It needs to drop by another $2000 considering what you get compared to competition.
That's probably the biggest problem facing Canon video right now - their competition is putting out good and great quality products at a much more affordable and budget-friendly prices. I cannot justify this expense for most client projects, even if I'm eating some bulk of the costs.
If it was priced around $2500 then I'm sure it would be enough to get more people really interested and on-board with an entry into CinemaEOS, but there are other solutions these people are looking at.
May I ask what other cinema cameras offer all of the features this one does at this price point? Okay so I just asked.
I've done a lot of research and a lot of work with various DSLR cameras. I find the Canon Cinema line to be unique. I know it does not offer 4K, and the new one of better, but no 4K. I just want to know who the competition is. Please don't tell me Black Magic or A7s or GH4 because there are not comparable, unless you rig them like crazy add Magic Lantern, filter and so much more....... or again with the 4K argument.
I'm not hating on the 4K, I like 4K, just to be clear
A "rigged out" GH4 is still cheaper than these "entry-level" Cinema EOS options. A BlackMagic system can knock these out of the water when being used by the right person or team of people. The URSA is a great film and ENG system (requiring almost no rigging) available for not much more than a C100 Mk2 system. If you want to ignore the other viable options, the FS100/FS700 line exist and compete directly with the C100. The new FS7 is a game changer that's MUCH cheaper than a C300 system. AJA is also getting in the camera game now.
4K, or lack of 4K, is a big deal... clients are starting to inquire and ask about it, even if their deliverables are still barely taking 720HD right now, but they want to future proof.
What type of work are you looking to do? Run & gun style, or film-style? That really will determine what budget(s) and options you need to be looking at. If 720HD video deliverable is fine for your needs, then that's a big difference... overcranking and flexibility without dropping resolution is a great feature to have on-board.
I understand what you're saying, sort of. For example I was talking about what the OP posted about the reduced price of the C100, which is now $4000 with no lens of course. You brought up the FS100 which I find as a good point since it costs less that the C100 and I don't know about the quality of the FS100 because I've not used that camera. If you think that the C100 1080p uncompressed footage is not superior to the Panasonic uncompressed format, you and I will have to simple disagree on that. So tell me, how much did your rig cost you on the GH4 and how much would is cost you if you had all the features that are built in and included with the C100? The XLR adapter alone jumps you camera price up by $2000 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028546-REG/panasonic_dmc_gh4_yagh_lumix_yagh_interface_unit.html
So okay you can by the kit where you get the camera and the XLR interface for $2500 because it's on sale right now. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1028548-REG/panasonic_lumix_dmc_gh4_mirrorless_micro.html
The FS700 is not a good comparison because it costs WAY more. The C100 is a video camera and the GH4 is a hybrid, it's kind of hard to compare. I do commercial work, run and gun and documentary style shooting and other fun stuff. I understand your overall point and I thank you for listing other options. I'll look into the cameras you posted about that I don't have experience with.
I personally do not OWN a GH4, but I have used them on a few projects in the past. A system can be purchased without the GH4's specific XLR interface and instead use a Zoom, Tascam, or other style system for the audio interface, bringing the price down a bit more. If you shoot this at 4K and intend to output as 1080HD, the footage basically becomes 4:2:2 and looks significantly better than footage from other cameras. There's a few documentations on that out there, but have personally worked with footage from this camera in post and it was impressive for 1080 output.
Much of the work I do does not need file-ready synch sound and I am able to run a dual sound system and synch in post, even though 90% of the time I am feeding a line out of a mixing system directly into a camera that could be used, if needed. A lot of the content is interviews and people speaking on-camera for those situations that require audio... so I likely have a bit more flexibility than some other people have.
The FS100 has been referred to as the budget-friendly C100 that Canon should have made. Basically a DSLR inspired system that tackles the major issues video folks have had with DSLR systems. Is it a perfect camera? No. At it's price point, it's not supposed to be... but neither is the C100. It's supposed to solve a "problem" for a part of the market. The best thing the C100 has going for it is the fact it can use EF/EF-S lenses natively without a Metabones adapter. Is that worth the $1500 or so difference in price (if buying new)? That's a personal decision. At that price difference, investing in new glass would be an option to consider if the Metabones EF adapters are not what you want.
All that being said, the FS7 is the camera people are talking about right now that need to shoot 4K. Sony did a good job with it's functionality, but the ergonomics are not to everyone's satisfaction. Hopefully by the time NAB comes around more manufacturers will have something to release that's comparable to this - Canon included. Native 4K recording with at least variable frame rates for 1080HD would be a great start.