Street price in the Netherlands is around the 12.000 euro.
Now it gets interesting...................
Lets see when they are available what is happening ....

Those pictures are of the image being projected on a 20 foot screen at the colorist studio.
The banding you see is from the camera used to take the picture of the screen, not from the C300.

@bwhitz I think that this is because these companies have a totally different idea about what makes a 'great' camera. This is why Japan has been working for 30 years making cameras that have CCD chips the size of pin heads- they have their own ideas... So in many ways they think- mmm RAW 4k? That sounds like lots of work for the end user... lets give them really high tech product that does all that work in camera!

Its not that they don't listen- its just that they have different ideas... (after the C300 its pretty clear that they do! Obviously they don't think that RED using the Canon mount justifies any sort of competition- otherwise I am sure that they would not have licensed it to them!) (once again - please correct me if I am wrong)

@bwhitz

How about keep discussion about C300, not GH2 or other HDSLRs?

Wondering if there is a way to overcome the c300's internal codec limitations of 8bit 50mbps I wanted to know what comes out of the HD-SDI and found this:

HD/SD SDI: Yes (with embedded audio);
HD 4:2:2(YCbCr) 1920 x 1080: 60i/50i, 1280 x 720: 60p/50p;
SD 4:2:2 (YCbCr) 640 x 480: 60i/50i
http://www.canoncinemaeos.com/assets/downloads/cinemaeos.pdf (page 18)

No 1080p output at any frame rate! So if you want to record and edit 24p 1080 you have quite a similar mess as with the gh2 which has been discussed at length at this forum.

With the gh2 that's just a shortcomming on a $700 camera which is just a great camera but for that price you can't expect full pro features like on a pro cam 10 times the price.

But a camera more than 20 times the price of a gh2 aimed at Hollywood without the option to record 24p 1080 externally via SDI? It's a strange, strange world.

@bwhitz - "luckily for the GH2 though... the image starts at 16mp and is properly down-sampled to make a sharp and detailed image yet free of the nasty aliasing and farkling."

This would be true if we were able to record the GH2's down-sampled RAW output before it was compressed into 8-bit 4:2:0 AVCHD (or HDMI output). Unfortunately, compressed 1080p recordings often show farkling on the edges of high-contrast moving objects, regardless of high bitrate or GOP-1 encoding.

@bwhitz - "I think the "pulsating farkle" is easily diminished with over-sampling."

Oversampling is effective when you can downsample in post, i.e. record in 3-5K resolution and downsample to 1080p. For native 1080p video recording, the only way to diminish farkling without degrading resolution is by inter-frame edge filtering. While an AVCHD IPB encoder is not sophisticated enough to do this systematically, you can tweak an adaptive encoder to approximate it by reducing bitrate in complex high-contrast regions.

@bwhitz - "Because P and B frames are not "real" frames... An algorithm should not be deciding what changes in detail should be encoded or not."

Actually, I think better detail interpolation is exactly what is needed to improve 24p motion picture codecs. The drawback to encoding each frame independently is that random discrepancies between high-contrast edge pixels create pulsating farkle effects when sharply detailed objects move slowly across static background scenery. To diminish these undesirable motion artifacts, the codec should attempt to preserve the continuity of edge details from frame-to-frame rather than encoding each frame in isolation. This would require more sophisticated inter-frame encoding rather than a high-bitrate intra-frame codec.

I find it extraordinary, I wrote the post below on DVX and I think perhaps I will be banned. It is about the C300 an open letter and some people defending the 8 bit thing. I wrote what is below, do anybody think it is out of order, so if some folks being paid by a company telling something, so you should think that it not bias and true. I did not mention the name of anybody but the principal behind it.

I find it a bit naive for some to take the words of people that are working or have been contracted by Canon as necessarily truth. In a court of justice it is called conflict of interest. So do you think all those professional that have been surely well paid will tell you anything bad about this camera. If you were in their place what would you do. They are not a bunch of students or hobbyist that would have done it free for Canon. These people are established professional that walk only to the tune of money.

I have been a graphic designer and then pro photographer the last 20 years. So anybody can tell anything he wants about 8 bit, I know what it is. I know the difference when I shoot raw or jpeg. I know how they work and what are there limitation and not even someone on the payrol of Canon from Hollywood that 8 bit is good. Do anybody know how those shots were taken. If there was need of much more re-shoot than usual because they had no flexibility in the files that they had to be bang on. How much massage those files went through. how much take that were binned even if they would have been better. How much did not pass trough because at dawn or dust the gradation in the sky is such that it will cause banding in a 8 bit file. Who knows, the history of film is full of stories where the crew had to make choices or shortcuts because of some limitation. Sometime they came with very creative way to do that, that became a style in itself. but the question here is not that, the question is how 8 bit has suddenly come good enough for Hollywood? They should get rid of all those high-end post station etc. who needs that when 8 bit is enough.

The last thing I would add is I have only seen the La Foret short an been impressed by it. Now what went behind, did it need two three time more time to shoot of post process and decision where made not to shoot X or Y scene because it would expose the camera weaknesses. We will have to wait to see some independent test to really judge. Before that I won't believe that 8 bit is good enough.

I think their sensor looks absolutely wonderful. But the dynamic range is unworthy of cinema. They really need some kind of S-Log and a much better codec.

@mpgxsvcd

Because P and B frames are not "real" frames. They cause detail to "slide" instead of "blinking/refreshing" like they would with 24 independent frames per second. The quality is still good... but the motion is just off. And if there IS enough bandwidth... they why not just be I frames?

In cinema... no frame ever has the same detail. An algorithm should not be deciding what changes in detail should be encoded or not. ALL OF IT is a change in detail... even a plain white wall. Every frame should be separate and independent.

@mozes When I saw the protype JVC 4K earlier this year on a 4K display, the Image Quality screamed- "hey, we strapped four JVC 4:2:0 HD consumer cams together to give you EVEN MORE frames of a big crappy 4K picture in 8bit!"

I might have missed a word or two in the translation, as I don't speak native Falconbird...