When Canon launched the c300 mk1 a lot of people scoffed that it was only only 1080, and that there were then already cheaper 4k options.
I'm a working cameraman, at that point I worked for Europes largest news publisher, so I was on a lot of shoots, press launches, sports events (manager q&a sessions etc)
It seemed then and seems now that everybody was using c300's. The popularity was in spite of what I was reading on forums, probably written by folk who had handled a spec sheet but never been near a c300 in their sleep.
At that point I was shooting on a mix of ENG, XF and DSLr, and I'll confess that I've only used the c300 on a handful of occassions.
But the success of the camera, to my mind, depended on a few factors, and I think these still apply today to a greater of lesser degree to the mk2, which is facing the same negativity, despite very few folk actually having used one in the wild:
- 50i codec low compression codec. It's what broadcast wants, and what DSLRs cannot deliver
- complete solution, one battery, one record button, good audio built in, works out of the box
- lens compatability, no need for flakey third party adaptors, lenses work as they should
- compact form (no plinths, no guddle of cables to fail)
- iq. High but clean base iso with built in filtration (no horrible fader nds)
- transparent design. Operators can get a good handle on the camera immediately.
Now, none of these are headline features, and not one of them is unique to the c300, and the same is true of the c300mk2.
They are a staid, sensible choice. One might say even dull.
But look at it this way... your lenses just work, your editor can cut straight away without transcoding, you can bump up the iso without gritting your teeth, you lift it out your bag, switch it on and hit record, you don't need metabones (version 5 are we on now?) you don't need a battery the same size as the camera or an external recorder.
I can't think of another camera that ticks all of these boxes, not costing at least double or triple the money.
There are some great bits of kit been launched, it continues to be an exciting market. There are better cameras, but they are costing more money. Much more money.
There are cheaper cameras that seem to offer more, but which past experience tells me will either be buggy, impossible to get hold of, require severe adaptation, or have terrible iq.
Canon, by being conservative, and by making kit that people actually need TO MAKE A LIVING TODAY, and which PEOPLE CAN DEPEND ON TODAY, actually lead the market.
The Op asked, 'can canon keep up?', with whom? The Joneses? Why on earth would they want to do that?
I predict that the c300mk2 will be something less of a success than the mk1', mainly because the only real upgrade incentive is 4k, which people at a factual / news / general broadcast level don't need, and their c300 mk1s are plodding along quite happily.
The cinema moniker to me is something of a misnomer. Despite every 20 year old being a DoP these days, there are still many wner operator camerramen, and the majority aren't getting work in the movies. And besides, thats more where I would expect to see your hired f65s, your hired alexas.
