Canon C300 Mk II, 4K & under $8,000?

[Glen Vandermolen]

So now the latest rumors has the alleged 4K C300 replacement in price competition with the FS7.

Rumor: Canon C300 Mk II Will Get 4K For Less

[Noa Put]

It says in that article that canon will lower the price on the mark II c300 because they did the same with the c100 which is not the case as it's still the same price, was the c300 not in competition with the fs700 before, considering everyone thinks it's in competition with the fs7 now? before Canon didn't bother adjusting prices to match the fs700 and I would find it hard to believe they will now.

[Chris Hurd]

This is why I never give much credence to these "rumor mill" sites:

They hear that Lake Success is looking to launch an even bigger update with the C300 Mk. II,

Canon USA moved out of Lake Success a few years ago. They're in Melville now, much further east on Long Island. My point is, if a source is wrong about something so basic as a company's location, then what else are they wrong about?

Mm-hmm.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Actually these sites are written by bloggers who aim to get footfalls to their site. So they often create stories on their own. And any rumour posted in another site is also covered. However, instead of just copying it, they try to change the language etc to show it as original. That is how they start making such basic mistakes like getting the name of the company's location wrong.

[Barry Goyette]

I love me a good rumor, and generally I find what CR posts to be at least reasonably filtered from generally decent sources. The linked article though has paraphrased the CR post innacurately, as there's nothing in there about the C300 MkII being priced at $8k.

However, I do think there's reason to believe that with the C300, canon will not follow it's own example with the C100 Mk II regards to pricing.

FS7-- while we'd normally consider C300 is in the same category as Sony's single digit (F3/F5) camcorders, Sony has largely remade the landscape with the FS7, bringing out a camera with specs very near and dear to its more expensive cousins. The reason for this isn't clear, but I think it comes down to camera's in the F5/C500 range simply not selling well (that's what one salesman on this forum told me, anyway). The C300 has generally sold extremely well at a steadily declining price point, and largely kicked Sony's butt in the segment. Thus the FS7. An extremely competitive camera with a spec list that Canon can't currently touch. So it's hard to believe that a new C300 will so "outspec" the Fs7 that it won't at least have to try to compete with it.

Which leads us to Noa's comment about canon not lowering the price of the C100 mkII. Well, that camera sold well at a pretty consistent price point ($5k-$5.5k) during it's entire run, with occasional rebates to stir the pot. It also sits down at the bottom of the range -- meaning there's less profit, and less incentive to cut prices on Canon's part. With the C300 now being sold at 30% below it's original price ($11.5K) and the C500 at nearly 40% below it's launch ($16k), it's hard to imagine, given the competition in the segment, that the new C300 will come in at or above where it originally launched ($17k).

I'll bet we'll see it come in somewhere near where the old camera is currently sitting. I think it will have 4k, higher frame rates, Cfast and some better codec options(and 10bit output). I don't think we'll see anything with 14stops of DR (I don't think canon has this in a chip yet or they would have showed it in the 5ds).

Frankly I don't care where it ends up being priced. I'd love to see better color, better highlight handling, and have 10bit c-log to work with. If they do that, price won't matter to me.

[Adrian Tan]

Here's a prediction for C300 specs (this is speaking-out-of-one's-butt speculative, completely groundless).

$12,000. Internal 4K and UHD 10-bit. 10-bit 422 2K and 1080 up to 120fps. Dual Pixel AF. ISO up to 204,800. 14-stop dynamic range. CFast.

Why you'd buy it over an FS7: for the DPAF and internal 4K. Better colours, cleaner in low light, and plays well with Canon lenses with no Metabones bugginess. Better form factor with no external boxes.

Why you'd buy an FS7: option of raw; higher frame rates; higher 4K bit-depth.

What people will complain about: lack of raw, lack of innovation, and low frame rates ("I can get higher frame rates on my GoPro or my smartphone. WTF Canon?").

What will surprise people: that lowlight abilities exceed a7s.

Reasons for this guess:

-- When the C300 first came out, main things people complained about were bit depth, frame rates, and "Why do you have internal 4K on your DSLR but not on your broadcast camera?". Presumably a newer model would make an effort to address these complaints.
-- Specs have to at least largely match FS7, given that this is a game of leapfrog, and FS7 has 2K internal, alleged 14-stop dynamic range, 1080p180. Specs have to exceed C100 MkII.
-- Price of C300 always seems to be C100 x 2 -- when it first came out, and still now with the price drop. Features and image quality will have to justify paying $4000 more than for FS7.
-- Given development cycle of 3-4 years, it's got to have specs that will see it through till 2018. If it doesn't have internal 4K, it will be dead in the water by then.
-- Better lowlight is important for documentary, which is one of the key markets for this camera, so it should be a headline feature.
-- It has to leave some breathing room for C500 -- ie, no raw. C500 presumably will offer 5K or higher raw recording and higher frame rates.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Adrian Tan

-- Specs have to at least largely match FS7, given that this is a game of leapfrog, and FS7 has 2K internal, alleged 14-stop dynamic range, 1080p180. Specs have to exceed C100 MkII.

I doubt the C300M2 will have 2K internal. It will probably have improved DR, but I don't see the FS7 actually giving any better DR than the current C300 model, despite what marketing says. The slow-motion on the FS7 can actually bring out some really terrible moire (first time I've ever seen moire on human skin) so I'll take less fps with better quality.

I definitely think that it should do at least 4Kp60 so that you don't always have to go to 1080 for the faster frame rate.