C300: C300 mkiii?

chris f

chris f

Veteran
After doing all of my tests with the C200 vs. C500 MKII I'm 95% sure I won't be purchasing the C500 MKII (spoiler alert for those following my other thread). Originally I decided I wasn't going to make the jump because of finances (cost of new camera vs. continuing to use my already paid for cameras), but ultimately I've decided to not purchase it because I don't like shooting full frame and that's the ultimate deal breaker for me.

I'm still formulating my opinions and there's a chance I may be doing a 10-day C500MKII rental for this ongoing documentary project in a few weeks and will really try to see if my tune changes after getting more real-world time with it and running a few more tests, but as of now I think the "perfect" camera for me would be the mythical C300MKIII if it had the following features:

-5.9K Super 35mm sensor
-No 5.9K recording modes (don't need it, just give me proper 5.9K to 4K downscaling in camera)
-No raw recording modes (would be willing to sacrifice raw if it could lower the price of the camera, otherwise 4K 1Gbps raw light is fine)
-410mbs AVC-HD codec
-120fps 4K no sensor crop would be ideal, would settle for 120fps 2K with no sensor crop
-same exact body/form factor/modularity as the C500 MKII (I have no interest in any of the expansion units and would prefer to not have to pay for them as "built-in" to the camera.)
-5 axis in-body image stabilization (bit of a snoozer for, me, but helpful in a few situations and the tech exists, so throw it in there)
-dual slot recording (don't care about proxies)
-user loadable LUTs
-timecode in/out
-dual pixel autofocus

Dream list, but not a deal breaker if not included:
-Prores recording in-camera (I'd take 422 at this point, for me having Prores in camera would be the holy grail)
-Sensor stabilization instead of the current electronic stabilization
-two SDI out ports that are actually usable at the same time

For price I'm thinking $9,500 - $11,500 and this would truly be the heir to the original C300 as the industry standard workhorse for mid-level productions.

Personally I'm predicting (and kind of hoping for) a backlash against FF sensors. Top line hollywood/commercial productions want FF because they're operating more in the creative wide angle space that's driven by story and style (they have the budget and set design to purposely "show" their sets and locations, whereas in the lower budget world we're often trying to hide as much as possible) and they have the crew and gear to properly handle the difficulties of focus, framing, and camera movement when working wide and shallow. Then beginner filmmakers want FF because "it's full frame!" and perhaps they're coming from photography where full frame is the norm or they're just going through a phase that most of us have gone through of being wowed by ridiculously shallow depth of field. I think everyone in between (aka the type of people that actually own and operate mid-level production cameras) would prefer to operate a super 35mm sensor, where you're looking for good zoom ranges and are often shooting on the longer side of things, depth of field that's pleasing, yet still possible to maintain focus as a single operator, and an incredibly wide range of usable lenses.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
It seems like BM would check off a lot of boxes, as well as the FX9. But you might not be a fan of interbrand matching or BM's reliability as well. I don't think any camera checks off all your boxes.

I didn't think you'd go for the 500 II.

I think even though in the moment drifting seems to be smitten by the FX9 sirens, he's right. I think they'll sell some. I think 500 IIs will sell less. I think they're both good cameras that don't have a huge audience at this point.
 
chris f said:
Personally I'm predicting (and kind of hoping for) a backlash against FF sensors.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I doubt this is going to happen. We will more likely see more FF sensors coming to market, and fewer "new" S35 models, as it's a chance to sell new glass, and frankly, this business is a trendy as any other. As for preferring to shoot super35, as others have said, there really isn't a difference, given you own the appropriate lenses. To me there's a benefit to FF in that it gives you the option of shooting either way, and gives you some benefits in terms of noise, and thus ISOs, and shallower DOF at the same aperture. Perhaps as a still photographer first, used to MF and FF still cameras, I'm just more comfortable with (and own) glass that's all cut for larger formats. All said, I think your decision makes sense. If I had a C200 and 11 grand (or 9500 :) to spend, I'd probably be looking at a second C200, or some better lenses, lighting or support.
 
So in other words, you want a Canon FX9? ;-)

If I had a spare few grand laying around, I would still buy a clean, used C300 MKII personally. From a business standpoint, for $6k area or even less, soon, it would make more business sense than buying a second C200 because I could then handle all of the calls for a mid-range codec and TC i/o, that's it.
Having a RAW camera and then a broadcast camera for those types of shoots, would be great and the ability to shoot the two of them together on the same shoots would be handy and profitable.

We are spolied for choice right now, that's for sure. I'm looking forward to trying the C500 MKII and shooting the FX9 next week.
 
puredrifting said:
So in other words, you want a Canon FX9? ;-)
Click to expand...

Except that he doesn't want the full frame, which appears to be a common request. I am guessing that Canon will be announcing some version of this type of the camera this year since it really does seem to be the hole in the line-up. It is basically the current C300 MK II, but with the improved body style, better frame rates, and a proper 4K sensor. My guess is that the sensor may actually be an 8K sensor downscaled to 4K, though. They've been testing the 8K S35 cinema camera for years so they might as well release it. They could add an expansion module that would allow you to output the 8K RAW as well.
 
All the currently available and bandied about RF-mounts are full frame. With 8K on the near horizon, the pro gear isn't looking back to the smaller sensors, especially since AF is getting so good. Canon will, obviously, release something "cine" in under $10,000 ... at some point. Or maybe they think that 1D XMKIII is good enough. And it just may be.
 
chris f said:
Why would that be inherently noisy?
Click to expand...

The initial point may be small pixels, however filtered downsampling tends to do a great job with reducing noise (for 5.9 => 4K). At 6K, the noise will be really fine, so typically not an issue. Sensors are also much better + the latest in camera NR makes dealing with noise in post less of an issue in 2020.

From your comments it appears the C200 is fine for your use cases right now. Perhaps the upcoming EOS R5 could be an interesting addition if needing a smaller platform with better AF and where 8K could be useful for post reframing (or enabling multi-lens shots via post cropping). The 4K from any ~6K camera is significantly better / more detailed than the C200, C300 II- that could come in handy too for post work. If you don't need more detail/resolution for current work, probably best to save your money and wait: the newer smaller cameras will ultimately rule the game (which can be built up to any desired size or stripped down for handheld, gimbal, crashcam etc.: a lot of flexibility along with much lower cost).
 
cpreston said:
Except that he doesn't want the full frame, which appears to be a common request. I am guessing that Canon will be announcing some version of this type of the camera this year since it really does seem to be the hole in the line-up. It is basically the current C300 MK II, but with the improved body style, better frame rates, and a proper 4K sensor. My guess is that the sensor may actually be an 8K sensor downscaled to 4K, though. They've been testing the 8K S35 cinema camera for years so they might as well release it. They could add an expansion module that would allow you to output the 8K RAW as well.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious too to shoot some well lit scenes and flip back and forth between FF and S35 mode on the FX9. That'll be interesting.
 
Red Gemini 5K s35-APS H was cleaner than the Mini LF and possibly cleaner than the Venice in my comparisons. And cleaner than the alexa mini by a noticeable amount.

The Varicam 35 and 35 LT are 5.9K s35 and they are quite clean.

The BMP 4k m43 is doing some fantastic noise reduction and can handle iso 25,600
 
FF sensors are here to stay. Earlier the cost of fabricating a full frame sensor was too high, so they used to settle on APS-C. Time to dump s-35 glass.

Full frame cameras have bigger sensors and bigger pixels. So there is a big difference in noise between full frame sensors and APS-C sensors. Processor also makes a big difference. That is why the Canon C300 series with S-35 (which is close to APS-C) are good in low light. With all things remaining similar that is processor and sensor, the camera with bigger sensor will have better lowlight ability.

I come from photography background and still do wildlife photography. However, I use deep depth of field in many situations. I use shallow depth of field only where it is absolutely essential like some corporate interviews where the background is not great and better be blurred.

Recently we were shooting side by side. A black-headed ibis flew with a snake in its beak. I shot it with 1DXII and my partner shot with 80D. The difference between the two shots are like hell and heaven difference. The low light performance of the 1DXII is way better.
 
James0b57 said:
Red Gemini 5K s35-APS H was cleaner than the Mini LF and possibly cleaner than the Venice in my comparisons. And cleaner than the alexa mini by a noticeable amount.

The Varicam 35 and 35 LT are 5.9K s35 and they are quite clean.

The BMP 4k m43 is doing some fantastic noise reduction and can handle iso 25,600
Click to expand...

What's the obsession over "clean"? Didn't or don't you ever shoot film? ;-)

For me, too clean = video looking. That's my issue with RED, they look good, but super smooth, clean high end digital (as long as you illuminate the sensor with enough light. Have not shot the Gemini),
the REDs look very different than the Arri's unless you do a lot in post with the image. There is a lot ot be said about just shooting Prores with the Arris, simple, straightforward and easy workflow. The
RED software is great but it's not as simple and straightforward as dealing with Arri.
 
Last edited:
Canon with the original C300 was adding some noise to smooth out the 8 bit...and other than the clipped highlights, I always loved that picture.

Dan, when you test out the FX9, I'm curious if you look at some under and Hi ISO stuff while you're at it. My feeling is that camera is doing a lot of NR in the shadows and it ends up smearing more detail than it should, but I doubt I'll get a chance to play with it. The C500II seems to be very hands off with the NR, and I've experimented with 12,800, 25,600 and under shots with neat video and been rather impressed at how much detail survives...nothing like the C300II in that respect.
 
Isn't it ironic that not that long ago, we wanted a clean image and now that we have it, people want noise back in the image. Oh, I'm sorry, "texture" and "grain".

But yes, I understand what you're saying. The first V35 demo footage I saw, I thought it looked like "video" and I have seen a lot of RED footage that looked like video. Of course, I've also seen film originated content that I thought was video, so...
 
Run&Gun said:
Of course, I've also seen film originated content that I thought was video, so...
Click to expand...
ROFL.
Any time it hits a digit it has the potential to look "video."
Ah the "purity" of film.
It's like getting an organic banana and thinking it tastes like a hydroponic GMO one.
Sounds like even film isn't always sacred to RnG.
 
Last edited:
The first Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2 footage I saw, I thought it looked like "film" and I have seen a lot of Arriflex 435 footage that look like film. Of course, I've also seen video originated content that I thought was film, so...


Honestly, if I could get the Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2 to look more like video I'd use it more. The Arriflex 435 is the closest I can get to looking video-like with a film camera, hence Arri being the industry standard.
 
puredrifting said:
What's the obsession over "clean"? Didn't or don't you ever shoot film? ;-)

For me, too clean = video looking. That's my issue with RED, they look good, but super smooth, clean high end digital (as long as you illuminate the sensor with enough light. Have not shot the Gemini),
the REDs look very different than the Arri's unless you do a lot in post with the image. There is a lot ot be said about just shooting Prores with the Arris, simple, straightforward and easy workflow. The
RED software is great but it's not as simple and straightforward as dealing with Arri.
Click to expand...

49550721532_18f4f67d1e_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top