# Canon EOS C300 Price Drop Already? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/canon-eos-c300-price-drop-already-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/canon-eos-c300-price-drop-already-cr1/"></a></div>
<p><strong>$20,000 too much scratch?

</strong>Thereâ€™s a rumor on the DVXuser forums that Canon has indeed dropped the price of the upcoming EOS C300 to â‚¬12,000, that converts to about $16,000 USD.</p>
<p>Is a rumoured new pricepoint to shift your desire for a Red Scarlett over to the C300?</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2011/11/has-canon-already-significantly-reduced-the-list-price-of-the-canon-eos-c300/">Planet5D</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Ray Padden (Nov 25, 2011)

With the 'SCARLET-X AL CANON MOUNT PACKAGE $14,015' and 'BOMB EVF $3,200' I think this will certainly be a mind changer. I am using that package and separate view finder as that is what is required to complete the kit if I were to compare it to the Canon C300.
Oh, Christmas is near, time for a major purchase me thinks


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 25, 2011)

Reminds me of the Sigma camera they were selling for 9,000 then dropped to about 6,000...


----------



## sb (Nov 25, 2011)

Ooops  20% just like that... Canon got a little greedy - this is why competition is such a wonderful thing. Just smarten up and don't overprice the upcoming video DSLR


----------



## jamesmcintoshjr (Nov 25, 2011)

it's a good start, although it's still kind of overpriced, especially considering it still can't shoot 1080p at 60 frames (unlike say, a Sony A77)

I'm still hoping this thing will eventually come down around panasonic AF100 range, maybe around 6 grand, that's the right price in my mind.

Maybe with the second gen, they'll get it right.


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 25, 2011)

It's...too...damn...BIG.

It looks like a stupid 80's full VHS camcorder.

DSLRs have taught us non-photography folks how simple and intuitive manual controls can really be.
What the hell is the point of these video camera style bodies anymore?
to put it on your shoulder?
to look "professional"?

Let your media do the talking.

The DSLR "revolution" will never be killed by the video camera - incorrectly shaped image capturing devices.
Sure, video cameras are beginning to catch up in quality.
But only because Canon's video division sent a memo to the stills department.

I assumed it went a little something like this:
"Stop it. Stop doing what we do better than we do it. Put uncompressed hdmi out on these and we are DEAD, we are ALL DEAD!"

Computers/Software/Cameras are exploding with potential. The innovation has already been great.
It must be really really scary to know the mass of middle class kids being born with 35mm film cameras and 64bit editing machines at their finger tips.

NO OTHER industries are facing this type of imminent oversaturation/doom.
Oh, except the Record industry.
But audio hardware/software hasn't been redefining itself at nearly the rate as the video world.
We are living in the coolest moment of mankind.

And the c300 is a big backwards sideways leap.
It really should cost around 6k.
The AF100 should drop to $600
The GH2 is so much better (hacked).

I have no problem with Canon keeping pro-quality out of the hands of common consumers.
I would be totally down for a $20-30k 4k camera with great scaling, choosable sensor usage, fully selectable frame rates (hopefully up to at least 120)
BUT ONLY in a DSLR form factor.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Nov 25, 2011)

The DSLR form factor is pretty much better in EVERYWAY for shooting video than the traditional video camera body. To it's credit, the c300 does get a bit of inspiration from DSLRs, more so than the Scarlet.

Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera

http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/

I've worked on a number of projects involving the RED over the last few years, and the workflow sucks really, really bad. Everything is forever in Beta and there is always a decent chance of something breaking.

The thing about the Scarlet is that it is truly a 24fps camera only. You think the c300 with it's 720p 60 fps sucks???? Well, the Scarlet does 1080p 60fps at 2k, but with the HUGE penalty of being a 3.24x crop. That essentially makes it useless unless you want everything super zoomed or are filming Lions in Kenya. RED is really strange in that the different frame rates and resolution sizes all have different crops, and the 4k 24fps is the ONLY mode with a decent 1.6x crop factor. All the other resolutions have useless crop factors ranging from somewhat passable 2x to utterly useless 6.4x crop.

Any crop more than the 1.6x of the aps-c is undesirable IMO. That's why I cannot get myself to go the GH2 2x crop route (along with crappy Panasonic colors). 

Canon will hopefully release a digic 5 Rebel in February to hold us off until the DSLR hybrid comes out. That's going to be the camera to beat.

But yeah, the c300 is still overpriced.


----------



## Mark Holmes (Nov 25, 2011)

If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.

For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.


----------



## TimeLapseNinja (Nov 25, 2011)

Mark Holmes said:


> If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.
> 
> For me, the fact that it only captures 50Mbps at 1080p (not even 2K, much less 4K), that it's own auto-focus lenses won't auto-focus on it (but will on the Scarlet) - that in many ways it delivers what people were expecting from the upcoming 5D MK3, a sub-$3000 camera.... What can I say? I hope the 5D MK3 at least delivers what I have come to expect from my two GH2s - a true 1080p camera with no moire or aliasing and records non-stop for hours if need be.



I cant agree with you more on your comments. Also the scarlet does 120fps and the canon is limited to 24fps? Why would they even release this camera if it could not even do 60fps? I agree that they would need to bring the price down to about $5000 for me to even consider this camera. Or at the least boots its specs quite a bit for me to even consider dropping $16,000.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Nov 26, 2011)

TimeLapseNinja said:


> Mark Holmes said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon were more in touch with their users, and the marketplace, they would have priced this camera at $4,995 and been an internet sensation. People would have been falling over themselves to order it. But starting at $20K and dropping the price just makes people wonder what's wrong with it.
> ...



IMO, the slow motion in the RED Scarlet in almost completely useless. It does do 120fps, but only at 1K and with a HUGE, HUGE penalty of 6.4x crop. That is completely useless. Even at 60fps slow motion, it does it at 2K with a 3.24x crop. Also, pretty close to useless because of the extreme crop.

The reality is, the Scarlet is really ONLY a 24fps camera. REDs are strange in that when you change frame rates, the crop changes also. Nothing you can do about that.

Personally, would take the 720p 60fps at 1.6x crop of the 300c over the Scarlet 2K 60fps at 3.24x crop any day, unless I'm shooting wildlife way off in the distance.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 26, 2011)

One of the Canon execs said that the development period for the C300 was extremely short, something like 2 years. I suspect that the lack of time is why the C300 uses the XF300/305/100/105 codec and is, therefore, limited in its data output rate and its frame rate. Like others have said, maybe Canon will get it right the next generation.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Nov 26, 2011)

I predict that the c300 is going to be a FLOP, and Canon will redeem itself with the DSLR hybrid.

I would still take the c300 over the RED Scarlet. I've worked on a number of projects that have involved RED over the past few years, and something always majorly goes wrong and it takes too long to figure out what's wrong. The REDs reminds of a Panavision 35mm motion picture camera where you need an entire crew and a dedicated tech to really make it work. For a small or 1 person crew, it's too hard to deal with. 

With Canon at least, you know it's going to work right usually. With RED, you can never go into a project 100% confident that your camera won't break or something won't go wrong in the post process.


----------



## daniel charms (Nov 26, 2011)

Fandongo said:


> It's...too...damn...BIG.
> 
> It looks like a stupid 80's full VHS camcorder.



Have you even looked at the specs list? The C300 _is_ DSLR form factor. The body is about the size of a 1D and weighs just slightly more.


----------



## daniel charms (Nov 26, 2011)

dilbert said:


> As for the price, my recollection of the C300 announcement is that Canon was not firm on what the price would be when released, so perhaps Canon is not yet 100% sure on where to price it to be competitive, etc. The "change" from 20k to 16k thus seems fair.



I think the post is a bit misleading, in that it's making it sound like Canon has lowered the list price of the C300, whereas in reality, this is just pure speculation with nothing to back it up. What these forum posts _have _confirmed is that the street price of the camera is indeed somewhere to the tune of $16,000 (with links to back it up), but this is something that was predicted already back at launch. It doesn't look like anything has changed between then and now.


----------



## Jedifarce (Nov 26, 2011)

16K? Still too much, I'd like to see the price around 10-12K, then I'd consider getting it.


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 26, 2011)

daniel charms said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > It's...too...damn...BIG.
> ...




Have you held a t2i?

or the even more ridiculous raw horsepower per ounce gh2?

It is pretty close to the 1d in weight, less so in shape.
But i'd never buy a 1d either.

I'd also expect a detachable lcd for that kind of $$$.

The bottom line - discrete filmmaking is becoming fairly standard.
The iphone 4s is nipping at the heels of professional gear as far as resolved detail.

I would much rather have a big intuitive N64-like controller with a sensor/image processor attached.
The c300 is neither groundbreaking nor intuitive.
Undoubtedly, the image is incredible.

But computers are in everything
3 of them inside the new 1d.
is programmable follow focus through AF really an astronomically out-of-this-world idea?
The t2i has it (sort of).

2 steps forward.
42 steps back.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 26, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> The DSLR form factor is pretty much better in EVERYWAY for shooting video than the traditional video camera body.


----------



## Jedifarce (Nov 27, 2011)

Fandongo said:


> I'd also expect a detachable lcd for that kind of $$$.



Even if it could, you don't want to rely on the lcd to pull focus because you just can't. External monitor or a z-finder are your only alternatives.


----------



## Fandongo (Nov 27, 2011)

Jedifarce said:


> Fandongo said:
> 
> 
> > I'd also expect a detachable lcd for that kind of $$$.
> ...




http://store.redrockmicro.com/microremote
The whole world waits... (and has been for 18 months)

http://www.lightcraftworkshop-shop.com/product/139
If Canon released a firmware update that works on a per lens basis (many L lenses have thousands of steps, and basic EFs have much less)
Something that can make the quicker steps with a smooth transition.
Then this could become a seriously viable option.

But if they did that, who the hell would buy the manual focus only c300?
It's a very "niche" market - video (that needs good focus).
and because of that, we have things like this:
http://www.filmtools.com/arriff5hd.html

The detachable LCD could still be wired =)
Wireless hdmi (Cube) does lag far too much for pulling focus.
I don't like z-finders or EVFs because of the % of time the camera is away from my body and moving around.
I don't like monitors because i can't justify spending $500-$6400 on a screen when we live in an ipad world.

The apps that can drive DSLRs are awesome!
But for some reason they're all missing video functions (like record).
And of course, lag over usb.

We live in a very cool world.
Just a few dumb caveats holding us back.
"Get pissed or things won't change."
was that Jesus or Gandhi?


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 27, 2011)

Fandongo said:


> The bottom line - discrete filmmaking is becoming fairly standard.
> The iphone 4s is nipping at the heels of professional gear as far as resolved detail.


I wouldn't get one either, but I doubt I fall in Canon's target market. Likewise, I doubt they're looking for the discrete filmmaking market either. The target market is going to be professional filmmakers, the likes of those that use other medium to high end equipment, with a much higher budget than the average person in the street or the person who is going to be using a T2i.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Nov 28, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera
> 
> http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/20/scarlet/



That is no lie. This is a great article. Read it if you are on the fence about RED.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 28, 2011)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > Great article here on the Scarlet and some pretty ugly truths about the camera
> ...



An interesting quote from that article:

_"If the C300 was half the price it is, I would say to all go get that, but it isnâ€™t (although to be honest I have not shot on it yet, so am speculating and just going from what I saw)."_


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 30, 2011)

To me this still only makes sense only as a studio camera, or a rental for projects with a reasonable budget, used in combination with a collection of your own existing EF lenses. There is absolutely no reason for anyone other than a studio who shoots frequently enough to justify purchase over rental, or a rental house to consider this as a purchase and even then there are many options to consider so it's going to have to be price/feature competitive in it's own range. The latest test video shown from it does look nice, but for the most part I don't see why it would be unreasonable to ask for that, or near that quality on any generation 2 HDSLR hybrid. Price drops for this camera only make sense if the competition in it's range (the new RED) demand it so. Also, if you are renting this body with lenses too then you might as well consider every camera there is to consider first, although with this things quality it doesn't seem like it would be a bad choice in the end.


----------

