C500: What's the point of the C500?

AndreeOnline

AndreeOnline

Veteran
Entering 2015 and new camera refreshes coming up: what is the purpose of the C500's existence?

I understand the C100 segment and I understand the C300 segment. But what would motivate Canon to not include all the C500 features in the C300 mkII?

Is the extra level needed? Why divide the user/knowledge base?

Everybody knows that the C300 is a really well made camera that just works in many situations. But maybe it isn't the most "exciting" camera? I personally don't care about that at all, but wouldn't it make sense to get the "exciting" features into as many hands as possible and get the world talking about a Canon camera like it was the 5D mkII all over again?

  1. Do we agree that a C300 mkII with internal 4k and the rest of the C500 features integrated would make a bit of a splash?
  2. What financial/marketing reasons would keep Canon from launching that product?

A small recap of what the C500 already does:

  • 4k (4096x2160/3840x2160) raw 10bit at 60fps
  • 4k half raw 10bit at 120fps
  • 2k 4:4:4 12bit at 60fps
 
Last edited:
Yes I expect a full fledged C300 with all the C500 recoreing options but internal, and I expect they entirely trnsform the 500 line into something completely new, shoulder mounted design has been mentioned. The other way to go would be to give the C300 10bit, 120p at 1080p nd leave the raw and 120p 4K and 12bit to the C300.

Not likely but probable.

I wonder what codec/format they'll use for internal 10bit 4K, they don't have an equivalent to XAVC or ProRes, so perhaps licesnce ProRes...
 
I am counting the minutes until the announcement of the C300 M2. I would be very excited if this camera had the specs you mentioned. Hopefully we will know for sure in the next 4 months. It would be great if they announced it and it was also ready to ship. If they can get those specs into this camera and retain the low light performance, it will be a live event killer. I personally made a choice to avoid the plethora of Sony cameras this year. Hopefully Canon will put the right stuff under the hood.
 
What us the cheapest route they can go?

4K 8bit 4:2:2 mxf, and 1080p 120p. No 10bit output, 12bit, or raw. Just 4K resolution version of the C100mk II plus the C300 advantages.

The richest they can go is 4:2:2 10bit ProRes internal, 1080p 120p, 12bit 1080p, and internal Canon raw to Cfast cards.

If they go the first way then there's a point for a C500 for 10bit and raw. But with the second it's gone.

I hope they go with the second and turn the C500 into the lately rumored ("Shoulder-mounted design to compete directly with the alexa"). That would be a better solutipn for all of us including Canon. I can't imagine how any angry 8bit vs 10bit banding posts will come up if they go the first way, it'll be horrible to watch! :D
 
AndreeOnline said:
Is the extra level needed? Why divide the user/knowledge base?
Click to expand...
I think the user base is divided anyways. The C300 never was about RAW, but a broadcast ready codec.
The cine features the C500 has over the C300 just wouldn't be used by 90% of current C300 users.
Look at Sony:The F55 doesn't become obsolete, just because Sony released their "Budget4k" FS7.

Another point: The C300 still has written "documentary" and "single operator" all over it. Hence its form factor.
This is also I believe the next C500 to get bigger, as in the "alexa style" rumor, probably due to an integrated SSD based recording unit.
 
Spartacus said:
This is also I believe the next C500 to get bigger, as in the "alexa style" rumor, probably due to an integrated SSD based recording unit.
Click to expand...

If they go the route of beefing up the form factor and integrate the recorder, then I can totally see its place.

The way things are now though, I don't see that same lineup in the 2nd gen cameras.

But a Canon baby Alexa, with a baby Alexa price tag—that could be pretty sweet.
 
Matt Turner said:
Did that happen with the C100 MK II? I haven't been keeping an eye on prices.
Click to expand...

Yes. That is my reasoning/hope for the new C300.

A new body only C100 mkII goes for $5499. The original C100 was $6499 at the beginning… if I remember correctly.

And honestly, I personally feel the C300 is already pushing the limit on how expensive that camera can be.
 
AndreeOnline said:
A new body only C100 mkII goes for $5499. The original C100 was $6499 at the beginning…
Click to expand...
At least when the C100 was released its specfication was more-or-less cometitive. In the meantime, however, the same/similar image quality and low light performance as the C100ii can be had in a $500 camera (Sony A5100 50Mbps XAVC-S 1080/60p APS-C, for example) at the end of 2015. But, that is just a Sony and not a shiny Canon EOS camcorder, where you don't pay for specification. Canon EOS became the "Leica" in videography, maybe. Noone buys a Leica for the spec, noone cares the price of a Leica. Canon is smart, simply brilliant.
 
Miklos Nemeth said:
In the meantime, however, the same/similar image quality and low light performance as the C100ii can be had in a $500 camera (Sony A5100 50Mbps XAVC-S 1080/60p APS-C, for example).
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if the Sony you mention actually did produce similar images.

But apart from that, there is something that happens with a camera when all the "needed" bits and pieces fall into place. If you are familiar with the term synergy, you know it means that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. A camera can be a bit like that. If it ticks all the boxes, or close to it, its value can be much greater than a similar camera that lacks one or two check marks.

Camera sensors are widely shared within and between brands among cameras with VERY different price points. That you can find the same sensor tech in a $500 camera as in a $6000 one is nothing new. Yet, the high end cameras continue to sell well. With each higher price point the concept becomes more and more refined. Top cameras don't necessarily distinguish themselves by extra ordinary IQ, but rather overall usability and ruggedness.
 
The C100 was first listed at 7999 US$ then later kept coming down to reach 5K. The C300 was listed at 20K but sold for 16.000, then kept coming down to 11-12k. The C100 mk II is now released with the last reduced price point, 5K, so it's kind of logical to expect the C300 mk II to be priced around the 11-13K mark...


And the Sony A5100 is not 20% as good of a camera as the C100 mk II for video production, but that's not something to hold against it! It's a wonderful little camera with very good HD image.
 
AndreeOnline said:
I would be very surprised if the Sony you mention actually did produce similar images.

But apart from that, there is something that happens with a camera when all the "needed" bits and pieces fall into place. If you are familiar with the term synergy, you know it means that the result is greater than the sum of its parts. A camera can be a bit like that. If it ticks all the boxes, or close to it, its value can be much greater than a similar camera that lacks one or two check marks.

Camera sensors are widely shared within and between brands among cameras with VERY different price points. That you can find the same sensor tech in a $500 camera as in a $6000 one is nothing new. Yet, the high end cameras continue to sell well. With each higher price point the concept becomes more and more refined. Top cameras don't necessarily distinguish themselves by extra ordinary IQ, but rather overall usability and ruggedness.
Click to expand...

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend Abel Cine's 25th anniversary celebration in New York. They had on display cameras ranging from the Sony A7S, Canon C100 to the Panasonic Varicam 35. It's more than the sensor. It's how the camera processes the image coming off the sensor. Also the user friendliness and reliability/durability of the camera is important. When I picked up an Arri Amira with a Canon cinema eng lens, I was surprised how rugged the camera felt. The Amira is BUILT LIKE A TANK. If I was shooting in a harsh environment with extreme weather conditions, I would not hesitate to use a camera like the Amira. As much as I like my C100, I would not have the same confidence in the C100.
 
Not sure how many of you have been with Canon video for very long but if you harken back to the pre-EOS Cinema days, Canon ALWAYS massively underdelivered, they always gave us so much less than we were expecting in upgrades and new models. For more than a few years, people were questioning why Canon was in the "semi pro" video business because their product was so far behind the times. Not sure if since the advent of the EOS Cinema line that they have improved on that but those of us who have been with Canon video for a long while are prepared to be underwhelmed. I also can't imagine them announcing this before NAB but maybe the sales they are losing to the FS7 will motivate them to announce earlier? I agree about the C500, I can't see where it would fit in a logical strategy unless they are going to really cheap out on the specs of the C300 MKII (which would make no sense at all) or unless they are going to go down a completely different path and try to compete with the F55/Amira or Alexa?
 
When I got my first job in video production, I asked the owner of the company (who owned Canon and Sony MiniDV cameras) "why would you buy one brand over the other?" His response was that "Canon tends to focus on image quality while Sony delivers more of newest technology in their cameras". That's just one person's opinion from 2008, but it kind of seems like that's what we're seeing today. I'm not saying that Canons will always produce a better image than Sony, but I do think that people who stick with Canon do so (at least partially) because of a certain look that Canon cameras provide. I have friends that love Sony cameras and they tend to talk a lot about the features, the detail level, the codec, etc. but I don't get the sense that there's a certain Sony "look" that draws them in. So while I really wanted the C100 Mk II to have internal 4K, it wasn't that surprising to me that they didn't include it since the image is still very good and they corrected a lot of things that people didn't like in the original. And while I'm really hoping for a lot from the C300 Mk II, it wouldn't surprise me if its specs aren't as good as the FS7 but the price is higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top