C300: C300 Mk II down to $9,999.

puredrifting said:
Wow, that is seriously funky and kind of interesting. Wonder if a rental house has anywhere them? No way I would drop $1,200.00 to try one but it is original, for sure.
Click to expand...

I tried one on at one point a number of years ago.

I didn't find it comfortable but shoulder rigs are like shoes. It's very personal what works and what doesn't.

At first I thought funky too but the wood is pretty heavy and in person it seemed unnecessary. Why add all that mass?

I also had a Zacuto shoulder rig for a brief moment about seven years ago. The kind with the round counter-balance sitting in back. Didn't work for me at all.

Best rig I have tried is Wooden Camera's Shoulder Rig v2. Very comfortable, lightweight, but it still felt too big for me. If I was shooting narrative then it would be fine. For more doc style work it was just a bit much.

When I'm off sticks and not a jib or slider, I tend to use a monopod or go handheld. But I do want more of a shoulder rig. I just bought some odds and ends from Wooden Camera's Ebay demo sale. Gonna roll my own in terms of shoulder rig and make something simple, off of rails from Wooden Camera's Unified Baseplate.
 
Couple of points:

The c300 mk2 is now not much more than the c200, and I'd prefer to own the c200. The RAW is just too big a feature for me to ignore.

I'd bet an internal raw shooting c300 is coming fairly soon. What does the c300 mk2 offer over the c200 other than 10bit internal (I know a good percentage of us need that feature)? Seems like the c200 has internal RAW, 2 more nd stages, touch screen and 4K 60p over the more expensive model.
 
Fahnon said:
What does the c300 mk2 offer over the c200 other than 10bit internal (I know a good percentage of us need that feature)? Seems like the c200 has internal RAW, 2 more nd stages, touch screen and 4K 60p over the more expensive model.
Click to expand...

It has a better quality base codec - XF AVC. For those who 8-bit MP4 is not good enough and RAW Lite is too much data. For me the 150 mbps data rate for 4K is a selling point. I'm getting the C200. I probably will almost never use RAW except in a green screen situation.
 
Fahnon said:
Couple of points:

The c300 mk2 is now not much more than the c200, and I'd prefer to own the c200. The RAW is just too big a feature for me to ignore.

I'd bet an internal raw shooting c300 is coming fairly soon. What does the c300 mk2 offer over the c200 other than 10bit internal (I know a good percentage of us need that feature)? Seems like the c200 has internal RAW, 2 more nd stages, touch screen and 4K 60p over the more expensive model.
Click to expand...

The C300 II actually has the same amount of ND (up to 10 stops) as the c200. Also, it has timecode I/O.

I of course agree, though, the C200 has a lot going for it. Still, not the perfect camera for me. Hoping the C300 III inherits the new improvements and then some (10 bit, dual card slots, timecode, perhaps a tad more DR, better low light).

Btw, anyone notice that there has been no mention of the rolling shutter response time on the c200? If it's at least as good as the c300 ii that would be great. Perhaps one more area the c300 iii could be improved if it has a more powerful processor. Of course this wishlist is pointless. Just wondering what Canon is gonna give us on the C300 iii to justify the price over the c200.
 
Last edited:
brettsherman said:
It has a better quality base codec - XF AVC. For those who 8-bit MP4 is not good enough and RAW Lite is too much data. For me the 150 mbps data rate for 4K is a selling point. I'm getting the C200. I probably will almost never use RAW except in a green screen situation.
Click to expand...

There are so much better options then to drop down $8k for 4K MP4 8-bit... really?

I would say the mp4 is merely a bonus and useful for proxy editing for the main raw internal feature, why you buy this camera for anything else other than the raw internal is bonkers.

The main pull on the C200 for current C300 MKII owners is the 4K 60P, this is a huge sell for me personally and I would be tempted to own both cameras; still keeping within the Canon ecosystem and retaining the Canon look along with media and batteries across both systems, you have the best of both, potentially keeping the C200 mainly for b-roll or stripped down for gimbal work shooting raw while using the C300 MKII as the workhorse.

You get raw internal and 4K 60p and 10-bit internal 4K 30p, 2X cams A-B with great low light and Canon color for around the same price as base package Red Scarlet-W

Granted, the Ursa Mini Pro is a good contender here but the limit of 1600 ISO along with BM's tainted reputation is a difficult sell...
 
yophoto91 said:
The C300 II actually has the same amount of ND (up to 10 stops) as the c200. Also, it has timecode I/O.
Click to expand...

Yep, 10 stops that have got me out of a lot of tricky situations on extremely bright desert shoots in the UAE! I remember always needing extra filtration with the FS7 MKI and having IR magenta issues with external ND's, although I imagine the built in vari-ND on the FS7 MKII solves that.

Love the extra stops!
 
cane141 said:
There are so much better options then to drop down $8k for 4K MP4 8-bit... really? I would say the mp4 is merely a bonus and useful for proxy editing for the main raw internal feature, why you buy this camera for anything else other than the raw internal is bonkers.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm institutional and already shoot about 10 TB per year with a 50 mbps codec. And I need instant access to a minimum of 3 years worth of footage. If I shot RAW I'd have to have a drive array of 600 TB - plus dual backups. Just not workable or affordable. I will however, look at XF AVC for particular projects when it's available.
 
Fahnon said:
Couple of points:

The c300 mk2 is now not much more than the c200, and I'd prefer to own the c200. The RAW is just too big a feature for me to ignore.

I'd bet an internal raw shooting c300 is coming fairly soon. What does the c300 mk2 offer over the c200 other than 10bit internal (I know a good percentage of us need that feature)? Seems like the c200 has internal RAW, 2 more nd stages, touch screen and 4K 60p over the more expensive model.
Click to expand...

C300 MKII has the same extended ND as the C200. Other than this feature, you are correct. C300 MKII has genlock i/o and timecode i/o, C200 lacks both. Between the two, overall, for day to day work, the C300 MKII is more of a working pro's camera and the C200 is more of a lower end user's camera, other than the Cinema RAW Light and Touchscreen, which are both features the C300 MKII lacks. C300 MKIII, if that's what they call it, will have Cinema RAW Light, dual CFast cards, the touchscreen, will still retain the genlock and timecode i/o. It will also retain or build upon the excellent 410 Mbps 10-bit XF-AVC the 300 MKII has. There is no way Canon will give the same 10-bit at high datarates to the C200. I think the best we can hope for the C200 is 8-bit 305 Mbps like the XC10/15 or it could possibly be even worse and be the same data rates as the .MP4.

That's life with Canon. Great cameras, the best color science in it's price range but always artifically hobbled for marketing concerns, nothing new here, move along, the same as it's always been.
 
Last edited:
Danilo Del Tufo said:
The C300 II is very heavy to hold with hands, and you need something to mount it on your shoulder. Furthermore you can't zoom without power zoom on FS7, on C300 you can zoom only on a tripod and with hand. I think that FS7 is more ergonomic than C300/C200 and more simple to shoot with.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the C300 mark ii, but C100(mark i) is pretty OK weight wise, i can hold it in front of my body with the top handle unit. I hope c200 is not a lot heavier than the c100. The specs on the canon website says C200B is 2.9lb and the C200 is 3.2lb. If its under 4 lbs, its not too bad.
 
I'm currently trying to decide between keeping my C200 preorder or jumping on a silly deal that crossed my path on a brand new C300 Mark II. Essentially, is a C300 mark II worth $1200 over a C200?
 
jbregar said:
I'm currently trying to decide between keeping my C200 preorder or jumping on a silly deal that crossed my path on a brand new C300 Mark II. Essentially, is a C300 mark II worth $1200 over a C200?
Click to expand...

Tough call. Depends on how you work and how you anticipate working over the next few years. Are you an indie filmmaker? C200. Do you do a lot of long form event work? C200. Do you shoot broadcast work? Do you shoot multi-camera a lot? C300 MKII. Is the 410 Mbps XF-AVC more important to you than the Cinema RAW Light? Personally I am more excited about the touchscreen, on body XLRs, 4K 60p and 120 fps full scan 1080, Cinema RAW Light so it's C200 for me. But the C300 MKII is a great camera, you wouldn't go wrong buying one for a good deal. But if possible, you might hold out until the C200s begin delivering, I bet you'll see pristine, used C300 MKIIs going for the same price as the C200.
 
yophoto91 said:
The C300 II actually has the same amount of ND (up to 10 stops) as the c200. Also, it has timecode I/O.

I of course agree, though, the C200 has a lot going for it. Still, not the perfect camera for me. Hoping the C300 III inherits the new improvements and then some (10 bit, dual card slots, timecode, perhaps a tad more DR, better low light).

Btw, anyone notice that there has been no mention of the rolling shutter response time on the c200? If it's at least as good as the c300 ii that would be great. Perhaps one more area the c300 iii could be improved if it has a more powerful processor. Of course this wishlist is pointless. Just wondering what Canon is gonna give us on the C300 iii to justify the price over the c200.
Click to expand...

Ah, I forgot about timecode. Somehow I missed the c300 having that extra nd. Live and learn...
 
puredrifting said:
Tough call. Depends on how you work and how you anticipate working over the next few years. Are you an indie filmmaker? C200. Do you do a lot of long form event work? C200. Do you shoot broadcast work? Do you shoot multi-camera a lot? C300 MKII. Is the 410 Mbps XF-AVC more important to you than the Cinema RAW Light? Personally I am more excited about the touchscreen, on body XLRs, 4K 60p and 120 fps full scan 1080, Cinema RAW Light so it's C200 for me. But the C300 MKII is a great camera, you wouldn't go wrong buying one for a good deal. But if possible, you might hold out until the C200s begin delivering, I bet you'll see pristine, used C300 MKIIs going for the same price as the C200.
Click to expand...

Due to the price drop, I've decided to take my C300 II off the market and keep the camera as it's more useful than to take too much of a hit.

TBH I'm still not sure what other cameras would be a better option for a one man crew. I've been shooting on REDs recently for a project that will keep my C300 II on the shelf for around 6mts hence why the sale and considered a RED S-W to eventually replace the C300 II but the low light and the convience of battery life and media are pretty important to me when shooting alone, so I will just keep it for now and maybe look into the C200 later as a b-cam.

Even if the C200 was out now, I think it will be awhile before the Canon Raw Lite is accepted and it may be a difficult sell if wanting to deliver the footage in that format until it's out and tested and gained some kind of reputation.

10bit 410 Mbps XF-AVC is pretty attractive in this bracket.
 
cane141 said:
Due to the price drop, I've decided to take my C300 II off the market and keep the camera as it's more useful than to take too much of a hit.

TBH I'm still not sure what other cameras would be a better option for a one man crew. I've been shooting on REDs recently for a project that will keep my C300 II on the shelf for around 6mts hence why the sale and considered a RED S-W to eventually replace the C300 II but the low light and the convience of battery life and media are pretty important to me when shooting alone, so I will just keep it for now and maybe look into the C200 later as a b-cam.

Even if the C200 was out now, I think it will be awhile before the Canon Raw Lite is accepted and it may be a difficult sell if wanting to deliver the footage in that format until it's out and tested and gained some kind of reputation.

10bit 410 Mbps XF-AVC is pretty attractive in this bracket.
Click to expand...

I think that's a wise choice. With the new price drop, why take a loss on your camera package? I think the C300 MKII will be a viable camera for a long time to come, it doesn't have the spectre of looming 4K that has made my C100 and 300 pretty obsolete.
 
puredrifting said:
C300 MKII has the same extended ND as the C200. Other than this feature, you are correct. C300 MKII has genlock i/o and timecode i/o, C200 lacks both. Between the two, overall, for day to day work, the C300 MKII is more of a working pro's camera and the C200 is more of a lower end user's camera, other than the Cinema RAW Light and Touchscreen, which are both features the C300 MKII lacks. C300 MKIII, if that's what they call it, will have Cinema RAW Light, dual CFast cards, the touchscreen, will still retain the genlock and timecode i/o. It will also retain or build upon the excellent 410 Mbps 10-bit XF-AVC the 300 MKII has. There is no way Canon will give the same 10-bit at high datarates to the C200. I think the best we can hope for the C200 is 8-bit 305 Mbps like the XC10/15 or it could possibly be even worse and be the same data rates as the .MP4.

That's life with Canon. Great cameras, the best color science in it's price range but always artifically hobbled for marketing concerns, nothing new here, move along, the same as it's always been.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say except for: "...for day to day work, the C300 MKII is more of a working pro's camera and the C200 is more of a lower end user's camera, other than the Cinema RAW Light and Touchscreen,..."

I just see too many c100s and a7s/r's on event, corporate, real estate and wedding jobs to think that's true. I think you're talking about the pros who have to worry about broadcast specs, but many others will continue working the way they have been, just in 4K. Also $7,500 may not seem like a lot to a lot of pros for a camera that does what this one does, but $7,500 is firmly in the price range that only a pro will pay, and I bet the c200 will sell like crazy.
 
puredrifting said:
Tough call. Depends on how you work and how you anticipate working over the next few years. Are you an indie filmmaker? C200. Do you do a lot of long form event work? C200. Do you shoot broadcast work? Do you shoot multi-camera a lot? C300 MKII. Is the 410 Mbps XF-AVC more important to you than the Cinema RAW Light? Personally I am more excited about the touchscreen, on body XLRs, 4K 60p and 120 fps full scan 1080, Cinema RAW Light so it's C200 for me. But the C300 MKII is a great camera, you wouldn't go wrong buying one for a good deal. But if possible, you might hold out until the C200s begin delivering, I bet you'll see pristine, used C300 MKIIs going for the same price as the C200.
Click to expand...

Honestly the Raw Light is the least appealing part of the C200 for me. I'd rather have a higher bitrate AVC option, but that's me. Raw is such a minor use for me, I'd be fine with renting a recorder to pull it off of the SDI when I need it. That kind of shoot also tends to be more suitable for an external recorder.

I do mostly short documentaries and promotional/BTS stuff. The 150mbps MP4 would probably be fine... but obviously 410mbps is better.

The other improvements on the C200 (touchscreen, 4K/60, full-scan 120, on-body audio, better audio control placement, etc.) are the more appealing part of it for me. The Raw Light is kind of a double-edged sword. I wish Canon had announced what kind of XF-AVC was coming.

The C300mkII has other ergo advantages (backlit buttons are surprisingly big for me because I end up in low light frequently, data screen, dual Cfast, etc.).

It is a tough call, hence the struggle. At the same price, I'd take the C300mkII all day, but it's a tough call even with a grand between them.

The other positive is I could have the C300mkII here Friday. I've been shooting with my GH5 so far on a project and I'd love to have a C-series in here to shoot the bulk of it (coming up in two weeks). So there's the timing thing.
 
jbregar said:
Honestly the Raw Light is the least appealing part of the C200 for me. I'd rather have a higher bitrate AVC option, but that's me. Raw is such a minor use for me, I'd be fine with renting a recorder to pull it off of the SDI when I need it. That kind of shoot also tends to be more suitable for an external recorder.

I do mostly short documentaries and promotional/BTS stuff. The 150mbps MP4 would probably be fine... but obviously 410mbps is better.

The other improvements on the C200 (touchscreen, 4K/60, full-scan 120, on-body audio, better audio control placement, etc.) are the more appealing part of it for me. The Raw Light is kind of a double-edged sword. I wish Canon had announced what kind of XF-AVC was coming.

The C300mkII has other ergo advantages (backlit buttons are surprisingly big for me because I end up in low light frequently, data screen, dual Cfast, etc.).

It is a tough call, hence the struggle. At the same price, I'd take the C300mkII all day, but it's a tough call even with a grand between them.

The other positive is I could have the C300mkII here Friday. I've been shooting with my GH5 so far on a project and I'd love to have a C-series in here to shoot the bulk of it (coming up in two weeks). So there's the timing thing.
Click to expand...

If I were in your position, I would buy the C300 MKII without even a moment of doubt. Sounds better for your type of work. The C300 MKIII will be better but at what cost and when will it be available? There is a lot to be said for buying a sub-$10k camera and paying it off in client costs over just a few months. It then becomes low risk. Once you have paid it off, every day rate you charge for it is mostly profit. The C300 MKII is a proven money maker, producers know it and like it.
 
jbregar said:
I'm currently trying to decide between keeping my C200 preorder or jumping on a silly deal that crossed my path on a brand new C300 Mark II. Essentially, is a C300 mark II worth $1200 over a C200?
Click to expand...

I'd also say the 300mkII is more marketable/desirable in a rental capacity, too. I've never had a call for a C100mkI or II.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top