Another C300 sample: "Canon EOS C300 = Awesome"
- Thread starter cowpunk52
- Start date
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Agreed completely. I really think that if I had a choice right now, I would take a C300 over a Scarlet. Ease of use and workflow plus having ND built in, it coming with a viewfinder and monitor, long record times, cheaper media, better battery...Really, I am not going to need 4k anytime soon. As for the stills, I have an SLR for a reason. But the more I see and read the more I love the C300. I really want to get my hands on one.
mjmcneese
Veteran
When I first read about the C300 on November 3, the $20,000 price tag was an immediate turn-off, and I didn't even really look into the camera further. Always lusted after the F3, and familiarity with the RED products was pushing me to lean to the Scarlet. But, a more reasonable price (hopefully around $12,000) would certainly be appealing to me.
When shopping for a camera, one should look for a solution that meets the largest portion of their needs. For me, the C300 does that. Sure, it would be really nice to have 120fps, 4k, HDR, and 10-bit output! But, for 85% of the work I do, those features are just not necessary. I guess I look at it the same way I do G&E...I have enough lights to get me through a typical interview, but when I need more, I rent. The same applies to cameras. When I need 4k or a high frame rate, I rent. It doesn't make sense for ME to spend that much more to own gear that will have features covered in dust.
It would be different if my dad were giving me an early inheritance - then I might spring for a step or two above what I need and use it as an investment to grow my business. I'm happy where I am, though. And the comfort of using a camera that has a compact form factor without external batteries, recorders and other ancillary devices hanging everywhere - well, that has a lot of value to me and my style of work.
There is no "best" camera. They are all different tools for different needs.
Spec'd out the way I want, the F3 is gonna cost me upwards of $24,000, and it would be looking up to the Scarlet in respect to frame rates and output data space. The Scarlet would set me back more than $18,000 to keep using Canon lenses...and that's with a Samurai recorder to avoid the high volume of disk space required by 4k, and the sensor crop to stay at 1080p. The C300 is really only gonna cost me the body and a couple extra batteries to get off the ground. If you had asked me three days ago which camera I would be most likely to invest in, it certainly would not have been the C300. The rumored drop in price shed a lot of light on the subject, for me.
When shopping for a camera, one should look for a solution that meets the largest portion of their needs. For me, the C300 does that. Sure, it would be really nice to have 120fps, 4k, HDR, and 10-bit output! But, for 85% of the work I do, those features are just not necessary. I guess I look at it the same way I do G&E...I have enough lights to get me through a typical interview, but when I need more, I rent. The same applies to cameras. When I need 4k or a high frame rate, I rent. It doesn't make sense for ME to spend that much more to own gear that will have features covered in dust.
It would be different if my dad were giving me an early inheritance - then I might spring for a step or two above what I need and use it as an investment to grow my business. I'm happy where I am, though. And the comfort of using a camera that has a compact form factor without external batteries, recorders and other ancillary devices hanging everywhere - well, that has a lot of value to me and my style of work.
There is no "best" camera. They are all different tools for different needs.
Spec'd out the way I want, the F3 is gonna cost me upwards of $24,000, and it would be looking up to the Scarlet in respect to frame rates and output data space. The Scarlet would set me back more than $18,000 to keep using Canon lenses...and that's with a Samurai recorder to avoid the high volume of disk space required by 4k, and the sensor crop to stay at 1080p. The C300 is really only gonna cost me the body and a couple extra batteries to get off the ground. If you had asked me three days ago which camera I would be most likely to invest in, it certainly would not have been the C300. The rumored drop in price shed a lot of light on the subject, for me.
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
Look to the part from 1:35 to 1:45 - on the left side "image from HD SLR" ... what is that?? I shoot more than 2 years with 5D Mark II and never have this crap... next part from 1:46 to 1:57 - why HD SLR part on bottom overexposed, taken without HD filter and without lens with IS ?? On 2:35 I see funny sample from TS-lens with "nuts" in bokeh .... do you like that nuts?
On 5:13 - silly argument about horrible 24-105 F4 lens as "perfect" for this camera... :shocked: .... I cannot imagine cinematographer, who gonna invest 15K into C-300 and use 24-105 F4 crap with this camera ...Canon C 300 is so good, that do not needed that kind of weak "arguments" Actually really good product don't need ANY argument at all... it's speak for themself, don't you think so? this is why I don't like that video...
alpi69
Veteran
hmmm....I see this a lot on my 7D with any non-stabilized lens. Not that extreme really on actual shots, but when taking the camera out of position, if it still records. But to a lesser extent it happens a lot handheld on any lens longer than 20mm and that is what he shows here.
well, not really the point of the shot. What he shows is the slow CMOS of the SLR. And probably used the same lens, only the C300 has internal NDs, therefore better exposure. Point for the C300.
24-105 is a very good documentary lens, that´s what he talks about. But I am happy to hear of a better one with that range. It is probably not the lens I´d use in a narrative setting, but out in the real-world of documentary, where you have no time or even room to switch primes, it is great. And because it is relatively slow it needs higher ISOs. He didn´t say the 24-105 is THE lens as such, but for documentary. And IMO that is a good argument for the C300 vs. DSLRs.On 5:13 - silly argument about horrible 24-105 F4 lens as "perfect" for this camera... :shocked: .... I cannot imagine cinematographer, who gonna invest 15K into C-300 and use 24-105 F4 crap with this camera
SergeSmArt
Well-known member
as I say - Canon C-300 do not need any argument.... Agrue about Lexus to be better then Ford Focus is pointless...
why don't he just talk about WHAT is good in $20.000-C-300.. without blame $1400 7D/$2700 5D DSLR ?? I would understand it if it's come from CANON - they need to argue this CRAZY PRICE of C-300.. but why someone esle have to do it ??
I just spent the last week editing two TV campaigns. One series was narrative shot with all L primes (except for the 50mm Sigma 1.4 which I love), the other series is a promo campaign for snowmobiling all shot with the 24-105 (often with IS from the back of snowmobiles).
I was seriously impressed with the quality of the 24-105 footage. The action was obviously shot at f/8 and above, on the move in bright snowy conditions, but the lifestyle stuff was shot at f/4 with a vari ND. My point is the 24-105 looks amazing, even compressed for network and cable. Needless to say, the L lens footage looks equally great. It was all shot with a pair of 5Ds.
As much as I like this piece and the ergonomics of the C-300, I don't see any thing appreciably better than what we get with the 5D...certainly not for broadcast, and certainly not 3k vs 15k.
I love the idea of internal NDs again, but honestly I have vari NDs on all my lenses and the control they offer is so much better than any fixed ND that I'd likely never use it.
I was seriously impressed with the quality of the 24-105 footage. The action was obviously shot at f/8 and above, on the move in bright snowy conditions, but the lifestyle stuff was shot at f/4 with a vari ND. My point is the 24-105 looks amazing, even compressed for network and cable. Needless to say, the L lens footage looks equally great. It was all shot with a pair of 5Ds.
As much as I like this piece and the ergonomics of the C-300, I don't see any thing appreciably better than what we get with the 5D...certainly not for broadcast, and certainly not 3k vs 15k.
I love the idea of internal NDs again, but honestly I have vari NDs on all my lenses and the control they offer is so much better than any fixed ND that I'd likely never use it.
It's rumored street price will be $13,000-$15,000.
I have been wanting Red for the longest, but Red Accessories are so expensive and the editing seems like it'll be a pain. Would be nice for HDR, but the C300 is looking very nice especially due to the high ISO performance. However, the Sony FS100U has amazing low light and only costs $5,000. It seems like a better deal. Wish Canon would put it at least a little closer to that price. Maybe $8k.
Really good interview with Jonathan Yi, the director of the video: http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/12/jonathan-yi-talks-about-the-canon-c300/
There's an interesting backstory to his involvement with Canon and how the video came about. He also mentions how the $20K price was decided literally at the last minute and in his opinion ended up being a PR mess (I agree).
My favorite quote from the interview: "If you look at the specs on paper it just really seems not inspiring comparatively, but something happens with everybody once they put this camera in their hands and they start playing with it."
There's an interesting backstory to his involvement with Canon and how the video came about. He also mentions how the $20K price was decided literally at the last minute and in his opinion ended up being a PR mess (I agree).
My favorite quote from the interview: "If you look at the specs on paper it just really seems not inspiring comparatively, but something happens with everybody once they put this camera in their hands and they start playing with it."