What is your take on the C300 II vs Sony F5 vs FS7, if you had to do it all over again which one would you buy and why? Taking into account cost of accessories such as media etc. along with features, which one is a more wholesome camera and will get you more gigs, whether corporate or indie film.
C300: C300 II vs Sony F5 vs FS7
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
jm.gardiner
Well-known member
Those cameras were all released years apart. From my experience a corporate job have never asked for a specific camera model or spec, other than "HD."
Indie films, I hope it's the DP getting the job not the camera. That being said the directors I work with much prefer the Canon look over anything from Sony.
Indie films, I hope it's the DP getting the job not the camera. That being said the directors I work with much prefer the Canon look over anything from Sony.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
In LA, it seems more clients prefer the Canon look, although some of my projects we rent an Amira or RED. I have only had one client request a Sony and we rented an F55, which is a very nice, heavy, huge camera. But in my niche (EPK/BTS for the studios), Canon is IT. Nobody I know shoots FS7or FS5.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I havent shot with the F5, but have shot with the F55. Does the F5 have the same colorimetry as the F55 or as the FS5/FS7, anyone know?
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
F55 has a different colour filter than the F5/fS7. I'm not very familiar with the FS5.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I find it really annoying that F55 and FS5 look so similar on text, that I have to look closely at my computer screen whenever someone mentions one of those models. They're like, totally different price brackets and market.
JPNola
Veteran
That would be helped by people using "Fs5". But only minimally. Sony is big on lucky numbers / odd numbers. 3,5,7,9. I'd prefer that Sony went to names for camera models as has ARRI and Red. Even Porsche finally abandoned model numbers and went to model naming.
JPNola
Veteran
I've done EPK here in Louisiana on at least 10 shows with an Fs7. Major studio shows. ( We're likely working for some of the same EPK content producers. ). I'm doing EPK on a feature tomorrow and they requested Fs7. In my experience it used to be that they wanted C300 or F5 for EPK. But lately clients are more saying "C300 or Fs7", as though the two are equivalent and there is no preference.
C300 used to be the "It" camera for reality tv ( if they were not shooting on a 2/3rd inch camera ) but lately, in my experience, it is the Fs7. The reason being that the Fs7 requires less franken-rigging, more naturally lens itself to being shoulder mounted, and has more options as far as codec. More lens options also as a result of the e-mount. I'm currently day-playing on two ongoing reality series- both are on Fs7.
As an Fs7 owner I am obviously biased. And at the risk of offending the C300 owner, I kinda hate having to operate the C300. Well, having to operate the C300 handheld, that is. Getting back on the Fs7 is a joy after having to suffer with some C300 handheld rig.
My strong preference and opinions aside, the C300 is still at the top of the Most Rented scoring. Albeit barely. Fs7 is in second place and the Amira is in third. Were I going strictly by the produced images, I prefer the C300. But selfishly I'm all about the operating and usability.
As far as C300 vs F5 vs Fs7, only the C300 and Fs7 are in direct competition with each other. That is to say, both compete in that smaller form factor S35 arena. By the time you build an F5 out it is roughly the same size as a broadcast tv camera.
I am happy with my purchase of the Fs7. Had I gone with the C300 I'd likely be happy with that purchase as well. And same for the F5. They are all great cameras and we are blessed to have so many available choices. Back when I started in Video production it was Sony betacam or Ikegami betacam. That was it.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I totally get it and I agree. I have a handheld Franken rig that I use for both my C100 and the C300 (MKII too!). The Canons are just not very handheld friendly, use a rear counterweight and it helps and I have the Zacuto grip relocater, which is a Godsend for HH operating. But the Canons are way too tall and even with a shoulder mount pad and counterweight, too long. I shoot a lot of stuff for LA Metro and have to crunch into tight spaces on trains and buses while shooting actors and it's alwys a PITA. I wish I could get past the colors on the Sonys, much better ergonomics, price and value but every time I shoot with the FS7 or other lower end Sonys, I gag on the picture, I just can't get past it. My favorite is shooting the Amira but it is such a beast, I have to have a PA follow me around all day just to carry batteries! Ridiculous. What we really need is a better ergonomic FS7 with the look and picture of the Amira at the pricepoint of the C300 MKII, that would take Canon lenses natively, that would be the ultimate.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
FS7 owner.
C300ii and that 18-80 zoom with AF
444 HD codec
Seems that the 300 would be a winner for runNgun work
If cost we no problem and both were out when I purchased I would certainly be having a very close look at the Canon.
S
C300ii and that 18-80 zoom with AF
444 HD codec
Seems that the 300 would be a winner for runNgun work
If cost we no problem and both were out when I purchased I would certainly be having a very close look at the Canon.
S
You know, people all over the world are naming their kids "Nine Eleven" and "Seven Eighteen", with the members of the extended family going by "Nine Forty Four" and "Nine Thirty Turbo".
BTW, insofar as FS7 colors go, Log + Lut can get one pretty close to ARRI. Some people swear by it; others are lukewarm about it but, for a casual user, the difference is minimal.
PS. F-5. FS-5. F-55.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
With the Odyssey7Q+, the C300-2 can shoot in 2K/HD 4:4:4 12-bit to Apple ProRes 4444 & 4444(XQ). You don't even need the OdysseyRAW Bundle.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
It is considered bad luck to use even numbers or number sequences that start with an even digit when naming things. Hence C100/300/500 and Sony FS5/7/100/700, F5/55 and so on. There are exceptions but they are few.
traviswears
Well-known member
I've had a C300, still have a C100 and also own and shoot mostly FS7.
I LOVED the Canon look and still do, but getting a nice image out of the Sony's is pretty simple also. I shoot a lot of handheld and the FS7 (with minimal rigging) is considerably superior to either of the Canon cameras. I think Canon has stalled out in the development phase. The slow-mo frame rates on the C300II are not to my standard and the price isn't competitive for the specs. Lack of 60p in 4k is weak. I still get calls for the original C300 but have gotten NONE for the C300II. I did have to shoot the C300II on a reality show for several months and it drove me crazy.
You still can't access ISO/WB/etc...by simply pressing in on the toggle switch like you can w/the C100. The display is in the wrong place, the grip is in the wrong place, overall it's poorly designed for handheld use, which is what most people in the price bracket are using it for.
Also, the color science on the C300II changed and is no longer a large competitive advantage. The high DR is nice but the FS7 is right there with it, especially using slog3, which is what 95% of my projects are shot to.
My C100 works a bit but most calls are for the FS7 or the client is OK w/whatever camera I suggest.
For the money, I would much rather own an FS7 or Scarlet-W than a C300II. The original C300 and C100s are good cameras for the price.
I LOVED the Canon look and still do, but getting a nice image out of the Sony's is pretty simple also. I shoot a lot of handheld and the FS7 (with minimal rigging) is considerably superior to either of the Canon cameras. I think Canon has stalled out in the development phase. The slow-mo frame rates on the C300II are not to my standard and the price isn't competitive for the specs. Lack of 60p in 4k is weak. I still get calls for the original C300 but have gotten NONE for the C300II. I did have to shoot the C300II on a reality show for several months and it drove me crazy.
You still can't access ISO/WB/etc...by simply pressing in on the toggle switch like you can w/the C100. The display is in the wrong place, the grip is in the wrong place, overall it's poorly designed for handheld use, which is what most people in the price bracket are using it for.
Also, the color science on the C300II changed and is no longer a large competitive advantage. The high DR is nice but the FS7 is right there with it, especially using slog3, which is what 95% of my projects are shot to.
My C100 works a bit but most calls are for the FS7 or the client is OK w/whatever camera I suggest.
For the money, I would much rather own an FS7 or Scarlet-W than a C300II. The original C300 and C100s are good cameras for the price.
People were saying this before GH4 came out because, in Japanese, "four" is a homonym/homophone for "death".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia
Of course, Panasonic bucked the trend with GH2 also.
Is the sensor in the older F5 and newer FS7 the same? What do you guys think of the sony 28-135mm servo zoom, I have read conflicting reviews. I own and use canon EF lenses however some of my shoots are corporate seminars and panels, the FS7 with the 28-135mm servo seems a good option for that and yet the camera will be a good workhorse with all of it's features for other types of projects. My reluctance with Sony is the color as I will be also using the camera for filmic type of productions such as small budget music videos. I do some studio chromakey work and 10bit 4:2:2 is important. I do not need raw at the time being and like some said the F5 is four years old and a newer sensor could be on the horizon, also once you buy media and other accessories it will be more like $18K.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yep. I just shot two separate days last week with my 300 and have it out on a rental today. There was absolutely nothing about the 300 mkII that excited me enough to buy one. The only thing that would make me buy one would be if I started losing (a lot of) work by not owning one. And if they've changed the 'color science', there is definitely no compelling reason to go buy one or use one. The image from the original 300 is the only reason I can even tolerate the horrible design.
jm.gardiner
Well-known member
Everytime I think I'm going to sell my C300mk1, I get a bunch of rentals on it. I have a regular multi-cam gig and the image of that camera still sings next to anything Sony produces. The trouble with the mk1 isn't on set, it's in post when you want to push it more than it can handle. I can usually watch a show and recognize the C300, because you can't really push it beyond it's base look. I think the mk2 solves that problem with the various matrices/gammas/bit depths.
The 10 and 12 bit files have a lot of latitude and you can actually create pretty unique look with them. I always found the mk1 to produce one or two looks, that were great, but limited. I would always suggest to productions, if you're just going to throw a Rec709 lut on your project the C300 is the easiest way there, outside of Arri. The files are more robust now and the image is sharper, I do find myself using a lot more filtration on the mk2. I think if you're just doing doc or EPK/BTS the mk1 still dynamite, but if you bounce back and forth to narrative or music videos and the Sony doesn't have the look you clients like, the mk2 is where it's at.
Here are some diverse mk2 images, I've shot since I picked the camera late last year.
The 10 and 12 bit files have a lot of latitude and you can actually create pretty unique look with them. I always found the mk1 to produce one or two looks, that were great, but limited. I would always suggest to productions, if you're just going to throw a Rec709 lut on your project the C300 is the easiest way there, outside of Arri. The files are more robust now and the image is sharper, I do find myself using a lot more filtration on the mk2. I think if you're just doing doc or EPK/BTS the mk1 still dynamite, but if you bounce back and forth to narrative or music videos and the Sony doesn't have the look you clients like, the mk2 is where it's at.
Here are some diverse mk2 images, I've shot since I picked the camera late last year.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Beautiful work JM, you certainly know how to light. From what I have seen, most of those looks would be very difficult, if not impossible to get on the FS7. I have seen very few FS7 clips that have such great skin tones, even after being massaged and CCd a lot. That's what rules it out for me.