Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,974
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    The A7SIII has 4K120fps, 10-bit internal and RAW out and some of the best AF out there... lensing it, of course, is another matter...
    Sony is shipping me an A7 SIII and a couple lenses to play with for a few days on the 25th. LMK if you want me to check out anything easy, I am way too busy to shoot in depth tests but I will shoot with it and
    try a few informal tests for my review.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,974
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by owlbot View Post
    I think the "regrets" are overstated. It's more of a general side-eye at Canon like "is the S16 120 in 2K on the C500 a hardware thing or an arbitrary choice?" at least from me. Having just compared/reviewed the two cameras at length. I can confidently say I prefer the C500.
    I'd be VERY interested in reviewing the C500 MKII and the C300 MKIII side by side but Canon has been extremely stingy with review copies of anything the past year, while Sony and BMD are begging me to review their cameras. So I do. I can't afford to rent two cameras
    just for an article, I'm sure you can relate Kenny?
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,497
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Those are the exact ones I am talking abot Rob. Saw several on the various boards expressing dismay/frustration when the C300 MKIII debuted that it had some features that their much more expensive camera didn't.
    Yeah fair enough. I think at some level it serves you right if you get burned after purchasing so early. At the same time, you'd think those in this camera bracket are getting enough pro paid work that the camera would start working for them straight away and it's not such a big deal.

    I think it's a pretty clever way canon has separated the cameras. It's not just FF vs. S35 and all else is equal. They've muddied the waters on purpose and at least on paper can argue that they're two completely different cameras.

    While I'm not quite part of the DBDTFFA (Dan Brockett Death To Full Frame Alliance), I'd still go with a c3003 for my needs (read: can't afford c5002).

    I'm also interested in a side by side.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Clermond View Post
    just look in the Industrie News / R5 thread Liam has some sample. I shot a Covid-19 split screen talk with the C300iii and the R5 as close up both. It was quite close even without individual WB just standard 5600K both (it's unfortunately client's internal footage)

    if you need a stills camera anyway - you think there might be a better match?

    You may still think as the R5 isn't available atm
    Thats the conflict! If I didnt need a stills camera I'd get a second C300iii, same accessories, batteries, chargers, cards etc, makes life so simple including post too. But I do need a stills camera too and I you're right there isnt a better choice right now than the R5.

    Really good to hear they're close with matching, I think I might bite the bullet in the coming weeks....

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean S. View Post

    No doubt the C300 Mark III is the better camera. Like I said, spec-wise, it's my favorite. But is it actually 2x better than the C200 to justify twice the price is what I'm trying to figure out. If not, then either the Mark III is overpriced or the C200 is being offered at an incredibly great price right now.
    Theres a bit more here to consider though, the C200 has been out for about 3 1/2 years and had two price drops (I believe) and obviously the C300 iii is brand spanking new so I wouldn't necessarily consider it overpriced, I actually think it's pretty cheap considering the cameras I've purchased in the past (original C500 I'm looking at you)! But something else I personally think is important is that if this is your bread and butter you might want to consider how much this this going to be worth in the next 3-4 years, what re-sale value will it have if you want to upgrade etc as with every new camera release the price goes down. Just something to think about, then again if you don't care about that and are happy to buy and run it into the ground then pick up a second hand C200! Mine were pristine when I sold them, one with 200 hours and the other with 65 hours which also had the EVF removed for gimbal work, some awesome second hand deals out there.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    136
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by aygie View Post
    I’ve been using x2 C200’s for about three years and sold both of them to get the C300 Markiii and for me the camera is better in every way. It’s not just about features on a sheet
    Same boat and totally agree. Had 2 x C200s (prior to that I owned the original C300 and the C300mkII). It's not just the headline specs but lots of little details that make the C300mkIII a better camera to work with. Things like false colour and having dual slots for Raw. They've also changed the way you view media so you don't have to switch the camera off and on to a media viewer mode - it's just a button press now.... lots of little details like that make it great to work with.

    On the C200's side there is battery life (I've switched to V-locks for the first time as the C300mkIII chews through batteries) and weight, there's a noticeable difference. But in every other respect the new camera is lovely to work with.

    In my case I was shooting C200s exclusively in Raw onto solid pods. Great images but the noise difference is huge... I knew it there would be a difference but surprised how big it is (unfortunately I not longer have my C200s to test it against but my impression is it's more than a stop, at a guess a stop and a half). With the C200s I tried to keep controlled shots to ISO200-400 range as above that the noise became unpleasing (to my taste). Because invariably one has to often shoot at ISO800 or higher it meant turning to Neat Video (which is effective but sloooow).

    With the C300mkIII ISO800 in Raw is nice and I can push it a bit higher without needing any post noise suppression. That's a big thing for me.

    Is it worth double the price? It's not double the image quality but it's lovely to work with, provides flexibility and saves time.

    In my case it wasn't a business decision (I know that runs counter to your motto Puredrifting). It won't make me any extra money but it saves me time and I enjoy using nice gear.
    Last edited by lacuna; 09-17-2020 at 03:07 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Member owlbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    44
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    I'd be VERY interested in reviewing the C500 MKII and the C300 MKIII side by side but Canon has been extremely stingy with review copies of anything the past year, while Sony and BMD are begging me to review their cameras. So I do. I can't afford to rent two cameras
    just for an article, I'm sure you can relate Kenny?
    Yeah I mean I've been fortunate enough to have a relationship with Stray Angel in which they let me check stuff out for them, so if Canon didn't send it to me I would have waited for Stray to get theirs and done the comparison then. I for sure am not renting something for an article unless it somehow was part of a bigger project and the article was auxiliary.

    I will say, by contrast, I never get asked by Sony or BMD to review anything haha. I wish!
    KENNY McMILLAN
    www.owlbot.co
    @_owlbot


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,974
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by lacuna View Post
    ...In my case I was shooting C200s exclusively in Raw onto solid pods. Great images but the noise difference is huge... I knew it there would be a difference but surprised how big it is (unfortunately I not longer have my C200s to test it against but my impression is it's more than a stop, at a guess a stop and a half). With the C200s I tried to keep controlled shots to ISO200-400 range as above that the noise became unpleasing (to my taste). Because invariably one has to often shoot at ISO800 or higher it meant turning to Neat Video (which is effective but sloooow)..
    Let me guess, you were never a film shooter, were you? Coming from shooting S16 for more than a decade, I find the noise and grain from our C200 more than acceptable up to ISO 1600, 2500 in some cases, without touching NR.
    I have experienced with particular cameras like the Sony EX1/EX3 over the years that the super clean, noiseless images look sterile and too video like for my taste. After film, I moved to shooting the Varicam, F900 and then the HVX200 and
    HPX170. The 1/3" sensors definitel were grainy but once again, never bothered me or clients.

    Different strokes for sure. I've never had a client complain about noise at any ISO, even ad agencies, the studios and networks. I think to a point, noise signature and grain is personal taste. Some freak out over the slightest bit of noise but
    those of us who came from film generally embrace it as long as it's pretty/film-like noise pattern. FPN bugs me, that's whole different thing but the C200 noise, to me, moves nicely and is pleasantly colored so that it doesn't look electronic.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    10,974
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by owlbot View Post
    Yeah I mean I've been fortunate enough to have a relationship with Stray Angel in which they let me check stuff out for them, so if Canon didn't send it to me I would have waited for Stray to get theirs and done the comparison then. I for sure am not renting something for an article unless it somehow was part of a bigger project and the article was auxiliary.

    I will say, by contrast, I never get asked by Sony or BMD to review anything haha. I wish!
    That's a good connection! I have found that with the manufacturers, it's all about the personal relationships. If they like you, they send you stuff. I have found though that
    because I'm not a YouTuber, I am waaaay down the list, YouTubers get all of the best stuff the earliest because they are perceived to have the largest audience.

    I've been trying to get a hold of the C500 MKII and C300 MKIII since they were introduced. No dice. Which is weird because the last generation Canons I reviewed and wrote a lot about
    and Canon seemed happy with my reviews, even though I am definitely not afraid to point out any piece of gears shortcomings. Oh well.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •