It begins, rumors of 4k camera challengers.

[Wayne Morellini]

You can now officially drop the Jaw on other people if you can figure out how to use sonething like this with a scarlet x and canon lens mount. Small items like the (with small versions of the other Eng camera news items) can revolutionise the Eng world. See Ed, that is what I am talking about.

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012...ller-tranforms-dslrs-into-eng-style-machines/

Good, another relevant news site to book mark.

Actually, I published about an idea like this many years ago. Mine had more fubctiinality and better capability. Having a better focus option would be nice on it, but exciting oridyct to own. Once came up with and set up a simple manual side focusing control mechanism for a slr lens to more smoothly pick focus, zoom and aperture mark, but it busted the lens .

 

[PatrickFaith]

So far I don't see much challenge for RED, Canon looks like it just went into a tail spin - insane pricing models for non-existent customer bases ... mark iii softness (u basically have to hardware hack the camera) and it probably going into recall with the light issue on the camera body. I think of Canon as the place to learn cinematography and to give us the depth to use RED to make great movies, so I don't think it's good for RED for canon to fall apart. Strange times.

 

[Thomas Koch]

How much will the dragon upgrade cost for Epic-X?

I find these announcements interesting, because the low light and noise level seem really good. If I can get a better sensor in my Epic without breaking the bank I would be happy.

 

[Jay Birch]

Canon looks like it just went into a tail spin - insane pricing models for non-existent customer bases.

They just announced the world's smallest and lightest 4K camera for a street price of around $12-$13k.... How is that insane? For the target audience (hollywood B/Crash cam) it seems very, very good. Only the non budget indie cry babies are making a fuss. RED did well to stay away from the sub $5k market.... They think they are owed the world.

 

[Emanuel A.]

They just announced the world's smallest and lightest 4K camera for a street price of around $12-$13k.... How is that insane? For the target audience (hollywood B/Crash cam) it seems very, very good. Only the non budget indie cry babies are making a fuss. RED did well to stay away from the sub $5k market.... They think they are owed the world.

C'mon Jay, you are dramatizing/exaggerating and reducing the thing at the same time There are people with no money for buying the new toy, yes. But also others who see one of the new cameras as nothing more than a firmware upgrade of the current DSLR line charged for twice the price at least. RED Scarlet was a wholly different story. Not a DSLR but a new cinema camera along EPIC. So, it is apples to oranges. Reason enough, I concur the price is (very) high for a DSLR, even if I will buy 1-2 of them.

Moreover, Canon is putting the price only because if RED charges for 4K, they think why not 'we'?! This in my country where you also spend part of your time : ) is called opportunism.

I know Canon is lurking in the forums such as reduser through their people (that I've got it directly from the source!) and as happened with the C300 where the price dropped from $20,000... do not think you'll be able to have your $12K price if all the people would say "what a terrific price!" ;-) So it is more you and me, we should add our thanks to these people calling the bulls by the names, instead.

 

[Mike P.]

The 1D-C frustrates a lot of people because it offers almost all the things they want, except RAW, but then Canon charge a RAW price for it. The thing about the 5Dmk2 was that it gave you cinematic-like "1080p" images that were (unfortunately) compressed to shit... but that compromise only cost $2500. Now we have 4k compressed images for 6x the price and that scale doesn't really add up, especially in comparison with other offerings: Scarlet (same price), FS100 (1/3 the price), or FS700 (half-price... and 4k "ready".) In other words, to a lot of people, it seems the only reason the 1D-C is priced so high is simply because if it was priced as most expected/hoped (~$7500) it would've grenaded both 1DX and C300 sales...

 

[Jay Birch]

C'mon Jay, you are dramatizing/exaggerating and reducing the thing at the same time.

As far as I know, i'm just stating a fact. It is the smallest and lightest 4K cam on the market (well, soon to be on the market). That is what will make it a big success in Hollywood, their target market.

I don't think Canon dropped the price on the C300 because of feedback, it is just the way they have always done business (as with most companies).. announce an RRP and then, when it hits the streets, you'll find it for 10-20% less.

In my line of work, I actually need 4K... I am still really undecided on a Scarlet (the company I work for has one and I love it),, the Canon or the Sony FS700.... They all have pros and cons, but they are very exciting. Looking forward to hearing more NAB stuff

 

[M Most]

The 1D-C frustrates a lot of people because it offers almost all the things they want, except RAW, but then Canon charge a RAW price for it. The thing about the 5Dmk2 was that it gave you cinematic-like "1080p" images that were (unfortunately) compressed to shit... but that compromise only cost $2500. Now we have 4k compressed images for 6x the price and that scale doesn't really add up, especially in comparison with other offerings: Scarlet (same price), FS100 (1/3 the price), or FS700 (half-price... and 4k "ready".) In other words, to a lot of people, it seems the only reason the 1D-C is priced so high is simply because if it was priced as most expected/hoped (~$7500) it would've grenaded both 1DX and C300 sales...

It's really interesting to me how lay people - i.e., anyone who is not now and never has been employed by a digital camera manufacturing company, which I would venture to say includes nearly everyone on RedUser who's making these comments with the exception of Red employees - seem to think they understand how and why products are priced the way they are. Unless you know the R&D costs of developing and testing the product, the industrial design costs needed to implement it, the manufacturing costs of all the parts involved, the marketing costs, and the anticipated audience and thus the ultimate ROI for creating the product, there is no way you can sensibly say that a price "doesn't add up," or is inappropriate. And speculation on cannibalizing the sales of other products is equally as unfounded unless you actually have knowledge of that.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when those opinions become accusatory - as they often do here - the opinions become little more than personal speculation with little basis in fact. Jim has repeatedly stated here that developing these high tech products is not easy or cheap. For a company like Canon, who has previously only offered lens products to the high end production industry, these new products represent a different direction and thus a different marketing and pricing model than their usual consumer oriented product lines. They will not sell millions of C500's and they know that. The DSLR's have the advantage of selling to multiple levels of users (i.e., stills photographers as well as video shooters), which is why a product like the 7D could be priced where it was (I've heard that they sell about 5000 of those a week - that's an awful lot of units compared to any Red product). Red's pricing model is Red's pricing model. It sets a competitive bar, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is going to or has to meet that price point. The same way I don't see Filmlight suddenly selling Baselight full licenses for $1000, I don't see the necessity for Canon, Arri, or Sony to meet Red's prices if - and only if - their products are selling at the price points they've set. And they are. That's not "ripping off the buyers," that's the business rules of supply and demand at work. Of course, it's also why I've often urged Jim to spread his message by presenting it in places other than RedUser, but that's another story altogether......:blushing:

 

[Emanuel A.]

I don't think Canon dropped the price on the C300 because of feedback, it is just the way they have always done business (as with most companies).. announce an RRP and then, when it hits the streets, you'll find it for 10-20% less.

No idea if they listen the market before the definitive price or not, but something I can tell you, they are among us! ;-)

 

[Mike P.]

It's really interesting to me how lay people - i.e., anyone who is not now and never has been employed by a digital camera manufacturing company, which I would venture to say includes nearly everyone on RedUser who's making these comments with the exception of Red employees - seem to think they understand how and why products are priced the way they are. Unless you know the R&D costs of developing and testing the product, the industrial design costs needed to implement it, the manufacturing costs of all the parts involved, the marketing costs, and the anticipated audience and thus the ultimate ROI for creating the product, there is no way you can sensibly say that a price "doesn't add up," or is inappropriate. And speculation on cannibalizing the sales of other products is equally as unfounded unless you actually have knowledge of that.

I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when those opinions become accusatory - as they often do here - the opinions become little more than personal speculation with little basis in fact. Jim has repeatedly stated here that developing these high tech products is not easy or cheap. For a company like Canon, who has previously only offered lens products to the high end production industry, these new products represent a different direction and thus a different marketing and pricing model than their usual consumer oriented product lines. They will not sell millions of C500's and they know that. The DSLR's have the advantage of selling to multiple levels of users (i.e., stills photographers as well as video shooters), which is why a product like the 7D could be priced where it was (I've heard that they sell about 5000 of those a week - that's an awful lot of units compared to any Red product). Red's pricing model is Red's pricing model. It sets a competitive bar, but it doesn't mean that everyone else is going to or has to meet that price point. The same way I don't see Filmlight suddenly selling Baselight full licenses for $1000, I don't see the necessity for Canon, Arri, or Sony to meet Red's prices if - and only if - their products are selling at the price points they've set. And they are. That's not "ripping off the buyers," that's the business rules of supply and demand at work. Of course, it's also why I've often urged Jim to spread his message by presenting it in places other than RedUser, but that's another story altogether......:blushing:

I don't disagree with what you're saying (in terms of just how much anyone could know unless they work at those respective companies), however, because we're dealing with technology (the cost of all electronic goods is halved every 18months) I think the guesstimations are more accurate than random spit-balling. RED is a prime example too, as they didn't know what they were doing in 2007 but they still dropped a 4k bomb for $17,500.... Arri, Canon, Sony, Panavision essentially said that was impossible (people claimed RED was a scam), when it obviously was completely possible. At the time they were offering 2/3" 1080p cameras for $100-350k because they could get away with it.

Digital Bolex is another great example; $3000 for a s16 CCD shooting 2k RAW at 1-60fps (with XLR). To suggest that going from s16 2k RAW to s35 4k RAW costs 5x the amount of money from a raw parts/materials perspective is more than just counterintuitive, its impractical with how technology (anything designed on silicon) is developed... Especially considering ~8mp CCDs (approx 4k res) are incredibly mature products that have been around for a decade (and can be purchased off the shelf).

Better yet, REDmags/P2 cards/SxS cards/proprietary media in general is not 5x more reliable or 5x faster than the SSDs/Flash chips they're made of, yet they still cost 5x because they (RED/Panny/Sony) can rightfully charge that much since their cameras are so good (as long as their cameras are priced competitively mind you.) In other words, if you decide to buy a Scarlet when you know a 64gig REDmag costs $1G, you can't really complain after you buy the camera that the REDmags are too expensive.

Another simple comparison; how does a c300 essentially cost the same as Scarlet when, technologically, the Scarlet is superior in every objective way? It's not that the c300 has more costly parts, its simply because Canon feel they can charge that much and still move units. What you're suggesting is that, because we don't know exactly what the camera cost to R&D and test and produce and market, that we don't know if $15,000 is a fair price for the C300... What I'm saying is that, I know the raw specs between the two cameras, and for $15,000 I know definitively that the Scarlet-X offers roughly twice as much (twice as much image, control, framerate options, functionality, better latitude, pretty much better everything...) Comparatively, that puts the 1D-C and C300 at about 1/2 the relative value of a Scarlet-X, so why would anyone pay more (regardless of how much it costs Canon to develop/make/market the 1D-C/C300)? So no, it doesn't add up...objectively anyway.

 

[M Most]

I can't and won't stop you from believing whatever you want to believe. But I will point out that Red is probably the worst possible company to use as a comparison for these larger manufacturers, simply because Red is not a typical company. It is, for lack of a better description, something of an anomaly. It was founded by someone who not only had a passion for what he wanted to create, but wanted to be a disrupter, and even more significantly had the financial means to do it without relying on the financial apparatus that everyone else has to deal with. No stockholders to keep happy, either. I would also point out that you have no way of knowing just how that Red Once price came about, or whether they actually met the goal of being profitable on sales of the camera alone at that price point. You're trying to use logic, but your logic is not based on fact because you're not talking about the same things. The imaging chips may be smaller, but it's not just the imaging chip that constitutes a camera design. It's all of the processing of the data coming off that chip, which increases exponentially as you quadruple the amount of data and quadruple the clock speeds required to extract and move it. That brings about all kinds of problems, from heat to data loss to a whole bunch of other things. If you're not an engineer, you shouldn't make these kind of guesses, because the logic that says a candy bar that's twice as big should only cost twice as much doesn't even begin to hold water when you're talking about electronics, computers, processing speeds, DSP's, heat dissipation issues, and any number of other things. Not to mention that different companies have different expectations of return on investment and different parties to please. Pricing isn't based solely on the cost of the parts and the manufacturing. It's based on a whole lot of things.

But, as I said, believe what you want.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The selling price is obviously determined by more than the costs of parts and the cost of assembly, but it is also a mistake to assume that each company starts out paying the same amount for the same parts, and obviously labor costs can vary, and then there is the economics of scale to factor in...

You also have to consider that not all camera people are owner/operators, some are renters, and the considerations that a rental company makes in determining what to purchase is similar but not exactly the same as what a private individual might consider -- in particular, a private individual is more likely to tailor their camera package to serve their particular needs.

In terms of the size of a camera, sure, smaller is generally a good thing... but some people will deal with a more cumbersome system if they feel they are getting a special look or higher technical quality out of it --- look at people who shoot on large format film cameras, for example. And while camera assistants do the bulk of the camera lifting on a studio production, don't assume that as a group they prefer using the lightest cameras on the market, there are other factors that also come into play.

But I do understand the frustration surrounding Canon's decisions on what features to release on what cameras at what price, etc.