Who's going to buy a C200?
Who’s going to buy a C200? How did red beat canon to an RF mount cinema camera? Even when the C100 mkiii does come out I doubt it will have a feature set and price tag to rival the Komodo. Right now the only camera in the C line that compares is the C500 mkii for $10k more.
Anyone who still has a huge collection of EF glass that needs a cinema body, Canon's DPAF, shoots long form combined with occasional commercial work. Basically the same buyers who have been buying the C200 since it was released.
How did Red beat Canon to an RF mount cinema camera?
The last time I checked it wasn't a race; this is Canon's own mount we are talking about here. There is a huge collection of EF and PL mount cinema lenses already out there in the wild, Canon knows this and knows adoption of the RF mount will be slow; even the C300 III came out with an EF mount; why rush your cinema line to a new mount when there are no cinema lenses for that mount?
No one knows what the C100MkIII will have or if it will even ever exist, but you are comparing a camera with unproven/untested AF, beta this, in development for that to a field tried and proven line of cinema cameras; then stating you need to spend $10K more to get equivalent specs. Also, you do know Red's business model right, all you get is a block, the accessories to make that block work will cost just as much as the block. So no ND filters in body, no IBIS (C300 MK III has ibis), no XLR inputs (will need an external audio recorder), etc. etc.
I'm not saying its specs aren't fantastic, and that it won't be able to produce incredible footage, I just thinking everyone slamming Canon and claiming gloom and doom for Canon's cinema line needs to realize that the most common phrase associated with Canon products is that specs on paper do not tell the whole story.