C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Sure I want the new C300. And I will probably buy one even though I really feel it is very overpriced for what it is. An XF305 that’s had its eye removed, been chopped to pieces with it’s vital organs replaced.

I got into Canon DSLR filming 2 years ago and for a while I was so knocked out with the quality and control over the depth of field that I used it for every job I did. As the bulk of my camera work involves filming solo in potentially dangerous and hazardous environments this quickly became both impracticable and dangerous on occasions. And whilst it’s not especially taxing recording dual sound for interviews presented yet another layer of complexity to a days work.

So, hooked on Canon and for those more extreme situations, I bought a XF305, which whilst it lacked the control over shallow depth of field offered by the 7D, had a really nice L series lens that produced incredibly detailed images. The camera was also accepted by the BBC for broadcast production work which provided reassurance that it was a good investment.

So now Canon have launched the EOS C300 and it’s received universally good reviews from most quarters and I’m sorely tempted to buy one. It’s really a dream concept for me, all of the functionality of the XF305 together with the optical excellence of this new camera with the bonus that I can use all the lenses I bought for the 7D. That sounds like fun.

However, the marketing for this new camera is a supreme example of how to build interest in a new product. The pre-announcement of a mysterious launch in Hollywood, handing over pre-production models to key players in the DSLR video movement, leaks to rumor sites, and just leaving the rest to our desires and imagination.

I think Canon will do very good business with this camera but probably at a lower production level than the aspirational Hollywood production base who I would imagine would stick with their much higher resolution digital camera systems.

I think that anyone who has used a DSLR for professional video production will want one. It’s got all those little features that will make life so easy, decent audio, a good viewfinder, a high definition LCD, peaking, scopes to check exposure and focus and a new sensor that everybody is raving about. And the form factor, especially when stripped down is very similar to a DSLR.

But lets be clear about this new camera. It is a hybrid. Should anyone bother to study the EOS C300 Manual together with the XF305 manual, they will see that it is basically the next version of the XF series of video cameras with a very nice new sensor and a new form factor.

The similarities between these 2 camera systems go way beyond MPEG-2, MXF, 4:2:2 file type used by Canon's existing XF300 and XF305 cameras.

The menu system is identical, the viewfinder and LCD are exactly the same specification. The functionality of the button system is the same. The scopes and what they do is identical. The onscreen displays are identical bar a few missing functions on the C300.

The C300 has a few new features / functions, the new remote wi-fi looks really useful for a studio situation (but apparently there is quite a time lag).

But the PSU and batteries are identical, the ND filter system very similar, and the dual slot CF system just the same.

I can’t quite understand why Canon have removed so many assist functions we have all got used to with our DSLRs, Auto ISO for example.

So why is the C300 twice the price of the XF305?

Can it be just the cost of the sensor and its support functions? Or are we also paying for a sophisticated marketing campaign.

Maybe we will just be lucky and the actual launch price will be lower than the £9,950.00 +VAT being quoted in the UK at the moment.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

No. It's just the cost of the sensor.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Sensor plus amortized cost of Research and Development.

EDIT: R&D costs would of course be mostly for the sensor...

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
Sensor plus amortized cost of Research and Development.

So that's a very expensive sensor then.

I've no doubt they will sell a lot of cameras though. And also that as this sensor finds its way into other EOS cinema products that there will be a lot of second hand C300s on the market.

I'm looking forward to hearing what Alan Roberts has to say about the C300.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

This is the first in a series of cameras.......the sensor (4K)is the real magic going on here...double green and the 1st chip not being de-bayered is why it goes to an amazing low light level. Any future cameras in the Cinema EOS line will no doubt be using this sensor (no need to re-invent the wheel).

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

If they could sell a million of these sensors, they'd be fairly cheap. Low volumes mean higher prices.

Also, never assume that price = cost. A great example is touch dialing systems in the 1980s. Back then, the phone company would charge an extra dollar per month for touch tone service even though the costs to support electronic touch tone decoders were much lower than the costs of supporting dial decoder mechanisms.

The price is mainly by the market. If the costs are low, profits are high. If the costs become too high, the product is generally discontinued.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I'd be interested in having a closer loom at it at BVE in London next month. As a CPS Platinum member, I recently asked Frankie at Canon if I could borrow a C300 for a short loan, but apparently there is a long line of people before me already.

I too find it hard to buy into the price Cacon are demanding for the C300 given that it is so similar to the 305. I think a part of it is that we are being asked to buy into an XF305 with shallow DoF capability. In the same way we are asked to pay a lot more for the 14mm EF-L 2.8 than what it costs to manufacture it. That lens is over priced on purpose. Professional photographers want to produce an image that is fresh and different. Placing it outside the price range of most enthusiasts ensures only pros get their hands on it.

It's less about R&D and more about 'rarifying' a piece of equipment. Canon wants professionals to own this camera, not the video enthusiast or hobbyist. Price divides the pros from the hobbyists.

However I can't get away from the attractive lure of owning something that functions exactly like my 5D2 but without all the problems of moire, aliasing, rolling shutter and <50mb/sec data rate. I'm forced to admit that's worth a lot to me.

On a personal note, perhaps we should grab a coffee one day, Mark, as it would appear I live 10 minutes away from you.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I hope to receive a Mosaic Engineering anti-aliasing filter later this month. Hopefully, that will solve the first two problems. Good grip gear and limited motion (though not always practical) avoid rolling shutter. The codec isn't the greatest, but I've seen worse. Hopefully, this will add some life to the 5D2. When compared to the price of a new camera, the VAF-5D2 looks pretty cheap.

And, yes, I'm sure it costs a whole lot less to manufacture. ;)

BTW, with the VAF-5D2, recording from HDMI (which does additional line skipping) might become more viable. Don't hit REC. Move the highlight box to a corner, crop 2.35:1 or so in post. It's still 8-bit, but without macro-blocks. I'm looking forward to running some tests...

Sure, I'd rather have a C300, but the 5D2+VAF could be a nice budget solution until more prosumer options become available.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I don't think retailers will ever sell products at the same price as they're manufactured at. Consumer products tend to be high volume, with lower profit margins. Professional products tend to be the reverse and often the customers want more back up than the usual retailer provides.

When new types of products come out they're always more expensive than established product types. This has been the case with numerous new pieces of technology. With time the prices drop, but, of course, the higher level kit moves up a gear in specification, often maintaining its price.

Pros tend to be more demanding than hobbyists, especially in matters of construction quality and weather proofing, because they're buying tools that they want to use every day for a number of years. These requirements tend to raise prices, the same happens if you buy industrial power tools compared to the DIY versions.

It remains to be seen how the production volumes of the C 300 compares to the XF305, although given the reaction of some TV producers I've spoken to there's good chance the demand will be higher for the 1/3" camera in that world. The latter being a much less demanding camera for the self shooting DV directors etc to use.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I get what you are saying Brian but I don't think that anyone would describe the XF305 as a consumer camera.

Because it is so well designed, despite its 1/3" sensors, it's on a par with Sony EX1/3 range of cameras.

But it has an advantage with the MPEG-2, MXF, 4:2:2 broadcast standard file type and a very sharp pro L lens.

Only those who are familiar with the XF305 will fully understand how very closely related these 2 cameras are.

I was really quite surprised.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

There could also be an element of the premium price for larger sensors, combined with a possible smaller market. I've just noticed that the C300 price at Visual Impact seems to have gone up to approx £11,800 + VAT (at least on their web site - which may be out of date) compared to the CVS price of £10k + VAT, so it could be worthwhile shopping around or doing a can you match it job.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

They have these elements in common:

1. Recording codec.
2. Menu GUI.
3. Some physical components (battery compartment, EVF, card slots, etc.)
4. Custom presets (similar but not compatible).

The primary differences between them are:

1. Imaging sensor.
2. Weather sealing.
3. Form factor.
4. Manual only vs. auto options.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Another difference is that the C300 is brand spanking new; hence, it sells for a premium.

The consensus seems to be that it's overpriced not only compared to the XF305, but compared to the rest of the market, given its 8-bit 1080p output.

Keep in mind that Canon has just now entered the Hollywood production market. They were probably smart to err on the high side with their pricing. They can always reduce the price later, if needed. But if the C300 is meets a need and is successful at this price, they're geniuses. :) As they add more models to the range and better understand the market, their pricing will probably make more and more sense.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I suspect it's aimed at a different market to the XF 305. Some high end DPs seem to be rather taken by the C300 regardless of the 8 bits.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Well it's great that High End DPs like the camera because they won't have difficulty with either the price of the camera or the price of some of the new lenses.

But I do think that this camera will be very attractive to people a bit lower down on the production tree. I think especially of self shooting documentary producers.

But really anyone who has struggled to get good quality video out of Canon DSLRs would find this a very useful camera.

That's if they can afford the inflated price.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

It seems same going out price as a basic F3, but it has an on board broadcast acceptable codec, while the F3 doesn't (it's just the same as the EX1 & EX3).

The C300 would never be the same price as a XF305 anyway given it's competitors' pricing, but I'd imagine there's good chance the price will drop over the next year to 18 months.

The other non DSLR options available include the FS 100, for which you'll need a Nanoflash or other external recorder to match the C300, but it doesn't seem to have the same standard of image quality as the Canon. So, there seems to be better signal processing going on pre 8bit than on the FS 100.

I'm sure people below the high end will use the C300, it's quite within the budgets of many documentaries. However, if you've got a DSLR budget, it won't be the camera for you, although I'm sure Canon will produce DSLRs with better video specs than the current offerings.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

That's a valid point for sure. I'd like to draw attention to two separate pieces of information that really stuck out for me recently.

On Philip Bloom's Canon C300 Review, he said within the first couple of minutes that the C300 isn't intended as a replacement for the Canon 5D Mark II and said there would be such a replacement for the 5D2.

Ok, so PB isn't a spokeperson for Canon. But who needs his opinion when a lot of information has already been given away by Canon's CEO and managing director, Masaya Maeda. In what I found to be a fascinating interview by Jon Fauer. I don't know if you missed it, but it's well worth a read.

On page 15, of Jon's magazine posted here, when asked if there was a DSLR roadmap for 4K, Masaya Maeda replies, "Outside of the cinema industry, there are many Canon EOS 5D Mark II users. Particularly there are many users in the commercial production area requiring or requesting even higher resolutions. As we have shown yesterday, the development of a new-concept DSLR with 4K is in the works."

Before I read that, I previously understood that they may go down that route. But for the CEO and managing director to recently say such a camera is actually in the works puts this into a whole new perspective.

A prototype model of the 4K DSLR was in the glass showcase window at the unveiling of the C300. I guess it was easy to miss that part of Canon's exhibit on the Paramount stage when all eyes were on the C300 announcement. It's intended to record video in motion JPEG 4K. And do you think they would stick any old sensor in there? We're going to expect the same or better than the C300's sensor will be used for sure.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...y12/4KDSLR.jpg
Photo: Courtesy Jon Fauer - FD Times

Interestingly, in another part of that same revealing interview, Mr Maeda said the XF305 video team were the main design team for the C300... As if it weren't obvious enough!

I'd say the next 6 to 24 months are going to be very interesting.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

As I understand it, Canon hopes to release the 4K DSLR before the end of the year. That's a long time to wait. In the meantime, Nikon will unveil the D4 soon and I expect that Canon's next gen DSLRs will come to light well before December.

Canon really hit a home run with the 5D2. It was released over three years ago and is still really attractive for both video and photos. I can't wait to see what's next...

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I find a couple of things about this a little odd. A "DSLR" implies almost by definition a stills camera primarily intended for shooting high quality stills - and for this purpose most people will expect better than the 8 magapixel sensor of the C300. That sensor is great for 1080 video - but for stills.....?

So if not that, then what? I've speculated before about the possibility of a "universal" sensor, based on 4x1920 and 4x1080 (so about 32 megapixel) or 7680x4320. Obviously good enough for stills - and by doing exactly the same quartlet read out as in the C300, a direct read out of quad-HD 4k. Just a thought. Bear in mind that it's hard to make a camera which is both good for stills and for video.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

It does seem as though the C300 is based on and in many ways hindered by components from the XF305. I can understand why Canon would rely on their XF series development team as they would be mad not to tap in to their own teams experience but I keep seeing statements by the Canon guys that refer to the Sensor being more powerful than the supporting hardware & software.

Here's a few comments that have been posted on twitter today by Paul Antico who was as at Canon event listening / talking to larry Thorpe from Canon.

Larry: "to get to market quickly we had to use existing codec engine combined with brand new chip. This limited to 8 bit. Chip is higher at 444"

"c300 sensor can go to 60p. XF305 codec limited to 30p at 1080. Hence the limitation."

"Larry Thorpe told me there's zero chance to get 444 10 bit out of the #c300. The processing chip is the limit. However C future cams will."

It does make you wonder how quickly the C300 will be superseded by another version with processing hardware that's as capable as the sensor.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

And wouldn't it be great if they did? It won't be for a year at least. In that year I'm sure a working pro could get at least 20-30 $400-500 dollar rentals out of a c300 kit. You then sell the c300, still probably making a profit, and upgrade.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

From all that I have read I think Canon are genuinely excited by this new camera and the new top end production market that it is opening up. So I would imagine there will be a higher definition next generation EOS C300 pretty soon.

But I can't see Canon lowering the price of the C300 at that stage. Whilst there are slight regional variations Canon basically don't lower their prices.

I think basically that Canon have used the huge interest in DSLR filmmaking with the 5Dmk11 etc as a
calling card to introduce this new range of video cameras.The amazing films that have been produced with the Canon DSLRs have really boosted Canons reputation for producing high quality video. They have leapfrogged their position in the market place from producing prosumer camcorders to suddenly being a major player in the Broadcast digital video market.

The C300 is much more similar to the XF305 than to the 5D. But given a choice I think that most people who have been making films with the 5D or 7D etc would much prefer the new form factor. I'ts a self contained system whereas the DSLRs require 3rd party accessories to function effectively.

So I wonder where the prototype 4k DSLR will fit in.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

If you need to upgrade that quickly really depends on the type of work you're shooting. For example, the old F900 cameras are still being used to shoot sit coms, including I gather "The Big Bang Theory".

I'm not sure DSLRs have made Canon "a major player in the Broadcast digital video market", they already were with their lenses. In broadcasting, DSLRs are a niche, the XF305 will be of more interest to the broadcasters. The DSLRs are more used by people shooting music videos and indie films etc than the people making broadcast programmes, their main use in this market being as insert or specialist cameras than the main production camera.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

305 is a great camera and comparing it to the C300 is missing the point by a country mile.

The C300 is a very cheap camera. If you think its expensive you dont need it, its not aimed at you.

I think Rodney Charters late night comments are on the nail...Wise man.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

You hit the nail right on the head with that one. Its exactly how the purchase of the F3 has worked out. Its a $400 day rental for body only. Load it up with LOG and external recorder and its over $600. AND it is a very busy asset. I'm happy that I have to schedule when I want to use it myself.

For those who choose to buy the C300 it will be a great investment.

For those who are complaining about the cost - you may not be in the cameras' target demographic.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

I would never rent my gear. Never!

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

A perfectly reasonable decision. No question about it.

Renting out gear is not for everyone. Lots of risk there. But thats s discussion for a different thread.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

But don't you charge for gear when you use it for clients? That's what I was talking about in my earlier post. If you aren't going to get quite a few billable days out of the camera in a year, than the c300 might not be for you.


I know back in the 2/3" camera days people used to try and pay off cameras in 3 years, but I'm of the thought that these days you need to pay off a rig considerably faster before it becomes a paperweight.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

3 years...That is not a long period of time. So even today, 3 years should be O.K. if you ask me. I don't see a reason why an F3 or an HPX3100 shouldn't be a perfectly usable camera in 3 years. The tech is evolving rather fast yes, but 3 years really isn't THAT much time. Currently the market is streaming towards a "perfect" camera with a nice S35 chip, a good internal 10bit codec, a reliable, cheap flash media, 1080 60p, a LOG function and a central shutter. The other "perfect" camera would have 2k or more rez and it would be used for narrative films targeted for the big screen - Scarlet is still to much of a hassle to work with and also expensive. Both of these cameras are for productions on a budget. When we get there I think that the market is going to cool down a bit. At least I hope so:) All this new technology is keeping me away from writing my scripts and from actually filming :)

The C300 is actually very close to this model and I think that the next iteration of the C series will be this model! It's up for other companies to catch up then. Currently Panasonic has some catching up to do.

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Yes the gear is factored into all production budgets, always.
I am considering 2 C300s for projects in the next 2 years and with 305 and XF100s as B and backups for shooting in remote and harsh environments for long periods. What I can tell you is that compared to 2/3 days I can half the budget, increase backup/failsafe and reduce the gear to be shipped.. Broadcast documentary budgets have shrunk so I welcome these new breed of cameras (do you remember the price of broadcast cameras?) We are now lighter, faster and more reliable and so much more flexible.. I am one of the many this camera is targeted at and Im very happy!

Re: C300, just a surgically enhanced XF305?
 

Some one I knew ran a successful facility/rental company in the 1980/90s and he took 18 months as his figure, but given a working live of five or more years for a camera, 3 would be fine for most people. I know some 2/3" cameras that were in daily use by a broadcaster shooting hard news.