Canon's foray into the Hollywood market means that they'll test the water with their technology which will incorporate to the lower end models. So in the end, the benefit is to us, the ones that don't have that big of a budget.

I'm eagerly anticipating on the C EOS DSLR :-)

BTW... for those with short memories, Jim, Glen, Robert Dave, Chris myself and others had pretty much this same discussion a year ago where Glen asserted Canon, like Apple, actually does not produce products by listening to customers (see post #43)
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/483458-how-do-you-see-canons-line-up-down-line.html

Oh, and back then there was the hope of an XF200 to fill the famous "gap" and a solid state XL none which happened.

...The rub is those of us who have been begging for canon to bring us a step up alternative to the DSLRs are left wanting. ...I think both companies, while trying to offer top end tools have left a huge black hole in the production world that desperately needs to be filled. Right now it's Panny and Sonys game and that's where my money may go when I decide to pull the trigger.
This is as a good a description as any of what I read the OP expressing. There isn't one "customer". There are market segments. Each company defines and targets them. The question is how many segments are on Canon's spreadsheet and which are they targeting with which product (if at all). For Canon, many segments are covered by HDSLRs versus competitor camcorders and thus single camera customers of Canon are frustrated with the HDSLR audio and video "workarounds" trying to use HDSLRs in ENG use cases. Actually, staying loyal in this situation may feed a "they'll never leave us ... let them eat cake" corporate strategy... especially in lean tsunami ridden times.

Selling large numbers don't mean that a product is profitable. It's one of those turnover V profit issues that have caused companies to go under....Sony didn't release the FS100 at the same time as the F3, although it was strong hinted at and there was also a mock up.
You are absolutely right that products are profit driven. But looking past the Canon line, the Sony Z5, Z7, AX2000, NX5U, EX1r, EX3 are six, count them SIX, 3-ring solid state 3-chip cameras across a price range from $3k to $8K. Two have interchangeable lens mounts. In that range, Canon has one fixed lens solid state camera at $6500/$7500 and a companion 10x lensed 1-ring "little buddy" camera at $3k. Several sub $6K market segments exist and other companies are competing in them. Arguably, Canon, after 3 years and several product cycles has never provided a solid state equivalent for it's tape based A1 prosumer customers. This lament is a recurring theme here on DVinfo. And recall, the XF300 came out almost 2 years after the EX1 when Sony was shipping the version 2.0 of that camera.

In the single chip "Cinema" space, the Sony VG-20, FS-100 and F3 define 3 body-only price points at $1600, $5K and $14k. Panasonic has the AF-100 at $4800. Canon has one at a TBD street price off of $20K list.

There are various segments. Canon's decade long MO is to be last to market with a package differentiated in some way. It has few products in these segments. It's getting coverage using HDSLRs which Sony and Panasonic also have but without the 12-minute restriction. So in spite of reading DVinfo (actually some say line employees read it and translate it to management so I wrote my feedback in Japanese once), threads like this keep coming up and more Canon customers move on to other company's product lines. If Glen is right, Canon doesn't produce products by listening to customers anyway.

Canon's foray into the Hollywood market means that they'll test the water with their technology which will incorporate to the lower end models. So in the end, the benefit is to us, the ones that don't have that big of a budget.

I'm eagerly anticipating on the C EOS DSLR :-)

Actually, the analysis I agree with is that like the XL-H1, Canon aimed the XF300 and it's 422 CODEC squarely at the broadcast market. The XF100 was a companion "buddy" product for POV applications. Neither addressed the customer requirements for a solid state A1 replacement segment. Those customers either downgraded to the 1-ring 10x XF100 or XF10 consumer camera, moved to HDSLR or went to Sony, JVC, or Panasonic. So for the current Canon line, getting technology in lower end models is a downgrade compared to other product lines. Wait for the C EOS DSLR all you want, people have been waiting for the 5DM3 for a couple years already. There's no assurance the C EOS DSLR will be full frame either. The VG-20, FS-100 and AF100 are out there now.

I don't see it as "they'll test the water with their technology which will incorporate to the lower end models" at all. Any more, Canon enters late (on purpose) with something aimed at the broadcast (and now Hollywood) segment(s) then produces a second model which is still (from a product feature perspective) aimed at complimenting the high end segment not the under $5K prosumer segment. Take it or leave it. Hence my point earlier about "eating the scraps off the broadcast/cinema segment table". In fact, the A1 could be viewed in the same way, a compliment to the XL-H1 that (happily) also satisfied a piece of the prosumer upgrade-to-HD demand.

Look, I was as rabid a Canon XL1s, XH-A1, 20D, S95 toting fan-boy as they come. I wish Canon produced the camcorders when I needed them but they didn't. Others did so I moved on. I tolerate the 5DM2 because it doubles as a stills and b-camera for traveling. Otherwise, I'd have moved to an FS-100 or AF-100 for sDOF in a heartbeat (or if it were now, take a look at the VG-20).

IMHO, loss of market share actually does show up on a spreadsheet at Canon and is probably a far more influential form of feedback for us "folks" than posting here. As I say often, brand loyalty only helps the brand, not you. Stop waiting around, buy from the company that makes what you need and go tell stories. It's much more fun that being frustrated with equipment that doesn't do what you need. IMHO.

Selling large numbers don't mean that a product is profitable. It's one of those turnover V profit issues that have caused companies to go under.


Very true but I'm surprised that Canon hasn't gone after market share with the C300, enabling them to recoup R&D from volume sales and also selling a lot more lenses. I'd love to know the production cost of the C300 but considering it is the guts of the XF300 (or even XF100) minus a lens and plus a larger sensor, I can't see that it would exceed the low thousands of dollars.

There has been mention of Canon stills and video departments not wanting to tread on each others toes. Maybe that inflated the price of the C300 - ensuring that it was a totally separate market segment from HDSLRs.

Actually, Les, I was quoting Steve Jobs as an example of how a company can be so original, they create products you WANT, not always necessarily what you need. Apple makes products based upon what they think people will want, and bypass the focus groups and such. It doesn't always work out; Apple does have some big failures in their history.
Maybe the XF300 was somewhat like that. Canon knew they had to enter the tapeless broadcast market, so they came up with a doozie of a camera. So good, right off the bat, it was accepted as the first full-acquisition 1/3" chip HD cam by the stoic BBC. Many cried out that it should have been a 1/2" chip cam, but Canon made it 1/3" anyway.
But based upon what I've been hearing about the development of the C300, Canon does listen to its customer base. The 5D, which started the low budget, large sensor video revolution, was an answer to requests from photographers for a DSLR camera that could also shoot HD video. The success of the 5D caught even Canon by surprise. So by listening to one group of customers, Canon inadvertedly created a whole new customer base.

I agree with others who state this is Canon's first step into the new market of digital cinematography. I know many aren't happy with the price, or its lack of some higher-end features (10-bit), but it still seems like a heck of a good camera. We'll soon see what the actual street price will be. And I'm sure this is the first product of many, so hang on; it will only get better. Remember, the XF300 begat the XF100.

I'm still more intrigued by that new cinema DSLR. This could be that mid-tier cinema camera everybody's hoping for.

Wait for the C EOS DSLR all you want, people have been waiting for the 5DM3 for a couple years already. There's no assurance the C EOS DSLR will be full frame either. The VG-20, FS-100 and AF100 are out there now.



It is ironic how well Sony and Panasonic listened to Canon's customer base. They really didn't like what happened with the 5DII. Canon responds with the 1DX for sport shooters, and a $20,000 video camera. Neither available in 2011. It's hard to see a customer focused well executed corporate strategy here. Even assuming the video out of each of these new cameras is superb.

The sensor of Cinema DSLR will be full size (FF35 or whatever we're calling it) because the only processor package likely to handle the large file is in the pro size 1DX. Canon's not going to make a whole new camera. They're going to stick a purpose-built sensor in what they got. If they get crazy maybe they'll change a couple buttons on the 1DX body to make the "C" version.

Would a C100 sell? The C300 body with a regular bayer sensor (2-3K) and the XF100 processor package? It would have huge photosites like the F3. Obviously it would still be 8 bit.

...But based upon what I've been hearing about the development of the C300, Canon does listen to its customer base....

You say they do while others say they don't. The only way both can be correct is to understand they are different "customers" or market segments. The Canon camcorder product line reflects broadcast and cinema customers. Other videographers are getting their Canon gear from still camera designers and engineers.

When I hear people complain about Canon not listening, they are a customer segment not satisfied by the HDSLR and broadcast/hollywood driven products. That's the segment that keeps stringing along hoping for a "buddy" version they can afford (or scraps off the table version as I called it) while (generally speaking) the features they want are already available elsewhere but they want some special spec in their equipment and are being "loyal".

The 5DM2 was not meant to be a video camera. It was a happy accident. The XF300 begat nothing. I think Canon thought there was a need for a POV camera with a compatible codec for it's broadcast customers. Those are the requirements I see in the XF100, not the requirements of the $3000 prosumer one man band customers....unless they like the broadcast driven features (or scraps). In fact, the XF100 was the discussion point where you made the point about Canon "creating products that you want". Lots of under $5k prosumers taking a pass on a 10x, single ring, single 1/3" camera downgrade.

...Canon responds with the 1DX for sport shooters, and a $20,000 video camera. Neither available in 2011. It's hard to see a customer focused well executed corporate strategy here...

Let me give it a shot. :)

The oldest DSLR in Canon's lineup is the 1D3s. The rumor sites have tied themselves in a knot over a 1D4s (and a 24-70/2.8L IS lens) for well over a year, but it never came about in the Digic IV generation. Now the Digic V is available and shipping in some point and shoots. It's not really a surprise that the first camera out is a full frame 1D(s) model. It unites the 1D and 1Ds lines. And, yes, they listened to us. All indications are that it should have minimal aliasing and reduced rolling shutter (due to the faster sensor & processing).

This sets the stage for the next 5D, 7D, etc. But, development schedules being what they are, and the tsunami causing heartache and delays, we won't get these Digic V models until 2012. Undo the tsunami and we would probably be scrambling to buy the initial 5D3 (5D X?) cameras right now.

Now consider the C300. This is part of a major "customer focused well executed corporate strategy" where the company is launching a new service center and entering a brand new sector for Canon. The business model is built on low volume and high pricing, which is the norm for that customer base. The first product is somewhat modest, but that's due to using the older, 8-bit, Digic DV III image processor in order to accelerate their entry. Clearly, this is only the first in a line of products. (And don't forget the lens announcements which are also part of the strategy at > $6k per prime lens.)

As I see it, the strategic moves are clear and are being well executed, given the reality that product development takes time and a major natural disaster can disrupt the best of plans.

The bottom line is that the recent announcements target the pro still shooter and Hollywood. Canon was clearly sensitive to the fact that they didn't address the lower tiers; hence, the sneak peek at the Cinema DSLR. We have yet to see what the company will do next for the consumer DSLR and budget video shooter markets. Those plans have yet to be revealed.

Maybe we'll learn more at CES in early January...

We have yet to see what the company will do next for the consumer DSLR and budget video shooter markets. Those plans have yet to be revealed.


Problem is how will they separate a lower class model. They can't realistically step down from 1080p or decrease framerates. With the XF100 already recording at 50Mbps that would also be a hard omission to justify. They could remove HDSDI output and XLRs but then you are heading away from a video camera by doing so. Output also can't go any lower than 8 bit.

They could develop a cheaper sensor but would that really be more cost effective than using what they have already developed?

I think that is why people are surprised by the announced price. It appears to sit more between the F3 and the FS100, not above the F3. As all three of those cameras are capable of great images and all have major ergonomic shortcomings, a lot of buying decisions will be based on the specs and resulting workflow.

Okay, so Canon (or anyone else) if you are listening, I'd love to see:

C300's S35 sensor, exchangeable EOS/PL/Nikon mount, C300's 50Mbps 4:2:2, (F3's) 4:4:4 Dual link 10 bit output (combined with a sensor capable of true 4:4:4), proper movie camera ergonomics with VF in the right place (a little like the JVC HD100 line).

Prores recording would be a nice option too, maybe as a separate add on integrated into the design. 4K RAW as another option.

Eventually I think we'll see simultaneous RAW and processed recordings like we already have in stills but maybe that is still a few years off. That would be great for documentaries offering speed and flexibility when required.

I'm not sure that the C300 itself is "Hollywood", it's market it broader than that. The Paramount launch is more a statement of intent that they're getting involved in the higher end professional market, both with the lenses - Fujinon have been involved with Arri and the cameras.

This particular event wasn't really the place to launch a lower end camera, there are numerous shows during they year for doing that.

I'm not sure that the C300 itself is "Hollywood", it's market it broader than that.

I'd agree. In fact, I'd say it's more "Burbank" (TV) than "Hollywood" (Cinema), if you know what I mean, and TV production is done worldwide. The announcement and the commitment to the industry with the new service center imply that this isn't about a single product. It's a whole new commitment to the professional video market.

Problem is how will they separate a lower class model.

Mike put it well. And really that is what concerns many of us sub-10K camera buyers. How does Canon produce a lower cost camera for this market. The features of the C300 are not so great that this is easy to do. No 10-bit, no RAW, no 2K, no high bit-rate. The only thing they can do is dumb down the sensor. Which may not actually be economically necessary. Remember that just because they have to charge $16K for selling volumes in the 10,000s doesn't mean they can't make a profit by charging $8K selling volumes in the 100,000s.

What many of us are griping about is not that Canon can't have a high-end camera. It's that they painted themselves in a corner with this camera so that they almost can't release a lower-cost camera. I'm just not sure where Canon goes from here.

It does seem like a challenge to make a lower price model. But Canon has a master plan. They have a lot of smart people working over there so they likely have this worked out already (stuff is being designed right now).

One thing we know is Canon video cameras tend to have a price premium. So an AF100/FS100 competitor might be priced a little higher...say $7K. If the C300 hopefully comes in at $16K street (no guaranteed of this though), then the challenge is to reduce the price by about $9K. Let's see if that's feasible.

1. They could lower the build quality. Use more plastic.
2. They could remove all the weather sealing.
3. They could replace the motorized ND filter system with a standard manual filter wheel.
4. They could make the camera bigger and heavier to accommodate the manual filter wheel and/or differentiate it from the C300 form factor.
5. They could go to a standard handycam design and eliminate the attractive modular aspects. This would save money in the grip and the LCD monitor unit and differentiate it from the C300.
6. They could get rid of the Wi-Fi connection.
7. It might be EF only so PL users will need their own adapter, which is not as attractive as the PL mount C300
8. They could take out the Canon log gamma.
9. They could take out the true 24.00p recording (23.98p instead). True 24p is attractive to Hollywood for intercutting with film originated material, so excluding this would differentiate it from the C300.
10. They could remove Sync, Genlock, Timecode or HD-SDI. I hope they don't remove HD-SDI, but they could justify it with the 422 50 Mbps codec.

What I don't think they will remove is:

1. The sensor. Seems more economical to use the same sensor. The sensor also already works perfectly with the DigicDV III processor.
2. The codec. Canon is already willing to put this codec in the $3000 XF100.

Remember, they don't necessarily have to remove $9K in cost. Some or a lot of that reduction could just be a smaller profit margin. The C300 probably has healthy profit.

Take for example RED's Epic-X ($35,000) and Scarlet-X ($10,000). That's a $25,000 difference. But RED has said the image sensor is exactly the same. The only difference is slower speed ASIC and some circuit boards. Can that really account for $25K in cost? Personally, I don't think it does. It just shows how much profit margin is in the Epic-X and how little margin is in Scarlet-X.

I wonder if Canon's plan is simply to keep the lower cost market among its DSLRs. The new 1D and the DSLR they hinted at on Nov 3rd (the "C"?) may be what they fill in the sub-20K market with. So, the C300 could be lowest cost "cinema" camera they make.

Just a thought.

If we look at how canon has differentiated the XL and A lines in the past and what sony has done with the f3 fs100...I think that we'll see two lower cameras eventually, similar in form factor to each other, smaller, but less modular (losing the removable controller/LCD) and fewer buttons than the c300. Same sensor and specs. One with hd-sdi and one without. $6K and $9K street price.

or maybe not.

After waiting over three years, I am now actively looking at buying my first non Canon product in eight years.

I'm in the same boat. Canon just lost me as a customer. I've waited WAY too long for them to come out with a shoulder mounted form factor of the XF line. Those little handheld camcorders may be all the rage but I hate them. I've been shooting Canon since the XL1 but I'm tired of waiting for the XF1 or whatever the heck they would call it. I should have jumped ship when they announced those little baby XF cams, what a friggin joke. 1/4" chips?

And now this camera system, $20k. Give me a break.

I was so excited to see the industry go tapeless, now not so much.

I'm very frustrated right now.

That's a huge price drop for basically eliminating a screw - as we'll still need an LCD and XLR inputs that are permanently attached. Unlike Canon, Sony allowed themselves some wiggle room - first off the F3 is much cheaper than the C300 - so they can knock off $4000 to get to 9K. Easier than knocking off 10K which is what Canon has to do. Secondly, they can eliminate 10-bit and HDSI on a lower-priced camera. Personally I'm hoping they come out with something between the F3 and the FS100. The FS100 is just too weird of a camera for me to get behind.

Brett, try some of the FS100 koolaid. Weird or not, its surprisingly tasty.

You do realize there are people outside of Hollywood that buy cameras. Probably only a very small percentage of the DSLRs sold were southern California purchases. I just don't see Canon selling many of these things outside of Hollywood. It's a big market for cameras there, but its not that big.

And this camera ISN"T aimed at them.

Next one might/likely WILL be.

The market most of us work in got the "hand me downs" from broadcast cameras at $60k for a body and $40k for a lens back in the day (around the time I started...)

This is the first step.

The long and the short of it is:

If this camera isn't aimed at you, it isn't aimed at you. Don't buy it.

I'm intrigued by it but think it is MARGINALLY overpriced, based on what we are hearing. MARGINALLY. Like most Canon stuff, IMHO. 15% ish. +/- 5%.

If I can make money with it, I will! Regardless of whether I think I pay too much up front.

If the business model is solid, you can make money with a $250k camera.

10. They could remove Sync, Genlock, Timecode or HD-SDI. I hope they don't remove HD-SDI, but they could justify it with the 422 50 Mbps codec.

Here we go again...

In order to FORCE this camera to fit into a budget that folks have arbitrarily decided is what they are willing to spend, you are trying to "slit MY throat". I NEED those features in my next camera(s). PLEASE PEOPLE... stop trying to get manufacturers to produce yet another camera JUST LIKE what you are shooting now!

Hmm...I think that a s35 sensor, super clean 1080p, ultra high ISO camera without genlock and hd-sdi is a pretty decent jump from the 5dmarkii or x300 for a lot of folks, certainly not "just like" what anyone in the canon world is using right now. A lot of people don't need those features and my guess is that the market would be huge for such a lower price point camera. And if the market is huge....well trust me Canon won't miss that. You need those features. Great...Canon already makes the camera you want. Sound's like you want the same camera in a lower price point (lower than $14-17k which is where the c300 will most likely land). Not gonna happen.

However, I still think the differentiation going forward will involve one camera with pro features you need with less modularity and probably a smaller form factor...they've done it too many times before to think against that notion. Canon will also make a nearly identical camera without those pro features, and I bet they will be released on the same day. They will be more costly than the x300-305...but not hugely so. Close crystal ball.

You need those features. Great...Canon already makes the camera you want. Sound's like you want the same camera in a lower price point (lower than $14-17k which is where the c300 will most likely land). Not gonna happen.

Hi Barry. I think you missed my point. I am one of the few posters here who IS willing to spend some reasonable cash. I WILL pay $14-17k if I like what I see when it starts shipping.

My point is that a LOT of the comments here are from people who seem to want Canon to produce a camera SPECIFICALLY for them and DON'T want to pay fair market value.

Try custom ordering a new car or truck - you will pay MORE than a better equipped package which may include things you don't want. The value of slim-lining/streamlining.

Just suggesting that the expectations that a lot of folks posting seem to have are unrealistic and frankly don't give Canon ANY credit for doing market research. The very title of this thread is passive aggressive and suggests that Canon is aloof and doesn't do end-user research JUST BECAUSE they didn't talk to a group of low/no budget indie filmmakers, wedding and event videographers and/or corporate videographers who want a solution TODAY.

Again, this camera isn't aimed DIRECTLY at that market. If you can manage to make it work for you in that segment, AWESOME!

This one is aimed at episodic television, broadcast documentary and larger budget indie films and above.

And frankly, it's nice to see some innovation in this (MY) market again. Even IF this camera didn't hit ALL the items on MY wishlist.

--Hi Barry. I think you missed my point.--

I probably did somewhere around you wanting to slit your throat :-)

As someone who has gotten a chance to play with the camera, and as someone who did like what he saw, and as someone who will be pretty close to the front of the line when it's released, I also realize the pent up emotion of those who were expecting something different. I had pegged this camera in the $10-12k range prior to the announcement, but I'll bet many others thought that if Canon could put this type of sensor in a $2500 slr, then it could make a video camera for say ... twice that. I think where they (and I to some degree) failed was in recognizing the market (Alexa, Red, Sony F3) . For Canon to have a serious product it really needs to be in the same ballpark...which the c300 certainly is.

It will be interesting to see where Canon goes in the future. For now this is where it is. I'm, for one, am excited to jump in and test the waters.

Barry

Good point about expectations, Barry.

People have been talking about two things around here (and elsewhere) for a long, long time: a 5D3 and DSLR guts in a video-specific body. In fact, back at CES, January, 2009, I asked a Canon salesperson about 5D2 guts in a video body and she responded that she had heard that question more than any other since the 5D2 had been released.

Loyal Canon video shooters hadn't really been thinking about a $16k+ TV series production cam. But that's what happens when a company enters a new market. The old market customers are unlikely to see the benefit.

My point is that a LOT of the comments here are from people who seem to want Canon to produce a camera SPECIFICALLY for them and DON'T want to pay fair market value.

But it sounds like you want them to make one specifically for you. If you like the C300, buy it. It's just not going to work for me at that price point. I don't see how stating that and lobbying Canon for a different feature set and price tag is any different than what you are doing.

As far as fair market value, I'm not sure how you arrive at that. Suggesting that a large sensor camera with XLRs in a video body can't be made for less than $10,000 is absurd. We all know it can be done. Heck you can buy a T3i for $750 with a pretty good sensor in it. You can buy an audio recorder with XLRs for $500. You can buy a great Hi-def Viewfinder for $750. Stick them together and you're only up to $2000. Add and extra $7000 for R&D and profit and you're up to $9000. Pretty reasonable expectations in my book.

...... I should have jumped ship when they announced those little baby XF cams, what a friggin joke. 1/4" chips?
.

Just a note that the XF305 cams are 1/3", not 1/4. If you haven't used an XF300 series, don't knock it. It's an amazing camera with an amazing image, with a great workflow. And frankly, my XF305 is a better shoulder cam than the XL cameras ever were. Just use the LCD as a viewfinder. Try it, you'll like it.

I'm surprised no one's concerned about codec and workflow. That's worth the price of admission on this new cinema camera right there. XF files are a dream to edit and the images have that mojo that only Panasonic used to deliver. For professionals doing episodic work, the new camera should pay for itself many times over (in production costs) on the first shoot.

Is it just me or does it seem that Canon really doesn't go head to head in the video camera market? I mean above the consumer camcorders and HDSLR tier, Canon aims at market gaps.

Where there's competitors with products, Canon goes elsewhere. There's already three consumer 3-D cameras so no Canon product there. There's plenty of solid state 3-ring 3-chip handycams under $4k so no Canon product there. There's plenty of large sensor HDSLRs that record more than 12 minutes and don't flip the display output to SD so no Canon product there. There's already 2 $5k large sensor interchangeable lens camcorders with XLR so no Canon product there.

Granted there may be a couple exceptions like the GL-1 and GL-2 vs the PD170 but the XL1 was venerable and XL2 the only native 16x9 SD camera under $4k ... each one unique and priced in a gap. The A1 was best in class and priced well under Sony's 3-ring HDV XLR camcorders and the H1 an island. The XF100 at $3K is one ring but a 50MBS 4:2:2 CODEC. The XF300 right in the gap between EX1R and EX3 and the only handycam 3-mos with 50MBS 4:2:2. The 5DM2 similarly unique at $2700 and full of quirks....take it or leave it as the only full sized sensor camera. Ditto the C300 above the AF100, FS100, Scarlet and F3 but below Alexa and Epic. So if there is another large sensor camcorder body, we could expect it to be defined more by a gap than anything else....then again, that product may not be video camera at all but a $4k HDSLR.

So for people who have waited around a couple years for a Canon product in a particular segment where there's already products from others, well, you may end up feeling like the OP. Hope this helps. YMMV.

To me the XF300 competes head to head with the EX1 and EX3. And the C300 competes directly with the F3. The gaping hole that I see is a large sensor camera between $6000 and $12,000. That plus the weaknesses of the FS100 (No ND, inability to shoot over your head, difficult ergonomics) and AF100 (poor low light performance) seems like Canon could own this market if they wanted to.

Chuck-
Ditto, ditto, and more ditto....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

The gaping hole that I see is a large sensor camera between $6000 and $12,000.

Just like the flagship dslr $7k 21mp 1dsmarkIII came out almost exactly 1 year before the prosumer $2.9k 21mp 5dmarkII, (keeping in mind that video wasn't really a known subject with dslrs at that time) AND canon introduced the the $4-7k xh-G1-A1 cams 10 months after it introduced the $10k flagship xl-h1....

Canon will most likely release a lower cost video camera (or two) with similar specifications to the c300 within a known (to them) timeframe. It's how it goes.

Barry

Canon will most likely release a lower cost video camera (or two) with similar specifications to the c300 within a known (to them) timeframe. It's how it goes.

I think many people are hoping that they will but what specs can they cut? Possibly Genlock (and HDSDI if they are really tight!). The form factor can't be much smaller like with the XHA1/XF100 and the frame rates can't really get any lower either.

Again, all you have to look at is the past. Canon xl-h1 modular design with lots of buttons $10K xh-g1 same basic camera, in smaller package, less modular...less buttons $7k. XH-A1 loses Hd-sdi and it's $4k+.

(or the dslr version comparison is even sharper... 1ds has better focus and framerates, batteries... 5d has better sensor and video, yet it's less than half the price).

It's easy not to see the value in minor changes like modularity, size and a few features, but in cameras there has always been a premium paid at the top end...that's why those cameras are released first. They are more profitable on a unit basis for canon (although at a much lower number of units). Then the hordes jump in when the price drops on the lower model.

As for size, this camera isn't as small as it looks in the photos...it's mostly shown with the primes which are huge so it looks smaller than it is. (and with the controller monitor mounted, it's looks like the pudgy offspring of a 1ds - XL union--the controller monitor almost feels like an add-on 3rd party device...interesting industrial design to say the least). It is small for a professional video camera, but they can definitely fit all that into a form factor more compact like the x300 series (fixed lens? who knows). I don't think you'll see the xf105 version of this camera...that will most likely come from the consumer division...think "rebel cinema".

Barry

Okay, so I went to the canon site and checked out the footage from the C300. It does look good and I love the idea of what this camera can do in low light. STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE. They are imo:

#1) PRICE - had the C300 cost $8,900, Canon would sell many many more.
#2) 120fps@1080P (or even 60P@1080P for that matter)
#3) 10 bit out
#4) 4:4:4 out
#5) Global Shutter
#6) S-log out (though it is mentioned in one of the making of films it does do this?!)
#7) RAW internal recording

Releasing a high-end model and following with the downscale version makes good business sense. Those with cash will buy the expensive model. Others wait and buy later. If you do it the other way around, those with cash might buy the lower priced model, if it meets all their requirements.

I still remember when Sony first came out with an SDI (standard def) line of broadcasting equipment. They had just won the SMPTE standards battle and clearly had the chips and a line of SDI products already in development. (That standards battle with Thomson was bare knuckled!) Anyway, the prices on those first products were astronomical. They didn't sell many, but it helped them pay for the R&D and to get the bugs out. The next year, SDI became available in normally priced products. It was a very effective strategy.

The high price of the C300 makes sense. Lower volumes can help Canon hit their delivery targets and it eases them into the market. They will get a feel for what it really takes to support this industry without diving straight into the deepest part of the pool. And, at the high initial price, they can fund this new venture.

Erm, this board has 5 people currently viewing it.
Reduser has over 1200 on the Scarlet alone.

This is the board for Canon imho. I think there's a message here.
Sure Canon will sell some, but had they priced the C300
under $9K, there might easily be 500 pouring over the details here and right now before buying.
I might even be one of them. $20K? No way. Not going to happen.

Okay, so I went to the canon site and checked out the footage from the C300. It does look good and I love the idea of what this camera can do in low light. STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE. They are imo:

#1) PRICE - had the C300 cost $8,900, Canon would sell many many more.
#2) 120fps@1080P (or even 60P@1080P for that matter)
#3) 10 bit out
#4) 4:4:4 out
#5) Global Shutter
#6) S-log out (though it is mentioned in one of the making of films it does do this?!)
#7) RAW internal recording

#1- the direct competitors for this camera are the f3 $16k and the red scarlet (similarly equipped) $20k
#2 - 120 fps 1080p nobody does this in this price range...scarlet will give it to you at 1k in a severely windowed crop. I think the primary reason against 1080p 60 would be the 50mb codec, not sure you could get nearly as a clean a signal out of it. Canon admits their speed in introducing this camera relies on that codec..I suppose you could choose an f3 with avchd...:-)
#3 & 4 Ya got me there.
#5 I think they've got the electronics largely worked out on this issue with the c300
#6 There is C-log to the card and I'd guess thru the sdi.
#7) I still think this is overrated. Red doesn't have to process a good image by sending out a raw file with huge data requirements and a hella workflow. I'd prefer a traditional hi bit uncompressed output to prores or something of that nature.

I think this camera is certainly a contender due to the quality of the codec, the sensor and image processing and it's low light capabilities. It beats the competition in these categories handily at least for 1080p output. After watching the films at the canon event and seeing that in many cases they largely shot to compact flash, I cant imagine myself "needing" a lot of the things we're all grumbling about.

STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE.
Larry Thorpe gave (what seems to me) a very frank interview on behalf of Canon. I don't know whether I may link to it directly, but he does say:
The reaction to the 5D Mark II astonished us, and we had filmmakers all over us. There was a plea - 'if you've done this, can't you possibly make a full motion imaging camera with everything that we need, and none of the limitations of the 5DII?' And that triggered a very speedy program - less than two years - to develop this camera.

We developed a new sensor specifically for motion imaging. That was already cooking, but we lifted the digital processor and the codec from our little camcorder, the XF305 [...] and that's why [the C300] has MPEG recording, 50 megabit, etc., and why we were able to bring the camera to fruition relatively quickly.
So to answer your question - "we lifted the digital processor and the codec from our little camcorder, the XF305 .. and that's why ...we were able to bring the camera to fruition relatively quickly" Later on, he says:
In five years time the C300 will have brothers and sisters. We'll probably move in a number of directions. We think this is a very very good start but there's no question that 4K is coming, so we have to keep our eye on that. As for a lower cost model [...] that would make a lot of sense in the marketplace. We have a master plan and [the C300] is step one - into HD. We've stepped in, and we're never going to stop. We're in for the long term. Wherever the marketplace dictates that we should go, and wherever our technology allows us to go, we'll be there.

Don't get me wrong. I and many others think the C300 makes some awesome images, and YET -

If the C300 had global shutter, that alone would be a very good sales point.
(even though I am not one to notice a lot of jello cam from my EXCAMs.)

PRICE? As is stated elsewhere, Sony leads and can now drop the F3's price to $12K and SMOKE the C300 - OR enable S-log and 4:4:4 as standard options and beat Canon for those who want those features (me for one) . Many buyers (me again) already have several
EX1 and EX3s and the F3 is a logical choice. Without *compelling reasons* why spend more on Canon?

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K. That alone whomps the C300 for those who want 2K slo mo (ME!).

Scarlet can do 4K!!! Hello? Maybe not needed right now, but might be tomorrow.
I see Scarlet as more future proof. New Dragon sensor might be even better than C300?!
Scarlet accessories work with EPIC, so I can load up on Scarlet gear and then rent an Epic brain if and when a high end shoot demands it. Canon? Not so much.

Erm, this board has 5 people currently viewing it.
Reduser has over 1200 on the Scarlet alone.

This is the board for Canon imho. I think there's a message here.
Sure Canon will sell some, but had they priced the C300
under $9K, there might easily be 500 pouring over the details here and right now before buying.
I might even be one of them. $20K? No way. Not going to happen.

Jacques-
Either you haven't been reading these threads (you have) or you just want to keep dredging up the same thing, repeating whats been said over and over. You know it's not going to be $20K so why do you bring that up? You know that this 1st camera is not going to be $9K so why do you repeat what's already been stated? You know that there will be more cameras coming (4K & a lower priced one) later, so why harp on this 1st one. As for the RED forum, trying to compare how many RED devotes are falling over themselves in praising their new camera coming...soon...
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K.

That's true, but it's windowed to 2/5 the linear size (and 4/5 the area) of the full 5K frame. Maybe it's useful if you can put a C-mount lens on it. Otherwise, you'd be limited to tele shots.

If the C300 had global shutter, that alone would be a very good sales point.
(even though I am not one to notice a lot of jello cam from my EXCAMs.)

PRICE? As is stated elsewhere, Sony leads and can now drop the F3's price to $12K and SMOKE the C300 - OR enable S-log and 4:4:4 as standard options and beat Canon for those who want those features (me for one) . Many buyers (me again) already have several
EX1 and EX3s and the F3 is a logical choice. Without *compelling reasons* why spend more on Canon?

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K. That alone whomps the C300 for those who want 2K slo mo (ME!).

Scarlet can do 4K!!! Hello? Maybe not needed right now, but might be tomorrow.
I see Scarlet as more future proof. New Dragon sensor might be even better than C300?!
Scarlet accessories work with EPIC, so I can load up on Scarlet gear and then rent an Epic brain if and when a high end shoot demands it. Canon? Not so much.


rolling shutter...take a look at mobius near the end of the chase scene...there are 5 or 6 shots there that would certainly demonstrate the jello, if there were any.

What if sony dropped the price to $12K? that's a pretty big what if.

scarlet 60p at 2k. Guess it depends on how you like your 2k...crop factor 3.24 anyone? super 16 is nice...for film school...I guess.

Scarlet can do 4k. yup...at 24p...too bad 99% of its users will never do anything with that 4k but downconvert...and let's not forget all the hidden costs of that 4k. (I've got to admit that since I was a kid always wanted a red rocket..but I was thinking something that would go to mars..:-) Seriously, If I really needed 4k, I'd buy the epic. 4k is for effects guys...and effects guys like to overcrank...I'm told.

And load up on scarlet gear...well yes...yes you will. (especially batteries and media)

Here's the thing. I made the trip to LA to see the canon D&P show and then headed over to Red to take a look at scarlet. Canon had 20 c300s for me to take a look at in an unbelievable array of configurations...Red...well red being red didn't have a scarlet to show the day after their event. They said they wouldn't until they shipped. All those smart, smart RedUsers buying cameras they haven't even seen yet, from a company that has a history that is long on hype and filled with a lot of tripping over their own feet. Yup...If I were you...I'd buy a Red.

For me, I like the form factor of the c300, I like the codec, I like the compact flash i/o and mostly I like the image quality...and also I like that when Canon delivers it's camera, it will most likely be on time, and do exactly what it says it can do.

If the C300 had global shutter, that alone would be a very good sales point.
There's rolling shutter and rolling shutter......

It all depends on readout speed - faster it is, less any effect. And another beauty of the way this sensor works is that simple may well equal fast.

No need for a global shutter when you can do a relatively artifact-free rolling shutter.
While you can't expect to cleanly swish-pan the C300, the filmmakers who have used it have said that they had to work hard to introduce any noticeable skew.

LIke I said Chris, rolling shutter has never been a big issue in my playbook.

Okay, if I'm all wrong, who here is going to pony up and buy?

We can't really compare the rolling shutter of the two cameras yet.

The 2011 Zacuto Shootout showed a couple of interesting things:
1) The RED ONE's rolling shutter isn't as good as many would lead us to believe, and
2) The Canon 1D4 rolling shutter was about half that of the 5D2 and 7D.

Unfortunately, they weren't able to test an EPIC. With the higher frame rates available, I can only assume that the read-reset time is faster than on a ONE. But since they're using slower chips on the Scarlet X, it might have more skew than EPIC. We can guess that it will be pretty good, but it's only a guess.

Regarding Canon, the low level of 1D4 skew impressed me. The C300 will be arguably faster. The sensor has fewer pixels, a smaller size, and is of the next generation. It's designed for a high-priced Hollywood cam and will clearly be deployed in future models. Those models might do 4K and faster frame rates. My guestimate is that will have half the skew of the 1D4. But again, that's a guess.

The bottom line is that both cameras are likely competent in the rolling shutter department, but until we see the footage, we won't know.

BTW, to get a hard number, shoot some video while triggering a photo flash unit on minimum power by hand. Capture a frame where the flash starts and ends within that frame. Capture two back to back frames where the flash starts on the first and ends on the second. From these, one can calculate exactly how long the rolling shutter time is. Post the frames and I'd be happy to do the measurements. :)

LIke I said Chris, rolling shutter has never been a big issue in my playbook.

Okay, if I'm all wrong, who here is going to pony up and buy?

As if you couldn't tell, I'll most likely bite. Interesting, I spoke to my dealer (a major so-cal supplier) this afternoon and he said that as of this moment, canon hasn't even said who will be carrying the cameras, and thus he can't take orders for it. He fully expects that they will be approved, but there is precious little info from canon about anything at this point.

Barry

That's interesting Barry - almost seems like another thing not thought through. That said, from what I have seen, the C300 does make some wonderful images. I am sure whoever does make the purchase will certainly be happy.
Wish I could afford it myself or even suggest it for the University. But when put side by side with the F3, I couldn't justify the extra thousands. And right now, unless one needs it for a paying gig, the best thing for me is to wait until NAB (or later). Sorry to beat this horse, but if it were under $10K, that would change.

Anyone else?

almost seems like another thing not thought through.

Actually it has been completely thought through. Re-read Barry's post: "Canon hasn't even said who will be carrying the cameras..." which is not at all the same thing as "Canon doesn't know who will be carrying the cameras." On this forum, please read posts for what they say and not for what you want to project into them.

The C300 will be a fairly exclusive item. It's not something a person can buy on Amazon. There are going to be only 20 dealers in the U.S. that will be able to sell them. Canon has already established who they are but have not announced their identities yet. I know of two DVi sponsors who will have them. You can expect the dealer list to be made public in January.

As far as the price is concerned, my take on it is that any pre-orders and any first-month sales will most likely go for full MSRP. You can expect the price to drop quickly soon afterwards.

There are also hidden running costs like the recording media. The overall package needs to costed, including the post production.

But when put side by side with the F3, I couldn't justify the extra thousands.
"Extra thousands"?? I don't know what the situation is in the US, but in the UK I'm hearing about £12,500 as the body only price (excl VAT) for the C300 versus about £10,000 for a basic F3 body only from at least one major dealer. But for those figures you do get a full broadcast spec codec with the C300 - you have to pay extra with the F3.

I don't deny that that still makes the C300 dearer - even after buying the recorder for the F3 - but those are initial prices for the C300. Either way, the difference is small compared to the difference between either of them and something like an Alexa or F65.

As if you couldn't tell, I'll most likely bite. Interesting, I spoke to my dealer (a major so-cal supplier) this afternoon and he said that as of this moment, canon hasn't even said who will be carrying the cameras, and thus he can't take orders for it. He fully expects that they will be approved, but there is precious little info from canon about anything at this point.

Barry
Yes, there are going to be just 20 dealers with 3 of them here in LA. I can tell you that there is great interest from people here in town (TV shows, rental houses, owner/operators) and as soon as Canon makes their dealer announcement, everyone here will know who & how much. Delivery is scheduled for the last part of January. Canon is fielding requests from a number of shows to try out the camera between now and the delivery date. 2 shows are scheduled to go up in February using the C300s.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com