I mean if the DXOmark tests for still photography sensor are any indication, then yes this would be true. Sony sensors at the moment seem to be capturing upwards of 14 stops of dynamic range, where as Canon sensors are around 12 stops. Just the way things are unfortunately(as a Canon user). Sony flat out has better sensor tech at the moment.
C300 worse than S-log from the F3?
- Thread starter John Andersson
- Start date
- Status
alpi69
Veteran
Totally agree.
I have been on multiple shoots with my C300 and it stacks nice next to the F3.
S-Log is flatter and has a stop extra, but it ends there.
We shot this with the two cameras: https://vimeo.com/45690368
If you can pick the cameras apart you are really good, because although I shot it, I can´t remember which one was which camera.
Mind you the Canon here was also used handheld exclusively with f4-L lenses....so had I used cinelenses it would have been even better.
I don´t think you can say one is better than the other. F3has a stop more, but is hard to work with. C300 is made for the cameraman in us. It simply does the job without me worrying about the technical side behind it anymore (which did with DSLR and you do with the F3).
dustylense
Veteran
Nice film!
My choice would be the C300 just for the ergonomics and ability to get the shot like like you can with HDslr's.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I agree, nice film. But disagree about the ergonomics.
The ergonomics of both cameras are terrible. The C300 is lighter, but I wouldn't call it well designed from a users point of view.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
Will this is a telling, biased frame grab!....In the F3 shot, the girl is smiling, the C300 shot, she is not!........
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
alpi69
Veteran
Well....it is the best non-shouldercam I ever held. I have all controls at my fingertips and all that with little weight and a good in-cam codec. There is nothing better around. So that´ll do for 2012 as "the best". There is always room for improvement, but I take the C300 over a 2/3-inch shoulder-cam with 8kg any day.
John Andersson
Well-known member
Ergonomics aside is seems the F3 is as good or better than the C300 in IQ? Agree or disagree?
cowpunk52
Veteran
These are cherry picked color graded examples, and as such, not indicative of what you can expect directly out of the camera. Depending on your skill level, YMMV.
OP - to answer your original question "Is the F3 the better camera?" Quite simply, no. Some prefer it to the C300. I prefer the C300 to the F3. I like the color science & fidelity, usability, ergonomics, on-board codec, low-light capabilities, EF lens functionality, and size. For me, those features are more important than the 1.5 stops of DR that the F3 with s-log has over the camera.
If you're not sure if the C300 lives up to your expectations and you're considering getting one, rent it and try it out, then make your decision. If you're going to buy on a camera based on forum advice, you've already made a bad choice.
OP - to answer your original question "Is the F3 the better camera?" Quite simply, no. Some prefer it to the C300. I prefer the C300 to the F3. I like the color science & fidelity, usability, ergonomics, on-board codec, low-light capabilities, EF lens functionality, and size. For me, those features are more important than the 1.5 stops of DR that the F3 with s-log has over the camera.
If you're not sure if the C300 lives up to your expectations and you're considering getting one, rent it and try it out, then make your decision. If you're going to buy on a camera based on forum advice, you've already made a bad choice.
Last edited:
cowpunk52
Veteran
Still a subjective question, there's no definitive answer. Dynamic range, the edge goes to F3. On-board codec: C300. Color science is subjective, but many prefer C300 over F3 (and I'm sure vice versa is also true).
Why don't you try answering these questions for yourself by testing the cameras? I mean, I know that's more work than making a forum post, but if you're avoiding putting out that sort of effort you're certainly not going to put the work into getting the best out of either camera.
Last edited:
Liam Hall
Veteran
It may well be the best non-shoulder cam around. I'm not arguing with anyone about that. I like the codec and the colour rendition. I shoot with it all the time and have tendonitis in my shoulder to prove it. But for me, the ergonomics are poor. I don't like the monitor and XLR set-up, but can live with it. What I really think Canon should pay a lot of attention to is the layout and choice of buttons and their functions. Lots of room for improvement there...
John Andersson
Well-known member
Okay, let me rephrase the original question; when it comes down to highlights and DR - is F3 the better camera? I to feel there are many pluses on the C300 when it comes to internal codec and ergonomics but let's put these things aside for a moment.
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Yes it's better.
The C300 is a better overall package then the F3 with sLog in my opinion, but if ease of use didn't matter F3 would be the winner for me. C300 is great because it's smaller and wouldn't require the external recorder. From an indie filmmaking standpoint, I would probably take the C300 because of weight and ability to move around easier, handhold easier, run around if I have to, etc. F3 would need more support.
You need to decide whether the C300's other strengths are worth it to you to sacrifice the extra room in the highlights the F3 will give. As you saw in the direct comparison above the difference is there but only you can decide if that difference is worth it.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I'm a bit spoiled lateley, from the 16bit footy I get from my BMC,
but having shot both, the F3 and the C300, I thake the F3 anyday - hands down.
I don't see a big difference in ergonomics. But I don't do much handheld/shoulder ether. Bboth are small cameras compared to an Alexa.
But even an Alexa ain't no big deal to move around.
What slows you down are lighting setups or putting down dolly rails IMHO.
Personally I would never trade image quality for ergonomics or convenience.
At the and of the day, your image is all that counts - nobody cares how heavy your camera was or if the C300 was 3 inches shorter.
Frank
but having shot both, the F3 and the C300, I thake the F3 anyday - hands down.
I don't see a big difference in ergonomics. But I don't do much handheld/shoulder ether. Bboth are small cameras compared to an Alexa.
But even an Alexa ain't no big deal to move around.
What slows you down are lighting setups or putting down dolly rails IMHO.
Personally I would never trade image quality for ergonomics or convenience.
At the and of the day, your image is all that counts - nobody cares how heavy your camera was or if the C300 was 3 inches shorter.
Frank
cowpunk52
Veteran
And this is what I mean by the topic being completely subjective. For a completely different perspective, after having shot both cameras quite a bit, I would take the C300 over the F3 any day of the week for any project short of the Alexa.
I find the F3 to be infuriating ergonomically, but I shoot a lot of handheld and shoulder mount. Once I have the F3 rigged up to take advantage of the s-log, it's more than 2x the size and far heavier. I can put the C300 places I've never dreamed of being able to before, and with the wifi dongle have complete control over all functions remotely. It's a snap to throw it on an octocopter for aerial shots, then stuff it in a cupboard for interesting angles, then run shooting into a crowded market with no one noticing me twice. Native support for EF lenses means I can use hundreds of high-quality and affordable EF still lenses for their size and convenience, or use one sets of cinema glass available in the same mount, or get an adapter for Angenieux zooms.
And Frank is right in that lighting setups are what slows you down, but where we differ is in that is precisely why I choose the C300. I can take advantage of far smaller lighting packages thanks to it's brilliant performance at high ISO's. I'll shoot through ISO 6400 without blinking. On the last feature I shot with the C300, I averaged over 35 camera setups a day (12 hour days). Some went well into the 40's, and one day has 72 camera setups (14 hour day). The on-board waveform takes all the guesswork out of exposure, and I knew instantly where and how I needed to adjust light/framing/exposure or if I was ready to shoot. Most of these days would have never been possible on an F3, and I know I wouldn't have been able to shoot some of the angles I got.
I mention all this because I do disagree with Frank in one respect: in my opinion, and judging by the attitudes of the producers that sign my paychecks, at the end of the day, what matters is if you got the shot or you didn't. You're audience doesn't give a rats ass if your camera can record 14 stops or 12 stops of DR. And with schedules and budgets continuously getting reduced, I rarely have time to fiddle with complicated rigging, powering solutions, and external recording bugs. To meet demanding clients and productions, I've got to move fast while staying highly creative with camera placement and movement. I find the C300 more supportive of this type of environment than the F3.
Frank is right in that the audience doesn't care if your camera was 3 inches shorter or several pounds lighter, but they also don't care about any other camera spec everybody loves to toss around. They just want to see the best story you can tell. If the F3 does that for you, use that. But for me, the C300 helps me tell the most interesting story I can far better. And I've never once felt hindered by it's DR vs the F3; they both have plenty for anything but the most challenging situations.
Most of my work is broadcast television, documentaries, and low-budget narrative - just to give you a perspective of where I'm coming from production-wise.
IQ is surprisingly similar between the two with each having compromises over the other. I'll be a broken record here and say again, if you're trying to answer this question without testing for yourself, you're just wasting time.
I find the F3 to be infuriating ergonomically, but I shoot a lot of handheld and shoulder mount. Once I have the F3 rigged up to take advantage of the s-log, it's more than 2x the size and far heavier. I can put the C300 places I've never dreamed of being able to before, and with the wifi dongle have complete control over all functions remotely. It's a snap to throw it on an octocopter for aerial shots, then stuff it in a cupboard for interesting angles, then run shooting into a crowded market with no one noticing me twice. Native support for EF lenses means I can use hundreds of high-quality and affordable EF still lenses for their size and convenience, or use one sets of cinema glass available in the same mount, or get an adapter for Angenieux zooms.
And Frank is right in that lighting setups are what slows you down, but where we differ is in that is precisely why I choose the C300. I can take advantage of far smaller lighting packages thanks to it's brilliant performance at high ISO's. I'll shoot through ISO 6400 without blinking. On the last feature I shot with the C300, I averaged over 35 camera setups a day (12 hour days). Some went well into the 40's, and one day has 72 camera setups (14 hour day). The on-board waveform takes all the guesswork out of exposure, and I knew instantly where and how I needed to adjust light/framing/exposure or if I was ready to shoot. Most of these days would have never been possible on an F3, and I know I wouldn't have been able to shoot some of the angles I got.
I mention all this because I do disagree with Frank in one respect: in my opinion, and judging by the attitudes of the producers that sign my paychecks, at the end of the day, what matters is if you got the shot or you didn't. You're audience doesn't give a rats ass if your camera can record 14 stops or 12 stops of DR. And with schedules and budgets continuously getting reduced, I rarely have time to fiddle with complicated rigging, powering solutions, and external recording bugs. To meet demanding clients and productions, I've got to move fast while staying highly creative with camera placement and movement. I find the C300 more supportive of this type of environment than the F3.
Frank is right in that the audience doesn't care if your camera was 3 inches shorter or several pounds lighter, but they also don't care about any other camera spec everybody loves to toss around. They just want to see the best story you can tell. If the F3 does that for you, use that. But for me, the C300 helps me tell the most interesting story I can far better. And I've never once felt hindered by it's DR vs the F3; they both have plenty for anything but the most challenging situations.
Most of my work is broadcast television, documentaries, and low-budget narrative - just to give you a perspective of where I'm coming from production-wise.
IQ is surprisingly similar between the two with each having compromises over the other. I'll be a broken record here and say again, if you're trying to answer this question without testing for yourself, you're just wasting time.
Last edited:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
+1 to both above... 
I'm with cowpunk on the C300 and for the same reasons. Very subjective.
I'm with cowpunk on the C300 and for the same reasons. Very subjective.
John Andersson
Well-known member
I think what I needed to hear from users have been said and ofcourse I'll try both camera more before buying.
Great! Case closed!
Probably ran its course here. Thank you to those that gave input based on experience and your informed opinion.
Probably ran its course here. Thank you to those that gave input based on experience and your informed opinion.
- Status