Why I think the Canon C300 is a missed opportunity…

J

jonathanrichards

Active member
For me, I'm glad I bought the AF101 - now I'm even more sure after yesterdays announcement.

These are my thoughts…

In the build up to the release, I honestly thought I had wasted my time and money investing in the Panasonic AF101.

If Canon had priced this camera at £4000-£5000, then ‘game-changer’ it would have certainly been. But at the predicted £10,000 from suppliers such as Creative Video then it’s way out of the league of a massive section of the market. Namely the DSLR fraternity who are looking to improve on the ergonomics of their DSLRs but still retain the EF glass they have invested in.


Having said that, it looks a great camera with solid specs but it still can’t shoot 1080p 60fps like the AF101 can… silly omission.

For myself, I don’t have any regrets with my purchase. For my corporate clients, I can provide great looking footage using the built in SD cards and for my broadcast work, I can record to an Atomos Samurai at a higher bit rate if required.


For me, the C300 goes head to head with the RED Scarlett and Sony F3 – neither of which is in my price range. Bank for Buck, the AF101 still packs a punch for the market I’m in.


If that changes, then my camera choice will reflect that change. In the meantime – I’m off to make some film AND money with the equipment I have.
 
Last edited:
Lots of photos, sure - but I don't get (from your very short, linked article) how you think the C300 is "a missed opportunity". All you say (over and over) is that you're glad you bought your AF100, and that you're disapppointed the C300 doesn't do 1080/60p, and that you're glad you bought your AF100. And you're happy with your AF100.

The C300 being a "missed opportunity" would mean talking about what that opportunity was, and how Canon failed to meet it. You say [sic] "Canon shoot wide of my mark" - but don't explain what that mark was. Is it price alone?

Sorry, but posting a whole new thread with this title, then only linking to another, external page - and then that page being short and basically devoid of any analysis is just, well....irksome.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to be irksome.

My opinion is based on what is important to a lot of people - and that is price and good value for money.

The spec of the camera is very good, but it comes as a price which is too high for a large proportion of the expectant community who were, clearly, hoping and wanting something with these spec's, but in their price range. Namely - DSLR owners who want to 'trade up' to a camera with better facilities.

The missed opportunity is this body of potential customers.

Does that help?

I'll look over my article again and see if it's unclear and amend if necessary.

Thanks for taking the time to read it and reply.
 
Yeah it is a missed opportunity for Canon and they cann't go back and make another model for under 10000 us$ without sacrificing the C300. This is the Panasonic chance to make a better AF100 for under 10.000 dollar. It must be a camera with at least a APS-C sensor - larger sensor would be a killer in the market. ISO 25000 max, 10 bits 422 color space, SD-memory( no P2 please), bitrate 50mbps, 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p, 60p and even higher, smarter readout of the sensor to eliminate scew (more processing power), no moire, perhaps 3 sensors to be used to exceed the dynamic range( one under exposed, one normal and one over exposed), Perhaps the ability to connect to camera's side by side for 3D recordings. And some other improvements.
Focus/iris controle of the lens within the camera. Nikon and Canon mounts.

There are however some Panasonic problems: They don't have the lenses and they are not out of the P2 investments yet.








Don't bother it was just a dream.
 
Canon didn't "miss" an opportunity. They just followed their pattern. First they produce a grossly overpriced model (xl1, xl2, xlh1, c300). Then they follow it up with a competitive-priced model: the xl1 had the gl1, the xl2 had it's gl2, the xlh1 had it's xha1, and the xf300 has the xf100. Have no fear, canon will produce a sub-$10k version, and I can almost guaranteed predict the name too: C100. The top-line c300 will be paired with the "affordable" model probably in a year. Xf300 got xf100, so I predict the c300 will get a c100 (so yeah, af100 vs fs100 vs c100).

Don't know how they will change it to lower the price; xf100 got 1 chip vs xf300's 3 chips; xha1 was fixed lens vs xl2's interchangeable. So something will be "lesser" about the forthcoming c100, but I bet it will still be a solid camcorder with a great image. Maybe it won't get 4:2:2, who knows, prob no PL mount version. But count on it: a year from now the camera you all thought the c300 would be, will come out.
 
The price-point on the C300 is crazy (IMHO).

While Canon and RED continue to take pot-shots at each other, there is a real
opportunity for Panasonic at the 10k price-point..

jeff
 
Barry_Green said:
Canon didn't "miss" an opportunity. They just followed their pattern. First they produce a grossly overpriced model (xl1, xl2, xlh1, c300). Then they follow it up with a competitive-priced model: the xl1 had the gl1, the xl2 had it's gl2, the xlh1 had it's xha1, and the xf300 has the xf100. Have no fear, canon will produce a sub-$10k version, and I can almost guaranteed predict the name too: C100. The top-line c300 will be paired with the "affordable" model probably in a year. Xf300 got xf100, so I predict the c300 will get a c100 (so yeah, af100 vs fs100 vs c100).

Don't know how they will change it to lower the price; xf100 got 1 chip vs xf300's 3 chips; xha1 was fixed lens vs xl2's interchangeable. So something will be "lesser" about the forthcoming c100, but I bet it will still be a solid camcorder with a great image. Maybe it won't get 4:2:2, who knows, prob no PL mount version. But count on it: a year from now the camera you all thought the c300 would be, will come out.
Click to expand...

The recent trend seems to be the higher end model has a 'jackpack' while the lower model not (XLH1/XLH1A - XHG1/XHA1 - XF300/XF305). So presumably this possible C100 would have no HD/SDI out, no genlock, no timecode. They would have an HDMI out in this scenario to keep it in line with the FS100. There would probably some other small omissions, but it would still be a more expensive camera than what most DSLR users would be happy with.

What would be interesting is if they followed the XL2/GL2 - XLH1/XHA1 trend of producing a removable lens camera (C300) followed by a fixed lens version (C100) with a good L series lens. Seems unlikely, but that was the same thinking behind the original Scarlet....
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Canon didn't "miss" an opportunity. They just followed their pattern. First they produce a grossly overpriced model (xl1, xl2, xlh1, c300). Then they follow it up with a competitive-priced model: the xl1 had the gl1, the xl2 had it's gl2, the xlh1 had it's xha1, and the xf300 has the xf100. Have no fear, canon will produce a sub-$10k version, and I can almost guaranteed predict the name too: C100. The top-line c300 will be paired with the "affordable" model probably in a year. Xf300 got xf100, so I predict the c300 will get a c100 (so yeah, af100 vs fs100 vs c100).

Don't know how they will change it to lower the price; xf100 got 1 chip vs xf300's 3 chips; xha1 was fixed lens vs xl2's interchangeable. So something will be "lesser" about the forthcoming c100, but I bet it will still be a solid camcorder with a great image. Maybe it won't get 4:2:2, who knows, prob no PL mount version. But count on it: a year from now the camera you all thought the c300 would be, will come out.
Click to expand...
perhaps more physical ports & chips will be gone. mpeg2 4:2:2 would stick.
 
If it did 4k I could see the crazy price tag working. But with it's current features I would pay around $3,000-$5,000 til then I am happy with my Gh2.

May get the next iteration of the Af100 with a prores recorder.
 
Knowing the price of the XLH1 when it was launched, I wasn't expecting the Canon to south of 10 grand. But at 16k in the current climate, I do think they will have a hard sell with this particular model.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is the AF100 the only large sensor that will shoot overcrank at 1080? ( neglecting the Scarlets 2k reframing )
 
I agree with Letzring - I think this looks like a great cam. 50 mbps, in camera ND, good form factor - I think the only annoying thing is the price, but clearly they're going after the F3 with this version; the cheaper one will come next year. Some may want 4k, I'll wager most will not care about that - how many of us actually shoot for the cinema? What would have really made my year would have been a reworked set of L series lenses with cine style format but sub 3k prices - I think Canon could have sewn up the market with that. I guess Duclos will be in business for a while yet!
 
The missed opportunity is affordable cine lenses period. Canon has great optics and those new cine lenses are pricey as all cine glass is. We have been asking for this from panasonic but nothing has come to market. The best cine lens for the money is the Zeiss CP.2 at $3900 each. Come on. This is the market to take.
 
I'm actually very impressed with the C300 in a lot of ways over the Scarlet including built in ND, cheap CF card recording media etc... We don't have a need for 4k right now so 1080 on the canon is fantastic and the image quality is amazing! I'm not sure, but I don't think there's a crop issue with the C300 like there is with the Scarlet either. But, like everyone is saying, the ONLY drawback I really see is price... drop that baby to about $12k and now I think they'll have a competetive camera on the market. Heck I might even pick one up at that price.
 
Please help me understand why this camera is so expensive. it seems when you break it down, there's not much I would call state of the art on this cam. I mean most featuers are on every one of their other cams. so it's not much more than taking bits and pieces from their current camera line up and combining them.

How is it panisonic can develop a camera with moreless the exact same features and sell it for a 1/4 of what Canon is selling the c300 for? This is a basic list of the major features, ones that pani put on the af100, and they developed a brand new sensor, which Canon didn't from what I understand. anyways here's what I'm talking about.

1. it has a magnesium body, so does 7d. which they molded for that specific body. aND IT SELLS FOR 1,700.00
2. same codec as xf100. it's already written, and working on other cams. WOULDN'T IT MEAN THE HARD WORK IS ALREADY DONE?
3. same eos mount as t2i, 60D,ECT....
4. xlr's, ancient technology
5. hdmi every 300.00 camcorder today has it. NOTHING NEW
6. DIGIC divic 3, NOTHING NEW. either way, it's already BEEN DEVELOPED
7. hd-sdi, been around for a while.
8. same buttons and switches on their other cams.
9. nd filter, TAKEN FROM EVERYONE OF THIER PROSUMER MODELS.

So if they can take the parts and technology from their other cams, add them together to make a new one. Why so much money? Is it the board and combining these already developed parts that makes it so expensive? Why could pani do it with the af100? it's using almost the same features and settings.
 
The AF-100 and C300 are very different. Features are not what necessarily prices a camera which is what you seem to be focused on. Look at the C300 is terms of image quality, sensor, latitude etc... I personally like the C300 image more than the AF-100 but it's not worth $20k. If it was half the price, we'de have a winner.
 
because the people who clamore for less than 10k is not the market that they want :P
plus theyve always overpriced their cameras like sony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top