C300: C300 mkii - Sigma Cine vs Canon Cine

Barry G said:
For a few minutes this morning, CR and CW had some design patent renders of a new Extension Unit, presumably for the C300 Mark III. I wish I'd screenshotted them before they disappeared. If accurate/true, they would indicate that the new camera has no built-in XLR's (not really a change from previous iterations, so that's not the largest of surprises), as the EU adds 4 XLR -- two on the operator's side (with controls) and two on the back (with controls on the dumb side).

The speed with which these got taken down from both sites might indicated that they got a call from Canon Legal.........or that they were a hoax :-) although they seemed pretty polished and consistent with canon's design signature for these cameras.
Click to expand...

Someone may have jumped the gun. I was told that there was a dealer call with Canon yesterday, but a lot of specifics/specs were withheld and are supposedly being given out to them tomorrow(4/17) and Canon's official on-line announcement is Monday(4/20).

CR says that Canon is announcing a 25-250 Cine Servo with extender and it covers s35 & "FF". I've been told that there is a lens being announced, but they would not confirm if those specs are true or not.
 
Last edited:
Barry G said:
For a few minutes this morning, CR and CW had some design patent renders of a new Extension Unit, presumably for the C300 Mark III. I wish I'd screenshotted them before they disappeared. If accurate/true, they would indicate that the new camera has no built-in XLR's (not really a change from previous iterations, so that's not the largest of surprises), as the EU adds 4 XLR -- two on the operator's side (with controls) and two on the back (with controls on the dumb side).

The speed with which these got taken down from both sites might indicated that they got a call from Canon Legal.........or that they were a hoax :-) although they seemed pretty polished and consistent with canon's design signature for these cameras.
Click to expand...

Jim Feeley said:
So an extension unit perhaps sort of like the Canon EU-V2 Expansion Unit 2 for C500 Mark II?
https://www.abelcine.com/buy/camera...canon-eu-v2-expansion-unit-2-for-c500-mark-ii

View attachment 138884

For me, that would be something of a bummer....Depending on the combined price for the body & eu. I guess we'll know in a few days:

Canon Virtual Press Conference
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...video-solutions/virtual-press-conference-2020
Click to expand...

I'd much rather have a pair of XLR's finally built into the body, instead of having to put something extra on, like the first two 300's.
 
Jim Feeley said:
So an extension unit perhaps sort of like the Canon EU-V2 Expansion Unit 2 for C500 Mark II?
https://www.abelcine.com/buy/camera...canon-eu-v2-expansion-unit-2-for-c500-mark-ii
Click to expand...

It looked just like the EU-V2, except that it had a second set of XLRs below the SDI ports, and a second set of audio controls on the dumb side.

It could be that the C300 III has rear mounted XLRs and controls that would get covered by the EU, in which case this extra set is just a redundant item. Or Canon could be looking for a way to drop the price of the base camera. Guess we'll see next week.
 
OMG, I hope not. Not including two built-in XLRs on the C300 MKIII would piss off a lot of users, myself included. When the C500 MKII and C200 both include on body XLRs, having to buy an accessory back that I may or may not want to get them would suck.
 
I don't get it. Why would Canon remove (and since they are supposedly using the same body, it means they would actually have to remove it) the two XLR ports? Frankly, it would make more sense not to include the XLR ports on the C500 II since it is supposed to be more of a narrative camera. The C300 III doesn't even fit into its category as a corporate/doc camera without XLR ports.

The only thought I could have is that they add back in the audio cable so that they can continue to use the clamshell and the two channel audio unit from the last generation of cameras.
 
cpreston said:
I don't get it. Why would Canon remove (and since they are supposedly using the same body, it means they would actually have to remove it) the two XLR ports? Frankly, it would make more sense not to include the XLR ports on the C500 II since it is supposed to be more of a narrative camera. The C300 III doesn't even fit into its category as a corporate/doc camera without XLR ports.

The only thought I could have is that they add back in the audio cable so that they can continue to use the clamshell and the two channel audio unit from the last generation of cameras.
Click to expand...

It was pretty clear in the "right rear" view, that showed the EU and the right rear side of the camera, that there were no XLRs on the body (at least where they are on the C500II, and not on the operator side as well), but that doesn't mean they aren't on the back of the camera and covered by the EU, or on a handle mount like the I and II.
 
Guess we'll see on Monday but if they've done this, that was not a smart move. I hate the clamshell and audio set up on the C300 MKII, horrible, antiquated design. I quite like the built-in XLRs on the C200, very handy and work well although the area gets a little crowded for certain configurations.
 
For C300 Mark III, give me two XLRs and two balanced TA3 inputs on the body along with the 1/8" port. *Swoons*

Also, small fader knobs with Sound Devices quality pre-amps. And built in wireless receivers like the Red Xenomorph as well as the capability to control the transmitters from the camera like Zaxcom can with its mixers.

Then fire the audio guy and use the $750-$1000 per day you would have paid them to pay Canon instead.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
For C300 Mark III, give me two XLRs and two balanced TA3 inputs on the body along with the 1/8" port. *Swoons*

Also, small fader knobs with Sound Devices quality pre-amps. And built in wireless receivers like the Red Xenomorph as well as the capability to control the transmitters from the camera like Zaxcom can with its mixers.

Then fire the audio guy and use the $750-$1000 per day you would have paid them to pay Canon instead.
Click to expand...

You're dreaming my brotha. Never happening. I've been campaigning for real audio in pro cameras since the days I was shelling out $100k for a Betacam.
It's doubly frustrating because since then, killer audio componentry has done nothing but get smaller, cheaper and better. I'd be thrilled if any camera had
the same audio quality of our $199.00 Tascam DR10. The market doesn't demand it, so it won't even happen or at least not for the foreseeable future. In
real production, there is always a sound mixer and in the notch lower where most of us exist, even when there isn't a sound mixer, there is little incentive
for the manufacturers to product differentiate using audio features.
 
puredrifting said:
You're dreaming my brotha. Never happening. I've been campaigning for real audio in pro cameras since the days I was shelling out $100k for a Betacam.
It's doubly frustrating because since then, killer audio componentry has done nothing but get smaller, cheaper and better. I'd be thrilled if any camera had
the same audio quality of our $199.00 Tascam DR10. The market doesn't demand it, so it won't even happen or at least not for the foreseeable future. In
real production, there is always a sound mixer and in the notch lower where most of us exist, even when there isn't a sound mixer, there is little incentive
for the manufacturers to product differentiate using audio features.
Click to expand...
Oh, I bet you it will happen, just maybe some time after you retire, but before I retire. ;)

I recall using a Zoom H4n which had noisy pre-amps and then going to the C100 which had much better preamps. I later bought a Tascam DR-40 and still found the C100 pre-amps better. I have a couple Tascam DR-10's and haven't compared their pre-amps to the C-series, but I'd be surprised if their pre-amps are better than the C-series.

The Red Xenomorph does exist with its integrated wireless audio receivers; I don't know the quality of the pre-amps, but if Zaxcom was involved with that too then they're likely stellar. I think it's just a matter of time before integration becomes more common. Look at how the Alexa SXT and Alexa LF integrated wireless video receivers into the body. Some of the broadcast cameras either had built in or removable dedicated slots for the Lectrosonics audio receivers. The downside of this is that it increases the camera's size, but if in the future they can shrink the size of receivers such that a camera of a C300's size can have it integrated without adding much bulk to the camera, then it will likely be included in some cameras.

Another case in point, look at how the Zaxcom Nova mixer integrated the wireless receivers into the mixer, while the mixer even with the receivers is still a similar size to previous models that did not have the wireless integrated.
 
Clermond said:
well, the magic of an audio guy isn't just bringing a quality pre-amp device?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I forgot. They also setup a boom mic on a stand and plug the XLR cable into the mixer, which saves you a couple minutes of time of setting up for a sit down interview.

I think for most single person sit down interviews that audio professionals are a huge waste of money. And I work with them often in this scenario because clients still request them.

If you're a videographer shooting a one-man-band sit down interview with the same quality pre-amp, and the same mic(s), you can get the same exact results that a dedicated audio professional would get.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
For C300 Mark III, give me two XLRs and two balanced TA3 inputs on the body along with the 1/8" port. *Swoons*

Also, small fader knobs with Sound Devices quality pre-amps. And built in wireless receivers like the Red Xenomorph as well as the capability to control the transmitters from the camera like Zaxcom can with its mixers.

Then fire the audio guy and use the $750-$1000 per day you would have paid them to pay Canon instead.
Click to expand...

It's not just the superior audio gear that the soundman brings along which is important, but also his expertise in using them, and his full attention to give to the job without the distraction of operating a camera.

Just like someone who tries to direct and operate a camera at once will not be as effective as having two people who each focus on just
the directing or camera operating.
 
IronFilm said:
It's not just the superior audio gear that the soundman brings along which is important, but also his expertise in using them, and his full attention to give to the job without the distraction of operating a camera.

Just like someone who tries to direct and operate a camera at once will not be as effective as having two people who each focus on just
the directing or camera operating.
Click to expand...
And yet I've directed and done camera simultaneously for movies that turned out better than other movies that I just had one role on.

At the top level look at the many multi-taskers, such as actor/directors, Mel Gibson in Braveheart, Woody Allen, I've heard James Cameron and Stanley Kubrick are both known for operating a camera while directing among other A-list directors, etc. You could try to make an argument that their movies would have been better had they not multi-tasked and focused on just one role, but I'd imagine that would be incorrect and whoever would have otherwise filled their role likely would not have done as good of a job as they did while multi-tasking.

Obviously it depends on the talent of the people who are either assigned to dedicated roles or multi-tasking. In the case of an audio professional, perhaps the average audio professional is better at audio than me, but I am certainly better than some audio professionals, even if I am multi-tasking. The advantage of doing audio yourself as a one-man-band for simple audio setups like sit down interviews is you know exactly what you're getting, as opposed to when you hire a random audio person who you found on the Internet in a random location in the U.S., as I often do, you don't know what you're getting (aside from an educated choice based on reviewing their experience, etc.), so there's actually a higher chance that you could end up with someone less qualified than yourself.

Despite being careful in who I hire there have certainly been times where they're making mistakes that I wouldn't make such as having the boom too far from talent or showing up with lower quality equipment than I own. One of my biggest pet peeves with audio pros is when they use a shotgun mic such as a Senheisser 416 in a quiet reflective indoor environment instead of a small diaphragm condensor mic such as a Shoeps CMC641 which I own or a Sennheiser MKH 40.

Back to the camera side of things, as a one-man-band having to setup a seperate Sound Devices mixer/recorder, while managable, is always a bit of a hassle, so though I own a Mix-Pre3, I most often just plug straight into camera. If the camera's ever get equal or better pre-amps and improved ease of use for audio operating, it will help bring the quality that a one-man-band can easily achieve to similar or equal levels to what an audio professional provides. Again, for simple audio setups.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top