripple the C200 such that my investment is still relevant and considered the more professional option for a wide variety of shoots where both RAW and 8 bit 4:2:0 are not suitable for.

As this is a business, having your investments quickly ruined is bad for business, and makes you not want to invest in that camera company again. I suppose if one just buys cameras for the art of it to do passion projects with while working a non-video related day job, they wouldn't care as much about a camera getting outdated and spoiling their "investment" since it wouldn't actually be an investment.

The C300 Mark III will eventually come out, but at a higher price point, so won't cannibalize the C300 Mark II, and will likely have the C200 features and C300 Mark II features all in one camera.

 

[Michael Thames]

The problem with all these anologies of houses and hamburgers is...... yea people understand logically why Canon does what it does. I know logically a used car salesman has to make a living too, but I also know I'm probably getting screwed. I find it a bit odd that consumers have been so conditioned that they actually are OK with the idea Canon is forcing customers to buy two cameras when one will do, and they purposefully deconstruct a codec for that purpose, when the answer is so simple 2 more bits. 10 bit 422 should be standard on any $7500 camera in this day and age, and we all know it. They have us by the balls, and people are making excuses why they like there balls in a compromised situation.

Seems to me enough people jumped ship because Canon was slow in providing slow motion enough people including Philip Bloom complained and Canon responded. Making excuses for Canon not providing slow-mo seems rather silly , but to me that's how you all sound when you support Canon's anti-canalizations polices. Maybe the time has come for Canon to eat their own for a change. Who is gonna buy another C300 mkiii for $16,000 bucks again? Or a C500 mkii for $25,000 or whatever.