I am long overdue for a camera upgrade from my 7D (not the Mark II, the original one from 2009), and the more research I do, the more it looks like one of Canon’s cinema cameras is what I’m looking for. Spec-wise, the new C300 Mk III is my favorite. However, besides the 120 fps capabilities and DGO sensor, the only big difference between the C300 Mk III and the C200 is the addition of the 10-bit XF-AVC codec. With the C200 now only costing $5,500, and as someone who shoots mostly event coverage, indie narratives, and occasional commercials but never for professional broadcast companies as of yet, I'm having trouble deciding if it's actually worth spending an additional $5,500, exactly twice as much, just for the addition of the 10-bit codec. I've seen two schools of thought which state either that 10-bit is only necessary for professional broadcast and all web stuff or projects for individual clients should be done with 8-bit, or that 8-bit is worthless and everyone needs to start shooting 10-bit at minimum for everything. This is a dilemma that been bothering me for a while now. Could anyone possibly weigh in on this? As far as budget goes, I'm really just wanting whatever is going to be the best value and investment (and by investment I don't mean retain monetary value as much as serving me best for the longest amount of time without needing to upgrade).
C300: C200 vs C300 Mark III (Is 10-bit AVC really worth an extra $5,500)
- Thread starter Sean S.
- Start date
NorBro
Major Contributor
The C300 Mark III's AF may be a bit better too, but overall not really worth the price difference, IMO.
But others coming from $40K+ cameras think it's a steal so it's all perspective.
Back on YouTube, no one will notice the difference.
8-bit and 10-bit look identical out of the camera. Keep the image manipulation down and you'll be fine.
In the old days, content acquisition requirements were more strict and mandatory than they are today because technology was archaic and content creators wanted the best starting points.
The same ideology continues today (e.g. Netflix), but because there are so many more opportunities versus just working for a TV network or news station it doesn't apply as much as it used unless you're planning to work for many other companies in which not only would you need a certain format (their preference; ProRes, RAW, XF-AVC, XAVC, etc) but most likely a certain camera too (i.e. a production company in your area with all Sony cameras is most likely going to hire a Sony operator).
But an additional $5500 for 10-bit for what you do, no way.
And FWIW, 8-bit is not worthless. There are various cameras that are 8-bit and their high resolutions produce beautiful motion pictures.
But others coming from $40K+ cameras think it's a steal so it's all perspective.
Back on YouTube, no one will notice the difference.
8-bit and 10-bit look identical out of the camera. Keep the image manipulation down and you'll be fine.
In the old days, content acquisition requirements were more strict and mandatory than they are today because technology was archaic and content creators wanted the best starting points.
The same ideology continues today (e.g. Netflix), but because there are so many more opportunities versus just working for a TV network or news station it doesn't apply as much as it used unless you're planning to work for many other companies in which not only would you need a certain format (their preference; ProRes, RAW, XF-AVC, XAVC, etc) but most likely a certain camera too (i.e. a production company in your area with all Sony cameras is most likely going to hire a Sony operator).
But an additional $5500 for 10-bit for what you do, no way.
And FWIW, 8-bit is not worthless. There are various cameras that are 8-bit and their high resolutions produce beautiful motion pictures.
Last edited:
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
You might want to wait a little longer, Sean. Canon will announce their new C70 cinema camera in nine days. It's rumored to offer 10-bit 4K for around $6000. And even if it's not what you're looking for, it may drive down the used market price of the C200 even more.
Personally, I would love to own a C300iii but I can't justify the upgrade from my C200. I'm rarely asked for 10-bit and if I am, I can still provide it. It just takes a little longer.
Personally, I would love to own a C300iii but I can't justify the upgrade from my C200. I'm rarely asked for 10-bit and if I am, I can still provide it. It just takes a little longer.
rob norton
Veteran
norbro dropping some knowledge.
You mention shelf life, so on paper (people asking for cameras) the c300 iii wins in this category. But if you made the 7d work for so long then it sounds like you're the one defining what the longest amount of time is without needing to upgrade.
I own a c200 and am tempted by the c300iii. However, it wouldn't be a replacement, it would be a different camera for different work.
To me the main differences are being able to provide more recording options to those who care, high frame rates and a big handful of smaller features which would make life easier and possibly contribute to better results.
Everyone is different but in my experience working with TV broadcast organisations, 8 bit hasn't yet been a problem. The BBC holy grail list of broadcast requirements seems like it's less important.
8 bit is also a benefit for fast turnarounds where the shooter has to also upload the day's footage overnight.
If you're not getting paid anything extra for owning a c300 iii over a c200 you should have some really good reasons to still go ahead with one.
You mention shelf life, so on paper (people asking for cameras) the c300 iii wins in this category. But if you made the 7d work for so long then it sounds like you're the one defining what the longest amount of time is without needing to upgrade.
I own a c200 and am tempted by the c300iii. However, it wouldn't be a replacement, it would be a different camera for different work.
To me the main differences are being able to provide more recording options to those who care, high frame rates and a big handful of smaller features which would make life easier and possibly contribute to better results.
Everyone is different but in my experience working with TV broadcast organisations, 8 bit hasn't yet been a problem. The BBC holy grail list of broadcast requirements seems like it's less important.
8 bit is also a benefit for fast turnarounds where the shooter has to also upload the day's footage overnight.
If you're not getting paid anything extra for owning a c300 iii over a c200 you should have some really good reasons to still go ahead with one.
ericsanpablo
Active member
yeah if your current client base won't pay you more to have a c300 iii vs c200 then don't get it from a business standpoint imo (unless you're self-producing a project that really benefits from it). I'd only get it for personal reasons if I think it'd improve high end image quality substantially to help influence my future career path... I don't think the difference between high end c200 and c300 iii footage is substantial enough. What the c300 iii has going for it is mid tier useability, which could be very critical or insignificant depending on your client base. If you get a contract with a show and they need you to have a c300 iii then get it, otherwise you can't really predict the future... what if that show needs a different camera?
The c500 ii on the other hand, I can see the difference in image quality and that camera tempts me (I'd move my c200 to a bcam). That said, the truth for me so far is that most bigger productions rent different stuff anyway. The best things for me to invest in are things I can move from system to system easily that help me get better shots (good handgrips, maybe a good evf or monitor, shoulder pad, maybe a color meter... little things really)
The c500 ii on the other hand, I can see the difference in image quality and that camera tempts me (I'd move my c200 to a bcam). That said, the truth for me so far is that most bigger productions rent different stuff anyway. The best things for me to invest in are things I can move from system to system easily that help me get better shots (good handgrips, maybe a good evf or monitor, shoulder pad, maybe a color meter... little things really)
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
We own the C200 and a C300 MKII. The DGO sensor and processing on the C300 MKIII are better. Are they double the cost better? Do I care about (usable) 120fps slow motion? Not in the least. The C200 is/was an underrated camera.
Just because it lacked the same recording option as the C300 MKII, 10bit 4:2:2 XF-AVC, a lot of people wrote it off. Side by side, the C200 RAW looks superior to the 4:2:2 10-bit XF-AVC on the C300 MKII. Not sure about the MKIII, Canon
has been stingy with getting me a review copy.
FWIW, I just shot a bunch of interviews for Las Vegas PBS for a one hour special with the C200's 8-bit 4:2:0 "sub-par" codec. I got a call from the PBS producer this morning, raving about the lighting and how GREAT the interviews looked,
better than the RED Monstro interviews another shooter had shot for them locally. Of course, we all know that lighting matters so much more than stupid codecs, lighting is everything. There are some YouTube videos from a few years ago when the
C200 came out that shoot the same scenes RAW and with the "sub standard" 8-bit and they look remarkably equal. The RAW is sharper and has a bit more detail and latitude than the XF-AVC from the C200 but it still looks amazing.
I agree with the others. Unless your clients will pay significantly more for 300 MKIII footage, I'd pick up a C200 or wait for the C70, which uses the SAME sensor as the C300 MKIII. Buying an $11k camera in this economy means you are either
really smart and landed some clients who will pay you more to shoot with it or you are really dumb and just hoping that the big time clients MIGHT hire you more so you can pay off your $11k camera. Buy the best business decision.
Just because it lacked the same recording option as the C300 MKII, 10bit 4:2:2 XF-AVC, a lot of people wrote it off. Side by side, the C200 RAW looks superior to the 4:2:2 10-bit XF-AVC on the C300 MKII. Not sure about the MKIII, Canon
has been stingy with getting me a review copy.
FWIW, I just shot a bunch of interviews for Las Vegas PBS for a one hour special with the C200's 8-bit 4:2:0 "sub-par" codec. I got a call from the PBS producer this morning, raving about the lighting and how GREAT the interviews looked,
better than the RED Monstro interviews another shooter had shot for them locally. Of course, we all know that lighting matters so much more than stupid codecs, lighting is everything. There are some YouTube videos from a few years ago when the
C200 came out that shoot the same scenes RAW and with the "sub standard" 8-bit and they look remarkably equal. The RAW is sharper and has a bit more detail and latitude than the XF-AVC from the C200 but it still looks amazing.
I agree with the others. Unless your clients will pay significantly more for 300 MKIII footage, I'd pick up a C200 or wait for the C70, which uses the SAME sensor as the C300 MKIII. Buying an $11k camera in this economy means you are either
really smart and landed some clients who will pay you more to shoot with it or you are really dumb and just hoping that the big time clients MIGHT hire you more so you can pay off your $11k camera. Buy the best business decision.
Clermond
Veteran
There's no question that the C300iii and C200 are both great cameras.
The question in terms of C200 is: will you use RAW mostly? If you use 8bit XF-AVC it doesn't make too much sense to buy a RAW camera.
The question for the C300iii: how much will you be able to charge more or work more for the return of your investment?
After you have waited so long for an upgrade from the 7D I'd suggest to wait for the announcement on the 24th. There might something that hits what you are looking for without spending 11k
The question in terms of C200 is: will you use RAW mostly? If you use 8bit XF-AVC it doesn't make too much sense to buy a RAW camera.
The question for the C300iii: how much will you be able to charge more or work more for the return of your investment?
After you have waited so long for an upgrade from the 7D I'd suggest to wait for the announcement on the 24th. There might something that hits what you are looking for without spending 11k
We’ve all got our own views and they’re all valid, 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 (even through I’ll list some below which I like) but more so the feel of going from a C200 to the MKiii, I can pretty much guarantee that everyone who owns a C200 will prefer the C300MKiii if they used one as it fixes at nearly every complaint against the C200.
A few key things for me:
120FPS (yes big need for my work)
1 button slow-mo (press a button and its 120fps then same button and your back to 24fps, awesome)
Nicer image (I know this subjective, for me there is something special and different going on, I love it)
10-Bit
dual CF Express slots
custom internal LUTs
DGO (holy moly its clean)
no silly confusion about what you recording in vs what your monitoring
IBIS
timecode
illuminated buttons (we do a lot of theatre work so this is a god-send),
boot time - ridiculously quick
user changeable mounts
This isn’t to say the C200 is a bad camera, far from it, I loved mine and was sad to see them go but I would not go back and absolutely love the C300 Mark iii
A few key things for me:
120FPS (yes big need for my work)
1 button slow-mo (press a button and its 120fps then same button and your back to 24fps, awesome)
Nicer image (I know this subjective, for me there is something special and different going on, I love it)
10-Bit
dual CF Express slots
custom internal LUTs
DGO (holy moly its clean)
no silly confusion about what you recording in vs what your monitoring
IBIS
timecode
illuminated buttons (we do a lot of theatre work so this is a god-send),
boot time - ridiculously quick
user changeable mounts
This isn’t to say the C200 is a bad camera, far from it, I loved mine and was sad to see them go but I would not go back and absolutely love the C300 Mark iii
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You confirm what I have suspected about the C300 MKIII from all of the reviews and tests I have seen, it is superb camera, I suspect one of Canon's best. The fact that many C500 MKII owners
have at least a little bit of regret that they bought the more expensive FF C500 MKII without the DGO and slow motion capabilities speaks volumes, not that the C500 MKII isn't also a killer camera.
The early tests prove that the C300 MKIII is probably the best looking camera overall that Canon has made. But there is still that business case. For me, owning two C200s would actually make me
more money, I can charge my clients signficiantly more for the two cameras than a single camera that is slightly superior. We did two shoots where year, one with four C200s and one with five and I made
very good profit even though I only own one of them, even with the markups on my rentals I did well.
So the cinematographer in me longs for the C300 MKIII, but the business person says, "No, buy one or two more C200s if you need the tax write off". I am deep in live streaming now too where every shoot we
do is multiple camera and recording codecs really don't matter much. What matters the most if the overall look and feel and our clients have fallen in love with what the C200 allows us to deliver to their audiences.
The C300 MKIII would look better but costs twice as much and they likely would barely notice the difference. If I was mostly doing traditional EPK/BTS/Corporate/Documentary more, I would lean toward the C300 MKIII
but for live streaming, the C200 or the C70, multiple copies, would make me more $$$.
Clermond
Veteran
I must say that both cinematographer and business person couldn't be happier with the 2020 Canon product line. C300iii and R5 as b-cam are a perfect match plus it covers high res stills for all under 14K net. I just ordered a second R5 as backup and/or for a second shooter.
Totally agree, but I do have a nagging feeling that the MKiii might be overlooked for some time as a lot of people have been waiting for the full-frame (non-C700) camera and might dive into purchasing that, then, in a few years, once the documentary crowd start needing to upgrade their MKii's we'll see a surge in the MKiii's.
I was also the same before the pandemic, multiple cameras were such an important part of what I did from interviews to events to theatre etc and the absolute ease of having a matching set of cameras (and glass) when colour correcting is beyond joyous! It's just by chance I saw one of the second hand places were offering pretty decent money for the C200 still (which I was shocked at) and it made sense to turn them into a new camera. My warranties were up and the multi-cam events all got cancelled so it was a good time to invest. Now I've got the joy of selling accessories lol! If anyone needs any just shout! :grin:
I’m so conflicted about the R5, I need a second camera and I need a stills camera so it makes total sense, I just want to see how well they match…
Clermond
Veteran
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
Thank you all for your responses! I'm glad to see this topic has already created this much discussion and I will be taking all of your feedback into consideration.
I will add that this upgrade will be as much of a personal investment as a business investment, as I have not had as much client work ever since I started working full time, which is how I was able to make my 7D work for me for so long. That is not to say I still won't be doing freelance, but as was mentioned, I can't predict the future as to when or what those jobs will actually be. So that will go into the consideration as well. (Which might mean the C200 is a better choice?)
Any personal/passion project I do I plan on shooting in RAW. It's largely the reason why I'm considering these two as opposed to other options. Though for client work that requires shooting an extended amount of footage, like event coverage, it becomes harder to justify the amount of disk space. Which is why I'm taking other codec options into consideration.
I'm keeping my eye on the C70 (the camera being announced on the 24th), waiting for the official specs. Right now it's all hearsay and rumor, but it's being reported there is no RAW capability on these RF C-series cameras, which is why I'm looking at these others at the moment. But I'm not planing on getting anything until closer to the end of the year or beginning of next. I've been fortunate to have kept my job as long as I have with the current state of the economy, but I'm being safe and waiting a little while longer to make sure it's not going away any time soon before making any kind of big purchase like this. Right now I'm just doing deliberation and research.
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.
(which might be even more reason for me to get a C200 over the C300?)
I will add that this upgrade will be as much of a personal investment as a business investment, as I have not had as much client work ever since I started working full time, which is how I was able to make my 7D work for me for so long. That is not to say I still won't be doing freelance, but as was mentioned, I can't predict the future as to when or what those jobs will actually be. So that will go into the consideration as well. (Which might mean the C200 is a better choice?)
Any personal/passion project I do I plan on shooting in RAW. It's largely the reason why I'm considering these two as opposed to other options. Though for client work that requires shooting an extended amount of footage, like event coverage, it becomes harder to justify the amount of disk space. Which is why I'm taking other codec options into consideration.
I'm keeping my eye on the C70 (the camera being announced on the 24th), waiting for the official specs. Right now it's all hearsay and rumor, but it's being reported there is no RAW capability on these RF C-series cameras, which is why I'm looking at these others at the moment. But I'm not planing on getting anything until closer to the end of the year or beginning of next. I've been fortunate to have kept my job as long as I have with the current state of the economy, but I'm being safe and waiting a little while longer to make sure it's not going away any time soon before making any kind of big purchase like this. Right now I'm just doing deliberation and research.
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.
That's just the thing, I AM doing more traditional EPK/BTS/Corporate/Documentary (but more Event Coverage and Narrative work than documentary) while doing little to no multicam live steaming. At the same time, I don't actually consider myself a cinematographer as much as a "one man band" type of shooter that does everything from pre to post, which is mostly what I get hired as. On sets with a full crew, I tend to fall more on the directorial side of things. But I do still like being able to pick something up whenever I feel like it and go shoot something that looks great
(which might be even more reason for me to get a C200 over the C300?)
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Thank you all for your responses! I'm glad to see this topic has already created this much discussion and I will be taking all of your feedback into consideration.
I will add that this upgrade will be as much of a personal investment as a business investment, as I have not had as much client work ever since I started working full time, which is how I was able to make my 7D work for me for so long. That is not to say I still won't be doing freelance, but as was mentioned, I can't predict the future as to when or what those jobs will actually be. So that will go into the consideration as well. (Which might mean the C200 is a better choice?)
Any personal/passion project I do I plan on shooting in RAW. It's largely the reason why I'm considering these two as opposed to other options. Though for client work that requires shooting an extended amount of footage, like event coverage, it becomes harder to justify the amount of disk space. Which is why I'm taking other codec options into consideration.
I'm keeping my eye on the C70 (the camera being announced on the 24th), waiting for the official specs. Right now it's all hearsay and rumor, but it's being reported there is no RAW capability on these RF C-series cameras, which is why I'm looking at these others at the moment. But I'm not planing on getting anything until closer to the end of the year or beginning of next. I've been fortunate to have kept my job as long as I have with the current state of the economy, but I'm being safe and waiting a little while longer to make sure it's not going away any time soon before making any kind of big purchase like this. Right now I'm just doing deliberation and research.
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.
That's just the thing, I AM doing more traditional EPK/BTS/Corporate/Documentary (but more Event Coverage and Narrative work than documentary) while doing little to no multicam live steaming. At the same time, I don't actually consider myself a cinematographer as much as a "one man band" type of shooter that does everything from pre to post, which is mostly what I get hired as. On sets with a full crew, I tend to fall more on the directorial side of things. But I do still like being able to pick something up whenever I feel like it and go shoot something that looks great
Not sure how much camera infrastructure you own already? Here are some questions that will help you decide. Cameras are just one small part of a "camera package".
1. Which lenses do you own? Are you "covered" for most of your situations? Do you have a mix of still and cine lenses or just still? I own a dozen EF lenses but no cine glass for my C200 and I have been feeling the pull for a basic set of cine primes (24-50 and 85mm)
If you buy the C200, that would save you enough $$ to get "set" with your glass situation (unless you already are?)
2. Which tripod and head do you have? Is it GOOD? Really GOOD? Sachtler/Oconnor good? Not Benro or Manfrotto junk? if you bought a C200, that would give you enough money to buy a great Sachtler at least, the Flow Tech legs and a good head
that is on the Travis Wears thread with that group buy?
3. Lighting? Are you flush with every light you need? Besides key, fill, rim/hair? Do you have any RGB lights? Want any? Tube Llghts, Cloth lights? What about gripology? C-stands, flags, sand bags, diffusion, frames?
4. Pro battery system for C200 or C300 MKIII? Do you have or want VMounts? Do you shoot shoulder mounted EPK style? Do you have all of the baseplate, shoulder mount, grip relocater, rods, lens support stuff?
If the answer is you have ALL of this stuff and are 100% happy with it, that would lean me more toward the C300 MKIII. If you don't, get a C200 and spend the difference in getting your production gear that
you really need to be complete. Having a killer camera but crap glass and or a crap tripod is folly. Having a really good camera and all of the support stuff is so much more important.
Don't forget also that if you want to shoot RAW, CFast 2.0 cards for the C200 are almost free now, while CFExpress cards for the C300 MKIII are still expensive and will be for at least a year or two. I have half a dozen 256GB cards,
each holds 34 minutes of 4K DCI RAW. Plenty for my needs, at this time and when I need more, I can borrow or rent. CFExpress cards are still not common, you probably won't have many friends who can
loan you some and a lot of rental places either don't have them or have limited available.
Part of making an intelligent camera choice is assesing your entire production package and only spending the money if your sum total production infrastructure is "there". If it's not, you have no business
buying an expensive camera. Buy a cheaper camera and have all of the gear needed to do good production, not just a fancy camera. I can't tell you how many pictures of nice camera builds (Even $50K REDs!)
I see sitting on piece of junk Manfrotto heads. Those people obviously don't know what they are doing because if they did, they would have a lesser camera sitting on a good head. Of course, none of that
applies if you only shoot lock offs, but if you actually want to move your camera, you need a good head.
You can extrapolate this out to all of the other categories I mentioned. Perosnally, even though I have V-Mounts for my C200, I rarely use them unless on a tripod. But for HH shooting, I much prefer the smaller,
lighter BP-A60. Lenses, even still lenses can be very good image wise for video. But operationally, there is something to having a nice cine lens with silky smooth mechanically linked manual focus, hard stops and a
more refined image.
Last edited:
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
I thought this was a pretty honest and straight forward review. This video compares the C300 Mk3 to the C200.
https://youtu.be/tdIZXKyLPnQ
I still feel that the color science has changed a bit with these newer models. The cooler C300 Mk3 stuff looks nice but not a fan of the orange / brown looking footage. I felt like the C200 examples have naturally warm and pleasing skin tones, while keeping the scene neutral looking. Reminds me of Arri. Both are obviously amazing camera, but still would love to see a side by side.
Negative:
Cost
C300iii uses twice the battery life of the C200. (pretty crazy considering the C500ii uses twice the C300iii)
Media Costs
Plus:
PL mount (1600. More expensive than the Arri or Red.)
Load Custom LUTS
Auto Focus in Slow Motion Modes
Wider Range Of Codecs
Anamorphic 2x Mode (Currently doesn't work in slow motion modes.)
Less Noise Due To Dual Gain Output Sensor
https://youtu.be/tdIZXKyLPnQ
I still feel that the color science has changed a bit with these newer models. The cooler C300 Mk3 stuff looks nice but not a fan of the orange / brown looking footage. I felt like the C200 examples have naturally warm and pleasing skin tones, while keeping the scene neutral looking. Reminds me of Arri. Both are obviously amazing camera, but still would love to see a side by side.
Negative:
Cost
C300iii uses twice the battery life of the C200. (pretty crazy considering the C500ii uses twice the C300iii)
Media Costs
Plus:
PL mount (1600. More expensive than the Arri or Red.)
Load Custom LUTS
Auto Focus in Slow Motion Modes
Wider Range Of Codecs
Anamorphic 2x Mode (Currently doesn't work in slow motion modes.)
Less Noise Due To Dual Gain Output Sensor
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
As usual, spot on and balanced.
rob norton
Veteran
Who are the regretful c5002 owners? I think you'd struggle to find a c5002 owner who would give up FF for slow motion/DGO. Unless someone bought the c5002 early then found out about the c3003.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
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.
owlbot
Active member
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.