Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RIP Canon C500

The C300 was dead before it hit the ground, but the C500 does have on-board 4K, and it's not really overpriced (I suppose it is compared to the Raven, but not by a huge amount). Or maybe Canon is announcing a new version?
 
They cut the price on the C500 by $10,000 six months ago, so I think this was a foregone conclusion. Not a terrible camera in 10-bit mode.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
The C300 was dead before it hit the ground, but the C500 does have on-board 4K, and it's not really overpriced (I suppose it is compared to the Raven, but not by a huge amount). Or maybe Canon is announcing a new version?
Click to expand...

Weird, I don't know of a camera that worked more than the C300, except maybe the Arri Alexa...
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
The C300 was dead before it hit the ground, but the C500 does have on-board 4K, and it's not really overpriced (I suppose it is compared to the Raven, but not by a huge amount). Or maybe Canon is announcing a new version?
Click to expand...

C300Mk1 is still a workhorse in the UK - they sold loads. Mk2 not so much. C500 not at all. C700 is a very nice camera, but too little/too costly/too late.
 
Canon needs to clean up their lineup:


Midlevel camera | $7495 ($6999 street): C100/C300-series hybrid. 4k, 10 bit 60fps. XFAVC intra frame codec (like C300 mkII). Auto focus and NDs like the C300 mkII. Canon could then sell firmware upgrades to add color science or other software based production features to reach current C300 mkII level.​
.
High end camera | $whatever: C700 type production camera with all needed hardware production features included.​


In essence merge the C100/300 and price them slightly above current C100, say like a FS7. Absolute beginners can stick to DSLRs.

I really feel that once you "step up" (call it what you like) to their Cinema EOS line, you should get at least 10bit in an intra frame codec. And 4k60 is entry level today. And from that point on what you get is well known Canon features like color science, auto focus and a compact form factor.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
Canon needs to clean up their lineup:


Midlevel camera | $7495 ($6999 street): C100/C300-series hybrid. 4k, 10 bit 60fps. XFAVC intra frame codec (like C300 mkII). Auto focus and NDs like the C300 mkII. Canon could then sell firmware upgrades to add color science or other software based production features to reach current C300 mkII level.​
.
High end camera | $whatever: C700 type production camera with all needed hardware production features included.​


In essence merge the C100/300 and price them slightly above current C100, say like a FS7. Absolute beginners can stick to DSLRs.

I really feel that once you "step up" (call it what you like) to their Cinema EOS line, you should get at least 10bit in an intra frame codec. And 4k60 is entry level today. And from that point on what you get is well known Canon features like color science, auto focus and a compact form factor.
Click to expand...

So....basically...Canon needs to do what you want. :)

4K60p in 10 bits is not really an entry level, it's a medium segment feature with broadcast level high quality result.


Don't see the problem with discontinued model, it suggests either a re-fresh or optimization of product line-up.
C300Mk2 is a pretty capable camera, for those who prefer those ergonomics. C100mk2 targets a different market segment.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
4K60p in 10 bits is not really an entry level, it's a medium segment feature with broadcast level high quality result.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand.... that would be the reason I called it a 'mid level' camera, right? But I would be comfortable calling it a "mid level camera, and an entry level cinema camera".

Including a Log GOP can be a real feature. There are many use cases where people just want to keep the camera rolling, but don't want to carry an extra backpack just for hard drives. But I definitely DO feel that if you choose a 'Cinema EOS' camera from Canon, you should get something with a solid, pliable image that fits into a workflow that expects grading. Canon already has a good entry level codec in the XC10—same as in the C300 mkII but at 305Mbps at UHD vs 420-sih Mbps at 4k DCI for the mkII.

In essence, I think Canon should stop jerking people around with the C100. Either turn that into a proper camera at the same price and cannabalize the C300 mkII, or rethink the whole lineup.

But I will give you a point for saying it's "what I want". My reasoning comes more from a "what I think would make sense" perspective, but it's easy to understand how those two things might correlate pretty well.
 
Correct, I think Canon needs to listen more and provide what the pro customers want. Andree being one of the tens of thousands of those customers. If I were Canon, I'd listen to these customers, including Andree. Cheers.

Hrvoje Simic said:
So....basically...Canon needs to do what you want. :)
Click to expand...
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
The C300 was dead before it hit the ground, but the C500 does have on-board 4K, and it's not really overpriced (I suppose it is compared to the Raven, but not by a huge amount). Or maybe Canon is announcing a new version?
Click to expand...


C300 is used more than all Red cameras combined.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
Aaaaand.... that would be the reason I called it a 'mid level' camera, right? But I would be comfortable calling it a "mid level camera, and an entry level cinema camera".

Including a Log GOP can be a real feature. There are many use cases where people just want to keep the camera rolling, but don't want to carry an extra backpack just for hard drives. But I definitely DO feel that if you choose a 'Cinema EOS' camera from Canon, you should get something with a solid, pliable image that fits into a workflow that expects grading. Canon already has a good entry level codec in the XC10—same as in the C300 mkII but at 305Mbps at UHD vs 420-sih Mbps at 4k DCI for the mkII.

In essence, I think Canon should stop jerking people around with the C100. Either turn that into a proper camera at the same price and cannabalize the C300 mkII, or rethink the whole lineup.

But I will give you a point for saying it's "what I want". My reasoning comes more from a "what I think would make sense" perspective, but it's easy to understand how those two things might correlate pretty well.
Click to expand...

I'm attempting to understand your issue with Canon but that is still unsuccessful.

C300mk2 has 10 bit recording with intra frame which goes to 410Mb/s with long GOP option for saving card space. It does also 12 bits internally in 2K and allows 4K raw output. Giving you a cinema quality performance for $12K with practicality of a compact run n' gun camera.

C100mk2 is an entry level large sensor video camera, with lower price accessible to many and consequently lower performance, though still very usable for what it is designed to do. They've improved both cameras compared to previous versions.

?

Jacob Ryan said:
Correct, I think Canon needs to listen more and provide what the pro customers want.
Andree being one of the tens of thousands of those customers. If I were Canon, I'd listen to these customers, including Andree. Cheers.
Click to expand...

If you were Canon you'd base business decisions on business planning, market strategies, ROI, income, salaries, r&d and a bunch of other things combined with all desires you hear, otherwise you wouldn't stick around for 83 years but close shop pretty soon.
 
But of course, you need to do all those. I thought this was obvious. I didn't say that listening to your customers is the ONLY thing to do and things will magically work out for you.

Hrvoje Simic said:
If you were Canon you'd base business decisions on business planning, market strategies, ROI, income, salaries, r&d and a bunch of other things combined with all desires you hear, otherwise you wouldn't stick around for 83 years but close shop pretty soon.
Click to expand...
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
I'm attempting to understand your issue with Canon but that is still unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

If that is really what you're doing, I'll take the time to respond.

You make a fair summary of the C100-300 series cameras and I have no objections there.

Both cameras have gotten meaningful upgrades over the years and especially the C300 was kicked up a level in the mkII version with a beefier codec, 4k and 12bit and so on. It came in a bit high in price, but like you say: it's dropped down a bit now and I don't think most people have an issue with this camera at $12. It's a business investment in most cases.

While the C100 has been improved upon, it's essentially stuck back in 2012. For its level, I still think it's a very valid option, but I would like the mkIII version to be released with up to date specs.

I've had very few issues with Canon over the years (as a Canon shooter myself)—more than anything I've defended many of their decisions. But their tightlippedness is slowly wearing me down. It's also very hard to communicate with them trying to get important things into new firmware and so on.

What I wrote above is not about what the HAVE DONE. I'm fine with that. But I do think the C100 is due for an upgrade and I think at least part of that upgrade should be bump to 4k and 10 bit.

Regarding the merging of the cameras: sometimes I get the feel the Canon is bending over backwards including/excluding features not to step on their own toes. I don't really have a problem with it, but I prefer companies that just make one product: the best they can make. I realise this isn't practical as you often need low price, large volume stuff to the wheels spinning.
 
FWIW, I just used the C300MKII with the latest firmware, and have to say I was really impressed with the color fidelity and DR. I think it's great for narrative work.
Unfortunately, I'm planning a doc next year and need a camera with higher frame rates so Canon loses me on that type of work. Plenty of other options now.
 
AndreeMarkefors said:
What I wrote above is not about what the HAVE DONE. I'm fine with that. But I do think the C100 is due for an upgrade and I think at least part of that upgrade should be bump to 4k and 10 bit.

Regarding the merging of the cameras: sometimes I get the feel the Canon is bending over backwards including/excluding features not to step on their own toes. I don't really have a problem with it, but I prefer companies that just make one product: the best they can make. I realise this isn't practical as you often need low price, large volume stuff to the wheels spinning.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for clarification.

Canon, as many other larger professional equipment manufacturing companies, has rules on which it has to function in order to keep functioning and evolve. Product gamma covers different market segment with different priorities. Price and media management is an important factor to many. Quality 10 bit 4k not only necessitates more capable hardware inside but more expensive storage for the customer. That may not be a problem to you but to many is, and Canon has to juggle. There is also a factor of product differentiation. If you see 4K in C100mk3 don't expect broadcast quality 4K for $4k.

Merging of the cameras is something you see from your standpoint, but if you had thousands of mouths to feed, global network and production facilities to maintain and invest in r&d, product gamma and market approach would be based on different priorities, so one camera product might not be the best way to pay off for its development.

They do make the best product they can. Per each segment.
They do listen but wishes and suggestions are not gathered from random wishful thinking online but direct customer feedback and have to pass through many links of a large company, and if all links make that possible it takes time to bring that to reality.

It's just that the race to the bottom mentality of a consumeristic society OS and market over saturation resulting from it have created the illusion that some things grow on trees and everyone is entitled to everything just by wishing for it. The reality disconnect is further propagated by the existence of cheap gear with higher performance which doesn't work properly, which is a luxury that companies with long year history and responsibility toward its customers cannot afford.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
The C300 was dead before it hit the ground, but the C500 does have on-board 4K, and it's not really overpriced (I suppose it is compared to the Raven, but not by a huge amount). Or maybe Canon is announcing a new version?
Click to expand...

Ive disliked using the C-300 from day one personally. But they have worked consistently and paid for themselves easily, where many other camera's struggle including the newer more expensive Red products. In my corner of the world 4k (and above) is still not the prevalent need or request.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top