C300: C300 mkiii?

NorBro said:
They could build it like a more modern C100 (better screen, buttons, move some things around), and offer a port for that C200 or C500 monitor - that's also sold separately - for those who want to use it or use it like you do (away from the camera).

A monitor on/in the camera makes sense to me. And the body can be a bit more compact too.

For gimbal use, it would be even easier to just flip the built-in screen around and use that.

This design was a no-brainer. It's a shame a 4K C100 Mark III was never released.

View attachment 138386
Click to expand...

Agreed. I keep the c200 screen/video cable in an old mic case (soft material inside). It would be way better if it folded back into the body for protection.

I don't use the mount that came with it and the way I have mine set up when I carry with the top handle I need to be cautious of the screen hitting my thigh.
 
cpreston said:
The rumor is that the new camera will have the same general body as the C500 II/C200. I think the new design is a vast improvement to the C300 MK II. The only thing I would like is some vertical mounting points along the top of the camera.
Click to expand...

If the design rumor is true...the C500II has 8 mounting points plus a few registration pin receivers (not sure if those match up with any standard connector, like Arri's).

Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 5.37.00 PM.jpg
 
NorBro said:
If anything, I also think the entire line needs a redesign. (Enough with the hanging monitor and cable on an oversized handle.)
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just easy. ( I am ). but I think the C500II design is really sweet. The handle is a perfect fit for the body, and the monitor works with almost any configuration. One of these day's I'll get my extension unit, and see whether I really needed that EVF-v70 that I currently can't mount to anything...as the monitor will probably be more convenient going on and off sticks during a shoot..
 
I imagine they’ll use the exact same body as the C500MKII or at minimum keep the same back so they can continue to sell all the same accessories and extension units. I am no camera company, but if I was trying to make a cost effective/cheaper option I would make as few brand new parts as possible. Keep the same body as the C500, use the same sensor as the C700, remove a few internal features for kicks and get people like me who are sitting on the sidelines to open up my wallet again.
 
ha...I'm sure everyone has similar goals, but that's looking at it simplistically in hindsight.

It's a growing pains process and things usually have to change over the years. And everyone makes mistakes.

I think Z CAM is literally the only company that took one box and made three different cameras from an identical body. (S6, F6, F8)
 
Actually Blackmagic did too...recycled a few different bodies, some with slight variations.

[BMCC/BMPC, Studio HD/4K, BMMCC/BMMSC, UM4K/UM4.6K, UMP G1/G2, P4K/6K]

Pretty much all of their cameras! lol
 
NorBro said:
ha...I'm sure everyone has similar goals, but that's looking at it simplistically in hindsight.

It's a growing pains process and things usually have to change over the years. And everyone makes mistakes.

I think Z CAM is literally the only company that took one box and made three different cameras from an identical body. (S6, F6, F8)
Click to expand...

Our "old" ENG cameras were like this. Exact same bodies/body panels, but different models.
 
Pretty much all the BVW series Betacam's had the same body(BVW-200, 300, 300A, 400, 400A. D-600/600WS was a little different because of the mem. card/digital menu adjustments), DNW series Betacam SX cameras had the same bodies, DVW series Digital Betacam cameras had the same bodies... Basically all the ENG style cameras within a certain series had the same bodies. That's why Porta-Brace could usually make just one Shoulder Case for a given series and it would fit all the different models.
 
NorBro said:
I wanted to see what some of them were on eBay...Adorama's got a D600WS for $209.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but that was a beautiful camera and sold new for an arm & a leg. I think my quote from Sony(back then you had to buy direct and from within your territory) was around $60K. Thank God I decided not to buy and waited a few years and bought a D50WS for less than half and it had a better picture. I actually ended up buying one off of eBay in 2011 for $700 to use for a trade-in promo from Panasonic.


Informational Brochure for the 200/300/400 from I think 1990.
https://www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/model/8885/8885.pdf

Just stumbled across this:
The P at the end of the model # is because they're PAL models, but that doesn't have anything to do with the external bodies.
http://www.marcelstvmuseum.com/sony%20broadcast%20camera.html


400A
35451_a.jpg


D600
 

Attachments

  • sony_bvwd600.jpg
    sony_bvwd600.jpg
    63.2 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
And the design has remained largely unchanged. More refined and with some additions, but everything is still more or less in the exact same place. Power, WB, BB, Shutter, Filter wheel, Gain select, Bars, WB Pre/A/B selection, Monitor Volume, Alarm Volume, Audio level adjustment and selection, TC set, etc., etc. There's a reason why it's still the same after 30 years. Like why the steering wheel and brake & gas pedal are in the same place in basically every car.
 
With that little segue...I'll now circle 360° back to Canon as I was just thinking why they didn't really get in on the shoulder game and then I thought about the C300 and how it pretty much replaced so many of those cameras in production. (The Betacams still had their place for many years and of course still do in some places, but that was a major change - Super35 - in video production.)
 
I don't think the 300 replaced them because of it's physical design, I think it succeeded in spite of it's physical design. So many of us cussed it to hell and back, because of it's design, but the image was just so damn good and in such high demand, we had to suffer and fight through it.
 
Oh man, you're giving me flashbacks. I owned or rented most of the those 2/3" cameras you posted. I agree, functionally, those cameras make today's Frankenrigs look like cobbled together 7th grade student science projects.
Even the FX9 I shot with today and am shooting with tomorrow, ergonomically, it's miles off from the BVWD600 and the DSR500WS.

I will say out of the box though, the FX9 romps all over the C500 MKII as far as physical shootability. Comes with the remote handgrip and mount that's pretty good and the included loupe is usable, although not as well built as the Zacuto Z-Finder. C500 MKII you have to buy a grip arm extension, mount, cable, a loupe for the
LCD. As I am really liking this SELP 28-135 f/4.0 as an all arounder, it's decent and functionally it's better than the CN E 18-80mm t/4.4 although I don't know if it is as sharp or built as well?

I haven't yet shot the C500 MKII but I am getting an impression that the Sony is exactly what I thought it was, a workhorse, nice camera, in a different class and for a different buyer than the C500 MKII buyer.
 
puredrifting said:
I wonder if you can still buy those discs? Just think, there are a lot of news stations and corporations with rooms full of those!
Click to expand...

What are they, a 50 year archive shelf life? We used to back up to them after switching from tape to sxs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top