C300: C300 mkiii?

Quote: "... I like a camera that I can just pull out and shoot at anytime. I want it always ready to go. I don’t want to rely on cables, adapters, recorders, and a bunch of Frankenstein 3rd party crap. The only time I use mirrorless cameras are for gimbal work, guerrilla/undercover shooting, dashcams or b-cams. But that’s just me..."

Me too. And it's why, for me, the Komodo is a non-starter. Plus the feeling that the fan boys are describing some very ordinary images that it has made so far as "awesome". Image quality is paramount but usability and reliability are also important. I could be recording within seconds with my C300/2 and FS7 and neither ever missed a beat in some pretty rigged situations. But the look of the Canon images, not just colour but a range of variables, meant it was my favourite camera so far. I have the 300/3 on preorder but I'm holding off for a month or two to see how soon work will start coming back in. I'm getting a little but not enough yet.
 
Last edited:
boosh said:
Also the 16 bits Raw out is unheard of in a camera at that price point. Feels strange to be paying more than double for a C300III that has a similar look to the A7SIII.
Click to expand...

Only advantage (may be a disadvantage) of the A7S III is full frame .... and dont confuse 16/12 bit Raw ... 16 bit linear is not different from 12 bit log in Raw ... the Atomos recorder will record the 16 bit as 12 bit log ... with no loss of information ... but it does the same for S1H, EVA1, Nikon Z cameras .... full size HDMI is great but less robust than the SDI from the C300III ... you pay double for a pro workflow pro build and probably 3X the lifespan of the little box .... and when you court new work and clients ... you project a different class of competence from all those who wield the new Sony.

I doubt that the look from the A7SIII will rival that of the FX9 or the C300III ... might have a somewhat similar color profile ... but no way Sony will dilute the Cine / Mirrorless gap by labeling or giving it the whole Cinetone look ... and that will not close the gap with the Venice Cinealta color spec. The color filter on the Venice would cost more than the A7SIII ...
 
NorBro said:
Worthy note: C-Log2 with the production color matrix...a rare combo with beautiful results.

Click to expand...

Those images just don't it for me. I've shot with Mk2 quite a bit and I honestly think the C300ii produces a smoother and more natural looking image.

I feel like C-Log 2 shouldn't be clipping in a lot of those shots, especially with the promise of higher DR. The grass is overly saturated and artificial feeling. There's also some funky HDR feeling stuff at around 2:14. I see clean shadows with clipped highlights. Surprising for C-Log 2.

I still just want to see some baked in color shots.
 
The C300 Mark II is a pretty mediocre camera...maybe you just like that older sensor? (Which is of course perfectly fine.)

Cameras change as it's been 5 years, you know?

People still swear by things like CCD sensors and old Panasonic Varicam SD/HD color science, etc. I love the images from old Blackmagics like the BMCC and BMPC.
 
NorBro said:
The C300 Mark II is a pretty mediocre camera...maybe you just like that older sensor? (Which is of course perfectly fine.)

Cameras change as it's been 5 years, you know?

People still swear by things like CCD sensors and old Panasonic Varicam SD/HD color science, etc. I love the images from old Blackmagics like the BMCC and BMPC.
Click to expand...

Well if it's so mediocre, it shouldn't be that hard to produce a better looking image! I shoot a ton of interviews and clients just love Canon Skin tone. The softness is a good thing with the Mk2. I love those cameras as well, I also own the bmpcc and bmmcc.

This is a C500ii example, which to me looks much closer to the Canon look that I am used to seeing. I'll most likely be purchasing the C300 or C500. I don't think the images are the same, even though the cameras look identical. Different sensors all together. Hopefully some questions will be answered as we see more footage emerge.

https://vimeo.com/436780717
 
Qualifier: it's down to personal preference, but, for me in the Lake District video, the greens, particularly the grass really jar. The colour is way off and far too saturated. On the other hand, it seems to me to handle the highlights pretty well. The Eternal Bond video is far better, both in terms of grade and content. No problem if YMMV.
 
One thing's for certain time and time again - and always has been which is why I gave up on meticulous grading years ago - is everyone's internal wires and processing differs.

I've truly grown to like it all.
 
Run&Gun said:
In some of the shots, the grass is very Sony-esque...
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the lake district video, I'm not a fan of the grading there either. Looks like maybe it was overexposed too?

I dont think it's the camera I think it's the grade.

In one of the A7S3 vs R5 videos they have color charts side by side. Seems like canon bumps up the red and tones down the green relative to sony. I think they went out of their way to make it ugly here
 
If anyone is interested, shot this yesterday with the C300 markiii in all of its modes (10 bit, raw, 4k 120, 1080 180)
 
Playing with C300iii raw footage in Resolve, it looks pretty sharp by default - but that's because by default Davinci adds +10 sharpening to all raw files. Turn the sharpening off, and the image is noticeably softer (and basically what I'd expect to see from 4k bayer footage.

Personally I despise sharpening artifacts, the look horrible anytime you perceive them, so I'll rarely (if ever) add sharpening to an image.
 
Grug said:
Personally I despise sharpening artifacts, the look horrible anytime you perceive them, so I'll rarely (if ever) add sharpening to an image.
Click to expand...

Ditto! One thing that interests me about the R5 is that the 8K and 4KHQ footage looks very detailed but I don't sense that sharpened/harsh edges feel to it. What do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top