Canon Cinema Camera costs as much as a new car, still not worth it
Dan Seitz Digital filmmaking is not generally something your average person obsesses over, and with reason, because even to gadget nerds, watching electrical engineers and film nerds slug it out over which camera shoots better footage is absolutely stultifying.
But drooling over cameras, or mocking cameras that suck? We do that all day! So let’s come together and mock the Canon EOS C300, a camera you can easily replace with something that doesn’t cost $16,000.
First, a bit of explanation: behind the scenes in video, there’s a huge fistfight going on. Before, still cameras and video cameras were two entirely different beasts. Around 2005, though, that began to change as video features were introduced to digital single lens reflex (DSLR) cameras, and new companies like Red Digital Cinema and Ikonoskop started introducing powerful cameras for relatively cheap: for example, if you want to make your own professional quality movies (well, in terms of what you’re shooting), the Red Scarlet-X will cost you about $16,000. Consider that ten years ago, you could rent a 35mm camera for $16,000 and you couldn’t buy them at all.
Yes, this has been a little, how do you say, disruptive. It leaves the established camera companies, like Canon, in a bind: they’ve got all these “low-end” DSLRs that indie filmmakers love, but also want to capture that Hollywood buck.
Hence, the Canon EOS C300, a $16,000 camera…with lenses that will run you $40,000 apiece. Also, it only shoots 1080p: that’s about four times smaller than what the Red cameras shoot, and the resolution that your crappy point-and-shoot also records video on. This despite the fact that it has a much larger, and very nice, sensor.
So, yeah, now if you’re watching film nerds argue about this, you can weigh in and make fun of them.
Canon EOS C3000 Debuts [Engadget]
follow guyism:
Other Stories You Might LIke
Canon cameras will now remember your friends
comment on this story
blog comments powered by Disqus