# Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 3, 2016)

```
<p>It looks like prices on the original Cinema EOS C100 and it’s replacement, the Cinema EOS C100 Mark II have been given significant price drops at B&H Photo.</p>
<p>If you’re looking to get into a Cinema EOS camera and are on a budget, both of these cameras will help you create great content.</p>
<p>There is also a $500 price drop on the Canon XC10 4K camcorder. <em>thanks KrisK</em></p>
<p><strong>Canon Cinema EOS C100 (Original)</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/889545-REG/Canon_EOS_C100_EF_Cinema.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C100 $2499</a> (Reg $3999)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1040919-REG/canon_7428b002_eos_c100_cinema_eos.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C100 w/DualPixel AF $2999</a> (Reg $4499)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon Cinema EOS C100 Mark II</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1086125-REG/canon_eos_c100_cinema_eos.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS C100 Mark II $4499</a> (Reg $5499)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Canon XC10 Camcorder</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon XC10 $1999</a> (Reg $2499)</li>
</ul>
<p>Does this mean we’ve got a new Cinema EOS camera on the way that will sit between the $4500 EOS C100 Mark II and the $16,000, 4K EOS C300 Mark II? That’s definitely a possibility, as Canon does need an “affordable” 4K solution in the Cinema EOS lineup. We’ve always felt that Canon would introduce a better EF mount 4K solution than just putting 4K in a DSLR like the 5D Mark IV, as cinematographers generally prefer the usability of the Cinema EOS cameras.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## rygenova (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.


----------



## Policar (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



rygenova said:


> I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.



"Much more capable" of requiring extensive post work to get decent looking color and tonality, "much more capable" of being unusable except at base ISO due to tearing artifacts, and "much more capable of" of losing you money because of the extra required work and horsepower to get a decent looking 1080p deliverable, what 99% of people need for their clients.

Oh, but it has 4k.

Would love to see something between the C100 and C300, though.


----------



## KrisK (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

Be interesting to see what this does to the used/grey market on eBay.

Grey market / used XC10's had been selling for $1999.


----------



## et31 (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

I am glad that the prices are finally dropping for these models. 

Already, the inherent 4K sensor quality (downscaled to 1080p output) is very beautiful, along with the AbelCine profiles that can be added to the C100 MI/MII. Nevertheless, if Canon is going to survive in this market, they cannot have the mentality that they are a competitor with more prestige companies when their C-cameras only have 8-bit capabilities. Yes, the new C300 MII and the upcoming C500 MII have 10,12,14 bit capabilities, but for the price of a new car ($16-30K).

Canon has great ergonomics built into their cine-cameras, as opposed to others who provide "big brick" designs with extra accessories to be attached for a lot more. For a run-and-gun cinematographer who needs versatility to do a wild-life, police, or extreme environment documentary (i.e. war, tight spaces, etc.), then the C-series is great for weight and portability - including the versatility of Dual Pixel EF lenses and clean higher ISOs (among many other great features). 

Since so many people are crying foul to Canon ever since Sony has been flooding their tiny DSLRs with video features, it will be interesting to see what video features will be placed in the new 5D and 1D series. Nevertheless, essentially, making the 1D camera into a "new and improved C100"ish" video camera will have fundamental problems IF Canon does not:

1. Improve dynamic range and extend those 14-15 stops into the compressed video footage.
2. Add proper ventilation for heat generation of internal components.
3. Address rolling shutter from an EOS sensor. 
4. Provide more than an 8bit signal with an internal 4:2:0 color space. 
5. Bit rate of data transfer, even though the cameras are rumored to support C-Fast cards now.
6. Add additional color profiles, etc.

However, it essentially becomes an engineering problem and a marketing strategy issue (for both Nikon and Canon alike). 

There is a split in philosophy between photographers in terms of the type of professional body that they want,
but essentially, a full frame 35mm camera with professional features should be optimized primarily for the professional photographer.

The Sony A7s II and alternatives pretend to be professional photography cameras: compared to the dynamic and extensive engineering in the D4s, D810, 5D Mark III, 1Dx of the past, and the new D5 and 1D series to come, when there are many variables that do not match with the small Sony series. 

Fundamentally, the C-series camera bodies are designed for video*, whereas a DSLR is not; however, a DSLR should have video improvements, so long as the main features of the DSLR (in terms of photography) are not compromised to satisfy an amateur video market. 

*Note: It is important to understand that despite the C-series having the improved cinema camera design over a DSLR, it is very sad that Canon chose to cripple / handicap the internal specs for the sake of marketing! 8bit, reduced color spaces, and not offering inherent 60p as well is not an excuse for the money that they charge!!
Sony provides these features, and many more, in their FS7 and FS5 models for the same price of the C100 MII and C300 MI; however, there are disadvantages as well from Sony - limitation in lenses, color profile look, ISO, footage processing, etc.

Obviously, to find the ideal camera is very difficult with a limited budget. The best philosophy to have is ensuring that the tool that you are using can help you tell the story that you want with the least amount of headaches. In the end, choose the lesser of too evils for what you need to accomplish the project that you have to fulfill.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



et31 said:


> I am glad that the prices are finally dropping for these models.
> 
> Already, the inherent 4K sensor quality (downscaled to 1080p output) is very beautiful, along with the AbelCine profiles that can be added to the C100 MI/MII. Nevertheless, if Canon is going to survive in this market, they cannot have the mentality that they are a competitor with more prestige companies when their C-cameras only have 8-bit capabilities. Yes, the new C300 MII and the upcoming C500 MII have 10,12,14 bit capabilities, but for the price of a new car ($16-30K).
> 
> ...



Hmm, seems like et31 knows a few things; I'm going to check out his other posts. et31, keep posting -- sure helps non-professionals like me get the straight goods. 

Regarding your comments on the Tammy 150-600; owning Canon's 300 2.8 II, I've already come to appreciate the finer features that often accompany Canon products but not the cheaper imitations. You get what you pay for always rings true if we're talking long standing well regarded businesses but unfortunately it's often tough for them to stay in business, with China spewing out cheaper products for the masses. 

True, Canon products are generally not priced that competitively but I never jump on CR bandwagons knocking Canon! I'm a satisfied customer!! 

Jack


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



Policar said:


> rygenova said:
> 
> 
> > I would guess this is to give buyers some reason to still buy a C100 versus the much more capable FS5, which until the price drops, was the same price as the C100 II.
> ...



Jesus how much does Canon pay you? The FS5 is objectively better.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



that1guyy said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > rygenova said:
> ...


Objectively better?
Can be.

But I have not seen tests comparing the quality of FS5 image with C100 Mark II, and I think you also did not see. So we're in the field of assumptions.

People who have used C100 Mark II cameras, and Sony FS competitors say the colors are better and noise is less in C100 Mark ii. If you found any comparative test, please share the link with us.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



that1guyy said:


> Jesus how much does Canon pay you? The FS5 is objectively better.



I wasn't aware that Jesus was on Canon's payroll. That might explain quite a bit.


----------



## Policar (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



that1guyy said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > rygenova said:
> ...



I forgot that art was a purely objective medium that could be measured through test charts.

Have you checked the mtf of the Mona Lisa? Not great. Garbage painting, really. By objective standards.

But since when is art about measurement?

Canon cameras have much better color and ergonomics. And the images they produce look better subjectively to anyone with any taste. The FS5 is not only useless at non-base ISOs due to image tearing, it's also got poor color, poor tonality, a shoddy codec, etc. Yes, it will measure more lines of resolution at 4k (which virtually no client requires as a deliverable) and yes it does bursts of 240fps (legitimately cool)... but if you're looking to shoot anything other than test charts, the experience and image will be worse with the Sony. 

Well, subjectively.

But yeah, great test chart camera! Objectively!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

Something tells me that the XC-10 price drop may ultimately have the biggest impact. A lot of people who weren't excited about the camera upon initial release may re-evaluate their opinion as the price drops.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



unfocused said:


> Something tells me that the XC-10 price drop may ultimately have the biggest impact. A lot of people who weren't excited about the camera upon initial release may re-evaluate their opinion as the price drops.


Yes, the Canon XC10 looks more competitive with the price drop.

There will always be those who say:

"but this thing does not have interchangeable lens" 

Just up a little more to the C100, which is very affordable now.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



unfocused said:


> A lot of people who weren't excited about the camera upon initial release may re-evaluate their opinion as the price drops.



Pros don't buy their cameras, they rent them. In the pro movie industry, all cameras are rented.

The problem is not price I believe, it is that the cameras aren't good enough.

They're semi-pro cameras, they try to attract the amateur video guy with a lot of money on their hands, and that's a small market considering that most DSLR shoot video fine already.

And the real pros don't think these cameras are good enough.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



Nininini said:


> Pros don't buy their cameras, they rent them. In the pro movie industry, all cameras are rented.



That depends entirely on the market the 'pro' is working and how often they have a need for a particular piece of gear, I know stills shooters who rent, I know video shooters who own.

Sure C100's are rented out a lot, but only to people who only need one occasionally or who are testing one to see if it fits their work, I'd venture that many more cameras in that price range are user owned or leased, $2,499 is 6 months rental cost, if you are using one every day, or twice a week, renting makes no sense. 

For all gear that is professionally used and owned leasing makes far and away the most financial and business sense.



Nininini said:


> And the real pros don't think these cameras are good enough.



That, again, depends on who they are and what they are shooting. Certainly all the reports I have seen and heard from actual content creating users has been that the dual pixel AF is a game changer, if that isn't your milieu then maybe it isn't the camera for you, but there are plenty of one man operators who are loving it along with their production houses.


----------



## Policar (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

A "pro" is anyone who makes money shooting. Lots of wedding shooters have C100s. And dSLRs.

The C300 is surprisingly popular among low-to-mid-level pros shooting web content and lower end local ads and even some national ads. (As in $600-$1000/day wet hire.)

7Ds (not sure who owned them) were really popular on documentary-style national ads and even some higher end stuff right when they came out, less so now.

A lot of even fairly renowned DPs and cinematographers own Alexas and Dragons. Michael Bay owns an army of cameras, and I think he qualifies as high end. The vast majority of studio features use rented cameras, you're right–but that's more for the customer service and support the rental house provides than anything.

But for web content and videography, the C300 is absolutely "good enough," as a rental or owner/op camera. It's been the top rented camera in England for quite some time. It's very popular in LA still, not sure about other markets.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

Apart from the price drop to increase competitiveness, I think we may be missing a more overall possible issue here. We have discussed at length the coming DSLR bodies in the 5 series and 1 series and what we may see at with 4K in a more affordable price than a 1DC which is now off production. 

This may be a warning sign of a new 4K line up in DSLR and Cinema. With the new prices of the 1080p Cinema bodies, a $3500 4K DSLR and $7500 4K Cinema body (C200?) could be real possibilities. Just conjecturing aloud here folks.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

"We’ve always felt that Canon would introduce a better EF mount 4K solution than just putting 4K in a DSLR like the 5D Mark IV, as cinematographers generally prefer the usability of the Cinema EOS cameras."

What about people who did stills as much as video? Your solution means more than twice the money spent! And more than twice the weight lugged around! Anyway, thank god for Sony, since we don't have to wait for Canon to ever decide to bother.


----------



## Etienne (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

The US dollar is very strong, so this price drop by a US retailer is not too surprising.
The C100 mkII would interest me around $3500, otherwise it's wait for the mk III


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

With a price drop like this, we wont see another one like it for a while. I think it's more feasible we see a new model between the 100 and 300 with 4k .... or perhaps a huge reduction in the C300II (falling under 10k) once the 500II releases.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



Policar said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



I have no dog in this fight, but some of what you've said is... well, silly. We all have different tastes. Measuring things objectively is the only way we can have any criteria for assessing things beyond subjectivity. Of course, which metrics each of us values more than others is itself subjective. But saying things like 'X has better colour' without referring it to an objective measure is just dressing up your opinion as some kind of broader truth, which it is not. Ditto "anyone with taste".

We can say 'X has higher resolution' or 'Y has longer battery life' because these things can be measured. And 'I prefer the colours this camera produces', sure. But to project your personal preference as fact is of no use in discussions with others.


----------



## Policar (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



scyrene said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Sure, but art sells 99% on subjective attributes. 

The FS5 has bad chroma clipping, horrible macro blocking, lots of noise, a thin codec, and a lot of other problems. It does have good specs. But it produces a pretty ugly image when pointed at anything other than a chart. I can't quantify banding, macro blocking, etc. with charts or measurements, but I could exhibit them easily in footage from the camera. Maybe someone likes artifact-laden footage with chroma clipping that you can't grade out and banding in the skies that's worse by default in SLOG 3 than Canon Log ever has been–despite the 10 bit codec, but I would say that person has bad taste.

It's not even a matter of aesthetics, it's a matter of a broken image pipeline that can easily be seen in footage, but can't easily be quantified. Generally I'd agree, but Sony has a habit of releasing half-functional cameras and slowly trickingly out firmware updates that make them useable. It's nothing to reward, and something to warn consumers against buying into.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 4, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*

Both sides of this argument are valid. It is impossible to objectively quantify all aspects of what is perceived by the human brain and not all brains are equal to any given task. Reminds me of audio and all the idiosyncrasies that contribute to evaluations. Has to be subjective to some degree and when many folk independently observe something then it must be there, even if immeasurable.

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



Policar said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



That's fair enough. As I say, I have no knowledge or opinion on this specific topic. You're right to focus on specific issues like noise, etc. Certainly it would be hard to argue that a noisier image is better/more attractive. PS what is 'macro' in this context? I know nothing about video.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



Jack Douglas said:


> Both sides of this argument are valid.



As is usually the case to some extent


----------



## Policar (Jan 5, 2016)

*Re: Canon EOS C100 & EOS C100 Mark II Price Drops*



scyrene said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Macroblocking basically just means strong JPEG (discrete cosine transform) style artifacts, like these:

http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/namo/namo_fileview.jsp?type=nfs&pid=decisiontree&did=146889&[email protected]&sep=%7C

In the FS5, that's because the codec isn't well suited for the image and the image deteriorates fast. Not that it's flawless to begin with:

https://vimeo.com/149915169

And both of those problems don't even address Sony's issues with color and gamma. The F5 had much better specs than the C300 when both were introduced (same story as here), but the color and highlight roll-off are awful. Sony has improved them now, but they're still quite ugly compared with the lower-specced camera.


----------

