If Canon was really out to win this market they would be trying to squeeze the FX9 from below. The C500II (which I own) is their new flagship, but I think they will get beat on sales by the FX9 simply based on price (the cameras are really targeted at different users, but as they came out at the same time, Sony seems to be winning from a "chatter" standpoint. The problem is the differences between these cameras are getting so slim, but perhaps we could see an FX9 clone (FF but 4k output) with some of canon's new AF tech (from the 1dxmarkIII) combined with a price tag at 10k. Would likely savage the new C500II as well, which is why I don't think it will happen. More likely that we will see something on the lower end...a C200 mark II...5.9k S35 $7k better codecs. Done.
Yea - that's true. If Canon came out with a full-frame C300 III as a 4k only camera but offered all the specs you would think it would have (internal raw up to 60fps + 10-bit codecs), that could really hurt the C500 II, since the 5.9k on that camera would only be used in productions that can deal with and afford the file sizes.
But, if it doesn't have internal raw or is not full-frame, how is it above the C200, which has internal raw 4k up to 60fps?
I wouldn't be surprised (but I would be disappointed), if it was sort of a combo of the C300 II and C200 - a Super35 4K-only camera with internal raw up to 60fps + all of the 10-bit codecs that the C200 was missing. So, basically a C200 with a firmware update. Hopefully not, but that's what I'm guessing.
That's why I think they should make it RF Mount, full-frame, 4k-only, internal raw, 60fps, all 10-bit codecs. Want an EF mount or 5.9k raw? C500 II. Don't need 5.9k raw or want the newer, more powerful RF mount? C300 III.