Canon's pricing strategy has been questioned a lot, but following the early reviews, it looks like Canon's not out of line vis a vis RED. Canon's codec uses 4:2:2 8-bit color space, so for serious colorists, it doesn't offer the RAW video files that the Scarlet does. That said, RED's RAW imagery actually increases its effective price; the capture devices and (to a lesser extent) editing horsepower necessary to take advantage of these images adds thousands of dollars to the price. The C300 is the more economical deal, at least in this regard. Plus, early reviews state the the Canon codec, puny compression scheme notwithstanding, actually stands up well to color correction. The F3, meanwhile, looks like a better deal relative to the Canon. However, the C300 comes with Canon's color profiles included, whereas the F3 requires that LOG capability be purchased separately. This capability is what gives the F3 its Alexa-like capabilities, and which allow it to arguably outclass the C300. So unless one is willing to plop down the extra change, the F3's price-competitiveness with the C300 might not be as favorable as it seems. We'll have to see more footage from the C300 to know how useful Canon's color profiles are, and whether C300 allows enough color latitude. At the least, though, the C300 form factor and build quality make it a formidable documentary cam, as well as a useful, discrete options for narrative indie filmmakers who shoot without sets or employ various Dogme 95 or veritae techniques. Its low light capabilities are also much better than the Scarlet's, and the F3 only competes in this regard with its expensive upgrade. So for certain jobs, the C300 might be the best camera on the planet. Whether it's also a fully-qualified cinema camera that can sit alongside the Scarlet, which has clear strengths in a controlled environment, remains to be seen.I am very curious to know, though, how this pricing strategy will extend to the Cinema DSLR. At $4,000 - $5000, the camera would tempt me to save a while longer and buy one. 24fps 4K images make the camera not only an interesting motion picture tool but also a capable (if limited, since the images will be MJPEG) sports camera. Not in the sense that one could shoot at the Olympics like one could with a 1DX, of course-- but for strict web use, a 24 8 megapixel images per second could definitely be useful for stills as well as for video. I also expect the thing to more or less see in the dark, perhaps even better than the C300 does, given that the DSLR will use a full frame rather than Super35 sensor. But if it's more expensive than $5,000 (and even that would take a lot of disciplined savings), I'll probably go for the 5D Mk III, assuming it is indeed the more 1DX-like update that is rumored. I'm someone who shoots events, street activity, and sports as a stills guy, and who does time lapses, documentaries, ads, and indie-styled narratives as a motion guy-- so this camera would make me very happy. Insanely happy if it (improbably) upgrades the autofocus or has the same FPS capabilities as my 60D. If it's a high-megapixel monster, as has also been rumored, AND the Cinema DSLR is monstrously expensive, I'll be sort of bummed.