Ryan Holmes Cut Color Post. Excerpts, quips, and musings on the production and post-production industry of editing, color grading, and deliverables.
In regards to the upcoming NAB 2015, here's a nugget from Canon Rumors:
Unfortunately, I think this is completely accurate. While the C300 Mark II should only cost $8K, like the Sony FS7, I'm guessing it'll cost closer to $10K or even $12K (or $16K as announced on April 8). Reason being: I don't think Canon believes the FS7 to be a competitor to this camera. I can see why Canon would believe this, but in the marketplace the consumer sees these two cameras as in the same class, even if the manufacturers do not.
I think this line of reasoning is further supported if you look at Canon's current price breakdown pyramid for their Cinema EOS lineup (current mark down pricing is listed below):
Canon C100 Mark 1 - $2,999 (link)
Canon C100 Mark II - $5,499 (link)
Canon C300 Mark I - $6,999 (link)
Canon C300 Mark II - $15,999 (link) - updated after Canon announcement
Canon C500 Mark I - $15,999 (link)
Canon C500 Mark II - $19,999 or $24,999 (speculative)
I also wouldn't be surprised for Canon to pull a page out of Apple's iPhone playbook and continue to sell the previous version of their Cinema EOS camera at a reduced price. That would allow Canon to sell a Cinema EOS camera at nearly every price point. And if there's one thing that Canon (and Apple) is good at it's providing a product offering at nearly every conceivable price point (specs are different story!). If the product pyramid that I've outlined above holds that would allow Canon to sell a camera as inexpensively as $3K and as premium as $25K.
Additionally, if you're in the market for a great 1080p camera the original C100's and C300's are absolute steals at those prices. Since 98% of projects today (2015) are finished and presented in HD 1080i/p, those cameras will still get the job done well for the next several years. I have no intention of giving my EOS cameras up at this point, and may even add an additional one soon!
Meagan Keane of Adobe interviews editor, Andrea B. Scott, on the 2015 Sundance Film Festival documentary "Fresh Dressed"
I'll continue to say it: all modern NLE's are capable of producing high-quality content for broadcast television or film. Apple Final Cut Pro X, Adobe Premiere Pro CC, and Avid Media Composer all have the ability to cut your story and cut it well. The difference is in the user and which product makes the most sense for a given workflow. Stop the nonsense about whether not NLE is faster than that NLE, or if <fill in the blank> NLE is "pro"...they are all capable choices in the hands of the right person.
I run both at my shop and they each have distinct advantages (the 5K Retina screen is gorgeous). It's always a trade-off between speed and cost. The faster you want to go, the more money it's going to cost. For many of today's task an iMac is a great machine. But if you need the horsepower for transcoding you're not going to beat a Mac Pro.
If true, I find that very interesting, particularly that the "Mark III sales are still good." While many people bag on Canon's lack of "innovation" (I'm looking at you EOSHD.com) their products sell well to many segments - photo, video, news, cinema, etc. While I also hope Canon releases some face-melting cameras this year, they are a business. And if their products are selling well it's understandable that they may delay an announcement for a replacement product to avoid the Osborne effect.
It's a MacBook. Not a MacBook Pro. This machine is for general, simple computing tasks - Word Processing, Facebook, Twitter, online shopping, etc. It is not meant for heavy computational tasks, like photo/video editing, color grading, compositing, or audio production - it has an Intel Core M processor and integrated Intel HD Graphics 5300 GPU for crying out loud. Those aren't powerful chipsets. If you need a lightweight, ultra portable machine that lasts all day and has an absolutely gorgeous screen...this is your machine!