C300: C300 Mark II side-by-side A7S II

The C300 is a significantly better image in my opinion. The question really is....is it $13K better.

My question to you....in this day and age....are you willing to spend $13K for this difference....and would your clients be able to tell?

Just starting a conversation. Personally...I love the C300II. Still on the fence about the business sense and ROI....but the image is definitely nice. Whats your opinion?
 
No, it's not $13K better. Take a pinch of magenta out of that A7s and you have a good B cam for C300mkII. Or, buy a new car and use the A7s as your A cam.

I do like that focus tracking though...
 
For me it's not as much about the image quality so much as the professional feature set and ergonomics, as most cameras over $2000 these days have good enough image quality for a lot of work. If all you care about is image quality buy a cheap Black Magic camera.

This test shows close image quality in most regards, except that the A7S II is out of focus a lot more, and an out of focus shot is actually terrible image quality, so therefore the C300 Mark II in this video comparison has significantly better image quality in terms of actually being in focus.
 
I would just like to say that I have used and own a Red Scarlet and a Red Epic along with several other high end cameras. We shoot wildlife 100% of the time. Wild wildlife, not zoo or game farm animals. I received my new C300 Mark ll 4 days ago and have been testing it the last 4 days. The image quality is great along with the color. No camera that I have used to date can match this camera for ease of use, image, focusing ability (excellent) or price. When I punch in from 4K to 2K the image quality is as good or better then my Epic doing the same thing with the same lens. I hear some people bitching about the price of the C300 Mark ll, the c-fast cards cost to much, or that the focus system doesn't work correctly etc. Well the focus system is excellent if you test it's abilities and learn how to us it. Sorry for the quiet rant but I am just tired of people criticizing products that either they can't afford or they are just plain stupid.

Bill Martz
 
The C300II has AF on lock. Nothing can touch it. When you get into the other features its just a matter of how important a feature is to you. Is the C300II worth $13K over A7SII or $8K over the FS7? That is up to each business and will depend on their clients budgets. A company could get an FS7, XDCA, O7Q and an A7SII as B-cam for the same funds as a C300II and would serve many more types of jobs with RAW & ProRes recording options. If AF isn't a high use feature its hard to overlook the value the sony package offers.
 
I would have ordered it already if it was priced at $12,000 or less. I can't shake the feeling that Canon is going to drop the price (though that is not their track record) or that resell value will plunge quickly. Taking a "wait and see" position at this point.
 
We are extremely pleased with the C300 II. While the A7S II (and FS7/FS5) have much better color than previous Sony products (we also use the A7S and FS700), the C300 II's color and look is still better which means less time in post. The AF with EF lenses alone is worth the extra cost. We can't do any kind of AF with EF lenses on Sony cameras (though the A7S II manual focus peaking is much improved over the A7S). AF with Sony lenses isn't nearly as good as the C300 II, so we must (F)stop down and evaluate if AF can even be used at all (vs. doing full manual and rehearsing/being very careful, which takes a lot more time and can't really be used for ad-lib/live/docu/run&gun work). Nailing shallow DOF focus in 4K is hard even for an experienced focus puller (especially when there isn't a way to really monitor focus in 4K unless in a studio).

As other have noted, RED and ARRI are much more expensive once kitted up to shoot. FS7/FS5 are lower cost but still take more work in post to match C300 II skin tones. None of these cameras have AF like the C300 II. For smaller crews and fast production, the C300 II is a great match. If Sony provided AF like Canon, how much time in post to work on skin tones (for example) is the price difference between the cameras worth? At $100/hr, that's about two weeks.

All of these cameras provide amazing quality and value, where each fits different needs and markets.

Re-graded to better match the cameras:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ulmgc_a39Q

I posted the re-grade in the NEX forum for the A7S II crowd (more info there on the re-grade): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341753-A7S-II-matched-to-C300-II
 
Canon's not supposed to beat Sony in areas like newly developed technology.
However, I'm glad they have.
Can't wait to use the C300 mkII in January for some weddings.
 
The fairer comparison is the C300II and the FS7. Autofocus actually works with the FS7.

If I didn't have so many producers asking for C300, I wouldn't even consider buying the C300II unless the price was $4000 less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top