Canon EOS C300 Price Drop Already? [CR1]

[Canon Rumors]

Share

$20,000 too much scratch? There’s a rumor on the DVXuser forums that Canon has indeed dropped the price of the upcoming EOS C300 to €12,000, that converts to about $16,000 USD.

Is a rumoured new pricepoint to shift your desire for a Red Scarlett over to the C300?

Source: [Planet5D]

cr

[Ray Padden]

With the 'SCARLET-X AL CANON MOUNT PACKAGE $14,015' and 'BOMB EVF $3,200' I think this will certainly be a mind changer.  I am using that package and separate view finder as that is what is required to complete the kit if I were to compare it to the Canon C300.
Oh, Christmas is near, time for a major purchase me thinks 

[AprilForever]

Reminds me of the Sigma camera they were selling for 9,000 then dropped to about 6,000...

[sb]

Ooops :-) 20% just like that...  Canon got a little greedy - this is why competition is such a wonderful thing. Just smarten up and don't overprice the upcoming video DSLR 

[jamesmcintoshjr]

it's a good start, although it's still kind of overpriced, especially considering it still can't shoot 1080p at 60 frames (unlike say, a Sony A77)

I'm still hoping this thing will eventually come down around panasonic AF100 range, maybe around 6 grand, that's the right price in my mind.

Maybe with the second gen, they'll get it right.

[Fandongo]

It's...too...damn...BIG.

It looks like a stupid 80's full VHS camcorder.

DSLRs have taught us non-photography folks how simple and intuitive manual controls can really be.
What the hell is the point of these video camera style bodies anymore?
to put it on your shoulder?
to look "professional"?

Let your media do the talking.

The DSLR "revolution" will never be killed by the video camera - incorrectly shaped image capturing devices.
Sure, video cameras are beginning to catch up in quality.
But only because Canon's video division sent a memo to the stills department.

I assumed it went a little something like this:
"Stop it.  Stop doing what we do better than we do it.  Put uncompressed hdmi out on these and we are DEAD, we are ALL DEAD!"

Computers/Software/Cameras are exploding with potential.  The innovation has already been great.
It must be really really scary to know the mass of middle class kids being born with 35mm film cameras and 64bit editing machines at their finger tips.

NO OTHER industries are facing this type of imminent oversaturation/doom.
Oh, except the Record industry.
But audio hardware/software hasn't been redefining itself at nearly the rate as the video world.
We are living in the coolest moment of mankind.

And the c300 is a big backwards sideways leap.
It really should cost around 6k.
The AF100 should drop to $600
The GH2 is so much better (hacked).

I have no problem with Canon keeping pro-quality out of the hands of common consumers.
I would be totally down for a $20-30k 4k camera with great scaling, choosable sensor usage, fully selectable frame rates (hopefully up to at least 120)
BUT ONLY in a DSLR form factor.

[gene_can_sing]

The DSLR form factor is pretty much better in EVERYWAY for shooting video than the traditional video camera body. To it's credit, the c300 does get a bit of inspiration from DSLRs, more so than the Scarlet.

Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera

http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/

I've worked on a number of projects involving the RED over the last few years, and the workflow sucks really, really bad. Everything is forever in Beta and there is always a decent chance of something breaking.

The thing about the Scarlet is that it is truly a 24fps camera only. You think the c300 with it's 720p 60 fps sucks? Well, the Scarlet does 1080p 60fps at 2k, but with the HUGE penalty of being a 3.24x crop. That essentially makes it useless unless you want everything super zoomed or are filming Lions in Kenya. RED is really strange in that the different frame rates and resolution sizes all have different crops, and the 4k 24fps is the ONLY mode with a decent 1.6x crop factor. All the other resolutions have useless crop factors ranging from somewhat passable 2x to utterly useless 6.4x crop.

Any crop more than the 1.6x of the aps-c is undesirable IMO. That's why I cannot get myself to go the GH2 2x crop route (along with crappy Panasonic colors).

Canon will hopefully release a digic 5 Rebel in February to hold us off until the DSLR hybrid comes out. That's going to be the camera to beat.

But yeah, the c300 is still overpriced.

[Mark Holmes]

If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.

For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.

[TimeLapseNinja]

If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.

For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.

I cant agree with you more on your comments.  Also the scarlet does 120fps and the canon is limited to 24fps?  Why would they even release this camera if it could not even do 60fps?  I agree that they would need to bring the price down to about $5000 for me to even consider this camera. Or at the least boots its specs quite a bit for me to even consider dropping $16,000.

[gene_can_sing]

If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.

For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.

I cant agree with you more on your comments.  Also the scarlet does 120fps and the canon is limited to 24fps?  Why would they even release this camera if it could not even do 60fps?  I agree that they would need to bring the price down to about $5000 for me to even consider this camera. Or at the least boots its specs quite a bit for me to even consider dropping $16,000.

IMO, the slow motion in the RED Scarlet in almost completely useless. It does do 120fps, but only at 1K and with a HUGE, HUGE penalty of 6.4x crop. That is completely useless. Even at 60fps slow motion, it does it at 2K with a 3.24x crop. Also, pretty close to useless because of the extreme crop.

The reality is, the Scarlet is really ONLY a 24fps camera. REDs are strange in that when you change frame rates, the crop changes also. Nothing you can do about that.

Personally, would take the 720p 60fps at 1.6x crop of the 300c over the Scarlet 2K 60fps at 3.24x crop any day, unless I'm shooting wildlife way off in the distance.

[Bob Howland]

One of the Canon execs said that the development period for the C300 was extremely short, something like 2 years. I suspect that the lack of time is why the C300 uses the XF300/305/100/105 codec and is, therefore, limited in its data output rate and its frame rate. Like others have said, maybe Canon will get it right the next generation.

[gene_can_sing]

I predict that the c300 is going to be a FLOP, and Canon will redeem itself with the DSLR hybrid.

I would still take the c300 over the RED Scarlet. I've worked on a number of projects that have involved RED over the past few years, and something always majorly goes wrong and it takes too long to figure out what's wrong. The REDs reminds of a Panavision 35mm motion picture camera  where you need an entire crew and a dedicated tech to really make it work. For a small or 1 person crew, it's too hard to deal with.

With Canon at least, you know it's going to work right usually. With RED, you can never go into a project 100% confident that your camera won't break or something won't go wrong in the post process.

[daniel charms]

It's...too...damn...BIG.

It looks like a stupid 80's full VHS camcorder.

Have you even looked at the specs list? The C300 is DSLR form factor. The body is about the size of a 1D and weighs just slightly more.

[dilbert]

One of the Canon execs said that the development period for the C300 was extremely short, something like 2 years. I suspect that the lack of time is why the C300 uses the XF300/305/100/105 codec and is, therefore, limited in its data output rate and its frame rate. Like others have said, maybe Canon will get it right the next generation.

I don't doubt that Canon will. If the 2 years is right, that means that the decision to go ahead with the C300 was made in the months after the 5D3 firmware release that provided manual control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO for movie mode. Canon quite clearly kicked off the development of the C-DSLR at the same time but how many other cameras? I'd wager at least one more - similar to the C300 - but without the time constraints.

Saying that maybe Canon will get it right in the next generation implies that they got it wrong with this one. I'd disagree with that or rather, given the time constraints, they got as much right as one could reasonably expect them to.

If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.

I don't think that Canon were aiming for the C300 to be an "internet sensation". Look at the announcement - set in Hollywood, aimed at the film studios, etc.

For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.

I believe that Canon believe that the kind of person that would use the GH2 for a professional video shoot is not the same as would use the C300. As a 3rd party, without their own lens lineup (and as an outsider trying to enter the market), Scarlet needed to have new features to attract others - hence autofocus. But how often is that used vs focus pullers?

I think that there are a lot of people who want the C300 to be something other than what it is.

As for the price, my recollection of the C300 announcement is that Canon was not firm on what the price would be when released, so perhaps Canon is not yet 100% sure on where to price it to be competitive, etc. The "change" from 20k to 16k thus seems fair.

[daniel charms]

As for the price, my recollection of the C300 announcement is that Canon was not firm on what the price would be when released, so perhaps Canon is not yet 100% sure on where to price it to be competitive, etc. The "change" from 20k to 16k thus seems fair.

I think the post is a bit misleading, in that it's making it sound like Canon has lowered the list price of the C300, whereas in reality, this is just pure speculation with nothing to back it up. What these forum posts have confirmed is that the street price of the camera is indeed somewhere to the tune of $16,000 (with links to back it up), but this is something that was predicted already back at launch. It doesn't look like anything has changed between then and now.