C300: C300 + 5d3 Matching

G

ggrantly

Veteran
Hello Listers,

It is pretty tempting to consider the C300mk1 at $5000 (new pricing) as I already have Canon glass.

Now the question:

How easy and how well can a C300 match up to a 5d3? If I did purchase a C300, if a 5d3 could be leveraged effectively as a b-cam, that might just ring the buy bell. Seems like Canon has pretty similar color science on a lot of their products, so advise me on anything pertinent to my thinking. I might also consider adding magic lantern to the 5d3.

One other quick question: How good are the VF and flip-out on the C300 mk1. I have vowed to never ever buy another cam that I felt compelled to always use a external monitor. When convenient, I like to use one, but damn, I hate to feel like I have to. So not expecting anything extrodinary, but good enough for accurate focusing is my main criteria.

TIA
Grant
 
ggrantly said:
Hello Listers,

It is pretty tempting to consider the C300mk1 at $5000 (new pricing) as I already have Canon glass.

Now the question:

How easy and how well can a C300 match up to a 5d3? If I did purchase a C300, if a 5d3 could be leveraged effectively as a b-cam, that might just ring the buy bell. Seems like Canon has pretty similar color science on a lot of their products, so advise me on anything pertinent to my thinking. I might also consider adding magic lantern to the 5d3.

One other quick question: How good are the VF and flip-out on the C300 mk1. I have vowed to never ever buy another cam that I felt compelled to always use a external monitor. When convenient, I like to use one, but damn, I hate to feel like I have to. So not expecting anything extrodinary, but good enough for accurate focusing is my main criteria.

TIA
Grant
Click to expand...

I was faced with a similar dilemma matching the 5D3 with the C100. The problem I had was the image of the C100 came out great, easier to get things right on the C100/C300. It harder to get it just right on the 5D3, so you end up or I should say I ended up screwing with the image of the 5D3 a lot more than the image of the C100, thus degrading it too much. Or the opposite happens where you try and match the image of the C100 with the 5D3. The C100 has a warmer image and the 5D3 has a green color cast that for me is hard to match. In the end I just bought another C100.
 
You can match a C300 and 5DmkIII. I usually shoot my 300 in EOS Standard and I'll run the 5D in Neutral or close to it when shooting video with it. As far as the C300 VF, it SUCKS. It's more in the way than it is useful. The LCD on the 'pod' is ok. It's not a real monitor, but very useable and worlds better than the waste of space that is the built-in VF.
 
Why not a C100/II instead of the C300? The C100/II is better in almost every respect, and it's cheaper.
 
drummondb said:
Why not a C100/II instead of the C300? The C100/II is better in almost every respect, and it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

I can think of two off of the top of my head: 1)SDI and 2)Timecode IN. At least in my world, they are must haves.

Additionally, depending on your clients, they may not accept the 100.
 
drummondb said:
Why not a C100/II instead of the C300? The C100/II is better in almost every respect, and it's cheaper.
Click to expand...

OK, this is a little off topic, but here goes:

First, in order to get a codec beyond AVCHD out of the C100, you need a external recorder, correct? Ive owned a AVCHD camcorder. And while it can look very good under good circumstances, I'm not going back there except maybe for my DSLR. So a C100 is $4000 and add a decent recorder for what, a grand more. The C300 is $5000. So given that choice, what would you buy, and why? Would the C100 with recorder look better? Better VF maybe?

Grant
 
I agree. External recorders suck. They're a total PITA. And if you're having to depend on an HDMI cable to feed it, I'd rather take a swift kick in the stones. At least you KNOW that will hurt. I don't know that an HDMI cable won't pop out, even in the best of circumstances.

C300 is also more marketable. NEVER had a call for a C100. I don't know how many calls I've had for my 300, JUST for rentals. Now, I will say that those rental calls have started to wane compared to a few years ago, but it still goes out on rentals and with me.
 
I think you'll find in the real world the two codecs look and handle very similarly, pixel-peeping notwithstanding. And with an external recorder, you can get identical or better results with the C100/II. Plus it's smaller, lighter, and has best-in-class 1080/60p.

Yes, the SDI port on the C300 is nice, but you can get great SDI out of a C100 with a tiny atomos converter--it even sends a true 24p signal out.

There are reasons why one might prefer or need a C300 over a C100/II at this time, but I'd really recommend giving a serious look to a C100/II first. You can even save the extra $1,000 to put towards a C100/I for much easier color matching.
 
ggrantly said:
Hello Listers,

It is pretty tempting to consider the C300mk1 at $5000 (new pricing) as I already have Canon glass.

Now the question:

How easy and how well can a C300 match up to a 5d3? If I did purchase a C300, if a 5d3 could be leveraged effectively as a b-cam, that might just ring the buy bell. Seems like Canon has pretty similar color science on a lot of their products, so advise me on anything pertinent to my thinking. I might also consider adding magic lantern to the 5d3.

One other quick question: How good are the VF and flip-out on the C300 mk1. I have vowed to never ever buy another cam that I felt compelled to always use a external monitor. When convenient, I like to use one, but damn, I hate to feel like I have to. So not expecting anything extrodinary, but good enough for accurate focusing is my main criteria.

TIA
Grant
Click to expand...

I took delivery of the very first customer C300 in January, 2012. The camera still going strong, continues to blow me away with the occasional "wow" image, and it always performs. I'm overseas at the moment - I shot for 5 hours today and I'm still thrilled. At $5k (if this is true - I have no idea) that is a steal. I DO have a newly-delivered C300 MK II waiting for me when I return home... looking forward to the 12 bit 444 and I hope it lives up to the great moments I've had with my MK I.
 
C300 Viewfinder comments: I totally disagree. I use it all the time for critical focus. Maybe you've got a bad one :(
 
jw2700 said:
C300 Viewfinder comments: I totally disagree. I use it all the time for critical focus. Maybe you've got a bad one :(
Click to expand...

Possible, but not probable. I have lots of friends with them, too. I've never seen one that was what I'd consider good. Maybe my eyes are just a little older than yours ; ) I'm also used to looking in the huge color LCD VF on my Vari and the OLED VF on my 55(I also have the Zacuto OLED Graticle for my 300). The in-built VF on the 300 is abysmal, the diopter optics are trash and the panel is minuscule. Not a good combination. If it works for you, that's great(no sarcasm). But I stand by my comments and opinion.

If they would have put a little more money and effort into the VF on the original 300, it would have gone a long way to making the camera useable in its stripped down form, at least for me.
 
Last edited:
drummondb said:
I think you'll find in the real world the two codecs look and handle very similarly, pixel-peeping notwithstanding. And with an external recorder, you can get identical or better results with the C100/II. Plus it's smaller, lighter, and has best-in-class 1080/60p.

Yes, the SDI port on the C300 is nice, but you can get great SDI out of a C100 with a tiny atomos converter--it even sends a true 24p signal out.

There are reasons why one might prefer or need a C300 over a C100/II at this time, but I'd really recommend giving a serious look to a C100/II first. You can even save the extra $1,000 to put towards a C100/I for much easier color matching.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the 422 from a C300 compares to the AVCHD from a C100. I can tell you that in the Panasonic cams, there is simply no comparison between AVCHD and any of the I-frame codecs in anything but the most ideal of circumstances. Think editing some footage of a tree with the leaves blowing=instant green goo. AVCHD just sucks for anything like that. Like I said, I'm simply not interested in what I view to be a consumer codec. I'm not interested in frankenrigging a cam for the most basic shoot with a recorder, sdi adapter and monitor. So enough.
 
ggrantly said:
...I'm simply not interested in what I view to be a consumer codec. I'm not interested in frankenrigging a cam for the most basic shoot with a recorder, sdi adapter and monitor. So enough.
Click to expand...

I'm with you all the way, brother. It's not bad enough using an external recorder, but it's orders of magnitude worse on a Canon since they only give you one freaking output. You have to loop out of everything in even the simplest set-ups. I've done sit-downs where I had to use an ext. recorder, because they "had to have prores". I had to go into the recorder, out to my VF, then to my on-cam monitor then to a multi-viewer into a big monitor. By the time the signal got to the big monitor for the producer, the delay was like a bad Kung-Fu movie.
 
The C300 codec is much better on paper, but if you do any googling at all, you'll see that you'd be hard pressed to tell much a difference in the real world.
 
OK...... either you use the 4 inch monitor on the C300 or you use a Ninja on the C100..... both are kind a frankeneigged. I was just on Holiday in Thailand shooting stuff run and gun style with my C100 MKII .... the beauty of of the C100 is you don't have to hook up any external monitor!!! With the C300 you need some kind of monitor. My point being there is little advantage to the C300's monitor against a Ninja Star, and using the C100's LCD. I wouldn't call hooking up a ninja star to a C100 " Frankenstein-rigging"...... good lord! However yes, I do understand the point of a more robust codec without any additional rigging. But it just seems silly in a way to focus on the better codec of the C300, and try and match that up with a 5D3 codec. The 5D3 will pull you down into the swamp.

That said, I'm buying the C300 at this great price! Why? Just so I can say I have a C300.
 
drummondb said:
The C300 codec is much better on paper, but if you do any googling at all, you'll see that you'd be hard pressed to tell much a difference in the real world.
Click to expand...

I think the better codec is better in post. However, I wonder how much grading it takes in post to notice any damage. I recently shot some stuff in Thailand in Wide DR, and did very minor exposer correction, then add a LUT. Does AVCHD survive well with this kind of grading?
 
Just now, I have a PX270. Not a perfect cam, but a great handycam. You have to tweek it to reduce noise and it has a fixed lens. But damn, it shoots the P2 I-Frame codecs and records good audio. It has a decent VF and a very good flip-out, has more image controls than you could ever use, very reliable P2, a multitude of network options, sdi, timecode, and more. And the images are actually pretty good. So the Canon C300 has great color science (different but is it really better than Panny), interchangeable lenses so sharper lens options and shallower DOF options, and probably better low light performance. The 270 has what I consider the better codec options and a better VF and flip-out. For what I do, it works quite well. Turn it on and shoot. It can certainly be rigged up when needed, but I never need to use an external recorder and just use a monitor as a luxury. I suspect the end image from the Canon would be better, but the real advantage for me would be a matching 5d3 B-Cam option and leveraging my already purchased Canon glass. If the 5d3 doesn't match up very well, then it doesn't really make that much sense. Though I have to admit to some lust for the Canon.

Comment for Michael Thames: I think Magic Lantern would pull the 5d3 out of the swamp yes? And as I said in an earlier post: I have vowed to never again purchase a cam without a decent VF and flip-out. That was the fatal flaw for me in the earlier Panny Handycams. The PX270 is really quite good in this regard. I like using an external monitor, I just don't want to feel compelled to do it all the time. And if you are on the hoof, externals become problematic.

Thanks for all the input.
 
Michael Thames said:
I think the better codec is better in post. However, I wonder how much grading it takes in post to notice any damage. I recently shot some stuff in Thailand in Wide DR, and did very minor exposer correction, then add a LUT. Does AVCHD survive well with this kind of grading?
Click to expand...


In my experience, any kind of motion among similar colors just turns to mush while recording. Think rustling tree leaves. You can't edit what is mush to begin with. Green screen; mediocre at best.

G
 
ggrantly said:
Comment for Michael Thames: I think Magic Lantern would pull the 5d3 out of the swamp yes? And as I said in an earlier post: I have vowed to never again purchase a cam without a decent VF and flip-out. That was the fatal flaw for me in the earlier Panny Handycams. The PX270 is really quite good in this regard. I like using an external monitor, I just don't want to feel compelled to do it all the time. And if you are on the hoof, externals become problematic.

Thanks for all the input.
Click to expand...

I had such a bad experience trying to match up the 5D3 with the C100, that it sent me hell bent on a mission to just get another C100. There are so many little things in the DSLR form factor that can go wrong....... like I had it in portrait instead of changing it to neutral for a video shoot and realizing too late, because I used it for photos. C100's are fool proof. The color cast of both cameras are different. The strength of the 5D3 is I believe as a portrait shot, just soft enough to flatter a face, the C100 is less forgiving..... but you probably will use the 5D3 as a B cam. No ND filters, and no DPAF on the 5D3 is a deal breaker. The damn thing is always out of focus anyway...... ha ha!

I'm not trying to talk you out of a C300, what are forums for other than to throw out ideas and have fun. I'm the same as you but opposite...... I will never ever use my 5D3 for video again after moving on to the C100's and their form factor. I use it only for photos.

It sounds like you never owned a C100 or 300 and are moving up from a 5D3? If I may predict within a short time after getting your C300 you will be on the look out for a used C100 to replace the 5D3. I have Magic Lantern too, are you referring to shooting RAW? Or just the tools?

I have the C100 MKII, and for a $1000 difference in price I would go for the C300. Its a trade off, but perhaps the most important consideration of all is name brand recognition. A C300 will open doors.
 
Actually, I have canon gear for still photography and when I upgraded to the 5d3, I thought I might as well give the video component a try as an alternative to P2 handy-cams. So if it would work, the 5d as a b-cam would have great appeal if I switched to a cinema series canon. Enter C300 for 5k which would be a pretty painless upgrade. I might do it anyway, but it isn't a real need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top