C300: C300 vs F5

It's a shame he did all that work while using the worst possible settings on the C300 - pretty much botching the whole thing and rendering results inaccurate and spreading misinformation. Using ISO's below 850 results in far lower highlight headroom, and makes the whole testing pretty much invalid for a proper approach to comparing the cameras. ISO 400 results in more than a stop of highlight headroom loss. Of course, it seems like the video is sponsored by Sony, so maybe they told him to do that? ;)

Also, love that he shot the C300 in "MOV H264" - I didn't even know the camera could do that! :laugh:

What an unfortunate series of tests.
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
It's a shame he did all that work while using the worst possible settings on the C300. Using ISO's below 850 results in far lower highlight headroom, and makes the whole testing pretty much invalid for a proper approach to comparing the cameras. ISO 400 results in more than a stop of highlight headroom loss. Of course, it seems like the video is sponsored by Sony, so maybe they told him to do that? ;)

Also, love that he shot the C300 in "MOV H264" - I didn't even know the camera could do that! :laugh:

What an unfortunate series of tests.
Click to expand...


Yes, they are apparently are sponsored by Sony, at least according to intro screen shot on each video.

The base ISO on F5 is 2000, not 1250 as used in these video. Either it is F55 or he is using one stop lower ISO on F5.
 
i also not sure about Sony MXF codec , as far as i know its a wrapper, and c300 also has mxf wrapper.... i also could not notice if he shoots on sony in 8 bit or 10 bit? if he compares 10bit to 8 bit - i would say its kind of strange comparison!
 
cowpunk52 said:
It's a shame he did all that work while using the worst possible settings on the C300 - pretty much botching the whole thing and rendering results inaccurate and spreading misinformation. :laugh:
.
Click to expand...

As I said that also applies to F5. It's base ISO is 2000, not 1250 as used in the video.
 
anatusa said:
i also not sure about Sony MXF codec , as far as i know its a wrapper, and c300 also has mxf wrapper.... i also could not notice if he shoots on sony in 8 bit or 10 bit? if he compares 10bit to 8 bit - i would say its kind of strange comparison!
Click to expand...

Since Canon C300 only does 8-bit (there is no option for 10-bit), and F5 only does 10-bit internally (no option for 8-bit), how are you going to test these cameras at 8-bit both?
 
cowpunk52 said:
It's a shame he did all that work while using the worst possible settings on the C300 - pretty much botching the whole thing and rendering results inaccurate and spreading misinformation. Using ISO's below 850 results in far lower highlight headroom, and makes the whole testing pretty much invalid for a proper approach to comparing the cameras. ISO 400 results in more than a stop of highlight headroom loss. Of course, it seems like the video is sponsored by Sony, so maybe they told him to do that? ;)

Also, love that he shot the C300 in "MOV H264" - I didn't even know the camera could do that! :laugh:

What an unfortunate series of tests.
Click to expand...
+1. I noticed that right off the bat. I got really bored after about 2 minutes of the base test. Here are my findings between the camera from my own tests. I thought of the F5 and thought of the c300 and came to the conclusion that both cameras rock. Then I added more cameras to my test by thought such as the F55, Epic, Scarlet, C100, FS700, BMCs, and the Mk3 with hack and I concluded that all these cameras rock. My test workflow was based on the time we live in and that so many awesome cameras are available. SO my conclusion is that if you have one of these cameras, go out and shoot some footage with it and be happy....
 
evilthought said:
As I said that also applies to F5. It's base ISO is 2000, not 1250 as used in the video.
Click to expand...

True, but Sony has not published a chart explaining what happens to it's latitude when pulling exposure, so we don't know exactly what's happening in the shift between ISO 2000 and 1250. And 400 is more than a stop slower than 850, while 1250 is just a little more than half a stop slower than 2000 - so any shift in exposure latitude would likely be less pronounced in the F5 vs the C300.

Of course, since the settings of the cameras as described on the videos are so completely implausible, I would say that it's difficult to assess their accuracy. Who knows what the cameras were actually set at? Again, this makes the test completely invalid, IMO. And it's a shame, because it looks like a lot of work was put in to make such glaring mistakes.

A competently executed comparison would be a lot more interesting.
 
dustylense said:
+1. I noticed that right off the bat. I got really bored after about 2 minutes of the base test. Here are my findings between the camera from my own tests. I thought of the F5 and thought of the c300 and came to the conclusion that both cameras rock. Then I added more cameras to my test by thought such as the F55, Epic, Scarlet, C100, FS700, BMCs, and the Mk3 with hack and I concluded that all these cameras rock. My test workflow was based on the time we live in and that so many awesome cameras are available. SO my conclusion is that if you have one of these cameras, go out and shoot some footage with it and be happy....
Click to expand...

I can get behind that thought process.
 
evilthought said:
You are right, but it will be pointless to shoot at 8-bit when F5 can shoot internally 10-bit. That would be like crippling the camera to make it even.
Click to expand...

A lot of companies still request the MPEG-2 mxf format because it fits so seamlessly within their workflow. It's very popular in broadcast and not processor intensive for post. Sony included it for a reason.
 
ok, let's be honests here.

Canon rushed the C300 to the market.
Surprised by the 5D revolution, Canon started to develop a great sensor. But before the rest of the camera(s) was ready, the marketing department thought that by simply adding XF's series innards, Canon could release, right at that moment, a product that could already compete against the popular F3 and occupy part of that segment before Sony or Panasonic captured it for themselves. So, despite being presented as "Made for Hollywood", the C300 was nothing but a broadcast camera.
Timing was perfect though, as Canon eate the broadcast sector with the C300, despite knowing it would have a short life. But if you hit first, you hit twice, they say. Premedited obsolescence, so what? This is the kind of decisions companies take. First of all, to make profits (I should know, I was a Marketing Manager in another life).

Fast forward some year and a half later. Sony introduces the F5/F55, which most definetely destroy the Canons: they mount ANY lense, sport onboard 10 and 12 bit and RAW; have 2 stops more latitude; TRUE Log curves; shoot HD to 4K; 60p AND 120p and beyond; proper ergonomics that makes the cam sit on the shoulder without requiring a monster and heavy rig; a great EVF placed at the right spot, ...etc, etc, etc.
ALL the same price as the C300.

Well Canon knew it would happen. But they got the sales already. C100/300/500 are the old past. In a year or less Canon will replace them with something that can compete with the newer BMD/F5/F55. They had the time to further develop those (but didn't back then with the C300 vs F3/world).

And so the circle-loop will start again.
 
Last edited:
jindrich said:
ok, let's be honests here.

Canon rushed the C300 to the market.
Surprised by the 5D revolution, Canon started to develop a great sensor. But before the rest of the camera(s) was ready, the marketing department thought that by simply adding XF's series innards, Canon could release, right at that moment, a product that could already compete against the popular F3 and occupy part of that segment before Sony or Panasonic captured it for themselves. So, despite being presented as "Made for Hollywood", the C300 was nothing but a broadcast camera.
Timing was perfect though, as Canon eate the broadcast sector with the C300, despite knowing it would have a short life. But if you hit first, you hit twice, they say. Premedited obsolescence, so what? This is the kind of decisions companies take. First of all, to make profits (I should know, I was a Marketing Manager in another life).

Fast forward some year and a half later. Sony introduces the F5/F55, which most definetely destroy the Canons: they mount ANY lense, sport onboard 10 and 12 bit and RAW; have 2 stops more latitude; TRUE Log curves; shoot HD to 4K; 60p AND 120p and beyond; proper ergonomics that makes the cam sit on the shoulder without requiring a monster and heavy rig; a great EVF placed at the right spot, ...etc, etc, etc.
ALL the same price as the C300.

Well Canon knew it would happen. But they got the sales already. C100/300/500 are the old past. In a year or less Canon will replace them with something that can compete with the newer BMD/F5/F55. They had the time to further develop those (but didn't back then with the C300 vs F3/world).

And so the circle-loop will start again.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Hollywood is much bigger than theatre release films, right? In fact, Hollywood isn't doing so well lately in that department. But while you watch TV tonight, you are probably seeing so much Canon c300 footage without realizing it. Rushed to market? It took them years to design and build this camera. And the C100 is flying off the shelves. They're good solid all around cameras and they perform well. So here we have the new Sonys. They look great in spec. Priced a bit higher than the C300 though (to get all the features). The F5 is $16.5k just for the body. Add the viewfinder, memory cards, battery, then the recorder for 4k and it's quite pricey. Go look around online and see how much footage there is from the F5 and F55. Barely any. I don't think the F5 is selling very well. But regardless, I'd love to own one. I want one of every camera.

But to say that the C100/300/500 is the "old past". I wouldn't go that far. There are lots of things to film in this world and the C series are fine cameras to point at subjects. Then there is the fact of the great ergonomics of the C100/300. And finally, I've owned a lot of canon bodies. I've never had in issue with any of them. They are super reliable. Cameras are cool. Lot of them and for different reasons and different situations. I'm LOVING my C100. But I also know that I would love to shoot with and F5. But I have to pick one to own and the C100 feels at home for me.
 
dustylense said:
You do realize that Hollywood is much bigger than theatre release films, right? In fact, Hollywood isn't doing so well lately in that department. But while you watch TV tonight, you are probably seeing so much Canon c300 footage without realizing it. Rushed to market? It took them years to design and build this camera. And the C100 is flying off the shelves. They're good solid all around cameras and they perform well. So here we have the new Sonys. They look great in spec. Priced a bit higher than the C300 though (to get all the features). The F5 is $16.5k just for the body. Add the viewfinder, memory cards, battery, then the recorder for 4k and it's quite pricey. Go look around online and see how much footage there is from the F5 and F55. Barely any. I don't think the F5 is selling very well. But regardless, I'd love to own one. I want one of every camera.

But to say that the C100/300/500 is the "old past". I wouldn't go that far. There are lots of things to film in this world and the C series are fine cameras to point at subjects. Then there is the fact of the great ergonomics of the C100/300. And finally, I've owned a lot of canon bodies. I've never had in issue with any of them. They are super reliable. Cameras are cool. Lot of them and for different reasons and different situations. I'm LOVING my C100. But I also know that I would love to shoot with and F5. But I have to pick one to own and the C100 feels at home for me.
Click to expand...
100% agreed about 8bit. 8bit is still a practical and viable bit rate. Definitely is out-classed in image quality by higher bit rates, but that doesn't make 8bit outdated. Just make 8bit a little less sexy. Depending on what you think is sexy.
 
There was some serious aliasing going on throughout the movie which made me feel that - notiwthstanding Canon's 'malignant' PSF - there was something very 'diabolical' in its workflow. Furthermore, the pollution of highlights on the C300 is something that I've never seen before.

This is me with my Editor hat on (with an acknowledgement that I've made movies for Sony about their cameras)... when I compared the 5D Mk2 to the FS100, all was fair and even. There's something about this test that doesn't quite work. It's Fishy.

I'm sure the F5 is an absolutely stonking camera, but the C300's rushes in this comparison aren't like any of the C300 rushes I've had to edit.

BTW, Sony should be gassing on about 10 bit. 10 bit HD, done right, looks great on 4K monitors - Canon's 8 bit implementation seems to be using the old 'diffusion dither' technique to avoid posterization.
 
I use C300 and don't agree with this. The F5 specs are good. The filmmaker should have tried to show F5's strengths rather than do this and put his reputation at stake.

Also, one has to be very careful about using the logos of the companies. You can write Canon but not use the official logo of Canon without their permission. And especially in a situation where it is promoted by Sony.
 
cowpunk52 said:
A lot of companies still request the MPEG-2 mxf format because it fits so seamlessly within their workflow. It's very popular in broadcast and not processor intensive for post. Sony included it for a reason.
Click to expand...

But inexperienced folks don't think about this Brian, they just think "best quality possible and that's it." It's not just about the quality. I was told I would be an idiot to use a BMC and not shoot RAW and I was completely flabbergasted. Everyone tries to make cameras, workflows, quality, etc. black and white...and it's not. It's organic, it's project specific, it's budget specific, it's time specific, it's environment specific, it's subject specific. My goodness, all these tests and VS things are just exhausting and idiotic. I've yet to see one done without some mistake being made. One of the camera's is always treated poorly somehow. The Zacuto tests are about as close as I think we've gotten to a more balanced test...and even then it's not a good means to pick the "best cam." Best cam FOR WHAT...FOR WHO?

The internet sucks...lol.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Using ISO's below 850 results in far lower highlight headroom, and makes the whole testing pretty much invalid for a proper approach to comparing the cameras. ISO 400 results in more than a stop of highlight headroom loss.
Click to expand...
Brian, digital camera sensors have their greatest dynamic range at the base ISO, which is typically ISO 100. So I'd expect that the C300 sensor would also provide the greatest dynamic range near ISO 100. I'm curious why you think using ISOs below 850 would reduce the C300 sensor's dynamic range?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top