Does Canon ever talk to their customers?

[Les Wilson]

Is it just me or does it seem that Canon really doesn't go head to head in the video camera market? I mean above the consumer camcorders and HDSLR tier, Canon aims at market gaps.

Where there's competitors with products, Canon goes elsewhere. There's already three consumer 3-D cameras so no Canon product there. There's plenty of solid state 3-ring 3-chip handycams under $4k so no Canon product there. There's plenty of large sensor HDSLRs that record more than 12 minutes and don't flip the display output to SD so no Canon product there. There's already 2 $5k large sensor interchangeable lens camcorders with XLR so no Canon product there.

Granted there may be a couple exceptions like the GL-1 and GL-2 vs the PD170 but the XL1 was venerable and XL2 the only native 16x9 SD camera under $4k ... each one unique and priced in a gap. The A1 was best in class and priced well under Sony's 3-ring HDV XLR camcorders and the H1 an island. The XF100 at $3K is one ring but a 50MBS 4:2:2 CODEC. The XF300 right in the gap between EX1R and EX3 and the only handycam 3-mos with 50MBS 4:2:2. The 5DM2 similarly unique at $2700 and full of quirks....take it or leave it as the only full sized sensor camera. Ditto the C300 above the AF100, FS100, Scarlet and F3 but below Alexa and Epic. So if there is another large sensor camcorder body, we could expect it to be defined more by a gap than anything else....then again, that product may not be video camera at all but a $4k HDSLR.

So for people who have waited around a couple years for a Canon product in a particular segment where there's already products from others, well, you may end up feeling like the OP. Hope this helps. YMMV.

[Brett Sherman]

To me the XF300 competes head to head with the EX1 and EX3. And the C300 competes directly with the F3. The gaping hole that I see is a large sensor camera between $6000 and $12,000. That plus the weaknesses of the FS100 (No ND, inability to shoot over your head, difficult ergonomics) and AF100 (poor low light performance) seems like Canon could own this market if they wanted to.

[Jim Martin]

Chuck-
Ditto, ditto, and more ditto....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

The gaping hole that I see is a large sensor camera between $6000 and $12,000.

Just like the flagship dslr $7k 21mp 1dsmarkIII came out almost exactly 1 year before the prosumer $2.9k 21mp 5dmarkII, (keeping in mind that video wasn't really a known subject with dslrs at that time) AND canon introduced the the $4-7k xh-G1-A1 cams 10 months after it introduced the $10k flagship xl-h1....

Canon will most likely release a lower cost video camera (or two) with similar specifications to the c300 within a known (to them) timeframe. It's how it goes.

Barry

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Barry Goyette

Canon will most likely release a lower cost video camera (or two) with similar specifications to the c300 within a known (to them) timeframe. It's how it goes.

I think many people are hoping that they will but what specs can they cut? Possibly Genlock (and HDSDI if they are really tight!). The form factor can't be much smaller like with the XHA1/XF100 and the frame rates can't really get any lower either.

[Barry Goyette]

Again, all you have to look at is the past. Canon xl-h1 modular design with lots of buttons $10K xh-g1 same basic camera, in smaller package, less modular...less buttons $7k. XH-A1 loses Hd-sdi and it's $4k+.

(or the dslr version comparison is even sharper... 1ds has better focus and framerates, batteries... 5d has better sensor and video, yet it's less than half the price).

It's easy not to see the value in minor changes like modularity, size and a few features, but in cameras there has always been a premium paid at the top end...that's why those cameras are released first. They are more profitable on a unit basis for canon (although at a much lower number of units). Then the hordes jump in when the price drops on the lower model.

As for size, this camera isn't as small as it looks in the photos...it's mostly shown with the primes which are huge so it looks smaller than it is. (and with the controller monitor mounted, it's looks like the pudgy offspring of a 1ds - XL union--the controller monitor almost feels like an add-on 3rd party device...interesting industrial design to say the least). It is small for a professional video camera, but they can definitely fit all that into a form factor more compact like the x300 series (fixed lens? who knows). I don't think you'll see the xf105 version of this camera...that will most likely come from the consumer division...think "rebel cinema".

Barry

[Jacques Mersereau]

Okay, so I went to the canon site and checked out the footage from the C300. It does look good and I love the idea of what this camera can do in low light. STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE. They are imo:

#1) PRICE - had the C300 cost $8,900, Canon would sell many many more.
#2) 120fps@1080P (or even 60P@1080P for that matter)
#3) 10 bit out
#4) 4:4:4 out
#5) Global Shutter
#6) S-log out (though it is mentioned in one of the making of films it does do this?!)
#7) RAW internal recording

[Jon Fairhurst]

Releasing a high-end model and following with the downscale version makes good business sense. Those with cash will buy the expensive model. Others wait and buy later. If you do it the other way around, those with cash might buy the lower priced model, if it meets all their requirements.

I still remember when Sony first came out with an SDI (standard def) line of broadcasting equipment. They had just won the SMPTE standards battle and clearly had the chips and a line of SDI products already in development. (That standards battle with Thomson was bare knuckled!) Anyway, the prices on those first products were astronomical. They didn't sell many, but it helped them pay for the R&D and to get the bugs out. The next year, SDI became available in normally priced products. It was a very effective strategy.

The high price of the C300 makes sense. Lower volumes can help Canon hit their delivery targets and it eases them into the market. They will get a feel for what it really takes to support this industry without diving straight into the deepest part of the pool. And, at the high initial price, they can fund this new venture.

[Jacques Mersereau]

Erm, this board has 5 people currently viewing it.
Reduser has over 1200 on the Scarlet alone.

This is the board for Canon imho. I think there's a message here.
Sure Canon will sell some, but had they priced the C300
under $9K, there might easily be 500 pouring over the details here and right now before buying.
I might even be one of them. $20K? No way. Not going to happen.

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

Okay, so I went to the canon site and checked out the footage from the C300. It does look good and I love the idea of what this camera can do in low light. STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE. They are imo:

#1) PRICE - had the C300 cost $8,900, Canon would sell many many more.
#2) 120fps@1080P (or even 60P@1080P for that matter)
#3) 10 bit out
#4) 4:4:4 out
#5) Global Shutter
#6) S-log out (though it is mentioned in one of the making of films it does do this?!)
#7) RAW internal recording

#1- the direct competitors for this camera are the f3 $16k and the red scarlet (similarly equipped) $20k
#2 - 120 fps 1080p nobody does this in this price range...scarlet will give it to you at 1k in a severely windowed crop. I think the primary reason against 1080p 60 would be the 50mb codec, not sure you could get nearly as a clean a signal out of it. Canon admits their speed in introducing this camera relies on that codec..I suppose you could choose an f3 with avchd...:-)
#3 & 4 Ya got me there.
#5 I think they've got the electronics largely worked out on this issue with the c300
#6 There is C-log to the card and I'd guess thru the sdi.
#7) I still think this is overrated. Red doesn't have to process a good image by sending out a raw file with huge data requirements and a hella workflow. I'd prefer a traditional hi bit uncompressed output to prores or something of that nature.

I think this camera is certainly a contender due to the quality of the codec, the sensor and image processing and it's low light capabilities. It beats the competition in these categories handily at least for 1080p output. After watching the films at the canon event and seeing that in many cases they largely shot to compact flash, I cant imagine myself "needing" a lot of the things we're all grumbling about.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

STILL - WHY did Canon choose to leave out features that could have made this camera a contender. Anyone of these would be HUGE.

Larry Thorpe gave (what seems to me) a very frank interview on behalf of Canon. I don't know whether I may link to it directly, but he does say:

The reaction to the 5D Mark II astonished us, and we had filmmakers all over us. There was a plea - 'if you've done this, can't you possibly make a full motion imaging camera with everything that we need, and none of the limitations of the 5DII?' And that triggered a very speedy program - less than two years - to develop this camera.

We developed a new sensor specifically for motion imaging. That was already cooking, but we lifted the digital processor and the codec from our little camcorder, the XF305 [...] and that's why [the C300] has MPEG recording, 50 megabit, etc., and why we were able to bring the camera to fruition relatively quickly.

So to answer your question - "we lifted the digital processor and the codec from our little camcorder, the XF305 .. and that's why ...we were able to bring the camera to fruition relatively quickly" Later on, he says:

In five years time the C300 will have brothers and sisters. We'll probably move in a number of directions. We think this is a very very good start but there's no question that 4K is coming, so we have to keep our eye on that. As for a lower cost model [...] that would make a lot of sense in the marketplace. We have a master plan and [the C300] is step one - into HD. We've stepped in, and we're never going to stop. We're in for the long term. Wherever the marketplace dictates that we should go, and wherever our technology allows us to go, we'll be there.

[Jacques Mersereau]

Don't get me wrong. I and many others think the C300 makes some awesome images, and YET -

If the C300 had global shutter, that alone would be a very good sales point.
(even though I am not one to notice a lot of jello cam from my EXCAMs.)

PRICE? As is stated elsewhere, Sony leads and can now drop the F3's price to $12K and SMOKE the C300 - OR enable S-log and 4:4:4 as standard options and beat Canon for those who want those features (me for one) . Many buyers (me again) already have several
EX1 and EX3s and the F3 is a logical choice. Without *compelling reasons* why spend more on Canon?

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K. That alone whomps the C300 for those who want 2K slo mo (ME!).

Scarlet can do 4K!!! Hello? Maybe not needed right now, but might be tomorrow.
I see Scarlet as more future proof. New Dragon sensor might be even better than C300?!
Scarlet accessories work with EPIC, so I can load up on Scarlet gear and then rent an Epic brain if and when a high end shoot demands it. Canon? Not so much.

[Jim Martin]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

Erm, this board has 5 people currently viewing it.
Reduser has over 1200 on the Scarlet alone.

This is the board for Canon imho. I think there's a message here.
Sure Canon will sell some, but had they priced the C300
under $9K, there might easily be 500 pouring over the details here and right now before buying.
I might even be one of them. $20K? No way. Not going to happen.

Jacques-
Either you haven't been reading these threads (you have) or you just want to keep dredging up the same thing, repeating whats been said over and over. You know it's not going to be $20K so why do you bring that up? You know that this 1st camera is not going to be $9K so why do you repeat what's already been stated? You know that there will be more cameras coming (4K & a lower priced one) later, so why harp on this 1st one. As for the RED forum, trying to compare how many RED devotes are falling over themselves in praising their new camera coming...soon...
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K.

That's true, but it's windowed to 2/5 the linear size (and 4/5 the area) of the full 5K frame. Maybe it's useful if you can put a C-mount lens on it. Otherwise, you'd be limited to tele shots.

[Barry Goyette]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

If the C300 had global shutter, that alone would be a very good sales point.
(even though I am not one to notice a lot of jello cam from my EXCAMs.)

PRICE? As is stated elsewhere, Sony leads and can now drop the F3's price to $12K and SMOKE the C300 - OR enable S-log and 4:4:4 as standard options and beat Canon for those who want those features (me for one) . Many buyers (me again) already have several
EX1 and EX3s and the F3 is a logical choice. Without *compelling reasons* why spend more on Canon?

I believe that Scarlet can do 60P at 2K. That alone whomps the C300 for those who want 2K slo mo (ME!).

Scarlet can do 4K!!! Hello? Maybe not needed right now, but might be tomorrow.
I see Scarlet as more future proof. New Dragon sensor might be even better than C300?!
Scarlet accessories work with EPIC, so I can load up on Scarlet gear and then rent an Epic brain if and when a high end shoot demands it. Canon? Not so much.

rolling shutter...take a look at mobius near the end of the chase scene...there are 5 or 6 shots there that would certainly demonstrate the jello, if there were any.

What if sony dropped the price to $12K? that's a pretty big what if.

scarlet 60p at 2k. Guess it depends on how you like your 2k...crop factor 3.24 anyone? super 16 is nice...for film school...I guess.

Scarlet can do 4k. yup...at 24p...too bad 99% of its users will never do anything with that 4k but downconvert...and let's not forget all the hidden costs of that 4k. (I've got to admit that since I was a kid always wanted a red rocket..but I was thinking something that would go to mars..:-) Seriously, If I really needed 4k, I'd buy the epic. 4k is for effects guys...and effects guys like to overcrank...I'm told.

And load up on scarlet gear...well yes...yes you will. (especially batteries and media)

Here's the thing. I made the trip to LA to see the canon D&P show and then headed over to Red to take a look at scarlet. Canon had 20 c300s for me to take a look at in an unbelievable array of configurations...Red...well red being red didn't have a scarlet to show the day after their event. They said they wouldn't until they shipped. All those smart, smart RedUsers buying cameras they haven't even seen yet, from a company that has a history that is long on hype and filled with a lot of tripping over their own feet. Yup...If I were you...I'd buy a Red.

For me, I like the form factor of the c300, I like the codec, I like the compact flash i/o and mostly I like the image quality...and also I like that when Canon delivers it's camera, it will most likely be on time, and do exactly what it says it can do.