Does Canon ever talk to their customers?

[Brett Sherman]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

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.

[Tim Le]

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.

[Steve Kimmel]

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.

[Barry Goyette]

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.

[Tyge Floyd]

Originally Posted by David Rice

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.

[Brett Sherman]

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.

[Dylan Couper]

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

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Tim Le

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!

[Barry Goyette]

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.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

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.

[Barry Goyette]

--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

[Jon Fairhurst]

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.

[Brett Sherman]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

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.

[Chuck Fadely]

Originally Posted by Tyge Floyd

...... 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.